Glacier National Park.....climate scientists wrong AGAIN!!

[skookerasbil]

The climate science phonies predicted that by 2017, Glacier National Park would be glacier free.........of course, from the signage in the park, "according to computer models".

fAiL

Global warming and Glacier National Park | Behind The Black


Really, is there any need to elaborate here? Of course, the climate alarmists get suckered all the time with the lobbing of the prediction bombs which will never change............snowflakes for life = ghey.

 

[forkup]

The climate science phonies predicted that by 2017, Glacier National Park would be glacier free.........of course, from the signage in the park, "according to computer models".

fAiL

Global warming and Glacier National Park | Behind The Black


Really, is there any need to elaborate here? Of course, the climate alarmists get suckered all the time with the lobbing of the prediction bombs which will never change............snowflakes for life = ghey.

This OP seems to ignore one basic fact of science. Science is always open to change. When making predictions on something as complicated as climate it's not abnormal that there are variations. US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left
This is irrefutable. If it takes 3 or 13 or 20 years to disappear completely the fact remains that the glaciers are disappearing. The fact that they can't put an exact time on when they will be completely gone and you using it as some kind of proof that global warming is a hoax, seems not a little bit dishonest. I can't tell you exactly when I'll die, does that mean I'm probably immortal?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The climate science phonies predicted that by 2017, Glacier National Park would be glacier free.........of course, from the signage in the park, "according to computer models".

fAiL

Global warming and Glacier National Park | Behind The Black


Really, is there any need to elaborate here? Of course, the climate alarmists get suckered all the time with the lobbing of the prediction bombs which will never change............snowflakes for life = ghey.

This OP seems to ignore one basic fact of science. Science is always open to change. When making predictions on something as complicated as climate it's not abnormal that there are variations. US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left
This is irrefutable. If it takes 3 or 13 or 20 years to disappear completely the fact remains that the glaciers are disappearing. The fact that they can't put an exact time on when they will be completely gone and you using it as some kind of proof that global warming is a hoax, seems not a little bit dishonest.

Science is always open to change.

The science isn't settled?

 

[TNHarley]

The climate science phonies predicted that by 2017, Glacier National Park would be glacier free.........of course, from the signage in the park, "according to computer models".

fAiL

Global warming and Glacier National Park | Behind The Black


Really, is there any need to elaborate here? Of course, the climate alarmists get suckered all the time with the lobbing of the prediction bombs which will never change............snowflakes for life = ghey.

This OP seems to ignore one basic fact of science. Science is always open to change. When making predictions on something as complicated as climate it's not abnormal that there are variations. US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left
This is irrefutable. If it takes 3 or 13 or 20 years to disappear completely the fact remains that the glaciers are disappearing. The fact that they can't put an exact time on when they will be completely gone and you using it as some kind of proof that global warming is a hoax, seems not a little bit dishonest.

Weird how the science becomes loose when forecasts and models are proven to be a bunch of bullshit. Up until that point, it is completely different. Weird.

 

[TNHarley]

The climate science phonies predicted that by 2017, Glacier National Park would be glacier free.........of course, from the signage in the park, "according to computer models".

fAiL

Global warming and Glacier National Park | Behind The Black


Really, is there any need to elaborate here? Of course, the climate alarmists get suckered all the time with the lobbing of the prediction bombs which will never change............snowflakes for life = ghey.

This OP seems to ignore one basic fact of science. Science is always open to change. When making predictions on something as complicated as climate it's not abnormal that there are variations. US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left
This is irrefutable. If it takes 3 or 13 or 20 years to disappear completely the fact remains that the glaciers are disappearing. The fact that they can't put an exact time on when they will be completely gone and you using it as some kind of proof that global warming is a hoax, seems not a little bit dishonest.

Science is always open to change.

The science isn't settled?

Trends. The fucking TRENDS

 

[forkup]

The climate science phonies predicted that by 2017, Glacier National Park would be glacier free.........of course, from the signage in the park, "according to computer models".

fAiL

Global warming and Glacier National Park | Behind The Black


Really, is there any need to elaborate here? Of course, the climate alarmists get suckered all the time with the lobbing of the prediction bombs which will never change............snowflakes for life = ghey.

This OP seems to ignore one basic fact of science. Science is always open to change. When making predictions on something as complicated as climate it's not abnormal that there are variations. US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left
This is irrefutable. If it takes 3 or 13 or 20 years to disappear completely the fact remains that the glaciers are disappearing. The fact that they can't put an exact time on when they will be completely gone and you using it as some kind of proof that global warming is a hoax, seems not a little bit dishonest.

