If climate change is attributable to human activity, you should never have to lie to prove it.
0 2017-09-11 by timo1200
The temperature records are not consistent with the theory that human “greenhouse” gas emissions are the primary cause of global warming. Those records do not show temperatures rising in conjunction with such ever rising emissions as the globe increasingly industrializes. Instead, the temperature record shows an up and down pattern that follows the pattern of natural influences on global temperatures, such as cyclical sunspots and solar flares, and cycles of ocean churning from warmer to colder temperatures and back, such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).
Moreover, the incorruptible and objective satellite temperature records show only modest warming starting in the late 1970s, which stopped roughly 10 years ago, with more recent declines. That is consistent with temperature proxy records found in nature, such as tree rings and ice cores. But that diverges significantly from the corruptible and subjectively compiled land based records, the repeated manipulation of which has prompted several prominent climate scientists to call for an investigation.
In addition, the work of the UN’s IPCC is based on numerous climate models that attempt to project temperatures decades into the future. Those models are all based on the circular assumption that the theory of man caused global warming is true. As 16 world leading climate scientists recently reported in a letter to the Wall Street Journal,
“[A]n important gauge of scientific expertise is the ability to make successful predictions. When predictions fail, we say that the theory is ‘falsified’ and we should look for the reasons for the failure. Shown in the nearby graph is the measured annual temperature of the earth since 1989, just before the first report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Also shown are the projections of the likely increase of temperature, as published in the Summaries of each of the four IPCC reports, the first in the year 1990 and the last in the year 2007.
“From the graph it appears that the projections [of the models] exaggerate, substantially, the response of the earth’s temperature to CO2 which increased by about 11% from 1989 through 2011. Furthermore, when one examines the historical temperature record throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, the data strongly suggest a much lower CO2 effect than almost all models calculate.”
Seems like the models have been falsified.
The likely reason for that failure is that while the models recognize that increased CO2 itself will not produce a big, catastrophic increase in global temperatures, the models assume that the very small amount of warming caused by increased CO2 will result in much larger temperature increases caused by positive feedbacks. The real, emerging science, is that the feedbacks are more likely to be offset by negative feedbacks, resulting in a much smaller net temperature change. Scientists have pointed out that much higher CO2 concentrations deep in the earth’s history, as shown by proxy records, did not result in catastrophic temperature increases, a very powerful rebuttal to the idea today’s relatively low CO2 levels could trigger catastrophic global warming.
The results of the latest, most advanced data collection also suggest that CO2 is not responsible for the modest global warming of the late 20th century. The UN models agree with established science that if human greenhouse gas emissions were causing global warming, there should be a hot spot of higher temperatures in the troposphere above the tropics, where collected concentrations would have the greatest effect, and the warming would show up first. This is known in the literature on climate science as “the fingerprint” for man caused global warming. But data from global weather satellites and more comprehensive weather balloons show no hotspot, and no fingerprint, which means no serious global warming due to human greenhouse gas emissions.
Moreover, satellites also have been measuring the energy entering the earth’s atmosphere from the sun, and the energy escaping back out to space. If the theory of man caused global warming is correct, then the energy escaping back out should be less than the energy entering, as the greenhouse gases capture some of the energy in the atmosphere. But the satellite data show negligible difference.
The real cutting edge in climate science was publicly exposed recently in a book by one of the long time leaders of the German environmental movement, Fritz Vahrenholt, in his new book, The Cold Sun. The book expresses the growing concern among more careful real climate scientists, rather than political scientists, that trends in solar activity portend a return to the cold, limited agricultural output, and widespread disease of the Little Ice Age, or even a more full blown, overdue by historical standards, real ice age.
Sources
78 comments
1 timo1200 2017-09-11
The root of the global warming confusion is that the UN is not a disinterested party that can be trusted to compile and interpret the climate science on which the world’s policymakers can rely. The UN sees the theory of man caused catastrophic global warming as a tremendous opportunity for gaining the regulatory and taxation powers of a world government.
