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

If true, it tells me that they were avoiding the peer review process.

Anyone who is confident in their research is not afraid to have subject matter experts review it for a refereed scholarly journal.

In general, anyone who is hesitant to run their research through the normal channels of peer review has something to hide, or is not confident in their science.

Shut the fuck up you obnoxious arsehole. Jasper Kirkby of CERN has published papers on this subject, including Nature, time for you and all the other arseholes to get woke!! I also love the way that people place such stock in peer review, which often as not ends up just becoming pal's review. This is especially true in climate science where a small coterie of warmists rule the roost.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nat...ted&code=0aab45b6-e357-4ac3-9bd7-ec3314bac5ae

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLOUD_experiment
 
Last edited:
The vast amount of data collected backs Global warming and man's factoring in it. 97 percent of climate scientists and over 90 percent of the others are on board with the science and the data. If you choose to, you can find a paper written by outsiders to the science and wave their papers as real. you can find societies that back flat earth theories too. They do not change the science. But they are just as certain as you anti-science people are.
Global warming is real and man is a huge contributor.
However, regardless of what you believe, the only mistake is doing nothing. If all the scientists are correct, we must fight to save the world from disaster. If we do that and they were wrong, we will have to settle for cleaner air, land and water.

Taking a risk with the whole planet because you do not believe in science is just wrong.
 
The vast amount of data collected backs Global warming and man's factoring in it. 97 percent of climate scientists and over 90 percent of the others are on board with the science and the data. If you choose to, you can find a paper written by outsiders to the science and wave their papers as real. you can find societies that back flat earth theories too. They do not change the science. But they are just as certain as you anti-science people are.
Global warming is real and man is a huge contributor.
However, regardless of what you believe, the only mistake is doing nothing. If all the scientists are correct, we must fight to save the world from disaster. If we do that and they were wrong, we will have to settle for cleaner air, land and water.

Taking a risk with the whole planet because you do not believe in science is just wrong.

What Percentage of your scientists are funded by government(s)?
 
Shut the fuck up you obnoxious arsehole. Jasper Kirkby of CERN has published papers on this subject, including Nature, time for you and all the other arseholes to get woke!! I also love the way that people place such stock in peer review, which often as not ends up just becoming pal's review. This is especially true in climate science where a small coterie of warmists rule the roost.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nat...ted&code=0aab45b6-e357-4ac3-9bd7-ec3314bac5ae

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLOUD_experiment

Hahahahahaha you're such a retarded boomer

Imagine not believing in global warming
 
Shut the fuck up you obnoxious arsehole. Jasper Kirkby of CERN has published papers on this subject, including Nature, time for you and all the other arseholes to get woke!! I also love the way that people place such stock in peer review, which often as not ends up just becoming pal's review. This is especially true in climate science where a small coterie of warmists rule the roost.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nat...ted&code=0aab45b6-e357-4ac3-9bd7-ec3314bac5ae

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLOUD_experiment
I'm trying to get this stuff/ but it seems to me peer review is just getting a blessing from the already indoctrinated.

2 pages of disagreement, but you are the only poster to actually discuss the subject mater- shows how that goes
 
I'm trying to get this stuff/ but it seems to me peer review is just getting a blessing from the already indoctrinated.

2 pages of disagreement, but you are the only poster to actually discuss the subject mater- shows how that goes

Well as I said they are all arseholes who think they are so enlightened but in fact just parrot the same old bollox over and over. I have lost count of the number of times from the discredited 97% study, Arsecheese being just the latest.
 
So some obscure writer in Finland claims that it's the clouds causing global warming and not us.

Haw, haw, haw, haw, haw, haw, haw, haw , haw , haw...haw......haw..........haw...............haw....................... haw.


And the desperate Denier Choir breaks into....er...............song.
 
A new scientific study could bust wide open deeply flawed fundamental assumptions underlying controversial climate legislation and initiatives such as the Green New Deal, namely, the degree to which 'climate change' is driven by natural phenomena vs. man-made issues measured as carbon footprint.
Scientists in Finland found "practically no anthropogenic [man-made] climate change" after a series of studies.

“During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C”, the Finnish researchers bluntly state in one among a series of papers.

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'," the just published study has found, a summary of which has been released in the journal Science Daily. The findings are hugely significant given this 'umbrella effect' — an entirely natural occurrence — could be the prime driver of climate warming, and not man-made factors.

The scientists involved in the study are most concerned with the fact that current climate models driving the political side of debate, most notably the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) climate sensitivity scale, fail to incorporate this crucial and potentially central variable of increased cloud cover.

"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."

In their related paper, aptly titled, “No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic [man-made] climate change”, the Finnish scientists find that low cloud cover "practically" controls global temperatures but that “only a small part” of the increased carbon dioxide concentration is anthropogenic, or caused by human activity.


Honest science for a change.

 
If true, it tells me that they were avoiding the peer review process.

Anyone who is confident in their research is not afraid to have subject matter experts review it for a refereed scholarly journal.

In general, anyone who is hesitant to run their research through the normal channels of peer review has something to hide, or is not confident in their science.

It's weird how they formatted their paper to resemble something that would appear in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal - but as far as I can tell it is just a PDF they wrote and put on the web. It has not been published in a peer reviewed academic journal.

The only thing I could find about the lead author indicates he is a materials scientist with a background in optical physics and spectroscopy. I could find no indication he has any training or expertise in climate science, nor that he has published any original research in climate science in any reputable scholarly peer reviewed journal.

http://users.utu.fi/jyrkau/jyrki kauppinen/
 
I love the way climate change is decimating the south, hurricane season is even 2 months early, wow

let's hope everyone gets out alive and finds work anywhere that will take them in!
 
A new scientific study could bust wide open deeply flawed fundamental assumptions underlying controversial climate legislation and initiatives such as the Green New Deal, namely, the degree to which 'climate change' is driven by natural phenomena vs. man-made issues measured as carbon footprint.
Scientists in Finland found "practically no anthropogenic [man-made] climate change" after a series of studies.

“During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C”, the Finnish researchers bluntly state in one among a series of papers.

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'," the just published study has found, a summary of which has been released in the journal Science Daily. The findings are hugely significant given this 'umbrella effect' — an entirely natural occurrence — could be the prime driver of climate warming, and not man-made factors.

The scientists involved in the study are most concerned with the fact that current climate models driving the political side of debate, most notably the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) climate sensitivity scale, fail to incorporate this crucial and potentially central variable of increased cloud cover.

"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."

In their related paper, aptly titled, “No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic [man-made] climate change”, the Finnish scientists find that low cloud cover "practically" controls global temperatures but that “only a small part” of the increased carbon dioxide concentration is anthropogenic, or caused by human activity.

Man made 'climate change' doesn't exist at all. No one has yet DEFINED what 'climate change' actually means.
 
The usual Flat Earther "arguement," they attempt to create a false paradigm, introduce some study from usually a questionable source as if it or dozens like it were going to cancel out the thousands of other studies validating man made climate change. Cook alone surveyed over fourteen thousand research projects to come up with the ninety seven percent, and now this study, or the dozens others like it, are going to negate all of those other studies? Common sense takes precedent

Been there, done that, nothing new

I see you also deny science and mathematics and are a loyal believer in the Church of Global Warming.
 
I do not see any information about what peer-reviewed scientific journal this was published in. What peer reviewed academic journal is this published in?

It is just a PDF with no indication I can find of being accepted by a scholarly academic journal with standards of peer review.

Is this just some paper they wrote themselves, and put out there as a PDF with no scientific peer review?

Science does not require peer review. Science does not use consensus. Only religions and politics do that. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories.
 
Back
Top