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

[Gingerbeardman]

What a joke... The scientists did NOT find "man made climate change doesnt exist practice"
What the entire study was about is "Intensified East Asian winter monsoon during the last geomagnetic reversal transition".

Absolutely no where in the scientific study do they mention man made climate change.

Read carefully:

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 one published in Nature was the one that corroborated the findings of the model that shows that the influence of carbon over the last century or whatever it was sits at 0.01c change.

If you're panicking because humans made a 0.01c change to the average temps, good luck to you.

 

[rietrot]

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.

No your point is... well you don't have any. You just need to defend the science god of climate change, so attack.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

The papers quoted in the OP are about events that happened tens of thousands of years ago. They have nothing to do with recent climate change, and any such assertion is a lie.

Edit: @flippakitten just beat me to it.

So model makes a prediction (A), scientists find empirical/historical support for the model's predictions (B), Gordon_R decides B has nothing to do with A.

 

[rietrot]

The papers quoted in the OP are about events that happened tens of thousands of years ago. They have nothing to do with recent climate change, and any such assertion is a lie.

Edit: @flippakitten just beat me to it.

Lol 10 post in, and with the help of someone else, you finally managed to actually read a bit of what you are criticising.

 

[Gordon_R]

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.


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.

There is your problem. Anyone can post crackpot theories on arxiv.org. It is for pre-publication of papers that have not been peer reviewed.

My attacks are not ad-hominem. Merely pointing out that until something is verified and reproduced it is not science.

P.S. I am posting from my phone, so excuse me if I am not able to open and read all of your sub-links before responding.

@rietrot Not true. It only took a few seconds to see the flaws in the OP.

 

[Gordon_R]

This has been collaborated by a team at Kobe University in Japan

Who writes this stuff? Someone with no grasp of English? Or logic?

 

[Gingerbeardman]

There is your problem. Anyone can post crackpot theories on arxiv.org. It is for pre-publication of papers that have not been peer reviewed.

My attacks are not ad-hominem. Merely pointing out that until something is verified and reproduced it is not science.

Anyone can post crackpot theories, but the fact that the crackpot theory makes predictions that have been confirmed means that you cannot just dismiss it out of hand if you're being a scientist. Refusing to look at the evidence until someone looks at it for you is also not science.

And claiming that something is not science until it is verified and reproduced is an absurdly idealistic statement to make to the point that if everyone actually abided by that standard, science as a discipline wouldn't exist.

 

[rietrot]

Who writes this stuff? Someone with no grasp of English? Or logic?

Okay have you now moved on from attacking the source to being a grammar nazi?

 

[Gordon_R]

Anyone can post crackpot theories, but the fact that the crackpot theory makes predictions that have been confirmed means that you cannot just dismiss it out of hand if you're being a scientist. Refusing to look at the evidence until someone looks at it for you is also not science.

And claiming that something is not science until it is verified and reproduced is an absurdly idealistic statement to make to the point that if everyone actually abided by that standard, science as a discipline wouldn't exist.

Confirmed by who? One person with a computer?

The rest of your argument is not worth responding to. I stand by my very first response, and this thread would be a lot shorter if I hadn't swallowed the bait...

 

[Ponderer]

Who writes this stuff? Someone with no grasp of English? Or logic?

Like you?

 

[flippakitten]

Read carefully:
The one published in Nature was the one that corroborated the findings of the model that shows that the influence of carbon over the last century or whatever it was sits at 0.01c change.

If you're panicking because humans made a 0.01c change to the average temps, good luck to you.

"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.

Yeah, nope, the link takes me to "Winter monsoons became stronger during geomagnetic reversal", which nowhere mentions man made. The the https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf pdf nowhere mentions that study.

I don't see who corroborated anything except the article author.

Maybe you should try reading:
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

[STS]

Like you?

Good morning sock puppet, how is god today?

 

[ArmatageShanks]

Like you?

Also you.

 

[flippakitten]

Also, really, a 3 page PDF to disprove man made climate change, when the last 30 years has been warning about it?

 

[Gordon_R]

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:



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

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



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


Same paper? Yes/No

Oh, and Science Dailly isn't a peer reviewed site either. From Wikipedia:

Science Daily is an American website that aggregates press releases and publishes lightly edited press releases (a practice called churnalism)

So now we have two dodgy sources, and one reliable source which has nothing to do with the theory. And that is proof?

 

[Ponderer]

When people realise that they might have been duped into believing some or other lie, they almost always respond in the same way by attacking someone/something.
Otherwise they would have to admit to themselves that they are not as "clever" as they thought they were.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Confirmed by who? One person with a computer?

Confirmed by Nature. When the Magnetic Poles flip, the Earth becomes more suceptible to solar weather. The changes in the susceptability show a dramatic change in the weather of the Earth, thus giving you a very solid picture of just how much of an influence space weather is on cloud formation on Earth, which in turn is a much greater driver of climate than carbon dioxide.

The fact of the matter is that this aspect of how the environment affects our weather has never properly been looked at before, because no one knew how to do it. In the arxiv paper which you trashed simply because it comes from arxiv, you have 6 relatively concise pages that calculates how much of an effect cloud formation has had on the average weather temperatures. Lo and behold, they found that this new way of looking at the situation shows that amost all of the climate variance is driven by average cloud cover levels, leaving very little room for the CO2 to play a role.

Now, unless you want to argue that space weather doesn't have a big effect on cloud formation, I don't really see why you're raising a stink.

The rest of your argument is not worth responding to. I stand by my very first response, and this thread would be a lot shorter if I hadn't swallowed the bait...

Ostrich head, meet sand.

 

[rietrot]

Maybe you should try reading:
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Since we're bashing sources.

You just posted a link to a something called "science consensus".

Do you understand how stupid that is, or have you ever read anything about the history of science and how the establishment old guard protect their pet theories and even prosecute real scientists like Galileo.

Science isn't now and has never been a democracy were we tally the votes to see what popular theories we should believe in.
Nowhere in the scientific method does it say calculate how popular an idea is.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Oh, and Science Dailly isn't a peer reviewed site either. From Wikipedia:

No one claimed it was.

So now we have two dodgy sources, and one reliable source which has nothing to do with the theory. And that is proof?

So now if Science journalists report on peer-reviewed papers fron Nature and what the implications of the findings are, they're now "dodgy sources". Gotcha.

 

[grok]

When people realise that they might have been duped into believing some or other lie, they almost always respond in the same way by attacking someone/something.
Otherwise they would have to admit to themselves that they are not as "clever" as they thought they were.

Is that why you attack homosexuals?