Over 58587
politifake

Junk Politics


Obama Blames Global Warming For ISIS & Boko Haram -




Global Warming Is A Hoax -




DOESN'T WALK THE TALK - Let's move!




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)


GM BAILOUT - thanks Congress why aren't you driving your new cars to work?




Some Low-Information Voters Passionately Lie Off-The-Cuff About Serving In The Military: That's the moment you realize you just won an argument with them. -




I'M PRETTY SURE OUR FOUNDING FATHERS - did not see this one coming.




AN INCONVENIENT KERNEL OF TRUTH - Ethanol from corn has a negative carbon footprint (takes more energy to make than it provides as fuel), but states like California still insist it is part of their Cap & Tax Scheme. Junk Science at its finest.




JUNK SCIENCE - Global Warming is real. Its ok to eat tainted gulf shrimp. Yet it will take years for the Gulf to recover. Unbelievable.




Al "Not So Sharp" Sharpton -




Weapons-Grade Global Warming Stupidity -




The Cult Of Climatology -


TAGS: church of climatology prophet al gore goran climat change cult zealots global warming alarmists junk science
Rating: 5/5

More politifakes by TheConservativeInsurgent

DebtToAmerica - March 23, 2015, 10:12 pm
"god sends hurricanes because you burn too much coal!" would have been funnier.


Eco-Fascists: The "Green Wing" of the Nazi Party -


TAGS: eco fascists green wing nazi party green religion greenies alarmists warmists socialism climate change junk science global warming scam agenda21 hysterians
Rating: 5/5

More politifakes by TheConservativeInsurgent

calron - April 27, 2015, 3:40 am
"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire :P
fauxnews - April 26, 2015, 11:04 pm
"I have a theory that you can make any sentence seem profound by writing the name of a dead philosopher at the end of it. -Plato." (Banksy) www.twitter.com/SteveCarell/status/583642179710496769
calron - April 26, 2015, 7:59 pm
"There is perhaps no phenomenon which contains so much destructive feeling as moral indignation, which permits envy or hate to be acted out under the guise of virtue." — Erich Fromm


Global Warming Junk Science -




The Ever-Greater Pause -




The Father of Global Warming -




The Father of Global Warming -




The Father of Global Warming -




2014 Was NOT The Warmest Year Ever -


TAGS: climate change hoax global warming scam junk science al gore ipcc nasa urban heat island effect satellite temperatures
Rating: 5/5

More politifakes by TheConservativeInsurgent

calron - March 21, 2015, 11:18 pm
You forgot to account for the "data adjustment: that turned a cooling trend into a warming trend.


Climate Change -




Climategate -




The Father of Global Warming -




The Father of Global Warming -




EPA Tyrant: "Yes, Our New Regulations Are Going to Make Lower Income People Take it in the A$$" -




Apollo 7 Astronaut: Climate Alarmism Is the ‘Biggest Fraud in the Field of Science’ -


TAGS: climate change alarmism apollo 7 astronaut walter cunningham usmc global warming fruad hoax scientific consensus green religion greenies alarmists warmists hysterians junk science eco fascism nasa ipcc
Rating: 5/5

More politifakes by TheConservativeInsurgent

calron - May 4, 2015, 12:17 am
Looks like An Appeal to Irrelevant Authority with a side of Person Credulity.


1970s Flashback -




Global Warming Alarmists' New Claim: Satellites Are Lying -


TAGS: global warming hoax satellite temperature data climate change scam junk science the pause warmists alarmists hysterians ipcc nasa al gore john christy deniers skeptics greenies green religion eco fascism
Rating: 5/5

More politifakes by TheConservativeInsurgent

calron - February 12, 2016, 2:12 am
There is also the U.S. Climate Reference Network USCRN witch [sic] is supposed to be so accurate that its numbers never need adjusting. It shows a declaine in US temp where the adjusted number show an increase.


Environmental Wackos -




Mad Scientist -




Global Warming Junk Scientist -




Global Warming Hysterian -


TAGS: al gore global warming hysterian climate change hoax scam fraud green religion greenies alarmists warmists ipcc inconvenient truth eco fascism junk science
Rating: 5/5

More politifakes by TheConservativeInsurgent

calron - May 3, 2015, 11:49 pm
There's a reason I call Gore The Profit of Global Warming. He made a lot of dough off the hysteria he spreads, but that doesn't make the theory itself invalid.


