On March 1, many people once again took to the streets out of concern for the climate.
The cause of increasing droughts, prolonged heat, flooding and tree deaths,
Many people see the extinction of species etc. as a result of global warming caused by excessive CO2 emissions.
Other causes are largely ignored on the grounds that they are unscientific.
Science is 97% in agreement on CO2-induced climate change.
But where does this figure come from?
Below you can see the abridged version of the program 97% Unity
among scientists on man-made climate change - fact or fake?
1. the analysis of scientific work on man-made climate change by John Cook et al. under the microscope
The work in question is Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic
Global Warming in the Scientific and Environmental Studies.
by the cognitive psychologist John Cook from 2013.
A so-called meta-analysis.
Cook and his colleagues analyzed 11,944 studies on climate and the environment from the years 1991
until 2011 to determine whether or not the authors blame humans for climate change.
And as a result, Cook presented that 97% of studies and papers agree that humans are to blame for everything.
The truth is, however, that only 0.54% of works are of this opinion,
that humans are only at least 50% to blame for climate change.
So how can John Cook achieve an approval rating of around 97%?
After all, he himself wrote in the summary of his analysis, the so-called abstract, that
of all the studies examined, 66.4% contained no statement at all on the thesis of man-made climate change.
A closer analysis of his study reveals that
The division that Cook made was manipulative.
On the basis of the question of whether statements on the
Thesis of man-made climate change submitted
Cook and his team sorted the almost 12,000 works into seven categories.
Category 1 was that humans are responsible for over 50% of climate change.
Category 2 held the human being responsible, but did not
but not on the extent to which humans influence the climate.
Category 3 made people at least a little bit responsible.
Category 4 did not comment on human influence on the climate.
Category 5 tended to speak out against human influence.
Category 6 spoke out somewhat more clearly against human influence.
Category 7 spoke out against human influence and said that human influence
is less than 50%. So you can see that there should really only be three categories.
Category A, humans are responsible for over 50%.
Category B, no indication of human influence.
Category C, humans are responsible for less than 50%.
Category D, humans are responsible for less than 50%.
If it cannot be deduced from a work,
whether the human influence is over or under 50%.
then this study does not make a clear statement
and actually belongs in the category no specification.
Since the remaining four categories are without clear percentages, all works can be
with unclear statements at will, which opens the door to manipulation.
But now let's get to the results and the mathematical tricks,
which turned 0.54% into 97% in the end.
Here are the raw data from the KUK study, which incidentally are not included in KUK's meta-analysis.
You first have to laboriously gather them together.
Category 1, 64 works, i.e. 0.54%.
Category 2, 922 works, i.e. 7.72%.
Category 3, 2910 works, i.e. 24.36%.
Category 4, 7970 works, i.e. 66.73%.
Category 5, 54 works, i.e. 0.45%. Category 6,
15 works, i.e. 0.13%. Category 7, 9 works, i.e. 0.08%.
KUK Li has now simply dropped all studies that did not contain a statement.
And that was 7,970 out of a total of 11,944, i.e. two thirds of all works.
In reality, Cook has only processed a third of all data.
But even then, there are still only 64 out of 3,974 remaining examinations
believe that humans are over 50 percent responsible for climate change.
Now Cook also combined categories 1, 2 and 3 into one and called them
this consent, although they consisted of varying degrees of consent.
From yes over 50 percent share to yes without specifying the quantity to an implied tacit yes.
That would be a total of 3,896 works blaming people.
And the 78 works that have been sorted into categories 5 to 7 dispute this.
However, this is only a negligible percentage overall.
And so we arrive at 3,896 works with approval.
From the remaining 3,974 works.
And that results in 97 percent.
Originally, only 64 studies contained a
express agreement with the thesis of man-made climate change.
And that was 0.54 percent.
2. storm of indignation.
In the scientific community.
In the face of such brazen manipulation of figures, the
scientific community unleashed a storm of indignation.
The website climatesite.com
collected as many as 97 articles, media reports and blog posts that were scathingly critical of Cook's analysis.
Quote: Below you will find a list of
97 articles that Cooks poorly conceived,
poorly designed and poorly executed 97 percent consensus study.
The fact that anyone can continue to publish such soundly debunked nonsense
like Cook's study is an embarrassment for science.
Anyone involved in this discussion in the scientific community
you will find the link at the end of the program.
The same applies to all other sources mentioned.
Below are just a few examples of the critical articles.
On May 21, 2013, eight days after publication
of Cook's analysis appeared on the site populartechnology.net
an article with statements by some scientists,
whose studies were used in Cook's analysis.
They explain that their work was classified in the wrong categories.
