co2science.orgは安全ですか?

疑わしいウェブサイト

ウェブサイトのセキュリティスコア

27%
WOT のセキュリティ スコアは、当社独自のテクノロジーとコミュニティの専門家によるレビューに基づいています。
このウェブサイトは申請済みですか?
いいえ
コミュニティレビュー
★ 1.6
WOTのアルゴリズム
32%
子供の安全性
該当なし

コミュニティは何と言っていますか?

レビューを残す

このウェブサイトを1から5の間で、どのように評価しますか?
starempty-star
starempty-star
starempty-star
starempty-star
starempty-star
フィードバックを共有してコミュニティに貢献しましょうレビューは少なくとも15文字で構成されている必要がありますこのウェブサイトを最もよく表すタグを選択してください
マルウェアあるいはウイルス
顧客サービスが悪い
フィッシング
詐欺
違法の可能性がある
誤解を招くあるいは倫理に反している
プライバシーリスク
不審
憎悪、差別的
スパム
潜在的に迷惑なプログラム
広告/ポップアップ
アダルトコンテンツ
卑猥な可能性がある
残酷あるいは刺激的
キャンセル
レビューの投稿
1.6
starhalf-starempty-starempty-starempty-star

41のレビューに基づく

並び順:
最新
Academically absolutely useless and insignificant.
役立つ
Intellectuals contribute to the research.
役立つ
Science-based information about the CO2 debate. Science is never settled. Consensus is entirely political and has no place in science. The negative reviews of this site are political and certainly have no basis in science.
役立つ
Anti-science nonsense produced and funded by ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy (a large coal mining company) but which pretends to be presenting unbiased views. Idso (who runs co2science.org) worked for Peabody Energy before founding this site. ExxonMobil and Peabody have spent millions producing fake anti-climate-science content for the web. Do not use this website.
役立つ
Those negatively rating this site are expressing religious and idelogical preferences. Frankly given that the planet is voting against them this is especially disturbing. Science is not what you wish it was, but what conforms to reality.
役立つ
This is an alt-science site with one point of view, and its against real climate science. It fools those who wish to be fooled.
1
This site is obviously being attacked for political purposes. Sites that present peer reviewed papers that counter "received wisdom" are negatively rated for no other reason than an attempt to minimize the damage to scarifying dogma. So what if a site may receive funding from politically incorrect sources. TRUE SCIENCE is about the message, not the messenger. I would also rate this site SAFE for children. Scientific truth should never be considered harmful.
役立つ
Site is full of references of accepted papers. It appears that this site is victimized by climate change politics in attempt to squash opposing views. It is a shame that WOT is an accomplice to this. See for yourself: http://www.co2science.org/subject/r/summaries/rwpeurope.php I would be interested in any evidence that tarnishes this site with your negative rating. Where is YOUR evidence to support your rating?
1
Inconvenient facts that check out as accurate
2
Again WOT is being abused. This site gives voice to the thousands of scientists around the world who don't drink the cool-aid of man-made global warming. Their ideas are just as valid as the other side. They don't get papers published not because of the science but because it's not what governments want. There is no TRUE consensus on global warming. WOT is not supposed to be used to stop people from looking at controversial subjects! I wonder what other politically incorrect organisation WOT is giving a bad rating to?
4
Obviously very selective. This is the nearest thing the editors put out to a declaration of conflict of interests: http://www.co2science.org/about/position/funding.php. But it's contradicted by this: *****
役立つ
Seems to be a fairly objective site, making data available for others to draw their own conclusions.
4
I have checked the information and have found them trust worthy with facts to back up the data presented.
5
Negative ratings are clearly organized by the environmentalists to neutralize the site. All science information. Seems reasonably balanced.
3
WOT is not intended to register disagreement with a point of view. It is intended to warn of security threats, privacy concerns and commercial spam. Users who downrated this site cannot be trusted on WOT.
4
WOT has been taken over by 'global warmist' ideologues. One cannot check a site of opposing views without being punched in the face by their stupidity via WOT's warnings. Admins should take notice and take action: WOT is on the way of becoming yet another 'politically correct' fundamentalist den.
4
Fact based studies of the impact of carbon dioxide in the environment, including its benefits to plant growth. It's called S C I E N C E ! The WoT rating is totally misleading.
5
Reliable information to ded an important debate. WOT ratings likely generated by those with differing viewpoints for political reasons.
6
WOT needs to do something about this. WOT negative ratings are being used as a political tool to discredit valid arguments. It's difficult to recognize when WOT can't be trusted and reduces WOT's usefulness. Maybe negative posts could be required to comment on something that is, in this case, "unethical". Quoting news articles that point out divergence from your own view, or quoting science papers is not unethical. Luckily WOT still seems quite helpful in pointing out real trouble on the web such as phishing and malware. It would be nice to have a separate WOT just for that. We don't need more "opinions", we need safety.
9
WOT should not be used to silence opinion or scientific views. It should only be used for illegal, offensive or misleading sites. Offering alternative views on commonly discussed and perfectly legal topics is not something that should be stopped. In particular there are alternative sites offering opposing views which equally should not be silenced.
8
123
侵害されていないか確認するGoogle に接続して閲覧履歴をスキャンします。
Google と接続
掲載されているもの
サインインすることで、当社の定めるデータ収集と使用に同意したことになります。 利用規約 及び 個人情報保護方針
alternative-placeholder

WOT について

私たちは 200 万以上のウェブサイトをレビューしました。 WOT は、迅速かつ安全にブラウジングできるように設計された軽量拡張機能です。 ブラウザをクリーンアップし、速度を上げ、個人情報を保護します。

これはあなたのウェブサイトですか?

ウェブサイトを申請して、WOT のビジネス ツールにアクセスし、顧客とつながりましょう。
このウェブサイトを連携する
このサイトでは分析とパーソナライズのために Cookie を使用しています。 続行すると、当社の クッキーポリシー。
受け入れる