Scientists Find ‘Man-made Climate Change Doesn’t Exist In Practice’

Written by Tyler Durden

Cosmic Rays Contribute Little to Climate Change | Climate ...

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.

Clouds over Los Angeles, via AFP/Getty

The scientists involved in the study are most concerned with the fact that current climate models driving the political side of debate, most notably the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) climate sensitivity scale, fail to incorporate this crucial and potentially central variable of increased cloud cover.

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has discussed the impact of cloud cover on climate in their evaluations, but this phenomenon has never been considered in climate predictions due to the insufficient physical understanding of it,” comments Professor Hyodo in Science Daily. “This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect.”

In their related paper, aptly titled, “No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic [man-made] climate change”, the Finnish scientists find that low cloud cover “practically” controls global temperatures but that “only a small part” of the increased carbon dioxide concentration is anthropogenic, or caused by human activity.

The following is a key bombshell section in one of the studies conducted by Finland’s Turku University team:

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.

This raises urgent questions and central contradictions regarding current models which politicians and environmental groups across the globe are using to push radical economic changes on their countries’ populations.

Image source: NASA

Conclusions from both the Japanese and Finnish studies strongly suggest, for example, that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s “drastic measures to cut carbon emissions” which would ultimately require radical legislation changes to “remake the U.S. economy” would not only potentially bankrupt everyone but simply wouldn’t even work, at least according to the new Finnish research team findings.

To put AOC’s “drastic measures” in perspective  based entirely on the fundamental assumption of the monumental and disastrous impact of human activity on the climate  — consider the following conclusions from the Finnish 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.

Which leads the scientists to state further:

“Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased carbon dioxide is less than 10 percent, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change,” the researchers concluded.

And the team in Japan has called for a total reevaluation of current climate models, which remain dangerously flawed for dismissing a crucial variable:

This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect. The umbrella effect caused by galactic cosmic rays is important when thinking about current global warming as well as the warm period of the medieval era.

Failure to account for this results in the following, according to the one in the series of studies: “The IPCC climate sensitivity is about one order of magnitude too high, because a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing in climate models.”

Image source: AFP/Getty 

“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 researchers conclude.

Though we doubt the ideologues currently pushing to radically remake the American economy through what ends up being a $93 trillion proposal(according to one study including AOC’s call for a whopping 70% top tax rate — will carefully inquire of this new bombshell scientific confirmation presented in the new research, we at least hope the US scientific community takes heed before it’s too late in the cause of accurate and authentic science that would stave off irreparable economic disaster that would no doubt ripple across the globe, adding to both human and environmental misery.

And “too late” that is, not for some mythical imminent or near-future “global warming Armageddon” as the currently in vogue highly politicized “science” of activists and congress members alike claims.


PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

Comments (5)

  • Avatar



    More absurd extrapolation from questionable anecdotal evidence, random temperatures over limited timetable. Real science identified the two variable energy sources, Sun and volcanism, then studied how energy is transferred through matter, Thermodynamics. There is NO greenhouse gas, CO2 is a benign, trailing artifact.

  • Avatar

    James McGinn


    Tyler Durden:
    “A new scientific study could bust wide open deeply flawed fundamental assumptions underlying controversial climate legislation and initiatives such as the Green New Deal, . . .”

    James McGinn:
    Many disciplines maintain flaws in their initial assumptions. Generally these are considered sacred–off limits to scrutiny. In meteorology, for example, we are expected to believe that convection causes storms despite the fact there is zero empirical evidence of such.

    For fiscal reasons academics, in general, will not abandon a narrative that the public finds convincing. Asking a climatologists to abandon or even test the CO2 warming notion is like asking a meteorologists to abandon the convection model of storms. Being an academic requires one to pretend to understand the underlying assumptions of their prevailing models and there is zero chance their are going to admit they are only pretending.

    The public just wants simple models that support their values.

    The most important skill to being an academic is pretending to understand what actually doesn’t make sense.

    James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

  • Avatar



    Clouds utterly destroy climate models …

    “Cloud error is 114 times larger than the variable they are trying to detect”
    IMO the real point he makes is that the climate models are orders of magnitude out even if you take the modelers assumption as gospel.
    I also think he has a point when he’s had to confront ‘climate modelers’ who are reviewing his paper, and he discovers that their (the reviewers) basic understanding of what a graph with error bars portray is very wrong.
    Around 37:30minutes he says something like

    “…every single climate modeler reviewer was incompetent…
    And by incompetent I mean they made mistakes that were typical of naïve undergraduate freshmen — for example, to a man, it could have been to a women, whoever, they don’t either, neither, respect nor understand the difference between precision and accuracy.
    They don’t understand propagated error, and they think that those error bars that I showed you, these error bars, [pointing to graphs on the screen with error bars on them] mean that the climate itself, the model, is oscillating rapidly between a hothouse, no hothouse and icehouse climate.When in fact they don’t mean anything like that, and they don’t understand the distinction between an actual energetic perturbation and an error statistic.
    So they see that -/+ 4Watts per square meter of error as a perturbation on the model. Which it is not.
    So they make these really basic mistakes … “

    Effectively he show that in ‘Climate Science™’ the scientific method is very broken as the peer-reviewers are much less competent than the person submitting the paper.
    How can real science move forward with such and ídiotic regime?

    • Avatar

      jerry krause


      Hi Tom,

      Very, very good!!! But I believe only an experimentalist (a practical person) can really understand what you have just written.

      In his preface Newton wrote (as translated by Motte): “I have in this treatise cultivated mathematics so far as it regards philosophy. [I have not idea what this means. But I understand the next few sentences.] The ancients considered mechanics in a twofold respect; as rational, which proceeds accurately by demonstration; and practical. To practical mechanics all the manual arts belong, from which mechanics took its name. But as artificers do not work with perfect accuracy, it comes to pass that mechanics is so distinguished from geometry, that what is perfectly accurate is called geometrical; what is less so, is called mechanical. But the errors are not in the art, but in the artificers. He that works with less accuracy is an imperfect mechanic; and if any could work with perfect accuracy, he would be the most perfect mechanic of all; for the description of right lines and circles, upon which geometry is founded, belongs to mechanics. Geometry does not teach us to draw these lines, but requires them to be drawn; for it requires that the learner should first be taught to describe these accurately, before he enters upon geometry; then it shows how by these operations problems may be solved. To describe right lines and circles are problems, but not geometrical problems. The solution of these problems is required from mechanics; and by geometry the use of them, when so solved, is shown; and it is the glory of geometry the use of them, when so solved, is shown; and it is the glory of geometry of from those few principles, brought from without, it is able to produce so many things. Therefore geometry is founded in mechanical practice, and is nothing but that part of universal mechanics which accurately proposes and demonstrates the art of measuring.”

      Have a good day, Jerry

    • Avatar

      James McGinn


      Tom O. Mason:
      ” . . . in ‘Climate Science™’ the scientific method is very broken . . .”
      “How can real science move forward with such and ídiotic regime?”

      It’s not just climate science. It’s just more obvious in the climate sciences because they have put such a big price tag on it. There are many sources of incompetence in the natural sciences. I think the biggest source of incompetence stems from an error introdued by Linus Pauling in regard to comprehending H2O:
      Are You Confused About Hydrogen Bonding In Water?

      James McGinn / Genius

Comments are closed