Study Says It's Plants, Not Humans, that are the Cause of Climate Change

[Deuce]

Shut up and pay your carbon tax.

Don't you know man is killing the planet and the only way to save it is with tax?

Once you send 100% of your income to the government they will disperse funds back to you so that you may live the way they tell you to.

Then they will want 110% of you income.

Someone forgot to switch accounts

 

[eohrnberger]

You posted a link that says the sun is not the cause of recent warming trends and you didn't read it.

How can you proclaim to be an expert on the scientific method when reading a single article is not something you are willing to do?

Are those two things the same thing? No, they are not.

Enough of your false equivalencies.

There is an ocean of difference between the level of understanding of digital circuits and how sensitive the climate is to added CO2.
The state of the art in climate science, is still using a simulation of an event that cannot happen to model the climate (ECS).
(I say ECS cannot happen, because ECS is an abrupt doubling or quadrupling of the CO2 level.)

This need be considered by you, that which can be proven as fact, i.e. how digital circuits work, and the theory of how sensitive the climate is to added CO2, which isn't.

The two are not the same.

 

[longview]

Are those two things the same thing? No, they are not.

Enough of your false equivalencies.


This need be considered by you, that which can be proven as fact, i.e. how digital circuits work, and the theory of how sensitive the climate is to added CO2, which isn't.

The two are not the same.

Well we can predict with great certainty what the binary output of a given digital circuit will be given a known binary input.
I know and inverter can be made to look like a high gain inverting amplifier, but we are talking about binary operation.
As for climate sensitivity of added CO2, even the most widely accepted number is just an educated guess.
Almost everyone agrees that 2XCO2 will force an energy imbalance of 3.71 W m-2, but the number comes from assuming that
CO2 represents 20% of the total greenhouse effect, but that estimate in the scientific literature is between
11% and 26%, the 20% is just an accepted average.

 

[LouC]

I have no desire nor sufficient expertise to argue "climate change" real or not or man made or not.

I see car exhaust as a curse and I hate my and our dependency on such cheap and easy ways poison the environment.

I will though argue that although crude oil and coal and certain gasses may all be natural and naturally occurring and that forest and brush fires are also natural along with volcanic activity there is nothing natural and acceptable in continuing to burn fossil fuels for energy or blithely mine and drill without regard for the environment.

Nor can we perpetually harvest forests anywhere in unsustainable ways.

We must become better tenants on (of) this earth.

I have wandered all over this Nation and have seen the ugly of what man is doing and discarding.

I have rode a bus, flew, caught trains and of course driven.

I know why the "rust belt" is called that.

I have worked or lived or traveled in industrial zones, coal mining zones, quarries, logging areas and mills. Played in junkyards and abandoned smelters. I have hiked in pristine, or so thought, areas where even as remote as some were I still saw the refuse there of our throw away society. Not everyone has always packed out what they packed in.

Civilizations are messy.

How do so many archeologists first go about determining who were and how a people lived? They oft look for the junk piles of the people they think were about.

But we as a modern advanced people should be preserving our history into millennia in manners other than by our landfills and the rusted hulks of industry, asphalt and all the other the scars of oil slicks and mining tailings and stumps we have generated.

Sorry...I thought I knew where I was going with this, but it appears I only stepped onto my soapbox!

 

[PoS]

too late

Too moronic.

I don't doubt that it's a peer reviewed study, nor do I doubt the veracity of their claims; I doubt that their claims support the premise upon which you support your climate-change worldview.

Big difference.

Really? Care to explain what my worldview is then? Go on.

I don't know where you get the idea that I am suggesting that cavemen caused global warming in the past. What caused global warming then was some kind of natural phenomenon that happened at that time. It (natural phenomenon) does happen you know?

Nonetheless, you have absolutely no proof that the same natural phenomenon is happening now. There is plenty of "PROOF" that global warming at this time is due to humans burning extreme amounts of carbon dioxide, which does cause global warming. As such, common sense would say that if you remove the reasons for the global warming now, that it will be reduced. Doesn't that make sense to you? (probably not. You are looking for excuses to keep burning natural coal to pad the pockets of the rich oil men)/

Your common sense is silly. If something else caused climate change before mankind existed, then where is your proof that its human beings that are causing climate change now?

"It was sarcasm but also I literally believe the thing you were saying."

LOL!

