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

Where's that maggot . He thinks that ' eurotophobia ' is a spelling mistake. Haw, haw.....................haw.

It's spelled correctly, maggot- and it applies to YOU .
 
Cypress said:
Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming

The paper has been criticised for not being peer reviewed and other climate scientists have refuted the conclusions reached by Kauppinen and Malmi. Critics have said that in addition to not being peer reviewed, Malmi and Kauppinen fail to provide correct physical explanation, have not linked to- or sited to enough sources to support their claims and although they denounce climate models, they use one themselves to prove their own points.

http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland...activity-on-climate-change-insignificant.html
https://climatefeedback.org/claimre...vFt7VBkqCDCNgNVp4APVSUdAqKOdjwbVMSFBljE9VZo-c
Click to expand...

Science does not use consensus. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.
 
Into the Night said:
I've been asking for a definition of 'global warming' or 'climate change' for years in many forums. So far no one has been able to define either of them with a single exception, found here.

Oddly enough, no one from the Church of Global Warming has been able to refute that definition.
Click to expand...
Even if there was a definition I've been asking for yrs. for a peer reviewed study with the conclusion that man has caused the undefined 'global warming' or 'climate change'.
So far nothing.
Tipping Point: noun
In Global Warming Settled Science, the point at which Climate will be forced to recreate the Christian "Great Flood" by the end of the century, i.e. oceans will rise 15 cubits, extreme weather will kill all life on the planet, there will be a big rainbow afterwards, etc..
Click to expand...
:laugh:
 
Last edited:
Into the Night said:
I've been asking for a definition of 'global warming' or 'climate change' for years in many forums. So far no one has been able to define either of them .
.
Click to expand...

They could define them, no problem- but just like here nobody likes to feed a pompous troll. Haw, haw.............................haw.
 
moon said:
They could define them, no problem- but just like here nobody likes to feed a pompous troll. Haw, haw.............................haw.
Click to expand...

Then define them. Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' here and now. You seem to claim expertise in this area. Define them. Remember to use your own wording. No links. I won't let you cop out that way.
 
Into the Night said:
Then define them. Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' here and now. You seem to claim expertise in this area. Define them. Remember to use your own wording. No links. I won't let you cop out that way.
Click to expand...

You're fucking insane. Haw, haw..............................haw.
 
Into the Night said:
Then define them. Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' here and now. You seem to claim expertise in this area. Define them. Remember to use your own wording. No links. I won't let you cop out that way.
Click to expand...

Why, as soon as someone does you are going to tell us that "there is no such thing as Science" or one of the other inanities you have previously claimed
 
archives said:
Why, as soon as someone does you are going to tell us that "there is no such thing as Science" or one of the other inanities you have previously claimed
Click to expand...

As long as you haven't voluntarily stopped breathing and emitting CO2, it's proof you don't believe what you say about climate change.
 
archives said:
Why, as soon as someone does you are going to tell us that "there is no such thing as Science" or one of the other inanities you have previously claimed
Click to expand...

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Theories are explanatory arguments. An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion. A falsifiable theory means there is a test available the is specific an produces a specific result to try to break the theory.

Do YOU want to take a crack at defining 'global warming' or 'climate change'?
 
Revealing the impact of cosmic rays on the Earth’s climate

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”.

When galactic cosmic rays increased during the Earth’s last geomagnetic reversal transition 780,000 years ago, the umbrella effect of low-cloud cover led to high atmospheric pressure in Siberia, causing the East Asian winter monsoon to become stronger. This is evidence that galactic cosmic rays influence changes in the Earth’s climate. The findings were made by a research team led by Professor Masayuki Hyodo (Research Center for Inland Seas, Kobe University) and published on June 28 in the online edition of Scientific Reports.

http://www.kobe-u.ac.jp/research_at_kobe_en/NEWS/news/2019_07_03_01.html
 
Cypress said:
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.
Click to expand...
Cypress said:
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/
Click to expand...

Cypress said:
Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming

The paper has been criticised for not being peer reviewed and other climate scientists have refuted the conclusions reached by Kauppinen and Malmi. Critics have said that in addition to not being peer reviewed, Malmi and Kauppinen fail to provide correct physical explanation, have not linked to- or sited to enough sources to support their claims and although they denounce climate models, they use one themselves to prove their own points.

http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland...activity-on-climate-change-insignificant.html
https://climatefeedback.org/claimre...vFt7VBkqCDCNgNVp4APVSUdAqKOdjwbVMSFBljE9VZo-c
Click to expand...

The operations manager for the website that hosted the paper -- arXiv.org -- confirmed to Lead Stories in an email that there was no peer review and the simple posting of the short paper (11 pages) is not the same as being "published."

