File this under, “Tell me what I already knew”. Scientists prove that man-made global climate change is a scam.
Funny how things like this work out. When the government no longer pays for bogus money-grabbing data, the truth comes out.
As Zero Hedge reported,
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.
Trending: Hollywood’s Love Affair with a Predator
I know, I know. The Finnish are in cahoots with President Trump who is in cahoots with the RUSSIANS!
Except that Japanese collaborated the results. The article continues,
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.
How did these scientists get things so wrong?
Outside of being paid to do so, here is how they manipulated the data.
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, so do clouds. Thus 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.
“Only a small part.” So if Armageddon occurs, it won’t be because of man’s impact on weather, but instead just the natural death of the planet.
Is this just speculation by the “climate deniers”?
Not according to this 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 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.
Paraphrasing Barack Obama: “Global climate change is not a fraud. This is a matter of settled science”.
Recall that some Leftists actually wanted to put people in prison for being “climate deniers”?
In one case they used Hurricane Harvey as a possible excuse to jail “deniers”.
Scientists knew a disaster like Harvey was coming. Those in power who refused to listen — who refused to use the best available data to do their jobs of protecting their constituents from disaster — should be held accountable. Mike Talbott’s department could have acted on sound evidence and saved lives. They did not. They repeatedly favored development over public safety, going so far as to allow 7,000 homes to be built in low-lying, flood-vulnerable areas since 2010.
It is impossible to determine how many have died as a result of any official’s refusal to appropriately prepare the city for disaster. However, there is little doubt some of the blame for the scale of this calamity is theirs. The Washington Post generously calls it “ignorance.” But it’s high time to start taking this pointed refusal to prepare, this refusal to observe the basic tenets of science seriously — and call it what it is: Negligence. Criminal negligence, even.
Let’s take that liberal logic and flip it. Honestly, Obama wasted billions on the climate change fiasco. Further, he buried climate change in almost all his legislation. Obama also attempted to make climate change expenditures difficult to track and even more difficult to remove. So, now that we’ve got even more concrete proof that climate change is a farce, can we cry “criminal negligence” just as leftists proposed? Or is the truth a little too inconvenient now that it doesn’t support the liberal rhetoric?
**Editor’s Note: If you question the worthiness of a Zero Hedge source, consider these scholarly articles: