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

All I know is the way we live have an effect on the environment. I also know that a majority couldn't care less what effect we have on the environment. So whether what we do effect or does not effect climate changes. Who cares. Who cares whether a country has apartheid laws. Who cares whether a country stone or drown its women. Who cares whether a country is blown to pieces. No-one cares.


Individually we can strife to make a difference, globally it will make very little to no difference at all?
 
According to some "climate scientists" it is a scientifically proven fact.
According to some "climate scientists" it is not a scientifically proven fact.

It depends on what/who you choose to believe.
What does science (as to scientists) say.


Apparently if you disagree with man-made climate change then you're not a climate scientist. That's what climate scientists believe.
 
As an aside, with Macron and enviromaniacs bleating on about the (Amazon) fires in "the earth's lungs", this recent piece in The Atlantic is interesting. I learned some new things to follow up on, especially about atmospheric oxygen.

The Amazon Is Not Earth’s Lungs.


Pretty interesting article. Something that more people should read. Think most people believe that as soon as all trees are gone we're dead.
 
Yes, a very interesting article posted by @Arthur. Helps to put things back into perspective after absorbing (intentionally or not) the overwhelming flood of ACC rhetoric.
 

Amazon fires: how celebrities are spreading disinformation
Many high-profile figures seeking to denounce the fires in the Amazon -- from Madonna and Cristiano Ronaldo to Leonardo DiCaprio and Emmanuel Macron -- have unwittingly ended up misleading millions on social media, either sharing photographs of the region that are years old or images taken in other parts of the world.

Official figures show nearly 73,000 forest fires were recorded in Brazil in the first eight months of the year, the highest number for any year since 2013. Most were in the Amazon.

...


You see, this is why people lose confidence and trust in the mainstream narrative - all these high profile people making claims about the Amazon contributing 20% of our oxygen and being hysterical but their data turns out to be garbage. And somehow anyone who dares ask questions is labelled a denier and they're the ones accused of disseminating fake news...
 
Last edited:
Here is another article worth reading in the same vein as the one posted by @Arthur.
Challenges plenty of the standard CC claims.

A few very meaningful quotes out of the article:

None of the atmospheric scientists are thinking about” how plants could influence rainfall, Swann said, though hints have appeared in the scientific literature for decades. And, she added, “it blows the ecology community’s mind … that the plants over here could actually influence the plants over there.”

Scientists reacted strongly. Early meteorologists, hoping to save their young field’s credibility, rejected the notion that forests influence weather. “Much of the discussion of it, unfortunately, has not been of a purely scientific character,” one wrote in 1888 in Science. Meteorology, and later climate science, became the study of air and water. Plants were relegated to passive-participant status.

Normally, we might assume that “the forests are there because it’s wet, rather than that it’s wet because there are forests,” said Douglas Sheil, an environmental scientist at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences campus outside Oslo. But maybe that’s all backwards. “Could [wet climates] be caused by the forests?” he asked.

Yet the question of how changes in forests could alter the global climate has barely been considered. “For decades, we’ve been looking to see: How well can we do in climate modeling without needing to evoke the influences of vegetation?” Williams said. “Vegetation has kind of been left on the back burner.”

Sheil is skeptical of the results of the Kooperman-led study. He thinks climate models do not represent plant biology and the physics of air movement and rainfall accurately enough to say anything meaningful about the real biological world. He notes, for example, that different climate models given the same input often make different predictions.

Addressing these concerns won’t happen overnight, however. Most models, unlike the CESM, can only be run at a modeling center by the handful of scientists who created them. Those people are busy running simulations for the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, due out in 2022. None of the models being used fully accounts for plants’ influence on climate, Swann said.

Clouds cool the planet by reflecting incoming sunlight, but they also warm the planet because they are made of water vapor, a greenhouse gas. Models differ wildly on how much clouds will contribute to cooling and warming in the future, and thus whether a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide will be problematic but manageable, or catastrophic.

The developments in this new research area demonstrate that future climate scientists will need to master two fields that have, for more than a century, been largely separate, Fung said: atmospheric physics and biology.

There are very few ‘multilingual’ scientists,” Fung said. “When Abby did her thing, it was the coming together of two disciplines.” She added, “That’s how progress is made.”

Very disturbing when one checks on the CVs of the leading lights in the CC group. Most are IT specialists who think they have mastered Statistics and are now all expert enough in Biology and Physics. Yet anyone in the above groups who dares challenge them is immediately declared to be a source of fake science.
 
Where did this "Lungs of the World" originate as well as the so-called 20% of the World's oxygen comes from the Amazon come from?

Here is an article that answers these two questions well enough to show how false both statements are.

and another one:


As for the myth that the Amazon is the "lungs of the Earth" providing "20% of the world's oxygen," it appears to have been invented by a Malthusian Cornell University scientist in 1966, according to the George Mason University environmental philosopher, Mark Sagoff.
"In the 1960s, when 'lungs of the earth' was the big reason to save the rain forest," Sagoff told me yesterday, "I got interested in it as a scientific question. I found no evidence that any tropical rainforest contributes to the net oxygen budget of the world."
 
This is the classic "argument from authority" logical fallacy. The truth is that data can be evaluated by anyone with sufficient statistical ability regardless of it's context, i.e. you don't have to be a climate scientist to question things like manually modified data sets, missing points arbitrarily inserted, why some data would be excluded and not other data etc, etc. Ditto, computer models, i.e. anyone should be able to backtest them to assess their viability.

