Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on globa

[SSDD]

From your answer, you are not a scientist with any knowledge of science.

No, that is an embarrassingly display of poor logic on your part. My answer could stand regardless of whether or not I am, personally, a scientist.

This is just too easy. You deniers are incapable morons.

Your a legend in your own mind.... But that's all...

Yes, to your "Alamo" of your little tantrums you go ... it's where you deniers belong...

Hysterical, hyperventilating, handwaving of a dupe...nothing more.

prove me wrong by posting some actual science based on empirical evidence that supports your position.

if any such evidence existed it would be inescapable but alas not a sign of it anywhere.

 

[SSDD]

All you have is adhominem attacks and squawking like a damn parrot.

Hmm, no, that's embarrassingly stupid. I also have the consensus and all the evidence that produced the consensus on my side. You have zero published research, a propaganda industry, and your embarrassingly emotional tantrums on your side.

There is no evidence...you imagine there is evidence but it doesn’t exist.

 

[SSDD]

All you have is adhominem attacks and squawking like a damn parrot.

Hmm, no, that's embarrassingly stupid. I also have the consensus and all the evidence that produced the consensus on my side. You have zero published research, a propaganda industry, and your embarrassingly emotional tantrums on your side.

Name the climate claim and we will bury you with peer reviewed published literature supporting our position.

 

[ReinyDays]

In reality, I defer to the consensus reached by the experts at IPCC.

Book, chapter and verse please ... you've never read the latest IPCC report ... sir ... stop lying ... and even if you did try, you wouldn't understand a word of it ...

 

[SSDD]

In reality, I defer to the consensus reached by the experts at IPCC.

Book, chapter and verse please ... you've never read the latest IPCC report ... sir ... stop lying ... and even if you did try, you wouldn't understand a word of it ...

He admits to never having read any of the science and that he wouldn’t understand it if he did
His position is pure politics and whether it is right is irrelevant to him.

 

[daveman]

Consensus is a Cult word that has no place in science.

100% wrong and idiotic, obviously. When overwhelming consensus exists, it is indicative of the overwhelming preponderance of evidence. While the strength of a scientific theory is not, itself, decided by consensus, it is a good "symptom" that helps point you in the right direction and should give you pause when claims that deviate from the consensus arise.

DEATH TO THOUGHTCRIMINALS

 

[daveman]

You made claims that man was responsible for all the changes we are seeing...

False. You made that up, because you are a mental midget that needs to create low hanging fruit for himself

In reality, I defer to the consensus reached by the experts at IPCC.

You mean you you say what your High Priests tell you to say.

 

[daveman]

From your answer, you are not a scientist with any knowledge of science.

No, that is an embarrassingly display of poor logic on your part. My answer could stand regardless of whether or not I am, personally, a scientist.

This is just too easy. You deniers are incapable morons.

Your a legend in your own mind.... But that's all...

Yes, to your "Alamo" of your little tantrums you go ... it's where you deniers belong...

You're not the first cultist to say non-believers should be killed.

 

[22lcidw]

All you have is adhominem attacks and squawking like a damn parrot.

Hmm, no, that's embarrassingly stupid. I also have the consensus and all the evidence that produced the consensus on my side. You have zero published research, a propaganda industry, and your embarrassingly emotional tantrums on your side.

We are still here. All the lies after lies after lies designed to tax us to poverty has finally hit a ceiling.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Then no, you missed the point.

no, I got both your point and the unintentional one you made.

 

[Olde Europe]

That "paper" by KAUPPINEN and MALMI made it to #6 on RealClearScience's list of "The Biggest Junk Science of 2019"

6. Paper Claims to Singlehandedly Debunk Human-Caused Climate Change. When two authors claim to "prove" that the conclusion of rigorously gathered climate science is wrong in one fell swoop, there's good reason to be skeptical. When they do so in a paper that isn't peer-reviewed, there's more reason to be skeptical. When you actually read their paper, you realize that your skepticism was entirely warranted.

In a six-page paper published to arXiv earlier this year with scant references, J. Kauppinen and P. Malmi argued that low-altitude cloud cover accounts for all of anthropogenic climate change. The elevation of clouds does significantly affect global temperatures, but it is a complex relationship that scientists are still striving to completely understand.

