1
POPSMyth Of Consensus Explodes: American Physical Society Opens Debate The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible." http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=12403
3
POPSThe Pickens Plan For Wind-Powered Energy
Joseph Romm raises interesting questions about what wind power should replace, as well as the efficiency of natural gas in transportation. So does FuturePundit. # I believe more domestic production of oil is a marginally useful thing, but a long-term solution probably requires (short term) diversified energy sources - more plausible as technological progress allows us to capture, e.g., wind and solar energy more efficiently and to increase battery storage capacity - and (long term) nuclear energy. # I believe the lack of fueling infrastructure is a significant barrier to using natural gas for transportation. # I believe the scientific evidence that anthropogenic climate change is occurring is solid. # I believe the cost of oil is significantly higher than the price of oil and the negative externalities of our oil-driven economy are a problem that needs to be resolved. # I believe regulatory solutions to environmental problems are likely to result in path
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.
4
POPSPerspective on Temperature Many questions remain to be answered regarding the real significance of anthropogenic carbon dioxide as a climate forcing factor and related rising sea level consequences projected by the I.P.C.C. First, there is no incontrovertible evidence to support contentions that pre-industrial carbon dioxide levels were consistently lower than the 380 ppm recorded now. More than 90,000 published measurements carried out between 1812 and 1961 indicate that atmospheric levels were actually rising before the Industrial Revolution. They reached about 440 ppm in 1820, dropped to about 390 ppm by 1855, and rose back to about 440 ppm by 1940.
19
POPSWhat Will Happen to Biodiversity When the World Becomes A Giant City? “As a species we have lived in wild nature for hundreds of thousands of years, and now suddenly most of us live in cities—the ultimate escape from nature,” says Kareiva. “If we do not learn to build, expand and design our cities with a respect for nature, we will have no nature left anywhere.” Indeed, biocide is occurring at an alarming rate. Experts project that at least half of the world’s current animal species will be completely gone by the end of the century. Wild plant-life is also disappearing. Most biologists say that we are in the midst of an anthropogenic mass extinction that is at least partially caused by human encroachment on more and more areas of the planet. Numerous scientific studies confirm that this phenomenon needs to be addressed quickly.
7
POPSWorld Population Has Declined by 40% since 1950 It is clear by the decline of Detroit's population over the last few decades that Anthropogenic Global Warming is having a devastating effect on the human population. I know this because this is also how we measure polar bear populations.
4
POPSAre Global Warmists Pulling A Cool Fast One? The New York Times rolled out Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Boulder, CO. Tremberth told them that "the global climate will continue to be influenced in any particular decade by a mix of natural variability and the building greenhouse effect" and that "a cool phase does not mean the overall theory of dangerous human-driven warming is flawed." And then added what appears to be the latest greenie talking point: "Too many think global warming means monotonic relentless warming everywhere year after year. It does not happen that way." Is anyone else noticing a trend developing here, beyond the "we never said that warming patterns would be steady" shuffle? Each explanation, whether by Willis, Keenlyside and Latif, Wood, or Trenberth implies that some climate forces natural are more formidable than those anthropogenic.
3
POPSNext decade may be cooler, not warmer Obviously this is not an exact science, climate and weather being so complex. Hoax theorists and denialists will no doubt jump all over this news and continue to drag their feet on action.
9
POPSThey have made fools of themselves The federal government has been doling out more than $5 billion annually for research into climate change and alternative energy. A generation ago, there were only a handful of climatologists around the world. Now there are legions of taxpayer-funded climatologists, and scientists and public health professionals from many disciplines also hooked up to the climate gravy train. How many outspoken politicians and celebrities will be willing to acknowledge that they have made fools of themselves? I suppose that California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page, Madonna and others could at least jet on back to their hypocritical Green lifestyles with a clear conscience of sorts.
