The global warming fraud

 I&I:

A new study out of Norway is exactly what was needed to shut down the climate alarmists. Its findings show that man has not set fire to his home planet.

Right from the top, in the abstract not 10 lines into the study, the authors get to the point.

“Using theoretical arguments and statistical tests we find,” the researchers say, “that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be strong enough to cause systematic changes in the temperature fluctuations during the last 200 years.”

In other words, our words, the greenhouse effect is so weak that it should be sidelined as an argument.

From there, the bad news only gets worse for priests of the climate religion.

“​​Even if recent recorded temperature variations should turn out to deviate from previous variation patterns in a systematic way it is still a difficult challenge to establish how much of this change is due to increasing man-made emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases.”

The researchers, from Statistics Norway, the government’s official data agency, also address the apparent “high degree of consensus among many climate researchers that the temperature increase of the last decades is systematic (and partly man-made),” while noting that “is certainly the impression conveyed by the mass media.”

Of course the climate zealots won’t like the study. Well, they also won’t like another new paper, this one from University of Alabama in Hunstville climate scientists Roy Spencer and John Christy, who have submitted Urban Heat Island Effects in U.S. Summer Surface Temperature Data, 1880-2015 to a science journal.

They believe they have ​​demonstrated “that, not only do the homogenized (‘adjusted’) dataset not correct for the effect of the urban heat island (UHI) on temperature trends, the adjusted data appear to have even stronger UHI signatures than in the raw (unadjusted) data.”

According to Spencer, “the bottom line is that an estimated 22% of the U.S. warming trend, 1895 to 2023, is due to localized UHI effects,” and that “the effect is much larger in urban locations.”

In other words, our words, the temperature record we’re expected to accept without question is a sham – an argument we’ve been making for more than 20 years.

...

I have long been of the opinion that temperature fluctions were not something to worry about and attempts to regulated them were unrealistic at best.