BackPage 1 of 6Next
Animated gifs show the reality of climate change
FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Animated gifs show the reality of climate change

Animated gifs show the reality of climate change

(7 pics) Muir Glacier, Alaska: August 1941 and August 2004.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Babaghan (1416 days ago)
I see glaciers retreating, but nothing else. Yesterday, I heard bang outside my window and saw a 2 vehicle car accident. Couldn't tell who was at fault though just by looking at the scene.
ReplyVote up (131)down (60)
Original comment
I see glaciers retreating, but nothing else. Yesterday, I heard bang outside my window and saw a 2 vehicle car accident. Couldn't tell who was at fault though just by looking at the scene.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Argle (1416 days ago)
Too bad no photos from the end of the last ice age. It would be fun to compare.
ReplyVote up (131)down (59)
Original comment
Too bad no photos from the end of the last ice age. It would be fun to compare.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Green is good. (1414 days ago)
Fun? Yeah, party on dude, everyone come round we're gonna compare pictures of glaciers! Honestly where have all these fossil trolls come from all of a sudden? Last gasp from the oil and coal industries hopefully.
ReplyVote up (128)down (138)
Original comment
Fun? Yeah, party on dude, everyone come round we're gonna compare pictures of glaciers! Honestly where have all these fossil trolls come from all of a sudden? Last gasp from the oil and coal industries hopefully.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PUS&GUTS (1414 days ago)
Latest comment: it's the same guy with multiple guest usernames...talking to himself... like a fekin retard... pretending that it's actually more people than himself who believes this sheit... fu*k you originalmad. fekin shale gas propagandist manipulative cu*t...
ReplyVote up (138)down (143)
Original comment
Latest comment: it's the same guy with multiple guest usernames...talking to himself... like a fekin retard... pretending that it's actually more people than himself who believes this sheit... fu*k you originalmad. fekin shale gas propagandist manipulative cu*t...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PUS&GUTS (1416 days ago)
FOR FU*K'S SAKE WITH THE FEKIN CLIMATE CHANGE SHEIT! AND THE FEKIN' CLIMATE CHANGE DENIALIST FU*KS!! I"M TIRED OF IT!! JUST FEKIN BURN IT DOWN! MONEY TO BE MADE BURNING IT DOWN! MONEY TO BE MADE CLEANING IT UP! GOD FU*KING DAMMIT!!
ReplyVote up (172)down (181)
Original comment
FOR FU*K'S SAKE WITH THE FEKIN CLIMATE CHANGE SHEIT! AND THE FEKIN' CLIMATE CHANGE DENIALIST FU*KS!! I"M TIRED OF IT!! JUST FEKIN BURN IT DOWN! MONEY TO BE MADE BURNING IT DOWN! MONEY TO BE MADE CLEANING IT UP! GOD FU*KING DAMMIT!!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Non-gullible Denier (1416 days ago)
Yes they show that climate changes. Just as it has done since time immemorial. As the 'later' photos are between 8 & 13 years old, one presumes more-up-to-date photos are not quite so dramatic. I wonder if the poster has a then-and-now photo of Greenland - when the Vikings settled there because it was, well, a green land?
ReplyVote up (118)down (133)
Original comment
Yes they show that climate changes. Just as it has done since time immemorial. As the 'later' photos are between 8 & 13 years old, one presumes more-up-to-date photos are not quite so dramatic. I wonder if the poster has a then-and-now photo of Greenland - when the Vikings settled there because it was, well, a green land?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1416 days ago)
I think these are pictures of glacier bay. in 1750 the glacier started retreating from the sea and by 1880 had retreated 45 miles into the muir inlet (picture 1). the western arm had retreated even further (approx 70 miles) iemost of the retreat took place in the 19th century long before co2 was supposed to be a problem. also the two photos used on page 1 are dated aug 13 1841 and aug 31 2004. its interesting also to note there is a photo dated aug 4 1950, which shows most of the retreat shown had taken place by 1950 again before co2 was seen to be a problem.
ReplyVote up (103)down (201)
Original comment
I think these are pictures of glacier bay. in 1750 the glacier started retreating from the sea and by 1880 had retreated 45 miles into the muir inlet (picture 1). the western arm had retreated even further (approx 70 miles) iemost of the retreat took place in the 19th century long before co2 was supposed to be a problem. also the two photos used on page 1 are dated aug 13 1841 and aug 31 2004. its interesting also to note there is a photo dated aug 4 1950, which shows most of the retreat shown had taken place by 1950 again before co2 was seen to be a problem.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1416 days ago)
I've never been sure of your position on global warming. Do you think greenhouse gases do not trap heat in the atmosphere?