Climate Alarmism -




Junk Scientist -




Junk Scientist -




Ironies Abound -




Eco-Fascism: Global Warming Junk Scientists Want Obama to Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics -


TAGS: eco fascism global warming junk scientists climate change hoax scam ipcc al gore rico warmists alarmists greenies green tyranny gia mother earth hysterians agenda 21
Rating: 5/5

More politifakes by TheConservativeInsurgent

ipaprime - September 20, 2015, 4:29 am
little o won't do it cause then the MMCC crowd wil have to explain why their data was manipulate, their models haven't been correct, and all those other pesky problems they are having proving their point.


Warmist Buffoonery -




Another FAILED Global Warming Prediction -




Journalistic & Scientific Malfeasance -




Warmist Stupidity -




UN Climate Scientists WRONG AGAIN -




Warmists are NOT smarter than a 5th Grader -




The Gold Standard For Global Warming Failure -




The New Scariest Thing About Global Warming? -




Junk Scientists Claim Hurricane Drought Is Just “Dumb Luck” -




Another Scary Fable From Global Warming Junk Scientists -




EPA: Killing Manatees In The Name Of Global Warming -




Global Warming: The Religion of Stupid -




Global Warming Idiocy -




Global Warming Is A Hoax -




Bill Nye the Anti-Science Douche -




Climate Commie -




Global Warming Truth -




An Inconvenient Truth -




Methane Madness -




Liberal Science Deniers -




Liberal Science Deniers -


TAGS: liberal science deniers warmists alarmists greenies hysterians green religion al gore ipcc green tyranny junk science
Rating: 4.64/5

More politifakes by TheConservativeInsurgent

calron - June 22, 2015, 12:15 am
Also that 97% number come Cook's a***yzes of studies, rather than a poll of scientists. The actual polls like doran & zimmerman have it just below 90%. They also claim pointing this out is nitpucking, but if it is so inconsequential, then why use the 97?


Climate Change Is REAL -




Risible Climate Alarmism From the Cult Of Climatology -




NASA's Global Warming Idiocy -




Global Warming Idiots -




When Messaging Collides With Science -




The Church of Gaia is Teaming Up With the Church of Scientology -




Warmist Asininity -




Global Warming Is A SCAM -




Global Warming Is Junk Science -




Science Proves Global Warming Is A Myth -




Science Expert Rep. Steve Israel Offers ‘Deniers’ Proof of Climate Change -


TAGS: steve israel climate change hoaxer global warming stooge junk science greenies warmists alarmists hysterians eco fascism al gore ipcc democrat liberal hypocrisy stupidity
Rating: 4.53/5

More politifakes by TheConservativeInsurgent

rebeccaolsen - June 7, 2015, 4:07 pm
:D
guest818 - June 7, 2015, 4:06 pm
Live or die, Rebecca. Make your choice. ^_^
rebeccaolsen - June 7, 2015, 4:05 pm
What is this amazing technology that you are using that causes me to hear Tobin "Jigsaw" Bell's voice when you post a comment? :D
guest818 - June 7, 2015, 4:00 pm
My side is splitting, Conserva. Almost as funny as Barack's and Michelle's his-and-her jets to fundraisers. Wonder how much they cranked up global warming with that convenience? 5Led


Global Warming Atheist -




Global Warming Is A Scam -




Warmist 'Logic' -




Eco-Fascism -




When Will The Global Warming Cultists Admit They Were Wrong? -




Junk Science: Bill Nye's Epic Earth Day Hypocrisy -




Bill Nye The Science Hack & Political Flunky -




Global Warming Presstitute -




Apollo 7 Astronaut Speaks Out On Climate Alarmism -




Warmist Dumbassery -




CO2 TRUTH -


TAGS: co2 truth carbon dioxide global warming climate change hoax junk science
Rating: 4.47/5

More politifakes by TheConservativeInsurgent

calron - February 28, 2015, 10:11 pm
That "truth is called, ]Affirming a Disjunct.


Bill Nye the Junk Science Guy -




Typical Warmist -




Global Warming Hiatus -




MORE ICE = GLOBAL COOLING -




Shameful Climate Witch Hunt -


TAGS: global warming climate change alarmists junk science al gore ipcc
Rating: 4.33/5

More politifakes by TheConservativeInsurgent

fauxnews - March 4, 2015, 9:26 pm
Sad but true.
DebtToAmerica - March 4, 2015, 8:59 pm
science shouldn't need political enforcers, but when its under constant attack from corporate lobbyists paid by the fossil fuel industry things tend to get political.


