nipccreport.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

28%
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
33%
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

27のレビューに基づく

並び順:
最新
I'm ashamed of WOT. It's not supposed to be used to promote censorship of a website that has views that are controversial. This site is dedicated to giving a voice to the thousands of qualified scientists that don't drink the cool-aid call "man mad climate change". They don't get much funding and they can't get thier papers reviewed not because the science is incorrect but because it's not what governments want. Governments want their carbon taxes. There needs to be guidelines for WOT to discourage it from being used for censorship. There are lots of consensus ideas that need to be challenged today. And BTW. My views have nothing to do with the bible, Christianity or any other religion. I don't want to be associated with those people.
1
Masquerading as climate change "skeptics", led by fossil-fuel millionaires [1], and funded by conservative/libertarian organizations like the Heartland Institute [2] with ties to fossil fuel companies like ExxonMobil [3], the NIPCC (not to be confused with the actual scientific body IPCC), writes practically non-peer reviewed* pseudoscience** that goes counter to both scientific consensus [4] and evidence [5], and as such; should be taken with a grain of salt. *The only people who gets to review their papers are mostly other climate skeptics. [6] **E.g. NIPCC cites outdated and inaccurate research [7][8][9]etc. [1] ***** [2] ***** [3] ***** ***** [4] ***** ***** ***** [5] ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** et. al. [6] ***** [7] The NIPCC references Boretti: http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2012/aug/8aug2012a1.html Yet Boretti later concludes his analysis was faulty: ***** [8] NIPCC cites outdated McLean research which is both flawed and disproven: ***** ***** [9] NIPCC often cites Houston, Dean, Benestad, and Schmidt who have also highly disputed and contradictory papers whose conclusions are also logically flawed: ***** *****
2
An excellent site, but if you're concerned about letting the facts get in the way of you political agenda on climate change, I advise you to stay well away. If on the other hand you wish to be well informed on both sides of the issue, you've come to the right place. This site profiles factual support, including a compendium of peer reviewed literature, for the premise that the recent global warming is not a predominately manmade phenomena. It is a sign of the times that just because they are not rabbit fans of the idea climate change is manmade, the intolerant mark it as an untrustworthy site. What better evidence is needed that dissent is no longer permitted? I wonder how may people who voted it as untrustworthy a have taken the time to actually read any of the information. I recommend you don't read anything on this site. You don't want to let the facts get in the way of your biases.
役立つ
site is victim of climate politics and everyone who tries to stop critica thinking
2
The negative ratings for this website appear to be entirely politically motivated.
役立つ
This site is as trustworthy and kid-safe as any. I view the negative ratings as an attempt to discredit un-popular views. Political correctness run amok.
1
Lefty propagandist are rating such science based but opposite ideology website as dangerous. WOT should not allow such ideology driven ratings.
役立つ
The bad ratings are from idiots of the "because...shut up" school of intellectual discourse.
役立つ
Political opponents purposely downgrade the rating of this excellent site.
役立つ
Website is being unfairly targeted by those with a political agenda, totally apart from the scientific merits of the topics under consideration.
1
Good science-based website. Publishes peer-reviewed scientific research from around the world. An excellent counter-point to overly vocal fundamentalist anthropomorphic climate change websites for believers. I can understand why they would not like the site and not wish those who are undecided to view it. It gives an (occasionally strident) counter-balance to the debate- more than that available anywhere else. Keep it up!
役立つ
This is a safe site...the Political trolls that down-rate the site are tools and fools pushing a political agenda. There are no malicious or harmful programming or mall-ware on this site. Just information the Bots do not like. The IPCC"S predictions have completely failed, and they are proven unable to predict anything. Read it for yourself; From a real NASA Scientist; 73 Climate Models vs. Observations for Tropical Tropospheric Temperature; *****
3
people are talking it because they disagree with information not the validity of the content.
2
Untrustworthy, Makes claims to scientific objectivity when in reality it is politically motivated to spread misinformation, confusion and doubt about climate science. The real Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is at ***** Funding mostly from Heartland Institute known from internal documents to take an uninformed, contrarian and ideological anti-science position. See ***** ***** ***** ***** *****
2
Official site of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. No trouble found.
3
This site has obviously been down rated by climate change fanatics since it presents the science rather than the emotions of the global warmists.
2
WOT is being abused for political gain. Disliking a site's politics or message is no reason to give it a poor rating.
3
excellent resource for the independent research on non-existant Global Warming, nowadays called Climate Change or Climate Disorder - notations which are only smoke and mirrors, used by the strange cult of the Guilt - and - Fear Religion of Maurice Strong which is part of the population reduction Agenda21. (Science For Sale just...) WOW, it must have taken endless time to compile this evidence and put it together on one place. Thank you to the scientists of NIPCC in the name of truth
2
This is the site of the Non Governmental International Panel on Climate Change. It contains only reliable scientific articles on the impacts (or lack thereof) of climate change. I was very surprised that the site would be flagged as not recommended and I consider this action as disinformation,
8
Another site that has been wrongly rated due to political views and not on the content of the site... The site is scientificlly based with good varifiable data and is totally child safe .... It is those that wish to stop debate and shut down anyone that disagrees with the new religion of AGW that go to these sites with hope to stop those seeking truth from even looking...
3
12
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