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

[BackAgain]

Floods are caused by nature but we put a lot of effort into dealing with them. The cause doesn't matter, only the effect.


Even if it is natural CO2 causing most of the problem, I'd think limiting our emissions now would be easier and cheaper than leaving the problem to our children.


Tornados are natural and we know their cause. It is much easier to deal with the aftermath than try and prevent them. Doesn't mean we don't plan on them happening.

We can put up dams to control some flooding. But you tell me what we do to control the alleged global warming? Tax carbon emissions when there is arguably no true correlation between carbon emissions and any alleged global warming?

We don’t ban concrete and asphalt roads just because they tend to wear out our sneaker treads. Actions we take to avoid a given problematic outcome should have some actual probable relationship to the problem.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

If humankind’s emissions of CO2 into our atmosphere isn’t the thing causing global climate “warming,” then it doesn’t constitute a basis to radically alter our industry etc.

That's the thing. We KNOW from isotopic data (stable isotopes of C) that humans have been responsible for most of the recent increase in CO2. In addition we KNOW that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (we've known that for >150 years). We know how excess CO2 can and does impact climate.

There's no real way to get humanity off the hook on this one.

 

[alang1216]

We can put up dams to control some flooding. But you tell me what we do to control the alleged global warming? Tax carbon emissions when there is arguably no true correlation between carbon emissions and any alleged global warming?

Dams, levees, canals, jetties, and other mitigation systems are very expensive. Are they cheaper than limiting CO2 or mandating increased efficiency? I don't know, do you?

We don’t ban concrete and asphalt roads just because they tend to wear out our sneaker treads. Actions we take to avoid a given problematic outcome should have some actual probable relationship to the problem.

So who will determine those actual probable relationships, scientists, media pundits, politicians, you?

 

[BackAgain]

That's the thing. We KNOW from isotopic data (stable isotopes of C) that humans have been responsible for most of the recent increase in CO2. In addition we KNOW that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (we've known that for >150 years). We know how excess CO2 can and does impact climate.

There's no real way to get humanity off the hook on this one.

Nonsense. We know ice ages came and went and then returned and left again before humans added much of any CO2 to our atmosphere. There’s no way to put hunanity ON the hook for shit that happens without any possible human causation. Therefore, we know that the algore alarmist thesis lacks logical support.

 

[BackAgain]

Dams, levees, canals, jetties, and other mitigation systems are very expensive. Are they cheaper than limiting CO2 or mandating increased efficiency? I don't know, do you?


So who will determine those actual probable relationships, scientists, media pundits, politicians, you?

Well, if we can’t rely on our scientists because they have proceeded recklessly and carelessly in their “scientific” claims in this matter, then I suppose we’re going to have to see what real science has to say. And we know with certainty that real science has nothing to do with “consensus” and majority rule.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Nonsense. We know ice ages came and went and then returned and left again before humans added much of any CO2 to our atmosphere.

You are making a basic logic error. Let's say that Bob is found dead. We know that gunshot wounds to the head cause death so is it rational to assume that Bob suffered a gunshot wound to the head? Of course not.

The ONLY reason YOU and people like you know anything about the earth's climate history is because of the very same research that helps us establish that the current warming can't be explained solely by natural forcings.

We know this because we've studied how the earth's climate has changed in the past BEFORE HUMANS WERE AROUND. Right now we can't use natural processes to explain the warming we are seeing!

There’s no way to put hunanity ON the hook for shit that happens without any possible human causation. Therefore, we know that the algore alarmist thesis lacks logical support.

And we know by what you post that you don't know anything about the technical details of this science.

I am always amazed at how someone with no training whatsoever in this topic can be so sure. And yet you can't even name one real climate scientist.

 

[BackAgain]

You are making a basic logic error. Let's say that Bob is found dead. We know that gunshot wounds to the head cause death so is it rational to assume that Bob suffered a gunshot wound to the head? Of course not.

The ONLY reason YOU and people like you know anything about the earth's climate history is because of the very same research that helps us establish that the current warming can't be explained solely by natural forcings.

We know this because we've studied how the earth's climate has changed in the past BEFORE HUMANS WERE AROUND. Right now we can't use natural processes to explain the warming we are seeing!



And we know by what you post that you don't know anything about the technical details of this science.

I am always amazed at how someone with no training whatsoever in this topic can be so sure. And yet you can't even name one real climate scientist.

The basic logic error is all yours. We do know that gunshot wounds to the head can lead to death. But that doesn’t mean that all deaths are caused by gunshot wounds to the head.

By contrast to your illogical argument, we DO know that global climate-change can happen. We also DO know of a couple (or more) instances of the Earth’s global climate changing quite massively where the causation could not possibly have been related to anything man-made. Therefore, that we see what might be evidence of global climate change might very well ALSO be utterly unrelated to human causation.

