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

[Crick]

What I do not believe is that he deserves to be called a POS.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What I do not believe is that he deserves to be called a POS.

Should we just call him a blatant liar?

 

[Crick]

I would simply call him a well-known and respected scientist. Of what data manipulation and lying do you believe him guilty. And if you mention Mike's Nature trick I'm going to treat you to some projectile vomiting.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I would simply call him a well-known and respected scientist. Of what data manipulation and lying do you believe him guilty. And if you mention Mike's Nature trick I'm going to treat you to some projectile vomiting.

I would simply call him a well-known and respected scientist.

Well respected?

Did Mike's Nature Trick make him more or less respected?

What about when he lied about the Nobel Prize?

Of what data manipulation and lying do you believe him guilty.

Did he ever use any proxy data "upside-down"?
Did he ever add proxy temperature data and real temperature data?
Is hiding the failure of the tree ring data honest or dishonest?
Has he updated the tree ring data since his first hockey stick?
Trees are still growing since 1999, right?

And if you mention Mike's Nature trick I'm going to treat you to some projectile vomiting.

You are very delicate when the flaws of your idols are exposed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What I do not believe is that he deserves to be called a POS.

Before.....

https://johnosullivan.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/mann-psu-bio-before-libel1.jpg

After......

https://johnosullivan.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/mann-bio-after-nobel-bombshell1.jpg

 

[Crick]

I have seen no flaws. I am not bothered by either comment about the Nobel prize. Why should it bother you? I'd think you'd be upset that the IPCC got the award.

 

[Crick]

In neither one did he say " I am a Nobel laureate", as you earlier suggested. In both he made clear that it was the IPCC that actually got the award and it both he shared credit with all the other scientists involved in the work of the IPCC.

 

[Concerned American]

Not all of us get our climatology guidance from politicians.

Just leftist morons.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why should it bother you?

It doesn't bother me that Michael Mann is a lying POS.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In neither one did he say " I am a Nobel laureate",

He said he shared the prize. Did he?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I have seen no flaws. I am not bothered by either comment about the Nobel prize. Why should it bother you? I'd think you'd be upset that the IPCC got the award.

I have seen no flaws.

When you keep your eyes closed, how can you see anything?

Meanwhile.......

Did he ever use any proxy data "upside-down"?
Did he ever add proxy temperature data and real temperature data?
Is hiding the failure of the tree ring data honest or dishonest?
Has he updated the tree ring data since his first hockey stick?
Trees are still growing since 1999, right?

 

[Crick]

Todd, I really don't care for rhetoric. Please just tell us what you think he has done and what your references might be.

 

[alang1216]

Just leftist morons.

So where do you get you climatology information?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd, I really don't care for rhetoric. Please just tell us what you think he has done and what your references might be.

Did he ever use any proxy data "upside-down"?
Did he ever add proxy temperature data and real temperature data?
Is hiding the failure of the tree ring data honest or dishonest?
Has he updated the tree ring data since his first hockey stick?
Trees are still growing since 1999, right?

Or do you just have no clue what he's done?

 

[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.

Follow the scien... Shut the Fuck UP! Global Warming is manmade!!!

 

[Crick]

Did he ever use any proxy data "upside-down"?
Did he ever add proxy temperature data and real temperature data?
Is hiding the failure of the tree ring data honest or dishonest?
Has he updated the tree ring data since his first hockey stick?
Trees are still growing since 1999, right?

Or do you just have no clue what he's done?

Apparently I'm not as fixated on him as are you. So, again, please tell us what you think he has done and why you think so. And while you're at it, perhaps you could explain what relevance it has to the validity of AGW theory.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Apparently I'm not as fixated on him as are you. So, again, please tell us what you think he has done and why you think so. And while you're at it, perhaps you could explain what relevance it has to the validity of AGW theory.

We've been talking about his fake hockey stick.

And his fake data. And his fake Nobel.

Do you usually get confused when the sun sets?

 

[Concerned American]

So where do you get you climatology information?

Thanks for the confirmation.

 

[Crick]

We've been talking about his fake hockey stick.

And his fake data. And his fake Nobel.

Do you usually get confused when the sun sets?

That is nothing fake about the hockey stick graph. It has been verified numerous times by numerous researchers. What other data of his do you believe to be fake? You claimed he would not reveal it but I showed you that he had released all of it years ago. You showed me his two comments about the Nobel prize and I told you I found neither one objectionable.

So, Todd, what is your problem with Dr Mann?

 

[Crick]

Thanks for the confirmation.

If you are looking for information about global warming, there is no place better than the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) at www.ipcc.ch. The Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) is a good place to start, particularly if you do not have a firm science footing. Unfortunately, the SPM, which will be included in AR6's Synthesis Report, will not be released till early 2022. You can download the Summary for Policy Makers for the Fifth Assessment Report along with the rest of the AR5 Synthesis Report, from 2014, at AR5 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2014 — IPCC. The science behind the IPCC's latest conclusions, derived from hundreds of peer reviewed, published scientific studies, is presented in The Physical Science Basis at AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC