Just what I've been saying all along, the human contribution to climate change is so small that its barely registrable.
Study: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf
Study: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf
Finnish Climate Study Finds No Evidence For Man-Made Climate Change
- Thread starter Phil C. McNasty
- Start date
Nonsense ! We're going to save the planet. All you have to do is give us all your money and then kill yourself. Voila. Planet saved !!!!
The paper you refer to has not been peer reviewed, not "published", it's reasoning sparse, unexplained and according to those scientists that have read it... it is fundamentally flawed.
https://climatefeedback.org/claimre...ral-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/
"
This text may look like a scientific article to a lay-person, but I would not accept it as a bachelor thesis. It does not cite its data sources, it does not discuss the uncertainties in the data, nor does it discuss that other cloud data sets find the opposite trend.
If the blogs that covered this as a new study had contacted independent scientists for insight, instead of accepting this short document as revolutionary science, they would have found that it does not have any scientific credibility.
Flawed Reasoning: The authors' argument claims a correlation between cloud cover/relative humidity and global temperature proves that the former caused the latter without investigating whether they have the relationship backwards.
Inadequate support: The source of their claimed global cloud dataset is not given, and no research on their proposed mechanism for climate change is cited.
Fails to provide correct physical explanation: The manuscript incorrectly claims that the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide is caused by release from ocean waters. It also provides no explanation for the claim that an increase in relative humidity causes global cooling."
https://climatefeedback.org/claimre...ral-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/
"
This text may look like a scientific article to a lay-person, but I would not accept it as a bachelor thesis. It does not cite its data sources, it does not discuss the uncertainties in the data, nor does it discuss that other cloud data sets find the opposite trend.
If the blogs that covered this as a new study had contacted independent scientists for insight, instead of accepting this short document as revolutionary science, they would have found that it does not have any scientific credibility.
Flawed Reasoning: The authors' argument claims a correlation between cloud cover/relative humidity and global temperature proves that the former caused the latter without investigating whether they have the relationship backwards.
Inadequate support: The source of their claimed global cloud dataset is not given, and no research on their proposed mechanism for climate change is cited.
Fails to provide correct physical explanation: The manuscript incorrectly claims that the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide is caused by release from ocean waters. It also provides no explanation for the claim that an increase in relative humidity causes global cooling."
Backfire Effect . https://www.climaterealityproject.o...nce-behind-climate-crisis-and-what-you-can-do
In one of the experiments, researchers showed participants a mock news article that falsely stated there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Researchers then showed the participants a second article that corrected the misconception and confirmed that weapons of mass destruction had not been found. Then, participants stated if they agreed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
The results were surprising, and had an unexpected twist.
The participants who opposed the war and believed Iraq never had weapons of mass destruction believed the second article, while participants who supported the war were convinced by the mock article.
But there’s more: the participants who supported the war were more convinced that there were weapons of mass destruction after they saw the article correcting the mock article.
In one of the experiments, researchers showed participants a mock news article that falsely stated there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Researchers then showed the participants a second article that corrected the misconception and confirmed that weapons of mass destruction had not been found. Then, participants stated if they agreed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
The results were surprising, and had an unexpected twist.
The participants who opposed the war and believed Iraq never had weapons of mass destruction believed the second article, while participants who supported the war were convinced by the mock article.
But there’s more: the participants who supported the war were more convinced that there were weapons of mass destruction after they saw the article correcting the mock article.
Stupid study, Phil.
Global temp has risen 1ºC over the last century, not 0.1ºC.
However your authors are not saying the climate isn't changing, only that the IPCC overstated what was causing the change.
Justifying inaction by this still-unproven report would be like standing in a busy road saying you needn't move, because although someone said you'd be hit by a truck, you have now 'proved' all those cars are the real danger.
God are you daft. Read the study again. They are claiming the human contribution is 0.1°C of the total increase the past century.
Hope everyone's keeping up; gotta track those wee little decimal points. First Frank said
Which is exact opposite of what the OP told us this study 'proved'.
Stay tuned for more rollicking reversals and fun galore.
To which K D replied
But in reply to him, PhilC admitted
… which certainly appears to mean the human contribution of 1º accounted for the entire increase of 1º.
Which is exact opposite of what the OP told us this study 'proved'.
Stay tuned for more rollicking reversals and fun galore.
Global warming is a scam for governments to come up with new taxes. I don't believe humans are responsible for "global warming/climate change" or whatever it's called this week.There is over whelming proof the planet was alot hotter in the past than it is now. 100 years is a pretty small scale to use for a planet that is 3-4 billion years old.
