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

[Nostra]

Y

Just another expression of extremist hate and frustration that has no meaning to normal and rational people.

Is this all being driven by the Trump loss at the ballot boxes and his ridiculous claim that he was cheated?

What is it that's sticking in American craws that has made them into such obnoxious deniers of science?

Hahahahahahahahaha!

ORANGE MAN BAD!

In fact, the orange man is only the inevitable result of what has been bad with America. Now the orange man has attached the blame to non-white people in America.
That's how Hitler faced the some problem by putting the blame on the Jews.

The blame belongs on the very wealthy in America because neither political party had any real ambition to share the wealth.

And now it's a near certainty that Biden is going to fail.
Did he really honestly attempt to change something by doublecrossing his wealthy benefactors?

You are a nutbag.

HTH

Maybe, but you're going to hear a lot more from me.

You can face the music or you can be a spammer like uncotare, and the rest of the racist crew.

What's wrong with country's people who would elect a doddering old fool as their president, to replace a totally mad psychopath?

Now I’m a racist? Gotta link to a racist post by me?

More than half of Americans are racists to some degree.
That being over half puts the onus on you to disprove.

And being a supporter of Trump, who is obviously a racist, is one strike against you.

Show us some evidence that says you aren't a racist. I could be wrong about you but it's very doubtful.

No, I don’t have to disprove shit, Dumbass.

Go play.

I accept your admission you are a lying sack of shit.

 

[jc456]

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

only an ignorant demofk would think they could control the globe. It's who they are. They feel superior to all! when they are more ignorant than a rock.

 

[ReinyDays]

I'm heartened by so many here checking the source ... no proof was provided in the paper ... and indeed this is from a site dedicated to science fiction ... this piece of garage in the OP wouldn't even get a rejection letter from a thesis mill ... this is below National Enquirer standards ...

That being said, the paper does makes a couple of important points ... this "climate sensitivity" factor touched upon is a complete and utter unknown ... we have absolutely no idea what number we should be using, not even a clue ... the IPCC needs to set this value at the high end, otherwise they would have no reason to exist ... there's several other flaws this paper points out, but just showing the flaws isn't proof ... in science, it's never enough to say something is wrong, we must also state what is right ... which this paper doesn't even attempt to address ...

Flawed beyond redemption ... it's certainly what I'd like to be reading, but that doesn't make it true ... sorry, in this case, I'm going with FAKE NEWS ... so beware ...

 

[jc456]

Go play.

you project much?

 

[jc456]

That being said, the paper does makes a couple of important points ... this "climate sensitivity" factor touched upon is a complete and utter unknown ... we have absolutely no idea what number we should be using, not even a clue ... the IPCC needs to set this value at the high end, otherwise they would have no reason to exist ... there's several other flaws this paper points out, but just showing the flaws isn't proof ... in science, it's never enough to say something is wrong, we must also state what is right ... which this paper doesn't even attempt to address ...

So what's the issue?

 

[Donald H]

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

only an ignorant demofk would think they could control the globe. It's who they are. They feel superior to all! when they are more ignorant than a rock.

Only jesus can control the whole globe.

But can he stop tall buildings from falling down?

More important, if HE was real, would he even want to?

 

[jc456]

But can he stop tall buildings from falling down?

that's superman, you should reach out.

 

[jc456]

More important, if HE was real, would he even want to?

your history lessons weren't any good. you should go back to school

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

AOC says that if you give her $6 trillion dollars she can control the temperature of the planet

 

[Nostra]

AOC says that if you give her $6 trillion dollars she can control the temperature of the planet

That Dimbulb is
All
Out
Crazy

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Climate Change FEAR is a political tool that is used to control and enslave people.

 

[Donald H]

I'm heartened by so many here checking the source ... no proof was provided in the paper ... and indeed this is from a site dedicated to science fiction ... this piece of garage in the OP wouldn't even get a rejection letter from a thesis mill ... this is below National Enquirer standards ...

That being said, the paper does makes a couple of important points ... this "climate sensitivity" factor touched upon is a complete and utter unknown ... we have absolutely no idea what number we should be using, not even a clue ... the IPCC needs to set this value at the high end, otherwise they would have no reason to exist ... there's several other flaws this paper points out, but just showing the flaws isn't proof ... in science, it's never enough to say something is wrong, we must also state what is right ... which this paper doesn't even attempt to address ...

