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

[Ponderer]

Some scientists say (claim) that CO2 emissions is the main reason for global warming.
Some scientists say (claim) that CO2 emissions is not the reason for global warming.
What does science (as to scientists) say.

 

[rietrot]

Some scientists say (claim) that CO2 emissions is the main reason for global warming.
Some scientists say (claim) that CO2 emissions is not the reason for global warming.
What does science (as to scientists) say.

Just no.

 

[flippakitten]

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

I demanded proof of corroboration.

Read first two paragraphs of the article again, slowly, take all the time you need.

The author states the Japanese study furthered the Finnish study, which is kind of impossible considering the Japanese study was released a day after the Finnish study.

Again, those studies are completely independent and I would actually be very interested in the "No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic climate change" study if it was complete.

 

[satanboy]

This is MASSIVE!

That's what she said.

 

[pinball wizard]

What does science (as to scientists) say.

As with most of this, you can manipulate (find) science to support pretty much whatever you want.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

I demanded proof of corroboration.

The corroboration is in the discovery that the amount of radiation the planet receives from space impacts weather patterns, which in turn leads to a decrease in average temperatures over a long period of time. The nature article corroborates this aspect of the claim, like the article in the OP claims.

What exactly remains to be proven?

The author states the Japanese study furthered the Finnish study, which is kind of impossible considering the Japanese study was released a day after the Finnish study.

If two sources independently come to the same conclusions, they corroborate one another.

Again, those studies are completely independent and I would actually be very interested in the "No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic climate change" study if it was complete.

Since all climate change science is based upon preditctive models, it is trivially true that there is no such thing as experimental evidence for climate change. It will remain that way until someone finds the keys god left lying around when he made the Universe so that we can construct a couple of planets to play with experimentally.

 

[AlmightyBender]

but you can't argue with the overwhelming consensus.

Yes you can if you also believe that that consensus is a conspiracy to perpetrate a giant lie about climate change, which these guys do. Given this, no evidence you provide will ever be considered or accepted. Thus any engagement just becomes circular.

That there are 1000 scientists that agree that the climate change we are seeing right now is man made for every 1 scientist that disagrees is easily dismissed by them for this reason.

 

[Ponderer]

Yes you can if you also believe that that consensus is a conspiracy to perpetrate a giant lie about climate change, which these guys do. Given this, no evidence you provide will ever be considered or accepted. Thus any engagement just becomes circular.

That there are 1000 scientists that agree that the climate change we are seeing right now is man made for every 1 scientist that disagrees is easily dismissed by them for this reason.

You are confusing science with democracy - there is no "democratic element" to science.

 

[rietrot]

Yes you can if you also believe that that consensus is a conspiracy to perpetrate a giant lie about climate change, which these guys do. Given this, no evidence you provide will ever be considered or accepted. Thus any engagement just becomes circular.

That there are 1000 scientists that agree that the climate change we are seeing right now is man made for every 1 scientist that disagrees is easily dismissed by them for this reason.

Do we not historical precedence for the concensus being wrong?
Does science itself not claim it is a work in progress.

This concensus nonsense is pretending we have all the answers and that we can't be wrong. It is very anti-science.

 

[flippakitten]

The corroboration is in the discovery that the amount of radiation the planet receives from space impacts weather patterns, which in turn leads to a decrease in average temperatures over a long period of time. The nature article corroborates this aspect of the claim, like the article in the OP claims.

What exactly remains to be proven?

You could start with proving "No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic climate change".
While that's a very interesting topic and worthy of an actual study, for the moment it is purely the ramblings of two scientists pushing their own theories.

There is no evidence those two studies corroborate each other apart from some dude on the internet thinks they do.

If two sources independently come to the same conclusions, they corroborate one another.

It does when you claim the one study furthered the other when the topics are completely unrelated

(I will address your last point in a new post, this is becoming "a wall of text")

 

[Aquila ka Hecate]

You are confusing science with democracy - there is no "democratic element" to science.

A consensus of numbskulls voting for a known idiot, such as Trump, is a far cry from a consensus of intelligent people with years of training and research.

 

[flippakitten]

Since all climate change science is based upon preditctive models, it is trivially true that there is no such thing as experimental evidence for climate change. It will remain that way until someone finds the keys god left lying around when he made the Universe so that we can construct a couple of planets to play with experimentally.

100% agreed.

That's one of the things I don't like about the study on arxiv, there's very little substantive evidence that the models are wrong, just a few simple equations and someone claiming it's proof.

 

[AlmightyBender]

You are confusing science with democracy - there is no "democratic element" to science.

Agree, democracy has zero to do with the scientific method. Though you are confusing democracy with sample size. This wasn't a vote. These are thousands and thousands of independent studies and people who have reached the same conclusion without relying on each other's work but instead by looking at the evidence.

But prove my point by expressing the view that the majority are in collaboration with each other. Go ahead, it is Friday after all.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

You could start with proving "No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic climate change".

See my last post.

While that's a very interesting topic and worthy of an actual study, for the moment it is purely the ramblings of two scientists pushing their own theories.

I see, and in what way does their work fail to satisfy the conditions to be an "actual study"?

There is no evidence those two studies corroborate each other apart from some dude on the internet thinks they do.

The fact that they make the same claims about the way cloud cover impacts the climate is how they corroborate each other, and it's not merely the opinion of some dude on the internet that makes it so.

It does when you claim the one study furthered the other when the topics are completely unrelated

Your claim that they are unrelated doesn't pass muster.

 

[Gordon_R]

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.


And you just excluded flippakitten from the conversation. Neat.

WTF, @flippakitten and I agree on almost everything in this thread AFAIK.

Dispelling all of the half-truths in the OP would be exhausting, and not worth the effort. Its like doing someone else's homework for them...

Old saying: "Falsehoods can get halfway around the earth, before the truth has got its boots on".

 

[Gingerbeardman]

100% agreed.

That's one of the things I don't like about the study on arxiv, there's very little substantive evidence that the models are wrong, just a few simple equations and someone claiming it's proof.

What they have done in that paper very simply is figure out a way to correlate average humidity to cloud cover, and then used those stats to make a predictive model of what the global temperatures would be given the cloud cover, and then went back and compared their predictions to the measurements that were made over whatever period it was.

Stating that there is zero attempt to work this into the current models is the substantive evidence that the current models are wrong; if their claim is false, you ought to be able to show models where this aspect of climate modelling is actually taken into account.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

WTF, @flippakitten and I agree on almost everything in this thread AFAIK.

Dispelling all of the half-truths in the OP would be exhausting, and not worth the effort. Its like doing someone else's homework for them...

Old saying: "Falsehoods can get halfway around the earth, before the truth has got its boots on".

Lol, you both made low-effort contributions to attack something you didn't even bother to try to understand.

 

[Ponderer]

I find it (mildly) amusing that many people accept it as a (scientifically proven) fact that CO2 emissions is the reason for global warming.

 

[flippakitten]

Lol, you both made low-effort contributions to attack something you didn't even bother to try to understand.

I'm sorry I find an unpublished half baked study not enough evidence to prove man has almost no effect on climate change.

Anyway, regarding clouds cause warming, that's very very very old news.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0734.1

 

[rambo919]

A consensus of numbskulls voting for a known idiot, such as Trump, is a far cry from a consensus of intelligent peoplpe with years of training and research.

So (intellectual) might makes right?

The most intelligent people can also on occasion be the largest of idiots when you allow them to form bubbles....