The impoirtant climate study you won't hear about

[romaniprincess]

wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/14/ross-mckitrick-the-important-climate-study-you-wont-hear-about/

[sb]

Zou’s team notes that their findings “have strong implications for trends in climate model simulations and other observations” because the atmosphere has warmed at half the average rate predicted by climate models over the same period. They also note that their findings are “consistent with conclusions in McKitrick and Christy (2020),” namely that climate models have a pervasive global warming bias. In other research, Christy and mathematician Richard McNider have shown that the satellite warming rate implies the climate system can only be half as sensitive to GHGs as the average model used by the IPCC for projecting future warming.

Strong implications, indeed, but you won’t learn about it from the IPCC. That group regularly puts on a charade of pretending to review the science before issuing press releases that sound like Greta’s Twitter feed. In the real world the evidence against the alarmist predictions from overheated climate models is becoming unequivocal. One day, even the IPCC might find out.

[sauerkraut]

The problem is scientists who don't go with global warming or prove other wise lose their funding. It's all political. Also many 'experts' are not 'experts' in the field of climate they are experts in other fields but agree with global warming and they are counted as climate scientists who say we have a warming planet.

Heck, since the 1990's years they have been saying we only have 10 years left. The 10 years come and go and they tack on another 10 years, and so it goes.

With a growing season that seems to be shrinking and frosts arriving more early each year that's not something you'd expect from a planet that is overheating.

[Deleted]

There's little to worry about with the whole AGW theory.

Go out to dinner, have a picnic with the family.

Wave to the guy standing in the street with the sign, as you go by.

[sauerkraut]

Heres something to think about- where does the climate change/global warming 'science' fit?

A- Junk science- discussions about the climate is taboo, facts showing otherwise are ignored or shut down, the science is settled, experts who raise doubts or show other facts that go against the thinking have their funding cut and/or are fired. Junk science is all political and follow the money is the rule of the day. Some people favor putting climate denier's in prison- that's not science.

B- Real Science- discussions are welcomed and open, new facts are examined & tested -not ignored, real science is never settled it can change when new facts are introduced, other viewpoints are accepted, people with new ideas are accepted, no one is threatened with jail if they go against the grain.

So which one would the climate change/global warming theories fit "A" or "B"?

[John]

Does this mean that im2 is wrong in saying if we kill 200,000 healthy cows, we will save 2 billion lives? The idea we are experiencing global warming, and man and animals are the reason has been a lie from the start and is junk science. It would be funny if it was not for the destructive things these fake scientists are trying to do to "save the planet." They are killing cows, and some were talking about putting an artificial layer made of rubber between us and the sun to block it's rays. They would starve people by reducing the meat available and lower the temperatures making it impossible to grow crops. They are completely mad.