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

[Gordon_R]

I'm starting my own paper. Global warming is caused by hot water geysers. There is a direct correlation between the number of geysers installed in the last 150 years and the warming of our oceans and atmosphere.

I vaguely remember some research correlating short mini-skirts in the 1960s with climate change...

 

[Gordon_R]

Reality check: Plenty of highly significant discoveries were ignored/ridiculed when they were first announced.

Here's one of my favourites: https://phys.org/news/2016-10-re-examination-paul-kammerer-scientific-fraud.html

Another pseudo-science sounding content aggregator website...

Phys.org is a science, research and technology news aggregator where much of the content is republished directly from press releases and news agencies-in a practice known as churnalism.

Edit: Another honourable mention: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_Harlen_Bretz#The_Spokane_floods:_an_outrageous_hypothesis

Interesting story, of which I am well aware. See my comment about Plate Tectonics.

Good luck equating the cause of a local geological phenomenon uncovered in the US in the 1920s, with global worldwide modern fields of study...

 

[Sideshow Bob]

Small aside: I'm sure you know that Copernicus was a Catholic cleric.

I wonder how he managed to be catholic despite being born in an arab family and surrounded by buddhists? It must have been difficult.

 

[Arthur]

I wonder how he managed to be catholic despite being born in an arab family and surrounded by buddhists? It must have been difficult.

You have the wrong man. They were Poles, for generations. A brother was also a priest, and a sister a nun. Devout Catholics, for generations.

Nicolaus Copernicus was born on 19 February 1473 in the city of Toruń (Thorn), in the province of Royal Prussia, in the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland.[9][10] His father was a merchant from Kraków and his mother was the daughter of a wealthy Toruń merchant.[11] Nicolaus was the youngest of four children. His brother Andreas (Andrew) became an Augustinian canon at Frombork (Frauenburg).[11] His sister Barbara, named after her mother, became a Benedictine nun and, in her final years, prioress of a convent in Chełmno (Kulm); she died after 1517.[11] His sister Katharina married the businessman and Toruń city councilor Barthel Gertner and left five children, whom Copernicus looked after to the end of his life. Devout Catholics all, for generations.

... Copernicus' father's family can be traced to a village in Silesia near Nysa (Neiße). The village's name has been variously spelled Kopernik,[f] Copernik, Copernic, Kopernic, Coprirnik, and today Koperniki.[14] In the 14th century, members of the family began moving to various other Silesian cities, to the Polish capital, Kraków (1367), and to Toruń (1400).[14] The father, Mikołaj the Elder, likely the son of Jan, came from the Kraków line.

... Nicolaus' mother, Barbara Watzenrode, was the daughter of a wealthy Toruń patrician and city councillor, Lucas Watzenrode the Elder (deceased 1462), and Katarzyna (widow of Jan Peckau), mentioned in other sources as Katarzyna Rüdiger gente Modlibóg (deceased 1476).[11] The Modlibógs were a prominent Polish family who had been well known in Poland's history since 1271

Now back to topic.

 

[Sl8er]

Just for the record, here's Gordon's definition of a crackpot:
(Mind you, a crackpot who has managed to get away with publishing and "science-ing" about this "conspiracy" stuff for more than 45 years -kudos to him! If you take nothing away from this, at least acknowledge his masterful "publishing-apparent-BS-while-remaining-under-the-radar-and-not-being-fired" trick! )



Published work by Dr. Brian Tinsley:

Parameterization of Aerosol Scavenging due to Atmospheric Ionization under Varying Relative Humidity, Liang Zhang and B. A. Tinsley, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 122, 5330-5350, doi:10.1002/2016JD026255, 2017. 2017 - Publication

The Zonal-Mean and Regional Tropospheric Pressure Responses to Changes in Ionospheric Potential, L. Zhou, B. Tinsley, L. Wang, and G. Burns, J. Atmos. Solar Terr. Phys., doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2017.07.010, 2017. 2017 - Publication

Parameterization of In-Cloud Aerosol Scavenging due to Atmospheric Ionization Part 2: Effects of Varying Particle Density, Liang Zhang and B. A. Tinsley, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., submitted. 2017 - Publication