You can find flaws in every study that has been written. People read what they want to believe and call the rest BS.
Here is an article that proves the arctic was once tropical.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-north-pole-once-was-tropical/
You can find flaws in every study that has been written. People read what they want to believe and call the rest BS.
Here is an article that proves the arctic was once tropical.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-north-pole-once-was-tropical/
Thanks for the article; I learned the Arctic was once tropical in grade school. Didn't you?
Billions of years is way beyond human scale, even a century is longer than most will live, and lots of us alive now — including whole labs full of scientists, not just your gardening neighbours — can tell you the years are noticeably warmer and stormier than when they were kids. We should use a human scale when talking to humans about humans. Five centuries on, no one may remember this Climate Change, but that'll mean nothing to our grandkids who starved and were killed in riots, tempests and plagues.
You might look up the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age (not to mention the Last Ice Age — the only one humans saw) They were catastrophic enough, and back then we weren't even using fossil fuels, just 10% organic ones. If we could get'em. The Deforestation of Europe is interesting too.
You dont read very well, the study says of the 1.0 Celsius increase in global temps over the last century or so, only 0.01°C of that 1.0°C is due to human CO2 contributions. That means the remaining 0.99°C increase is due to natural warming (like the Sun, or other natural contributing factors)
Hey, I quoted you and the others. Precisely. Not my fault, if you didn't say back then, what you now claim you really meant to say.
Besides, how are we to know you won't show up a bit later, to say this latest Phil C McNastiness isn't just as 'inoperative' as the previous?
Of course on the truly significant matter of climate change: Thanks for repeating that it's real, and that in the short time since we started observing that the increase already amounts to 1º. Like the frog in the cooking pot, we've all noticed the environment get wilder and less comfortable already.
Good to have one less head in the sand nay-sayer denying the obvious among us. Human caused or your "natural warming", it won't be any easier to live with.
Damn right, Bazooka, damn right. Just listen to the leftist snowflakes on this site who agree with every hair-brained "progressive" notion and scheme that comes along. Dumb thoughtless asses. Most of them have thousands of posts here, gazing at their navels on an escort review site. Their next fucks will be their first. In a previous post, they admitted that they are young kids.
Tucker Carlson dedicated a segment of his Fox News show to a debunked document that claimed clouds are responsible for climate change instead of humans and that had been previously hyped by far-right, conspiracy-pushing outlets including Infowars and Zero Hedge. Carlson and his guest Marc Morano, an industry-paid climate denier, both made false and absurd statements about climate science while discussing it.
The six-page document in question is deeply flawed in a number of ways. Right-wing and climate-denier sites have wrongly called it a scientific "study," even though it did not go through a peer-review process. After it was released, six credentialed climate scientists reviewed the document for the fact-checking website Climate Feedback and all of them identified substantial flaws in the paper and determined that it was not reliable. Climate Feedback summarized their assessments this way: "This document claims to overturn decades of scientific findings but provides neither the source of the data it uses nor the physics responsible for the proposed relationship between clouds and global temperature."
https://www.mediamatters.org/video/...unked-document-that-blames-global-warm/224217
Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming:
https://climatefeedback.org/claimre...ral-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/
Bahahahaha, the right wing dummies buy non-pear reviewed articles. Wonder whether they go and buy all those counterfeit drugs created by online Scientists that have never done any proper testing and gone through the regular protocols and procedures for Final Approval that is expected from the Pharma industries. But sleazy eyed Tucker Carlson will always be their hero!!!
The six-page document in question is deeply flawed in a number of ways. Right-wing and climate-denier sites have wrongly called it a scientific "study," even though it did not go through a peer-review process. After it was released, six credentialed climate scientists reviewed the document for the fact-checking website Climate Feedback and all of them identified substantial flaws in the paper and determined that it was not reliable. Climate Feedback summarized their assessments this way: "This document claims to overturn decades of scientific findings but provides neither the source of the data it uses nor the physics responsible for the proposed relationship between clouds and global temperature."
https://www.mediamatters.org/video/...unked-document-that-blames-global-warm/224217
Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming:
https://climatefeedback.org/claimre...ral-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/
Bahahahaha, the right wing dummies buy non-pear reviewed articles. Wonder whether they go and buy all those counterfeit drugs created by online Scientists that have never done any proper testing and gone through the regular protocols and procedures for Final Approval that is expected from the Pharma industries. But sleazy eyed Tucker Carlson will always be their hero!!!
