Once again the cult of global warming/climate change is being proved wrong. Actually it's worse than that - they've got the whole carbon thing backwards! Its higher temperatures causing higher CO2 for the most part, not the other way around.

Its really sad that the ignorant liberal masses are being led astray by bad science caused by scientists who publish misleading info in a desire to get attention and funding. Yet here we are living in some fictional world where the real science doesn't matter.

Quote:

---

Recent studies have provided evidence, based on analyses of instrumental measurements of the last seven decades, for a unidirectional, potentially causal link between temperature as the cause and carbon dioxide concentration ([CO2]) as the effect. In the most recent study, this finding was supported by analysing the carbon cycle and showing that the natural [CO2] changes due to temperature rise are far larger (by a factor > 3) than human emissions, while the latter are no larger than 4% of the total. Here, we provide additional support for these findings by examining the signatures of the stable carbon isotopes, 12 and 13. Examining isotopic data in four important observation sites, we show that the standard metric 13C is consistent with an input isotopic signature that is stable over the entire period of observations (>40 years), i.e., not affected by increases in human CO2 emissions. In addition, proxy data covering the period after 1500 AD also show stable behaviour. These findings confirm the major role of the biosphere in the carbon cycle and a non-discernible signature of humans.

---

Quote:

---

Combined with earlier studies, namely [2,3,4,5,31], these findings allow for the following line of thought to be formulated, which contrasts the dominant climate narrative, on the basis that different lines of thought are beneficial for the progress of science, even though they are not welcomed by those with political agendas promoting the narratives (whose representatives declare that they "own the science", as can be seen in the motto in the beginning of the paper).

• It the 16th century, Earth entered a cool climatic period, known as the Little Ice Age, which ended at the beginning of the 19th century;
• Immediately after, a warming period began, which has lasted until now. The causes of the warming must be analogous to those that resulted in the Medieval Warm Period around 1000 AD, the Roman Climate Optimum around the first centuries BC and AD, the Minoan Climate Optimum at around 1500 BC, and other warming periods throughout the Holocene;
• As a result of the recent warming, and as explained in [5], the biosphere has expanded and become more productive, leading to increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and greening of the Earth [17,18,19,32];
• As a result of the increased CO2 concentration, the isotopic signature 13C in the atmosphere has decreased;
• The greenhouse effect on the Earth remained stable in the last century, as it is dominated by the water vapour in the atmosphere [31];
• Human CO2 emissions have played a minor role in the recent climatic evolution, which is hardly discernible in observational data and unnecessary to invoke in modelling the observed behaviours, including the change in the isotopic signature 13C in the atmosphere.

---

https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/6/1/17

MDPI is a predatory publisher They are open access, that is the authors pay to publish, which can lead to problems.

Having said that... The warmer the ocean the less absorption of CO2, you can prove this by bringing a pan of 7-up to a boil and see what happens.

It's the Sun stupid...

On top of the questionable practices of MDPI, the author doesn't even conclude what the OP argues. A direct quote from the conclusion:

Quote:

---

One may associate the findings of the paper with several questions related to international policies. Do these results refute the hypothesis that CO2 emissions contribute to global warming through the greenhouse effect? Do these findings, by suggesting a minimal human impact on the isotopic composition of atmospheric carbon, contradict the need to reduce CO2 emissions? Are human carbon emissions independent from other forms of pollution, such as emissions of fine particles and nitrogen oxides, which can have harmful effects on human health and the environment? These questions are not posed at all in the paper and certainly are not studied in it. Therefore, they cannot be answered on a scientific basis within the paper's confined scope but require further research.

---

So this isn't really the smoking gun OP thinks it is.

TA-OP said:

---

On top of the questionable practices of MDPI, the author doesn't even conclude what the OP argues. A direct quote from the conclusion:

Quote:

---

One may associate the findings of the paper with several questions related to international policies. Do these results refute the hypothesis that CO2 emissions contribute to global warming through the greenhouse effect? Do these findings, by suggesting a minimal human impact on the isotopic composition of atmospheric carbon, contradict the need to reduce CO2 emissions? Are human carbon emissions independent from other forms of pollution, such as emissions of fine particles and nitrogen oxides, which can have harmful effects on human health and the environment? These questions are not posed at all in the paper and certainly are not studied in it. Therefore, they cannot be answered on a scientific basis within the paper's confined scope but require further research.

