Und zitiere ich mal:
"Pimm and Harvey (2000) provided three criteria with which to evaluate the credibility of scientific studies. First and most importantly, follow the data. They emphasized that the data trails of skeptics generally go cold very quickly. Second, follow the money. Some of the most prominent AGW deniers, including Crockford, are linked with or receive support from organizations that downplay AGW (e.g., Dr. Crockford has previously been paid for report writing by the Heartland Institute).""
Nun den man mache das gerne mal für die Klimahysteriker. Man folge den Daten und dem Geld und voilà . Wenn zwei dasselbe tun .... Ich schlage vor sich mal über die Finanzierug der XR und eine Grehta Thurnberg zu informieren.
Und folgendes Zitat sollte man auch beachten
"“As part of past status reports, the PBSG has traditionally estimated a range for the total number of polar bears in the circumpolar Arctic. Since 2005, this range has been 20-25,000. It is important to realize that this range never has been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand. It is also important to note that even though we have scientifically valid estimates for a majority of the subpopulations, some are dated. Furthermore, there are no abundance estimates for the Arctic Basin, East Greenland, and the Russian subpopulations. Consequently, there is either no, or only rudimentary, knowledge to support guesses about the possible abundance of polar bears in approximately half the areas they occupy. Thus, the range given for total global population should be viewed with great caution as it cannot be used to assess population trend over the long term.” [my bold]"
Das legt nahe, man weiß es nicht. Aber je nach Agenda kann man sicherlich in die eine oder andere Richtung tendieren. Und als Wissenchaftler würde ich mich darum sorgen hier was verlässliches zu bekommen.