1 0PATA 2017-09-11
In addition to what I posted initially, which makes it clear that Exxon Mobil was a significant benefactor to this organization, I will add that Exxon did studies in 70's that concluded that burning fossil fuels was causing climate change. Rather then admitting their findings, they kept them secret and started a campaign to mislead the public. Part of their game plan included establishing and supporting lobbyists and think tanks, such as the Heartland Institute, in order to spread lies and misinformation.
1 timo1200 2017-09-11
Sure, so Ferrara is a bad hombre and Exxon is evil. Idk maybe they so, not the point either way.
Anything about the actual content?
1 0PATA 2017-09-11
But it is the point. The devil can cite scripture for his purpose. You and I have common ground in not trusting the government. The governments sole purpose is to protect our rights but these days that primary objective has been lost and forgotten. The main culprit, in my eyes, are the wealthy.... Big banks, big oil, big pharma, big guns.... our government is here to subsidize their wealth.
They can create run pipelines wherever they want and whoever tries to protest it is arrested. They can spill oil and foul our lands and water and they get a slap on the wrist. We are literally fighting wars in the middle east for fossil fuels.
War. This is how we will a massive government, not climate change.
1 timo1200 2017-09-11
I agree with all that. I am no fan of Exxon or anyone that pollutes.
Hey I started as an Alarmist myself. It was reading the science and letting that lead to my conclusions (not what I felt was right) that turned me into this asshole.. Human emissions of CO2 is not warming the planet and this is a HUGE conspiracy. Could kill Billions.......
Ok, I have always been an asshole....
1 0PATA 2017-09-11
Lol. Look man, the Paris Accords were a joke. England is building an airport that will negate the accord by itself. These hurricanes. The wildfires. The droughts. The flooding. Violent and increasing weather events were all predicted as part of the models.
The southwest is in all likelihood entering a permanent drought. Much of the middle east will be uninhabitable in 100 years. We are literally in the worlds sixth great extinction event, with a dozen or so plants and animals going extinct every day. We are on track to lose half of all plant and animal species over the coming century.
I have kids, man, and I am pretty sure the world they inherit is irrevocably screwed.
1 0PATA 2017-09-11
This was written by a lawyer named Peter Ferrara, who is an analyst for a conservative think tank called the Heartland Institute.
From DESMOG....
The Heartland Institute is a Chicago-based free market think tank and 501(c)(3) charity that has been at the forefront of denying the scientific evidence for man-made climate change. The Heartland Institute has received at least $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998 but no longer discloses its funding sources. The Union of Concerned Scientists found (PDF) that “Nearly 40% of the total funds that the Heartland Institute has received from ExxonMobil since 1998 were specifically designated for climate change projects.” [1]
David Padden founded The Heartland Institute in 1984 and served as its Chairman between 1984 and 1995, co-chairing with Joseph Bast. Padden was also one of the original members of the Board of Directors of the Cato Institute. Padden, a Chicago, IL-based investment banker and then owner of Padden & Company, passed away in October 2011. [13]
Padden also served on the original Board of Directors of another organization founded that year, Citizens for a Sound Economy, which later split into two groups, FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity (AFP). The Cato Institute and both of these organizations received their initial seed money from Koch Industries. [14]
According to a July 2011 Nature editorial,
“Despite criticizing climate scientists for being overconfident about their data, models and theories, the Heartland Institute proclaims a conspicuous confidence in single studies and grand interpretations… . makes many bold assertions that are often questionable or misleading. … Many climate skeptics seem to review scientific data and studies not as scientists but as attorneys, magnifying doubts and treating incomplete explanations as falsehoods rather than signs of progress towards the truth. … The Heartland Institute and its ilk are not trying to build a theory of anything. They have set the bar much lower, and are happy muddying the waters.” [15]
2012 Heartland Document Leak
In 2012, leaked documents revealed some of the Heartland Institute's initiatives and climate change strategy including a tailored high school curriculum. As reported at the New York Times, (“Leak Offers Glimpse of Campaign Against Climate Science”) the Heartland Institute would have help from the Charles G. Koch Foundation to “cast doubt on the scientific finding that fossil fuel emissions endanger the long-term welfare of the planet.”
