more frequent COLD blasts could be coming from global warming - Politics Discussion

[–] MarkPh (505) 10 days ago

It becomes one as soon as you're too high to read from left to right and get everything backwards.

Here's a probably unsolvable riddle for you.
The arctic is warming 4 times faster than the rest of the world, including the arctic the world has warmed by an average of 1°C, does that mean all the rest of the world outside the arctic must still warm by 1°, or does it mean the rest of the world must neccessary have some areas where it's colder than before to offset the large warming in the artic and get to a global average of 1°C?

reply

[–] maixiu (2491) 10 days ago

There are languages in the world that read right to left, notably Arabic. You've indicated that you prefer the Orient over the Occident, so why do you discount their scientific prowess?

reply

[–] Gd5150 (11849) 10 days ago

The sensationalized terms and fear mongering predictions keep failing to generate fear outside of the Democrat party C💙LT.

We need a new term for Arctic cold blast. Something that really scares people.

Maybe we should call it the Arctic, January 6, 911, World War II, Pearl Harbor nuclear bomb Putin price hikes blast.

reply

[–] maixiu (2491) 10 days ago

During slightly warmer weather they've come up with the term "bomb cyclone". It's all so fake and gay.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (2158) 10 days ago

global warming

Also known as climate change.

reply

[–] maixiu (2491) 10 days ago

Since the climate has never been in stasis, that's a loaded hut meaningless term.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (2158) 10 days ago

It is not that climate has always changed, which no one denies. It is the speed at which it is happening and the current rate at which the earth is warming.

Go on, make this a climate change denial thread. I like a laugh,

reply

[–] JoWilli (20941) 10 days ago

the Earth has been warming for the past 25,000 years. lol

reply

[–] filmflaneur (2158) 10 days ago

Actually you are neglecting the mini ice age, a climate interval that occurred from the early 14th century through the mid-19th century. But this aside, yes, Earth has been warming for the past 25,000 years, but as said already the current rate of warming is unprecedented,

reply

[–] maixiu (2491) 10 days ago

We don't have temperature records from almost the entirety of that span. Proxies, such as tree rings, are notoriously open to interpretation, as evidenced by their bastardization in fraudster Michael Mann's infamous hockey stick graph.

And even where we do have temperature records, from the mid-19th century onward, organizations like NOAA have "revised" them in recent years. Can you guess what adjustments they've made? What a shock, they've cooled the past and warmed recent years, creating an artificially increased slope of warming. Who would have thought that the edits they made would conveniently support the current politically correct stance on climate? The mind boggles!

reply

[–] filmflaneur (2158) 10 days ago

We don't have temperature records from almost the entirety of that span. Proxies, such as tree rings, are notoriously open to interpretation

Science has general consensus on the history of world temperatures, and not just from tree rings.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adk3705

And even where we do have temperature records, from the mid-19th century onward, organizations like NOAA have "revised" them in recent years. Can you guess what adjustments they've made? What a shock, they've cooled the past and warmed recent years,

Sources please. Are you implying some sort of conspiracy here or is it more that science, as always, revises itself in the light of more research and information? And do you deny that the earth is warming at a faster rate?

reply

[–] maixiu (2491) 10 days ago

Anyone who uses the term "science" as if it's an all-knowing monolith has departed from genuine inquiry into the world of religious faith.

The adjustments made to the temperature data sets are well documented. Tony Heller has provided many, sourced examples of this.

https://realclimatescience.com/data-tampering-at-ushcngiss/#gsc.tab=0

https://realclimatescience.com/2022/11/nasa-noaa-us-data-tampering-2/#gsc.tab=0

I realize you used the word "conspiracy" because it's loaded with negative connotations, but I think there's undoubtedly a coordinated mind lock involved. Every single edit to the temperature record supports The AGW Message? I mean, what are the odds? Ah, but you'll come back with Tony's a "science denier!"...

reply

[–] filmflaneur (2158) 10 days ago

Tony Heller

LOL Is he the best you can do? You know he is not a climate scientist ... right? Just a YouTuber? And very much an outlier?

https://x.com/MichaelEMann/status/1173259631176704000

Every single edit to the temperature record supports The AGW Message

Necessary adjustments to temperature datasets have, in total, reduced the apparent global warming trend since the late 1800s. Many independent datasets support the accuracy of these adjustments.

https://science.feedback.org/review/hosted-by-former-australian-senator-tony-heller-repeats-false-claim-that-scientists-fake-the-warming-trend/

reply

[–] tvfan (13737) 10 days ago

Anyone can be a climate scientist.

Anyone that exposes the climate scam is demonized and discredited if/when they attract enough attention.

A consensus is based on politics and have no scientific validity.

That’s at least the fifth person to provide you with sources and you deflect, reject and deny.

Hypocrites are not entitled to beg others for sources.

Gaslighting and Hypocrisy are noted.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (2158) 10 days ago

Anyone can be a climate scientist.

Yes, after years of study.

fifth person to provide you with sources

Count again. I just see the OP's link (which supports CC) and later two links for some guy, somewhat of an outlier and eccentric denier - but who is not a climate scientist but a geologist by training lol I don't think he has ever published professionally on the subject or had a peer reviewed paper.

Anyone that exposes the climate scam is demonized and discredited if/when they attract enough attention.

No they are discredited since climate change is real and widely evidenced.

A consensus is based on politics and have no scientific validity.

The consensus on climate change is scientific, the politics came after.

Gaslighting and Hypocrisy are noted.

Please, as usual when you make these claims, example were I have done this ... as usual you won't be able to.

reply

[–] tvfan (13737) 10 days ago

Studying what, the weather?... lol, Greta and Gore are laughing at you.

Evidenced that the climate has been changing for millions of years? lol

Their Consensus is based on politics.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (2158) 10 days ago

Studying what, the weather?

The weather is not the climate.

To get into climatology, one might consider a degree or postgraduate qualification in a relevant subject, such as:
Environmental science or ecology
Geography, earth sciences, or geology
Physics
Maths and statistics
Oceanography or marine science
Meteorology and climate science
Computer science

https://www.whatuni.com/degree-courses/search?subject=climatology

https://www.acsedu.co.uk/courses/environmental/climatology-bsc208-787.aspx

which one do you have, after all you seem to know so much about this?

Evidenced that the climate has been changing for millions of years? lol

Are you suggesting it has not? On what basis? (I note that another denier, I think on this thread, lately told me that climate has "always changed")

Their Consensus is based on politics.

It is based on data. Here is another authoritative site for you to dismiss out of hand.

https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/

reply

[–] tvfan (13737) 10 days ago

None of those are required to be a scientist.

A consensus is based on politics, not scientific validity/data.

If any of your sources were true or valid than tell me how many of their climate scam predictions from the past five decades have come true? ... Weather manipulation doesn't count.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (2158) 10 days ago

None of those are required to be a scientist.

They would be required to gain a proficiency in the related scientific discipline. But what alternative to relevant study would you suggest?

A consensus is based on politics, not scientific validity/data.

Nonsense. There is scientific consensus about gravity and evolution. No politics there. As I said, the science came first, then the politicians reacted.

If any of your sources were true or valid than tell me how many of their climate scam predictions from the past five decades have come true?

Climate models have been generally accurate in projecting global warming over the past decades. A 2020 study found that 14 out of 17 climate models generated between 1970 and 2007 closely matched observations There has been some adjustments yes, but that is the case in every science and is an instance of researchers being honest not devious. And, as noted already:

"Necessary adjustments to temperature datasets have, in total, reduced the apparent global warming trend since the late 1800s. Many independent datasets support the accuracy of these adjustments."

https://science.feedback.org/review/hosted-by-former-australian-senator-tony-heller-repeats-false-claim-that-scientists-fake-the-warming-trend/

Do you believe that there is no such thing as global warming?

reply

[–] tvfan (13737) 10 days ago

They made 78 predictions in the past 50 years and zer0 have come true.

It's a money making scam.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (2158) 10 days ago

They made 78 predictions in the past 50 years and zer0 have come true.

Source for this?... Oh, sorry, I forgot....

So to be clear: you think climate change is not happening?

reply

[–] maixiu (2491) 10 days ago

Michael Mann? You know he's a litigious crank who's been caught falsifying his work?

reply

[–] filmflaneur (2158) 10 days ago

An overall view of him can be found here

Do you mean this the lawsuit against writers Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg, filed in 2012, which went to trial on January 18, 2024? On February 8, 2024 Michael Mann was awarded punitive damages of $1000 against Simberg and $1 million against Steyn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann

reply

[–] maixiu (2491) 10 days ago

Uh, yes. Exactly. That court case was a travesty of justice (12 years on a civil case? That alone tells you that the books were cooked).

The naming of storms is yet another weather-related boogeyman cooked up by the climate-entertainment crowd; they have no meaning at all given the fact that they now name standard winter weather systems, but how many named Atlantic storms did Michael Mann predict in 2024? How many were there? Go look it up. That's the kind of sober analysis one can expect from a sky-is-falling alarmist like Mann. And guess what Mann does if you ask him on social media how he came to be so wrong? Fingers straight into the ears, a hallmark of The Science! in 2025.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (2158) 10 days ago

That court case was a travesty of justice (12 years on a civil case? That alone tells you that the books were cooked).

I knew it was time for a conspiracy to be dragged in, lol

Fingers straight into the ears,

Something ironically. I have seen repeatedly here from climate change deniers and representatives of the alt-right often on this site..

Go look it up. That's the kind of sober analysis one can expect from a sky-is-falling alarmist like Mann..

That's it? One scientist? For one season? That implies climate change is overall bunkum?? You are reaching now.

An honest account of Mann's failures and successes in regards to 2024, and some suggested reasons can be found here:

https://michaelmann.net/content/reflections-2024-atlantic-hurricane-season

As he points out, half of the season was predicted correctly.

reply

[–] maixiu (2491) 10 days ago

An honest account? He gave his support to a prediction of 33 named storms (again, a ridiculously low bar to clear since assigning a name to a storm is subjective) and we wound up with 20. That prediction was off by 40%, a staggering amount for an allegedly precise science. What's left to say?

How about this winter weather predictor for the United States by the esteemed NOAA?

https://web.archive.org/web/20241010061211/https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/long_range/seasonal.php?lead=4

Plot twist, the eastern half of the U.S. is well below average and current forecasts show no warming on the way for at least the next two weeks (my long-range forecast shows us frigid well into February, but that's basically a crap shoot). Sure, maybe March will tilt the scales in the other direction, who knows? But it cannot be denied that the weather-industrial complex always issues their predictions in one direction and an insane amount of them never come to fruition.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (2158) 10 days ago

As said above, one scientist's failings, or not, hardly discredits a whole field of science (while he got half of the season right).

Do you think climate change is not happening? You haven't told me.

Sure, maybe March will tilt the scales in the other direction, who knows?

It might be best to wait and see then.

How about this winter weather predictor

The weather is not the climate. All you have shown is that such forecasting (rather than climate science) can be difficult. Well, duh. Worrying climate trends however are far more predictable and established from a range of data.. And thus accepted, by nearly all scientists.

reply

[–] tvfan (13737) 10 days ago

Gaslighting noted.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (2158) 10 days ago

Once again: please show where I have been 'gaslighting'. You never do on these occasions; just make bald claims.

reply

[–] tvfan (13737) 10 days ago

He couldn’t name a single instance where any of their predictions have come true.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (2158) 10 days ago

"So there's no real discrepancy when it comes to the latter half of the season. It was basically as active as predicted."

Didn't read it through, did you?

reply

[–] tvfan (13737) 10 days ago

A hurricane? lol, no, I'm referring to a catastrophic event due to "man made climate change." ...

They've made 78 predictions in the past 5 decades, and none have come true.

Oh, and since hurricanes can be seeded and steered (part of "weather manipulation") it doesn't count as I stated previously.

For example, in 2009 they claimed climate change will melt all ice by 2013.
Then, they changed it in 2013 … by 2016 and in 2016 … by 2019.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (2158) 10 days ago

I'm referring to a catastrophic event due to "man made climate change." ...

I'm guessing you don't live in uptown LA?

They've made 78 predictions in the past 5 decades, and none have come true.

So you said already, and offered no source as usual. Predictions of what?

Oh, and since hurricanes can be seeded and steered (part of "weather manipulation"

This came up in another thread and was also unevidenced. It appeared to stem from an old patent filing which came to nothing if I remember.

https://www.verificat.cat/en/just-because-there-are-registered-patents-on-weather-modification-does-not-mean-that-they-work-or-that-they-modify-the-weather/

Whatever; it is irrelevant here.

For example, in 2009 they claimed climate change will melt all ice by 2013.
Then, they changed it in 2013 … by 2016 and in 2016 … by 2019.

Who said this exactly, your mum and her lodger?

reply

[–] tvfan (13737) 10 days ago

Evasion, Deflection and Gaslighting noted.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (2158) 10 days ago

As always please example and explain. As always....

Meanwhile I have done your work for you and what do we find?

https://www.reuters.com/article/fact-check/al-gore-did-not-predict-ice-caps-melting-by-2013-but-misrepresented-data-idUSL1N2RV0K6/

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2009/12/al_gore_trips_on_artic_ice_mis.html

https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/uk-climate-change-deniers-are-peddling-false-claims-about-polar-sea-ice/

The most up to date data is here

On September 11, Arctic sea ice likely reached its annual minimum extent of 4.28 million square kilometers (1.65 million square miles). The 2024 minimum is the seventh lowest in the nearly 46-year satellite record. The last 18 years, from 2007 to 2024, are the lowest 18 sea ice extents in the satellite record.

https://nsidc.org/sea-ice-today/analyses/arctic-sea-ice-extent-levels-2024-minimum-set

Feel free to dismiss all these out of hand as normal.

reply

[–] tvfan (13737) 10 days ago

But muh Fact Checkers said.

Gore regurgitated lies by the globalists, elites and establishment funded scientists.

Thanks for proving my point.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (2158) 10 days ago

Fact Checkers said.

Something which never trouble you, as we know, lol

Gore regurgitated lies

It is fairer to say that Gore just got things wrong back then, as the links say with "even scientists who believe humans are contributing to global warming were alarmed by the misstatement of the forecast.."

And you know that this all dates from 15 years ago, right? That science and the certainty of things have moved on some? But, good try,

reply

[–] tvfan (13737) 10 days ago

It is fairer to say that Gore just got things wrong back then

lmfao, And they continued to repeat the same lies in 2013 and in 2016.

Fact Checkers = Misinformation and Disinformation

reply

[–] filmflaneur (2158) 9 days ago

they continued to repeat the same lies in 2013 and in 2016.

As I say, it might be better if you look at the up to date science. The amount of sea ice that survives the summer melt season has been declining rapidly, of that there is no doubt.

Fact Checkers = Misinformation and Disinformation

Is that why you never offer any substantiation for anything you say, since it can be fact checked?

reply

[–] tvfan (13737) 9 days ago

Fact Checkers are not Facts, sorry about that.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (2158) 9 days ago

Fact Checkers are not Facts, sorry about that.

If I have ever only used a fact checking site that would be relevant. But I been checking facts (or your unverified claims, at least) all along, something else again. Sorry about that.

Do you deny that the amount of sea ice that survives the summer melt season has been declining rapidly?

Fact Checkers = Misinformation and Disinformation

And what have I told you about dismissing outright anything which might prove inconvenient to your world view?

reply

[–] tvfan (13737) 9 days ago

But you did cite fact checkers and you obviously rely on them as facts.

Fact checkers are opinionated propaganda created to refute the truth.

And what have I told you about dismissing outright anything which might prove inconvenient to your world view?

That's exactly my point to you for rejecting all the sources that others provided you. lmao

reply

[–] filmflaneur (2158) 9 days ago

But you did cite fact checkers

I don't have concerns about my views being challenged. It is only you who seems to reject scrutiny.

Fact checkers are opinionated propaganda created to refute the truth

... in other words they often show your opinions are wrong?

That's exactly my point to you for rejecting all the sources that others provided you.

Not straight ways out of hand as you always do, with no contrary sources.

Since you are now diverting onto fact checkers per se and away from issues of climate change. this shows that the argument is slipping away from you. And predictably, you didn't answer a direct question about sea-ice. So that's all from me.

reply

[–] tvfan (13737) 9 days ago

Your idea of arguing is citing propaganda and fact checkers which proves nothing and refutes nothing.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (2158) 9 days ago

Whatever. If you ever have anything but opinion to offer, feel free to write again.

And you still didn't offer an answer to my sea ice question. Evasion noted. See ya.

reply

[–] tvfan (13737) 9 days ago

When you stop relying on propaganda and start using your own brain, feel free to write again.

What difference does my answer make since you rely on "fact checkers."

reply

[–] tvfan (13737) 10 days ago

The establishment supports the climate change hoax which relies on billions of dollar$ every year; what makes you think that they would side against a lying fraud that endorses and promotes their agenda?

reply

[–] filmflaneur (2158) 10 days ago

Thank you for your opinions, but what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed on the same basis.

reply

[–] tvfan (13737) 10 days ago

And what can be asserted with bullshit evidence can be dismissed on the same basis.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (2158) 10 days ago

Which implies that what you say is bullshit lol

reply

[–] tvfan (13737) 10 days ago

Only one of us is constantly citing bullshit evidence.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (2158) 10 days ago

Make your mind up!

But without any substantiation, ever, for your own claims and opinions, it is always going to be hard to show that anything I say or show is necessarily wrong. So unless you have something tangible, I shan't reply to you here concerning this tired old truism as far as your postings are concerned.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16049) 10 days ago

[deleted]

[–] B1cKsurN (17625) 10 days ago

Commie Warming is just a long con to take our money, and enslave us.

alwayshasbeen.jpg

reply

[–] filmflaneur (2158) 10 days ago

You mean you think that Global Warming is not happening?

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16049) 10 days ago

Its not worth getting into it with these knuckle draggers .
They are determined to not believe in climate change because its inconvenient and they dont like it .
If the result of climate change was free burgers and a weekly blow job they would 100% believe in it.
It like arguing with a flat earther - none of em believe its flat but just want to troll people.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17625) 9 days ago

The Earth's climate is never stable, therefore, always in a state of change. At one point the entire earth was a huge snowball, others there were no polar caps...guess what didn't exists during all these times...

HUMANS!

On the Cosmic Calendar, humans have only been around for less than a millisecond on December 31st, 11:59pm. A fucking grain of sand... You actually think in that spec of time, we have actually done enough damage where the planet will die, rather than just heal itself after we are gone?

You Sir, are goddamned fool. Feel free to give all of your money to the Globalists if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy...but it won't do a fucking thing to "fix" this totally real "problem" that has had an identity crisis since the 60s.

No climate prediction has ever come true.
www.extinctionclock.org
EDIT: Seems the site is currently down...need I say more? 😉
Good thing the WayBackMachine wasn't actually hacked...
https://web.archive.org/web/20241204172452/https://extinctionclock.org/

reply

[–] filmflaneur (2158) 9 days ago

The Earth's climate is never stable, therefore, always in a state of change

No one disputes that; what the current problem is the speed of current change and the direct connection with human activity.

No climate prediction has ever come true.

A study found that most climate models from 1970 to 2001 accurately predicted recent global surface temperatures. Another study found that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful in predicting subsequent global mean surface temperature (GMST) changes.

https://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming

"In this paper we undertake a thorough evaluation of the performance of various climate models published between the early 1970s and the late 2000s ... We find that climate models published over the past five decades were generally quite accurate in predicting global warming in the years after publication, particularly when accounting for differences between modeled and actual changes in atmospheric CO2 and other climate drivers."

https://eps.harvard.edu/files/eps/files/hausfather_2020_evaluating_historical_gmst_projections.pdf

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17625) 9 days ago

Lol, brainwashed... tell me again how giving all my money to globalists is going to save a fucking thing. 🤣😂🤣😂🤣

reply

[–] filmflaneur (2158) 9 days ago

Since I never told you that in the first place this is a strawman.

reply

[–] tvfan (13737) 10 days ago

Translation: They want more of our tax dollars to save the planet from the climate change scam.

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (14787) 10 days ago

Yep, give more money to the govt. and yet they can somehow magically make the earth's temperature go down a few degrees--not.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (2158) 10 days ago

Imagine how much will need to be spent if we do nothing.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17625) 10 days ago

Basically what they mean is that they have no fucking clue.

We're still in an ice age. Cold and Hot happen.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (2158) 10 days ago

We're still in an ice age.

Reputable source for this claim?

Edit: 2024 was the hottest year for the world in record. The last 10 years have been the hottest years on records in industrial times.

reply

[–] MarkPh (505) 10 days ago

Put your money where your mouth is, or at least look at people who did.
Ask the people in all the mountain regions that live from winter sports tourism.
Check all the ski resorts in the Alps, where they constructed entire towns at the bottom end of some glacier hoping for big tourism and how these towns are doing nowadays.

Here's a report from Austria from february last year, from a region that used to be covered in meters thick snow all winter long in the past, where there just isn't any snow for most of the winter today, it's in German, but the photo speaks for itself.
All the snow is artificial, natural snow exists only in much higher altitude now.
https://www.heute.at/s/schneemangel-apert-skigebiete-weiter-aus-120021119

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (14787) 10 days ago

Fun fact: the entire concept of human-caused global warming or "climate change" was based on an erroneous science experiment done by a guy living in the late 1800s/early 1900s, and nobody's been allowed to question it officially...ever.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/08/greenhouse_gases_are_a_scientific_myth.html?ht-comment-id=15670160

Look up the words "John Tyndall's experiment+1861" and you'll find out who was responsible for the stupid "greenhouse gases" theory.

Little tip: our atmosphere does not have a glass roof, and the earth can't actually hold gases or heat in for very long.

reply

[–] maixiu (2491) 10 days ago

Reminds me of the concept of "social distancing", i.e. the six foot rule. It was a high school science project that somehow became medical gospel. Questioning it during 2020-2022 got one hurled into the void.

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (14787) 10 days ago

I know! Then I read that the Covid-19 virus can jump as far as 17 feet, which completely negates the "6-foot rule," and then we hear just last year from Fauci the Liar himself that the 6-foot social distancing thing was not based at all on anything scientific. My theory is that it was part of this social experiment the govts. of the world were carrying out on us, designed to make us miserable instead of actually keeping us safe.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (2158) 10 days ago

Fun fact: the entire concept of human-caused global warming or "climate change" was based on an erroneous science experiment done by a guy living in the late 1800s/early 1900s

Please provide a source or link to this guy and his supposed malign influence on all of the science since..

reply

[–] filmflaneur (2158) 9 days ago

Fun fact: James Mooley, is the only researcher, as far as I can determine, who debunks the idea of greenhouse gases on grounds that Tyndall bodged his experimental findings back in the day (and has not been caught out by anyone else since). Significantly Mooley has not published a single peer-reviewed paper of his astonishing claim. His work appears instead in The Ladder Out of Poverty, his amateur's book on economics, and his arguments have also appeared in such illustrious scientific publications as LoveYourBody - always it seems without the chance for any climate scientist, if they could be bothered, to offer riposte. None of this means he is necessarily wrong, but one ought to be immediately cautious of such single eccentric outliers, especially if it means condemning a whole swathe of science supported by a mass of data and research down decades.

https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/

See also here:

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=194

Little tip: our atmosphere does not have a glass roof, and the earth can't actually hold gases or heat in for very long.

Little tip: Venus doesn't have a glass roof either but is an extreme example of what is, in effect, the greenhouse effect.

https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Venus_Express/Greenhouse_effects_also_on_other_planets

reply

[–] Gd5150 (11849) 10 days ago

The sensationalized terms and fear mongering predictions keep failing to generate fear outside of the Democrat party C💙LT.

We need a new term for Arctic cold blast. Something that really scares people.

Maybe we should call it the Arctic, January 6, 911, World War II, Pearl Harbor nuclear bomb Putin price hikes blast.

reply

[–] ClownBaby (743) 10 days ago

So global warming causes cold temps. 😄

reply

[–] filmflaneur (2158) 9 days ago

Climate change leads inevitably to more extreme weather events of all sorts.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/understanding-climate/uk-and-global-extreme-events-cold

Glad to help.

reply

[–] Joogle83 (4521) 9 days ago

Science will lead us forward your holding us back our destination is the stars not our blue ball.

reply