Over 58396
politifake

Farce Politics


HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF - “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.” quote by Karl Marx




Consensus, Models & Predictions vs. REALITY -


TAGS: global warming myth hoax climate change scam green energy farce consensus models predictions reality ipcc al gore greenies alarmists warmists
Rating: 5/5

More politifakes by TheConservativeInsurgent

calron - April 4, 2015, 12:39 pm
Here's a possible explaination, http://www.cato.org/blog/you-ought-have-look-climate-sensitivity-environmental-worries-are-trending-downward


Scientific Consensus on Global Warming??? -


TAGS: global warming consensus climate change hoax scam farce michael crichton junk science green religion alarmists warmists greenies al gore ipcc agenda21
Rating: 4.69/5

More politifakes by TheConservativeInsurgent

calron - April 25, 2015, 9:29 pm
I've seen worse, Ala 62039. Being fired for pointing out AGW junk science.
OTC - April 25, 2015, 6:19 pm
You're wrong again, "activist" scientists, not scientists. Activist scientists have been caught drawing conclusions before doing the research, its not that hard to follow along.
calron - April 25, 2015, 5:00 pm
What's really bad is that natural variability could be used to support AGW, but some shout denier whenever you bring it up as a cause for warming.
fauxnews - April 25, 2015, 4:48 pm
As long as it annoys Rebecca, it is worth it to me. X-D It's the only thing keeping me going, mate. :-) F*ck carrots and gum.
rebeccaolsen - April 25, 2015, 2:48 pm
Like when Rush Limbaugh lied this week about the Duke study. The authors of that study actually came out against him because the political media does this all of the time. That is scientists up in arm over being exploited in a non-debate
rebeccaolsen - April 25, 2015, 2:46 pm
By now, it's common sense knowledge in the world of academia that climatology firmly supports the theory of MMCC. The scientific community is not at odds over this. It's the public that is on the fence. Talking about it too much distracts from the issue
rebeccaolsen - April 25, 2015, 2:43 pm
Don't really care about any of that. If or when the media is wrong about MMCC, doesn't change the fact that the science community is firmly behind MMCC in both consensus and findings.
calron - April 25, 2015, 2:39 pm
Roughly 1.59% of the abstracts reach the conclusion that he says the majority agrees with. That's not in the ballpark. If he chose a different standard to measure the consensus, he could have got the 97.1%.
rebeccaolsen - April 25, 2015, 2:33 pm
the scientists will just get each other's back like some country club. That's absurd. That's not what peer review means. On this issue, there has been enough fact checking that this bias would've been revealed by the present.
rebeccaolsen - April 25, 2015, 2:31 pm
It would appear Faux is talking about peer-reviewed journals about climate change, not the consensus. Roughly speaking, virtually all of them ARE behind the MMCC theory. OTC's problem is he thinks peer review is biased because
rebeccaolsen - April 25, 2015, 2:27 pm
Cook is guilty of being sloppy, not being debunked. Roughly speaking, he was in the ball park. Again you are splitting hairs hun. Peer review has caught it. It's just not a big enough issue to matter. Climatology isn't up in arms over this for good reason
calron - April 25, 2015, 2:24 pm
I've red a few and this is not necessary true. Take Cook's census for example. It reaches a conclusion that is debunked by Cook's own numbers rather than reaching the conclusion supported by the numbers. Peer review should catch it, but it still happens.
OTC - April 25, 2015, 12:34 pm
Like the past 2 years of unusual cool climate is suddenly "just weather". Anyways, have a good weekend and break that cig habit, you're more amusing nicotine free :-)
OTC - April 25, 2015, 12:31 pm
*Sigh* Perhaps you missed my posts stating that I don't deny human impact (contributing), I'm fully aware of MMCO2 but I do deny it's the sole driver of current trends in CC. And I notice anything to the contrary of MMCC is not welcomed
fauxnews - April 25, 2015, 1:23 am
Alrighty then. Off to start my weekend. A night of me designated driving for my friends while others get drunk :-/ WEEEEE! Anyhow, fun jousting with you mate. Let's do it again next week if the spirit moves us, OTC. Cheers. :-) Fox is off the air.
fauxnews - April 25, 2015, 1:20 am
P.S. Don't think I didn't notice you abandoning your cosmic ray Henrik denier theory. ;-) Is science like a crap shoot for you? One of these days do you just hope to roll the dice 'just right' and find a random link that will finally pay off? X-D
fauxnews - April 25, 2015, 1:16 am
The only Quote from that article that matters - "It does not, the authors emphasize, change the evidence of human impact on global climate beginning in the 20th century." #PWNEDYOURSELF
fauxnews - April 25, 2015, 1:16 am
Even you admit, in your game of pigeon chess, that they are not removing the human element. You're grasping for straws - everything else you said is irrelevant in light of that concession.
OTC - April 25, 2015, 1:10 am
http://phys.org/news/2014-08-global-temperature-conundrum-cooling-climate.html
OTC - April 25, 2015, 1:08 am