The documents also discussed “Operation Angry Badger,” which the New York Times described as “a plan to spend $612,000 to influence the outcome of recall elections and related fights … in Wisconsin over the role of public-sector unions.” [2], [3]
Heartland has promoted itself using a partial quote from The Economist that describes Heartland as “the world's most prominent think-tank promoting scepticism about man-made climate change.” However, the full paragraph in The Economist's 2012 article provides a more complete picture: “The Heartland Institute, the world's most prominent think-tank promoting scepticism about man-made climate change, is getting a lot of heat.”
Heartland lost an estimated $825,000 in expected donations, a number of directors and almost its entire branch in Washington, DC shortly after putting up a billboard comparing those who believed in man-made global warming to the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski. At its annual meeting in Chicago, the institute's president, Joseph Bast, said Heartland had 'discovered who our real friends are.' The 100-odd guests who failed to show up for the '7th Climate Conference' were not among them.” [4], [5]
1 timo1200 2017-09-11
The link to the article and the author's bio was right there in blue. He even says at the beginning he is a fellow at the Heartland Institute.
Next time instead of character assassination you can deal with the topic of the post.
1 0PATA 2017-09-11
Your link didn't work and I had to search the web for it. When providing an argument that presents itself as being written by an authority, the author's motives and background are of central importance.
1 timo1200 2017-09-11
https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/03/01/fakegate-the-obnoxious-fabrication-of-global-warming/#1dbc49fb6140
Pants on fire..
1 goroboldo 2017-09-11
Nice edit. Pants vaporized.
1 SixVISix 2017-09-11
Average Temps are up. Period.
Average CO2 levels in atmosphere up. Period.
Average CO2 emission increases are light years up in every nation with high factory / gas engine to citizen ratios. Period.
Arctic thaw is accelerating beyond all pre-2010 forecasts. Period.
These are the facts. I question the intentions of anyone repeatedly posting smokescreen bullshit regarding these absolute facts. I think you're either attempting to make this sub look bad or you genuinely don't understand science on any level.
1 timo1200 2017-09-11
Well since you wrote "Period" after each... period, it must be true. You even Capitalized the P!!!!!
Average temps... not up so much
1 SynesthesiaBrah 2017-09-11
Lol, nice source guy.
1 timo1200 2017-09-11
"Skeptical Science" is a propaganda blog run by a cartoonist.
Nice try
1 SynesthesiaBrah 2017-09-11
That picture proves that you know how to upload to Photobucket.
Skeptical Science is run by more than one person lol
Also John Cook is a research assistant professor at George Mason University, author, AND cartoonist.
Also, so if I'm a cartoonist then I can't be a skeptic?
You know you can't just say things, right? In what way is he a propagandist?
1 timo1200 2017-09-11
lol. Do you love that lol? Like from AOL or some shit.
His site is 100% AGW propaganda. He is a 'research assistant' because he started a site as a cartoonist and when you say what the warmists want to hear you eventually get crowned with a title.
He also likes to dress up like a Nazi in his spare time, but whatever man.
1 SynesthesiaBrah 2017-09-11
Jesus fuck... Back up your damn claims...
Am I just supposed to take your word for it?
Colleges don't hire people to research if they don't know how to research. He got hired because he "studied physics at university and majored in astrophysics in my post-grad honors year".
As if I should care? Al Franken was a comedian and Sarah Palin was a hot piece of ass before they were politicians, what's your point?
This just in, if you like to play pretend that means you're a propagandist. LOL
Hey CIA when you view this crown me lol
1 timo1200 2017-09-11
It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their alarmist position. This way they can pretend to win arguments, when in reality they have all been refuted. The abuse and censorship does not pertain to simply any dissenting commentator there but to highly credentialed and respected climate scientists as well; Dr. Pielke Sr. has unsuccessfully attempted to engage in discussions there only to be childishly taunted and censored, while Dr. Michaels has been dishonestly quoted and smeared. The irony of the site's oxymoronic name "Skeptical Science" is that the site is not skeptical of even the most extreme alarmist positions.
John Cook is now desperately trying to cover up his background that he was employed as a cartoonist for over a decade with no prior employment history in academia or climate science.
