Globale Erwärmung durch Treibhauseffekt - nur ein Mythos der Linken? (Seite 4598)
eröffnet am 15.06.06 17:59:51 von
neuester Beitrag 19.04.24 15:43:41 von
neuester Beitrag 19.04.24 15:43:41 von
Beiträge: 57.919
ID: 1.066.312
ID: 1.066.312
Aufrufe heute: 47
Gesamt: 1.505.196
Gesamt: 1.505.196
Aktive User: 0
Top-Diskussionen
| Titel | letzter Beitrag | Aufrufe |
|---|---|---|
| vor 29 Minuten | 4381 | |
| vor 14 Minuten | 3258 | |
| vor 1 Stunde | 2384 | |
| vor 11 Minuten | 2359 | |
| vor 52 Minuten | 1792 | |
| vor 20 Minuten | 1566 | |
| heute 13:33 | 1201 | |
| heute 13:38 | 1145 |
Meistdiskutierte Wertpapiere
| Platz | vorher | Wertpapier | Kurs | Perf. % | Anzahl | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | 1. | 17.747,32 | -0,03 | 202 | |||
| 2. | 2. | 150,01 | +0,05 | 98 | |||
| 3. | 7. | 6,7100 | -0,27 | 89 | |||
| 4. | 5. | 0,1770 | -4,07 | 71 | |||
| 5. | 8. | 3,7950 | +1,47 | 64 | |||
| 6. | 4. | 2.390,99 | +0,49 | 57 | |||
| 7. | 17. | 7,3900 | +1,16 | 38 | |||
| 8. | 9. | 12,305 | -0,20 | 37 |
Beitrag zu dieser Diskussion schreiben
Feedback
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 37.148.425 von mouse_potato am 11.05.09 21:04:10
Five Lessons of Climate Change: a personal statement
Professor Mike Hulme, March 2008
In recent months I have been chastised for some of my pronouncements on climate change. I have spoken
out against the use of exaggerated language in the description of climate change risks; I have spoken about the limits and fragility of scientific knowledge; I have suggested that we should focus on nearer-term policy goals to improve human welfare rather than be so pre-occupied with one large longer-term goal of global climate management. As a consequence I have been accused of burying my head ostrich like in the sand; of undermining the power of science; of lacking passion about ‘solving’ the ‘problem’ of climate change.
I've been researching changes in climate and their significance for societies since 1981, first looking at the relationship between rainfall variability in Sudan and traditional drought-coping mechanisms. I have published over 100 peer-reviewed journal articles on climate change topics, served as a Lead Author on the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change in 1996 and 2001, trained 11 PhD students and from 1988 to 2000 wrote a monthly climate column for The Guardian newspaper. I was the Founding Director of the internationally renowned Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, am currently co-ordinating the EU's biggest project researching into options for European and global climate policy, am one of three chief editors of the journal Global Environmental Change and teach an MSc module on ‘Climate change: science, society and policy’ at the University of East Anglia.
Building on these 27 years of experience and informed by my ongoing interactions around climate change knowledge with all types of people – the public, the professions, religious leaders, business people and national and international policymakers - this short statement is an attempt to summarise what I believe climate change teaches us about our world, what does matter, and what we should do about it. These are not my top ten tips of the day to ‘save the world’, but from my reflections on climate change they are five key lessons that should alter our mental and ethical maps of the world.
1. Climate change is a relative risk, not an absolute one
Climates are neither good nor bad, there are just good ways and bad ways of living with climate. Climate change is a different type of phenomenon to biodiversity loss (which is absolute) or ozone depletion (a novel risk introduced by an artificial chemical). We are changing our climate, not losing it. There is just as much climate as before; just as much weather, only it is different weather. We may be losing certain climatic types (in certain places), but we are also creating novel climates (in other places). The risks climate change introduces are therefore changes in relative risks. The distribution of climate risks around the world is changing and how serious this is depends – as all climate risks for humanity have always depended – on how able we are to manage them. [In the sentence above we could replace the word ‘risk’ with ‘resource’, since climate also brings us resources which we can use constructively as well as risks which can be destructive].
