Slashdot Mirror

AGW, or "Climate Change", or whatever the Nom de Jur is for it, isn't science. Science isn't "settled" and "settled science" isn't science. Climate Change is closer to Lysenkoism than it is to real science. The most disturbing aspect of today's climate change scientists is their willingness to go back into historical data and "correct" it to agree with their theories about CO2. The changes always cool the past and warm the present to make it appear that we are getting warmer. Yet, all their predictions about the disasters they claim would happen failed to materialize. Al Gore quoted an AGW scientist who predicted in 2007 that "within 5 years" ice would be gone from the North Pole for parts of the summer. It never happened. In fact, ice sheets have waxed and waned as they always have, even with AGW folks cooking, trimming and creating data out of thin air.
https://www.investors.com/poli...

Hansen and fellow scientist Michael Oppenheimer reported that if the buildup of carbon dioxide and methane continued at the current rate, the Earth would be between three and nine degrees Fahrenheit warmer by the years 2025-2050, and that sea levels would rise between one and four feet in the same time frame. They've got only 5 years left and our globe has to warm 2.5 to 8.5 degrees during that time.

https://www.thenewamerican.com...
Gore’s film predicted a 20-foot sea-level rise in the “near future” owing to ice melt from Greenland and Antarctica. As you can see, it hasn’t happened yet. Gore also predicted the devastation of low-lying Pacific Island nations such as Tuvalu because of sea-level rise. But Tuvalu and some other island nations have actually grown in size since Gore’s pronouncement. A British judge concluded in 2007 that the film contained at least nine factual errors and was, therefore, a political film — not a scientific one.

Whenever these predictions of doom don’t pan out, the climate charlatans simply move the prediction back another few decades, long past the time when they’ll actually have to answer for them. It’s a shell game. The real global warming is always under a different cup.

https://polarbearscience.com/2...

http://www.aei.org/publication...

https://casf.me/3-decades-fail...

There was only ONE BIG REASON for the climate hysteria of the last 20 years, which was revealed in the 2009 and 2011 whistleblower release of the CRU emails: redistribute wealth from the Western nations to those ruled by Marxists. So arrogant are they about it that a member of the UN-ICCP stated:
"We (UN-IPCC) redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy ... One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is an environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore ..."
-Dr. Ottmar Endenhofer. IPCC co-chair of Wkring Group 3, November 13, 2010 interview (with Dr. Charles Battig)

Now that we've solved the problem of feeding seals, let's tag those seals so that polar bears (who are in serious decline) can get their share.

Are you SURE polar bears are in serious decline?

Global population of polar bears has increased by 2,650-5,700 since 2001

IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group says its global population estimate was “a qualified guess”

Yes

Now that we've solved the problem of feeding seals, let's tag those seals so that polar bears (who are in serious decline) can get their share.

Are you SURE polar bears are in serious decline?

Global population of polar bears has increased by 2,650-5,700 since 2001

IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group says its global population estimate was “a qualified guess”

Yes

Now that we've solved the problem of feeding seals, let's tag those seals so that polar bears (who are in serious decline) can get their share.

Are you SURE polar bears are in serious decline?

Global population of polar bears has increased by 2,650-5,700 since 2001

IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group says its global population estimate was “a qualified guess”

Now that we've solved the problem of feeding seals, let's tag those seals so that polar bears (who are in serious decline) can get their share.

Are you SURE polar bears are in serious decline?

Global population of polar bears has increased by 2,650-5,700 since 2001

IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group says its global population estimate was “a qualified guess”

The funny thing: this event is provably NOT caused by ice loss.

http://polarbearscience.com/20...

That page has papers about this occurring in the seventies. Google "Walrus Haulout" and you'll see there is even a name for it.

Flamebait for pointing out a massive conflict of interest in a person stepping outside their area of expertise?

You mean like the WWF being used for the quote in the summary?

OK, so you attacked the source, but I looked at the article and it points to scientific literature and shows highlighted quotes that put the current news in perspective. The OH NOES, GLOBAL WARMING knee-jerk reflex is getting old when it doesn't hold up under scrutiny, especially when temperatures have plateaued far long than any model predicted.

Try coming up with a rational counter-argument that addressed the points made instead of relying on ad hominen.

Ok you want real science? Here is what the Zoologist Dr. Susan Crockford has to say on the subject: Mass haulouts of Pacific walrus and stampede deaths are not new, not due to low ice cover AGW may have severe effects on the environment (18 year pause anyone?), but THIS is not one of them.

This is the usual "Banks have been robbed even before I was born, so I couldn't have possibly robbed this one" tactic the deniers love so much.

Ok you want real science? Here is what the Zoologist Dr. Susan Crockford has to say on the subject: Mass haulouts of Pacific walrus and stampede deaths are not new, not due to low ice cover AGW may have severe effects on the environment (18 year pause anyone?), but THIS is not one of them.

Zoologist Dr. Susan Crockford weighs in: Mass haulouts of Pacific walrus and stampede deaths are not new, not due to low ice cover - 'The attempts by WWF and others to link this event to global warming is self-serving nonsense that has nothing to do with science...this is blatant nonsense and those who support or encourage this interpretation are misinforming the public.'

Mass haulouts of Pacific walrus and stampede deaths are not new, not due to low ice cover http://polarbearscience.com/20...

Large haulouts of walruses -- such as the one making news at Point Lay, Alaska on the Chukchi Sea (and which happened before back in 2009) -- are not a new phenomenon for this region over the last 45 years and thus cannot be due to low sea ice levels. Nor are deaths by stampede within these herds (composed primarily of females and their young) unusual, as a brief search of the literature reveals.

Includes references, links and copies of contemporary reports.

Whoopsie, wwf made a poopsie.

The factual inaccuracy of the claim is insignificant in light of the millions in donations they'll likely garner as a result.

Mass haulouts of Pacific walrus and stampede deaths are not new, not due to low ice cover
http://polarbearscience.com/20...

Large haulouts of walruses -- such as the one making news at Point Lay, Alaska on the Chukchi Sea (and which happened before back in 2009) -- are not a new phenomenon for this region over the last 45 years and thus cannot be due to low sea ice levels. Nor are deaths by stampede within these herds (composed primarily of females and their young) unusual, as a brief search of the literature reveals.

Includes references, links and copies of contemporary reports.