So, let's clarify: you think the climate scientists telling you about all these past cycles of temperature swings think only humans can cause temperature swings.

Another moronic strawman. Youre literally making shit up again, claiming I said somehting that I never did. It's funny that you keep doing this, but carry on and keep digging that hole.

 

[Luckyone]

Your common sense is silly. If something else caused climate change before mankind existed, then where is your proof that its human beings that are causing climate change now?

Now I KNOW that you don't read and don't do any research. That you simply pay attention to others like you that are biased.

Let's being with the fact that 97% of all climate scientists that have "actually studied and made tests" of the reasons for climate change and unequivocally have stated that it is humans that are causing it.

https://www.edf.org/climate/9-ways-we-know-humans-triggered-climate-change

So what's the evidence?​

The research falls into nine independently studied, but physically related, lines of evidence:

1. Simple chemistry – When we burn carbon-based materials, carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted (research beginning in the 1900s).
2. Basic accounting of what we burn, and therefore how much CO2 we emit (data collection beginning in the 1970s).
3. Measuring CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and trapped in ice to find they are increasing, with levels higher than anything we've seen in nearly a million years (measurements beginning in the 1950s).
4. Chemical analysis of the atmospheric CO2 that reveals the increase is coming from burning fossil fuels (research beginning in the 1950s).
5. Basic physics that shows us that CO2 absorbs heat (research beginning in the 1820s).
6. Monitoring climate conditions to find that the air, sea and land is warming, as we would expect with rising greenhouse gas emissions; as a response, ice is melting and sea level is rising (research beginning in the 1930s).
7. Ruling out natural factors that can influence climate like the sun and ocean cycles (research beginning in the 1830s).
8. Employing computer models to run experiments of natural versus human-influenced simulations of Earth (research beginning in the 1960s).
9. Consensus among scientists who consider all previous lines of evidence and make their own conclusions (polling beginning in the 1990s).

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans

https://www.nationalacademies.org/based-on-science/climate-change-humans-are-causing-global-warming

Like these 3 links, there are hundreds of others that delineate the "scientific" proof of this happening.

So when you say "where is the proof". it is evident you have not read anything about whether your "opinion" is right or wrong. You just believe what you believe and facts/data/information/studies mean nothing to you.

I could say that you are a diabetic and you show me proof that you are not but I remain convinced that you are. Does that make me right?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Now I KNOW that you don't read and don't do any research. That you simply pay attention to others like you that are biased.

Let's being with the fact that 97% of all climate scientists that have "actually studied and made tests" of the reasons for climate change and unequivocally have stated that it is humans that are causing it.

https://www.edf.org/climate/9-ways-we-know-humans-triggered-climate-change

So what's the evidence?​

The research falls into nine independently studied, but physically related, lines of evidence:

1. Simple chemistry – When we burn carbon-based materials, carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted (research beginning in the 1900s).
2. Basic accounting of what we burn, and therefore how much CO2 we emit (data collection beginning in the 1970s).
3. Measuring CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and trapped in ice to find they are increasing, with levels higher than anything we've seen in nearly a million years (measurements beginning in the 1950s).
4. Chemical analysis of the atmospheric CO2 that reveals the increase is coming from burning fossil fuels (research beginning in the 1950s).
5. Basic physics that shows us that CO2 absorbs heat (research beginning in the 1820s).
6. Monitoring climate conditions to find that the air, sea and land is warming, as we would expect with rising greenhouse gas emissions; as a response, ice is melting and sea level is rising (research beginning in the 1930s).
7. Ruling out natural factors that can influence climate like the sun and ocean cycles (research beginning in the 1830s).
8. Employing computer models to run experiments of natural versus human-influenced simulations of Earth (research beginning in the 1960s).
9. Consensus among scientists who consider all previous lines of evidence and make their own conclusions (polling beginning in the 1990s).

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans

https://www.nationalacademies.org/based-on-science/climate-change-humans-are-causing-global-warming

Like these 3 links, there are hundreds of others that delineate the "scientific" proof of this happening.

So when you say "where is the proof". it is evident you have not read anything about whether your "opinion" is right or wrong. You just believe what you believe and facts/data/information/studies mean nothing to you.

I could say that you are a diabetic and you show me proof that you are not but I remain convinced that you are. Does that make me right?

