UN Finnish study finds ‘practically no’ evidence for man-made climate change - Activists on suicide watch

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Source.
839557


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.
Surely those Finns are turbomeganazirapists financed by Drumpf!
 
The Finns just need to be culturally enriched until they accept globalist thinking, then, once there's a few WOC in charge at that so-called university, and the nation is funneling their money towards Migrant Assistance rather than keeping up this white male patriarchy, I'm sure they'll find the research says differently.
 
The Finns just need to be culturally enriched until they accept globalist thinking, then, once there's a few WOC in charge at that so-called university, and the nation is funneling their money towards Migrant Assistance rather than keeping up this white male patriarchy, I'm sure they'll find the research says differently.
But I thought the Finns were already enriched, centuries ago...!

839564
 
Are hipsters going to start live-streaming on Facebook breaking their Chinese Nokia-branded under licence throwback phones now, and ironically contribute to world pollution?
 
So, another 10.000 studies or so with similar results until this opinion comes close to equal footing to the idea of anthropogenic climate change?
Nah, sorry, not impressed. It's interesting and I do believe that there's many flaws with theories regarding anthropogenic climate change, particularly in computer models, but I doubt this study manages to counter the countless results of other researches across all boards of scientific research that validates the idea of anthropogenic climate change. And besides: If the idea of an anthropogenic climate change is the reason why we invent cleaner technology that also makes us less dependend on arabian oil-sheik scumbags, I fail to see the issue with actually going along with it.
 
The article is definitely biased with mentioning AOC of all people, but can anyone with a brain tell me what this means? What's happening to our precious clouds to make the world go up a degree?
 
Needs to be cross-checked by a small army still, but as expected, it looks like a data modeling problem.

And I'll repeat myself. I have never encountered a data modeler/scientist who wasn't 100% convinced their model was 100% accurate and had taken all variables into account. Retail, banking, insurance, marketing, etc. Every last one. Even when they were on the phone trying to learn how to do something with their modeling software.
 
It's almost like humans are a pin drop in the 4 billion plus years the earth has been here. 🤔
 
You can't lie to me Finland, you niggas just want to see the sun and have weather that isn't pants shittingly cold for once.

I'm on to you.
 
For whatever reason the human race has a hard time grasping the simple fact that we're nearing extinction just like any other race that roamed this planet and will roam it after us, needless to mention how little time we had on this planet compared to the dinosaur era.
 
Yeah, a six-page paper with some back-of-the-envelope calculations isn't exactly that convincing to me. It could be the start of something, but I read shit like this constantly and its always suspiciously short and goes nowhere. I wouldn't mind a full math sperg analysis if someone wants to throw one down though.
 
You can't lie to me Finland, you niggas just want to see the sun and have weather that isn't pants shittingly cold for once.

I'm on to you.
I don't blame them. Sounds depressing as fuck.
 
For whatever reason the human race has a hard time grasping the simple fact that we're nearing extinction just like any other race that roamed this planet and will roam it after us, needless to mention how little time we had on this planet compared to the dinosaur era.
I don't think we are nearly extinction, we still have nuclear power and if we invest money into it nuclear fusion which would solve any pollution problems

basically

DUDE THORIUM REACTORS LMAO
 
If the idea of an anthropogenic climate change is the reason why we invent cleaner technology that also makes us less dependend on arabian oil-sheik scumbags, I fail to see the issue with actually going along with it.
Climate change hysteria is a big push back against the actual tech and industry that allows you to be less dependent on oil-sheiks, namely fracking and nuclear. Wind and solar fucking suck and will always fucking suck.
 
Are hipsters going to start live-streaming on Facebook breaking their Chinese Nokia-branded under licence throwback phones now, and ironically contribute to world pollution?
I don't think that the soy-consuming hipsters will have the physical strength to put a dent in a Nokia
c73.png
 
Ive always thought that focus on climate change and CO2 is the wrong focus. I do actually think that anthropogenic climate impact is a thing, but to me, it such a huge monolithic problem it creates apathy/fear in the public rather than positive action.

When you focus on a number of smaller, localised, and most crucially VISIBLE and measurable effects you get the public on board. What can i do about climate change? Nothing. Problems like local deforestation, water pollution, plastic waste in rivers, etc, I feel more attached to. I’ve long thought that only focusing on climate change is a mistake. The focus should be on showing how many systems like water, farmland, forests, etc we are fucking up. Pollution, species loss, etc. These are things which can be shown beyond doubt. Climate change by its nature can’t ever be proven to be human in origin even if it is very real (and I think it is.)

Cut down those trees in the hills and you’ll get mudslides. Cause, effect, simple and visible, and crucially , actionable. Environmental protection needs both global and local action and a sole focus on climate change pushes the balance away from local action

Edited for spelling
 
Climate change hysteria is a big push back against the actual tech and industry that allows you to be less dependent on oil-sheiks, namely fracking and nuclear. Wind and solar fucking suck and will always fucking suck.
I'm not advocating for Climate Change Hysteria, just pointing out what a fart in the warm wind a single solitary study is compared to the juggernautically overwhelming plethora of research that contradicts this. That being said, this doesn't make this study irrelevant in itself, the result is pretty interesting and should be used to improve computer models in the future (if this study is found to withstand peer review) but it's not like this is the final nail on the coffin of anthropogenic climate change.
Also Fracking is a fucking dumb idea and unless you happen to own massive amounts of stocks for a facking company, you should have almost no reason to support this nonsense.Thorium reactors, tho, that'd be the shit.
 
I'm not advocating for Climate Change Hysteria, just pointing out what a fart in the warm wind a single solitary study is compared to the juggernautically overwhelming plethora of research that contradicts this. That being said, this doesn't make this study irrelevant in itself, the result is pretty interesting and should be used to improve computer models in the future (if this study is found to withstand peer review) but it's not like this is the final nail on the coffin of anthropogenic climate change.
No, but it certainly adds to the idea its not just people and adds to the question of how much effect people have and how dangerous climate change is given just how utterly fucking wrong everyone has been about how dangerous it is.

Also Fracking is a fucking dumb idea and unless you happen to own massive amounts of stocks for a facking company, you should have almost no reason to support this nonsense.Thorium reactors, tho, that'd be the shit.
Drops oil prices, non reliant on sheiks, no need to ship it so you can use pipelines meaning less spills, less accidents. Whats so bad about fracking?
 
Back
Top Bottom