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

[buka001]

You don't have to be an expert at all. Some things are simply that self-evident.

Do you rely on a climate expert to tell you that the sun is shining when you're already walking outdoors?

It is THAT obvious that this pseudo "consensus" science is far more political and faith-based than it is scientific. But as with any cult, those who are indoctrinated refuse to acknowledge they've been had.

False equivalence. Seeing something with your own eyes is not equitable to making an assessment of the balance of probabilities, using ones experience and training on the subject matter to ascertain or determine the validity of the claim.

Obvious? A subject such as this is not obvious to anyone, other than an expert in the field. Are you a Climate Scientist?

This part is true, however -

But as with any cult, those who are indoctrinated refuse to acknowledge they've been had.

Just ask Xarog about Q

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

False equivalence

oh god, the same cultists LOVE to pray to the logical fallacy god as well

I think you might need rehab, the first step is acceptance

 

[buka001]

oh god, the same cultists LOVE to pray to the logical fallacy god as well

I think you might need rehab, the first step is acceptance

Well if you cannot construct a logical argument, that is your own making.

Your illogical points detract from the message you try to convey.

Logic is the foundation of the scientific method, so it really does not surprise me that you fail to see the importance of logic as you seem to be attracted to pseudoscientific musings.

 

[rietrot]

Well if you cannot construct a logical argument, that is your own making.

Your illogical points detract from the message you try to convey.

Logic is the foundation of the scientific method, so it really does not surprise me that you fail to see the importance of logic as you seem to be attracted to pseudoscientific musings.

You should probably make up your mind. First it was false equivalence and now it's not logical? Choose one.

 

[Ponderer]

False equivalence. Seeing something with your own eyes is not equitable to making an assessment of the balance of probabilities, using ones experience and training on the subject matter to ascertain or determine the validity of the claim.

Obvious? A subject such as this is not obvious to anyone, other than an expert in the field. Are you a Climate Scientist?

This part is true, however - Just ask Xarog about Q

Is it obvious to you that Carbon (CO2) Emissions is the cause of Global Warming?

 

[Geoff.D]

You should probably make up your mind. First it was false equivalence and now it's not logical? Choose one.

Or it is both maybe?

 

[buka001]

You should probably make up your mind. First it was false equivalence and now it's not logical? Choose one.

A false equivalence is a logical fallacy. The incorrect application of logic. Hence illogical.

Damn.

 

[buka001]

Is it obvious to you that Carbon (CO2) Emissions is the cause of Global Warming?

I am no expert on the subject matter. So it is not obvious to me.

It appears most scientists who are experts have, through their independent analysis reached similiar conclusions.

You should analyse their findings and on matters you feel sceptical with, carry out your own research in those specifics (such as a literature review of other experts on the subject) and deliver a rebuttal to that evidence.

 

[rietrot]

A false equivalence is a logical fallacy. The incorrect application of logic. Hence illogical.

Damn.

And now fallacy fallacy.

Damn.

 

[buka001]

And now fallacy fallacy.

Damn.

Just because you never studied science far enough in school or after, don't try to project your ignorance on everyone else.

 

[Gordon_R]

Just because you never studied science far enough in school or after, don't try to project your ignorance on everyone else.

Some of the worst denialists are those who have advanced expertise in unrelated fields, but lack the critical skills to understand that they don't know what they don't know, plus the ability to sprinkle around jargon instead of evidence and logic, to bamboozle those who know even less than they do.

 

[buka001]

Some of the worst denialists are those who have advanced expertise in unrelated fields, but lack the critical skills to understand that they don't know what they don't know, plus the ability to sprinkle around jargon instead of evidence and logic, to bamboozle those who know even less than they do.

Yes, that is where the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority arises.

My doctor said climate change is BS. So it must be, because he is smart enough to do brain surgery.

 

[Geoff.D]

More fake news: https://www.newscientist.com/articl...study-claiming-sun-is-causing-global-warming/

If there is a field of study of Natural Science that is complicated, then it is anything related to the Sun. Way beyond my ability to comprehend and absorb, let alone pass judgement. Yet, here is a paper, backed up 48 references from numerous experts in the field, going back to 1976, that is summarily written off as "Fake News", just because there are a few critics (one of who is already noted for his alarmist views on AGW) who have homed in on one small part of the paper and now claim that the conclusion drawn in the paper is obviously therefore not to be trusted because of a "very basic error".

Could it just be that that natural variation in Solar Irradiance is of the same order of magnitude as that which the AGW brigade are claiming for their views? Well, the answer is a resounding YES!

It is a very relevant development that deserves proper Scientific attention before simply writing it off as another attempt to defocus attention from the Goals of the IPCC. Quite the opposite. It should spur the IPCC into action to ensure their models are checked to see IF the models are factoring in Solar Irradiance trends correctly, and THEN pronounce if this development changes the outcomes.
But of course, that predisposes that the GCM models used by the IPCC take into account Solar Irradiance at the moment and how well that has been done. ( Something I am going to check on in the latest AR 5). I have NOT read everything in AR 5.

