• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Another paper shows no human caused climate problem.

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,831
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Study blows 'greenhouse theory out of the water' - WND




The paper, published recently in the journal "Environment Pollution and Climate Change," was written by Ned Nikolov, a Ph.D. in physical science, and Karl Zeller, retired Ph.D. research meteorologist.
 
Dr. Nikolov and Zeller are in the vast minority of their peers concerning these opinions.
 

Human contributions are small compared to natural factors. That is not blowing anything out of the water. It has never been an issue. The issue is what we can do to reduce our contribution to the total.
 
Drawdown said:
Human contributions are small compared to natural factors. That is not blowing anything out of the water. It has never been an issue. The issue is what we can do to reduce our contribution to the total.
Click to expand...

Eh??

If human factors are small or none, as the paper points out, why do we need to worry about them?
 
Tim the plumber said:

Eh??

If human factors are small or none, as the paper points out, why do we need to worry about them?
Click to expand...

That last 40 pounds may not be the reason a person weighs 260, but cutting it down still is of benefit to them. I personally think of it more in terms of pollution than in climate trends. If we can reduce pollution, why not.
 
Drawdown said:
That last 40 pounds may not be the reason a person weighs 260, but cutting it down still is of benefit to them. I personally think of it more in terms of pollution than in climate trends. If we can reduce pollution, why not.
Click to expand...

If there is no actual problem at all with extra CO2, and even is massively beneficial to all the world, why do you want to reduce it?
 
Drawdown said:
Human contributions are small compared to natural factors. That is not blowing anything out of the water. It has never been an issue. The issue is what we can do to reduce our contribution to the total.
Click to expand...

Drawdown said:
That last 40 pounds may not be the reason a person weighs 260, but cutting it down still is of benefit to them. I personally think of it more in terms of pollution than in climate trends. If we can reduce pollution, why not.
Click to expand...

I agree with these. I want clean air to breathe and a beautiful sky to look at, and to have the sun shining down while kids play in the park. If we humans can make a difference then we should do what we can, but to think that we are more powerful than Mother Nature is pretty laughable. Mother Nature always has her say.
 
Hey, just saying....when I clicked on that link and went to the site, my whole screen turned red with a warning.

I did not read that article.
 
Tim the plumber said:
If there is no actual problem at all with extra CO2, and even is massively beneficial to all the world, why do you want to reduce it?
Click to expand...

The way we contribute is more than just CO2 in a vacuum. In fact one of my criticisms is that reducing all pollution to carbon equivalents is a massive disservice to the environmental movement. It is all the other stuff that comes with it like coal ash, mercury and heavy metals contamination etc etc etc. that are of greater concern for me. Some, but unfortunately not all, of the CO2 reduction path overlaps the pollution reduction path. Some of the stuff on the CO2 path is actually worse for habitat and species protection than big oil.
 

I absolutely agree with you. The backlash which will come from the realization that we have been conned is likely to be the worst aspect of this CAGW hype.

Some, but unfortunately not all, of the CO2 reduction path overlaps the pollution reduction path. Some of the stuff on the CO2 path is actually worse for habitat and species protection than big oil.
Click to expand...

Then you say the exact opposite.. If there is a bad thing about increased CO2 what is it?
 
hermit said:
Hey, just saying....when I clicked on that link and went to the site, my whole screen turned red with a warning.

I did not read that article.
Click to expand...

I suspect that is your virus protection going hyper for some reason. Maybe they have got me... arrrrrgh....
 
Seems OMICS International will publish anything | …and Then There's Physics

Nikolov and Zeller publish a paper in a new “open access” journal called “Environment Pollution and Climate Change” launched by an Indian publisher which subsequently faced multiple charges of deception from the Federal Trade Commission relating to the company's claims of peer review and marketing practices. The journal was at the time edited by an advisor to the Heartland Institute, Dr Arthur Viterito.

The paper - The Refutation of the Climate Greenhouse Theory and a Proposal for a Hopeful Alternative - suggested the well-established theory of greenhouse warming was fatally flawed. Professor Steve Sherwood, the director of the Climate Change Research Center at the University of New South Wales in Australia, reviewed the paper and told DeSmog:

“The paper is laughable. It is so riddled with unsupported, fantastic and … or … unintelligible claims, arranged in a disorderly fashion and sprinkled liberally with innuendo.”

Referring to the journal and several papers it had published, Professor Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Penn State University and a vocal opponent of climate science denial, told DeSmog: “This isn’t science. It’s politically motivated denialist garbage.”

He added: “Such sham journals make a mockery of the scientific process and must be exposed for what they are. Associating in any way with this pseudo-journal would endanger one’s scientific reputation. Keep your distance from this toxic mess.”

Ned Nikolov | DeSmog
 


Did you get to the part where this guy Zeller has tried to push this stuff under a change of name spelling?
 
Tim the plumber said:
I absolutely agree with you. The backlash which will come from the realization that we have been conned is likely to be the worst aspect of this CAGW hype.



