Chicken-Little Cortez Caught Out By Science.

[BIAD]

It seems the dancing actress Democrat was wrong again and science found out it wasn't
the cow farts. Orange Ball In The Sky Bad.

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

'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. 

The following is a key bombshell section in one of the studies conducted by Finland's Turku University
team: 

We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute
correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature.

The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction
on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion
for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.

That is why 6 J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI IPCC represents the climate sensitivity
more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the
anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically
no anthropogenic climate change.
The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.

This raises urgent questions and central contradictions regarding current models which politicians
and environmental groups across the globe are using to push radical economic changes on their
countries' populations.

Conclusions from both the Japanese and Finnish studies strongly suggest, for example, that
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's "drastic measures to cut carbon emissions" which would
ultimately require radical legislation changes to "remake the U.S. economy" would not only
potentially bankrupt everyone but simply wouldn't even work, at least according to the new
Finnish research team findings.



To put AOC's "drastic measures" in perspective -based entirely on the fundamental assumption
of the monumental and disastrous impact of human activity on the climate -consider the following
conclusions from the Finnish 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.”
Which leads the scientists to state further:

“Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased carbon dioxide
is less than 10 percent, we have practically no anthropogenic climate
change,” the researchers concluded.

And the team in Japan has called for a total reevaluation of current climate models, which remain
dangerously flawed for dismissing a crucial variable: 

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.

The umbrella effect caused by galactic cosmic rays is important when thinking about current global
warming as well as the warm period of the medieval era.

Failure to account for this results in the following, according to the one in the series of studies:
"The IPCC climate sensitivity is about one order of magnitude too high, because a strong negative
feedback of the clouds is missing in climate models."

"If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is
anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist
in practice," the researchers conclude. 

Though we doubt the ideologues currently pushing to radically remake the American economy
through what ends up being a $93 trillion proposal (according to one study) -including AOC's call
for a whopping 70% top tax rate -will carefully inquire of this new bombshell scientific confirmation
presented in the new research, we at least hope the US scientific community takes heed before it's
too late in the cause of accurate and authentic science that would stave off irreparable economic
disaster that would no doubt ripple across the globe, adding to both human and environmental
misery.  

And "too late" that is, not for some mythical imminent or near-future "global warming Armageddon"
as the currently in vogue highly politicized "science" of activists and congress members alike claims...'

ZeroHedge

[guohua]

True,,,,,,,    

Started by Gore,,,,,  follow the money.
 The Real Cause, yes the Sun.

[Wallfire]

Another little bit of info that has been brushed aside

Published time: 12 Jul, 2019 20:44Edited time: 13 Jul, 2019 15:41

Finnish study finds ‘practically no’ evidence for man-made climate change





A new study conducted by a Finnish research team has found little evidence to support the idea of man-made climate change. The results of the study were soon corroborated by researchers in Japan.
In a paper published late last month, entitled ‘No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic climate change’, a team of scientists at Turku University in Finland determined that current climate models fail to take into account the effects of cloud coverage on global temperatures, causing them to overestimate the impact of human-generated greenhouse gasses.
Models used by official bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature,” the study said, adding that “a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing” in the models.
Adjusting for the cloud coverage factor and accounting for greenhouse gas emissions, the researchers found that mankind is simply not having much of an effect on the Earth’s temperature.

If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice.

The study’s authors make a hard distinction between the type of model favored by climate scientists at the IPCC and genuine evidence, stating “We do not consider computational results as experimental evidence,” noting that the models often yield contradictory conclusions.

Given the evidence presented in the study, the Finnish team rounded out the paper by concluding “we have practically no anthropogenic climate change,” adding that “the low clouds control mainly the global temperature.”
The results sharply cut against claims put forward by many environmentalists, including US lawmakers such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who argue not only that climate change is an immediate threat to the planet, but that it is largely a man-made phenomenon. Ocasio-Cortez, better known as ‘AOC’, has proposed a ‘Green New Deal’ to address the supposedly dire threat.