Here are two examples:
Geographer Dr. Craig D. Eizo, Chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change,
writes, It would be wrong to claim that our paper is an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.
Dr. Nils Axel Morner, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics at the
Stockholm University, answers the question, is this an accurate representation of her work?
Certainly not correct and certainly misleading.
The science blogger Anthony Warts reported
about the above-mentioned study by Dr. Lee
Gates, who commented on Cook's work as follows,
It is astonishing that any journal would publish a
study was published in which a
Consensus of 97 percent is claimed when the
According to the author's own analysis, the real consensus was less than one percent.
The Dutch professor of climate economics Richard Toll, former
employee and then critic of the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, criticized Cook's
work and emphasizes that the very selection of the
search terms, important scientific works were not recorded.
In addition, Toll finds it incomprehensible that out of 122 contributions that he himself
published in the period signed by Cook, only ten were selected.
Five of these ten selected works were also misclassified.
Of course, as contributions that support man-made climate change, not as
those who question it, which Toll's contributions actually do.
Well, on the one hand, he does aggressive marketing and knows a thing or two about search engine optimization.
Also the fact that President Barack Obama of the numerous scientific papers,
Cook's study quoted in a tweet, just one day after publication, speaks for itself.
Obama tweeted on May 16, 2013 that 97 percent of scientists agree that climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.
In doing so, he is playing silent mail, so to speak, and has simply omitted important information.
From the 97 percent of scientists who submitted a statement at all
97% of all scientists have been given a flat rate of 97%.
Remember, only 33.6% of the people Cook studied actually had
studies have ever made a statement on man-made climate change.
If you now leave out the remaining 66.4% and these 33.6%
than 100% of those who submitted an opinion, then
97% of them agreed that climate change is probably more or less man-made.
Or could be man-made.
Partly man-made becomes generally man-made.
That sounds 100% man-made.
And Cook's study did not mention any danger at all.
Obama invented that.
It gives the impression that Cook and his employees are working with all the
have tried to achieve a certain predetermined result.
And indeed, there were already in March 2012, i.e. even before the publication
of Cook's meta-analysis, extensive plans for marketing
through press releases, mainstream media, climate communicators, bloggers, climate
organizations, Google, YouTube videos and more.
How can you plan marketing while work is still in progress?
And the fact?
The fact that Cook has been running his climate activist blog since 2007 speaks volumes.
that the result of his study was a foregone conclusion.
He wrote quite bluntly in his forum that we beat the consensus drum often and regularly.
Now the question arises, who has an interest in beating the consensus drum often and regularly?
Is this perhaps intended to distract from other reasons for the obvious environmental problems?
CO2 should not be the problem,
If you really care about restoring our environment
what then?
your heart, do not exclude any theses, examine them openly and
The voices of numerous other scientists are also heard without prejudice,
who speak out against CO2 as the main cause of climate change.
In the long version of this program you will find important
Petitions, i.e. vocal associations of thousands of climate scientists.
In further kla tv documentaries you will receive
Insight into other possible causes of environmental degradation and catastrophic weather patterns.
For example, the military has long had little-publicized technologies for influencing the weather.
From 2005 to 2008, there were already critical publications on German public television.
These are hardly conceivable in this day and age.
Watch the following program.
Why conceal
Politics and media.
The following facts?
1. NATO fuels in our airplanes are bad for the climate.
Aluminum, barium, beryl, lead,
Cadmium, chromium, cobalt, iron, copper, molybdenum,
sodium, nickel, strontium, titanium, manidium, zinc and tin and their oxides.
Secondly.
There is no weather manipulation.
In 1978, the UN signed a UN treaty banning the use of the
of weather manipulation and environmentally harmful technology.
Thirdly.
There are around a thousand patents for weather manipulation technologies.
These date back to the year 1892.
Fourthly.
Redwood trees in California are up to 3000 years old and are now suddenly dying.
Fifthly.
Redwoods were used in California from 1947 to 1978.
Secondly.
110 weather manipulation programs were presented to and approved by the US Congress.
Sixthly.
US Air Force document from 1996 says we own the weather until 2025.
This document explains how to harm the enemy and help your friend by influencing the weather.
Seventh.
US patent 4686605 describes in detail how weather manipulation can be used to
can also generate heat and forest fires with HAARP weapons.
Eighth.
Military HAARP
-plants worldwide can be hit by earthquakes, droughts, storms and floods at any time.
and, together with millions of tons of nano-cocktails, even trigger entire tsunamis.
Never heard of it?
Don't be distracted by weighty environmental destroyers from the military sector.
Do your own research to find out who the actual
destroyers of the environment and the big profiteers of the climate crisis.
Our environment can only be protected effectively if people see the whole picture.