Flawed beyond redemption ... it's certainly what I'd like to be reading, but that doesn't make it true ... sorry, in this case, I'm going with FAKE NEWS ... so beware ...

Of course it's nonsense. But what motivates them into denying real and mainstream science?
Is it in them seeing science as a challenge to christian beliefs? This is at least hinted at when we hear suggestions that humans couldn't be a significant influence to climate.

Bearing in mind that the challenge to science has no real substance that is based on attained knowledge, it boils down to just 'denial' for the sake of contrariness.
Some understanding by the deniers that Trump is a denier and so it's mandatory that they follow the party line.

Americans present some significant amount of denial even now but that makes America the last modern first world country to be the last bastion of denial.

But the question still is: Why is that so?

 

[Nostra]

It’s always fun when the “23 Genders” crowd starts bleating about science deniers.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

AOC says that if you give her $6 trillion dollars she can control the temperature of the planet

You're off by about $90 trillion.

 

[Burgermeister]

Facts don't matter in lefty science.

That is because with real science, you FOLLOW where the facts take you, no matter how uncomfortable they may be.

Leftwing science is the opposite: they determine where they want to go to support their beliefs then use science to build the staircase for getting there and justifying them.

Rightist science finds facts in Intelligent Design!
Proof that creationist theory and evolutionist theories are both right!

It's an easy choice!

Evolution is a great example. Rightist acknowledge the massive problems with the theory, lefties dismiss them and cling to consensus as validation.

 

[jc456]

Climate Change FEAR is a political tool that is used to control and enslave people.

bendog says slavery doesn't exist.

 

[jc456]

Of course it's nonsense. But what motivates them into denying real and mainstream science?

show us an experiment from mainstream science that shows man made CO2.

 

[forkup]

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.

Flawed Reasoning: The authors' argument claims a correlation between cloud cover/relative humidity and global temperature proves that the former caused the latter without investigating whether they have the relationship backwards.
Inadequate support: The source of their claimed global cloud dataset is not given, and no research on their proposed mechanism for climate change is cited.
Fails to provide correct physical explanation: The manuscript incorrectly claims that the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide is caused by release from ocean waters. It also provides no explanation for the claim that an increase in relative humidity causes global cooling.

The paper should not be relied upon.

Their claims are based on a chain of reasoning with multiple flaws:
(1) They claim that climate models cannot be relied upon but do not demonstrate this.
(2) They instead make a new climate model (despite this being in contradiction of (1)).
(3) Their new climate model is unvalidated. It is based upon datasets of cloud and humidity without any sources given and which are not up-to-date. They provide no assessment of the accuracy of the data used—these variables are very difficult to measure on a global basis over the time period used. No physical basis is given for their new climate model (e.g. no process is given for how higher relative humidity can make the globe cool).
(4) They fail to consider cause and effect. For example, they assume without any support that a decrease in relative humidity is natural. They give no reasons why it would have decreased. They fail to consider whether climate change could have caused relative humidity to change.
(5) They state without any support that most of the atmospheric CO2 increase is due to emissions from the oceans. They ignore anthropogenic CO2 emissions which are more than large enough to explain the full increase. They ignore observational evidence that shows that the oceans are net sinks of CO2 at present, not net sources.
(6) They dismiss the entire body of climate science—especially that there is a significant greenhouse effect—and instead cite their own work (unpublished or published in journals outside the field).

Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming

Warming related to human activities is estimated to be around 1°C over the past century. This document claims to overturn decades of scientific findings but provides neither the source of the data it uses nor the physics responsible for the proposed relationship between clouds and global...

climatefeedback.org

Seems your "bombshell study" was not published and has some serious flaws.

Care to answer?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Flawed non peer reviewed “study”

Yep, almost certainly, since there are mountains of mutually supportive evidence that the study doesn't even touch.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

One thing we do know is that civilization thrives when the climate is warmer and suffers when the climate is cooler.

Like all those equatorial countries. Which one will you be moving to?