2. Climate risks are serious, and we should seek to minimise them
Climate change teaches us – in case we preferred to forget it – that climate risks are serious and tend, differentially, to victimise the most vulnerable: the poor, the elderly, the lonely, the uneducated, the foolish. Our awareness of changes in climate has made us much more aware and sensitive to the nature of risks that climate poses for societies. [A growing world population, and hence increasing exposure, has also contributed to this awareness]. Many of these risks are not new – hurricanes, droughts, floods, tidal surges – and one story of humanity is the story of how we have suffered from such dangers in the past and how we have sought to protect ourselves against them. Stories about climate change teach us that we should be more alert to these climate risks, that we should seek to reduce the number of people who are vulnerable to them and that we should seek new ways to protect those who remain exposed to these risks.
3. Our world has huge unmet development needs
Investigations into the causes of climate change have shown us – in case we preferred to forget it – that our world is a very unequal one. Not only has a small proportion of the world’s (historical) population consumed a large proportion of the world’s (historically) exhumed resources, but this very inequality of consumption has introduced a huge unmet aspirational demand for future development in many parts of the world. The Millennium Development Goals are an expression of such unmet demand. Climate change has taught us – or reminded us - that the consumption of energy is the most visible index of such latent demand for development and that with existing technologies there can be no meeting of these development aspirations without a significant increase in energy and, for now, carbon consumption. Climate change teaches us that acceding to such morally legitimate demands comes at the cost of altering the world’ climates.
4. Our current energy portfolio is not sustainable
Climate change teaches us – in case we preferred to ignore it – that our existing energy technology portfolio with high dependencies on gaseous and liquid carbon-based fuels derived from fossil sources will not survive two more generations. A significant energy gap is just over the horizon and this will demand a very substantial transition in the world’s energy technology: finding substitutes for oil and then gas. Climate change teaches us – in case we were complacent – that we should do what we can to conserve carbon-based fuels and that we should accelerate the search for new, non-carbon based energy sources.
5. Massive and deliberate geo-engineering of the planet is a dubious practice
Climate change teaches us – in case we had not learnt the lessons of history – that such massive intervention in a large and complex system that we don’t understand, and hence can’t control - is an unwise thing to be doing. There have been too many failed human projects of seeking mastery over the natural world for us to attempt one more. As we continue to construct climate change as a larger and larger problem, and as we discover that the ‘solutions’ to this amplified problem are less and less tractable, so attention has turned to the idea of conducting a second large-scale geo-physical experiment with the planet. Only this time rather than being inadvertent it is to be an experiment that is deliberately designed and controlled through human agency; it is truly to be an exercise in planetary geo-engineering conducted by the highest life form known to us - ourselves. The purpose of such geo-engineering – mirrors in space, aerosols in the stratosphere, deep pipes into the oceans, nutrient fertilisation of the surface waters – is to stabilise climate and/or to lower carbon dioxide concentrations in the air.
None of these five lessons should really be new to us. There are other ways of reaching each of these conclusions, most of which (should) have been clear to us for at least a generation. The idea of climate change – and hence one might say the purpose of climate change – is to make sure we learn these lessons
and act on them. Climate change is not the problem to be solved; climate change is the idea we must use if we are to learn our lessons properly. It is not clear to me that we need an overall global climate governance regime for this to happen; indeed, seeking such a governance regime might be a distraction from taking purposeful action on these five lessons.
© Mike Hulme, 28 March 2008
http://www.mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/the-five-lessons…
Five Lessons of Climate Change: a personal statement
Professor Mike Hulme, March 2008
In recent months I have been chastised for some of my pronouncements on climate change. I have spoken
out against the use of exaggerated language in the description of climate change risks; I have spoken about the limits and fragility of scientific knowledge; I have suggested that we should focus on nearer-term policy goals to improve human welfare rather than be so pre-occupied with one large longer-term goal of global climate management. As a consequence I have been accused of burying my head ostrich like in the sand; of undermining the power of science; of lacking passion about ‘solving’ the ‘problem’ of climate change.