Global Warming -


TAGS: global warming climate change hoax junk science
Rating: 4.33/5

More politifakes by TheConservativeInsurgent

Zeitguy - February 26, 2015, 12:02 am
You know when any response to a completely moronic poster will validate their idiotic, baseless, rhetoric and only dissolve into an unintellecual diatribe? Well, I'm not falling for that.


Bill Nye The Science Flunky -




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.


MANBEARPIG -




CO2 TRUTH -


TAGS: co2 truth global warming hoax climate change con al gore junk science tree huggers hippies liberals democrats progressives statism socialism carbon credits
Rating: 4.27/5

More politifakes by TheConservativeInsurgent

Cyberhagen - March 7, 2015, 12:53 pm
faux, I think there are fewer young earth creationists than you think. Or at least I would hope so.
OTC - March 7, 2015, 12:41 am
beginning of the industrial revolution
OTC - March 7, 2015, 12:39 am
Prior to the little ice age temperatures were higher than they are now. in the 13th century volcanoes became active then the sun entered the maunder minimum. with less volcanism and more solar activity, the little ice age ended which coincided with the b
OTC - March 6, 2015, 6:26 pm
Around 1940 there was a cooling period and scientists warned of a coming ice age, so how can there be cooling in the middle of the industrial revolution, especially when factories were in full force during the wars?
OTC - March 6, 2015, 4:42 pm
GW is real as is CC, science and history proves that. The debate is whether man is causing or contributing to it
OTC - March 6, 2015, 4:22 pm
The industrial revolution began around 1750, which is also about the same time the "mini ice age" ended. You can't possibly think that man-made CO2 had that quick of an effect on warming?
OTC - March 6, 2015, 4:11 pm
I think there is a lot of confusion between MMGW/MMCC & GW/CC
fauxnews - March 6, 2015, 3:59 pm
:-) And sorry for the stupid question. But there is a denier camp out there - the Inhofe camp - that basically says, "Global Warming isn't real cuz Gawd says so." At that point, what's the point? Cheers =)
OTC - March 6, 2015, 3:42 pm
Of course the earth is older than 6000 yrs
fauxnews - March 6, 2015, 3:23 pm
Because that 800 year lag means nothing if, like some deniers, you fall into the creationism camp. So, OTC, out of pure curiosity, do you agree with 99.9% of scientists out there that the world is much older than 6000 years old? just curious
fauxnews - March 6, 2015, 3:22 pm
DebttoAmerica brings up a good point. Here's an interesting question for you, in order to gauge your scientific objectivity. It's an easy question any rational person should be willing to answer: do you believe the world is 6000 years old?
DebtToAmerica - March 6, 2015, 3:16 pm
if there was an 800 year lag at the end of the last ice age, why isnt there a lag today? CO2 levels started rising dramatically a few decades after the start of the industrial revolution, and the global average temperatures started rising soon after.
fauxnews - March 6, 2015, 9:39 am
Save you the trouble. See poster #61904 for why you are wrong. ;-) Another half-truth, trick deniers are trying to pass off as a credible argument - a myth debunked LONG ago. You're welcome =)
OTC - March 6, 2015, 7:49 am
You can start by researching 800 year lag CO2
DebtToAmerica - March 6, 2015, 1:31 am
would you like to present the evidence you're referring to?


Global Warming Alarmists Ignore Latest SCIENCE -




Global Warming Hysterians: Not So Good At Math -


TAGS: global warming hysterians climate change junk science global warming hoax warmists green religion greenies alarmists al gore ipcc radical environmentalism eco fascism epa thugs the sky is falling greenpeace stupidity algore manbearpig
Rating: 4.2/5

More politifakes by TheConservativeInsurgent

fauxnews - May 1, 2015, 11:26 pm
You are correct: It has been "a long time" since you had a "math class." Also, if you had a science class, I shutter at the grade you got. Then there is the reading & writing class, ie. did you actually "read" this study? 1L for sheer ignorance


The Green TRUTH -




Bill Nye the Liberal Establishment’s Cartoonish Pseudoscience Guy -


TAGS: bill nye pseudoscience guy science hack junk scientist alarmist warmist greenie al gore hysterian global warming hoax climate change scam ipcc eco fascism
Rating: 4.18/5

More politifakes by TheConservativeInsurgent

Zeitguy - June 30, 2015, 6:41 pm
I'm guessing in your world the "science guy" label marks him as a political target. BTW I hate having to comment on your obviously regurgitated posters.


