Finnish and Japanese studies agree, little evidence of anthropogenic warming.

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.” 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.

It goes all the way back to the Industrial Revolution Mike....remember Blake's 'Dark Satanic Mills'. There has always been a faction that has hated industry, hated the car, hated progress. These people have morphed into the Greenies who never had a cause that really resonated until Climate Change. Now it has all the hallmarks of a religion....'deniers'.....religious language. Trouble is you can't prove the theory in a controlled experiment or through mathematics. You have to do it empirically through stats and models. And the models don't work. So in essence they have a 1 degree increase in 200 years, and wild speculation every time there is a strong hurricane. It reminds one of the don't eat butter scare or the Y2K debacle when the scientific community got it dead wrong. Not one of these politicians pushing the Green New Deal could even repeat the basic facts...but their cause is power, and they are not going to let a few pesky facts get in the way.

More detail from this study: '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.'

The central theory is low clouds determine temperature, and low clouds are determined by cosmic rays....which obviously aren't man made. This will be challenged and we'll have to wait to see if the theory is robust. But it makes more sense than a one part in a thousand change in Greenhouse gasses caused by man is changing everything, when the natural variation is much greater than that. Made clear in this further extract from the study: ............. 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. "

Spot on Mike. I believe the real crisis is the fact that we are eating through scarce resources at a rate that will leave future generations without critical resources.....like carbon based fuels. We have extended this resource with fracking, but it will be done150 years from now....and then how do you support the 20 billion people, without plastics.