The climate science phonies predicted that by 2017, Glacier National Park would be glacier free.........of course, from the signage in the park, "according to computer models".

fAiL

Global warming and Glacier National Park | Behind The Black


Really, is there any need to elaborate here? Of course, the climate alarmists get suckered all the time with the lobbing of the prediction bombs which will never change............snowflakes for life = ghey.

This OP seems to ignore one basic fact of science. Science is always open to change. When making predictions on something as complicated as climate it's not abnormal that there are variations. US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left
This is irrefutable. If it takes 3 or 13 or 20 years to disappear completely the fact remains that the glaciers are disappearing. The fact that they can't put an exact time on when they will be completely gone and you using it as some kind of proof that global warming is a hoax, seems not a little bit dishonest.

Science is always open to change.

The science isn't settled?

Science is never completely settled. It's not how it works. If science is settled it stagnates. It's the process of questioning that propagates progress. Let's take the example of global warming. It's safe to say that the earth is warming. It's also safe to say that human are a major cause of that warming. It doesn't mean everything is set in stone. For instance the gulf stream might slow or disappear because of the increases in temperature increases the amount of freshwater in the oceans, causing a cooling in Europe. There might be an sudden jump in temperature because of greenhouse gasses being released from the ocean bottom. Like might have happened during the Permian extinction.Permian extinction | Overview & Facts Science has a hard time predicting what the consequences of a sudden rise in temperature would have on the global system that is earth. The question is, does the fact that the science doesn't know how severe ,or even what the ultimate consequences of global warming will be, excuse us from trying to prevent it. Because non of the possible scenarios are good?

 

[MisterBeale]

I went to a skeptical science site to look at this feed back loop on carbon, why it had in the ice core samples always preceded temperature. I had to listen to some egg head tell me why.. . .

She sat there trying to explain the whole thing, but at the end of the video, admitted that temperature changes on the Earth are due to orbital shifts.



I'm like, is she even listening to herself or what?

She wants us to believe it is primarily the fault of CO2, but then when she tells us the reason that CO2 is released or absorbed into the oceans is because of orbital perturbations of the earth? What sort of propaganda bullshit is she pushing?

For millions of years, this is why ice ages have come and gone, this is what folks have been telling these egg head scientists, she ADMITS it, and then wants to tell us it is the CO2?

She can't even listen to herself?



Sorry, YouTube won't allow me to embed the video.

UQx DENIAL101x 3.3.3.1 Reinforcing feedback
It's great when these scientists tell you that the true cause of global warming is NOT CO2 but titanic galactic forces that humanity cannot control.

 

[forkup]

The climate science phonies predicted that by 2017, Glacier National Park would be glacier free.........of course, from the signage in the park, "according to computer models".

fAiL

Global warming and Glacier National Park | Behind The Black


Really, is there any need to elaborate here? Of course, the climate alarmists get suckered all the time with the lobbing of the prediction bombs which will never change............snowflakes for life = ghey.

This OP seems to ignore one basic fact of science. Science is always open to change. When making predictions on something as complicated as climate it's not abnormal that there are variations. US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left
This is irrefutable. If it takes 3 or 13 or 20 years to disappear completely the fact remains that the glaciers are disappearing. The fact that they can't put an exact time on when they will be completely gone and you using it as some kind of proof that global warming is a hoax, seems not a little bit dishonest.

Weird how the science becomes loose when forecasts and models are proven to be a bunch of bullshit. Up until that point, it is completely different. Weird.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
This states how climate models have been able to predict things before. The fact that they are loose as you describe just means you have a hard time with the simple mathematical concept of averages.

 

[TNHarley]

The climate science phonies predicted that by 2017, Glacier National Park would be glacier free.........of course, from the signage in the park, "according to computer models".

fAiL

Global warming and Glacier National Park | Behind The Black


Really, is there any need to elaborate here? Of course, the climate alarmists get suckered all the time with the lobbing of the prediction bombs which will never change............snowflakes for life = ghey.

This OP seems to ignore one basic fact of science. Science is always open to change. When making predictions on something as complicated as climate it's not abnormal that there are variations. US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left
This is irrefutable. If it takes 3 or 13 or 20 years to disappear completely the fact remains that the glaciers are disappearing. The fact that they can't put an exact time on when they will be completely gone and you using it as some kind of proof that global warming is a hoax, seems not a little bit dishonest.

