- Oct 12, 2009
- 58,613
- 10,629
- 2,030
Nope, Weekly Readers were all about another ice age in the early 70s. That and how pollution was going to destroy the planet before now.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Nope, Weekly Readers were all about another ice age in the early 70s. That and how pollution was going to destroy the planet before now.
I ask the question for the Chicken Little Brigade.
HOW IS MAN AT FAULT OR ABLE TO FIX THE COOLING SUN?
so we are going into an ice age?
again?
Like in the 70's. I recall the 70's, it was fucking cold with snow up past my nuts.
It's going to hit 80 today.
personally I'm all for global warming. but there's nothing we can do about the sun
so we are going into an ice age?
again?
Like in the 70's. I recall the 70's, it was fucking cold with snow up past my nuts.
It's going to hit 80 today.
personally I'm all for global warming. but there's nothing we can do about the sun
That's exactly what I'm saying.
Ah the 'trapped energy' argument that Westwall, Wirebender and IanC among others have debunked for the last 10 months.I ask the question for the Chicken Little Brigade.
HOW IS MAN AT FAULT OR ABLE TO FIX THE COOLING SUN?
Irrelevant. It's about GHGs and trapping energy. The fact that are also natural cycles only seems to be important when it's convenient to the deniers. So, we may be cooler for a while, that doesn't change a thing about AGW theory. When the cycles reverse heating will continue. It's simple logic.
WHAT HAPPENS TO ENERGY ABSORBED BY CO2 AND RE-EMITTED TOWARDS EARTH?
I can do all caps, too. Can you give an intelligent response to MY question?
Nope, Weekly Readers were all about another ice age in the early 70s. That and how pollution was going to destroy the planet before now.
Was that a peer-reviewed Weekly Reader?
I ask the question for the Chicken Little Brigade.
HOW IS MAN AT FAULT OR ABLE TO FIX THE COOLING SUN?
Irrelevant. It's about GHGs and trapping energy. The fact that are also natural cycles only seems to be important when it's convenient to the deniers. So, we may be cooler for a while, that doesn't change a thing about AGW theory. When the cycles reverse heating will continue. It's simple logic.
WHAT HAPPENS TO ENERGY ABSORBED BY CO2 AND RE-EMITTED TOWARDS EARTH?
I can do all caps, too. Can you give an intelligent response to MY question?
Bottom line is, the Global Warming crowd has changed the logo of their hoax to "Climate Change" after at least four years of scientific data that refuted their claims. Talk about an "Inconvenient Truth".Observable behavior really stinks for Faithers. Much better to have raw data manipulated and made into a nice graph showing unobserved results.
Nope, Weekly Readers were all about another ice age in the early 70s. That and how pollution was going to destroy the planet before now.
Bottom line is, the Global Warming crowd has changed the logo of their hoax to "Climate Change" after at least four years of scientific data that refuted their claims. Talk about an "Inconvenient Truth".Observable behavior really stinks for Faithers. Much better to have raw data manipulated and made into a nice graph showing unobserved results.
I don't understand what they are pushing now? What is it, that the Earth's climate changes? Well duh.
Observable behavior really stinks for Faithers. Much better to have raw data manipulated and made into a nice graph showing unobserved results.
How about some real scientific articles from either one of you demonstrating your yap-yap?
How about some real scientific articles from either one of you demonstrating your yap-yap?