[BlinderBarmer]

Zitat von pibach

Die Resultate aus diesem Paper finde ich auch sehr überzeugend (ähnliche zu Scafetta, aber wohl etwas genauer):

The application of machine learning for evaluating anthropogenic versus natural climate change

Natürlich findest du das überzeugend, da steht ja auch, was du so haben möchtest.
Die Presse schreibt dazu:

Why the IPA's claim global warming is natural is 'junk science'

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...l-junk-science

Du stehst ja auf Zyklen, die Fachwelt sagt:

In reality there a very few periodic or quasi-periodic oscillations in the Earth system. In reality most are random and not periodic. Volcanoes are the biggest issue. Their method assumes that any periodicity caused by volcanoes prior to 1880 has simply continued though to 2000. We know this is not the case and have a good handle on what volcanic activity has been – it was nothing like it was prior to 1880. Their approach is therefore completely unphysical. They also assume that oscillations seen at a given proxy location will also cause the same oscillation on global average or hemispheric average temperatures. We know this is not the case.

Dazu kommt:

Marohasy has repeatedly claimed that Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology is deliberately conspiring to tamper with its temperature records with the express intention to make global warming look worse than it is.

Also eine klassische Vertreterin einer Verschwörungstheorie.
Fachlich wie immer nichts dahinter.