Well even this states it doesn't. remove the human equation, but the climate models didn't predict a cooling and that has them confused, which is funny because not everything was used in the models because scientists didn't think it was significant
fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 9:20 pm
...the peer rev.studies themselves are pretty dry and free of politics.They make for boring reads,like plumbing manuals.They are not to be confused with the lib media that reports and distorts them.Hope this helps to FINALLY clear that up. Cheers mate :-)
fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 9:20 pm
...the peer rev.studies themselves are pretty dry and free of politics.They make for boring reads,like plumbing manuals.They are not to be confused with the lib media that reports and distorts them.Hope this helps to FINALLY clear that up. Cheers mate :-)
fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 9:15 pm
...I think, sometimes, you are confusing the political conclusions drawn by the liberal crowd which I agree are conflated.However,the peer-reviewed journals simply say:MMCC is unequivocal.They do not endorse the dire predictions of Al Gore or the libs...
fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 9:13 pm
...in that sense, we've always been in agreement. The libs, as badly as the GOPers, have dragged the science dialogue into the political gutter. And the libs have their own denier issue to deal with -- the anti-vaccination movement...
fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 9:08 pm
...The scientists are just reporting their findings. How long and how bad MMCC will affect the planet is up for conjecture.All they can claim is it's happening and a serious issue.It's not meant to be a crystal ball about next years temps or Superbowl win
fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 9:06 pm
P.S. Before you go down another rabbit hole, I can save you the trouble: all the consensus says about MMCC is that it is unequivocal.It doesnt claim to predict everything. It doesnt claim it will be the end of the world.The lib politicians are doing that
fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 8:56 pm
Source? I think I'm sure about what you are speaking about. But with you, I can never be sure. ;-) Provide a citation, please. And yes, the MMCC debate ended more or less many years ago. It's not confusing for the scientists, just the quacks.
OTC - April 24, 2015, 8:51 pm
If the debate on MMCC is over, then why is there a global temperature conundrum that scientists plan to address this fall? I thought it was settled.
fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 1:20 pm
...except Scientology. You can judge Scientology. X-D
fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 1:19 pm
Scientology was created in the 20th century by a science fiction author. An awful science fiction author. Religion of any kind holds us back. But none of us has the right to judge the other - Be you Xtian, Jew, Muslim, Agnostic Atheist...etc
fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 1:15 pm
I actually respect religion even if I don't believe in God. I just don't respect fundamentalism. If you want to pick on a religion of liberal geeks, pick on Scientology. It has "science" in the title, at least. It is a liberal tard fest. X-D
fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 1:13 pm
The science on MMCC is simply a report on the findings. Whatever problem you have with the politics of it comes with your own philosophical problem with how science works, which a**umes a theocratic pov as the inverse since you are making this about faith
fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 1:09 pm
And by "theocratic", what I mean by that is - again, it's revealed when you overplayed your hand with your philosophical problem with science: Science doesn't pretend to be infallible. That is what religion is for. Science isn't a religion for geeks.
fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 12:53 pm
No, becca. Coffee. Lots and lots of coffee :-/ They have Taco Bell Mountain Dew Baja Blast in the can now for a limited time! :-D Now I dont have to sneak my McDonald's cup into there and steal it. X-D I can get my caffeine fix from the convenience store.
fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 12:51 pm
You have such unreasonable distrust toward science,wildly a**uming political bias everywhere you can.Yet you haven't a skeptical bone in your body over secular Christian ideology,which is rife with politics? You have a theocratic agenda on MMCC, mate(2/2)
fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 12:41 pm
It proves you are more than a simple contrarian. It proves you are delusional, mate. :-/ Your problem isn't with MMCC. Your problem is with science, and how it works. And your issue with it is a purely philosophical one.(1/2)
rebeccaolsen - April 24, 2015, 12:29 pm
You're actually on top of things for a change.Not that obliterating OTC's argument is rocket science.Regular science would do - something he doesnt comprehend.But a coherent argument from you,Faux? You must've remembered your nicotine gum this morning :)
rebeccaolsen - April 24, 2015, 12:21 pm
"when the facts show it is wrong following a proper scientific inquiry,which already demonstrated human-induced CC was unequivocal." Finishing that sentence for you,denier :) Know you wanted to imply politics or bias was behind the rejection.Not today hun
