Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"

Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
2,662
#1
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.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019...man-made-climate-change-doesnt-exist-practice

:popcorn:
 

Gordon_R

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
6,962
#2
Last edited:

Gordon_R

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
6,962
#4
Good to know what you think of these fake journals.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45466-8
That's called shifting the goalposts, and muddying the waters.

The OP doesn't link to that article, and the last geomagnetic reversal was tens of thousands of years ago.

From Wikipedia:
Zero Hedge expanded into non-financial analysis, where its editorial has been labelled by The New Yorker as being associated with the alt-right, as well as being anti-establishment, conspiratorial, and showing a pro-Russian-bias. Zero Hedge in-house content is posted under the pseudonym "Tyler Durden"; however, the founder and main editor was identified as Daniel Ivandjiiski.
Yeah, great source of peer reviewed scientific information!

Edit: If you search on any of the phrases used in that article, they only appear in fringe sites, and not a single credible mainstream source has covered that story.
 
Last edited:

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
10,997
#5
That's called shifting the goalposts, and muddying the waters.

The OP doesn't link to that article, and the last geomagnetic reversal was tens of thousands of years ago.
I only found the link by following the links in the article. You just score own goals without even knowing where the goal posts are.
 
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
2,662
#10
You can twist and distort as much as you want, it still doesn't make it scientific.

And BTW, my brother has several papers published in Nature over the last three decades: https://www.google.com/search?q="nature.com+S.H.+Richardson"
TIL publishing peer reviewed papers in Nature is not scientific.

Edit: Just to rub your nose in what a giant twat you are being:

From my OP:

"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.
Science Daily is not Zero Hedge. Science Daily publishes science news.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190703121407.htm

Winter monsoons became stronger during geomagnetic reversal
Revealing the impact of cosmic rays on the Earth's climate
Date: July 3, 2019 Source: Kobe University Summary: 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'.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45466-8

Intensified East Asian winter monsoon during the last geomagnetic reversal transition
Same paper? Yes/No
 

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
1,424
#13
Global warming is a thing, but the claim that the reason for it is because of humans (Carbon emissions) has been disputed for some time.
It is claimed that it has been scientifically proven that humans are the cause of global warming, but that is quite simply a lie.
This study shows just that.

It is remarkable how easy it is to fool people.
 

Gordon_R

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
6,962
#14
Why quote Zero Hedge as your sole source? They quote other links, but don't expect me to read all that crap, or believe any of the conclusions they draw from it.

My point about Nature.com is that there is a huge difference between science, and science journalism. The interpretation placed on a particular result can range from the well informed, to the speculative and sensationalist. The popular sources need to be treated with caution.
 

Jings

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 6, 2012
Messages
35,147
#15

flippakitten

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2015
Messages
1,185
#17
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
2,662
#19
Why quote Zero Hedge as your sole source? They quote other links, but don't expect me to read all that crap, or believe any of the conclusions they draw from it.
Because I read Zero Hedge. Because I like reading Zero Hedge. I do not read Science Daily as a matter of habit.

I'm not going to go around finding alternative sources to perfectly good information just because you don't want cooties.

My point about Nature.com is that there is a huge difference between science, and science journalism. The interpretation placed on a particular result can range from the well informed, to the speculative and sensationalist. The popular sources need to be treated with caution.
Here is the science, also linked to in the OP:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

If you want to hash out the technical details, feel free. But otherwise you are just poisoning the well with ad-hominem attacks against Zero Hedge.
 
Top