Well, those topics are still imprecise and lack enough to really understand climate change. We are still grasping with the basics, and the sun is most certainly not properly accounted for.

Yes, we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It has a radiative warming effect, and a secondary cooling effect via more clouds. Beyond that, the quantification with so many variables is still beyond us.

 

[Luckyone]

Well, those topics are still imprecise and lack enough to really understand climate change. We are still grasping with the basics, and the sun is most certainly not properly accounted for.

Yes, we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It has a radiative warming effect, and a secondary cooling effect via more clouds. Beyond that, the quantification with so many variables is still beyond us.

So your answer is to ignore those studies because you think "they are imprecise and lack enough to really understand climate change"?

Let's wait until they are no longer imprecise or unsure to do something about it. Once our cities are under water and many people have died, right?

Let's give the "benefit of the doubt" so that our rich oil people can get richer while our air gets dirtier (because it is a fact that burning oil and carbon makes our air less healthy) and things get worse.

Let me ask you a serious question.

Why do you actually propose that we do nothing? What benefits do you see to doing nothing?

 

[CaughtInThe]

Too moronic.

That I had a salad?

 

[longview]

So your answer is to ignore those studies because you think "they are imprecise and lack enough to really understand climate change"?

Let's wait until they are no longer imprecise or unsure to do something about it. Once our cities are under water and many people have died, right?

Let's give the "benefit of the doubt" so that our rich oil people can get richer while our air gets dirtier (because it is a fact that burning oil and carbon makes our air less healthy) and things get worse.

Let me ask you a serious question.

Why do you actually propose that we do nothing? What benefits do you see to doing nothing?

We currently have ~7.9 billion people alive on Earth, our planet can only support that number because
of our use of fossil fuels.
The question is how do we sustain that level of energy beyond fossil fuels?
Solar and Wind can provide some of this, but both have poor duty cycles and alone cannot support modern electricity demand.
They also cannot power the heavy trucks, ships, jets and agricultural equipment required to keep everyone eating.
As for CO2's capability to warm the planet, we may be at the end of that rope.
in the last 20 years, the outgoing IR radiation from Earth has increased, the opposite of what is claimed added CO2 does.
We are still warming because of reduced reflected shortwave radiation(visible light and near).
The sea level is also raising, but has been raising for more than 10,000 years, the rate of the rise,
is fairly consistent in a noisy environment.
NOAA sea level trends Virginia Key, Florida

One of the things that is very unclear, is if we manage to stop all CO2 growth, if that will have any affect on the sea level rise.

 

[Luckyone]

We currently have ~7.9 billion people alive on Earth, our planet can only support that number because
of our use of fossil fuels.
The question is how do we sustain that level of energy beyond fossil fuels?
Solar and Wind can provide some of this, but both have poor duty cycles and alone cannot support modern electricity demand.
They also cannot power the heavy trucks, ships, jets and agricultural equipment required to keep everyone eating.
As for CO2's capability to warm the planet, we may be at the end of that rope.
in the last 20 years, the outgoing IR radiation from Earth has increased, the opposite of what is claimed added CO2 does.
We are still warming because of reduced reflected shortwave radiation(visible light and near).
The sea level is also raising, but has been raising for more than 10,000 years, the rate of the rise,
is fairly consistent in a noisy environment.
NOAA sea level trends Virginia Key, Florida
View attachment 67386609
One of the things that is very unclear, is if we manage to stop all CO2 growth, if that will have any affect on the sea level rise.

I am not a scientist and therefore I don't have the ability to evaluate information enough to make decisions. Much like going to a brain surgeon. I can't properly evaluate the information about the brain injury I may have. As such, I have to rely that the brain surgeon knows what he is doing and go along with this recommendations. I could check other brain surgeons to see if they think the evaluation of my problem is correct but if they all agree, I have to believe the evaluation is correct.

As such, when I read this article, I have to believe that the climate scientists are correct. If I go against the majority, I am probably wrong.

Is climate change getting better 2021?

A 2019 study found scientific consensus to be at 100%, and a 2021 study concluded that consensus exceeded 99%. Another 2021 study found that 98.7% of climate experts indicated that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity.