ReplyVote up (186)down (124)
Original comment
I've never been sure of your position on global warming. Do you think greenhouse gases do not trap heat in the atmosphere?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Non-gullible Denier (1416 days ago)
So, despite massive increases in atmospheric CO2 these past 17 years, why has the globe refused to warm?
ReplyVote up (149)down (195)
Original comment
So, despite massive increases in atmospheric CO2 these past 17 years, why has the globe refused to warm?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PUS&GUTS (1416 days ago)
multiple nicknames ya fu*K! tell a lie three times and it's as if you're telling the truth... ya motherfu*king piece of sheit! just answer the fekin question with a proper answer, instead of asking an idiotic question! and...oh yeah... FU*K YOU AND YOUR MOTHER! ya stupid fu*K!
ReplyVote up (161)down (78)
Original comment
multiple nicknames ya fu*K! tell a lie three times and it's as if you're telling the truth... ya motherfu*king piece of sheit! just answer the fekin question with a proper answer, instead of asking an idiotic question! and...oh yeah... FU*K YOU AND YOUR MOTHER! ya stupid fu*K!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1416 days ago)
no actually Non-gullible denier is another enlightened person who is not me
ReplyVote up (83)down (101)
Original comment
no actually Non-gullible denier is another enlightened person who is not me
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PUS&GUTS (1415 days ago)
yeah, right! FU*K YOU!
ReplyVote up (101)down (61)
Original comment
yeah, right! FU*K YOU!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1415 days ago)
First, the atmosphere has been warming in the last 17 years, only slower. It's the deeper oceans that are warming right now. I didn't make this up, I just bothered to google.
ReplyVote up (94)down (101)
Original comment
First, the atmosphere has been warming in the last 17 years, only slower. It's the deeper oceans that are warming right now. I didn't make this up, I just bothered to google.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1415 days ago)
walter do you know what a top of a sine wave looks like ?. oh and if the deeper oceans are actually warming (debatable because of the extremely poor historical record and current very incomplete coverage) its probably not due to recent co2 warming ( heat propagates very slowly through water )
ReplyVote up (101)down (88)
Original comment
walter do you know what a top of a sine wave looks like ?. oh and if the deeper oceans are actually warming (debatable because of the extremely poor historical record and current very incomplete coverage) its probably not due to recent co2 warming ( heat propagates very slowly through water )
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1415 days ago)
The heat has to go somewhere.
ReplyVote up (118)down (71)
Original comment
The heat has to go somewhere.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1415 days ago)
what heat ? and from what decade ?
ReplyVote up (101)down (97)
Original comment
what heat ? and from what decade ?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1415 days ago)
The heat trapped by greenhouse gases that human activity has added to the atmosphere since the industrial revolution.
ReplyVote up (113)down (76)
Original comment
The heat trapped by greenhouse gases that human activity has added to the atmosphere since the industrial revolution.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1415 days ago)
but walter as i pointed out above most of the retreat of the glaciers took place in an era of zero human activity co2 warming, so why did they retreat ?
ReplyVote up (101)down (75)
Original comment
but walter as i pointed out above most of the retreat of the glaciers took place in an era of zero human activity co2 warming, so why did they retreat ?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1415 days ago)
You can't stop digging can you. The first photo was taken in Muir Glacier on August 13, 1941, by glaciologist William O. Field, not 1880 as you claim in an earlier comment. LINK
ReplyVote up (107)down (86)
Original comment
You can't stop digging can you. The first photo was taken in Muir Glacier on August 13, 1941, by glaciologist William O. Field, not 1880 as you claim in an earlier comment. LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1415 days ago)
wrong again walter if you read my post above you will realize i did give the date of photos taken ( corrected later 1941 not 1841). Glacier bay has a number of inlets flowing into it which contain glaciers today. in 1750 the whole of glacier bay was filled.The vast majority of the retreat had taken place long before alleged human co2 induced climate change could take place emphasizing i guess the forever naturally changing nature of the worlds climate
ReplyVote up (90)down (144)
Original comment
wrong again walter if you read my post above you will realize i did give the date of photos taken ( corrected later 1941 not 1841). Glacier bay has a number of inlets flowing into it which contain glaciers today. in 1750 the whole of glacier bay was filled.The vast majority of the retreat had taken place long before alleged human co2 induced climate change could take place emphasizing i guess the forever naturally changing nature of the worlds climate
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1415 days ago)
Between 1550 and 1850, the world went through a relatively cold period known as the "Little Ice Age". Since 1850, the world has been warming up and all glaciers were retreating. By 1980, glacier retreats had slowed right down, some even starting to reverse as the world went through slight cooling between 1950 and 1980. Since 1980, glacier retreats have really accelerated, some have even disappeared altogether. Today there's not much left of the Muir Glacier. There's an interesting set of 4 photos of the glacier in 1893, 1941, 1976, 2004. Notice that the difference between the 1976 and 2004 photos is much greater than between 1893 and 1941. LINK You should try Google. It's free.