5
POPSAnthropogenic Global Warming Critic loses funding Now an emeritus professor, Gray declined to comment on the university's possible termination of promotional support. But a memo he wrote last year, after CSU officials informed him that media relations would no longer promote his forecasts after 2008, reveals his views: "This is obviously a flimsy excuse and seems to me to be a cover for the Department's capitulation to the desires of some (in their own interest) who want to reign (sic) in my global warming and global warming-hurricane criticisms," Gray wrote to Dick Johnson, head of CSU's Department of Atmospheric Sciences, and others.
3
POPSLadies and Gentlemen! Comrades! In the absence of classical Marxist preconditions for the Revolution - global crisis of capitalism combined with massive poverty and despair - Global Warming stands out as the most convenient, non-denominational replacement thereof. It provides both the means to manipulate the masses - and a moral justification for doing so. As such it replaces the previously promising but failed agitprop tools as "Overpopulation," "Ozone Holes," "Global Famine," and "Ice Age 2." Until the time when it gets replaced by another convenient agitprop tool, Global Warming must remain an unquestionable dogma in all political discussions (you shall be notified of changes, if any, by the NPR, the New York Times, and other progressive media organs.) The importance of Global Warming for the Revolution is too great to leave it in the hands of scientists. The masses must have faith in Global Warming whether it can be proven or not. http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=1096
4
POPSThey just cannot help themselves In isolation these are the rantings of a blind-sheep fool. However, this is the common refrain of the Leftoids I come across. So it is more likely this is evidence of the trappings of some psychological need. Oh, how they wish it were true. Their wishful thinking is an insight to grave emptiness. This emptiness is also relevant in the NEED to believe in anthropogenic global warming.
6
POPSClimate models vs reality Lead author David Douglass elaborates: The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.
5
POPSGlobal Tropospheric Temperature 1979-2007 Global Warming caused by a run away green house effect can only occur AFTER an increase in tropospheric temperatures. Which means the warm year of 2006 CAN NOT be due to Anthropogenic CO2. Also, remember the spike in 1998, which is so crucial for Anthropogenic GW alarmists was due to an "error". So they say.
9
POPSSETI protocol for ET encounters "No response to a signal or other evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence should be sent until appropriate international consultations have taken place." humm?
6
POPS Tipping Point For Global Warming Movement HOLLYWOOD TARGETS CHILDREN WITH CLIMATE FEARS In addition to Gore's entry last year into Hollywood fictional disaster films,other celebrity figures have attempted to jump into the game. Hollywood activist Leonardo DiCaprio decided to toss objective scientific truth out the window in his new scarefest "The 11th Hour." DiCaprio refused to interview any scientists who disagreed with his dire vision of the future of the Earth. In fact, his film reportedly features physicist Stephen Hawking making the unchallenged assertion that "the worst-case scenario is that Earth would become like its sister planet, Venus, with a temperature of 250 centigrade." I guess these "worst-case scenario's" pass for science in Hollywood these days. It also fits perfectly with DiCaprio's stated purpose of the film. DiCaprio said on May 20th of this year: "I want the public to be very scared by what they see. I want them to see a very bleak future." (LINK) "DiCaprio's Eco Movie Bombs"
8
POPSThe Year Global Warming Alarmism Died
From Article: - “Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,” declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing a new study that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research authored by a Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz. A former Harvard physicist, Dr. Lubos Motl, said the new study has reduced global warming fear-mongers to “playing the children’s game to scare each other.” -Prior to and during 2007, one research study after another revealed that the central premise of “global warming” lacks any scientific merit. One by Dr. Tim Patterson concluded that, “The earth temperature does respond to the solar cycle as confirmed by numerous studies.” The solar cycle is known to be about eleven years in length and reflects increased or decreased sunspot (magnetic storms) activity. It is the Sun that largely determines the Earth’s temperature, which is never the same throughout the planet, given seasonal and solar changes.
3
Pops
Newest Clips
Latest Comments
Most Pops
Print
Save
Turn on live update