---

So this isn't really the smoking gun OP thinks it is.

---

What you posted is just saying they aren't saying humans haven't contributed, but the study says what humans HAVE contributed has been miniscule. What you posted also says they aren't saying anything about intentionally reducing emissions one way or another. They're saying that all the study says is that natural warming is driving most increased CO2, not the other way around.

To put it succinctly, what you posted isn't really the smoking gun you think it is.

javajaws said:

---

Once again the cult of global warming/climate change is being proved wrong. Actually it's worse than that - they've got the whole carbon thing backwards! Its higher temperatures causing higher CO2 for the most part, not the other way around.

---

Isn't this why it was called a "Runaway Greenhouse effect". Carbon dioxide causes higher temperatures, which in turn releases more carbon dioxide, causing more heating, etc?

I've heard it said for years that CO2 increases lag temperature increases. I guess this confirms that?

waitwhat? said:

---

TA-OP said:

---

On top of the questionable practices of MDPI, the author doesn't even conclude what the OP argues. A direct quote from the conclusion:

Quote:

---

One may associate the findings of the paper with several questions related to international policies. Do these results refute the hypothesis that CO2 emissions contribute to global warming through the greenhouse effect? Do these findings, by suggesting a minimal human impact on the isotopic composition of atmospheric carbon, contradict the need to reduce CO2 emissions? Are human carbon emissions independent from other forms of pollution, such as emissions of fine particles and nitrogen oxides, which can have harmful effects on human health and the environment? These questions are not posed at all in the paper and certainly are not studied in it. Therefore, they cannot be answered on a scientific basis within the paper's confined scope but require further research.

---

So this isn't really the smoking gun OP thinks it is.

---

What you posted is just saying they aren't saying humans haven't contributed, but the study says what humans HAVE contributed has been miniscule. What you posted also says they aren't saying anything about intentionally reducing emissions one way or another. They're saying that all the study says is that natural warming is driving most increased CO2, not the other way around.

To put it succinctly, what you posted isn't really the smoking gun you think it is.

---

You're just flat out wrong or being intentionally obtuse. The author literally poses the question, "Do these results refute the hypothesis that CO2 emissions contribute to global warming through the greenhouse effect?" and then answers the question saying they didn't even try to answer that question. Ergo, the OP concluding that this papers says that global warming and climate change have been proven wrong is deceptive.

The climate of planet earth has been changing as long as planet earth has existed.

How insanely arrogant do you have to be to believe that you can prevent the climate from changing? Much less believe that global marxism will prevent the climate from changing?

TA-OP said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

TA-OP said:

---

On top of the questionable practices of MDPI, the author doesn't even conclude what the OP argues. A direct quote from the conclusion:

Quote:

---

One may associate the findings of the paper with several questions related to international policies. Do these results refute the hypothesis that CO2 emissions contribute to global warming through the greenhouse effect? Do these findings, by suggesting a minimal human impact on the isotopic composition of atmospheric carbon, contradict the need to reduce CO2 emissions? Are human carbon emissions independent from other forms of pollution, such as emissions of fine particles and nitrogen oxides, which can have harmful effects on human health and the environment? These questions are not posed at all in the paper and certainly are not studied in it. Therefore, they cannot be answered on a scientific basis within the paper's confined scope but require further research.

---

So this isn't really the smoking gun OP thinks it is.

---

What you posted is just saying they aren't saying humans haven't contributed, but the study says what humans HAVE contributed has been miniscule. What you posted also says they aren't saying anything about intentionally reducing emissions one way or another. They're saying that all the study says is that natural warming is driving most increased CO2, not the other way around.

To put it succinctly, what you posted isn't really the smoking gun you think it is.