Just to put this all into perspective, is there anyone on the forum that wants to deny that the seasonal variations in temperature between Winter and Summer we all experience every single year? Does anyone want to claim now that this is not caused by the relative position of the sun to the various areas of the earth? If you accept that this natural seasonality exists, then who are we ordinary laymen to reject the possibility that the exact same phenomena happening on a large scale spread over thousands of years? How dare anyone then even suggest that the distance between the sun and areas the earth varies all the time and is NOT fixed?

Now it may well be shown when the experts involved finish with their argument about semantics that both are actually talking about the same thing - again, we need to wait for the process started by the New Scientist to run their course.

In the meantime here is the uncomfortable results of the studies by the Space Scientists involved to deal with.

Extracted from the actual paper, NOT from the article posted:

Magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale
Recently discovered long-term oscillations of the solar background magnetic field associated with double dynamo waves generated in inner and outer layers of the Sun indicate that the solar activity is heading in the next three decades (2019–2055) to a Modern grand minimum similar to Maunder one.

On the other hand, a reconstruction of solar total irradiance suggests that since the Maunder minimum there is an increase in the cycle-averaged total solar irradiance (TSI) by a value of about 1–1.5 Wm−2 closely correlated with an increase of the baseline (average) terrestrial temperature.

This trend is anticipated to continue in the next six centuries that can lead to a further natural increase of the terrestrial temperature by more than 2.5 °C by 2600.

Figure 3

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3#ref-CR36

Note the keywords "natural Increase of terrestrial temperature". It is these few words that get the CC caused by AGW brigade to froth at the mouth. Someone dares to say there may be a natural explanation completely out of the hands of the human race that might just be an equally probable explanation for the temperature increase that is being measured by the CC community.

 

[SaiyanZ]

Some of the worst denialists are those who have advanced expertise in unrelated fields, but lack the critical skills to understand that they don't know what they don't know, plus the ability to sprinkle around jargon instead of evidence and logic, to bamboozle those who know even less than they do.

That's pretty much what I pointed out earlier. The climate scientists digging up fossils millions of years old to check CO2 levels are not experts in astronomy. So they come to conclusions based on only what they know and ignore what they don't know.

 

[Gordon_R]

If there is a field of study of Natural Science that is complicated, then it is anything related to the Sun. Way beyond my ability to comprehend and absorb, let alone pass judgement. Yet, here is a paper, backed up 48 references from numerous experts in the field, going back to 1976, that is summarily written off as "Fake News", just because there are a few critics (one of who is already noted for his alarmist views on AGW) who have homed in on one small part of the paper and now claim that the conclusion drawn in the paper is obviously therefore not to be trusted because of a "very basic error".

Could it just be that that natural variation in Solar Irradiance is of the same order of magnitude as that which the AGW brigade are claiming for their views? Well, the answer is a resounding YES!

It is a very relevant development that deserves proper Scientific attention before simply writing it off as another attempt to defocus attention from the Goals of the IPCC. Quite the opposite. It should spur the IPCC into action to ensure their models are checked to see IF the models are factoring in Solar Irradiance trends correctly, and THEN pronounce if this development changes the outcomes.
But of course, that predisposes that the GCM models used by the IPCC take into account Solar Irradiance at the moment and how well that has been done. ( Something I am going to check on in the latest AR 5). I have NOT read everything in AR 5.

Just to put this all into perspective, is there anyone on the forum that wants to deny that the seasonal variations in temperature between Winter and Summer we all experience every single year? Does anyone want to claim now that this is not caused by the relative position of the sun to the various areas of the earth? If you accept that this natural seasonality exists, then who are we ordinary laymen to reject the possibility that the exact same phenomena happening on a large scale spread over thousands of years? How dare anyone then even suggest that the distance between the sun and areas the earth varies all the time and is NOT fixed?

Now it may well be shown when the experts involved finish with their argument about semantics that both are actually talking about the same thing - again, we need to wait for the process started by the New Scientist to run their course.

In the meantime here is the uncomfortable results of the studies by the Space Scientists involved to deal with.

Extracted from the actual paper, NOT from the article posted:




Note the keywords "natural Increase of terrestrial temperature". It is these few words that get the CC caused by AGW brigade to froth at the mouth. Someone dares to say there may be a natural explanation completely out of the hands of the human race that might just be an equally probable explanation for the temperature increase that is being measured by the CC community.

Here we go again!

