Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...

[alang1216]

It matters because if the new studies are correct global warming is a natural event and not manmade. So therefore there is nothing we can do to affect the effects.

So we shouldn't build dams or levees when flooding is natural? We shouldn't put out fires if they start naturally?

 

[Sunsettommy]

So we shouldn't build dams or levees when flooding is natural? We shouldn't put out fires if they start naturally?

The problem is that environmentalists fight new dam construction for various reasons, and fires used to fade away naturally, now we fight them and too often we don't do the work to thin out dead trees thus the fires are more destructive than it used to be.

Many fires start naturally which destroy many homes that are built in forested areas, then blame it on global warming.

 

[BlindBoo]

You can't actually be that stupid. Every year the earth moves closer to the sun

One of these statements is true.

 

[alang1216]

The problem is that environmentalists fight new dam construction for various reasons,

Completely besides the point, an obvious deflection. Care to actually answer the question: So we shouldn't build dams or levees when flooding is natural?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Completely besides the point, an obvious deflection. Care to actually answer the question: So we shouldn't build dams or levees when flooding is natural?

I didn't because you made a LOADED Question, not going to play your bullshit game, my reply was good enough.

"A loaded question is a trick question, which presupposes at least one unverified assumption that the person being questioned is likely to disagree with."

===

Most dams are built for Shipping and Agriculture. Flood control, Recreation are incidental.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Attempting to prevent global warming does not cost a cent.

That must be why the Green New Deal has a $51 trillion (at least) price tag.

 

[Sinajuavi]

Of course, there is none. Only leftist dolts believe humans causing climate change

You need to watch your mouth, boy. Clearly anyone ignoring human devastation of the environment would classify as a dolt.

You white-rights are a blight on this planet, environmentally, socially, culturally. Let's hope your denial of science extends to vaccines and so you didn't get one. Stay away from children until you're dead, please.

 

[Sinajuavi]

We knew the left would celebrate over the high temperatures in the west. So, the GLOBAL WARMING has caused record temperatures in a SPECIFIC AREA on the globe and NOT OTHER AREAS?

LOL

Over a six-day period during the middle of June 2021, a dome of hot air languished over the western United States, causing temperatures to skyrocket. From June 15-20, all-time maximum temperature records fell at locations in seven different states (CA, AZ, NM, UT, CO, WY, MT). In Phoenix, Arizona, the high temperature was over 115 degrees for a record-setting six consecutive days, topping out at 118 degrees on June 17.


That is what caused the heat wave. Not cow farts.

Record-breaking June 2021 heatwave impacts the U.S. West

An early summer heatwave across the drought-stricken West smashed records in seven states as temperatures cleared 100 degrees Fahrenheit for days on end.

www.climate.gov

Why dso you presume to pontificate on this matter when you understand virtually no science? If a heat wave doesn't occur simultanously everywhere, then there is no global warming? That is your contention?

Do you drool on your shoes?

 

[Sinajuavi]

That must be why the Green New Deal has a $51 trillion (at least) price tag.

Green New Deal addresses a lot more than climate change.

I fail to understand how one can remain willfully stupid and think they are a patriot? Doesn't compute.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...​

Conclusion We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.

Direct link to the study:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf
Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"

A new scientific study could bust wide open deeply flawed fundamental assumptions underlying controversial climate legislation and initiatives such as the Green New Deal, namely, the degree to which 'climate change' is driven by natural phenomena vs. man-made issues measured as carbon footprint. Scientists in Finland found "practically no anthropogenic [man-made] climate change" after a series of studies.
“During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C”, the Finnish researchers bluntly state in one among a series of papers.
This has been collaborated by a team at Kobe University in Japan, which has furthered the Finnish researchers' theory: "New evidence suggests that high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth's climate by increasing cloud cover, causing an 'umbrella effect'," the just published study has found, a summary of which has been released in the journal Science Daily. The findings are hugely significant given this 'umbrella effect' — an entirely natural occurrence — could be the prime driver of climate warming, and not man-made factors.

The scientists involved in the study are most concerned with the fact that current climate models driving the political side of debate, most notably the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) climate sensitivity scale, fail to incorporate this crucial and potentially central variable of increased cloud cover.

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has discussed the impact of cloud cover on climate in their evaluations, but this phenomenon has never been considered in climate predictions due to the insufficient physical understanding of it," comments Professor Hyodo in Science Daily. "This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect."

In their related paper, aptly titled, “No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic [man-made] climate change”, the Finnish scientists find that low cloud cover "practically" controls global temperatures but that “only a small part” of the increased carbon dioxide concentration is anthropogenic, or caused by human activity.

The following is a key bombshell section in one of the studies conducted by Finland's Turku University team:
We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why 6 J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.
This raises urgent questions and central contradictions regarding current models which politicians and environmental groups across the globe are using to push radical economic changes on their countries' populations.

Conclusions from both the Japanese and Finnish studies strongly suggest, for example, that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's "drastic measures to cut carbon emissions" which would ultimately require radical legislation changes to "remake the U.S. economy" would not only potentially bankrupt everyone but simply wouldn't even work, at least according to the new Finnish research team findings.