Did a peer-reviewed and published scientific study in Finland conclude that "man-made climate change doesn't exist in practice"? No, that's not true: A draft of a short research paper that has not been reviewed by scientific peers or published in an accredited scientific journal did make the claim, however, it has been called "deeply flawed" and discredited by other climate change scientists.

The proliferation of questionable "academic journals" that publish papers for a fee is a concern if they do not include a legitimate peer review process. Scientific studies are usually published in peer-reviewed journals relevant to the topic before journalists write about their conclusions. This is basic and important so that the reader has more confidence a research paper is valid.

https://hoax-alert.leadstories.com/...ind-man-made-climate-change-doesnt-exist.html
 
Cypress said:
The operations manager for the website that hosted the paper -- arXiv.org -- confirmed to Lead Stories in an email that there was no peer review and the simple posting of the short paper (11 pages) is not the same as being "published."

Did a peer-reviewed and published scientific study in Finland conclude that "man-made climate change doesn't exist in practice"? No, that's not true: A draft of a short research paper that has not been reviewed by scientific peers or published in an accredited scientific journal did make the claim, however, it has been called "deeply flawed" and discredited by other climate change scientists.

The proliferation of questionable "academic journals" that publish papers for a fee is a concern if they do not include a legitimate peer review process. Scientific studies are usually published in peer-reviewed journals relevant to the topic before journalists write about their conclusions. This is basic and important so that the reader has more confidence a research paper is valid.

https://hoax-alert.leadstories.com/...ind-man-made-climate-change-doesnt-exist.html
Click to expand...

Forget it, you are wasting your time, one will tell you you don't know what you are talking about and include some obscure study by some equally obscure denier, and the other, will just dismiss anything you post cause he has his own "understanding" of Science that you can't comprehend

As I've said, they have both bought into the false paradigm and do their best to promote it as invalidating anything else regardless
 
archives said:
Forget it, you are wasting your time, one will tell you you don't know what you are talking about and include some obscure study by some equally obscure denier, and the other, will just dismiss anything you post cause he has his own "understanding" of Science that you can't comprehend

As I've said, they have both bought into the false paradigm and do their best to promote it as invalidating anything else regardless
Click to expand...

Until you voluntarily stop breathing and emitting the CO2 you claim is causing the problem you say exists, you're a denier. When those that say a problem exists won't do their part to solve it, that tells me there is no problem and they have other motives for supporting such a stupid concept.
 
archives said:
Forget it, you are wasting your time, one will tell you you don't know what you are talking about and include some obscure study by some equally obscure denier, and the other, will just dismiss anything you post cause he has his own "understanding" of Science that you can't comprehend

As I've said, they have both bought into the false paradigm and do their best to promote it as invalidating anything else regardless
Click to expand...

To me, there is always valuable pointing out that the Climate Deniers are unable to use, point to, or leverage a large body of peer-reviewed scientific literature from trained climate science experts with a track record of original research and publication.

They are left to grasp at blogs written by stock market analysts, blogs by mentally deranged "mushroom farmers", and in this case a non-peer reviewed article written by a materials scientist who specializes in optical spectroscopy and has no training or expertise in climate.

The few legitimate experts they can point to, aka Judith Curry, do not deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that human additions of CO2 to the atmosphere should result in global warming - though they question how well the impacts are understood and how severe they will be.
 
archives said:
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
Click to expand...

Please highlight the 'studies that have validated man is the primary driver of climate change'

Also... you aren't seriously going to trot out the debunked 97% nonsense again are you?
 
Cypress said:
To me, there is always valuable pointing out that the Climate Deniers are unable to use, point to, or leverage a large body of peer-reviewed scientific literature from trained climate science experts with a track record of original research and publication.

They are left to grasp at blogs written by stock market analysts, blogs by mentally deranged "mushroom farmers", and in this case a non-peer reviewed article written by a materials scientist who specializes in optical spectroscopy and has no training or expertise in climate.

The few legitimate experts they can point to, aka Judith Curry, do not deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that human additions of CO2 to the atmosphere should result in global warming - though they question how well the impacts are understood and how severe they will be.
Click to expand...

Step (1) call them deniers! Despite no one actually denying climate or changes to it.

Step (2) Appeal really really really hard to authority. Call them 'experts'. Pretend they have track records that are actually good.

Step (3) belittle the actual scientists that debunk the cultist AGW morons with facts rather than emotional nonsense



Yes moron... the question is what is the impact. Why do the cultists continue to find ways to adjust data from the 1870-1950 range down and data is adjusted up for more recent 1950-current time frames? Why do their computer models continue to fail? Why have we seen no significant warming for almost 20 years, despite CO2 continuing to increase?

Bottom line, lemmings like Cypress will believe anything his masters tell him to believe. He is incapable of rational thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top