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

submitted by [deleted] from (zerohedge.com)

all 24 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Will we move on or continue to flog this dead horse? Can anyone admit they were wrong anymore?

[–]HibikiBlack 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

That's post modernism for you. You should check out this thread explaining how it infiltrated nearly all institutions /u/d3rr:

https://kiwifarms.net/threads/post-modernism.30518/

Only the hard sciences are fighting back. Good post BTW thanks for sharing.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Only the hard sciences are fighting back.

Good point. Climate scientists are not hard scientists.

They make "climate models" which have little or nothing at all to do with the actual climate.

Models that don't generate accurate predictions are useless.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Good read Hibiki, thanks. I agree this "the science is settled" head in the sand stuff is certainly post modernism. Glad you enjoyed the post.

[–]HeyImSancho 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Let's kill all the sides, by winning for the people. The oligarchy feeds us the 'we must learn to do more with less; while they have more, and more'.

Why not go after the global monopolized ocean vessels? 15 of those ships in one day, emit more pollution than all cars in the world in a given year. The cult of global warming sides with the big boys, and states,'but it's so efficient'...

Those ships are used for bottom line profit rigging; shipping raw materials elsewhere, while shipping finished goods back. Break this, break the profit, and foster local micro, and cottage industries instead.

Yet, the fact remains, there's so much profit tied to those ships, the warmista's will never go for it.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Amen Sancho

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

آمين Sancho.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

"Sponsered by the Anti-Climate lobby"

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Imo this whole global warming thing has been hugely regressive for the environment. We've been arguing about C02 for a decade or two while glyphosate has contaminated everything, parks have been opened for drilling, deforestation continues, lead in Flynt, etc. etc.

[–]sawboss 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Exactly this. The environmental extremists don't care how much damage they do to humanity as long as they control the narrative. Assholes need to suck it up and let nuclear power happen.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah it's been such horseshit. They don't even wanna talk methane or corporate c02 emissions like m7 talks about. They just wanna figure out taxes against the working class and fancy Wall St bullshit, not even solutions.

[–]sawboss 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

taxes against the working class

Because they don't represent the interests of working class individuals. They represent the interests if the wealthy elite.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

yeah naturally its not alone about C02 i agree, imo its strange thats the only thing they talk about, when you look at chemical/nuclear pollution etc, but it is man made pollution...or woman, but mostly man

[–]xaifosal 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Well, firstly, a single scientist can hardly create serious doubt on an issue that has been so heavily worked on by thousands of other scientists that already concluded with an overwhelming majority that human made climate change is real.

Secondly even non scientists can clearly tell by now that there are ever increasingly more extreme weather swings and natural disasters which are clearly a consequences of that climate change.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

  1. Not a single scientist or even team or even University
  2. They aren't denying climate change, rather they are saying humans didn't cause it

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

We caused 10% of the c02 increase, or a change of 0.01°C in the last 100 years.* Maybe not insignificant. It's nice to have an actual estimate.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I used to agree with you. I was dead wrong.

Man made climate change is a hoax to maintain control of the energy resources of the world. We have all been duped.

[–]Snow 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Funded by which group?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I tried to check a bit, but I don't know how. Do I look at who gives money to this Finnish college? Not much comes up for these scientists.

[–]expat 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Old news ? Watch this 10 min video that explains (in laymens terms) "The Cloud Factor": https://vimeo.com/ondemand/thecloudmystery/247769423

even older (just correlating sun activity with earth climate, not specifically the cloud mechanism): The Great Global Warming Swindle (2007) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIRICfZOvpY

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The studies mentioned are new, but yes this cloud cover phenomena seems to have already been known.

[–]CompleteDoubterII 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

For those of you still following this, SkepticalScience has a debunk (or rather links to a debunking) of this: https://skepticalscience.com/2019-SkS-Weekly-Digest_28.html.

But I'm not following this story in particular. If I want to make up my mind on climate change (but given all the other environmental problems with our current way of life, I see no reason to do so, it is clear transition is required), I'll start with the greenhouse effect.

[–]CompleteDoubterII 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Even people on WattsUpWithThat doubt this means anything: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/12/new-paper-no-experimental-evidence-for-the-significant-anthropogenic-climate-change/.

[–]InsultingCow 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A little late to the presses...