Kauppinen and Malmi's paper was heavily criticized for not referencing any data, ignoring contradictory data, attacking climate models while creating and touting a flawed one, and incorrectly claiming that carbon dioxide travels from the oceans to the atmosphere, when the opposite is true.​

It got beat, no kidding, by...

5. Media Touts Terrible Study to Claim That Phone Use Is Causing People to Grow Horns.

I mean, how much worse can it get?

 

[Frankeneinstein]

That "paper" by KAUPPINEN and MALMI made it to #6 on RealClearScience's list of "The Biggest Junk Science of 2019"

6. Paper Claims to Singlehandedly Debunk Human-Caused Climate Change. When two authors claim to "prove" that the conclusion of rigorously gathered climate science is wrong in one fell swoop, there's good reason to be skeptical. When they do so in a paper that isn't peer-reviewed, there's more reason to be skeptical. When you actually read their paper, you realize that your skepticism was entirely warranted.

In a six-page paper published to arXiv earlier this year with scant references, J. Kauppinen and P. Malmi argued that low-altitude cloud cover accounts for all of anthropogenic climate change. The elevation of clouds does significantly affect global temperatures, but it is a complex relationship that scientists are still striving to completely understand.

Kauppinen and Malmi's paper was heavily criticized for not referencing any data, ignoring contradictory data, attacking climate models while creating and touting a flawed one, and incorrectly claiming that carbon dioxide travels from the oceans to the atmosphere, when the opposite is true.
It got beat, no kidding, by...

5. Media Touts Terrible Study to Claim That Phone Use Is Causing People to Grow Horns.

I mean, how much worse can it get?

Nothing in that post debunks KAUPPINEN and MALMIS claims [even if they really are wrong] in fact your post/"article" backs them up before it falls all over itself trying to pretend the only fact posted can't be "fully" verified.

The elevation of clouds does significantly affect global temperatures, but it is a complex relationship that scientists are still striving to completely understand.

TRANSLATION: The climate change scammers are having trouble trying to dismiss this fact and have not yet found anything convincing enough to pretend otherwise.

not sure what you meant by: "It got beat, no kidding, by"... but even if those denying climate change are wrong the fact that it fell just behind/ahead of this:

5. Media Touts Terrible Study to Claim That Phone Use Is Causing People to Grow Horns.

That's a red flag that should tell you that you only posted a hit piece and not a rebuttal.
If you find the above more believable than "climate change isn't real" then you must understand how easy it is to fool you [and the author of your post for that matter] and to get you to believe in something like climate change would be mere childs play.

 

[flacaltenn]

"I've looked at clouds from both sides now..."

Mods, please move to conspiracy theory section or the rubber room.

I think the members all did a FINE job of handling this.. Not for moderation staff to be "truth checkers".. That's YOUR job...

ANd by that I mean independent thinking, not just looking for crappy critiques on your browser...

Nah, you're providing over. On any other scientific topic about which such a ridiculous, deviant thread was started, it would have been moved immediately. But, I guess I get it. It's a political message board.

Go find me examples of science threads that got moved to Conspiracy theory that weren't sourced from InfoWars or "EndTimes" websites.. And then PM me to prove your point here...

 

[flacaltenn]

That "paper" by KAUPPINEN and MALMI made it to #6 on RealClearScience's list of "The Biggest Junk Science of 2019"

6. Paper Claims to Singlehandedly Debunk Human-Caused Climate Change. When two authors claim to "prove" that the conclusion of rigorously gathered climate science is wrong in one fell swoop, there's good reason to be skeptical. When they do so in a paper that isn't peer-reviewed, there's more reason to be skeptical. When you actually read their paper, you realize that your skepticism was entirely warranted.

In a six-page paper published to arXiv earlier this year with scant references, J. Kauppinen and P. Malmi argued that low-altitude cloud cover accounts for all of anthropogenic climate change. The elevation of clouds does significantly affect global temperatures, but it is a complex relationship that scientists are still striving to completely understand.

Kauppinen and Malmi's paper was heavily criticized for not referencing any data, ignoring contradictory data, attacking climate models while creating and touting a flawed one, and incorrectly claiming that carbon dioxide travels from the oceans to the atmosphere, when the opposite is true.
It got beat, no kidding, by...

