Frage von MarcBallhaus:
The message is stupid. There are countless studies showing that humanity is s.Klimawandel involved only 1%, the rest is simply natural and always has been. Where New York is today, was only 30,000 years ago ice 200m thick. It's like with the forests are cut down. For the whole outcry has noticed until recently that None of the world's forest cover has increased significantly.
The "problem" is that we have no major war in the world and the politicians want to do something. Formerly called the silly season, now the silly season lasts until the winter because humanity is more intelligent and less bombt. Climate change also brings money, because new equipment, new engines, etc.
I think that is all for really big bullshit. Bloom and I can not stand anyway. The guy has never touched ne lamp and called DP.
MB:)
Antwort von kalle70:
Perhaps it was too long been synonymous no more war ....
"Do not go to Lot does not draw a 4000 credits ..."
Starting from scratch!
Antwort von domain:
There are countless studies showing that humanity is s.Klimawandel involved only 1% ...
With reference to studies of any kind, you can rationalize virtually any personal opinion and support.
The only thing that matters is statistics, which can vary synonymous Interpretatation but again different. It is fairly certain at least that there has never been so rapid in the earth's climate and that is already alarming. Never played out as a statistically relevant change inside of 100 years, more in 10000 years.
The video itself is not bad I think, but not synonymous particularly impressive. And whether it with the 5D, or with any other camera was made is actually pretty damn synonymous.
Antwort von derpianoman:
The message is stupid ... Even if one is right (or at least thinks)
his opinion, he can be kind (express).
Antwort von PowerMac:
The message is stupid. There are countless studies showing that humanity is s.Klimawandel involved only 1%, the rest is simply natural and always has been. Where New York is today, was only 30,000 years ago ice 200m thick. It's like with the forests are cut down. For the whole outcry has noticed until recently that None of the world's forest cover has increased significantly.
The "problem" is that we have no major war in the world and the politicians want to do something. Formerly called the silly season, now the silly season lasts until the winter because humanity is more intelligent and less bombt. Climate change also brings money, because new equipment, new engines, etc.
I think that is all for really big bullshit. Bloom and I can not stand anyway. The guy has never touched ne lamp and called DP.
MB:) Such nonsense one would normally expect to find men of my age who believe in a self-Trip, to have understood the world. That there is a climate change is indisputable. The proportion of people - the one does not know exactly. Your "1%" and "countless studies", takes you seriously so please no one. Let alone anyone educated. Approached with metastudies that summarize exactly what you're saying! Are not you, dear silence. Have you ever self-critical enough to describe to you how such ideas come from and how your family and friends to stand? Believe the synonymous or laugh you out?
Antwort von Buchungszeichen:
I find the color performancein the video interesting. The first part is mostly shades of brown, blue or gray scale, then connect to the fore. In an interview to an interesting presentation.
On the content, no idea how fast the climate has changed at some point before the human race. I hardly think that this is a serious irgenwie scientifically proven. 100 years is a blink of the eye - not for us but for the earth. The earth does not need us. The earth was once synonymous dispense with the dinosaurs, and our family tree is synonymous lead to an impasse, as the number of ancestors. The Wheel, we can certainly turn back any more. Climate change is not unstoppable. There remains, probably no other choice than to arrange ourselves with. Darwin might have said "we need to adapt to new circumstances in order to survive"
Antwort von domain:
I hardly think that this is a serious irgenwie scientifically proven. 100 years is a blink of the eye But this can prove quite serious. Glacier is partly several 100 years, the ice in the Arctic even several 1000 years old. The ice itself is synonymous ancient air trapped and Pollen.
Furthermore, there are good Borhkern analysis of sediments from waters and much more.
Antwort von MarcBallhaus:
The message is stupid ...
Even if one is right (or at least think) you can view his kind (s) to formulate. Even if one is right (or at least think) you can still keep his door if you were not asked.
And if you do not understand: reprimand Listen to others, that's not for you too. I have neither you nor anyone else directly addressed, and how I express myself, is my business, not yours. Remember that once and for all.
Furthermore, like "stupid" for Abbey students to be unkind, for the rest unlikely.
------------------
As for the cause, of course, there is a climate change, it is caused not only of humans, so it is ridiculous that you people to call, this curb.
It is long since been proven that the climate is influenced not of CO2 in the past because it was never as synonymous, which is reproducible and reproduced in several tests and have been proven. Can only admit that, unfortunately, not a politician, because it would collapse in a large and important industry, and hundreds of thousands would lose their jobs.