The climate science phonies predicted that by 2017, Glacier National Park would be glacier free.........of course, from the signage in the park, "according to computer models".

fAiL

Global warming and Glacier National Park | Behind The Black


Really, is there any need to elaborate here? Of course, the climate alarmists get suckered all the time with the lobbing of the prediction bombs which will never change............snowflakes for life = ghey.

This OP seems to ignore one basic fact of science. Science is always open to change. When making predictions on something as complicated as climate it's not abnormal that there are variations. US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left
This is irrefutable. If it takes 3 or 13 or 20 years to disappear completely the fact remains that the glaciers are disappearing. The fact that they can't put an exact time on when they will be completely gone and you using it as some kind of proof that global warming is a hoax, seems not a little bit dishonest.

Science is always open to change.

The science isn't settled?

Science is never completely settled. It's not how it works. If science is settled it stagnates. It's the process of questioning that propagates progress. Let's take the example of global warming. It's safe to say that the earth is warming. It's also safe to say that human are a major cause of that warming. It doesn't mean everything is set in stone. For instance the gulf stream might slow or disappear because of the increases in temperature increases the amount of freshwater in the oceans, causing a cooling in Europe. There might be an sudden jump in temperature because of greenhouse gasses being released from the ocean bottom. Like might have happened during the Permian extinction.Permian extinction | Overview & Facts Science has a hard time predicting what the consequences of a sudden rise in temperature would have on the global system that is earth. The question is, does the fact that the science doesn't know how severe ,or even what the ultimate consequences of global warming will be, excuse us from trying to prevent it. Because non of the possible scenarios are good?

How is it safe to say humans are responsible for climate change? How is it safe to say humans are responsible FOR NATURAL EARTH EVOLUTION?

 

[forkup]

The climate science phonies predicted that by 2017, Glacier National Park would be glacier free.........of course, from the signage in the park, "according to computer models".

fAiL

Global warming and Glacier National Park | Behind The Black


Really, is there any need to elaborate here? Of course, the climate alarmists get suckered all the time with the lobbing of the prediction bombs which will never change............snowflakes for life = ghey.

This OP seems to ignore one basic fact of science. Science is always open to change. When making predictions on something as complicated as climate it's not abnormal that there are variations. US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left
This is irrefutable. If it takes 3 or 13 or 20 years to disappear completely the fact remains that the glaciers are disappearing. The fact that they can't put an exact time on when they will be completely gone and you using it as some kind of proof that global warming is a hoax, seems not a little bit dishonest.

The climate science phonies predicted that by 2017, Glacier National Park would be glacier free.........of course, from the signage in the park, "according to computer models".

fAiL

Global warming and Glacier National Park | Behind The Black


Really, is there any need to elaborate here? Of course, the climate alarmists get suckered all the time with the lobbing of the prediction bombs which will never change............snowflakes for life = ghey.

This OP seems to ignore one basic fact of science. Science is always open to change. When making predictions on something as complicated as climate it's not abnormal that there are variations. US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left
This is irrefutable. If it takes 3 or 13 or 20 years to disappear completely the fact remains that the glaciers are disappearing. The fact that they can't put an exact time on when they will be completely gone and you using it as some kind of proof that global warming is a hoax, seems not a little bit dishonest.

Science is always open to change.

The science isn't settled?

Science is never completely settled. It's not how it works. If science is settled it stagnates. It's the process of questioning that propagates progress. Let's take the example of global warming. It's safe to say that the earth is warming. It's also safe to say that human are a major cause of that warming. It doesn't mean everything is set in stone. For instance the gulf stream might slow or disappear because of the increases in temperature increases the amount of freshwater in the oceans, causing a cooling in Europe. There might be an sudden jump in temperature because of greenhouse gasses being released from the ocean bottom. Like might have happened during the Permian extinction.Permian extinction | Overview & Facts Science has a hard time predicting what the consequences of a sudden rise in temperature would have on the global system that is earth. The question is, does the fact that the science doesn't know how severe ,or even what the ultimate consequences of global warming will be, excuse us from trying to prevent it. Because non of the possible scenarios are good?

How is it safe to say humans are responsible for climate change? How is it safe to say humans are responsible FOR NATURAL EARTH EVOLUTION?