OTC - April 24, 2015, 11:37 am
I didn't state that he disproved MMCC. But this does prove that research that finds reasons for CC other than humans is rejected.
fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 10:23 am
And how does your idiotic anecdotal observations about weather counter my thorough refutation of Henrik? The man YOU CITED as DISPROVING MMCC?? Oh yeah,it doesn't because you can't - hence this LAME red-herring, Im sorry, I meant 'attempt at sarcasm.' :-)
fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 10:14 am
lol...You can't be serious, mate...lolololol...Yeah, the scientist's evidence vs. your own two eyes. Well...I went to China last year and didn't fall off the Earth. Guess those flat Earthers were right! X-D Hmmmm?
OTC - April 24, 2015, 8:10 am
Let me guess, a tornado? GW! a hurricane? GW! a blizzard? GW! so this cooler than usual weather must be GW, right? isn't that what the consensus is?
OTC - April 24, 2015, 8:07 am
We're told 2014 was the h**test year on record, yet when I'm usually experiencing several days in the 100s, we had 1, maybe 2 days in '14. & for the 2nd yr in a row its almost May but instead of the normal 90s we are barely hitting the 80 degree mark
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 10:01 pm
So please, mate, call me a "denier." In fact, I will be disappointed in you if you don't. Yes, I'm the biggest JUNK SCIENCE DENIER around. ;-) If in your game of pigeon chess that represents Check mate, then it's a game I'm PROUD to lose. #WINNINGBYLOSING
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 9:57 pm
But basically you say any interpretation of science you present is BEING DENIED if we disagree with it. Fair enough. I'm a JUNK SCIENCE DENIER. I see your junk science and raise you 10000+ peer reviewed studies and the 97-99% consensus that backs it.
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 9:56 pm
It's point (B) you are refuting. Now with your debunked cosmic ray nonsense. The effectiveness of GCRs in cloud formation has been shown to be dubious. GCRs exert a very tiny influence over low-level cloud cover, not enough to account for sh*t.
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 9:53 pm
But the reason WE KNOW man-made CO2 is causing GW now is because (A) CO2 in theory CAN cause CC (a point you've conceded) and (B) thousands of investigations by reputable scientists and have found the correlation in a myriad of ways that is unequivocal.
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 9:52 pm
Just because man-made CO2 or cosmic rays COULD cause climate change, doesn't mean all climate change is caused by CO2 and cosmic rays. See what I did there? I included CO2 as well.
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 9:50 pm
Sure...if all this happened, it could cause global warming. But there is ZERO evidence that any of this happened. And by pushing it, you are engaging in a causal fallacy. ie.Just because Socrates is a man, doesn't mean all men are Socrates.
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 9:49 pm
In order for GCRs to successfully seed clouds, they must induce aerosol formation which THEN must grow sufficiently through the condensation of gas in our atmosphere to form cloud-condensation nuclei. Then his must lead to increased cloud formation.
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 9:47 pm
FACT- Cosmic ray flux on Earth has been monitored since the 1950s, and has shown ZERO-ZILCH-NADA significant trends over that period. FACT - our global solar magnetic field also has NOT changed appreciably over the past thirty years.
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 9:45 pm
However, it turns out that none of these hypotheticals that Henrik proposed are occurring in reality. For instance, a nuclear winter COULD create global cooling. But that doesn't mean nukes caused the ice age.lol.. What matters is the PRESENT causes NOW
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 9:39 pm
Hypothetically, an increasing solar magnetic field COULD deflect cosmic rays, which hypothetically seeds low-level clouds, thus decreasing the Earth's reflectivity and causing GW.That's his hypothesis.But is that ACTUALLY happening? Is it the reality now?
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 9:36 pm
In fact, it's funny, but you are pretty much just copying and pasting what Henrik is saying. I know. I checked. Again, here is the refutation mate--->
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 9:34 pm
You're simply posting something without demonstrating comprehension of the concepts involved.I gave you the methodology to verify your claims.You ignored it and simply repeated an empirically disproven concept.In other words,you're talking out of your a$s
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 9:31 pm
Mother nature is not denying the science. You are, denier. There are 4 requirements that must be true for his theory to be valid. They failed to produce results when tested repeatedly against empirical variables. And you are not replying to that.
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 9:28 pm
And that didn't reply at all to the evidence I cited. Just more pigeon chess from you. Yes, you are good at the copy and paste function, mate. Now apply that same vigor to actually learning the science you deny. :-) You might learn something
