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

[Old Rocks]

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.

Leftist dolts climate change. However you label yourself, you are an idiot. Only an idiot, or the hopeless Trumpanzees can ignore the obvious evidence of a changing climate. And the science is very clear and has been since 1859.

 

[Flash]

Leftist dolts climate change. However you label yourself, you are an idiot. Only an idiot, or the hopeless Trumpanzees can ignore the obvious evidence of a changing climate. And the science is very clear and has been since 1859.

We should all ignore the fraudulent bullshit the Environmental Wackos have been using for decades to facilitate the AGW scam.

The Environmental Wackos have poured tons of money and the researchers have been all too willing to give them the bullshit they paid for.

The earth is warming naturally and humans will have to deal with the climate change. That is the typical state for earth, changing climate.

Humans are bad about polluting the earth. Seven billion humans living a modern life creates a lot of pollution. However, there is no credible proof that human activity is changing the earth's climate to any significant degree. That is why the Environmental Wackos are having to create the fraudulent data and their dire predictions never come true.

The stupid uneducated Moon Bats have adopted AGW as their religion and that is really pathetic.

 

[alang1216]

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."

OK but the same man you are quoting, Ottmar Edenhofer, also said "Denying out and out that climate change is a problem for humanity, as some cynics do, is an unethical, unacceptable position". How do you reconcile the two statements or do we just ignore the one we don't like?

 

[366h34d]

Leftist dolts climate change. However you label yourself, you are an idiot. Only an idiot, or the hopeless Trumpanzees can ignore the obvious evidence of a changing climate. And the science is very clear and has been since 1859.

when did I say I do not believe the climate is changing? Only dolts will believe the climate is static. Believing that we are the cause is dolt too

 

[Old Rocks]

We should all ignore the fraudulent bullshit the Environmental Wackos have been using for decades to facilitate the AGW scam.

The Environmental Wackos have poured tons of money and the researchers have been all too willing to give them the bullshit they paid for.

The earth is warming naturally and humans will have to deal with the climate change. That is the typical state for earth, changing climate.

Humans are bad about polluting the earth. Seven billion humans living a modern life creates a lot of pollution. However, there is no credible proof that human activity is changing the earth's climate to any significant degree. That is why the Environmental Wackos are having to create the fraudulent data and their dire predictions never come true.

The stupid uneducated Moon Bats have adopted AGW as their religion and that is really pathetic.

Lordy, lordy. Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Only willfully ignorant asses like you dispute the observations and evidence.

The Discovery of Global Warming

A hypertext history of how scientists came to (partly) understand what people are doing to cause climate change. An abridged web version of Spencer R. Weart's book presented by the American Institute of Physics.

history.aip.org

 

[Old Rocks]

when did I say I do not believe the climate is changing? Only dolts will believe the climate is static. Believing that we are the cause is dolt too

The Discovery of Global Warming

A hypertext history of how scientists came to (partly) understand what people are doing to cause climate change. An abridged web version of Spencer R. Weart's book presented by the American Institute of Physics.

history.aip.org

 

[CrusaderFrank]

OK but the same man you are quoting, Ottmar Edenhofer, also said "Denying out and out that climate change is a problem for humanity, as some cynics do, is an unethical, unacceptable position". How do you reconcile the two statements or do we just ignore the one we don't like?

Of course he's going to call "deniers" his enemies. What's that's prove? He stated the true agenda of IPCC and the AGW scam: it's economics. You can find nice quotes from Hitler Mao and Stalin speaking favorably of puppies, what does that change?

 

[alang1216]

Of course he's going to call "deniers" his enemies. What's that's prove? He stated the true agenda of IPCC and the AGW scam: it's economics. You can find nice quotes from Hitler Mao and Stalin speaking favorably of puppies, what does that change?

It changes nothing, as he said, and you seem to accept he is some kind of authority, we cannot ignore climate change.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It changes nothing, as he said, and you seem to accept he is some kind of authority, we cannot ignore climate change.