Then you say the exact opposite.. If there is a bad thing about increased CO2 what is it?
Click to expand...

It isn't the exact opposite at all. Reducing coal reduces coal ash and mercury. Wind turbines, however, do threaten birds, and more importantly, the mining of the rare earths in China is having massive negative environmental impacts as tends to happen when you level mountains.
 
hermit said:
Hey, just saying....when I clicked on that link and went to the site, my whole screen turned red with a warning.

I did not read that article.
Click to expand...


It’s WingNutDaily! I’m sure that clicking on it will cause your entire contacts folders and address books to be raided for resale to right wing direct marketing operators. That’s what right wing blogs feed on.

WingNutDaily used to share space with Family Research Council in a second floor walk up in Alexandria. Both had far more presence on the internet than either one ever will in DC!

WND was at the head of the parade promoting wildly ridiculous WMD claims in Iraq, often recycling them for its low information audience.
 



Hey, did you happen to notice that the first words in the 2nd paragraph were:

“If confirmed”

And that the authors said nothing about what, if not CO2, is cause of warming?

And that the paper has not been peer reviewed?

And that the authors have been thoroughly discredited:

“Nikolov and his colleague Karl Zeller, who used to work together at the forest service, were the subject of controversy when they were caught trying to published a paper under pseudonyms Den Volokin and Lark ReLlez multiple times from 2014 to 2016.”

(See 2nd paragraph):

Ned Nikolov | DeSmog

I wonder if other posters have noticed that you tend to throw your crap against the wall to see if it sticks? That you’re too lazy to do proper research to bother finding out the facts of the matter that DO NOT SUPPORT your BS.

You’re not a credible debater.
 
Thanx for this link. Ant to you AGW cultists who complain about Tim's link being a blog... It is well sourced. Unlike the blogs you guys link.

The paper is interesting, but I have a hard time with it as a whole for the levels of atmospheric change they determined.

The idea of atmospheric pressure absolutely deserves study, but I have a hard time believing it accounts for as much as they claim. I have silently disputed that greenhouse gasses add 33 degrees, think it to be more like 50, but I could never quite justify my scientific instinct in that regard, so I remained silent. When reading their paper, it occurred to me that most of it may have to do with the fact unstable pressures the atmospheres have and the heat is generated by tidal forcing. With that in mind, maybe such a level of atmospheric heating is true.

I haven't carefully read the paper yet. So low on time. I scanned over it and read snippets. Figure 2 model 12, they were able to fit a curve exceptionally close. The graph in the WND article is figure 4 in the paper.

A word search in the paper shows the only tidal heating they are assuming is geothermal in nature. Not the compression and decompression of the atmosphere, which will also cause heat. I think this paper is on the right course, it will be interesting to read the whole thing, and see how future studies make conclusions.

The paper:

New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model
 
jamesbyoung said:
Dr. Nikolov and Zeller are in the vast minority of their peers concerning these opinions.
Click to expand...

Science is not consensus. Any scientist participating in such views, is not a real scientist. If a belief mass of people get too strong to consider minority views, then there will be discoveries in science waiting to happen, that will never get discovered.
 
Last edited:
Drawdown said:
Human contributions are small compared to natural factors. That is not blowing anything out of the water. It has never been an issue. The issue is what we can do to reduce our contribution to the total.
Click to expand...

Stop using diesel engines.

Minimize you land use by capping off no more than maybe 25% of the land with buildings, concrete, and asphalt.

Move towards natural gas and solar.

Make sure the emissions system of your gasoline car is working correctly.

For those with solar homes, use nickle-iron batteries instead of lithium ion.

Delay buying electric cars unless you use verified safe mining of the rare elements used.
 
I still don’t know why the talk radio crowd keeps this up.

Wall Street has already voted with its money.

The end of the fossil fuel era is in sight. Of course, fossil fuels will be around for a long time.

But the switch is on in the electric utility and automobile businesses all over the world.
 

LOL...

Desmog.

LOL...

Try reading the paper and make your own judgement, instead of acting like a Lemming and falling off the cliff with other lemmings.

Do you really let such logical fallacies rule your beliefs?
 
Drawdown said:
Human contributions are small compared to natural factors. That is not blowing anything out of the water. It has never been an issue. The issue is what we can do to reduce our contribution to the total.
Click to expand...

This is true. The study did not claim the total earth energy balance was any different than what is accepted. It did not claim CO2 warming doesn't follows the accepted 5.35 x ln(C/Co) for a doubling.

All it did was challenge the accepted belief of the total atmosphere.
 

Since you are not the decider of "real scientist" definition, I will give your comment the notice I think it deserves.
 
TomFitz said:
Why are you peddling a two and a half year old article in a right wing trash blog (nobody takes WingNutDaily seriously!)????
Click to expand...

The paper, published recently in the journal "Environment Pollution and Climate Change," was written by Ned Nikolov, a Ph.D. in physical science, and Karl Zeller, retired Ph.D. research meteorologist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…