Thanks to the Wayback Machine we can reveal what his website originally said,
"I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist" - John Cook, Skeptical Science https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YYVrr8BJIj4/U3CA_pKUGjI/AAAAAAAABKE/o8O69K9MHng/s1600/Cook+Cartoonist.gif
1 SynesthesiaBrah 2017-09-11
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html
LOL nice copy paste. That site uses great sources like a wordpress blog that thinks the elites are controlling the Paris Deal (and other crazy shit that isn't backed up and we have to take their word for it) and http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org that casts doubt on climate change because:
" -The climate has changed before (YA NO SHIT...) - Temp record unreliable - Models are unreliable - The earth hasn't warmed since 1998 (LOL!) - The earth is cooling - No consensus "
Ya you want to talk about propaganda...
It's hard arguing wit someone who believes in shit that's been debunked over and over again...
Maybe next time take longer than 3 seconds and get a good source instead of copy pasting.
1 timo1200 2017-09-11
Pretty cool how you think conspiracies are 'crazy shit' on a conspiracy sub.
And those examples prove he is a propagandist who runs a wordpress blog.
1 SynesthesiaBrah 2017-09-11
When did I say I think conspiracies are crazy shit, when did I actually say it? I didn't. I don't believe in this particular one so therefore I don't believe in any?
No they don't, they prove nothing... Everything you've linked to so far either doesn't have their own sources backing up their reasoning, or they are flat out LYING. I'm not going to trust a source that either doesn't back up it's reasoning on 95% of it's claims, or just links to gibberish.
1 timo1200 2017-09-11
Lets just pick one.
"Cook says that models have made predictions that were
successfully compared to observations. Except that this is not enough for the models to be reliable. For them to be reliable, it would have to be the case that the models have produced no predictions that were inconsistent with the observations - because one wrong prediction is enough to falsify a model. Clearly, such falsification has taken place with all of them. In particular, all IPCC-endorsed models predicted a warming since 1998 that didn't occur. They're gone. Again, both sides agree that we can't rely on them. Kevin Trenberth agrees that the disagreement of the models and the data is a travesty. There are hundreds of recent examples showing how deeply flawed the existing IPCC- endorsed models are."
1 SynesthesiaBrah 2017-09-11
What models? What predications? What observations? I'm not taking their word for it.
1 timo1200 2017-09-11
97% of climate models agree.... that they have been wrong.
1 SynesthesiaBrah 2017-09-11
Holy shit we're making some progress.
So you're saying predictions can sometimes be off by a bit?
1 timo1200 2017-09-11
I'm saying that CO2 is not the driver of climate.
I am saying the models use a forcing 300% higher than real life, so nearly all of them are wrong
Paper: CO2 Has ‘Negligible’ Influence On Earth’s Temperature - Water Vapour Climate Forcing ‘Up To 200 Times’ Greater, ‘Overrides Any Effect By CO2’
1 SynesthesiaBrah 2017-09-11
No they don't.
1 timo1200 2017-09-11
Not sure why you asked those questions when the answers are right there in the links.
1 SynesthesiaBrah 2017-09-11
It's gibberish. Do you know what a rhetorical question is?
Yes, the questions are "answered". Not very well though... Not very well sourced though... They are just claims, nothing more.
1 SynesthesiaBrah 2017-09-11
Oh, and it's not just me that doesn't believe in your bullshit, it's the rest of /r/conspiracy lol.
1 timo1200 2017-09-11
You only speak for you brah.....
1 SynesthesiaBrah 2017-09-11
Do you know how many upvotes your OP has?
1 timo1200 2017-09-11
Karma aint real man. You can't spend it on blow or hookers. Don't value it so much.
1 Step2TheJep 2017-09-11
According to who, and why do you trust them?
1 Illinois_Jones 2017-09-11
The data.....from everywhere
1 Step2TheJep 2017-09-11
In other words, you got nothing. Thought so.
1 b0t1337 2017-09-11
Here's a list with 31 indepednent science society saying his facts are indeed facts. https://www.aaas.org/news/intersocietyclimateletter2016
1 Step2TheJep 2017-09-11
If they are 'independent', where do they get funding?
1 SynesthesiaBrah 2017-09-11
It's on their fucking website you idiot
1 Step2TheJep 2017-09-11
Aggression and namecalling? You must be a truth-teller!