It's not argument from authority when you accede to the expertise of over 97 % of climate scientists.
 
According to some "climate scientists" it is a scientifically proven fact.
According to some "climate scientists" it is not a scientifically proven fact.

It depends on what/who you choose to believe.
What does science (as to scientists) say.

BTW - what be your scientific credentials?

My scientific credentials are irrelevant because I'm not the one challenging the climate scientists. I'm happy to leave climate science to the true experts. What one has in this thread is textbook Dunning Kruger stuff: a group of individuals with no formal scientific training, who think they've spotted mistakes in the work of the actual climate scientists, most of whom have advanced training in the field, high IQs, and do this thing for a living. It really is a case of not knowing what you don't know. I find it laughable that some posters think that the "mistakes" that they believe they've spotted from doing Google searches, would not already have been asked and answered by the scientists.
 
It is by no means a scientifically proven fact that CO2 emissions is responsible for (the cause of) "global warming".
Its about politics - its about lies, money, control, and ultimately about power.

I.e. a secret conspiracy by the climate scientists to try to take over the world!
 
Don't need no qualifications to know that when its politically driven then it's corrupt.
I'm amazed that people could look at what's happening in the world and still think 'Oh this time they are sincere, really concerned about humanity & not just in it for the money'.
Lol, some people just never get it..

And what are the motives of the climate scientists to be a part of this grand conspiracy? By the way, there's more money in promoting fossil fuel.
 
It's not argument from authority when you accede to the expertise of over 97 % of climate scientists.
Actually, it is exactly that. I don't want to be antagonistic, but this statement demonstrates that you don't understand "argument from authority" as a logical fallacy at all.
 
*yawn*

Any published and peer reviewed papers yet by the denialists experts here?
No...?
OK then.
 

Attachments

  • FLICC_handout.jpg
    FLICC_handout.jpg
    181.4 KB · Views: 13
This ZeroHedge article is pathetic. Out of context citations i.e.

""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." "

... Follow the Science Daily article and it becomes clear that this is specifically in relation to the East Asian winter monsoon. Not world climate as a whole. i.e. That this opposite-umbrella effect makes the monsoon stronger. And it only happens during geomagnetic reversal events!!!

Let me check quick... Is North still North? South still South? Yeah... I thought so.

But then. Nothing unusual to find BS like this on anti-establishment site like ZeroHedge.
The founder goes by the name of Daniel Ivandjiiski a "former hedge-fund trader, who was barred from the securities industry in September 2008 for earning US$780 from an insider trade by FINRA ".

A rabid conspiracy theorist - He posts under the alias of Tyler Durden (The guy played by Brad Pitt in Fight Club). he doesn't even post under his own name and expects to be taken seriously - But then... Some people will take anything they read online that confirms their biases seriously.

Anyway. Feel free to do further research on Daniel Ivandjiiski and ZeroHedge, but if I had to sum it up... "Dis 'n pot snot."
 
Last edited:
Actually, it is exactly that. I don't want to be antagonistic, but this statement demonstrates that you don't understand "argument from authority" as a logical fallacy at all.

What I'm doing is deferring to authority and not the fallacy of argument from authority:

Exception: Be very careful not to confuse "deferring to an authority on the issue" with the appeal to authority fallacy. Remember, a fallacy is an error in reasoning. Dismissing the council of legitimate experts and authorities turns good skepticism into denialism. The appeal to authority is a fallacy in argumentation, but deferring to an authority is a reliable heuristic that we all use virtually every day on issues of relatively little importance. There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong, that’s why the critical thinker accepts facts provisionally. It is not at all unreasonable (or an error in reasoning) to accept information as provisionally true by credible authorities. Of course, the reasonableness is moderated by the claim being made (i.e., how extraordinary, how important) and the authority (how credible, how relevant to the claim).

(https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority)

By your reasoning, you are committing a logical fallacy each time you trust the opinion of an expert in a field in which you have no expertise, for example, when you trust a doctor to diagnose and treat you.
 
My scientific credentials are irrelevant because I'm not the one challenging the climate scientists. I'm happy to leave climate science to the true experts. What one has in this thread is textbook Dunning Kruger stuff: a group of individuals with no formal scientific training, who think they've spotted mistakes in the work of the actual climate scientists, most of whom have advanced training in the field, high IQs, and do this thing for a living. It really is a case of not knowing what you don't know. I find it laughable that some posters think that the "mistakes" that they believe they've spotted from doing Google searches, would not already have been asked and answered by the scientists.
So your scientific credentials are irrelevant, but mine is relevant?
The scientific credentials of those that believe that CO2 emissions is the cause of "global warming" is irrelevant, but it is relevant for those that don't believe it?
 
What I'm doing is deferring to authority and not the fallacy of argument from authority:

(https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority)

By your reasoning, you are committing a logical fallacy each time you trust the opinion of an expert in a field in which you have no expertise, for example, when you trust a doctor to diagnose and treat you.
Sure. But the difference is that a doctor builds his reputation on curing you and the medical profession is built on evidence that is generally apparent and reproducible, whereas climate scientists build their reputation on validating the reason for their own existence and their evidence is seldom reproducible, nor readily apparent. Deferring to authority is perfectly valid if that authority is crystallised from centuries of provable scientific endeavour, not so much when it is claimed from a few decades of hypothesising about largely unmeasurable and unprovable effects.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X