So China is wealthy and far and away the biggest CO2 emitter on the planet, let me know when they take you seriously

 

[alang1216]

So China is wealthy and far and away the biggest CO2 emitter on the planet, let me know when they take you seriously

So you think the US should be among the worst of nations? I think we should be among the best.

 

[Captain Caveman]

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.

When I was researching the history of co2 etc.. I did read an article that there was a climate model used to predict this so called man made climate change. They inputted the data from 150 years ago and asked it to work forwards to predict today's temperature. It's prediction was double of what it is now. All these scientists just seem to be clambering for the finance.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you think the US should be among the worst of nations?

Worst?
Our emissions per capita are down by almost 30% since 2000.
Which countries are better?

 

[alang1216]

Worst?
Our emissions per capita are down by almost 30% since 2000.
Which countries are better?

I don't disagree but CrusaderFrank mentioned in post #209 that China is far and away the biggest CO2 emitter on the planet as if that meant we needed to do nothing until they did better. I'm glad our bar is higher than China's.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

China is far and away the biggest CO2 emitter on the planet

That's true.

as if that meant we needed to do nothing until they did better.

How many trillions should we waste cutting our CO2 if Indian and Chinese increases will
swamp our reduction?

 

[alang1216]

That's true.

as if that meant we needed to do nothing until they did better.

How many trillions should we waste cutting our CO2 if Indian and Chinese increases will
swamp our reduction?

So we shouldn't cut our CO2 or should we do the right thing and trust the Indians and Chinese will eventually follow? I don't believe the problem is so big we should just throw up our hands and just hope for the best. Hope is not a plan.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So we shouldn't cut our CO2 or should we do the right thing and trust the Indians and Chinese will eventually follow? I don't believe the problem is so big we should just throw up our hands and just hope for the best. Hope is not a plan.

So we shouldn't cut our CO2 or should we do the right thing and trust the Indians and Chinese will eventually follow?

Sure. How much should we spend? $20 trillion? $30 trillion? But what if they never follow?

I don't believe the problem is so big we should just throw up our hands and just hope for the best.

We could build reliable, large scale nuclear. How many new plants? 100? 200?

 

[alang1216]

So we shouldn't cut our CO2 or should we do the right thing and trust the Indians and Chinese will eventually follow?

Sure. How much should we spend? $20 trillion? $30 trillion? But what if they never follow?

Some things are easy some things are hard. We should at least start with the easy things. One thing to keep in mind is that the world is moving toward renewable energy. The Chinese invested in solar power and now we buy our solar cells from them. If we continue on our own path the rest of the world will just pass us by.

I don't believe the problem is so big we should just throw up our hands and just hope for the best.

We could build reliable, large scale nuclear. How many new plants? 100? 200?

We could and we should but we need to find a repository first.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Some things are easy some things are hard. We should at least start with the easy things.

Spending $20 or $30 trillion on less reliable, more expensive energy is easy?

One thing to keep in mind is that the world is moving toward renewable energy.

When it makes economic sense, we will too.

The Chinese invested in solar power and now we buy our solar cells from them.

No kidding, it's a dirty manufacturing process. It's a lot cheaper if
you don't care about pollution.

If we continue on our own path the rest of the world will just pass us by.

Pass us by? By harming their economy with expensive, unreliable energy?
If they insist, we should let them pass us by with that.

We could and we should but we need to find a repository first.

What's wrong with Yucca Mountain?
So how many new nuke plants should we build, using Yucca Mountain?

 

[Captain Caveman]

Message to tree huggers, sort out the co2 problem that's in your head without taxing anyone.

 

[Old Rocks]

When I was researching the history of co2 etc.. I did read an article that there was a climate model used to predict this so called man made climate change. They inputted the data from 150 years ago and asked it to work forwards to predict today's temperature. It's prediction was double of what it is now. All these scientists just seem to be clambering for the finance.

So, you did 'research' and found one model that was off. That is called cherry picking, not research. And now anyone that has any intellect at all realizes that you are not a credible source.