1 SynesthesiaBrah 2017-09-11
Sorry man, didn't know this was a safe space.
Also lol at ad hominem.
1 PimpBoyLafferty 2017-09-11
I wonder if you people realize you're trolling or your tactics are legitimately subconscious.
1 IfIKnewThen 2017-09-11
"There has been no increased polar ice cap or global glacier melting, or accelerated sea level rise."
~Peter Ferrara
http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/17/dont-let-the-nuts-keep-americas-national-treasure-buried/
1 timo1200 2017-09-11
Ho hmmmmm
Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat
New Study: Tide gages find no global ‘acceleration in sea level’ – Satellite data ‘manipulated’ to show acceleration
1 IfIKnewThen 2017-09-11
Interesting. I actually wasn't aware that whether glaciers were retreating, or not, was still being debated.
https://www.livescience.com/58774-time-lapse-photos-show-retreating-glaciers.html
1 timo1200 2017-09-11
The earth is a big place. You can find all sorts of weather / climate phenomena.
West Antarctic Glaciers Have Been Retreating For Last 7500 Years
New Scientific Studies Show Glacier, Ice Sheet Melt Rates Rapidly Decelerating
Some Of The World’s Largest Non-Polar Glaciers Are Expanding
1 erath_droid 2017-09-11
Really? It looks like NASA says the exact opposite.
1 timo1200 2017-09-11
Did you read both links? I don't think you did.
Updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as “proof” of a global warming crisis.)
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
1 erath_droid 2017-09-11
Nice graph there, but let's see what happens when you overlap the data and use that to see what the total polar ice area is doing:
Looks like it's decreasing at a rapid rate
So, it looks like your source is WRONG! Deal with it.
Oh, and before replying- keep in mind that you are pointing to links that CLAIM to be representing what NASA is saying, while I am responding by posting direct links to what NASA is actually saying. Which source do you think has it right?
Let's face it- the conspiracy here is that there are a bunch of people conspiring to cover up the true extent of global warming, and the self-proclaimed "climate realists" are unwittingly assisting them in furthering that conspiracy.
1 timo1200 2017-09-11
Reading is hard.
1 erath_droid 2017-09-11
I read that. I saw what it said, I saw what it meant. I then checked their source (NASA) and their source oddly enough said something different.
Did you look at the picture that I left for you? It's straight from NASA and DIRECTLY contradicts the author's claim that:
It hasn't.
Your source is WRONG.
AND he's part of the conspiracy to hide the extent of global warming's effects on the Earth.
1 timo1200 2017-09-11
Not sure how you can be so stupid.
The fucking words say it is decreasing. You showed a graph that said it is decreasing. Then danced around like you won the lottery.
1 erath_droid 2017-09-11
Did you somehow miss the quote from the article that you copypastas that said "SINCE THE END OF 2012 POLAR ICE EXTENT HAS LARGELY REMAINED ABOVE THE POST-1979 AVERAGE?"
How in the FUCK does that say it's decreasing? HOW DOES SAYING THAT IT IS AT OR ABOVE THE LEVEL IT WAS AT WHEN MEASUREMENTS STARTED SAY THAT IT IS DECREASING?
You know, a statement that is directly contradicted by NASA's own data? This would make the author of that article WRONG.
But then you earlier admitted that, for you, reading is hard.
1 timo1200 2017-09-11
This sentence brainiac.... the only I already pasted for you.
1 erath_droid 2017-09-11
So your source is contradicting himself then, as well as being wron. In the same fucking paper he says "SEA ICE IS STAYING RIGHT AT 1979 LEVELS!!!" and then later saying that it has receded?
Do you not see the problem with this?
(He's also wrong about the less than 10% part, too.)
So- in ADDITION to BOTH of those statements being WRONG, his two statements DIRECTLY CONTRADICT EACH OTHER.
The only explanations I can think of for this is that the author is moron or he's getting paid a ton of money.
I USED to think that he HAD to be getting paid, because NOBODY could be THAT stupid, but after today I'm not so sure...
1 timo1200 2017-09-11
Jesus H Fucking Christ.
I have now copied the same easy-to-understand sentence 3 times.
