Statistics Norway just published a bomb-shell of a paper that offers a real analysis of global temperatures. The English translation of the paper is available HERE, and is well worth looking at for anyone interested in the facts behind global temperature trends. https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-miljo/forurensning-og-klima/artikler/to-what-extent-are-temperature-levels-changing-due-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions/_/attachment/inline/5a3f4a9b-3bc3-4988-9579-9fea82944264:f63064594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf //

Climate Discussion Nexus offers an introduction to why this paper is so important:

Well, this is awkward. Statistics Norway, aka Statistisk sentralbyrå or “the national statistical institute of Norway and the main producer of official statistics”, has just published a paper “To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?”

The awkward part isn’t trying to grasp the subtleties of Norwegian since it’s also available in English. It’s that the Abstract bluntly declares that “standard climate models are rejected by time series data on global temperatures” while the conclusions state “the results imply that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be sufficiently strong to cause systematic changes in the pattern of the temperature fluctuations.”

But the really awkward part is that a paper from a government agency dares to address openly so many questions the alarmist establishment has spent decades declaring taboo, from the historical record on climate to the existence of massive uncertainty among scientists on it. //

Oracle | October 20, 2023 at 9:35 am
Freeman Dyson spent one year studying global warming and came to the same conclusion- in the mid 90’s (though his big controversial interview was about 2005?). //

Zachriel | October 20, 2023 at 1:12 pm
Statistics Norway just published a bomb-shell of a paper that offers a real analysis of global temperatures.

The paper is a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed. Nor does it offer a “real analysis.” The analysis doesn’t even attempt to account for greenhouse gases or combine those effects with other drivers of climate. The paper also cites approvingly several claims that have already been shown to be in error, while discounting or ignoring the findings of scientists far outside their own field of study.

Essentially, what the paper does is look at the curve and say that it could be natural because natural changes can cause large fluctuations. While true, that doesn’t mean that the current warming isn’t due to greenhouse gases. ...