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus
This is why "climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
My question to you is this. Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The climate science phonies predicted that by 2017, Glacier National Park would be glacier free.........of course, from the signage in the park, "according to computer models".

fAiL

Global warming and Glacier National Park | Behind The Black


Really, is there any need to elaborate here? Of course, the climate alarmists get suckered all the time with the lobbing of the prediction bombs which will never change............snowflakes for life = ghey.

This OP seems to ignore one basic fact of science. Science is always open to change. When making predictions on something as complicated as climate it's not abnormal that there are variations. US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left
This is irrefutable. If it takes 3 or 13 or 20 years to disappear completely the fact remains that the glaciers are disappearing. The fact that they can't put an exact time on when they will be completely gone and you using it as some kind of proof that global warming is a hoax, seems not a little bit dishonest.

The climate science phonies predicted that by 2017, Glacier National Park would be glacier free.........of course, from the signage in the park, "according to computer models".

fAiL

Global warming and Glacier National Park | Behind The Black


Really, is there any need to elaborate here? Of course, the climate alarmists get suckered all the time with the lobbing of the prediction bombs which will never change............snowflakes for life = ghey.

This OP seems to ignore one basic fact of science. Science is always open to change. When making predictions on something as complicated as climate it's not abnormal that there are variations. US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left
This is irrefutable. If it takes 3 or 13 or 20 years to disappear completely the fact remains that the glaciers are disappearing. The fact that they can't put an exact time on when they will be completely gone and you using it as some kind of proof that global warming is a hoax, seems not a little bit dishonest.

Science is always open to change.

The science isn't settled?

Science is never completely settled. It's not how it works. If science is settled it stagnates. It's the process of questioning that propagates progress. Let's take the example of global warming. It's safe to say that the earth is warming. It's also safe to say that human are a major cause of that warming. It doesn't mean everything is set in stone. For instance the gulf stream might slow or disappear because of the increases in temperature increases the amount of freshwater in the oceans, causing a cooling in Europe. There might be an sudden jump in temperature because of greenhouse gasses being released from the ocean bottom. Like might have happened during the Permian extinction.Permian extinction | Overview & Facts Science has a hard time predicting what the consequences of a sudden rise in temperature would have on the global system that is earth. The question is, does the fact that the science doesn't know how severe ,or even what the ultimate consequences of global warming will be, excuse us from trying to prevent it. Because non of the possible scenarios are good?

Science is never completely settled. It's not how it works.

Tell that to Nobel Prize winner, Michael Mann, and the rest of the warmers.

It's safe to say that the earth is warming.

Yes, the lack of a glacier on top of Chicago points to that.

It's also safe to say that human are a major cause of that warming.

Bzzzzt. Off sides!
Define "major cause".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The climate science phonies predicted that by 2017, Glacier National Park would be glacier free.........of course, from the signage in the park, "according to computer models".

fAiL

Global warming and Glacier National Park | Behind The Black


Really, is there any need to elaborate here? Of course, the climate alarmists get suckered all the time with the lobbing of the prediction bombs which will never change............snowflakes for life = ghey.

This OP seems to ignore one basic fact of science. Science is always open to change. When making predictions on something as complicated as climate it's not abnormal that there are variations. US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left
This is irrefutable. If it takes 3 or 13 or 20 years to disappear completely the fact remains that the glaciers are disappearing. The fact that they can't put an exact time on when they will be completely gone and you using it as some kind of proof that global warming is a hoax, seems not a little bit dishonest.

The climate science phonies predicted that by 2017, Glacier National Park would be glacier free.........of course, from the signage in the park, "according to computer models".

fAiL

Global warming and Glacier National Park | Behind The Black


Really, is there any need to elaborate here? Of course, the climate alarmists get suckered all the time with the lobbing of the prediction bombs which will never change............snowflakes for life = ghey.

This OP seems to ignore one basic fact of science. Science is always open to change. When making predictions on something as complicated as climate it's not abnormal that there are variations. US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left
This is irrefutable. If it takes 3 or 13 or 20 years to disappear completely the fact remains that the glaciers are disappearing. The fact that they can't put an exact time on when they will be completely gone and you using it as some kind of proof that global warming is a hoax, seems not a little bit dishonest.

Science is always open to change.

The science isn't settled?