OTC - April 23, 2015, 9:02 pm
You understand his findinds that when the sun is active, as it has been, it shields us from cosmic rays reducing cloud cover which heats up the planet. with the sun becoming less active, more cosmic rays will produce more clouds
OTC - April 23, 2015, 8:55 pm
The sun is going into a grand minimum, temperatures have flatten recently and scientists are suggesting a cooling period. There's too much invested in the MMGW hype to accept a Global Cooling. Everyone can deny that science, but Mother Nature won't
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 6:21 pm
It turns out that none of these Hen'schypotheticals are occurring in reality, and if cosmic rays were able to influence global temperatures, they would be having a cooling effect. This IS why he is ignored and why you don't know **** about MMCC.Cheers :-)
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 6:18 pm
In summary,studies have shown that GCRs exert a minor influence over low-level cloud cover,solar magnetic field has not increased in recent decades,nor has GCR flux on Earth decreased.In fact,if GCRs did have a significant impact,cooling wouldve occurred
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 6:16 pm
3)Cosmic rays must successfully seed low-level clouds.4)Low-level cloud cover must have a long-term negative trend. Fortunately climatology had empirical variables against which they tested these requirements. Study after indie study debunked Hen's theory
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 6:12 pm
In order for this theory to be plausible, all four of the following requirements must be true.1)Solar magnetic field must have a long-term positive trend.2)Galactic cosmic ray flux on Earth must have a long-term negative trend
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 6:09 pm
, the Sun can turn the temperature up and down. ... As the Sun’s magnetism doubled in strength during the 20th century, this natural mechanism may be responsible for a large part of global warming seen then." End quack quote. (2/2)
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 6:07 pm
Henrik Svensmark says -- It's cosmic rays! The quack says, "When the Sun is active, its magnetic field is better at shielding us against the cosmic rays coming from outer space, before they reach our planet. By regulating the Earth’s cloud cover,(1/2)
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 6:05 pm
who also say radiation is proof of Jesus's resurrection because they claim it explains away the carbon dating which shows the Shroud of Turin to have originated a few hundred years ago, not 2000 yrs ago. Junk science is real neat, huh? (2/2)
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 6:01 pm
He IS ignored because he was proven wrong. PERIOD. He blames everything and I mean EVERYTHING on cosmic rays, including evolution. Congrats! You know how to use Google, mate. ;-) While you at it there you'll find these Russian "scientists" too (1/2)
OTC - April 23, 2015, 5:09 pm
Like Henrik Svensmark who gets ignored because his research didn't coincide with the consensus
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 4:20 pm
Even so, Michael Crichton's opinion on this means about as much to the CC debate as Steven Spielberg's opinion. ie.Not very much. A poster like this plainly proves the deniers are simply trolling science. It is proof of nothing. 1 Lion
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 4:18 pm
We are discussing 10000+ studies, reproducible results, in what is called PEER-REVIEW. The consensus vernacular is plainly the "CC for Dummies" explanation for that.It is not meant as a substitute for hard science, which already exists for MMCC(2/2)
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 4:14 pm
Michael Crichton, who is the author of this quote, never did a study on climate change. Nor was he a climatologist. The part you missed, though, was where he says: "what is relevant is reproducible results." Every major CC study has been reproduced(1/2)


MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING - Is a man made means to tax you even more.




TOUR DE FARCE - JOBS! Really? How about visiting some empty factories here in the U.S!


TAGS: tour de farce
Rating: 3.67/5

More politifakes by JGalt



Global Warming Junk Science -




Wacky Warmists -




EPA's Green Tyranny -




Global Warming Stupidity -


TAGS: global warming stupidity climate change hoax scam fraud farce green religion greenies alarmists warmists
Rating: 4.92/5

More politifakes by TheConservativeInsurgent

OTC - April 11, 2015, 2:25 pm
Liberal stupidity would be funny except that they're in charge and can react to their stupidity and effect everyone
calron - April 11, 2015, 1:51 pm
LOL, looked and found it. http://nujournal.net/core.pdf


Global Warming Is A Hoax -




Methane Madness -




Global Warming is a Farce -


TAGS: global warming farce junk science climate change hoax ipcc al gore
Rating: 4.27/5

More politifakes by TheConservativeInsurgent

calron - March 14, 2015, 7:33 pm
That could explain the global warming pause and be used to show yet another reason that the pause doesn't disprove MMGW.


Climate Change Truth -




PREV PAGE