And no. We most certainly do not now “know” that the present day (possible) global climate change isn’t being caused by humankind. We also don’t know whether (if it is global climate change) it is caused by humankind.

I’m amazed at the arrogance of you guys who pretend to know such things. Amazed, but not surprised.

As a side note: you folks tend to talk about global climate “change” as something to be alarmed about. It is said in a way that seems to presuppose that, previously, our global climate was all nice and static and invariable.

So you Climate alarmists have gone from a fear of an impending ice age to a fear of the Earth dying from a “fever” to simply worrying about “change.” Then you wonder why you’re not seen as credible.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

The basic logic error is all yours. We do know that gunshot wounds to the head can lead to death. But that doesn’t mean that all deaths are caused by gunshot wounds to the head.

I guess I had to spell that out for you. That was my point. You make the error in assuming that because the earth's climate has changed for one reason in the past that a DIFFERENT reason couldn't cause it today.

As a side note: you folks tend to talk about global climate “change” as something to be alarmed about. It is said in a way that seems to presuppose that, previously, our global climate was all nice and static and invariable.

Literally NO ONE says that. Wow! In fact those of us like myself have far more knowledge of this than you ever could! I've seen the data first hand and even done basic research based on different climates on the earth.

I know why you don't understand this: it's because you never knew that we had to take "historical geology" or "paleoclimatology-related" classes to get our degrees! You have no clue what we learn in sedimentology and stratigraphy classes.

You were given a snippet of information and you think you have an advanced earth science degree! LOL. I've forgotten more earth science than you will ever know.

So you Climate alarmists have gone from a fear of an impending ice age to a fear of the Earth dying from a “fever” to simply worrying about “change.” Then you wonder why you’re not seen as credible.

Funny you bring that up. I assume you "think" you know how ice ages were discussed in the 1970's. Unfortuantely you have another cartoon view based on an utter lack of knowledge in this area.

Yes there were a few articles in the popular press (Newsweek and Time if I recall) that were talking about an upcoming ice age. That was mainly due to how scientists were learning more about the Milankovich Cycles back in those days and realized it was cyclical and indeed we should be heading into a new ice age.

But even back then the number of peer reviewed articles in the sciences that predicted WARMING outnumbered those predicting cooling 6 to 1.

You don't have to believe me...you can read it for yourself (or ignore it because it's a science article and you don't read much science):

THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS

Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists...

journals.ametsoc.org

Feel free to ignore the findings. Or just admit you don't care about actual data on anything.

 

[BackAgain]

I guess I had to spell that out for you. That was my point. You make the error in assuming that because the earth's climate has changed for one reason in the past that a DIFFERENT reason couldn't cause it today.





Literally NO ONE says that. Wow! In fact those of us like myself have far more knowledge of this than you ever could! I've seen the data first hand and even done basic research based on different climates on the earth.

I know why you don't understand this: it's because you never knew that we had to take "historical geology" or "paleoclimatology-related" classes to get our degrees! You have no clue what we learn in sedimentology and stratigraphy classes.

You were given a snippet of information and you think you have an advanced earth science degree! LOL. I've forgotten more earth science than you will ever know.


Funny you bring that up. I assume you "think" you know how ice ages were discussed in the 1970's. Unfortuantely you have another cartoon view based on an utter lack of knowledge in this area.

Yes there were a few articles in the popular press (Newsweek and Time if I recall) that were talking about an upcoming ice age. That was mainly due to how scientists were learning more about the Milankovich Cycles back in those days and realized it was cyclical and indeed we should be heading into a new ice age.

But even back then the number of peer reviewed articles in the sciences that predicted WARMING outnumbered those predicting cooling 6 to 1.

You don't have to believe me...you can read it for yourself (or ignore it because it's a science article and you don't read much science):

THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS

Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists...

journals.ametsoc.org

Feel free to ignore the findings. Or just admit you don't care about actual data on anything.

You guessed wrong and still drew the incorrect conclusion. No surprise. Logic isn’t your strong suit.

My position has been And still is that where we KNOW that climate (world wide) has “changed” dramatically in the past without any possible human causation, that there is at least some reason to believe that any actual present-day global climate change is happening, it is just as POSSIBLE that it is not caused by human activity.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You guessed wrong and still drew the incorrect conclusion. No surprise. Logic isn’t your strong suit.

OK. Whatever.

My position has been And still is that where we KNOW that climate (world wide) has “changed” dramatically in the past without any possible human causation, that there is at least some reason to believe that any actual present-day global climate change is happening, it is just as POSSIBLE that it is not caused by human activity.

In fact just the opposite. Those past climate changes you "know" about were caused by solely natural processes without humans. So when we look at the known natural causes they don't line up sufficiently to explain the warming TODAY.

That's the key. So the very people who told YOU about the earth's past climate are the same scientists who tell you that today we know it is mostly HUMAN caused because the natural processes that caused change in the past are not acting in a way necessary to explain today's warming.