Global Warming Is Junk Science -


TAGS: global warming climate change hoax junk science
Rating: 4/5

More politifakes by TheConservativeInsurgent

calron - February 22, 2015, 12:34 am
OH BOY PIE! OM OM NOM NOM...
fauxnews - February 22, 2015, 12:27 am
How about a nice slice of key lime pie then?
calron - February 22, 2015, 12:27 am
So you're back to repeating a claim over and over like saying it enough times makes it right.
fauxnews - February 21, 2015, 11:28 pm
*yawn* When you actually present evidence, we'll talk. So far you've only managed to put up links that say the opposite of what you say it did. The rest of the conversation so far is just you trying to deflect the fact that you did that.
calron - February 21, 2015, 11:19 pm
So Ad Hominem attacks while ignoring the evidence presented.
fauxnews - February 16, 2015, 9:21 pm
Said.No.Real.Scientist.Ever. X-D
OTC - February 16, 2015, 9:11 pm
Someone who believes the "man-made" global warming hoax its no surprise they believe in the 97% consensus hoax too
fauxnews - February 16, 2015, 1:39 am
So is that No to the pie?
fauxnews - February 16, 2015, 1:38 am
P.P.S. The first word in that article you posted by "James Taylor" says "OPINION". How 'scientific' of you: An OP-ED.Oh the irony.Speaking of irony *ahem* Your slip is showing ;-) http://www.politifake.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=9728&start=90#p138733
fauxnews - February 16, 2015, 1:16 am
P.S. Again, please refer to posts #72898,#72899. You're welcome.
fauxnews - February 16, 2015, 1:08 am
I like apple pie the best, but I wouldn't say no to chocolate meringue.
calron - February 16, 2015, 1:05 am
Bad link, second try, http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/
calron - February 16, 2015, 12:44 am
See http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/ and http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warm
calron - February 16, 2015, 12:42 am
In addition the 97% number comes from, " 9798% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" and other such things that do not pan out.
calron - February 16, 2015, 12:39 am
I was bring up your argument from ignorance response, as it is there is no way to actually test global warming theory, as it is the same reason for invalidity holds.
fauxnews - February 15, 2015, 11:07 pm
*bar = *pay ... The only thing nuttier than the censor here is my device's idea of auto-correcting. :-/
fauxnews - February 15, 2015, 11:05 pm
Alrighty then! *in my worst Jim Carrey voice* Got a long drive ahead of me to get to that lovely mountain town I call home. Thank's everyone for coming out and bar the bartender on your way out.Thaynk yuz.Thaynk yuz vury much *in my best Elvis voice*
fauxnews - February 15, 2015, 11:04 pm
But, hey, to quote your idol Bill O'Reilly "you can have the last word." Fair enough?
fauxnews - February 15, 2015, 10:55 pm
Please refer to posts #72898,#72899 for now on if you cant let this go.Same goes for your ”friends." You guys are like heads on a Tea Party hydra.And you and I BOTH KNOW what I mean by that,"Calron."(lol)Just look at the flowers Lizzie ;-p *chortle*Cheers
fauxnews - February 15, 2015, 10:48 pm
*ahem* Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God. You are bringing philosophy into an argument about science? lol..Science is about disproving theories, vetting data so that stands up to the scrutiny of science
fauxnews - February 15, 2015, 10:44 pm
So (B) it is. Thank you for clearing that up. "Dumb stuff?" How 'scientific' of you. The data, and the 97% consensus that backs it, is anything but "dumb." But the way you are handling it certainly is. X-D
calron - February 15, 2015, 10:31 pm
"not been properly disproven" doesn't scientifically equate with right. That is what is called negative proof and look into Russell's teapot on why it is not valid.
calron - February 15, 2015, 10:28 pm
So basically you ignore part of what is said and focus on the dumb stuff and pretend that is best argument. That is one way to strawman.
fauxnews - February 15, 2015, 10:23 pm
So, in other words: are you (a) scientific about this? and hence respect the authoritative conclusion that - at this moment in time - manmade climate change is a reality? or (b) you are just BSing me here? *Jeopardy music is up*
fauxnews - February 15, 2015, 10:21 pm
...and after everything you said, (b) is essentially the same thing as BS in the world of science because it's not the opinions of scientists that we are speaking of..but their data which is reflected by that 97% consensus. The science speaks for itself
fauxnews - February 15, 2015, 10:20 pm