I bet you are real gem to have over for dinner. Temper tantrums between each course?
1 erath_droid 2017-09-11
A) That statement is WRONG
B) It directly contradicts another statement made IN THE SAME FUCKING PAPER and
C) The OTHER statement IN THE SAME PAPER, the one that DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS THE FIRST ONE, is ALSO wrong.
The author would have to try real damn hard to be more wrong.
1 timo1200 2017-09-11
Maybe you should write more caps.
1 erath_droid 2017-09-11
01000100 01101111 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01110011 01110100 01101001 01101100 01101100 00100000 01101000 01100001 01110110 01100101 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 01110010 00100000 01110000 01100001 01110010 01100101 01101110 01110100 01110011 00100000 01110100 01101001 01100101 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 01110010 00100000 01110011 01101000 01101111 01100101 01110011 00100000 01100110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00111111
1 timo1200 2017-09-11
It says it was the same from 79-2005
Then it receded.
Get it.
Now we are talking about sea and land ice.
I am sure you will say some shit in all CAPS again and look like a dumbass.
1 erath_droid 2017-09-11
This statement isn't true. The data shows a definite decrease of total polar ice (both arctic and antarctic) during that time period.
Not true. The data (from NASA) shows that from around 2005 on the rate of ice receding increased.
OK?
No. Just no. So much wrong. I even showed you a pretty picture.
But then again, you're quoting a guy saying that ice receded who earlier in the same article said that it didn't. Dude contradicts himself with two statements that are both wrong.
Good luck with life, homie.
1 timo1200 2017-09-11
Show your work.
1 erath_droid 2017-09-11
Already did.
1 timo1200 2017-09-11
You talking about arctic ice?
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php
1 erath_droid 2017-09-11
No. The picture. From the NASA site. That showed total polar ice decreasing. That one.
1 timo1200 2017-09-11
Well NASA needs to make up their mind.
Also, source your little graph...
1 erath_droid 2017-09-11
As you confessed earlier "reading is hard" for you.
The article you are linking to talks about just antarctic ice. You are aware that there are two poles, righ?
And the source of the graph is NASA. I've linked it multiple times. But then again, reading is hard for you.
Enjoy your crow pie.
1 timo1200 2017-09-11
Arctic Ice in 2012
Arctic Ice in 2017
1 erath_droid 2017-09-11
Why do you insist on propagating the conspiracy that global warming isn't happening?
You are helping to spread the conspiracy. You are helping the rich to get richer off of the backs of those who will pay for ignoring the effects of climate change.
Why are you so eager to be a track 4?
1 Ideaem 2017-09-11
Just wondering. What's the effects of pushing the agenda of climate change denial? What benefits are there?
1 timo1200 2017-09-11
Just to piss you off. All my posts are secretly all about you.
1 Ideaem 2017-09-11
I didn't event notice it was the same OP, but okay. Way to not answer the question and make it petty, didn't mean to upset you in the previous post.
1 SynesthesiaBrah 2017-09-11
Moreover, you're an idiot.
1 timo1200 2017-09-11
You used moreover wrong, idiot.
1 SynesthesiaBrah 2017-09-11
I'm making fun you....
1 timo1200 2017-09-11
Maybe you can tell your Mom how cool you are when she gets home from work later.
1 timo1200 2017-09-11
I agree with all that. I am no fan of Exxon or anyone that pollutes.
Hey I started as an Alarmist myself. It was reading the science and letting that lead to my conclusions (not what I felt was right) that turned me into this asshole.. Human emissions of CO2 is not warming the planet and this is a HUGE conspiracy. Could kill Billions.......
Ok, I have always been an asshole....
1 goroboldo 2017-09-11
Nice edit. Pants vaporized.
1 erath_droid 2017-09-11
I read that. I saw what it said, I saw what it meant. I then checked their source (NASA) and their source oddly enough said something different.
Did you look at the picture that I left for you? It's straight from NASA and DIRECTLY contradicts the author's claim that:
It hasn't.
Your source is WRONG.
AND he's part of the conspiracy to hide the extent of global warming's effects on the Earth.
1 timo1200 2017-09-11
Arctic Ice in 2012
Arctic Ice in 2017