All this is propaganda, and not anything else. Unfortunately, getting those who tell the truth, not to the podium to tell those who want to hear what people say.
MB
Antwort von mannamanna:
All this is propaganda, and not anything else. Unfortunately, getting those who tell the truth, not to the podium to tell those who want to hear what people say.
MB "It is long since been proven? Her with Facts / Studies, otherwise: profilierungssüchtiger talkers
Antwort von MarcBallhaus:
"It is long since been proven? Her with Facts / Studies, otherwise: profilierungssüchtiger talkers Very brave for nen launchy with 12 contributions. I am not the information, which means www.google.de. Test times with "Climatic change lie" or "climate change lie" or "climate change propaganda." Next time please bit nicer.
MB
Antwort von Sebastian:
@ MB
If you go peddle already in nem video forum with such a thesis, you they should at least justify themselves, or be able to defend and not refer to other sources!
Check this out totally wrong - the synonymous make all political hangers!
Greeting
Sebastian
Antwort von MarcBallhaus:
@ MB
If you go peddle already in nem video forum with such a thesis, you they should at least justify themselves, or be able to defend and not refer to other sources!
Check this out totally wrong - the synonymous make all political hangers!
Greeting
Sebastian I am not a climate scientist, called me, I must conform to strangers sources. The network is still full of it, but the propaganda is not an invention of me.
eg http://www.stern.de/wissen/natur/kommentar-mogelpackung-klimaschwindel-590931.html
or simply
http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=CO2+Klimawandel+Schwindel&btnG=Suche&meta =
or perhaps even the s.besten
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-284191183500847565 #
MB
Antwort von mannamanna:
I am not a climate scientist, called me, I must conform to strangers sources. The network is still full of it, but the propaganda is not an invention of me.
eg http://www.stern.de/wissen/natur/kommentar-mogelpackung-klimaschwindel-590931.html
Funny, maybe you should own your own links to read first - quote from the article above STERN:
"Sham Klimaschwindel - It was billed as the whole big reveal history, the documentary" The Great Climate Swindle ", which ran in the night program of RTL. But it provided no revelations, but a conspiracy theory."
further (also from the text of the video you linked on that seems to form the basis of your ignorance):
"But the scientists had apparently Channel4 not really listened to in the documentation as meaningful to argue against any link between human activity and global warming seem. The fact promptly protested that their names with such a" one-sided, anti-educational, and misleading shipment have been brought into connection .... Instead, the professor, the producers have turned his words literally in my mouth. ... Several interviewees complained that they had been misquoted and left about the true contents of the program in the dark. "
Conclusion: Even in the other of you linked sites or Google results: conspiracy of individuals, twisted Forschungssaussgen, no scientific facts, no research to back up your opinions - just a dull whisper.
In the community of scientists climate scientists against climate change is indisputable - maybe you should if you know more than you absonderst non-specialist subjects so manly and hell-bent on looking statements to draw once more specialist sources of advice rather than conspiracy, documentaries, I recommend the prestigious scientific journal Nature "In the latest studies regularly mar. Climate change are to be read, and represent the current state of knowledge.
http://www.nature.com/climate/index.html
Antwort von Bernd E.:
... That is really totally wrong - the synonymous make all political hangers! ... Well yes, Greenpeace is not exactly a paragon of self-synonymous s.Glaubwürdigkeit the stories that one has so far been made - whether let out specific intention to mislead or simply out of ignorance of the facts, let's open question politely. To me this before now so as if one is along the lines of "Is it no preference whether what we say - the main thing we are making the headlines and donations fund rings true." In any case, you are doing generally very well to that of Greenpeace themed stories synonymous look into that from another point of view.
Antwort von kundesbanzler:
I am not a climate scientist, called me, I must conform to strangers sources. The network is still full of it, but the propaganda is not an invention of me.
eg http://www.stern.de/wissen/natur/kommentar-mogelpackung-klimaschwindel-590931.html Hehe! This is truly the most brilliant own goal for a long time.
Antwort von MarcBallhaus:
I'm not playing here, so I can shoot synonymous not score, neither the one nor in the other direction.
I have been a cause for thought and said my opinion. The more intelligent among you are in a position with certainty what to do with it and even feel like the issue of time to inquire - as we should in principle always suspicious when politicians are largely in agreement, because then it's usually not the issue but only about the money .