Science is never completely settled. It's not how it works. If science is settled it stagnates. It's the process of questioning that propagates progress. Let's take the example of global warming. It's safe to say that the earth is warming. It's also safe to say that human are a major cause of that warming. It doesn't mean everything is set in stone. For instance the gulf stream might slow or disappear because of the increases in temperature increases the amount of freshwater in the oceans, causing a cooling in Europe. There might be an sudden jump in temperature because of greenhouse gasses being released from the ocean bottom. Like might have happened during the Permian extinction.Permian extinction | Overview & Facts Science has a hard time predicting what the consequences of a sudden rise in temperature would have on the global system that is earth. The question is, does the fact that the science doesn't know how severe ,or even what the ultimate consequences of global warming will be, excuse us from trying to prevent it. Because non of the possible scenarios are good?

How is it safe to say humans are responsible for climate change? How is it safe to say humans are responsible FOR NATURAL EARTH EVOLUTION?

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus
This is why "climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
My question to you is this. Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?

If we're doing this, and billions could die, why are warmers against large scale nuclear power?

 

[TNHarley]

The climate science phonies predicted that by 2017, Glacier National Park would be glacier free.........of course, from the signage in the park, "according to computer models".

fAiL

Global warming and Glacier National Park | Behind The Black


Really, is there any need to elaborate here? Of course, the climate alarmists get suckered all the time with the lobbing of the prediction bombs which will never change............snowflakes for life = ghey.

This OP seems to ignore one basic fact of science. Science is always open to change. When making predictions on something as complicated as climate it's not abnormal that there are variations. US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left
This is irrefutable. If it takes 3 or 13 or 20 years to disappear completely the fact remains that the glaciers are disappearing. The fact that they can't put an exact time on when they will be completely gone and you using it as some kind of proof that global warming is a hoax, seems not a little bit dishonest.

The climate science phonies predicted that by 2017, Glacier National Park would be glacier free.........of course, from the signage in the park, "according to computer models".

fAiL

Global warming and Glacier National Park | Behind The Black


Really, is there any need to elaborate here? Of course, the climate alarmists get suckered all the time with the lobbing of the prediction bombs which will never change............snowflakes for life = ghey.

This OP seems to ignore one basic fact of science. Science is always open to change. When making predictions on something as complicated as climate it's not abnormal that there are variations. US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left
This is irrefutable. If it takes 3 or 13 or 20 years to disappear completely the fact remains that the glaciers are disappearing. The fact that they can't put an exact time on when they will be completely gone and you using it as some kind of proof that global warming is a hoax, seems not a little bit dishonest.

Science is always open to change.

The science isn't settled?

Science is never completely settled. It's not how it works. If science is settled it stagnates. It's the process of questioning that propagates progress. Let's take the example of global warming. It's safe to say that the earth is warming. It's also safe to say that human are a major cause of that warming. It doesn't mean everything is set in stone. For instance the gulf stream might slow or disappear because of the increases in temperature increases the amount of freshwater in the oceans, causing a cooling in Europe. There might be an sudden jump in temperature because of greenhouse gasses being released from the ocean bottom. Like might have happened during the Permian extinction.Permian extinction | Overview & Facts Science has a hard time predicting what the consequences of a sudden rise in temperature would have on the global system that is earth. The question is, does the fact that the science doesn't know how severe ,or even what the ultimate consequences of global warming will be, excuse us from trying to prevent it. Because non of the possible scenarios are good?

How is it safe to say humans are responsible for climate change? How is it safe to say humans are responsible FOR NATURAL EARTH EVOLUTION?

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus
This is why "climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
My question to you is this. Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?

Humans MUST be responsible considering the Earth doesnt do this by itself. Not to mention, we have a whole 150 or so years of recordings!
You and your ilk are GENIUSES!

 

[forkup]

The climate science phonies predicted that by 2017, Glacier National Park would be glacier free.........of course, from the signage in the park, "according to computer models".

fAiL

Global warming and Glacier National Park | Behind The Black


Really, is there any need to elaborate here? Of course, the climate alarmists get suckered all the time with the lobbing of the prediction bombs which will never change............snowflakes for life = ghey.

This OP seems to ignore one basic fact of science. Science is always open to change. When making predictions on something as complicated as climate it's not abnormal that there are variations. US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left
This is irrefutable. If it takes 3 or 13 or 20 years to disappear completely the fact remains that the glaciers are disappearing. The fact that they can't put an exact time on when they will be completely gone and you using it as some kind of proof that global warming is a hoax, seems not a little bit dishonest.