ReplyVote up (80)down (144)
Original comment
Between 1550 and 1850, the world went through a relatively cold period known as the "Little Ice Age". Since 1850, the world has been warming up and all glaciers were retreating. By 1980, glacier retreats had slowed right down, some even starting to reverse as the world went through slight cooling between 1950 and 1980. Since 1980, glacier retreats have really accelerated, some have even disappeared altogether. Today there's not much left of the Muir Glacier. There's an interesting set of 4 photos of the glacier in 1893, 1941, 1976, 2004. Notice that the difference between the 1976 and 2004 photos is much greater than between 1893 and 1941. LINK You should try Google. It's free.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1415 days ago)
So between 1550? and 1850 it was warming without increase in co2, how weird, must have been magic walter, either that or the laws of phyaica have changed
ReplyVote up (97)down (101)
Original comment
So between 1550? and 1850 it was warming without increase in co2, how weird, must have been magic walter, either that or the laws of phyaica have changed
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1415 days ago)
No. Between 1550 and 1850 was the Little Ice Age. The world was cooler then and has been warming since. So you have no comment on the 4 photos, or the acceleration of glaciers retreating since 1980?
ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment
No. Between 1550 and 1850 was the Little Ice Age. The world was cooler then and has been warming since. So you have no comment on the 4 photos, or the acceleration of glaciers retreating since 1980?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1414 days ago)
walter, you do realize admitting the little ice age existed in america makes you a denier according to the consensus
ReplyVote up (169)down (79)
Original comment
walter, you do realize admitting the little ice age existed in america makes you a denier according to the consensus
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MyName MyName (1414 days ago)
Walter, I do admire your patience with the unpleasant trolls.
ReplyVote up (103)down (59)
Original comment
Walter, I do admire your patience with the unpleasant trolls.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1414 days ago)
so pointing out the facts is unpleasant now?
ReplyVote up (101)down (70)
Original comment
so pointing out the facts is unpleasant now?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MyName MyName (1414 days ago)
Bless you, you keep spinning but you're gonna get dizzy soon. I'll spell it out for you. *You* are unpleasant. Not your 'argument'. Patronising, sarcastic, insulting. That's unpleasant in most people's books.
ReplyVote up (92)down (101)
Original comment
Bless you, you keep spinning but you're gonna get dizzy soon. I'll spell it out for you. *You* are unpleasant. Not your 'argument'. Patronising, sarcastic, insulting. That's unpleasant in most people's books.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1414 days ago)
is it? well i developed it after being on the receiving end of a few lectures from walter and co (under a different name), and i do so enjoy pointing out the obvious errors in cagw propaganda.
Original comment
is it? well i developed it after being on the receiving end of a few lectures from walter and co (under a different name), and i do so enjoy pointing out the obvious errors in cagw propaganda.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MyName MyName (1414 days ago)
Oh so your behaviour isn't your fault? Well that's cleared that up.
ReplyVote up (56)down (113)
Original comment
Oh so your behaviour isn't your fault? Well that's cleared that up.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1414 days ago)
i did start off trying to be polite, call it tit for two tats if you like
ReplyVote up (126)down (77)
Original comment
i did start off trying to be polite, call it tit for two tats if you like
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1416 days ago)
walter i accept the absorption spectra of co2 it would be foolish to deny it , however most of the warming is supposed to come from increased water vapour, and that effect simply does not appear to be happening. Without that effect, its only approx 1 c per doubling ie not dangerous
ReplyVote up (77)down (133)
Original comment
walter i accept the absorption spectra of co2 it would be foolish to deny it , however most of the warming is supposed to come from increased water vapour, and that effect simply does not appear to be happening. Without that effect, its only approx 1 c per doubling ie not dangerous
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1416 days ago)
So just to clarify in layman's terms, you agree burning fossil fuels is warming the planet, just that it's insignificant?