Foreword: Special Issue on “Effects of the Solar Wind and Interplanetary Disturbances on the Earth’s Atmosphere and Climate, E. Rozanov, K. Georgeiva, I. Mironova, B. Tinsley and A. Aylward, J. Atmos. Solar Terr. Phys., 149, 146-150,doi.1016/j.jastp.2016.08.012, 2017. 2017 - Publication

Atmospheric Global Circuit Variations from Vostok and Concordia Electric Field Measurements, G. B. Burns, A. V. Frank-Kamenetsky, B. A. Tinsley, W. J. R. French, P. Grigioni, G. Camporeale and E. A. Bering, J. Atmos. Sci., 74, 783-800, doi:10.1175/JAS-D-16-0159.1, 2017. 2017 - Publication

Correlations of Global Sea Surface Temperature with the Solar Wind Speed, L. Zhou, B. A. Tinsley, H. Chu, Z. Xiao, J. Atmos. Solar Terr. Phys., 149, 232-239,doi.1016/j.jastp.2016.02.010, 2016. 2016 - Publication

Parameterization of Aerosol Scavenging due to Atmospheric Ionization, B. A. Tinsley and L. Zhou, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 120, doi:10.1002/2014JD023016, 2015. 2015 - Publication

Solar Wind – Atmospheric Electricity – Cloud Microphysics Connections to Weather and Climate, M. M. Lam and B. A. Tinsley, J. Atmos. Solar Terr. Phys., 149, 277-290, doi:/10.1016/j.jastp.2015.10.019 2015. 2015 - Publication

Effects on Winter Circulation of Short and Long Term Solar Wind Changes, L. Zhou, B. A. Tinsley and J. Huang, Adv. Space Res., 54, 2478-2490, 2014. 2014 - Publication

Comments on “Effect of Electric Charge on Collisions between Cloud Droplets, by N. H. Fletcher”, J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol., 53(5), 1317-1320, 2014. 2014 - Publication

Charge modulation of scavenging in clouds, Extension of Monte-Carlo simulations and initial parameterization, Brian A. Tinsley and Deborah B. Leddon, Journal of Geophysical Research, 118, 8612-8624, doi:10.1002/jgrd.50618, 2013. 2013 - Publication

Global Electric Circuit Modulation of Winter Cyclone Vorticity in Northern High Latitudes, L. Hebert III, B. A. Tinsley and L. Zhou, Adv. Space Res,50, 806-818, doi.10.1016/j.asr.2012.03.02, 2012. 2012 - Publication

Monthly Global Atmospheric Circuit Estimates Derived from Vostok Electric Field Measurements Adjusted for Local Meteorological and Solar Wind Influences, G. B. Burns, B. A. Tinsley, A. V. Frank-Kamenetsky, O. A. Troshichev, W. J. R. French and A. R. Klekociuk, J. Atmos. Sci., 69(6), 2061-2082, 2012. 2012 - Publication

A Working Hypothesis for Connections Between Electrically-induced Changes in Cloud Microphysics and Storm Vorticity, with Possible Effects on Circulation, B. A. Tinsley, Adv. Space Res, 50, 791-805, doi.10.1016/j.asr.2012.04.008, 2012. 2012 - Publication

Time Dependent Charging of Layer Clouds in the Global Electric Circuit, L. Zhou and B. A. Tinsley, Adv. Space Res, 50, 828-842, doi:10.1016/j.asr.2011.12.18, 2012. 2012 - Publication

The Role of Volcanic Aerosols and Relativistic Electrons in Modulating Winter Storm Vorticity, B. A. Tinsley, L. Zhou and W. Liu, Adv. Space Res, 50, 819-827, doi:10.1016/j.asr.2011.12.019, 2012. 2012 - Publication

Charge Modulation of Aerosol Scavenging (CMAS) Causing Storm Invigoration: Possible Effects on Downstream Blocking and European Winter Circulation, Extended Abstract #233, International Conference on Clouds and Precipitation, Leipzig, Germany, July 30 - August 3, 2012 2012 - Publication

The Links Between Atmospheric Vorticity, Radiation Belt Electrons, and the Solar Wind, Irina Mironova, B. A. Tinsley and Limin Zhou, Adv. Space Res, 50, 783-790, doi:10.1016/j.asr.2011.03.043, 2011. 2011 - Publication