---

You're just flat out wrong or being intentionally obtuse. The author literally poses the question, "Do these results refute the hypothesis that CO2 emissions contribute to global warming through the greenhouse effect?" and then answers the question saying they didn't even try to answer that question. Ergo, the OP concluding that this papers says that global warming and climate change have been proven wrong is deceptive.

---

OP is saying the climate change hysteria is wrong for saying that humans are the primary driver of increased CO2 and warming, which is what the study supports. Not that climate change isn't happening. Reading comprehension.

Let me help you with what you posted:

Quote:

---

One may associate the findings of the paper with several questions related to international policies.

• Do these results refute the hypothesis that CO2 emissions contribute to global warming through the greenhouse effect? It doesn't, it refutes the notion that humans are the primary driver of it
• Do these findings, by suggesting a minimal human impact on the isotopic composition of atmospheric carbon, contradict the need to reduce CO2 emissions? They're just saying they aren't making a comment about whether or not CO2 emission reduction is necessary or worthwhile
• Are human carbon emissions independent from other forms of pollution, such as emissions of fine particles and nitrogen oxides, which can have harmful effects on human health and the environment? Again, they aren't trying to say the findings say humans have zero impact

These questions are not posed at all in the paper and certainly are not studied in it. Therefore, they cannot be answered on a scientific basis within the paper's confined scope but require further research. But the study does suggest that the idea that humans are a primary driver of CO2 levels and climate change is incorrect. Which is all OP was saying.

---

waitwhat? said:

---

TA-OP said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

TA-OP said:

---

On top of the questionable practices of MDPI, the author doesn't even conclude what the OP argues. A direct quote from the conclusion:

Quote:

---

One may associate the findings of the paper with several questions related to international policies. Do these results refute the hypothesis that CO2 emissions contribute to global warming through the greenhouse effect? Do these findings, by suggesting a minimal human impact on the isotopic composition of atmospheric carbon, contradict the need to reduce CO2 emissions? Are human carbon emissions independent from other forms of pollution, such as emissions of fine particles and nitrogen oxides, which can have harmful effects on human health and the environment? These questions are not posed at all in the paper and certainly are not studied in it. Therefore, they cannot be answered on a scientific basis within the paper's confined scope but require further research.

---

So this isn't really the smoking gun OP thinks it is.

---

What you posted is just saying they aren't saying humans haven't contributed, but the study says what humans HAVE contributed has been miniscule. What you posted also says they aren't saying anything about intentionally reducing emissions one way or another. They're saying that all the study says is that natural warming is driving most increased CO2, not the other way around.

To put it succinctly, what you posted isn't really the smoking gun you think it is.

---

You're just flat out wrong or being intentionally obtuse. The author literally poses the question, "Do these results refute the hypothesis that CO2 emissions contribute to global warming through the greenhouse effect?" and then answers the question saying they didn't even try to answer that question. Ergo, the OP concluding that this papers says that global warming and climate change have been proven wrong is deceptive.

---

OP is saying the climate change hysteria is wrong for saying that humans are the primary driver of increased CO2 and warming, which is what the study supports. Not that climate change isn't happening. Reading comprehension.

Let me help you with what you posted:

Quote:

---

One may associate the findings of the paper with several questions related to international policies.

• Do these results refute the hypothesis that CO2 emissions contribute to global warming through the greenhouse effect? It doesn't, it refutes the notion that humans are the primary driver of it
• Do these findings, by suggesting a minimal human impact on the isotopic composition of atmospheric carbon, contradict the need to reduce CO2 emissions? They're just saying they aren't making a comment about whether or not CO2 emission reduction is necessary or worthwhile
• Are human carbon emissions independent from other forms of pollution, such as emissions of fine particles and nitrogen oxides, which can have harmful effects on human health and the environment? Again, they aren't trying to say the findings say humans have zero impact

These questions are not posed at all in the paper and certainly are not studied in it. Therefore, they cannot be answered on a scientific basis within the paper's confined scope but require further research. But the study does suggest that the idea that humans are a primary driver of CO2 levels and climate change is incorrect. Which is all OP was saying.

