Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So you were born with it ? Where did you get it ? You afraid to tell us ?LMFAO!!!
That you cannot find out what percent of Earth ice is on Antarctica is proof your IQ is under 5....
Don’t need to. It’s bullshit.Try to refute it.
You cannot....
A small rise in tide of less than 5 feet in one location, causes a rise of over 50 feet in other locations. But thanks to you and EMH for the efforts!Not only that, but just a small increase of inches means an increase of feet during storm surges. A tsunami illustrates the effects of an underground earthquake well out to sea that’s just a change of a few feat in deep water can result in huge waves crashing on shore near more shallow waters.
Of course, that’s not part of the denier narrative and why playing ignorant is their last resort…
Exactly…it’s about water volume and in the deeper water rises less, shallow, more because the volume remains constant. Deniers are confused by these little details.A small rise in tide of less than 5 feet in one location, causes a rise of over 50 feet in other locations. But thanks to you and EMH for the efforts!
We’re talking about your integrity….just post where you get your info from. Come on, who do you….parrot ?LMFAO!!!
That you cannot find out what percent of Earth ice is on Antarctica is proof your IQ is under 5....
Nope. You have it backwards., as usual. Liberals seem more likely to agree with science, deniers just make up shit.You apparently want all scientists to always agree with liberals.
I don’t want to see science tangled up with politics at all.
Your intent is right even though that's not the complete explanation for tidal differences. Best to not get into anything deeper than that with EMH and that ilk.Exactly…it’s about water volume and in the deeper water rises less, shallow, more because the volume remains constant. Deniers are confused by these little details.
Of course….That’s one factor. Here, Knock yourself out. Obviously others.Your intent is right even though that's not the complete explanation for tidal differences. Best to not get into anything deeper than that with EMH and that ilk.
They're just going to prove you wrong by telling you that the water is shallow on their beach and the tide only rises 5 or 6 feet. You'll have to tell them, I won't!
The problem is here it is cold. Your problem is here it is cold. Matter of fact, the USA has been colder than normal.If you don’t know by now, you never will…
We’re talking about your integrity….just post where you get your info from. Come on, who do you….parrot ?
View attachment 943284
That’s from the national science foundation., Are you now using that for a reliable reference ? Yes or no…There used to be sites all over with that data. For SOME REASON, the Co2 FRAUD now censors those and makes it very difficult, as you already know since you searched and found nothing....
Google Search
www.google.com
The present Antarctic ice sheet accounts for 90 percent of Earth's total ice volume
US NSF - OPP - ANT - Ice Sheets
www.nsf.gov
Now that you’re using the National science foundation,There used to be sites all over with that data. For SOME REASON, the Co2 FRAUD now censors those and makes it very difficult, as you already know since you searched and found nothing....
Google Search
www.google.com
The present Antarctic ice sheet accounts for 90 percent of Earth's total ice volume
US NSF - OPP - ANT - Ice Sheets
www.nsf.gov
Wow, you must live in a cave under a rock.The problem is here it is cold. Your problem is here it is cold. Matter of fact, the USA has been colder than normal.
Not so bad as that ragged tent you call home.Wow, you must live in a cave under a rock.
Liberals have a hard time defining a woman. Conservatives use science to determine who is a woman and who is a man.Nope. You have it backwards., as usual. Liberals seem more likely to agree with science, deniers just make up shit.
Liberals have a hard time defining women ? That’s your AGW rebuttal ? Hilarious. You have a hard time understanding science, admit it.Liberals have a hard time defining a woman. Conservatives use science to determine who is a woman and who is a man.
![]()
If we can't define what a woman is, how can we organise politically? | Suzanne Moore
I respect everyone’s pronouns – and I ask others to respect the language that defines my lifewww.theguardian.com
Why should I believe anything the liberal media tells me about global warming?
![]()
The List Of 120 Years Of Climate Scares By Scientists | 710 WOR | Mark Simone
Get the Latest Info!710wor.iheart.com
![]()
Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions - Competitive Enterprise Institute
Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today. None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true. What follows is a collection of notably wild predictions from notable people in government and...cei.org
![]()
All the Times Global Warming Predictions Were Dead Wrong
We've heard so much nonsense over the past half-century when it comes to global warming predictions. These 10 failed global warming predictions prove that there's hardly a 'consensus' about how the climate is changingwww.westernjournal.com
Come on.just because they put in the last dead end of the trailer Park, doesn’t mean the only channel on your tv has to be set to Fix News.Not so bad as that ragged tent you call home.