I've been researching changes in climate and their significance for societies since 1981, first looking at the relationship between rainfall variability in Sudan and traditional drought-coping mechanisms. I have published over 100 peer-reviewed journal articles on climate change topics, served as a Lead Author on the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change in 1996 and 2001, trained 11 PhD students and from 1988 to 2000 wrote a monthly climate column for The Guardian newspaper. I was the Founding Director of the internationally renowned Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, am currently co-ordinating the EU's biggest project researching into options for European and global climate policy, am one of three chief editors of the journal Global Environmental Change and teach an MSc module on ‘Climate change: science, society and policy’ at the University of East Anglia.
Building on these 27 years of experience and informed by my ongoing interactions around climate change knowledge with all types of people – the public, the professions, religious leaders, business people and national and international policymakers - this short statement is an attempt to summarise what I believe climate change teaches us about our world, what does matter, and what we should do about it. These are not my top ten tips of the day to ‘save the world’, but from my reflections on climate change they are five key lessons that should alter our mental and ethical maps of the world.
1. Climate change is a relative risk, not an absolute one
Climates are neither good nor bad, there are just good ways and bad ways of living with climate. Climate change is a different type of phenomenon to biodiversity loss (which is absolute) or ozone depletion (a novel risk introduced by an artificial chemical). We are changing our climate, not losing it. There is just as much climate as before; just as much weather, only it is different weather. We may be losing certain climatic types (in certain places), but we are also creating novel climates (in other places). The risks climate change introduces are therefore changes in relative risks. The distribution of climate risks around the world is changing and how serious this is depends – as all climate risks for humanity have always depended – on how able we are to manage them. [In the sentence above we could replace the word ‘risk’ with ‘resource’, since climate also brings us resources which we can use constructively as well as risks which can be destructive].
2. Climate risks are serious, and we should seek to minimise them
Climate change teaches us – in case we preferred to forget it – that climate risks are serious and tend, differentially, to victimise the most vulnerable: the poor, the elderly, the lonely, the uneducated, the foolish. Our awareness of changes in climate has made us much more aware and sensitive to the nature of risks that climate poses for societies. [A growing world population, and hence increasing exposure, has also contributed to this awareness]. Many of these risks are not new – hurricanes, droughts, floods, tidal surges – and one story of humanity is the story of how we have suffered from such dangers in the past and how we have sought to protect ourselves against them. Stories about climate change teach us that we should be more alert to these climate risks, that we should seek to reduce the number of people who are vulnerable to them and that we should seek new ways to protect those who remain exposed to these risks.
3. Our world has huge unmet development needs
Investigations into the causes of climate change have shown us – in case we preferred to forget it – that our world is a very unequal one. Not only has a small proportion of the world’s (historical) population consumed a large proportion of the world’s (historically) exhumed resources, but this very inequality of consumption has introduced a huge unmet aspirational demand for future development in many parts of the world. The Millennium Development Goals are an expression of such unmet demand. Climate change has taught us – or reminded us - that the consumption of energy is the most visible index of such latent demand for development and that with existing technologies there can be no meeting of these development aspirations without a significant increase in energy and, for now, carbon consumption. Climate change teaches us that acceding to such morally legitimate demands comes at the cost of altering the world’ climates.
4. Our current energy portfolio is not sustainable
Climate change teaches us – in case we preferred to ignore it – that our existing energy technology portfolio with high dependencies on gaseous and liquid carbon-based fuels derived from fossil sources will not survive two more generations. A significant energy gap is just over the horizon and this will demand a very substantial transition in the world’s energy technology: finding substitutes for oil and then gas. Climate change teaches us – in case we were complacent – that we should do what we can to conserve carbon-based fuels and that we should accelerate the search for new, non-carbon based energy sources.
5. Massive and deliberate geo-engineering of the planet is a dubious practice
Climate change teaches us – in case we had not learnt the lessons of history – that such massive intervention in a large and complex system that we don’t understand, and hence can’t control - is an unwise thing to be doing. There have been too many failed human projects of seeking mastery over the natural world for us to attempt one more. As we continue to construct climate change as a larger and larger problem, and as we discover that the ‘solutions’ to this amplified problem are less and less tractable, so attention has turned to the idea of conducting a second large-scale geo-physical experiment with the planet. Only this time rather than being inadvertent it is to be an experiment that is deliberately designed and controlled through human agency; it is truly to be an exercise in planetary geo-engineering conducted by the highest life form known to us - ourselves. The purpose of such geo-engineering – mirrors in space, aerosols in the stratosphere, deep pipes into the oceans, nutrient fertilisation of the surface waters – is to stabilise climate and/or to lower carbon dioxide concentrations in the air.