Global Circuit Model with Clouds, L. Zhou and B. A. Tinsley, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 67,1143-1155, 2010. 2010 - Publication

Electric Charge Modulation of Aerosol Scavenging in Clouds: Rate Coefficients with Monte-Carlo Simulations of Diffusion, B. A. Tinsley, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D23211, 2010. 2010 - Publication

Scavenging in Weakly Electrified Saturated and Subsaturated Clouds, Treating Aerosol Particles and Droplets as Conducting Spheres, L. Zhou, B. A. Tinsley and A. Plemmons, Journal of Geophysical Research, 114, D18201, doi 10.1029/2008JD11527, 2009. 2009 - Publication

The Terrestrial Cosmic Ray Flux: Its Importance for Climate, M. Ram. M. R.Stolz and B. A. Tinsley, Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Un., 90, (44), 397-398, 2009. 2009 - Publication

Other Climate Change Inputs, B. A. Tinsley, Physics Today, 62, (11), 12, 2009. 2009 - Publication

The Global Atmospheric Electric Circuit and its Effects on Cloud Microphysics, Reports on Progress in Physics, 71, 066801 (31pp.), doi:10.1088/1034-4885/71/6/066801, 2008 2008 - Publication

Atmospheric Circuit Influences on Ground Level Pressure in the Antarctic and Arctic, G. B. Burns, B. A. Tinsley, W. J. R. French, O. A. Troshichev and A. V. Frank-Kamenesky, Journal of Geophysical Research, 113, D15112, 2008. 2008 - Publication

Variations in Global Cloud Cover and the Fair Weather Electric Field, D. R. Kniveton, B. A. Tinsley, G. B. Burns, E. A. Bering, and O. A. Troshichev, Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics, 70, 1633-1642, 2008. 2008 - Publication

Interplanetary Magnetic Field and Atmospheric Electric Circuit Influences on Ground Level Pressure at Vostok,G. B. Burns, B. A. Tinsley, A. V. Frank-Kamenetsky and E. A. Bering, Journal of Geophysical Research, 112, D04103, 2007. 2007 - Publication

The Production of Space Charge in Clouds, L. Zhou and B. A. Tinsley, J. Geophys Res.,112, D11203, doi10.1029/2006JD007998, 2007. 2007 - Publication

The Role of the Global Electric Circuit in Solar and Internal Forcing of Clouds and Climate, B. A. Tinsley, G. B. Burns and L. Zhou, Advances in Space Research, 40, 1126-1139, doi:10.1016/j.asr.2007.01.071, 2007. 2007 - Publication

Changes in Scavenging of Particles by Droplets due to Weak Electrification in Clouds. B. A. Tinsley, L. Zhou and A. Plemmons, Atmospheric Research, 78, 266-295, 2006. 2006 - Publication

Initial results of a Global Circuit Model with Variable Stratospheric and Tropospheric Aerosols, B. A. Tinsley and L. Zhou, Journal of Geophysical Research, 111, D16205, 1-23, 2006. 2006 - Publication

Antarctic Polar Plateau Vertical Electric Field Variations Across Heliocentric Current Sheet Crossings, G. B. Burns, B. A. Tinsley, A. R. Klekocuik, O. A. Troshichev, A. V. Frank-Kamenetsky, M. l. Duldig, E. A. Bering and J. M. Clem, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 68, 639-654, 2006. 2006 - Publication

On the Variability of the Stratospheric Column Resistance in the Global Electric Circuit, B. A. Tinsley, in press, Atmospheric Research, 76, 78-94, 2005. 2005 - Publication

Daily Changes in Global Cloud Cover and Earth Transits of the Heliospheric Current Sheet, D. R. Kniveton and B. A. Tinsley, Journal of Geophysical Research, 109, D11201, 2004. 2004 - Publication

Atmospheric Transparency Changes Associated with Solar Wind-Induced Atmospheric Electricity Variations, V. C. Roldugin and B. A. Tinsley, Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics, 66, 1143-1149, 2004. 2004 - Publication

Scavenging of Condensation Nuclei in Clouds: Dependence of Sign of Electroscavenging Effect on Droplet and CCN Sizes, B. A. Tinsley, 14th Int. Conf. on Clouds and Precipitation, Bologna, Italy, 18-23 July, 2004. 2004 - Publication