In other words,the correct scientific answer would be (a) Yes, the data is compelling & i do not deny that the theories about man-made climate change have not been properly disproven,so they are authoritative until then or (b)i dont believe in the science
fauxnews - February 15, 2015, 10:15 pm
*Jeopardy music almost up*
fauxnews - February 15, 2015, 10:14 pm
But we all lean one way or another. And I agree,I cant be "for certain" that GW is man-made,but I heavily lean that way because the data is so compelling and authoritative. So, please,which way do you lean? Again(a)your stance is or (b)sit on that fence?
fauxnews - February 15, 2015, 10:12 pm
Yet,the deniers offer data that is easily sh** down.So they argue that government conspiracy,liberal politics & elaborate hoaxes are to explain for why a consensus hasn’t changed.If u can’t see what’s wrong with that, don’t expect me to explain it to ya.
calron - February 15, 2015, 10:11 pm
I'm not actually certain that global warming is man made, and I actually do know what scientific consensus, but once again you use ridicule in the place of an actual argument like ridiculing people willing to say that they are not sure over taking a side.
fauxnews - February 15, 2015, 10:10 pm
Sure, dissent is allowed (some people still believe in a flat Earth) but typically when a handful of scientists discover a groundbreaking game-changing truth about GW,then typically the methods will support that find and quickly change the consensus.
fauxnews - February 15, 2015, 10:10 pm
For instance, consensus means that 97 times out of 100, that using the same methods you can't find data and conclusions to disprove man-made climate change. This has remained the case for many, many years. Hence why it is authoritative.
fauxnews - February 15, 2015, 10:01 pm
P.S. Thank you, "Calron"(lol) for clearly admitting your utter failure to understand or comprehend what scientific consensus is and means. Popularity contest? bwahahahaha X-D
fauxnews - February 15, 2015, 9:55 pm
So...(a) do you believe in man-made climate change? or (b) you are just B.S.ing... *cue Jeopardy music*
fauxnews - February 15, 2015, 9:55 pm
By man? Let's end this debate right now. In addition you believe that the Earth was warmed...by man-made climate change? Just wondering if you are fence sitting or taking an actual stand.
calron - February 15, 2015, 9:28 pm
Your repeated appeals to popularity and use id ridicule do not make you right, and even with that you cannot evn show that they view is popular to start with. In addition I do believe the that earth has warmed.
OTC - February 15, 2015, 2:42 pm
There are plenty of climatologists that disagree with the scientists
OTC - February 15, 2015, 2:39 pm
I haven't changed my stand on "man-made" global warming, I still think it's a hoax. Climate change is real however, but liberals think because the name was changed that it still stands for man-made
fauxnews - February 15, 2015, 2:36 pm
With all due respect,"Dudley(lol)", you send me threatening personal messages but expect me to take you seriously in what is meant to be a civil debate about science? Thanks, but I'll pass. "Go away kid, ya bother me." *in my best W.C.Fields voice* X-D
fauxnews - February 15, 2015, 2:32 pm
The problem with your position, OTC, as always, is that virtually every scientist on the planet disagrees with you. But if siding with the handful of crackpots,many of whom also believe in creationism,Bigfoot,aliens and a flat earth, rocks your world.Cool
fauxnews - February 15, 2015, 2:30 pm
Nah, they only changed the name OTC - unlike you, who keeps changing your position and contradicting yourself. The liberals still blame the mass quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere - which is anything BUT natural.
fauxnews - February 15, 2015, 2:28 pm
?
OTC - February 15, 2015, 2:26 pm
Pesky liberals stand was "man-made" global warming and now stand by climate change, a natural cycle of the earth, for the cause of global warming. Liberals must have fallen off the fence and hit their heads
DudleyDoRight - February 15, 2015, 3:34 am
You are just moving the goal posts again. Instead of offering an actual source you are offering youtube links and more strawmen. There are many scientists who do not consider global warming to be "a fact" http://www.wsj.com/mythof97percentclimatechange
DudleyDoRight - February 15, 2015, 2:27 am
More Ad nauseam replies. Believing in global warming is not the same as worshipping it. :D Your personal attacks do nothing to prove you're right. Ridicule all you want. all the personal attacks in the world won't change that.