None of these five lessons should really be new to us. There are other ways of reaching each of these conclusions, most of which (should) have been clear to us for at least a generation. The idea of climate change – and hence one might say the purpose of climate change – is to make sure we learn these lessons
and act on them. Climate change is not the problem to be solved; climate change is the idea we must use if we are to learn our lessons properly. It is not clear to me that we need an overall global climate governance regime for this to happen; indeed, seeking such a governance regime might be a distraction from taking purposeful action on these five lessons.
© Mike Hulme, 28 March 2008
http://www.mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/the-five-lessons…
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 37.148.569 von Gilhaney am 11.05.09 21:19:49Dass eine Klimakatastrophe überhaupt nicht eintreten werde, das glaube ich nicht mehr. Allerdings wird die nicht so aussehen, wie in Hollywoodverfilmungen gewisser Regisseure, in denen das alles innerhalb weniger Tage passiert. Die Entwicklung wird wohl eher so verlaufen, wie prognostiziert: Über das ganze jetzige Jahrhundert hinweg. Ob das ein Trost ist, das ist eine andere Frage.
Was stellst du dir unter dem Begriff Klimakatastrophe konkret vor?
Was stellst du dir unter dem Begriff Klimakatastrophe konkret vor?
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 37.148.425 von mouse_potato am 11.05.09 21:04:10Was du die ganze Zeit nicht kapierst: der Artikel kann stehen, wo er will. Meinetwegen auch in der Spalte "Gesellschaftliches und Klatsch" oder auch unter "Sport".
Der Artikel ist nicht "von Hulme", wie du behauptest, sondern vom Journalisten Stuart Blackman über Hulme.
Ich dagegen habe Hulme selbst zitiert. Keinen Journalisten. Es ist völlig egal, was Journalisten über ihn sagen, es ist entscheidend, was er selbst über sich sagt.
Und ich zitiere schon die ganze Zeit, dass er entgegen deiner Behauptung nicht an den Wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnissen zweifelt, sondern: "I'm not questioning the fundamental science here."
(Du hast die ganze Zeit das Gegenteil dessen behauptet.)
"Humans are altering the climate around the world in my mind there's no doubt about that. And climate has an effect on eco systems around the world. What I am questioning is that we can solve it in the way that we have it currently framed."
(Du hast die ganze Zeit das Gegenteil dessen behauptet.)
"Mike reckons 'climate change' is unsolvable. People round the world are too different, with different needs, to come together."
Und nochmal die Fragen:
- Erkennst Du den Widerspruch zu Deinem Mantra "CO2 kann man vernachlässigen" und "Es ist die Sonne"?
- Bestätigt Mike Hulme etwa deine Meinung, dass die Sonne die Ursache der Erwärmung der letzten Jahrzehnte ist?
- Oder unterstützt er gar deine Behauptung, dass die Erwärmung zu Ende ist?
- Widerspricht er auch nur in einem Punkt dem naturwissenschaftlichen Teil der IPCC-Berichte?
#11839 von Gilhaney
Aus den Stellen, die bisher zitiert wurden geht nicht hervor, dass der Herr Hulme den Klimawandel als solchen abstritte oder jemals abgestritten hätte. Was er thematisiert, das ist - soweit ich das überblicke - die Schwierigkeit zu einer Lösung des Problems zu gelangen (Lösung in dem Sinne, dass man einen Klimawandel abwenden könne).
Exakt das wird mouse_potato schon die ganze Zeit gesagt, aber er will es nicht einsehen.
Der Artikel ist nicht "von Hulme", wie du behauptest, sondern vom Journalisten Stuart Blackman über Hulme.
Ich dagegen habe Hulme selbst zitiert. Keinen Journalisten. Es ist völlig egal, was Journalisten über ihn sagen, es ist entscheidend, was er selbst über sich sagt.
Und ich zitiere schon die ganze Zeit, dass er entgegen deiner Behauptung nicht an den Wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnissen zweifelt, sondern: "I'm not questioning the fundamental science here."