The less intelligent you may flag next to the winds of the propagandists - no preference whether true or untrue - and next rumhacken hold on me and my name as profilsüchtig. Funny somehow, one holds strong views and is thus immediately profilsüchtig. Well, it just requires a little more courage to swim against the tide and show his unpopular opinion than to keep his flag in the wind to the yes-man. So that's nunmal in life.
MB
Antwort von kundesbanzler:
Well, it just requires a little more courage to swim against the tide and show his unpopular opinion than to keep his flag in the wind to the yes-man. Courage alone does not suffice to swim against the tide. What's needed is synonymous the appropriate skills, respect for - what about this - unfortunately, does not possess. This can be clearly from the close links posted.
But why did you shoot any goals but also swimming against the tide? Are you with metaphors so picky?
Antwort von MarcBallhaus:
Well, it just requires a little more courage to swim against the tide and show his unpopular opinion than to keep his flag in the wind to the yes-man.
Courage alone does not suffice to swim against the tide. What's needed is synonymous the appropriate skills, respect for - what about this - unfortunately, does not possess. This can be clearly from the close links posted.
But why did you shoot any goals but also swimming against the tide? Are you with metaphors so picky? You do not need skills to swim against the tide, it is nonsense. I have expertise in this topic as much as everyone else here, namely, none. But I have an opinion that differs of the conventional wisdom and is based on other things than most here.
The links were no specific choice, but any 3 results out of Google search. Synonymous why I have written, which one should strive for the interests Google. No more and no less, because I'm not the counter-propaganda, but only someone with a different opinion.
MB
Antwort von mannamanna:
The less intelligent you may flag next to the winds of the propagandists - no preference whether true or untrue - and next rumhacken hold on me and my name as profilsüchtig. Funny somehow, one holds strong views and is thus immediately profilsüchtig. Well, it just requires a little more courage to swim against the tide and show his unpopular opinion than to keep his flag in the wind to the yes-man. So that's nunmal in life.
MB A counter-thoughts are not synonymous and ennobles per se does not excuse ignorance - when 99% of climate scientists believe that the current climate change is a fact that is not an argument for you but "thoughts of propagandists"? What is clear, cool, synonymous to swim against this current, but some facts were not bad in support of their own "dissident" opinion, is not it? We read several times if it were the scientific study of Nature, then you say, what are you stupid mind / propaganda / purchased / parroted / improbable / just stupid / bad statistically unscientific find?
And as climate change, a few years ago the topic of a few and was a minority opinion that was so true, and it now because now is the majority opinion is, it is automatically wrong?
So, again, put yourself as a lone rebel again the spirit Stylizer: Facts!
You talk about the speech on climate change, will not over knowledge about climate change - I have no preference rather say what any politician, and against which you make your current erect flags, give me arguments - from the film were obviously at least Klimalüge distorted and not the opinions of the cited researchers.
Antwort von kundesbanzler:
You do not need skills to swim against the tide, it is nonsense. I have expertise in this topic as much as everyone else here, namely, none. But I have an opinion that differs of the conventional wisdom and is based on other things than most here. That really is nonsense. To occupy oneself with a cause that's enough to get s.Kompetenz a minimum. You do not need to have a PhD on the subject.
Only to deal with is something more than any word and also "propaganda" to enter in Google. In this way one can doubt any scientific knowledge. Even recommend someone to start in this way, a search that disqualified one of any objective discussion.
Antwort von MarcBallhaus:
A counter-thoughts are not synonymous and ennobles per se does not excuse ignorance - when 99% of climate scientists believe that the current climate change is a fact that is not an argument for you but "thoughts of propagandists"? Wait! I have written with no mention that I am doubting climate change, I doubt, however, that a man has to do with anything.
The fact is surely that there have been several ice ages, and therefore the climate has changed several times, long before the man has left the first Kohlendioxidfurz. This I do not have weeks googlen that I know from my school days. Consequently, it is presumptuous to believe SCIENTIFIC just that now the man has to do with it. We're talking about cycles, the last several thousand years, and the measurement run since when? For a hundred years? So why should I take anything seriously in this regard, because None of the scientists who claim that man is to blame, it will be able to prove myself. Look ice can, however, prove that there were several ice ages.
Furthermore, I wrote that substantial doubt that CO2 is to be s.Klimawandel blame. That is one thing, the other is that there is evidence to doubt that the man at all the CO2 content significantly affected. I remember having read something somewhere of 1%. Hit me, I know the source anymore.