This OP seems to ignore one basic fact of science. Science is always open to change. When making predictions on something as complicated as climate it's not abnormal that there are variations. US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left
This is irrefutable. If it takes 3 or 13 or 20 years to disappear completely the fact remains that the glaciers are disappearing. The fact that they can't put an exact time on when they will be completely gone and you using it as some kind of proof that global warming is a hoax, seems not a little bit dishonest.

Science is always open to change.

The science isn't settled?

Science is never completely settled. It's not how it works. If science is settled it stagnates. It's the process of questioning that propagates progress. Let's take the example of global warming. It's safe to say that the earth is warming. It's also safe to say that human are a major cause of that warming. It doesn't mean everything is set in stone. For instance the gulf stream might slow or disappear because of the increases in temperature increases the amount of freshwater in the oceans, causing a cooling in Europe. There might be an sudden jump in temperature because of greenhouse gasses being released from the ocean bottom. Like might have happened during the Permian extinction.Permian extinction | Overview & Facts Science has a hard time predicting what the consequences of a sudden rise in temperature would have on the global system that is earth. The question is, does the fact that the science doesn't know how severe ,or even what the ultimate consequences of global warming will be, excuse us from trying to prevent it. Because non of the possible scenarios are good?

How is it safe to say humans are responsible for climate change? How is it safe to say humans are responsible FOR NATURAL EARTH EVOLUTION?

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus
This is why "climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
My question to you is this. Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?

Humans MUST be responsible considering the Earth doesnt do this by itself. Not to mention, we have a whole 150 or so years of recordings!
You and your ilk are a GENIUSES!

Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?

You can rate me funny all you want. To me its an admission that you don't have an answer to this.

 

[forkup]

The climate science phonies predicted that by 2017, Glacier National Park would be glacier free.........of course, from the signage in the park, "according to computer models".

fAiL

Global warming and Glacier National Park | Behind The Black


Really, is there any need to elaborate here? Of course, the climate alarmists get suckered all the time with the lobbing of the prediction bombs which will never change............snowflakes for life = ghey.

This OP seems to ignore one basic fact of science. Science is always open to change. When making predictions on something as complicated as climate it's not abnormal that there are variations. US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left
This is irrefutable. If it takes 3 or 13 or 20 years to disappear completely the fact remains that the glaciers are disappearing. The fact that they can't put an exact time on when they will be completely gone and you using it as some kind of proof that global warming is a hoax, seems not a little bit dishonest.

This OP seems to ignore one basic fact of science. Science is always open to change. When making predictions on something as complicated as climate it's not abnormal that there are variations. US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left
This is irrefutable. If it takes 3 or 13 or 20 years to disappear completely the fact remains that the glaciers are disappearing. The fact that they can't put an exact time on when they will be completely gone and you using it as some kind of proof that global warming is a hoax, seems not a little bit dishonest.

Science is always open to change.

The science isn't settled?

Science is never completely settled. It's not how it works. If science is settled it stagnates. It's the process of questioning that propagates progress. Let's take the example of global warming. It's safe to say that the earth is warming. It's also safe to say that human are a major cause of that warming. It doesn't mean everything is set in stone. For instance the gulf stream might slow or disappear because of the increases in temperature increases the amount of freshwater in the oceans, causing a cooling in Europe. There might be an sudden jump in temperature because of greenhouse gasses being released from the ocean bottom. Like might have happened during the Permian extinction.Permian extinction | Overview & Facts Science has a hard time predicting what the consequences of a sudden rise in temperature would have on the global system that is earth. The question is, does the fact that the science doesn't know how severe ,or even what the ultimate consequences of global warming will be, excuse us from trying to prevent it. Because non of the possible scenarios are good?

How is it safe to say humans are responsible for climate change? How is it safe to say humans are responsible FOR NATURAL EARTH EVOLUTION?

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus
This is why "climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
My question to you is this. Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?

If we're doing this, and billions could die, why are warmers against large scale nuclear power?

Being flip isn't an answer either.

 

[TNHarley]

This OP seems to ignore one basic fact of science. Science is always open to change. When making predictions on something as complicated as climate it's not abnormal that there are variations. US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left
This is irrefutable. If it takes 3 or 13 or 20 years to disappear completely the fact remains that the glaciers are disappearing. The fact that they can't put an exact time on when they will be completely gone and you using it as some kind of proof that global warming is a hoax, seems not a little bit dishonest.

Science is always open to change.

The science isn't settled?