---

---

There's no sense in having a discussion with someone that has a preconceived agenda. My professional opinion is that the OP draws a deceptive conclusion. You can agree or disagree and that's fine. I'll respect you for your opinion. It's a shame others on here can't be equally respectful on disagreements. I do find the author's responses to reviewer comments funny though.

TA-OP said:

---

There's no sense in having a discussion with someone that has a preconceived agenda. My professional opinion is that the OP draws a deceptive conclusion. You can agree or disagree and that's fine. I'll respect you for your opinion. It's a shame others on here can't be equally respectful on disagreements. I do find the author's responses to reviewer comments funny though.

---

Ummm...

Quote:

---

TA-OP:

You're just flat out wrong or being intentionally obtuse.

---

this thread summed up:

"new study debunks climate change! checkmate globalists"

the study in question: "this study specifically does not debunk climate change"

"ah but it doesn't NOT debunk climate change!"

And this is the real problem with anytihng in science these days....the Scientific Method has been roundly defeated and cast out for political expediency and money.

Quote:

---

Combined with earlier studies, namely [2,3,4,5,31], these findings allow for the following line of thought to be formulated, which contrasts the dominant climate narrative, on the basis that different lines of thought are beneficial for the progress of science, even though they are not welcomed by those with political agendas promoting the narratives (whose representatives declare that they "own the science", as can be seen in the motto in the beginning of the paper)

---

TA-OP said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

TA-OP said:

---

On top of the questionable practices of MDPI, the author doesn't even conclude what the OP argues. A direct quote from the conclusion:

Quote:

---

One may associate the findings of the paper with several questions related to international policies. Do these results refute the hypothesis that CO2 emissions contribute to global warming through the greenhouse effect? Do these findings, by suggesting a minimal human impact on the isotopic composition of atmospheric carbon, contradict the need to reduce CO2 emissions? Are human carbon emissions independent from other forms of pollution, such as emissions of fine particles and nitrogen oxides, which can have harmful effects on human health and the environment? These questions are not posed at all in the paper and certainly are not studied in it. Therefore, they cannot be answered on a scientific basis within the paper's confined scope but require further research.

---

So this isn't really the smoking gun OP thinks it is.

---

What you posted is just saying they aren't saying humans haven't contributed, but the study says what humans HAVE contributed has been miniscule. What you posted also says they aren't saying anything about intentionally reducing emissions one way or another. They're saying that all the study says is that natural warming is driving most increased CO2, not the other way around.

To put it succinctly, what you posted isn't really the smoking gun you think it is.

---

You're just flat out wrong or being intentionally obtuse. The author literally poses the question, "Do these results refute the hypothesis that CO2 emissions contribute to global warming through the greenhouse effect?" and then answers the question saying they didn't even try to answer that question. Ergo, the OP concluding that this papers says that global warming and climate change have been proven wrong is deceptive.

---

The issue at hand is not "global warming" but "anthropogenic global warming". Those are 2 different things.

It amazes me that world leaders think they have the ability to change future global temperature one way or another. The natural variables have always controlled climate for billions of years. Those variables didn't just randomly become static after this new man made religious climate change came on scene in 70s.

BlueTaze said:

---

It amazes me that world leaders think they have the ability to change future global temperature one way or another. The natural variables have always controlled climate for billions of years. Those variables didn't just randomly become static after this new man made religious climate change came on scene in 70s.

---

Humans have admittedly added a variable to the equation. But it's a relatively small part of the equation and liberals have been over emphasizing its importance and ignoring the other more significant variables at play here.

BlueTaze said:

---

It amazes me that world leaders think they have the ability to change future global temperature one way or another. The natural variables have always controlled climate for billions of years. Those variables didn't just randomly become static after this new man made religious climate change came on scene in 70s.

---

The question isn't leaders but humanity as a whole. Collectively we have the power to cause all kinds of things. Do you not think if we unleashed a few hundred nukes we could cause mass extinction along with massive short term changes in climate due to nuclear winter and mass loss of plant life?

