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

Bryn said:
I stopped at this point:

zerohedge.png


Can we please avoid such news sources.
Click to expand...
WTF is a newsguard?
 
Cius said:
20 000 years of stability, the whole point of that graph was to show just how drastic the recent change is compared to natural cycles. Look at the slope of the graph for 20K years vs the last 100. As always you people never answer that.

Believe what you want. Climate change is mostly man made and is mostly the result of what we are doing to the atmosphere. The majority of the world's scientists agree with me.
Click to expand...
I just explained the graph jumping around more in recent years for you a few post up. Go and plot data in the same frequency as in the past or use a moving avarerge then you problem will go away.

Everyone wants to be an Internet scientist but they struggle with some basic stats.


That is not the world ending, it is just more data points.
 
Last edited:
rietrot said:
If you managed to read the first paragraph of the bad article, you would realise the claim isn't that climate change is caused by only nature.
Click to expand...

Ok, so tell me who (in the words of the article author) "collaborated" the series of studies?

Apart from the multiple links, it's only the same two studies and then a link to all Jyrki Kauppinen studies.
No one except the author corroborated the evidence.

Sorry but one can't claim "Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice" with one study.
 
The paper by the Finnish authors is an arXiv paper that has not been published in any peer-reviewed journal. Looking at the bibliography in it, the same authors have published in a predatory journal (International Review of Physics). The Japanese paper has nothing to do with the Finnish paper and does not cite either of the Finnish authors whose work has supposedly been confirmed by the Japanese authors.

In conclusion, I'll stick to the mainstream scientific consensus, thank you, but to you boys and girls who enjoy the fringe science, knock yourselves out.
 
Gordon_R said:
1. Because it links to a list of peer reviewed articles.
2. Because it explains the motive of countries such as Saudi Arabia (and South Africa) to deny climate science.
3. Because sources such as Zero Hedge are keen to underplay #1 and support #2.
Click to expand...

And yet an equally strong argument can be made for those self-same entities to support climate science if they are sitting on limited reserves and want to control the narrative (and income stream) on costly alternatives they own/fund. It fits a timeline about generating maximum income from oil while it lasted and then pushing an alternative agenda when their income is about to dry up.
 
Gingerbeardman said:
Saying Newsguard is not biased is like saying you prefer to get your impartial political talking points straight from the DNC.
Click to expand...
No it's not. NewsGuard doesn't flag sites based on its political leanings. They provide clear and substantiated nutrition labels for all sites that they rate.
 
Bryn said:
No it's not. NewsGuard doesn't flag sites based on its political leanings. They provide clear and substantiated nutrition labels for all sites that they rate.
Click to expand...
It doesn't flag sites based on political leanings, you say? And yet in the Zerohedge description it explicitly brings up the fact that Zero Hedge doesn't demonise Russia at every available opportunity...

Is there any site on Newsguard that called BS on the Russiagate tinfoil hat conspiracy theory perpetrated by Clinton and her coterie that did so and didn't get flagged as untrustworthy by Newsguard because of it?
 
lumeer said:
The paper by the Finnish authors is an arXiv paper that has not been published in any peer-reviewed journal. Looking at the bibliography in it, the same authors have published in a predatory journal (International Review of Physics). The Japanese paper has nothing to do with the Finnish paper and does not cite either of the Finnish authors whose work has supposedly been confirmed by the Japanese authors.

In conclusion, I'll stick to the mainstream scientific consensus, thank you, but to you boys and girls who enjoy the fringe science, knock yourselves out.
Click to expand...
Lol so your criticism is that they aren't part of the correct tribe. And you need a consensus of people to help you think.
 
flippakitten said:
Ok, so tell me who (in the words of the article author) "collaborated" the series of studies?

Apart from the multiple links, it's only the same two studies and then a link to all Jyrki Kauppinen studies.
No one except the author corroborated the evidence.

Sorry but one can't claim "Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice" with one study.
Click to expand...
Do you have any idea how academic writing work? Have you at least done a 1st year for any degree?

Collaborate there means the journalist thinks the Japanese guys are coming to the same conclusions.

People don't collaborate studies or whatever you are looking for. Academic papers get cited by other papers, researchers and studies.

Collaboration can also mean they worked together in a more general sense, but it doesn't seem like that's the case.

There is a reference list at the end of the study, ask someone how that works if you want to go deeper into the rabbit hole.
 
rietrot said:
Do you have any idea how academic writing work? Have you at least done a 1st year for any degree?

Collaborate means the journalist thinks the Japanese guys are coming to the same conclusions.

People don't collaborate studies or whatever you are looking for. Academic papers get cited by other papers, researchers and studies.

Collaboration can also mean the worked together in a more general sense, but it doesn't seem like that's the case.

There is a reference list at the end of the study, ask someone how that works if you want to go deeper into the rabbit hole.
Click to expand...

The word you're looking for is corroborate, not collaborate. But carry on relying on arXiv and predatory journal papers to back up your crank theories, whilst accusing others of not understanding academic writing.
 
Cius said:
20 000 years of stability, the whole point of that graph was to show just how drastic the recent change is compared to natural cycles. Look at the slope of the graph for 20K years vs the last 100. As always you people never answer that.
Click to expand...

Strange though, as it's impossible to know historically how quick and sudden changes happened in the Billions of years earth has been around. It's factually correct that the world has been way way way hotter than it currently is. It's also a fact that the earth has been way way way colder than we can even recall. How quick those changes and onsets happened we have no idea.

Taking data available and then trying to plug it to suit a narrative is nothing but crock science. Science should stay out of politicking... It's shows their lack of data and retarded conclusions based on historical facts that suits their narrative.

I recall it being called "Global Warming" not too long ago. People started calling them on their bullshyte claims and the changed it to "Climate Change" Different name, same bullshyte.
 
lumeer said:
The word you're looking for is corroborate, not collaborate. But carry on relying on arXiv and predatory journal papers to back up your crank theories, whilst accusing others of not understanding academic writing.
Click to expand...
Same thing. Meh second language.
 
Aand
rietrot said:
Do you have any idea how academic writing work? Have you at least done a 1st year for any degree?

Collaborate there means the journalist thinks the Japanese guys are coming to the same conclusions.

People don't collaborate studies or whatever you are looking for. Academic papers get cited by other papers, researchers and studies.

Collaboration can also mean they worked together in a more general sense, but it doesn't seem like that's the case.

There is a reference list at the end of the study, ask someone how that works if you want to go deeper into the rabbit hole.
Click to expand...

and they didn't work together or cite or reference each other work,
so what are you on about?
 
rietrot said:
Nobody claimed they did.
Click to expand...

The original article did, you're having a hard time following along aren't you?
Too busy trying to prove you're "cleverer" than everyone else but instead mixing up corroborate, not collaborate.

I can honestly say I am not familiar with all academic literature but I am very familiar with the IEEE citation format used in scientific papers, I use it quite often.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X