Suppose, if the chance is 50/50, that CO2 has on climate control (None knows it), and 50/50 that man is the CO2 content significantly affected (white synonymous None), then to Adam Riese chance that man affects the climate, only 1:4. I have thus constructed schonmal certainly not entirely wrong, unless one of the above two factors would be 100% verifiable, which is not the case, but it would still synonymous 50/50. Please beweisst me happy that I'm wrong, I love learning about this.
MB
Antwort von kundesbanzler:
Suppose, if the chance is 50/50, that CO2 has on climate control (None knows it), and 50/50 that man is the CO2 content significantly affected (white synonymous None), then to Adam Riese chance that man affects the climate, only 1:4. I have thus constructed schonmal certainly not entirely wrong, unless one of the above two factors would be 100% verifiable, which is not the case, but it would still synonymous 50/50. Please beweisst me happy that I'm wrong, I love learning about this. That is a completely arbitrary figure gimmick. The probability of your second argument I would classify more than 99%. It would be a strange coincidence when the CO2 concentration in the 200 years since the rise of industrialization in two dimensions, as has happened in previous cycles in almost 6000 years. Basically, you have but rather that the whole debate is based on vague models, where not only implies that the situation could be much less problematic than shown. Similarly, it may be that it is much worse than it is a scientific consensus. Nevertheless, it is highly problematic that climate change is currently a kind of substitute for religion, because it moves people to do the wrong rather than the right.
Basically you should with all the theoretical considerations do not let the facts are ignored. For, ultimately, to call for any consequences of the climate change hypothesis, nothing of the people, what should he do not already due to common sense anyway. When would curb climate research, I had to sacrifice a black goat every Monday, or go to church every Sunday, I would think probably more than once, could lead to the probability that the sense. But it's not.
Ultimately, it is a question of proportionality: no one demands that must be switched off due to climate change, all life support systems in the hospital to save power. But that is not the main raw material burned which is indispensable for the production of almost all objects of daily life by 30 minutes driving to the gym to face then 20 minutes on a treadmill. That this may not be particularly meaningful is synonymous regardless of the weather relatively plausible. And that it does not replace the food, of which a person in Mexico could support a year, in a week bring on the street is synonymous fairly obvious.
Antwort von mannamanna:
The fact is surely that there have been several ice ages, and therefore the climate has changed several times, long before the man has left the first Kohlendioxidfurz ... Consequently, it is presumptuous to believe SCIENTIFIC just that now the man has to do with it. No - when you commit a simple logical fallacy: the fact that climate changes have occurred in the past without human influence, says nothing about whether the currently observed climate change natural or man is made of. She says only that the climate is transformed by natural processes and can not exclude the fact the man has no influence.
Through core measurements in the Arctic, studies of sediments and other ways you can determine about how the climate (usalso temperature, CO2 levels) are in the past (the period of millions of years, changed) has and may derive synonymous try what laws these changes so far have always obeyed, eg how fast the global temperature changes, such as a change in the chemical composed of the air and whether it is to do a what with the other. It is found that an increase in CO2 levels correlate with the increase of temperature. Looking at today's values s.and compared with historical measurements, there is in the last 100 years, a sharp (in Comparison with natural cycles over several 1000 years) increase of CO2 associated with the one just such temperature rise, or make it with the words to say the corresponding Wikipedia entry:
"According to measurements from ice cores, the concentration of CO2 was never in the last 800,000 years, more than 300 ppmv (parts per million, parts per million by volume). The concentration of CO2 is mainly through the burning of fossil fuels and to a lesser extent by the cement industry and large-scale deforestation since the beginning of industrialization on now risen more than 385 ppmv. This is probably the highest since 20 million years ago. be investigated by a new method in which fossil planktonic organisms by their Borisotopie could be shown that the CO2 concentration during the last 2.1 million years ago has largely remained constant and only since the beginning of industrialization is higher by about 40%. "
and:
"In climatology, it is consensus that this increase in concentration of human-released greenhouse gases into the atmosphere with high probability the main cause of global warming, because without them, the measured temperatures are not explained. The IPCC estimates the degree of scientific understanding about the effect of greenhouse gases as a "high". "
Source:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globale_Erwärmung
Where to note is that your argument is "None knows it," or "100% verifiable" misunderstands the nature of scientific statements (as well as liked to do in the evolution debate) - Science forms hypotheses, and as long as a hypothesis is refuted and not a fact sufficiently well explained and it is used for the explanation of phenomena - the 100% truth does not exist, or only know a supreme being (unless you believe it). The world does not obey the laws of the detective series in which one s.end always beautiful know who it is because now been. So: is the man most likely to blame s.Klimawandel and why he should change his actions (CO2 emissions) - the only good way to prevent something worse reason enough for action here, is not it? Because the effect of a 20% probability that climate change otherwise I would not bet the future of mankind ....