Japanese researchers at the University of Kobe arrived at similar results as the Turku team, finding in a paper published in early July that cloud coverage may create an “umbrella effect” that could alter temperatures in ways not captured by current modeling.

source

[BIAD]

Another little bit of info that has been brushed aside


Finnish study finds ‘practically no’ evidence for man-made climate change

Yes the Climate-Change Woe-Sayers call it 'problematic'!!!!

[guohua]

Another little bit of info that has been brushed aside


Finnish study finds ‘practically no’ evidence for man-made climate change

Yes the Climate-Change Woe-Sayers call it 'problematic'!!!!

I Don't Think That Is Allllllll They Call It! 

[BIAD]

With the above Finnish studies stating that man-made climate change is a pile of bullshit, it's obvious
that the Establisment media had to rush out with a piece to stop the peasants from realising another
narrative that poo-poohs the worship of carbon credits.

'No doubt left' about scientific consensus on global warming, say experts.

Extensive historical data shows recent extreme warming is unprecedented in past 2,000 years.



'The scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming is likely to have passed 99%, according to the lead
author of the most authoritative study on the subject, and could rise further after separate research that clears up some
of the remaining doubts.

Three studies published in Nature and Nature Geoscience use extensive historical data to show there has never been a
period in the last 2,000 years when temperature changes have been as fast and extensive as in recent decades.

It had previously been thought that similarly dramatic peaks and troughs might have occurred in the past, including
in periods dubbed the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Climate Anomaly. But the three studies use reconstructions based
on 700 proxy records of temperature change, such as trees, ice and sediment, from all continents that indicate none of
these shifts took place in more than half the globe at any one time.

The Little Ice Age, for example, reached its extreme point in the 15th century in the Pacific Ocean, the 17th century in
Europe and the 19th century elsewhere, says one of the studies. This localisation is markedly different from the trend
since the late 21st century when records are being broken year after year over almost the entire globe, including this
summer’s European heatwave.

Major temperature shifts in the distant past are also likely to have been primarily caused by volcanic eruptions, according
to another of the studies, which helps to explain the strong global fluctuations in the first half of the 18th century as the
world started to move from a volcanically cooled era to a climate warmed by human emissions.

This has become particularly pronounced since the late 20th century, when temperature rises over two decades or longer
have been the most rapid in the past two millennia, notes the third.

The authors say this highlights how unusual warming has become in recent years as a result of industrial emissions.

“There is no doubt left – as has been shown extensively in many other studies addressing many different aspects of the
climate system using different methods and data sets,” said Stefan Brönnimann, from the University of Bern and the
Pages 2K consortium of climate scientists.

Commenting on the study, other scientists said it was an important breakthrough in the “fingerprinting” task of proving
how human responsibility has changed the climate in ways not seen in the past. “This paper should finally stop climate
change deniers claiming that the recent observed coherent global warming is part of a natural climate cycle.

This paper shows the truly stark difference between regional and localised changes in climate of the past and the truly
global effect of anthropogenic greenhouse emissions,” said Mark Maslin, professor of climatology at University College
London.

Previous studies have shown near unanimity among climate scientists that human factors – car exhausts, factory
chimneys, forest clearance and other sources of greenhouse gases – are responsible for the exceptional level of
global warming.

A 2013 study in Environmental Research Letters found 97% of climate scientists agreed with this link in 12,000
academic papers that contained the words “global warming” or “global climate change” from 1991 to 2011.
Last week, that paper hit 1m downloads, making it the most accessed paper ever among the 80+ journals published
by the Institute of Physics, according to the authors.

The pushback has been political rather than scientific.
In the US, the rightwing thinktank the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CPI) is reportedly putting pressure on Nasa
to remove a reference to the 97% study from its webpage. The CPI has received event funding from the American
Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers and Charles Koch Institute, which have much to lose from a transition to a
low-carbon economy.

But among academics who study the climate, the convergence of opinion is probably strengthening, according to
John Cook, the lead author of the original consensus paper and a follow-up study on the “consensus about consensus”
that looked at a range of similar estimates by other academics.