(Du hast die ganze Zeit das Gegenteil dessen behauptet.)
"Humans are altering the climate around the world in my mind there's no doubt about that. And climate has an effect on eco systems around the world. What I am questioning is that we can solve it in the way that we have it currently framed."
(Du hast die ganze Zeit das Gegenteil dessen behauptet.)
"Mike reckons 'climate change' is unsolvable. People round the world are too different, with different needs, to come together."
Und nochmal die Fragen:
- Erkennst Du den Widerspruch zu Deinem Mantra "CO2 kann man vernachlässigen" und "Es ist die Sonne"?
- Bestätigt Mike Hulme etwa deine Meinung, dass die Sonne die Ursache der Erwärmung der letzten Jahrzehnte ist?
- Oder unterstützt er gar deine Behauptung, dass die Erwärmung zu Ende ist?
- Widerspricht er auch nur in einem Punkt dem naturwissenschaftlichen Teil der IPCC-Berichte?
#11839 von Gilhaney
Aus den Stellen, die bisher zitiert wurden geht nicht hervor, dass der Herr Hulme den Klimawandel als solchen abstritte oder jemals abgestritten hätte. Was er thematisiert, das ist - soweit ich das überblicke - die Schwierigkeit zu einer Lösung des Problems zu gelangen (Lösung in dem Sinne, dass man einen Klimawandel abwenden könne).
Exakt das wird mouse_potato schon die ganze Zeit gesagt, aber er will es nicht einsehen.
Hallo zusammen,
ein wenig ermüdend ist es ja schon...
Aus den Stellen, die bisher zitiert wurden geht nicht hervor, dass der Herr Hulme den Klimawandel als solchen abstritte oder jemals abgestritten hätte. Was er thematisiert, das ist - soweit ich das überblicke - die Schwierigkeit zu einer Lösung des Problems zu gelangen (Lösung in dem Sinne, dass man einen Klimawandel abwenden könne).
Dass eine Klimakatastrophe überhaupt nicht eintreten werde, das glaube ich nicht mehr. Allerdings wird die nicht so aussehen, wie in Hollywoodverfilmungen gewisser Regisseure, in denen das alles innerhalb weniger Tage passiert. Die Entwicklung wird wohl eher so verlaufen, wie prognostiziert: Über das ganze jetzige Jahrhundert hinweg. Ob das ein Trost ist, das ist eine andere Frage.
Gruß
Gilhaney
ein wenig ermüdend ist es ja schon...
Aus den Stellen, die bisher zitiert wurden geht nicht hervor, dass der Herr Hulme den Klimawandel als solchen abstritte oder jemals abgestritten hätte. Was er thematisiert, das ist - soweit ich das überblicke - die Schwierigkeit zu einer Lösung des Problems zu gelangen (Lösung in dem Sinne, dass man einen Klimawandel abwenden könne).
Dass eine Klimakatastrophe überhaupt nicht eintreten werde, das glaube ich nicht mehr. Allerdings wird die nicht so aussehen, wie in Hollywoodverfilmungen gewisser Regisseure, in denen das alles innerhalb weniger Tage passiert. Die Entwicklung wird wohl eher so verlaufen, wie prognostiziert: Über das ganze jetzige Jahrhundert hinweg. Ob das ein Trost ist, das ist eine andere Frage.
Gruß
Gilhaney
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 37.148.036 von lemoncurry am 11.05.09 20:29:01lemon, der artikel von Hulme steht unter
Dissenting voices
Essays and research
1.challenging the view that the world warming that began around 1880 is caused by human activity,
2.that it poses a serious threat,
3.or that the vagaries of earth’s climate are within human control.
Du bist der einzige der das noch nicht kapiert hat und stattdessen etwas unterstellt das ich nicht gesagt habe. Du weisst das.
Also Such dir von 1-3 was aus und werd nicht schon wieder weinerlich. Vergiss deine Mythen und entspann dich. Es gibt gute News: Es wird keine Klimakatastrophe geben.
Dissenting voices
Essays and research
1.challenging the view that the world warming that began around 1880 is caused by human activity,
2.that it poses a serious threat,
3.or that the vagaries of earth’s climate are within human control.