 

[longview]

I am not a scientist and therefore I don't have the ability to evaluate information enough to make decisions. Much like going to a brain surgeon. I can't properly evaluate the information about the brain injury I may have. As such, I have to rely that the brain surgeon knows what he is doing and go along with this recommendations. I could check other brain surgeons to see if they think the evaluation of my problem is correct but if they all agree, I have to believe the evaluation is correct.

As such, when I read this article, I have to believe that the climate scientists are correct. If I go against the majority, I am probably wrong.

Is climate change getting better 2021?

A 2019 study found scientific consensus to be at 100%, and a 2021 study concluded that consensus exceeded 99%. Another 2021 study found that 98.7% of climate experts indicated that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity.

Anyone can look at the data.
Consider the increase in CO2 next to the observed sea level rise in your area.
The CO2 level has grown quickly after ~1960, yet the sea level change since 1960 has not increased much.
reducing emissions to the point of zero growth, will not mean that the sea level rise that existed before the CO2 level rise
will not continue!

 

[Luckyone]

Anyone can look at the data.
Consider the increase in CO2 next to the observed sea level rise in your area.
The CO2 level has grown quickly after ~1960, yet the sea level change since 1960 has not increased much.
reducing emissions to the point of zero growth, will not mean that the sea level rise that existed before the CO2 level rise
will not continue!
View attachment 67386617
View attachment 67386618

I looked at the data but then again, I am not knowledgeable enough to comment on it. Evidently, this same data is available to the climate scientists and it has not changed their minds. There is still 98.7% that believe it is a problem and if this information is so telling, that number would have dropped substantially.

In my entire life, I have mostly depended on the experts in their own areas for their evaluations of the problems and have gone with their recommendations and up to now, they have been 100% correct, as far as the results I have seen with my own body. I was not always in full agreement with their evaluations but I trusted their knowledge and it has paid off.

I am personally a chart analyst in the stock market and I consider myself an expert and I usually go with my own evaluations of a stock in spite of others being in opposition. I have generally been right in my area of expertise. I not a fundamentalist in the stock market and therefore I don't try to tell others about the fundamental picture even though I personally have a fair degree of knowledge of fundamentals. Nonetheless, I am not an expert on fundamentals. I am an expert on charts.

As such, you can show me all you want to show me but I am still going with what the experts say.

One question. What are your own credentials regarding climate change? are you a scientist and study climate changes yourself?

 

[longview]

I looked at the data but then again, I am not knowledgeable enough to comment on it. Evidently, this same data is available to the climate scientists and it has not changed their minds. There is still 98.7% that believe it is a problem and if this information is so telling, that number would have dropped substantially.

In my entire life, I have mostly depended on the experts in their own areas for their evaluations of the problems and have gone with their recommendations and up to now, they have been 100% correct, as far as the results I have seen with my own body. I was not always in full agreement with their evaluations but I trusted their knowledge and it has paid off.

I am personally a chart analyst in the stock market and I consider myself an expert and I usually go with my own evaluations of a stock in spite of others being in opposition. I have generally been right in my area of expertise. I not a fundamentalist in the stock market and therefore I don't try to tell others about the fundamental picture even though I personally have a fair degree of knowledge of fundamentals. Nonetheless, I am not an expert on fundamentals. I am an expert on charts.

As such, you can show me all you want to show me but I am still going with what the experts say.

One question. What are your own credentials regarding climate change? are you a scientist and study climate changes yourself?

I will only say that the 97% number thrown around all the time is about scientist who,
A: say that the average temperature has increased over the last century, and
B: say that Human activity is likely involved.
The consensus does not include how sensitive the climate is to added CO2, or how closely bound the sea level is to the CO2 level.

As for myself, I have a physics background, Science degree, and have been doing different types of R&D for more than 40 years.
When I first started studying climate change, I think was on a flight back from Europe.
I was reading a current article about how the Arctic was nearly ice free (2009) but the arc of the of the flight was from the tip of Greenland to Canada, and there was almost no visible water between Greenland and Canada.
I could not quite put my finger on it, but something in the concept did not add up.
In your world, I suppose it would be like someone claiming to have made millions by selecting
and sticking with a group of penny stocks, but all the stocks are still penny stocks.
The more I study the concept, the more it looks to be built on speculation.
If we take the well accepted idea that doubling the CO2 level will force 3.71 W m-2 of energy imbalance.
This looks like it comes from the idea that the total greenhouse effect to pre industrial times of 150 W m-2, and CO2 being
responsible for 20% of that amount ( 30 W m-2).
If one were to count up from 1 ppm to 280 ppm, there are exactly 8.09 doublings of CO2.
30/8.09 =3.708. It may be a coincidence, but it is a coincidence with 3 decimal places of accuracy!