ReplyVote up (136)down (78)
Original comment
So just to clarify in layman's terms, you agree burning fossil fuels is warming the planet, just that it's insignificant?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1415 days ago)
to clarify the catastrophic side of global warming is from water vapour. i should add thet the increase in co2 is due to a combination of factors including outgassing from the ocean which is probably not insignificant
ReplyVote up (74)down (137)
Original comment
to clarify the catastrophic side of global warming is from water vapour. i should add thet the increase in co2 is due to a combination of factors including outgassing from the ocean which is probably not insignificant
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1415 days ago)
I don't want discuss the science, because unless you show that there is conspiracy or incompetence involved, I'd be a fool to believe you over almost every active climate scientist in the world today. About the water vapour - The oceans warm, more water evaporates, hence more water vapour. Warmer oceans also means more outgassing. There's loads of methane dissolved in the oceans waiting for release if the ocean temperatures rise a few more degrees. CO2 is the trigger, everything else is a result of that. There is no point you trying to talk science, because if you disagree with the experts, you are most likely wrong. It is as simple as that. All you have to do is show either conspiracy or incompetence.
ReplyVote up (120)down (136)
Original comment
I don't want discuss the science, because unless you show that there is conspiracy or incompetence involved, I'd be a fool to believe you over almost every active climate scientist in the world today. About the water vapour - The oceans warm, more water evaporates, hence more water vapour. Warmer oceans also means more outgassing. There's loads of methane dissolved in the oceans waiting for release if the ocean temperatures rise a few more degrees. CO2 is the trigger, everything else is a result of that. There is no point you trying to talk science, because if you disagree with the experts, you are most likely wrong. It is as simple as that. All you have to do is show either conspiracy or incompetence.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: orginalmad (1415 days ago)
You forgot to mention empirical data which after all is the ultimate arbiter of whether a theory is valid or not, regardless of what the "experts" wish to be true. You know i once sat in a lecture theatre and the lecturer turned up late and announced that the lecture on his theory that he was due to give has just been rendered junk that morning due to analysis of results from cern. Thats how real science works.
ReplyVote up (152)down (169)
Original comment
You forgot to mention empirical data which after all is the ultimate arbiter of whether a theory is valid or not, regardless of what the "experts" wish to be true. You know i once sat in a lecture theatre and the lecturer turned up late and announced that the lecture on his theory that he was due to give has just been rendered junk that morning due to analysis of results from cern. Thats how real science works.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1415 days ago)
That is exactly how science works. Climate scientists around the world have rendered your ideas junk.
ReplyVote up (87)down (157)
Original comment
That is exactly how science works. Climate scientists around the world have rendered your ideas junk.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1415 days ago)
your hopelessly out of your depth walter, the point was that the lecturer for all his brains, logic and mathematical abilty was humble enough to realize that empirical data always trumps theory no matter how cleverly thought out. btw he then went on to give the lecture because as he pointed out there wasn't any other valid competing theories at the time, but he did stress it was complete junk.
ReplyVote up (152)down (149)
Original comment
your hopelessly out of your depth walter, the point was that the lecturer for all his brains, logic and mathematical abilty was humble enough to realize that empirical data always trumps theory no matter how cleverly thought out. btw he then went on to give the lecture because as he pointed out there wasn't any other valid competing theories at the time, but he did stress it was complete junk.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1415 days ago)
Almost every climate expert thinks you are wrong. Why should I believe you?
ReplyVote up (166)down (92)
Original comment
Almost every climate expert thinks you are wrong. Why should I believe you?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: orginalmad (1415 days ago)
walter, just keep those blinkers on and double down, but i think you will find that the smarter climate experts are hedging their bets far more than you might think
ReplyVote up (149)down (72)
Original comment
walter, just keep those blinkers on and double down, but i think you will find that the smarter climate experts are hedging their bets far more than you might think
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1415 days ago)
As I said before, if the experts change their minds, I will too. If the experts do not change their minds, will you change yours?
ReplyVote up (153)down (150)
Original comment
As I said before, if the experts change their minds, I will too. If the experts do not change their minds, will you change yours?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PUS&GUTS (1415 days ago)
he keeps starting every sentence with "walter" . it's an emotional manipulation tactic. he's trying to get readers to think that he (original scum mad) is the sensible adult/ parent who is gently schooling you, and you are the naive little child! that manipulative FU*K! FU*K YOU , YOU MANIPULATIVE DENIALIST PIECE OF SHEIT SHALE GAS PROPAGANDIST FU*K!!! yeah you, originalscumFu*Kmad and your boyfriend, cengcocksuckingland0! OH WAIT Wait! it just came to me...he actually believes it!! AAA HA HA HA HA HA!!! what an idiot!!