Again, the only reason folks like YOU know anything about the change in the earth's past climate is because of the EXACT SAME WORK that tells us the current warming is mostly due to humans.

 

[BackAgain]

OK. Whatever.



In fact just the opposite. Those past climate changes you "know" about were caused by solely natural processes without humans. So when we look at the known natural causes they don't line up sufficiently to explain the warming TODAY.

That's the key. So the very people who told YOU about the earth's past climate are the same scientists who tell you that today we know it is mostly HUMAN caused because the natural processes that caused change in the past are not acting in a way necessary to explain today's warming.

Again, the only reason folks like YOU know anything about the change in the earth's past climate is because of the EXACT SAME WORK that tells us the current warming is mostly due to humans.

Wrong again. You make the ASSumption that what we think we know about the natural causes of past global climate change is all there is to know. Dubious ASSumption. It also seems to ASSume that whatever natural causes (which we think) pertained in the past “must be” the only possible natural causes of what might be some (possible) global climate change, now.

The trouble with many of you poseurs is that your arrogance doesn’t permit you to consider things like alternatives and it prevents you from recognizing some of your own possible misinterpretations.

 

[Colin norris]

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.

You are a moron to think it doesn't exist. The whole world accepts it as fact but a loopy like you disagree.
Breathtakingly ignorant.

 

[alang1216]

And we know with certainty that real science has nothing to do with “consensus” and majority rule.

Quite wrong, but it is not called “consensus” or majority rule but peer review.

 

[BackAgain]

Quite wrong, but it is not called “consensus” or majority rule but peer review.

Yes. You are indeed quite wrong. “Peer review” is what it’s supposed to be. But lots of you poseurs prefer to tell society that 90 some odd percent of scientists “agree.”

Such lines aren’t about peer review. They are about the appeal to numbers. And that doesn’t even begin to address the inherently illogical claim of who qualifies as a “scientist” for purposes of such statements.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Wrong again. You make the ASSumption that what we think we know about the natural causes of past global climate change is all there is to know.

It's not like you have MORE information. So I don't see how that helps your point.

If your point is that "it can't be humans because there's something we may not know!" that's silly. Of course if we don't know something we can't say anything about it.

But we do know quite a bit about what drives the climate. YOU don't, but the scientists do.

Dubious ASSumption. It also seems to ASSume

Are you quite done with the junior high game?

The trouble with many of you poseurs is that

Let me guess, we don't show our utter lack of scientific literacy as clearly as YOU do?

your arrogance

Since when is your failure to be able to get a university degree in the sciences a sign of my arrogance?

doesn’t permit you to consider things like alternatives and it prevents you from recognizing some of your own possible misinterpretations.

Well, could be that I've got more geology under my belt than you have hot meals. But, whatevs.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You are a moron to think it doesn't exist. The whole world accepts it as fact but a loopy like you disagree.
Breathtakingly ignorant.

Do we need to pay triple what we currently do for electricity?
If we do, are we saved?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Quite wrong, but it is not called “consensus” or majority rule but peer review.

Is that when you prevent opponents from publishing?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Funny, because Biden just opened a very large number of leases to the oil companies. Yet the oil companies opted not to act on them.

Biden stopped a pipeline, imposed extraction restrictions and denied permits. This admin repeated the Obama energy debacle.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Biden stopped a pipeline,

A pipeline that was solely for the use of Canadian companies to transport tar sands oil down to ports on the US Gulfcoast and other US ports for export out of North America.

That oil wasn't going to help us. And in fact that oil is EXCEPTIONALLY polluting. The damage possible to the aquifers from the Alberta tar sands is off the charts.

imposed extraction restrictions and denied permits.

Biden outpaced Trump in terms of drilling permits on public lands

This admin repeated the Obama energy debacle.

I love how some people have zero clue how complex oil markets are. It's so sweetly naive. Yeah, Biden is causing all of this. It COULDN'T possibly be due to a major energy exporter deciding that war crimes was going to be on the menu for March and April.

It's Biden. All Biden.

Why don't conservatives ever act like they actually understand anything related to economics?

 

[BackAgain]

It's not like you have MORE information. So I don't see how that helps your point.

If your point is that "it can't be humans because there's something we may not know!" that's silly. Of course if we don't know something we can't say anything about it.

But we do know quite a bit about what drives the climate. YOU don't, but the scientists do.



Are you quite done with the junior high game?



Let me guess, we don't show our utter lack of scientific literacy as clearly as YOU do?




Since when is your failure to be able to get a university degree in the sciences a sign of my arrogance?



Well, could be that I've got more geology under my belt than you have hot meals. But, whatevs.

You’re arguing strawman arguments now. A sure sigh that you’re lost. I never said “it can’t be humans” even if you misleadingly (ie, lyingly) put it inside quotations.

When and if you get your shit together, I might be willing to continue with you. Until you stop yiur dishonesty, that won’t happen.