5. Media Touts Terrible Study to Claim That Phone Use Is Causing People to Grow Horns.

I mean, how much worse can it get?

Nothing in that post debunks KAUPPINEN and MALMIS claims [even if they really are wrong] in fact your post/"article" backs them up before it falls all over itself trying to pretend the only fact posted can't be "fully" verified.

The elevation of clouds does significantly affect global temperatures, but it is a complex relationship that scientists are still striving to completely understand.

TRANSLATION: The climate change scammers are having trouble trying to dismiss this fact and have not yet found anything convincing enough to pretend otherwise.

not sure what you meant by: "It got beat, no kidding, by"... but even if those denying climate change are wrong the fact that it fell just behind/ahead of this:

5. Media Touts Terrible Study to Claim That Phone Use Is Causing People to Grow Horns.

That's a red flag that should tell you that you only posted a hit piece and not a rebuttal.
If you find the above more believable than "climate change isn't real" then you must understand how easy it is to fool you [and the author of your post for that matter] and to get you to believe in something like climate change would be mere childs play.

All that 3rd party analysis pro and con misses the point that analyzing ONLY the cloud data from the satellite era (K & M paper used only TWENTY YEARS) -- is NOT CLIMATE... That's the nail in that coffin.. But it's INTERESTING because it confirms that clouds are a very LARGE POTENTIAL negative feedback on GW if atmospheric humidity increases are a PRODUCT of GW....

Proving "cloud thickness/prevalence" data for the past 200 years contributes to GW slight increase in surface temp is probably not even possible.. And there's no good "historical proxies" to used for cloud cover...

Paper is still science.. It's misunderstood and MISUSED by a LOT of people...

 

[flacaltenn]

Kauppinen and Malmi's paper was heavily criticized for not referencing any data, ignoring contradictory data, attacking climate models while creating and touting a flawed one,

Amateur hour all 'round here with the "modeling" herring.. I don't believe there was ANY MODELING going on in the K & M paper.. Just enough data prep on ACTUAL DATA to cover 20 years...

I'd stop reading any hit piece opinion that didn't understand the proper use of the term modeling.. Authors did not ATTEMPT to build a model to forecast the future or the past. They assembled 20 years of cloud cover data to show the OBVIOUS "weather related" connection between clouds and cooling .. Which COULD be a factor in a very large NEGATIVE feedback on GW -- but probably can not be proven...

And they DID reference specific data sets. Just not ENOUGH of it to leap to conclusions about GW.. In fact MANY papers have done the same thing.. One on "monsoon data" was even linked in this Opening Post and somehow (I haven't read it) they ALSO lept to conclusions bigger than their study.. But THEY got their shit published in the Journal of Nature...

 

[flacaltenn]

I think the members all did a FINE job of handling this.. Not for moderation staff to be "truth checkers".. That's YOUR job...

ANd by that I mean independent thinking, not just looking for crappy critiques on your browser...

I think "fort fun indiana" may have a point even if it was unintentional, move all climate change threads [pro and con] to the "conspiracy or rubber room" forums where they belong.

Then no, you missed the point.

I think the members all did a FINE job of handling this.. Not for moderation staff to be "truth checkers".. That's YOUR job...

ANd by that I mean independent thinking, not just looking for crappy critiques on your browser...

I think "fort fun indiana" may have a point even if it was unintentional, move all climate change threads [pro and con] to the "conspiracy or rubber room" forums where they belong.

Then no, you missed the point.

I think the members all did a FINE job of handling this.. Not for moderation staff to be "truth checkers".. That's YOUR job...

ANd by that I mean independent thinking, not just looking for crappy critiques on your browser...

I think "fort fun indiana" may have a point even if it was unintentional, move all climate change threads [pro and con] to the "conspiracy or rubber room" forums where they belong.

Then no, you missed the point.

And you missed the NUANCE and HUMOR in his statement...