Electroscavenging in Clouds with Broad Droplet Size Distributions and Weak Electrification, B. A. Tinsley, R. P. Rohrbaugh, and M. Hei, Atmospheric Research 59-60, 115-135, 2001. 2001 - Publication

Influence of Solar Wind on the Global Electric Circuit, and Inferred effects on Cloud Microphysics, Temperature, and Dynamics in the Troposphere, B. A. Tinsley, Space Science Reviews 94 (1-2), 231-258, 2000. 2000 - Publication

Effects of Image Charges on the Scavenging of Aerosol Particles by Cloud Droplets, and on Droplet Charging and Possible Ice Nucleation Processes, B. A. Tinsley, R. P. Rohrbaugh, M. Hei, and K. V. Beard, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 57, 2118-2134, 2000. 2000 - Publication




A quick (most probably faulty) google on the compared to scientist, Linus Pauling, yielded a grand total of no more than 6 (let's be generous), 10 papers on vitamin C...which seemed to have happened later on in his career -I post under correction, of course, so a more accurate number or time frame would be most welcome.)
Tinsley has been at this for much longer and has, obviously, published many more papers...so they're hardly comparable.

Anyway, I've spent way too much time on this crap, for today....

 

[Geoff.D]

Reality check: Plenty of highly significant discoveries were ignored/ridiculed when they were first announced.

Here's one of my favourites: https://phys.org/news/2016-10-re-examination-paul-kammerer-scientific-fraud.html

Edit: Another honourable mention: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_Harlen_Bretz#The_Spokane_floods:_an_outrageous_hypothesis

Excellent examples of why no one truly interested in Science should ever simply reject a new "finding" simply because it challenges current thinking. It is the very essence of the scientific method which requires that all existing theories and even facts are open to re-evaluation at any time.

The current reality that CC is predominantly driven by man IS what needs to be challenged. The more that challenge these views the better. Either way, Climate Science will be better off at the end of the process. IF the new evidence is tested and found to be valid, we will all know a little bit more about what drives CC.

 

[Geoff.D]

Another pseudo-science sounding content aggregator website...




Interesting story, of which I am well aware. See my comment about Plate Tectonics.

Good luck equating the cause of a local geological phenomenon uncovered in the US in the 1920s, with global worldwide modern fields of study...

That is not the point of the reference. The point is two researchers, tried to explain a local phenomenon by research, data gathering, and creating a hypothesis, which challenged the "current reality" at the time and got the right answer, which has since been shown to be correct. It is not about whether that localised phenomenon effects modern global events at all. Not everything that happens on a small scale will change larger global events.

 

[Geoff.D]

I wonder how he managed to be catholic despite being born in an arab family and surrounded by buddhists? It must have been difficult.

OFF- topic, but who do you think Copernicus was? Who are you talking about?

 

[Swa]

You may be late to the discussion, and must have missed my point. The OP takes two dodgy sources, and conflates them with a genuine Nature story which has nothing to do with the topic at hand, to create veneer of credibility.

This is typical of denialists, throw in just enough facts to make it seem plausible, but leaving huge logic gaps in the argument.

I am neither a skeptic nor bogus, but have learned (over many decades) to poke holes in fallacies, and disregard those with an obvious agenda.

That was all clear to me within seconds of the OP, and my first post reflects this. Everything after that is a tedious attempt to deal with multiple trolls.

The point is that you'll discredit something based on where it's published rather than looking at the sources and reference to determine if the source has some credence. That's the classic response as is calling those who disagree trolls. And stop with this science being self correcting bs. It's not science but rather those that go against the common narrative. Don't conflate them with those that don't. Not that anthropologic climate change is really the common narrative.

The problem with most of these articles (papers in Nature jargon) is not the raw science, but the interpretation placed on them.

This is particularly true of the Science Daily story, where the author has exaggerated the relevance of a highly technical paper about events tens of thousands of years ago, into current climate and weather models.

A good antidote to this can be seen in reviews of the Svensmark Effect: https://cosmosmagazine.com/climate/cosmic-ray-theory-of-global-warming-gets-cold-response

Both say the same thing. One can always say that interpretation can be a problem and so far it has certainly been shown to be with warming proponents. Face it, you are doing the exact same things you call the "denialists" out for.