He said that at the end of his 20-year study period there was more agreement than at the beginning: “There was 99%
scientific consensus in 2011 that humans are causing global warming.” With ever stronger research since then and
increasing heatwaves and extreme weather, Cook believes this is likely to have risen further and is now working on
an update.

“As expertise in climate science increases, so too does agreement with human-caused global warming,” Cook wrote
on the Skeptical Science blog. “The good news is public understanding of the scientific consensus is increasing.
The bad news is there is still a lot of work to do yet as climate deniers continue to persistently attack the scientific
consensus.”...'

The Guardian:


You'll notice that such rhetoric is common when it's summer!

[Ninurta]

With the above Finnish studies stating that man-made climate change is a pile of bullshit, it's obvious
that the Establisment media had to rush out with a piece to stop the peasants from realising another
narrative that poo-poohs the worship of carbon credits.

'No doubt left' about scientific consensus on global warming, say experts.

... This localisation is markedly different from the trend
since the late 21st century when records are being broken year after year over almost the entire globe, including this
summer’s European heatwave. ...

They should probably revisit their estimate once we are beyond the end of the 21st century. We are currently barely past the beginning of it, and have no Earthly idea what the LATE 21st century will look like, much less having passed it.

Major temperature shifts in the distant past are also likely to have been primarily caused by volcanic eruptions, according
to another of the studies, which helps to explain the strong global fluctuations in the first half of the 18th century as the
world started to move from a volcanically cooled era to a climate warmed by human emissions.

Got it. Volcanoes, which spew heat and fiery lava (along with crap-tons of CO2), are actually air conditioners, cooling the planet, whereas humans, who spew considerably cooler things, are actually heating the planet. Got it. Makes sense... in a Leftist, carbon-credit worshiping sort of way.

Commenting on the study, other scientists said it was an important breakthrough in the “fingerprinting” task of proving
how human responsibility has changed the climate in ways not seen in the past. “This paper should finally stop climate
change deniers claiming that the recent observed coherent global warming is part of a natural climate cycle.


This paper shows the truly stark difference between regional and localised changes in climate of the past and the truly
global effect of anthropogenic greenhouse emissions,” said Mark Maslin, professor of climatology at University College
London.

Oh, I see. This is not really a "science" paper, it's a cleverly disguised political hit piece attempting to silence opposing voices. How clever of them!

The pushback has been political rather than scientific.

Just as (as demonstrated above) the "paper" was political rather than scientific. What kind of "pushback" do they expect from a political hit piece?

“As expertise in climate science increases, so too does agreement with human-caused global warming,” Cook wrote
on the Skeptical Science blog. “The good news is public understanding of the scientific consensus is increasing.
The bad news is there is still a lot of work to do yet as climate deniers continue to persistently attack the scientific
consensus.”...'

Note too the use of the pejorative term "climate deniers", and the persistent (and erroneous) continual use of the term "scientific consensus".

This was a political hit piece, nothing more. It's likely the original paper was as well, or at the very least a puff paper intended only to support a political narrative. There are too many errors for me to think otherwise.

,

[BIAD]

Oh, I see. This is not really a "science" paper, it's a cleverly disguised political hit piece attempting to silence opposing voices.
How clever of them!

Note too the use of the pejorative term "climate deniers", and the persistent (and erroneous) continual use of the term "scientific
consensus".

This was a political hit piece, nothing more. It's likely the original paper was as well, or at the very least a puff paper intended only
to support a political narrative. There are too many errors for me to think otherwise.

But... but it's in The Guardian...? Surely a predominantly Left-leaning, in-Downing Street's-pocket, start at 9.am-finish-at-noon,
diverse-because-it's cheaper-to-employ-the-coloured-folk-ergo-I'm-guiltless, homogenize-the-world, mochaccino-sipping Editorial
Staff would realise it's a political vehicle used to further a bias?

Oh for the days when Journalists had a pencil behind their ear!