This discussion shares many similarities with the original post #1 in this thread, so it is worth repeating the following points:
1. The link is posted in an open access journal. This means it is not peer reviewed, and anyone can post (almost) anything they like on the site: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3
2. The article contains a mix of known and proven science, with several unproven and implausible statements.
3. The conclusions are based on logical errors, undermined by the faulty science in #2.

Contrary to your declaration, the output of the sun is one of the best studied and documented parts of climate science. Over many decades various satellites have been measuring (not theorising) the amount of energy entering the earth's atmosphere. The actual measured changes in solar radiance are too small to account for the recent actual measured increases in temperature, so that no such theory can be used to disprove the accepted contribution of greenhouse gases.

Hence my statement of 'fake science', even without reading any of the article.

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance#Variation

 

[SlinkyMike]

Folks we really need to stop feeding the trolls.

I don't believe in deplatforming people with moronic or repugnant views but when you see a poster with an alt-right clown avatar posting news on climate change you just really have to roll your eyes, give them enough rope to hang themselves then move on.

25 pages is giving these kooks way too much airtime.

 

[Geoff.D]

Here we go again!

This discussion shares many similarities with the original post #1 in this thread, so it is worth repeating the following points:
1. The link is posted in an open access journal. This means it is not peer reviewed, and anyone can post (almost) anything they like on the site: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3
2. The article contains a mix of known and proven science, with several unproven and implausible statements.
3. The conclusions are based on logical errors, undermined by the faulty science in #2.

Contrary to your declaration, the output of the sun is one of the best studied and documented parts of climate science. Over many decades various satellites have been measuring (not theorising) the amount of energy entering the earth's atmosphere. The actual measured changes in solar radiance are too small to account for the recent actual measured increases in temperature, so that no such theory can be used to disprove the accepted contribution of greenhouse gases.

Hence my statement of 'fake science', even without reading any of the article.

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance#Variation

I never said the SUN has not been studied to death. Where did I say that ? I said that the study of the SUN and its effects is extremely complicated Science.

I have checked the AR 5 and the figures quoted in the AR 5 for TSI variation are in agreement with those posted in your link above.

The key here is the differences between those generally accepted by CC scientists and those quoted in the article.

AR5:

Also, variations in the astronomical alignment of the Sun and the Earth (Milankovitch cycles) induce cyclical
changes in RF, but this is substantial only at millennial and longer time scales (see Section 5.2.1.1).
Our assessment of the range of RF from TSI changes is 0.0 to 0.10 W m–2 which covers several updated reconstructions using the same 7-year running mean past-to-present minima years (Wang et al., 2005;

Maxima to maxima RF give a higher estimate than minima to minima RF, but the latter is more relevant for changes in solar activity. Given the medium agreement and medium evidence, this RF value has
a medium confidence level (although confidence is higher for the last)

Interesting choice. Select that minima values for use in the IPCC models without really saying why?? 50% probability of being correct? Seems the CC guys are sure of their side of the debate.

Article: 1- 1.5 W m-2

Both appear to use the same source data and refer to the same cycles. Both use the same references as well!

Someone has a decimal point error or it is simply a matter of interpretation of the data? I certainly am not in a position to pass judgement.

The trend lines are the same though. So both analyses are showing the same trends. I wonder who is right?

 

[Geoff.D]

Folks we really need to stop feeding the trolls.

I don't believe in deplatforming people with moronic or repugnant views but when you see a poster with an alt-right clown avatar posting news on climate change you just really have to roll your eyes, give them enough rope to hang themselves then move on.

25 pages is giving these kooks way too much airtime.

You are completely free to choose NOT to subscribe to this thread.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

Well if you cannot construct a logical argument, that is your own making.

Your illogical points detract from the message you try to convey.

Logic is the foundation of the scientific method, so it really does not surprise me that you fail to see the importance of logic as you seem to be attracted to pseudoscientific musings.

LMAO oh the irony is dripping, make it stop, I can only laugh so hard before it becomes a health risk, please!

When you invoke the logical fallacy god:
- YOU make it abundantly clear that YOU are unable to construct a logical argument
- you broadcast to all and sundry that rather than engage with an argument, like an adult, you prefer to point out that someone has transgressed an imaginary rule that others, as incapable as yourself when it comes to debate, conjured out of thin air

But hey, don't let me stop you, continue praying to your false god, I will continue to classify you alongside all the other religious fanatics, it's the most apt metaphor after all

 

[Swa]

Which one showed 51%?

This one?



Come on, man...

Also, they're not climate scientists, which is the claim you disputed.

Who are the climate scientists? That's just it, we don't really know and don't know where the level of support is as I've shown. It's not something that we can determine from published papers. But this doesn't stop these ridiculous claims of "97%" support and consensus. That alone should tell you something is off.

PS: I know you'll probably want to come with "but there's at least 80%..." but 80% or even 90% isn't consensus. 10% of dissent is pretty big amongst a large community and can't just be ignored.