Du bist der einzige der das noch nicht kapiert hat und stattdessen etwas unterstellt das ich nicht gesagt habe. Du weisst das.
Also Such dir von 1-3 was aus und werd nicht schon wieder weinerlich. Vergiss deine Mythen und entspann dich. Es gibt gute News: Es wird keine Klimakatastrophe geben.
Trading Spotlight
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 37.147.214 von mouse_potato am 11.05.09 19:11:55"Climate change cannot be artificially solved by creating consensus." So says Mike Hulme
Ja, und weiter? Und warum glaubt er, dass das Problem nicht zu lösen ist? Liest du etwa gar nicht, was ich poste? Siehe mein #11751 auf Seite 1176. "Mike reckons 'climate change' is unsolvable. People round the world are too different, with different needs, to come together."
Du behauptest, Hulme sei AGW-Skeptiker. Hulme dagegen sagt mehrfach mit Nachdruck: "I'm not denying climate change." "...most definitely not."
Du hast behauptet, Hulmes "disagree" im Buchtitel "Why We Disagree About Climate Change" bezöge sich auf den den "AGW-Konsens". Also auf die wissenschaftlichen Grundlage, dass der Mensch das Klima nachhaltig verändere: AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming. Hulme sagt dagegen: "I'm not questioning the fundamental science here. Humans are altering the climate around the world in my mind there's no doubt about that. And climate has an effect on eco systems around the world. What I am questioning is that we can solve it in the way that we have it currently framed."
Deine Ausrede in #11761 war: Ich habe dir das Anhand von Textstellen belegt. Es ist trotzdem möglich eine andere Sicht zu haben
Du beriefst dich auf einen Artikel zweifelhafter Güte, ich zitierte stets Hulme direkt. Die Zitate Hulmes' stehen deinen Behauptungen diametral entgegen. Das ist keine Ansichtssache, sondern Tatsache. Da nützt es dir nichts, dich auf Zeitungsartikel zu berufen: das gesprochene Wort ist weitaus mehr wert als die Interpretation eines Journalisten.
Damit soll es aber auch genug sein, das Thema ist durch. Du hast dich interessanterweise trotz häufigen Nachfragens immer noch nicht getraut, die Fragen zu beantworten:
- Erkennst Du den Widerspruch zu Deinem Mantra "CO2 kann man vernachlässigen" und "Es ist die Sonne"?
- Bestätigt Mike Hulme etwa deine Meinung, dass die Sonne die Ursache der Erwärmung der letzten Jahrzehnte ist?
- Oder unterstützt er gar deine Behauptung, dass die Erwärmung zu Ende ist?
- Widerspricht er auch nur in einem Punkt dem naturwissenschaftlichen Teil der IPCC-Berichte?
Auf diese mehrfach gestellten Fragen hast du nur mit Pöbeleien reagiert, hast nie auch nur einen Versuch gemacht, sie zu beantworten.
Ja, und weiter? Und warum glaubt er, dass das Problem nicht zu lösen ist? Liest du etwa gar nicht, was ich poste? Siehe mein #11751 auf Seite 1176. "Mike reckons 'climate change' is unsolvable. People round the world are too different, with different needs, to come together."
Du behauptest, Hulme sei AGW-Skeptiker. Hulme dagegen sagt mehrfach mit Nachdruck: "I'm not denying climate change." "...most definitely not."
Du hast behauptet, Hulmes "disagree" im Buchtitel "Why We Disagree About Climate Change" bezöge sich auf den den "AGW-Konsens". Also auf die wissenschaftlichen Grundlage, dass der Mensch das Klima nachhaltig verändere: AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming. Hulme sagt dagegen: "I'm not questioning the fundamental science here. Humans are altering the climate around the world in my mind there's no doubt about that. And climate has an effect on eco systems around the world. What I am questioning is that we can solve it in the way that we have it currently framed."
Deine Ausrede in #11761 war: Ich habe dir das Anhand von Textstellen belegt. Es ist trotzdem möglich eine andere Sicht zu haben
Du beriefst dich auf einen Artikel zweifelhafter Güte, ich zitierte stets Hulme direkt. Die Zitate Hulmes' stehen deinen Behauptungen diametral entgegen. Das ist keine Ansichtssache, sondern Tatsache. Da nützt es dir nichts, dich auf Zeitungsartikel zu berufen: das gesprochene Wort ist weitaus mehr wert als die Interpretation eines Journalisten.
