International New Finnish Study Finds No Evidence For Man-Made Climate Change

[hillelslovak87]

Look... prove me wrong. In your own words, please explain this:
Using multiple linear regression of several climate forcings, Lean (2010) reports climate sensitivities of ~0.3 C W−1 m2 for solar forcing on decadal time scales...

The more one is educated, the more they receive information secondhand. I think it's quite easy to see why you don't trust anything but your instincts when it comes to matters of the mind.

 

[7437]

Look... prove me wrong. In your own words, please explain this:
Using multiple linear regression of several climate forcings, Lean (2010) reports climate sensitivities of ~0.3 C W−1 m2 for solar forcing on decadal time scales...

You might want to look up what that is. It says that solely the sun is not causing significant temperature changes. Not that it isnt happening.

God damn. Just spouting off a number isnt making you look smart. It's obvious you just copied something you dont understand.

 

[skold]

That one study that agrees with what I believe is totally correct, all those other studies showing the opposite are totally false

 

[tonni]

Agreed. It's weird people wonder why we're so unhealthy. We breath air, drink water and are mostly comprised of it, yet our air is dirty, and our water contains plastics and any given number of other materials not soluble in the human body.

For all the talk of global warming, pollution is very overlooked in the discussion. And for all the talk of human knowledge and intelligence, there's not much wisdom in shitting in your own bed.

 

[curryjunkie]

Michigan has been much colder. Our spring was like winter this year. Your logic is flawed.


Pollution is bad, and I understand the theory of the greenhouse effect and how it could warm the earth. I believe it is happening, but a broader stroke of being anti-pollution for multiple reasons is both appropriate, and possibly what the climate change political focus is trying to distract us from.

Your confirming what he said you Numbskull, climate change affects us in different ways, as for distracting us from pollution, that wins retarded statement of the month...

 

[The Merchant]

^^^^^^^Says team Dunning-Kruger in classic NPC fashion.

Damn, with you people it boils down to this. The information must come directly from the climate change division at the Bureau of Imaginary information or it does not exist,

Not sure why i'm in here. I read the paper it's basically saying low cloud cover isn't getting taken into account then shows some graphs and has poor references.

I spoke about the content, it seems you're projecting here.

 

[The Merchant]

="BJ@LW&WW, post: 153411809, member: 130935"
it should be noted that this is posted on a scientific arxiv site. there is no peer review.

If it's not went through the peer-review system it's not science then. It's opinion that hasn't been subjected to the scientific method.

 

[hillelslovak87]

For all the talk of global warming, pollution is very overlooked in the discussion. And for all the talk of human knowledge and intelligence, there's not much wisdom in shitting in your own bed.

That's why the Trump admin has been so great with the climate, getting rid of any and all regulations they can find. Who cares if the air is more polluted than before he got into office?

 

[Madmick]

So basically what TS is saying is, we plant a shitload of trees and continue the current greening of earth, our tree overlords will suck up that CO2 in no time.

There's actually something to that:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065250408601567

That's a jpeg, not a meme. Even if it were a meme it isn't a meme in the traditional sense carrying a terse sarcastic quip that is troped on top of an image denominator. It also functions as graph of the earth's historical average temperature-- its primary aim. My single greatest gripe with it is that it doesn't also chart the (for most of history estimated) CO2 levels in our atmosphere adjacently.

A study exemplifying why I wish that chart also included a line of CO2 levels. This is only about the hundred-thousandth study confirming this correlation:
Positive feedback between global warming and atmospheric CO2concentration inferred from past climate change

 

[The Merchant]

Yeah that wasn't a meme it was a graph/infographic , was probably a good way to present information as well considering it's a timeline.

 

[JDragon]

Holy fucking shit is that paper ever a pile of garbage. ''We find that, over a short time scale, a variable which may vary widely over a short time scale will better explain temperatures over that short time scale than a variable which varies slowly with time. Therefore, we proved AGW is bullshit.''

...

It's almost like researchers based in Finland shouldn't be trusted

 

[Metusalemi]

Blatant Finnophobia ITT...

 

[Amerikuracana]

Your confirming what he said you Numbskull, climate change affects us in different ways, as for distracting us from pollution, that wins retarded statement of the month...

I'm the numbskull for what, being scientifically literate, or not reading an entire study late at night on sherdog?

Go home, you're retarded.

EDIT: Were you assuming I read it, and plagiarized It? I actually didn't click the link. Wouldn't surprise me if the idea originated with me.. I had been saying (without prompt) that it was somewhat necessary to warm the planet enough to avoid the next ice age.. A couple years after I said that, boom, I start hearing about the studies talking about us pushing the next one back.

 

[Amerikuracana]

If it's not went through the peer-review system it's not science then. It's opinion that hasn't been subjected to the scientific method.

Ah, the peer review system that wasn't broken back when old fashioned men were in charge. Now? It's poisoned by politics. More sad than people realize.

 

[44nutman]

Look... prove me wrong. In your own words, please explain this:
Using multiple linear regression of several climate forcings, Lean (2010) reports climate sensitivities of ~0.3 C W−1 m2 for solar forcing on decadal time scales...

Can you explain how these scientist cooked their data? If you can explain linear regression then you should have no problem seeing that these 2 Finnish Dum Dums had a pre determined result and then cooked the data to reach it.

 

[The Merchant]

Ah, the peer review system that wasn't broken back when old fashioned men were in charge. Now? It's poisoned by politics. More sad than people realize.

The humans in the system are flawed the system itself has proven some worth.

Consider how far we went in the 20,000 years before the advent of the scientific method and then compare that to 200 years after it's adoption as the primary system to parse reality.

It's still a good system it's humans that make it bad.

 

[Amerikuracana]

The humans in the system are flawed the system itself has proven some worth.

Consider how far we went in the 20,000 years before the advent of the scientific method and then compare that to 200 years after it's adoption as the primary system to parse reality.

It's still a good system it's humans that make it bad.

The wrong human nature can ruin any system, and a system is only functional as the people within. This is the basic piece of common sense people need to understand who assume that Europe's prosperity came from a system, and not European people.

And yes, with less mature people involved in science now, you will get politics taking precedent over truth. This is behavior you see permeate both sides, with the left recently jumping ahead.

 

[grimballer]

I thought everybody knew “man made climate change” was a hoax pushed by green energy lobby to cash millions in government subsidies?

 

[BJ@LW&WW]

If it's not went through the peer-review system it's not science then. It's opinion that hasn't been subjected to the scientific method.

peer review is extremely important. it is not part of the scientific method.

 

[Ophydian]

This a great timeline, the sad thing is a denier will look at this and still not see how it’s been impacted by man because it warmed up 4dC over 10’s of thousands of years which in their mind is the same as the current warming period of 100 years.