 

[Antiwar]

Let's see, believe the conservatives and right-libertarians here that obviously have agendas (you've probably seen their comments in other threads) that pretend to have a handle on the details of climate science, or believe actual climate scientists combined with the easily understood notion that humans have been and continue to the nest. Tough choice.

 

[longview]

Let's see, believe the conservatives and right-libertarians here that obviously have agendas (you've probably seen their comments in other threads) that pretend to have a handle on the details of climate science, or believe actual climate scientists combined with the easily understood notion that humans have been and continue to the nest. Tough choice.

Who has suggested to we continue as we are going?
It is almost impossible for us to sustain the current path of fossil fuels anyway.
We have an energy problem, and AGW distracts from the real problem facing humanity.

 

[Luckyone]

The rea

I will only say that the 97% number thrown around all the time is about scientist who,
A: say that the average temperature has increased over the last century, and
B: say that Human activity is likely involved.
The consensus does not include how sensitive the climate is to added CO2, or how closely bound the sea level is to the CO2 level.

As for myself, I have a physics background, Science degree, and have been doing different types of R&D for more than 40 years.
When I first started studying climate change, I think was on a flight back from Europe.
I was reading a current article about how the Arctic was nearly ice free (2009) but the arc of the of the flight was from the tip of Greenland to Canada, and there was almost no visible water between Greenland and Canada.
I could not quite put my finger on it, but something in the concept did not add up.
In your world, I suppose it would be like someone claiming to have made millions by selecting
and sticking with a group of penny stocks, but all the stocks are still penny stocks.
The more I study the concept, the more it looks to be built on speculation.
If we take the well accepted idea that doubling the CO2 level will force 3.71 W m-2 of energy imbalance.
This looks like it comes from the idea that the total greenhouse effect to pre industrial times of 150 W m-2, and CO2 being
responsible for 20% of that amount ( 30 W m-2).
If one were to count up from 1 ppm to 280 ppm, there are exactly 8.09 doublings of CO2.
30/8.09 =3.708. It may be a coincidence, but it is a coincidence with 3 decimal places of accuracy!

The reality of life is that the only things that are "guaranteed" are death and taxes. Otherwise, everything and anything can be wrong.

As a stock trader for 47 years, my entire idea is "to go with the probabilities" as in the long run, doing that will give me more profits than losses.

The same thinking applies here. The "probabilities" favor that Global warming due to humans is happening and as such, I will go with the probabilities once more. Betting on longshots is never a good idea, even though once in a while a longshot coming through does occur.

Having said that, I still ask the same question of the naysayers and I have yet to get a good answer.

The burning of Oil and Carbon products on an extreme basis (as has been done more many years) does make the air less healthy (this is a proven fact). So from that point of view, why would anyone be against cutting down the extreme use of Oil and Carbon burning? Certainly the extreme burning of those products is NOT A POSITIVE. is it?

In addition, prevention of potential problems is a supported idea. Eating the right foods, not smoking, not eating too much salt and sugar, and eating vegetables and fruits has proven to prevent illnesses from occurring. As such, why not do the same with Oil and Carbon. Do we 'need" to do it? Do we 'need" to eat sugar, salt, and smoke? Do we need to burn extreme amounts of Oil and Carbons?

Let's see if you can address this idea that I have asked before and NEVER have gotten an answer to.

 

[Antiwar]

We have an energy problem, and AGW distracts from the real problem facing humanity.

I'll take the bait so I can pull you overboard from your dinghy.

 

[Antiwar]

The reality of life is that the only things that are "guaranteed" are death and taxes. Otherwise, everything and anything can be wrong.

As a stock trader for 47 years, my entire idea is "to go with the probabilities" as in the long run, doing that will give me more profits than losses.

The same thinking applies here. The "probabilities" favor that Global warming due to humans is happening and as such, I will go with the probabilities once more. Betting on longshots is never a good idea, even though once in a while a longshot coming through does occur.

Having said that, I still ask the same question of the naysayers and I have yet to get a good answer.