Damit soll es aber auch genug sein, das Thema ist durch. Du hast dich interessanterweise trotz häufigen Nachfragens immer noch nicht getraut, die Fragen zu beantworten:
- Erkennst Du den Widerspruch zu Deinem Mantra "CO2 kann man vernachlässigen" und "Es ist die Sonne"?
- Bestätigt Mike Hulme etwa deine Meinung, dass die Sonne die Ursache der Erwärmung der letzten Jahrzehnte ist?
- Oder unterstützt er gar deine Behauptung, dass die Erwärmung zu Ende ist?
- Widerspricht er auch nur in einem Punkt dem naturwissenschaftlichen Teil der IPCC-Berichte?
Auf diese mehrfach gestellten Fragen hast du nur mit Pöbeleien reagiert, hast nie auch nur einen Versuch gemacht, sie zu beantworten.
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 37.141.264 von for4zim am 11.05.09 08:18:39Also f4z man kann sagen was man will aber jedesmal wenn du auftauchst wird es beleidigend.
Wo ist dein Freund Popeye heute f4z?
Wo ist dein Freund Popeye heute f4z?
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 37.143.627 von rv_2011 am 11.05.09 13:20:49ist wirklich eine gute Seite!
Dissenting voices
Essays and research challenging the view that the world warming that began around 1880 is caused by human activity, that it poses a serious threat, or that the vagaries of earth’s climate are within human control.
A new study that challenges the link from cosmic-rays to climate is nothing but a conjuring act wherein computer software is used to manufacture data that are then spun into "facts" ...continue »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Climate change cannot be artificially solved by creating consensus." So says Mike Hulme, founding director of the prestigious Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research ...continue »--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An 80% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the United States by the year 2050 must surely lessen the chances of climate catastrophe. Mustn't it? ...Part 1 » Part 2 » [riposte]
...
lemon?
Dissenting voices
Essays and research challenging the view that the world warming that began around 1880 is caused by human activity, that it poses a serious threat, or that the vagaries of earth’s climate are within human control.
A new study that challenges the link from cosmic-rays to climate is nothing but a conjuring act wherein computer software is used to manufacture data that are then spun into "facts" ...continue »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Climate change cannot be artificially solved by creating consensus." So says Mike Hulme, founding director of the prestigious Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research ...continue »--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An 80% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the United States by the year 2050 must surely lessen the chances of climate catastrophe. Mustn't it? ...Part 1 » Part 2 » [riposte]
...
lemon?
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 37.144.970 von Seuchenvogel am 11.05.09 15:45:06Es ist nachgewiesen, daß Treibhausgase die UV-Strahlung reduzieren.
Denkst du vielleicht an die FCKWs?
Das sind hochwirksame Treibhausgase, die (indirekt) die UV-Strahlung beeinflussen...
Denkst du vielleicht an die FCKWs?
Das sind hochwirksame Treibhausgase, die (indirekt) die UV-Strahlung beeinflussen...
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 37.144.970 von Seuchenvogel am 11.05.09 15:45:06Aber du würdest ja lieber unsere Pflanzenwelt an Co2-Mangel verhungern lassen, weil du Angst vorm CO2 hast.
Na, der Salat in meinem Garten wirkt zur Zeit nicht verhungert.
PS: Was für ein Problem hast du mit der UV-Strahlung? Bist du Bauarbeiter und hast Angst vor Hautkrebs? Oder Schafhirte in Neuseeland?
Gegen UV-Strahlung empfehle ich Ozon - frisch aus dem Laserdrucker. CO2 ist da wenig hilfreich. Wolken könnten auch helfen.
Na, der Salat in meinem Garten wirkt zur Zeit nicht verhungert.
PS: Was für ein Problem hast du mit der UV-Strahlung? Bist du Bauarbeiter und hast Angst vor Hautkrebs? Oder Schafhirte in Neuseeland?
Gegen UV-Strahlung empfehle ich Ozon - frisch aus dem Laserdrucker. CO2 ist da wenig hilfreich. Wolken könnten auch helfen.
Durchsuchen
