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

lumeer said:
But don't you think that the same scientists who figured out the age of the Earth, the chemical composition of the Sun, the existence of solar wind, the effect of solar storms on Earth's atmosphere, etc., have already considered what you just wrote, and incorporated it into their climate change theories?
Click to expand...

They can't incorporate it as there is no record. So these things are ignored.

The only way they can incorporate it is by adding a footnote: "The Sun and space weather also could influence Earth temperatures but we have no data so we are not sure about the impact"

This will give less credence to their actual study of CO2 or whatever else so it is just omitted.
 
lumeer said:
But don't you think that the same scientists who figured out the age of the Earth, the chemical composition of the Sun, the existence of solar wind, the effect of solar storms on Earth's atmosphere, etc., have already considered what you just wrote, and incorporated it into their climate change theories?
Click to expand...
You think that science is a field dominated by only one group who studies and figures everything out? Even in climate science there's a multitude of disciplines all studying and trying to show something different. All these things have already been considered which is why we have the OP. It's only the media and politics which would have you believe there's only one accepted theory.
 
Geoff.D said:
So, there is Scientific Consensus on everything already determined about CC?

Here is a quote out of an IPCC report addressing precisely the issue about water vapour, clouds AND the carbon cycle in the oceans and I quote:



That sound as if the CC Scientists are certain of everything yet? NO! bothe aspects are still under continuous review, making the paper in the OP post still valid!

And here is another quote out of an IPCC report:



And another which is my personal favourite at the moment:



:laugh::cool::eek:
Click to expand...

But doesn't this just show that they at least know what they know not? There is much that doctors don't know about the human body, yet they do know a great deal. The fact that climate scientists don't know some things, does not invalidate that which they do know.
 
SaiyanZ said:
They can't incorporate it as there is no record. So these things are ignored.

The only way they can incorporate it is by adding a footnote: "The Sun and space weather also could influence Earth temperatures but we have no data so we are not sure about the impact"

This will give less credence to their actual study of CO2 or whatever else so it is just omitted.
Click to expand...
I don't get how people can see this big effing ball of burning gas which produces 99% of our energy and think there's no way it could have a big impact on global temperatures and weather patterns.
 
SaiyanZ said:
They can't incorporate it as there is no record. So these things are ignored.

The only way they can incorporate it is by adding a footnote: "The Sun and space weather also could influence Earth temperatures but we have no data so we are not sure about the impact"

This will give less credence to their actual study of CO2 or whatever else so it is just omitted.
Click to expand...

But don't you think that if these things have occurred to you, they would also have occurred to the pros who do this work for a living, and that they've been satisfactorily addressed in the climate research?
 
lumeer said:
But doesn't this just show that they at least know what they know not? There is much that doctors don't know about the human body, yet they do know a great deal. The fact that climate scientists don't know some things, does not invalidate that which they do know.
Click to expand...
And what is it they do know? The only thing that can categorically be stated is that the climate changes.
 
lumeer said:
But don't you think that if these things have occurred to you, they would also have occurred to the pros who do this work for a living, and that they've been satisfactorily addressed in the climate research?
Click to expand...


Have you ever seen a research paper that focuses on CO2 levels and climate change which also includes research on something like Sun spots? These are two different fields.

Yeah, they may have thought about it but it's another thing to include it in their research.
 
Swa said:
And what is it they do know? The only thing that can categorically be stated is that the climate changes.
Click to expand...

You say it like it's a fact, but almost all climate scientists say otherwise.
 
That is precisely the issue. Even the so-called "consensus" still maintains that they don't know everything. Along comes a paper delivered by a group of Scientists as tabled in OPs post by a really bad journalist, and then a bunch of Laymen (some of which are well informed, some which are not well informed) proceed to shoot the paper full of holes. And then a few other laymen come along and say "hold on guys" there may be some truth in what they have suggested (even if the title of their paper is rather controversial).

And just call it all out as BS?

That is all I am saying ---- there may be some truth in what they are claiming.
 
Geoff.D said:
That is precisely the issue. Even the so-called "consensus" still maintains that they don't know everything. Along comes a paper delivered by a group of Scientists as tabled in OPs post by a really bad journalist, and then a bunch of Laymen (some of which are well informed, some which are not well informed) proceed to shoot the paper full of holes. And then a few other laymen come along and say "hold on guys" there may be some truth in what they have suggested (even if the title of their paper is rather controversial).

