Motifake
politics
epic fail
military funny
stupid human
ufo
MAD
politifake

Latest comments




PREV PAGE

crankyhead - May 14, 2014 4:12pm, #66063

*dawn*

crankyhead - May 14, 2014 4:12pm, #66062

Seeing as how the trend in temperature since the down of the industrial revolution has been upwards, I would imagine, none. But that's just a guess.

EmmaRoydes - May 14, 2014 4:10pm, #66061

Chuck Norris could take him

OTC - May 14, 2014 4:10pm, #66060

So how many news stories have there been about lowered sea levels when the ice caps grow?

guest1833 - May 14, 2014 4:08pm, #66059

I just remembered you no speaky engrish. You should try and get a little more mature in your stupidity. Just like a libtard, can't bring in a sensible argument. Plus, for cranky's small mind, I should dumb down my statements. PMS medication might help too

OTC - May 14, 2014 4:08pm, #66058

my reply is called sarcasm as well ;)

crankyhead - May 14, 2014 4:04pm, #66057

That's not a real link, OTC. That's called sarcasm.

crankyhead - May 14, 2014 4:03pm, #66056

...instead of it being a localized event, it's up and down the whole east and west coast.

crankyhead - May 14, 2014 4:02pm, #66055

Larger ice caps would mean lowered ocean levels, yes. Here's the problem though OTC: 85 - 90% of the worlds population lives within a few miles of the coast. Remember what N.O. looked like after Katrina? Try to imagine that level of destruction, but...

OTC - May 14, 2014 4:01pm, #66054

Did you go to this link first? www.whydoyoupostlinksinsteadofexpressingyouropinion.org

OTC - May 14, 2014 3:57pm, #66053

So more ice means less water, which means sea levels are lower than they should be, so why be alarmed if they return to normal levels? Its called cycles in nature

crankyhead - May 14, 2014 3:52pm, #66052

Here: I'll provide a link to what NASA says, seeing as how you're so opposed to the idea of doing it yourself. http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

crankyhead - May 14, 2014 3:50pm, #66051

You said it yourself, he's not with NASA. Still waiting on that NASA paper.

guest1833 - May 14, 2014 3:49pm, #66050

(NIPCC)-Any human global climate signal is so small as to be nearly indiscernible against the background variability of the natural climate system. