9
POPSWe Can't Afford to Ignore Global Warming Idiots
You will never see science from the global warming idiots. The scientists, almost all of them, know it is a bunch of bunk. The select few are the ones selected to present an IPCC media report, which is one of the most dishonest reports in history. By the way, Masbury, the selct few includes the IPCC, who say in their report: IPCC, 2001, pg 94, which has never been amended or retracted. paraphrase: There has been no detected human signature on recent warming trends..( this was 2001 before the cooling trend had come into focus);;the recent warming could be natural.. There has never been a mechanism that supports a human signature in climate change. Recent studies, some recently posted here, continue to support that the models are fantasy. There has been NO cooling on other solar system bodies, yet there is recent warming detected on many of them. The fact is that if you believe in anthropogenic global warming you are not intelligent and open minded. You are simply a b
5
POPSAgainst the hallmarks of liberalism CyberSpace Czar Technology Czar Drug Czar Copyright Czar Climate Czar Car Czar Energy Czar Health Care Czar WMD Czar Education Czar Economic Czar Housing Czar Mortgage Czar
9
POPSThe List of Dissenters Grows Dramatically "Prominent Japanese Geologist Dr. Shigenori Maruyama, a professor at the Tokyo Institute of Technology’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences who has authored more than 125 scientific publications, said in March 2009 that “there was widespread skepticism among his colleagues about the IPCC’s fourth and latest assessment report that most of the observed global temperature increase since the mid-20th century ‘is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” Maruyama noted that when this question was raised at a Japan Geoscience Union symposium last year, ‘the result showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.”
9
POPSEmotion and Confirmation Bias Where there is no skepticism and clear-thinking, we have the emotional attachment of those worshiping theory and living in a hypothetical world. Theirs is a devotion to an idea, which is actually a faith. Hope and change, anyone? Climate Change?
14
POPSThe CO2 extractor Every living thing relies on CO2 being in the atmosphere. That said, why do environmental alarmists oppose the CO2 scrubber? The argument that it is inefficient just doesn't fly because all technology becomes cheaper and more efficient over time. I think we all know the reason why they oppose it. The CO2 scrubber does not allow them to control your life.
18
POPSMore bad news for alarmists For example, the recent summary by Fred Singer and 22 expert contributors to “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate” makes some extraordinary statements about computer models. (In addition to the many excellent contributors, this summary also contains 167 references to the scientific literature). This is important since computer models are being improperly, yet extensively, used by state legislatures as the basis of policies for greenhouse gas mitigation, rather than using actual climate data taken from the real world. These statements include: Computer models do not consider variations of irradiance and magnetic fields of the sun Computer models do not accurately model the role of clouds Computer models do not simulate a possible negative feedback from water vapor Computer models do not explain many features of the Earth’s observed climate. Computer models cannot produce reliable predictions of regional climate change.
18
POPSGlobal Warming Scientist Comes Clean 1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it. Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most... We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever. If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. 2. There is no evidence that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. ... 3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year 4. ice cores show that in the past... half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon.
13
POPSThere is no climate crisis: Hoax revealed The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%; CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100; Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly; The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500; The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated; “Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years; Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling; The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%; Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed; In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.
5
POPSOn North Pole Ice Variance I think Global Warming Alarmists shoot themselves in the foot highlighting the localized potential of ice retreat at North Pole. It is no more substantial to the theory of Anthropogic Climate Change as the fact that Asia experienced one of it's coldest winters is substantial against the theory of anthropogenic climate change.
4
POPSDon't Panic This is an excellent short video on the biases built in to some of the IPCC predictions with an over-assumed and rather arbitrary climate sensitivity. The projections have proven false. Now, as the point is made in the video, scientists are considering other anthropogenic influences that dampen the predicted warming, because we know it couldn't be that they were just flat wrong.
3
POPSHanson Unhinged "Hansen offered three scenarios for future warming. “Scenario A,” was business as usual.......“Scenario B,” which forecast a slower increase, is pretty close to what has happened, as far as global carbon dioxide emissions go. It projected that increasing CO2 concentrations would result in global temperatures about 1.48°F above the 1951-80 average in 2007. But that’s 33 percent more warming than has actually been observed......Scenario C” stopped the growth of carbon dioxide emissions altogether in 2000, which obviously hasn’t happened. "Every climate scientist knows there’s been no — zero — net change in surface temperatures in the last ten years, as shown in the climate history of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change....Hansen’s predictions were wrong about the extent of global warming. Yet on the 20th anniv. of his testimony, he said that people “should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature” for spreading doubts.
5
POPSOn building the Red-Green alliance "The absence however of wide participation from among the socialist left, outside the sponsoring organizations such as the Socialist Alliance, suggests that a lot more attention has to be invested by reds to turn green. The challenge thrown up not only by the Cuban example of sustainability — explained by Roberto Perez — and the ecological relevance of Marxism –as argued by John Bellamy Foster — gave many greens much food for thought and many lefts a lot of inspiration."
Newest Clips
see Newest Clips
Pops
Comments
Tags
6
Most Pops
Print
Save
Turn on live update