ReplyVote up (147)down (135)
Original comment
he keeps starting every sentence with "walter" . it's an emotional manipulation tactic. he's trying to get readers to think that he (original scum mad) is the sensible adult/ parent who is gently schooling you, and you are the naive little child! that manipulative FU*K! FU*K YOU , YOU MANIPULATIVE DENIALIST PIECE OF SHEIT SHALE GAS PROPAGANDIST FU*K!!! yeah you, originalscumFu*Kmad and your boyfriend, cengcocksuckingland0! OH WAIT Wait! it just came to me...he actually believes it!! AAA HA HA HA HA HA!!! what an idiot!!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1415 days ago)
quite, i am schooling him
ReplyVote up (147)down (63)
Original comment
quite, i am schooling him
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PUS&GUTS (1415 days ago)
yes, you're schooling him in being an idiotic sheit eater! it's what you do best! you eat sheit! aa ha ha ha!!
ReplyVote up (124)down (111)
Original comment
yes, you're schooling him in being an idiotic sheit eater! it's what you do best! you eat sheit! aa ha ha ha!!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1415 days ago)
and you are the one who decides what knowledge is too perilous for walter to know
ReplyVote up (133)down (136)
Original comment
and you are the one who decides what knowledge is too perilous for walter to know
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PUS&GUTS (1415 days ago)
i decide when i let yer mum suck me off!
ReplyVote up (101)down (95)
Original comment
i decide when i let yer mum suck me off!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WellHungarian WellHungarian (1415 days ago)
Err... I don't think so
ReplyVote up (77)down (107)
Original comment
Err... I don't think so
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1415 days ago)
walter as i pointed out the experts are already changing their minds. looks like your being left behind. over and out
ReplyVote up (66)down (152)
Original comment
walter as i pointed out the experts are already changing their minds. looks like your being left behind. over and out
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: man in white coat (1415 days ago)
"I don't want to discuss the science" CAGW belief summed up in one sentence
ReplyVote up (87)down (152)
Original comment
"I don't want to discuss the science" CAGW belief summed up in one sentence
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1415 days ago)
Purposely missing the context - denialists summed up in one sentence.
ReplyVote up (156)down (156)
Original comment
Purposely missing the context - denialists summed up in one sentence.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1415 days ago)
he doesn't want to dicuss the science because he cant discuss the science
ReplyVote up (71)down (165)
Original comment
he doesn't want to dicuss the science because he cant discuss the science
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1415 days ago)
Exactly. You have finally understood.
ReplyVote up (135)down (143)
Original comment
Exactly. You have finally understood.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1415 days ago)
And that just about sums you up walter, arguing from a position of zero knowledge, just pure belief. And you have the gall to sneer at people who belive in god.
ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment
And that just about sums you up walter, arguing from a position of zero knowledge, just pure belief. And you have the gall to sneer at people who belive in god.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1415 days ago)
If you want to discuss the science, discuss it with a scientist. I can only give you the overall picture.
ReplyVote up (146)down (124)
Original comment
If you want to discuss the science, discuss it with a scientist. I can only give you the overall picture.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: . (1415 days ago)
Look, Walter repeatedly admits, nay, begs you, that he CAN'T discuss science. Ok, since he admits it already... why wasting your breath on that troll? Let him believe his totally myrthical "almost all" expertd. He doesn't even notice that he himself admits that not all of them do. Snd that's before we even start on who the alleged "experts" are... all 79 of them. And did I mention them of the ClimateGate fame? ...... In short - keep on beieving Wzlter, you know no stoopid science, roght?
ReplyVote up (150)down (163)
Original comment
Look, Walter repeatedly admits, nay, begs you, that he CAN'T discuss science. Ok, since he admits it already... why wasting your breath on that troll? Let him believe his totally myrthical "almost all" expertd. He doesn't even notice that he himself admits that not all of them do. Snd that's before we even start on who the alleged "experts" are... all 79 of them. And did I mention them of the ClimateGate fame? ...... In short - keep on beieving Wzlter, you know no stoopid science, roght?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1415 days ago)
well its a bit of a narrow viewpoint walter,the cagw propaganda isn't working that well anymore,especially when its so easily shown to be false and misleading
ReplyVote up (80)down (146)
Original comment
well its a bit of a narrow viewpoint walter,the cagw propaganda isn't working that well anymore,especially when its so easily shown to be false and misleading
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PUS&GUTS (1415 days ago)
what a bunch of bullsheit! FU*K YOU! ya delusional twat!