Science is never completely settled. It's not how it works. If science is settled it stagnates. It's the process of questioning that propagates progress. Let's take the example of global warming. It's safe to say that the earth is warming. It's also safe to say that human are a major cause of that warming. It doesn't mean everything is set in stone. For instance the gulf stream might slow or disappear because of the increases in temperature increases the amount of freshwater in the oceans, causing a cooling in Europe. There might be an sudden jump in temperature because of greenhouse gasses being released from the ocean bottom. Like might have happened during the Permian extinction.Permian extinction | Overview & Facts Science has a hard time predicting what the consequences of a sudden rise in temperature would have on the global system that is earth. The question is, does the fact that the science doesn't know how severe ,or even what the ultimate consequences of global warming will be, excuse us from trying to prevent it. Because non of the possible scenarios are good?

How is it safe to say humans are responsible for climate change? How is it safe to say humans are responsible FOR NATURAL EARTH EVOLUTION?

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus
This is why "climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
My question to you is this. Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?

Humans MUST be responsible considering the Earth doesnt do this by itself. Not to mention, we have a whole 150 or so years of recordings!
You and your ilk are a GENIUSES!

Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?

You can rate me funny all you want. To me its an admission that you don't have an answer to this.

I rate you funny because your retarded posts make me laugh. Want to tax me for that too?
There is PLENTY of room for doubt. Thats why your posts are so damn funny!
AGW is like religion. They dont have answers so they fill it in with whatever they understand. Most humans are fucking idiots. Regressive idiots.

 

[TNHarley]

AGW leaders say carbon will kill the planet. AGW leaders fly around in private jets releasing more CO2, than a single man for a year, to go get an environmental award on the other side of the planet

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This OP seems to ignore one basic fact of science. Science is always open to change. When making predictions on something as complicated as climate it's not abnormal that there are variations. US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left
This is irrefutable. If it takes 3 or 13 or 20 years to disappear completely the fact remains that the glaciers are disappearing. The fact that they can't put an exact time on when they will be completely gone and you using it as some kind of proof that global warming is a hoax, seems not a little bit dishonest.

Science is always open to change.

The science isn't settled?

Science is never completely settled. It's not how it works. If science is settled it stagnates. It's the process of questioning that propagates progress. Let's take the example of global warming. It's safe to say that the earth is warming. It's also safe to say that human are a major cause of that warming. It doesn't mean everything is set in stone. For instance the gulf stream might slow or disappear because of the increases in temperature increases the amount of freshwater in the oceans, causing a cooling in Europe. There might be an sudden jump in temperature because of greenhouse gasses being released from the ocean bottom. Like might have happened during the Permian extinction.Permian extinction | Overview & Facts Science has a hard time predicting what the consequences of a sudden rise in temperature would have on the global system that is earth. The question is, does the fact that the science doesn't know how severe ,or even what the ultimate consequences of global warming will be, excuse us from trying to prevent it. Because non of the possible scenarios are good?

How is it safe to say humans are responsible for climate change? How is it safe to say humans are responsible FOR NATURAL EARTH EVOLUTION?

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus
This is why "climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
My question to you is this. Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?

If we're doing this, and billions could die, why are warmers against large scale nuclear power?

Being flip isn't an answer either.

Are you anti-nuclear?

 

[Weatherman2020]

The climate science phonies predicted that by 2017, Glacier National Park would be glacier free.........of course, from the signage in the park, "according to computer models".

fAiL

Global warming and Glacier National Park | Behind The Black


Really, is there any need to elaborate here? Of course, the climate alarmists get suckered all the time with the lobbing of the prediction bombs which will never change............snowflakes for life = ghey.

This OP seems to ignore one basic fact of science. Science is always open to change. When making predictions on something as complicated as climate it's not abnormal that there are variations. US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left
This is irrefutable. If it takes 3 or 13 or 20 years to disappear completely the fact remains that the glaciers are disappearing. The fact that they can't put an exact time on when they will be completely gone and you using it as some kind of proof that global warming is a hoax, seems not a little bit dishonest. I can't tell you exactly when I'll die, does that mean I'm probably immortal?

BUT...BUT....I WAS TOLD THE SCENCE WAS SETTLED.......

 

[Weatherman2020]

AGW leaders say carbon will kill the planet. AGW leaders fly around in private jets releasing more CO2, than a single man for a year, to go get an environmental award on the other side of the planet

Exactly. When those saying it is a crisis start acting like it's a crisis, then maybe I will start listening.