To put AOC's "drastic measures" in perspective — based entirely on the fundamental assumption of the monumental and disastrous impact of human activity on the climate — consider the following conclusions from the Finnish studies:
“During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C.”
Which leads the scientists to state further:
“Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased carbon dioxide is less than 10 percent, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change,” the researchers concluded.
And the team in Japan has called for a total reevaluation of current climate models, which remain dangerously flawed for dismissing a crucial variable:
This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect. The umbrella effect caused by galactic cosmic rays is important when thinking about current global warming as well as the warm period of the medieval era.
Failure to account for this results in the following, according to the one in the series of studies: "The IPCC climate sensitivity is about one order of magnitude too high, because a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing in climate models."

"If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice," the researchers conclude.

Though we doubt the ideologues currently pushing to radically remake the American economy through what ends up being a $93 trillion proposal (according to one study) — including AOC's call for a whopping 70% top tax rate — will carefully inquire of this new bombshell scientific confirmation presented in the new research, we at least hope the US scientific community takes heed before it's too late in the cause of accurate and authentic science that would stave off irreparable economic disaster that would no doubt ripple across the globe, adding to both human and environmental misery.

And "too late" that is, not for some mythical imminent or near-future "global warming Armageddon" as the currently in vogue highly politicized "science" of activists and congress members alike claims.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...exist-practice

is this where one of the board left wing mods says this is a wall of text and it isn't political?

Actually everything is political. Especially man made climate change.

Has little to do with with actual weather.

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy…We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” - Ottmar Edenhofer, a recent co-chair of the U.N.s IPCC Working Group III

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Not all of us get our climatology guidance from politicians.

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy…We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” - Ottmar Edenhofer, a recent co-chair of the U.N.s IPCC Working Group III

 

[Theowl32]

Why dso you presume to pontificate on this matter when you understand virtually no science? If a heat wave doesn't occur simultanously everywhere, then there is no global warming? That is your contention?

Do you drool on your shoes?

Yet you do nothing about it other than hating white American capitalists well enough, and being a good enough socialist as you PONTIFICATE AND CHIDE down from your hypocritical lofty little platitude with the other woke hypocrites.

As all of you are perfectly free to live like the Amish do and Yet of course you don't. Banging away on your little phone or computer or iPad that was produced and manufactured and delivered to you and completely and totally reliant on the fossil fuels (oil ooo how icky).

"WOKE FOR THEE BUT NOT FOR ME." Says every left hypocrite like you.

Meanwhile I provided extensive scientific data that shows how the human cause of GLOBAL WARMING is minimal.

Just ignore the coldest winter Brazil has had in 65 years. Don't worry though. There are the majority of you leftists that live along the coasts that when the sea levels do rise, there won't be very many of you left.

Now, go tell your woke hypocrites that use as many fossil fuels as any white righty in America and let them know how you dealt with a racist as you just assume I am white.

You have zero debate skills.

 

[alang1216]

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy…We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” - Ottmar Edenhofer, a recent co-chair of the U.N.s IPCC Working Group III

"Denying out and out that climate change is a problem for humanity, as some cynics do, is an unethical, unacceptable position." - Ottmar Edenhofer

 

[Flash]

The earth is in a post glacial warming cycle. The earth is warming naturally. Historically the most common state of the earth is to be warmer than it is now.

AGW is a scam. If it wasn't a scam then there would have been no need for all the fraudulent data that we have seen from the Environmental Wackos. Also, their dire predictions would have come true instead of being a bust.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Green New Deal addresses a lot more than climate change.

And so little of it makes sense.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Denying out and out that climate change is a problem for humanity, as some cynics do, is an unethical, unacceptable position." - Ottmar Edenhofer

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy…We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” - Ottmar Edenhofer, a recent co-chair of the U.N.s IPCC Working Group III

 

[366h34d]

You need to watch your mouth, boy. Clearly anyone ignoring human devastation of the environment would classify as a dolt.

You white-rights are a blight on this planet, environmentally, socially, culturally. Let's hope your denial of science extends to vaccines and so you didn't get one. Stay away from children until you're dead, please.

Hey, my fd, I am not Joe Biden. Also, I am not white, and I am not right-wing. I am just a simple man with a simple logical mind . Human devastation of the environment is not equal to leftist dolts' climate change. Only dolts will believe EV is a better solution.

 

[alang1216]

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy…We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” - Ottmar Edenhofer, a recent co-chair of the U.N.s IPCC Working Group III

Obviously cherry-picking quotes is not the path to enlightenment.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obviously cherry-picking quotes is not the path to enlightenment.

IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World's Wealth” - The Global Warming Policy Forum

"De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."

 

[Old Rocks]

The earth is in a post glacial warming cycle. The earth is warming naturally. Historically the most common state of the earth is to be warmer than it is now.

AGW is a scam. If it wasn't a scam then there would have been no need for all the fraudulent data that we have seen from the Environmental Wackos. Also, their dire predictions would have come true instead of being a bust.

Man, are you full of shit. The Earth has been cooling slowly for the last 6000 years. We hit the highest natural temperatures for this interglacial about 8000 years ago.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what’s-hottest-earth-has-been-“lately”