Antwort von B.DeKid:
Come to where we now have in the OT field are synonymous, I say something about this.
Marc your knack has met here not really the right topic.
It is perhaps only logical that was brought about by rapidly expanding its business since the beginning of the industrialists in 1900, the ball rolling as before.
Figures show that the research clearly synonymous.
Furthermore, one must note, however, movements of Earth's magnetic field advancing synonymous / synonymous these reversals lead to a warming.
All in all, the discussion of the ulceration and Illuminates actions lead only to back, which in turn the people deserve the time already s.gewissen nature of sin, are now synonymous again s.der "reparations" vigorously deserve.
To do so, for example, Shell and the massive shell of intresse s.Wäldern moment ;-)
Well but what solls - we now know why it is so and is synonymous as it is better able to pay attention to certain things.
I think climate change is a good story .... but Him, we will slow down the change will not only be able to completely stop us succeed. Synonymous, and that's not bad - there are enough planets in the universe;-P
MfG
B. DeKid
Antwort von MarcBallhaus:
Come to where we now have in the OT field are synonymous, I say something about this.
Marc your knack has met here not really the right topic. That's what I noticed synonymous:)
It is perhaps only logical that was brought about by rapidly expanding its business since the beginning of the industrialists in 1900, the ball rolling than before If one assumes that the human activity has an influence on it, even if one pays, however, believe the researchers who say man had very little impact on not.
Figures show that the research clearly synonymous. And there are those who demonstrate the opposite.
Furthermore, one must note, however, movements of Earth's magnetic field advancing synonymous / synonymous these reversals lead to a warming. Sure, but I am speaking only from the influence of man ...
All in all, the discussion of the ulceration and Illuminates actions lead only to back, which in turn the people deserve the time already s.gewissen nature of sin, are now synonymous again s.der "reparations" vigorously deserve.
To do so, for example, Shell and the massive shell of intresse s.Wäldern moment ;-) Exactly, that's why I'm so skeptical
Well but what solls - we now know why it is so and is synonymous as it is better able to pay attention to certain things.
I think climate change is a good story .... but Him, we will slow down the change will not only be able to completely stop us succeed. Synonymous, and that's not bad - there are enough planets in the universe;-P
MfG
B. DeKid The final word yet mal'n! :)
MB
Antwort von kalle70:
People who says that climate change has only negative sides?
Sure it will have severe consequences for our society and way of life here in Germany, but is nevertheless crucial, as it often is, those who benefit from this and make money draus!
The change is unstoppable, so it's not care why it is happening.
Instead of looking for someone to blame should be prepared.
Man is a creature of habit, until the time comes and we have arranged for us to find new opportunities.
Here, especially in Germany but not wet and cold winter, temperate rainy season? Lower heating costs, no winter clothes, no salt, our cars rust later?
Summer of March to November? Finally profitable beer gardens and outdoor swimming pools?
Twice a year, harvest time? Fruit and vegetables from Germany, synonymous s.Weihnachten?
This thinking would be synonymous a theme for a short film.
Antwort von DWUA:
@ Marc
If even the highest Beamtenärsche and their Sesselfurzer
deal with your view, must have a cause.
For example:
www.umweltbundesamt.de / products / fckw / emissionen.htm
or
www.umweltbundesamt.de / products / fckw / halone.htm
Data from around the world confirm what you are disputing.
In regard to
swimming: Against the Current: You do not swim against the tide. You are more of a bear,
of waiting for him even more tired of salmon into
Foot jump! At least here.
;)))
This time as a fully air-conditioned Central Europeans still without desert sand
between his teeth ...
Antwort von shodushitanaka:
Very brave for nen launchy with 12 contributions Aha, so it comes with the first Slashcam contribution to the world and was previously practically nothing.
Then I once garbage next to the forum until I'm at 1000 mitzutun at last with the Great ... ;)