Whether we can predict outcomes from current behavior (or proposed changes to it) is another question. The hubris isn't in whether we can collectively eff up the planet but a handful of clowns who couldn't run a lemonade stand thinking they could predict whether we are on that path and have a good plan to alter course.

I've been assured by multiple Very Concerned Moderates on this site that if we just surrender our freedom and money to the Democratic Party then the climate will suddenly become perfect for everyone forever

Water vapor is WAY worse as a " greenhouse gas" but there's no "Big Water" to grift like Big oil.

Just tell me if I'm going to drown in seawater if I stay by the coast. TIA.

Nu uh... our world is ending in 10 years due to cow farts and electricity that does everything but charge EVs being evil, AOC said so.

I mean, hello... Al Gore anyone? Greta anyone?

How dare you not listen to the man-bear pig and the puppet.

doubledog said:

---

MDPI is a predatory publisher They are open access, that is the authors pay to publish, which can lead to problems.

Having said that... The warmer the ocean the less absorption of CO2, you can prove this by bringing a pan of 7-up to a boil and see what happens.

---

Unfortunately, almost every science journal rubber stamps whatever studies fit their editors' personal beliefs. The peer review process is completely broken. Now it's just a system of mutual backscratching.

SunrayAg said:

---

The climate of planet earth has been changing as long as planet earth has existed.

How insanely arrogant do you have to be to believe that you can prevent the climate from changing? Much less believe that global marxism will prevent the climate from changing?

---

That's the thing I've always harped on. FORGET the data for a second. Let's just assume all the climate kooks are right for a second. Why must we ALWAYS adopt a leftist policy to fix it? Why don't they say, "hey, I'm just concerned about the problem itself; you come up with a free market solution that works, and I'll get behind that."

You ever heard a global warming fanatic say that? No, because global warming has nothing to do with it, and the "true believers" out there wouldn't know CO2 from Hawaii 5-0.

A lot of the problem is lobbying by the oil industry. It's hard for any solution to naturally develop when the current ones in power with the money are more interested in paying off politicians rather than allowing things like infrastructure changes to happen.

" Its really sad that the ignorant liberal masses are being led astray by bad science…….."

And promptly posts an article from MDPI to prove his assertion.

Classic TexAgs at its best/worst.

I have no idea if the paper is right or wrong, but if the paper is right, I conclude the following:

1. The climate change that is happening is not caused by humans and very likely cannot be significantly altered by humans in the present timeframe. All the efforts to stop CO2 emissions will not alter how the climate will change. The paper doesn't want to address this, but it is an obvious likely truth if their conclusions are true.

2. If the conclusions based on the studies are correct, they will not be recognized as such for a long long time. There is simply way too much political power at stake to acknowledge that humans are not significantly causing climate change.

Having said that, the conclusions and studies could be severely flawed but in today's world, there simply isn't a good way to know.

An obvious counter by the layman to the study is that clearly humans are releasing a huge amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, so is there an explanation of why that's not significant?

All climate models are just as accurate as the gypsy. looking into a crystal ball and telling your future. "Climate scientist", more like "climate gypsy" grifters.... tramps and thieves....lol

You are the mark.

Zero climate models predict anything of value. We have the receipts now.

Question… why on threads like this do all the non Ag tags show up? Some of you hang out on this board only and contribute very very little to all the other forums on this site .., .. are y'all political junkies only?

I question a lot of this climate change information used for political gain or being used to increase taxes

The number one greenhouse gas is and always will be water vapor. But if you ask Google, the answer will be carbon dioxide. Why is that? I think that is all you need to know. They lie for money and power, not truth.

Still waiting for someone to prove CO2 is the definitive cause of climate change. Everyone is programmed to concede that point and it has to stop.

Lol. Bidens policies are gonna get us first!

Australian broadcaster, Alan Jones:

"CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere. Human beings create only 3% of that 0.04%. Is anyone seriously suggesting that we should stand the economy on its head, force up energy prices, damage business, jeopardise employment, because 0.04% of the… pic.twitter.com/FKGeCyRf3E

— Wide Awake Media (@wideawake_media) March 20, 2024