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

[rietrot]

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.

Your reply is exactly the problem and explains why there is antiwaxxers and complete climate danielist conspiracy theories, even flat earthers out there. You are feeding it.

This is the internet/information age, people that ought to know better shouldn't just bash a source with an legitimate argument and pretend they just won something. If you have a counter argument you should at least make it or shut up.

 

[Kloofvreter]

Stopped at ZeroHedge, not even sure what this is all about.

 

[rietrot]

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.

BS

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.

Well then use that knowledge. The different formats are mostly concerned with stupid stuff like were to put a comma or a full stop. A reference list is still a reference list.

 

[STS]

Your reply is exactly the problem and explains why there is antiwaxxers and complete climate danielist conspiracy theories, even flat earthers out there. You are feeding it.

This is the internet/information age, people that ought to know better shouldn't just bash a source with an legitimate argument and pretend they just won something. If you have a counter argument you should at least make it or shut up.

Why is he the problem? The problem is that false and inaccurate reports get presented in the first place, and then are cited as sources. I don't even bother sharing links any more because for every link you share, you can share 10 more with differing opinions. It is better to use common sense when examining information.

All the information is there to make a valid decision based on the evidence, but this thread is enough proof that people will believe what they want and then find the evidence to back it up.

It isn't about rationality, it is about what suits their views/attitude

 

[lumeer]

Your reply is exactly the problem and explains why there is antiwaxxers and complete climate danielist conspiracy theories, even flat earthers out there. You are feeding it.

This is the internet/information age, people that ought to know better shouldn't just bash a source with an legitimate argument and pretend they just won something. If you have a counter argument you should at least make it or shut up.

Well, then I'll just keep quiet, because honestly, I have neither the time nor nervous energy to enter into a reasoned scientific discussion with climate change revisionists.

 

[rietrot]

Why is he the problem? The problem is that false and inaccurate reports get presented in the first place, and then are cited as sources. I don't even bother sharing links any more because for every link you share, you can share 10 more with differing opinions. It is better to use common sense when examining information.

All the information is there to make a valid decision based on the evidence, but this thread is enough proof that people will believe what they want and then find the evidence to back it up.

It isn't about rationality, it is about what suits their views/attitude

I disagree with you and I think you are stupid.


There that's a valid argument against anything you just said and anybody who just read what you said and might be unsure will obviously know that I am the superior human and me mocking your assertions, which you didn't back up with a peer reviewed scientific paper from a reputable journal is not consensus science and should be ignored.

 

[Gordon_R]

Your reply is exactly the problem and explains why there is antiwaxxers and complete climate danielist conspiracy theories, even flat earthers out there. You are feeding it.

This is the internet/information age, people that ought to know better shouldn't just bash a source with an legitimate argument and pretend they just won something. If you have a counter argument you should at least make it or shut up.

Well, then I'll just keep quiet, because honestly, I have neither the time nor nervous energy to enter into a reasoned scientific discussion with climate change revisionists.

I made the counter argument many pages ago, but got tired of feeding the trolls.

That sentence is at the heart of the problem. To corroborate means to prove or verify, to collaborate means to hang out and do stuff together. If you can't tell the difference between those two words, there is limited scope for further discussion...

 

[RedViking]

Err..no. It's by no means certain that Jesus existed at all.

Rubbish. History proof.

 

[rietrot]

I made the counter argument many pages ago, but got tired of feeding the trolls.

That sentence is at the heart of the problem. To corroborate means to prove or verify, to collaborate means to hang out and do stuff together. If you can't tell the difference between those two words, there is limited scope for further discussion...

Are you going to run away for the 3rd time? "The sun doesn't influence the earth, that's an unproven theory."

 

[Gingerbeardman]

I made the counter argument many pages ago, but got tired of feeding the trolls.

Really? As far as I can tell, you haven't even addressed the claims being made so far, aside from attacking those who presented the claims.

That sentence is at the heart of the problem. To corroborate means to prove or verify, to collaborate means to hang out and do stuff together. If you can't tell the difference between those two words, there is limited scope for further discussion...

