April 20, 2021

GIL

Daily Global New Media

THE IPCC LIED! – Climate of Freedom #3

1 min read

23 thoughts on “THE IPCC LIED! – Climate of Freedom #3

  1. Die Argumentationen, dass lediglich beim Anstieg der Temperaturen einen Steigungsgrad mittels „Regressionslienie“ anzuführen falsch ist, ist richtig. Dies würde eine „falsche ansteigende Regressionsliene“ suggerieren oder zu mindestens eine mit falscher Steigung. Es ist also richtig zu sagen, dass es keinen Sinn macht eine Linie von 1980 bis 2000 aufzuführen da die Steigung der Regressionslienie sonst höher wäre, als wenn ich die Jahre von 1970 bis 1980 auch noch mit einbeziehen würde. Dies liegt ganz einfach daran das Langzeit Faktoren, die sich nur in bestimmten Jahren zeigen und auswirken nicht mit berücksichtig werden, wenn nur kleine unrepräsentative Jahres Abschnitte benutz werden. Kurz gesagt ihr habt recht mit dem letzten Punkt, den ihr mit dem Ausschnitt der Sinuskurve verdeutlichen wollt. Problem ist trotzdem das die Gesamtheit der Werte von euch falsch interpretiert wird. Es ist nicht die Steigung von Y in Relation zu X in bestimmten Ausschnitten, sondern der durchschnittliche Temperaturwert in den höheren Jahreszahlen. Bedeutet wie viel Grad (Y) von frühen Jahren X1 zu X2 der durchschnittliche Y Wert tiefer liegt als in späteren Jahren Jahr X3 zu X4 mit einem entsprechenden Y Wert. Einfach ausgedrückt um wie viel in Y-Einheit Pfeil drei höher liegt als Pfeil eins und zwei. Die Steigung gibt lediglich die Geschwindigkeit des Ansteigens der Temperatur pro Jahresanzahl an, die auch, genauso wie es richtig argumentiert wird, gleich sein kann von beispielsweise 1860 bis 1880 und 1980 bis 2000, aber die Höhe der durchschnittlichen Temperatur ist letztlich das Wesentlich nicht der Steigungsgrad eines bestimmten Ausschnittes. Wenn ich mich jedoch auf den Steigungsgrad eines bestimmten Ausschnittes stützen will so muss dieser repräsentativ sein, wie bereits angeführt. Das ist der in dem Video aufgeführte jedoch nur in der Form das eine Regressionslienie von 1860 oder um es noch repräsentativer zu machen von noch früheren Jahren als 1880 nach Jahr 2000 gezogen wird. Ich bitte deshalb um Korrektur des Videos einschließlich einer neuen Auswertung, da die Argumentation der Aufgeführten Pfeile, zusammenfassend, diametral zur letzten Argumentation mit Bezug auf die Sinuskurve stehen.

    Gruß,

    Jannik S.

  2. No, honesty is not the question, the IPCC might be honest or not. It might be possible the the acceleration rate ist higher or lower. In my opinion this kind of graph is nothing more than a illustration. If sombody wants to prove that climate change is not real or not harmful it cannot be proven by proving that the IPCC is not honest. By the way, your video does not even show that the IPCC is dishonest. The trendlines purpose is to quantify an effect which is already proven. If there is also a periodic effect underlying modulated on the time series, there will, be only a incertainity. But climate change is real. The exact amount does not matter. Probably conditions will be really bad in 30, 100 or in 500 years. Do you really want us to destroy the future of our descendants in 500 years?

  3. At TED2010, Bill Gates revealed his vision of the global energy future. If global warming continues, he sees humanity seriously threatened. And he sees the driving factor for climate change in the strong man-made increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Too many people are consuming more and more energy and producing more CO2 because they want to have the same standard of living as we have in the USA and Europe. So it will take technological "miracles" if a planetary catastrophe is to be averted. However, he believes that technological innovations, such as the expansion of a "clean" variant of nuclear power plants, will not be enough to save the climate despite the increasing demands of humanity and the growing number of people. So what could and should be done to adjust the situation? He leaves this question unanswered, but the audience at TED2010 will soon have realized, while thinking about it, which adjusting screw would be the easiest to adjust: to reduce the number of people with their demands, i.e. eugenics.
    Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

  4. I thought that IPCC stands for International Panel for Corruption and Coercion. But maybe I am mistaken and I should not base my opinion on their actions.

  5. Inconvenient truths

    Milankovitch cycles cause climate change and when the Precession of the earths north star aligns the equator with the solar orbital plane the gravitational pull of the SUN will pull Global tsunami's around the planet East to west because the planet spins west to east.

    The more the axis of the earth tilts towards the sun Obliquity, magnetic North. The more direct SUNLIGHT the higher latitudes poles receive. Warming the southern hemisphere heat sink oceans and thawing the northern hemisphere frozen co2 continents. Which is why temperature rises first and co2 follows. Cause and effect.

    Energy is neither created nor destroyed.

    On this his planet.

    All energy in this solar system comes from the SUN.
    Including gravitational pull.

    Earth is a closed loop that self regulates co2 with LIFE.

    Dinosaurs didn't live of off the little bit of co2 unthawed released right now.

    Feed back loop isn't any scientific principle I ever learned. It would be like putting the cart before the horse.

    Covid is the Baby BOOMERS turned Seniors Bust due to the Seasonal FLU and old age.

  6. Naomi Seibt is a member of the "Young Alternative", which is right-wing extremist and anti-constitutional in the opinion of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution. She is paid by the Heartland Institute (and trained for interviews), which is financed by the tobacco, gas, coal and oil companies. See Wikipedia, where there are xx-sources for it: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Seibt

  7. When it occurs in the Amazon it is a forest fire caused by man, when it occurs in any other part of the world it is a wild forest fire. It is pure prejudice of the traditional media against Brazil. The fire in Amazon is cyclical as it is in many other parts of the world. We have a dry season between May and September when it is common to occur fires everywhere in Amazon..

  8. Oh God how stupid your arguments are, this is indeed a comedy how incompetent you are. The three arrows are hilarious 🤣 elementary stupidity

  9. Hey kid, what on Earth makes you believe to be competent to explain to us the climate science? Ever wrote a scientific paper? Did at least a full college semester of climate science? Or actually just browsed the conspiracy net? 🥱

  10. If climate change activists believe they are correct they should not be afraid of dissenters, and above all we should all be seeking truth not manipulate the data… thank you for showing that humans are not the problem on earth… will share with my friends who think I am crazy for being a climate realist

  11. Please keep in mind you have more upvotes than downvotes due to the fact your subscribers are the main voters. This channel is a negative influence on global intelligence, no matter how small.

  12. Even if everything the two of you stated is correct, that does not change or challenge the fact that the overall CO2 concentration and temperature on earth has risen at an unprecedented rate (compared to natural CO2 and temperature changes through out earth's history – measureable by looking at sediments at certain dephts) in the last 200 years. The shown graph only covers the past 200 years, therefore not showing the critical overall comparison between the pre-industrialized world and the post-industrialized world.
    You can look this up for yourself in countless studies, science journals, or even on wikipedia, if you're lazy.
    This is a widely studied subject with clear conclusions.
    If you say you're a skeptic, then actually be skeptic and read the studies about this topic!

  13. The overall trend still rises, even if the increase of temperature is more like a ladder this doesn't change the trend. The second graph shows a steaper third arrow because they added the temperature data of the following years (as far as I can see) which made the visual trend even stronger.

    On the other hand I would question the judgemental words this man is using to describe scientific journals and institutions. That's populism and not scientific sceptism.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

3 × three =