In the past I wasn't sure how much of an impact mankind has had on earth's climate but in recent times I've become more convinced the percentage of mankind's impact is high...Then I read reports such as this...
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.
(more on the link)
.
I have been around people that get funding to do things (worked at a place that wrote text books and other teaching material)
a fascinating thing happens when funding is an issue
people end up doing what is needed to get funding
when I pointed out to my friends that they were twisting science with what they were doing,
the reply was usually something about how they knew what was going on, but the funding required that things be from a particular point of view...
the IPCC in its charter (and in practice) only offers funding for man made global warming.
so, I see 6 possibilities here, man made warming, man made cooling, made made no change, nature warming, nature cooling, nature no change.
yet they only choose to fund 1/6 of the possibilities.
I have known enough people that cater to funding to know that you can't trust much of what they say when you pay them to say things.
if you are curious about this effect in real life,
ask an actor if you can pay them to say things.
so I am not amazed that the IPCC
"proved" what they payed people to prove.
it use to be easy to show people what is really going on.
I would post links to raw data and have others put it into excel...
soon after I started doing this, raw temperature data vanished from the web.
when someone starts hiding data, you have to wonder why
years later when the private emails of the main IPCC "scientists" were made public,
it was clear reading them that these people were engaged in fraud,
mostly boring, but search for key words and they really tell you who they were.
at this point something happened that I am guessing almost no one noticed.
the advertisement money was pulled from climate change and moved to something called the war on poverty...
now the war on poverty had the exact same tax scheme...
the websites had been in place for years, but no real funding for the cause.
after a few weeks, it was clear that actual information and clear fraud had not stopped the climate change idea,
and then all the advertisement money got moved back to climate change...
not sure about everyone else,
but when that much money is paying to do something,
and "they" have backup plans for some global tax, (I really can't figure out why they want this so badly)
do I really want to trust them, especially when the actual data (that they now hide) points another direction ?