And you just excluded flippakitten from the conversation. Neat.

 

[flippakitten]

BS
Well then use that knowledge. The different formats are mostly concerned with stupid stuff like were to put a comma or a full stop. A reference list is still a reference list.

I recently learned about the Oxford Coma... that's another story though.

Regarding the "BS" part, that article in ZeroHedge is absolute rubbish, a badly put together attempt at justifying their own beliefs.

Scientists in Finland found "practically no anthropogenic [man-made] climate change" after a series of studies. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

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

No it has not been corroborated and they certainly did not collaborate.
The Japanese scientists have not furthered the Finnish researchers work, they don't even mention either of the authors or the paper.

They are completely independent studies.

 

[LazyLion]

Science is hardly ever 100% sure, they always allow for a margin of error and for alternative theories to test the prevailing hypothesis.

But when it comes to climate change and man made influence on climate change there is already an overwhelming consensus that the climate is changing and that it is being driven by human influences. This is (and has been) accepted now by the large majority of scientists working in this field.

Yes, there are small little bleats and farts every now and then by some politically driven nay-sayers, but the body of science knows those little noises exactly for what they are. It doesn't change what the main body has found to be true. You can post your little "bombshell claims" (firecracker farts) but it won't change what is now already unequivocally accepted.

I myself was also a nay sayer about 20 or 30 years ago, but you can't argue with the overwhelming consensus.

People who plant their little flag on tiny little hills that they plan to die on, just get steam rollered over by the truth.

 

[Kloofvreter]

"The sun doesn't influence the earth, that's an unproven theory."

Oh man

 

[flippakitten]

And you just excluded flippakitten from the conversation. Neat.

How so? I'm not the one that got them confused.

 

[pinball wizard]

I myself was also a nay sayer about 20 or 30 years ago, but you can't argue with the overwhelming consensus.

.

For real?

I have never heard anyone say nay in my life.

 

[rietrot]

No it has not been corroborated and they certainly did not collaborate.
The Japanese scientists have not furthered the Finnish researchers work, they don't even mention either of the authors or the paper.

They are completely independent studies.

They do not need to mention each other, Plenty of people work on the same stuff independently and when they come to the same conclusions, it is corroborated.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

How so? I'm not the one that got them confused.

So you were just being obnoxious when you demanded proof of collaboration instead of corroboration? Thought so.

 

[RaptorSA]

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.

Also, this load of horseshit:

"If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice. The major part of the extra CO2 is emitted from oceans [6], according to Henry‘s law. The low clouds practically control the global average temperature. During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1°C because of CO2. The human contribution was about 0.01°C. "

This. Is. A. Load. Of. K@k.
It's literally just bunch of claims/comments being made, nothing with actual value behind it except for some lame graph manipulation about cloud cover that's not even remotely adequate for the claims in the conclusion.

Jissesfok, the fact that we're all actually arguing about this is p0es weak.

 

[Aquila ka Hecate]

Rubbish. History proof.

No, not really.
There's a piece in Josephus which has been just about proven to be an interpolation, and other than that, a couple of references to "Christians" in Roman texts.
Remember, the Romans were bears for record keeping - yet no record of this carpenter from Nazareth being crucified, or doing anything else.
Look into it - I sort of took it for granted that there was historical proof (outside of the Bible - that doesn't count naturally), but when I looked into it for myself, the evidence was very, very poor.

 

[rietrot]

Also, this load of horseshit:

"If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice. The major part of the extra CO2 is emitted from oceans [6], according to Henry‘s law. The low clouds practically control the global average temperature. During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1°C because of CO2. The human contribution was about 0.01°C. "

This. Is. A. Load. Of. K@k.
It's literally just bunch of claims/comments being made, nothing with actual value behind it except for some lame graph manipulation about cloud cover that's not even remotely adequate for the claims in the conclusion.

Jissesfok, the fact that we're all actually arguing about this is p0es weak.

Well now how hard was that. Bravo.


Just because it is a bad study doesn't nessecery make their ideas wrong, but it's a start.