PS: And the very same people liking your posts are also liking other posts so don't blow your own horn. It reminds of how you look only at one side of the science.

 

[Gordon_R]

Just for the record, here's Gordon's definition of a crackpot:
(Mind you, a crackpot who has managed to get away with publishing and "science-ing" about this "conspiracy" stuff for more than 45 years -kudos to him! If you take nothing away from this, at least acknowledge his masterful "publishing-apparent-BS-while-remaining-under-the-radar-and-not-being-fired" trick! )


Published work by Dr. Brian Tinsley:

[snip]

A quick (most probably faulty) google on the compared to scientist, Linus Pauling, yielded a grand total of no more than 6 (let's be generous), 10 papers on vitamin C...which seemed to have happened later on in his career -I post under correction, of course, so a more accurate number or time frame would be most welcome.)
Tinsley has been at this for much longer and has, obviously, published many more papers...so they're hardly comparable.

Anyway, I've spent way too much time on this crap, for today....

Without going into detail, that's exactly the problem with the system of academic tenure. Once someone becomes a professor at a prestigious institution, they can continue to publish crackpot theories for their whole lifetime, and they will never get fired!

Linus Pauling published a popular book (non-peer reviewed), which was lapped up by the public on the basis of his reputation, though widely discredited by scientists in the field: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_C_and_the_Common_Cold_(book)

 

[Gordon_R]

The point is that you'll discredit something based on where it's published rather than looking at the sources and reference to determine if the source has some credence. That's the classic response as is calling those who disagree trolls. And stop with this science being self correcting bs. It's not science but rather those that go against the common narrative. Don't conflate them with those that don't. Not that anthropologic climate change is really the common narrative.


Both say the same thing. One can always say that interpretation can be a problem and so far it has certainly been shown to be with warming proponents. Face it, you are doing the exact same things you call the "denialists" out for.

PS: And the very same people liking your posts are also liking other posts so don't blow your own horn. It reminds of how you look only at one side of the science.

You keep missing the point. The original Nature paper is highly credible, but it ends with a speculative statement. Then the author goes on the record in a popular science publication with unverifiable statements. Then a website uses this article to discredit the entire climate science.

I am not trying to prove or disprove climate science, that is beyond my scope. My point is that the OP does not justify its title, is false, and should never have been posted in the News forum.

Responding to trolls is a mistake, because I am not a climate scientist, and every minor error I make will be picked up to discredit my original point.

Reference: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45466-8

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Without going into detail, that's exactly the problem with the system of academic tenure. Once someone becomes a professor at a prestigious institution, they can continue to publish crackpot theories for their whole lifetime, and they will never get fired!

Linus Pauling published a popular book (non-peer reviewed), which was lapped up by the public on the basis of his reputation, though widely discredited by scientists in the field: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_C_and_the_Common_Cold_(book)

 

[Sideshow Bob]

You have the wrong man. They were Poles, for generations. A brother was also a priest, and a sister a nun. Devout Catholics, for generations.

Now back to topic.

Perfect. You got it.

 

[Geoff.D]

You keep missing the point. The original Nature paper is highly credible, but it ends with a speculative statement. Then the author goes on the record in a popular science publication with unverifiable statements. Then a website uses this article to discredit the entire climate science.

I am not trying to prove or disprove climate science, that is beyond my scope. My point is that the OP does not justify its title, is false, and should never have been posted in the News forum.

Responding to trolls is a mistake, because I am not a climate scientist, and every minor error I make will be picked up to discredit my original point.

Which original nature paper? This thread is so convoluted that it is getting difficult to tell where we are in the debate --- That is IF there is actually a debate going on ----- It seems to me it is just about name-calling at the moment.

 

[Swa]

You keep missing the point. The original Nature paper is highly credible, but it ends with a speculative statement. Then the author goes on the record in a popular science publication with unverifiable statements. Then a website uses this article to discredit the entire climate science.

I am not trying to prove or disprove climate science, that is beyond my scope. My point is that the OP does not justify its title, is false, and should never have been posted in the News forum.

Responding to trolls is a mistake, because I am not a climate scientist, and every minor error I make will be picked up to discredit my original point.

The two say exactly the same thing. One just outright say what the other implies. What it's discrediting here in anthropologic climate change which never had any credence to start with. You've gone from the the original article not being supported to yeah, it's supported but the conclusion may not be accurate. Nice mental gymnastics and shifting the goalposts.

 

[Gordon_R]

Which original nature paper? This thread is so convoluted that it is getting difficult to tell where we are in the debate --- That is IF there is actually a debate going on ----- It seems to me it is just about name-calling at the moment.

Sorry, didn't know anyone was still trying to follow this thread:
1: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45466-8

Intensified East Asian winter monsoon during the last geomagnetic reversal transition

The strength of Earth’s magnetic dipole field controls galactic cosmic ray (GCR) flux, and GCR-induced cloud formation can affect climate. Here, we provide the first evidence of the GCR-induced cloud effect on the East-Asian monsoon during the last geomagnetic reversal transition. Bicentennial-resolution monsoon records from the Chinese Loess Plateau revealed that the summer monsoon (SM) was affected by millennial-scale climate events that occurred before and after the reversal, and that the winter monsoon (WM) intensified independently of SM variations; dust accumulation rates increased, coinciding with a cooling event in Osaka Bay. The WM intensification event lasted about 5000 years across an SM peak, during which the Earth’s magnetic dipole field weakened to <25% of its present strength and the GCR flux increased by more than 50%. Thus, the WM intensification likely resulted from the increased land–ocean temperature gradient originating with the strong Siberian High that resulted from the umbrella effect of increased low-cloud cover through an increase in GCR flux.

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

When galactic cosmic rays increased during the Earth's last geomagnetic reversal transition 780,000 years ago, the umbrella effect of low-cloud cover led to high atmospheric pressure in Siberia, causing the East Asian winter monsoon to become stronger. This is evidence that galactic cosmic rays influence changes in the Earth's climate. The findings were made by a research team led by Professor Masayuki Hyodo (Research Center for Inland Seas, Kobe University) and published on June 28 in the online edition of Scientific Reports.

3: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019...man-made-climate-change-doesnt-exist-practice

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.

Watch the phrases and degree of certainty change over the three levels: from scientific publication, to commentary, to propaganda.

Edit: If the OP had posted the articles in this order, this thread would have been much shorter. Instead the conclusions were posted first, with a link to the original paper buried in the article.

 

[Geoff.D]

The two say exactly the same thing. One just outright say what the other implies. What it's discrediting here in anthropologic climate change which never had any credence to start with. You've gone from the the original article not being supported to yeah, it's supported but the conclusion may not be accurate. Nice mental gymnastics and shifting the goalposts.

The correct word is "anthropogenic".

 

[Geoff.D]

There are as far as I can determine, 4 reports and one article that has triggered this rather acrimonious thread.
While in hindsight I suppose it makes sense to read the reports in some sort of chronological order, It should not influence what one draws from the reports. The article, however (as is more and more the case) is another matter.
Very few journalists bother to try and understand things before they write something. Maybe it is because of time pressures and because they are after "clicks" and sensationalism. We see it on myBB as well. How many times have many of us criticised articles written by the myBB journalists? Plenty! And this article is no different - clearly bad;y researched, poorly backed up with evidence to support assertions and badly spell-checked.

Does anyone really believe that the word "collaborated" was not just a typo? I had no problem is deciding exactly that because even the sentence indicated it should have been "corroborated". Yet quite a few posts made a meal of this rather obvious mistake. And sure, the journalist is the one who is drawing conclusions and coming up with links that are not claimed by the articles he reports on and quotes. And that Title! In the same league of calling everything "awesome" or "massive".
Yet, we ( myBByr's) get ourselves into a messy mudslinging contest instead of addressing the subject at hand.

 

[Techne]

You keep missing the point. The original Nature paper is highly credible, but it ends with a speculative statement. Then the author goes on the record in a popular science publication with unverifiable statements. Then a website uses this article to discredit the entire climate science.

I am not trying to prove or disprove climate science, that is beyond my scope. My point is that the OP does not justify its title, is false, and should never have been posted in the News forum.

Responding to trolls is a mistake, because I am not a climate scientist, and every minor error I make will be picked up to discredit my original point.

Reference: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45466-8

What is your scope?

 

[Swa]

The correct word is "anthropogenic".

Dictionary seems to indicate both are correct and they're used interchangeably.