And just call it all out as BS?

That is all I am saying ---- there may be some truth in what they are claiming.
Click to expand...

But if that were the case, don't you think that the very same scientists who have shot down this "bombshell discovery" would have instead hailed it as a new breakthrough?
 
I don't understand why people are happy to accept the word of expert scientists on things like engineering, medicine, biology, quantum physics, chemistry, mathematics, etc., but when it comes to climate science, they suddenly think that the experts don't know what they're doing.
 
lumeer said:
I don't understand why people are happy to accept the word of expert scientists on things like engineering, medicine, biology, quantum physics, chemistry, mathematics, etc., but when it comes to climate science, they suddenly think that the experts don't know what they're doing.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Leave out all the plebs for the moment - ie. Us amateurs. Those "scientists" one of which has been involved in the IPCC process for a number of years himself, they are not nobodies, they are also in the game. They do have "some" credentials.

The paper deserves to be put through the peer review process and their very controversial statements tested.
That is all this is about --- They may have come up with that "surprise" after all. and "we" are not the ones that will undertake that peer- review process, it will be other CC scientists.
 
lumeer said:
But if that were the case, don't you think that the very same scientists who have shot down this "bombshell discovery" would have instead hailed it as a new breakthrough?
Click to expand...

Who is shooting down this Bombshell? That handful of so-called experts who have made some judgements so far? Or the ragged bunch of detractors led by Gordon_R on this forum? No, the paper is very new and by no means has the peer-review process run its course yet.

And please do not include that so-called journalist who reported on the paper in a Journal that has already been rubbished in very dramatic ways on this forum and internationally.
 
Last edited:
lumeer said:
You say it like it's a fact, but almost all climate scientists say otherwise.
Click to expand...
No they don't. You are still going with the media and political propaganda and not the actual debate. It sounds more like you are the one in denial picking one side of the debate and calling that one the side with the credentials. What about the other one then and why aren't they the pro's?

lumeer said:
I don't understand why people are happy to accept the word of expert scientists on things like engineering, medicine, biology, quantum physics, chemistry, mathematics, etc., but when it comes to climate science, they suddenly think that the experts don't know what they're doing.
Click to expand...
Those are disciplines with proven track records vs something that so far only exists in models that fail time and again. Nobody would trust aerodynamic engineering if the safety were just existent in models and sometimes planes fell out of the sky and other times not. Why are you so insistent on viewing all science through the same lens?
 
Swa said:
No they don't. You are still going with the media and political propaganda and not the actual debate. It sounds more like you are the one in denial picking one side of the debate and calling that one the side with the credentials. What about the other one then and why aren't they the pro's?
Click to expand...

I pick the side of the over 90 % of climate scientists who believe that there is man-made climate change.
 
lumeer said:
I pick the side of the over 90 % of climate scientists who believe that there is man-made climate change.
Click to expand...
Yet that isn't the case and is only media and political propaganda.
 
Swa said:
No they don't. You are still going with the media and political propaganda and not the actual debate. It sounds more like you are the one in denial picking one side of the debate and calling that one the side with the credentials. What about the other one then and why aren't they the pro's?


Those are disciplines with proven track records vs something that so far only exists in models that fail time and again. Nobody would trust aerodynamic engineering if the safety were just existent in models and sometimes planes fell out of the sky and other times not. Why are you so insistent on viewing all science through the same lens?
Click to expand...

Bad analogy! We have just had two planes fall out of the sky that were shown to be airworthy in theory -----o_O:eek:
 
Geoff.D said:
Who is shooting down this Bombshell? That handful of so-called experts who have made some judgements so far? Or the ragged bunch of detractors led by Gordon_R on this forum? No, the paper is very new and by no means has the peer-review process run its course yet.

And please do not include that so-called journalist who reported on the paper in a Journal that has already been rubbished in very dramatic ways on this forum and internationally.
Click to expand...

Maybe it really is just a bad paper. I mean, the evidence of one of its main claims is deferred to the yet-to-be-published article [6]. But maybe the authors are innocent parties to all of this. It could be that they uploaded the article to arXiv as a work-in-progress, when opportunistic climate change denialists pounced upon it as new evidence against manmade climate change. But then, considering that they've also published in the journal International Review of Physics, which is not ISI-listed and appears to be a predatory journal (such journals charge a publishing fee and publish practically anything with little or no quality control), I'm not sure they're innocent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X