The burning of Oil and Carbon products on an extreme basis (as has been done more many years) does make the air less healthy (this is a proven fact). So from that point of view, why would anyone be against cutting down the extreme use of Oil and Carbon burning? Certainly the extreme burning of those products is NOT A POSITIVE. is it?

In addition, prevention of potential problems is a supported idea. Eating the right foods, not smoking, not eating too much salt and sugar, and eating vegetables and fruits has proven to prevent illnesses from occurring. As such, why not do the same with Oil and Carbon. Do we 'need" to do it? Do we 'need" to eat sugar, salt, and smoke? Do we need to burn extreme amounts of Oil and Carbons?

Let's see if you can address this idea that I have asked before and NEVER have gotten an answer to.

It's a simpler decision than that. Should we risk being wrong about it (humanity screwing up the planet) when the consequences are very dire?

 

[longview]

The rea


The reality of life is that the only things that are "guaranteed" are death and taxes. Otherwise, everything and anything can be wrong.

As a stock trader for 47 years, my entire idea is "to go with the probabilities" as in the long run, doing that will give me more profits than losses.

The same thinking applies here. The "probabilities" favor that Global warming due to humans is happening and as such, I will go with the probabilities once more. Betting on longshots is never a good idea, even though once in a while a longshot does occur.

Having said that, I still ask the same question of the naysayers and I have yet to get a good answer.

The burning of Oil and Carbon products on an extreme basis (as has been done more many years) does make the air less healthy (this is a proven fact). So from that point of view, why would anyone be against cutting down the extreme use of Oil and Carbon burning. Certainly the extreme burning of those products is NOT A POSITIVE!

In addition, prevention of potential problems is a supported idea. Eating the right foods, not smoking, not eating too much salt and sugar, and eating vegetables and fruits has proven to prevent illnesses from occurring. As such, why not do the same with Oil and Carbon. Do we 'need" to do it? Do we 'need" to eat sugar, salt, and smoke?

Let's see if you can address this idea that I have asked before and NEVER get an answer to.

I am not saying that human caused global warming is not happening, but rather that the predicted returns are not showing up.
It would be like someone claiming a bond fund will return between 1.5% and 4.5% of annual returns, but after 30 years the average return
has always been below 2%. Yet they still claim that their computer models show it should have a yield of about 3%.

 

[longview]

It's a simpler decision than that. Should we risk being wrong about it (humanity screwing up the planet) when the consequences are very dire?

Except the consequences are only dire for not solving our energy problem.
CO2 from fossil fuels will run down on it's own, but a better path is to solve our energy problem before it does.

 

[soylentgreen]

You need to study up on the scientific method. I'll leave you to it.

While you dodge dealing with the fact that all you have got is pathetic conspiracy theory and a computer that might magically turn into a unicorn because we just cannot trust the science.

 

[Antiwar]

Except the consequences are only dire for not solving our energy problem.
CO2 from fossil fuels will run down on it's own, but a better path is to solve our energy problem before it does.

Again:

I'll take the bait, on all three highlighted points and #68.

 

[soylentgreen]

There is an ocean of difference between the level of understanding of digital circuits and how sensitive the climate is to added CO2.
The state of the art in climate science, is still using a simulation of an event that cannot happen to model the climate (ECS).
(I say ECS cannot happen, because ECS is an abrupt doubling or quadrupling of the CO2 level.)

it would not matter what difference there is. The ridiculously stupid cliche used to pretend we cannot trust science is the problem here not the difference between scientific branches.

No one cares what you say. As the climate problem is caused by more than just co2 levels. So far all you get is a big, so what?

 

[watsup]

Changes in vegetation shaped global temperatures over last 10,000 years

Follow the pollen. Records from past plant life tell the real story of global temperatures. Warmer temperatures brought plants — and then came even warmer temperatures, according to new model simulations published April 15 in Science Advances.

www.eurekalert.org

Peer reviewed study too, though I bet the moronic IPCC will probably dismiss this with hardly a mention since it doesnt align with their mandate that it's only humans who are causing climate change.

But I'm skeptical of this as well, since this study also uses climate models using proxy data (and we all know these things will back up any kind of conclusion you desire, since you can just keep adjusting the variables until the results are to your liking), so take it with a big grain of salt, Id say.

Nowhere does he say that we are not in the midst of what is basically a human-produced climate change. What do you not understand about that?