ReplyVote up (128)down (69)
Original comment
what a bunch of bullsheit! FU*K YOU! ya delusional twat!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1415 days ago)
If CAGW is so easily shown to be false, then that means climate scientists are part of a conspiracy to hoodwink the world. Is that your position?
ReplyVote up (101)down (89)
Original comment
If CAGW is so easily shown to be false, then that means climate scientists are part of a conspiracy to hoodwink the world. Is that your position?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Casey (1415 days ago)
Well you could equate that with the thinking that bankers or big business are out to hoodwink the world. I don't particularly buy into that theory but if you do then it would seem unreasonable for you not to suspect climate scientists of same. Infact when you look at who's now deserting the IPCC and why it makes you think...http://thedogatem ydata.blogspot.co.nz/2010 /01/uk-chief-scientist-cl imate-change.html It seems to me, and many others that the science is being made to fit the political agenda of global warming , infact that is what is being funded, you don't see any govt. dept. funding research disproving global warming do you? When you are funded to find AGW that's what you find or you are dismissed or defunded. It's a political debate more than a scientific one. The fact that there are huge discrepancies in the models and predictions and that policy is being implemented around that flawed data is scary.
ReplyVote up (171)down (131)
Original comment
Well you could equate that with the thinking that bankers or big business are out to hoodwink the world. I don't particularly buy into that theory but if you do then it would seem unreasonable for you not to suspect climate scientists of same. Infact when you look at who's now deserting the IPCC and why it makes you think...http://thedogatem ydata.blogspot.co.nz/2010 /01/uk-chief-scientist-cl imate-change.html It seems to me, and many others that the science is being made to fit the political agenda of global warming , infact that is what is being funded, you don't see any govt. dept. funding research disproving global warming do you? When you are funded to find AGW that's what you find or you are dismissed or defunded. It's a political debate more than a scientific one. The fact that there are huge discrepancies in the models and predictions and that policy is being implemented around that flawed data is scary.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1415 days ago)
Yes, if banks are so easily shown to be involved in illegal practices to the tune of billions, and nobody goes to jail - then it would be reasonable to suspect a conspiracy. If you think climate scientists are involved in a conspiracy, I'm all ears.
ReplyVote up (142)down (67)
Original comment
Yes, if banks are so easily shown to be involved in illegal practices to the tune of billions, and nobody goes to jail - then it would be reasonable to suspect a conspiracy. If you think climate scientists are involved in a conspiracy, I'm all ears.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1415 days ago)
About those scientists who are deserting... I looked at your link to TheDogAteMyData blog (here's a working LINK ). This was published in January 2010. The first person mentioned is UK’s Chief Scientist Prof John Beddington with some quotes without any context from an article he wrote on the Times Online. This was Prof John Beddington on BBC News in March 2013. LINK
ReplyVote up (59)down (125)
Original comment
About those scientists who are deserting... I looked at your link to TheDogAteMyData blog (here's a working LINK ). This was published in January 2010. The first person mentioned is UK’s Chief Scientist Prof John Beddington with some quotes without any context from an article he wrote on the Times Online. This was Prof John Beddington on BBC News in March 2013. LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1414 days ago)
this would be the "i completely lack the tools to understand climate science and i'm completely out of mt depth because i'm only a population biologist" Prof john beddington
ReplyVote up (159)down (127)
Original comment
this would be the "i completely lack the tools to understand climate science and i'm completely out of mt depth because i'm only a population biologist" Prof john beddington
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Casey (1414 days ago)
So he's changed his position AGAIN! Unbelievable...
ReplyVote up (144)down (126)
Original comment
So he's changed his position AGAIN! Unbelievable...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1416 days ago)
should be aug 13 1941
ReplyVote up (186)down (179)
Original comment
should be aug 13 1941
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Flying Horse - Stupid GIF!
Flying Horse - Stupid GIF!
Animated gifs show the reality of climate change
Animated gifs show the reality of climate change
That's why he's a marine, he never chooses the easy way
That's why he's a marine, he never chooses the easy way
Cyriak clips for Adult Swim
Cyriak clips for Adult Swim
Pussy porno
Pussy porno