 

[Frankeneinstein]

All that 3rd party analysis pro and con misses the point that analyzing ONLY the cloud data from the satellite era (K & M paper used only TWENTY YEARS) -- is NOT CLIMATE... That's the nail in that coffin.. But it's INTERESTING because it confirms that clouds are a very LARGE POTENTIAL negative feedback on GW if atmospheric humidity increases are a PRODUCT of GW....

Proving "cloud thickness/prevalence" data for the past 200 years contributes to GW slight increase in surface temp is probably not even possible.. And there's no good "historical proxies" to used for cloud cover...

Paper is still science.. It's misunderstood and MISUSED by a LOT of people...

Well, lets not drift away from the point [and sub point] of my post which was that O.E.'s post did nothing to debunk the K&M piece [that is true even if the piece is incorrect] and the only thing the piece did was agree with K&M on the only fact concerning CC which is my point. [and if the cloud cover claim is bogus then the "hit piece" is even less credible since it agrees at least in part].

the sub point being that which proves the gullibility of anyone believing that denying CC is on a par with growing horns from using cell phones, who would believe that? the only ones would be those who believe in climate change.

 

[Olde Europe]

Kauppinen and Malmi's paper was heavily criticized for not referencing any data, ignoring contradictory data, attacking climate models while creating and touting a flawed one,

Amateur hour all 'round here with the "modeling" herring.. I don't believe there was ANY MODELING going on in the K & M paper.. Just enough data prep on ACTUAL DATA to cover 20 years...

I'd stop reading any hit piece opinion that didn't understand the proper use of the term modeling.. Authors did not ATTEMPT to build a model to forecast the future or the past. They assembled 20 years of cloud cover data to show the OBVIOUS "weather related" connection between clouds and cooling .. Which COULD be a factor in a very large NEGATIVE feedback on GW -- but probably can not be proven...

And they DID reference specific data sets. Just not ENOUGH of it to leap to conclusions about GW.. In fact MANY papers have done the same thing.. One on "monsoon data" was even linked in this Opening Post and somehow (I haven't read it) they ALSO lept to conclusions bigger than their study.. But THEY got their shit published in the Journal of Nature...

You know, Flac, "clouds control the earth's climate" may be simplistic, and is most assuredly wrong, but it's a climate model.

Moreover, attributing to clouds a cooling effect when you yourself pointed out that it isn't that simple, particularly at night, should give you an understanding that the two laughable goofs authorizing that "study" didn't even begin to understand the complexity of the goings-on.

As to "hit piece"... it's RealClearScience, a sidekick of RealClearPolitics, an ultra-conservative enterprise, but one with some standards. You should have clicked on the link to find several links to other articles debunking Kauppinen and Malmi's paper. That's what links are for, aren't they?

 

[SSDD]

That "paper" by KAUPPINEN and MALMI made it to #6 on RealClearScience's list of "The Biggest Junk Science of 2019"

6. Paper Claims to Singlehandedly Debunk Human-Caused Climate Change. When two authors claim to "prove" that the conclusion of rigorously gathered climate science is wrong in one fell swoop, there's good reason to be skeptical. When they do so in a paper that isn't peer-reviewed, there's more reason to be skeptical. When you actually read their paper, you realize that your skepticism was entirely warranted.

In a six-page paper published to arXiv earlier this year with scant references, J. Kauppinen and P. Malmi argued that low-altitude cloud cover accounts for all of anthropogenic climate change. The elevation of clouds does significantly affect global temperatures, but it is a complex relationship that scientists are still striving to completely understand.

Kauppinen and Malmi's paper was heavily criticized for not referencing any data, ignoring contradictory data, attacking climate models while creating and touting a flawed one, and incorrectly claiming that carbon dioxide travels from the oceans to the atmosphere, when the opposite is true.​

It got beat, no kidding, by...

5. Media Touts Terrible Study to Claim That Phone Use Is Causing People to Grow Horns.

I mean, how much worse can it get?

How about showing us some of this peer reviewed, consensus science, supported by empirical evidence which contradicts the paper.

By the way...failing climate models are only evidence that climate science is poor at modeling....modeling is fine so long as the results are consistent with observations and measurements...a long standing problem for climate science modelers.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Does IPCC track cloud coverage? If a .00001% change in CO2 can end all life on Earth, are there any similar studies for H2O? If not, why not?