CUKI: Najdi si str. 27, už jsem to sem jednou dával, ale to je jako mluvit do dubu.
OK, až přijdeš na nějakou lepší teorii než má IPCC, tak dej prosím vědět, dík.

CUKI: nic na disku hledat nemusis, ty zpravy mas vsechny na netu.

jo, prichod male doby ledove ohlasuje skepticky tabor periodicky, vzdycky jednou za par let :))
tady treba hajek pred deseti lety, ohlasoval malou dobu ledovou do… deseti let!

Vicekancléř prezidenta republiky Petr Hájek ve vyjádření pro ParlamentníListy.cz varuje před nebezpečím globálního ochlazování a příchodem doby ledové, na něž upozorňuje řada renomovaných vědců. Teorii o člověkem způsobeném globálním oteplování považuje Hájek za jasný podvod. Člověk a koncentrace CO2 má podle něho naprosto minimální vliv a klima na Zemi určuje sluneční aktivita

Klausův Hájek předpověděl dobu ledovou. Zcela vážně | ParlamentniListy.cz – politika ze všech stran
https://www.parlamentnilisty.cz/zpravy/Klausuv-Hajek-predpovedel-dobu-ledovou-Zcela-vazne-204161

TUHO: Jo, tenhle graf je známá manipulace popíračů. Viz tenhle článek, str. 27
(PDF) Twist and Shout: Images and Graphs in Skeptical Climate Media
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268074188_Twist_and_Shout_Images_and_Graphs_in_Skeptical_Climate_Media

"There are four issues with most of the versions of this graph in those media, relating to sloppy references to the original source, concealment of the fact that a local record is not representative of global temperatures, omission of the temperature rise in recent decades, and subjective visual enhancement techniques. First, the origin of this graph is difficult to trace based on the generally sloppy references in skeptical media. Goreham63 references Dansgaard et al., (1984),64 and a presentation by Avery (2009).65 However, in the paper by Dansgaard et al., 1984, no data based on “ice cores from Crete, Greenland” (as suggested by Goreham (2012)) are shown. The slides used by Avery from a skeptical climate change conference can be inspected in a youtube video,66 however there is no mention of the origin or the production of the graph. Vahrenholt and Lüning67 who also use this graph, just refer to a German web site.68 Interestingly, this web page refers to another Dansgaard publication69 and to Schönwiese (1995) who appears to be the original image source. In these examples, the improper references of climate skeptics to their sources violate the basic rules and skills of scientific working, such as accountability and transparency. Second, many authors of skeptical media (for example Avery, 2009, and Vahrenholt und Lüning, 2012) fail to mention that this temperature estimate is based on an ice-core record from Greenland and may thus not be representative of global temperatures.
Most importantly, in Schönwiese's 1995 version the current and near future temperature changes are included. The recent warming goes far beyond the historic warm periods of the last 12000 years and should therefore have been included in the graph. In Goreham’s version (Figure 8), part of the current warming is included, however, it is nearly invisible due to its thinness near the axis. In Vahrenholt and Lüning (2012) this warming is not visible at all, ending with a different curve for the last century (which might be based on Schönwiese's, 199470 obsolete curve, which he changed in Schönwiese (1995)). The missing temperature increase in the second half of the twentieth century in these graphs could be due to the fact that “present day” within the paleo-climate research community generally refers to the year 1950. Thus, if climate skeptics use or adapt such time series data or visualizations from paleoclimate science publications, they tend to conceal (or are unaware of) this. Resulting images leave out the part of recent warming without a clear illustration of this fact, and the graphical understatement effect is intensified. As an extreme version of the graph in Figure 8, Vahrenholt and Lüning, (2012) changed the axis ticks from “present day” to the year “2000” (and the other ticks accordingly), which in this case is either ignorance of the science or deliberate deceit. From a visualization point of view, the main visual property of the climate skeptic versions of such graphs is the color filling of areas above or below a baseline, in this case of 15°C. Areas above the baseline are colored in red (highlighting warm conditions), whereas areas below this value are colored in blue (cold conditions). In Figure 8, this highlighting suggests that there were many warm periods before the present. The selection of the baseline value is often not statistically justified, used arbitrarily to support the author’s arguments visually, or to simply “spice up” the graphics. Vahrenholt and Lüning, 201271 extensively use this method, sometimes even by taking multiple trend curves per chart or by arbitrarily leaving out the color filling.72 In summary, this class of long-term time series with suggestive, color-coded highlighting of warm and cold conditions is a technique very frequently used to support the argumentation that “climate has changed naturally in the past” and that the small extent of current warming is no problem. The example in Figure 6 combines several kinds of scientifically problematic issues, ranging from obscure or even false figure or data origin to suggestive highlighting of time series integrals and the missing illustration of the meaning of the time series end step."