DudleyDoRight - February 15, 2015, 2:27 am
More Ad nauseam replies. Believing in global warming is not the same thing as worshipping it. :D Your personal attacks do nothing to prove you're right. Ridicule all you want. All the personal attacks in the world won't change that.
fauxnews - February 15, 2015, 1:03 am
Okay, lucky you caught me in line at the supermarket. Got my smokes (bad Faux! bad Faux! *slap my own hand*) Okay, have a good night everyone! Signing off. Good luck and good night.
fauxnews - February 15, 2015, 1:00 am
The consensus you so readily dismiss means something to the scientific community even if it means nothing to you. I get it,you have your own interpretation of science.Good for you.You just happen to be wrong;according to virually ever scientist worldwide
fauxnews - February 15, 2015, 12:53 am
If you want to say global warming is a hoax, then jump off your fence and just say it. Like i really care. At least Al Gore and his pesky liberals can take a stand. Where do you stand?No one in the scientific community would buy into your views on science
calron - February 15, 2015, 12:37 am
Science is based off of evidence, testing, and reason. It is the validity of both that gives it the authority, otherwise you get stuff like the sun revolves around the earth because the experts said so in contradiction to the facts and reason.
calron - February 15, 2015, 12:33 am
Consensus IS based on popular vote by definition. Additionally theories are not valid until proved wrong, rather validity comes from repeatedly testing a hypothesis and being unable to prove it wrong. What you're giving me is negative proof.
fauxnews - February 15, 2015, 12:26 am
Okay, forgot my passport. Found it! Gotta go. A cold microbrew awaits this weary traveler. Nice chatting with you,"Calron"(lol). P.S. You forgot to call me "skippy." ;-) Cheers! =)
fauxnews - February 15, 2015, 12:25 am
That's why it is called a "consensus." Again, science wield authority by consensus otherwise it wields no authority at all. Any basic 101 science level class will teach you that. Go on a proper science forum and see how far you will get with this argument
fauxnews - February 15, 2015, 12:23 am
Said.No.Scientist.Ever. X-D I never said anything about "voting." Science is based upon theory and the scientific method.Duh.Until a theory has been properly disproven using the scientific method,it stands.The 97%consensus has very little to do w/voting
calron - February 15, 2015, 12:00 am
No, the authority of science is based on proof and reason, not popularity. Therefor the probability of truth is not based voting. And if their is such a chance it is wrong (votes are not evidence), it would not be right to call it a fact.
fauxnews - February 14, 2015, 10:28 pm
It is done by consensus otherwise it has no authority at all. And it is scientific fact the world is warming due to manmade CO2. There is a 3% probability the evidence is wrong. Probability is not popularity. Learn the difference
calron - February 14, 2015, 10:25 pm
On of the problem is that the ocean absorbs some of the excessive CO2 and thus changes the chemistry and harms fish. Thus of course is a separate issue from whether the Earth is warming or not. And science is not done by popular poll.
fauxnews - February 14, 2015, 10:04 pm
Good point! :-)The denialists cant suggest nature can handle,to quote you,this "fatal" excessive "quantity" of manmade CO2 polluting our atmosphere.Now lets get the other 3% of the world's thinkers to sign on to this.They're holding up the 97% of us.Bravo
fauxnews - February 14, 2015, 9:57 pm
And with the large quantities of CO2 we put into the air, it would follow... ;-)
calron - February 14, 2015, 9:53 pm
Even basic thinks that you need top live like oxygen and water are harmful, and even fatal in large enough quantities.
fauxnews - February 9, 2015, 9:54 pm
Get rid of the words in the title "Global Warming is", leave the rest, and you have a great poster here X-D
Zeitguy - February 9, 2015, 8:21 pm
Feces is also plant food but excessive quantities can be quite harmful.


CO2 TRUTH -




Don't Drink The Fool-Aid -


TAGS: global warming climate change hoax al gore junk science
Rating: 3.95/5

More politifakes by TheConservativeInsurgent

DebtToAmerica - February 9, 2015, 11:51 pm
http://ifduscience.com/
fauxnews - February 9, 2015, 10:59 pm
Lol
Zeitguy - February 9, 2015, 9:39 pm
I know, 97% of the scientific community is on the take from liberal left. Enjoy the Kool-aid.


Global Warming Is A Hoax -




Climatard -




Global Warming Is Man-Made Up -




Myth Of Arctic Meltdown -




PREV PAGENEXT PAGE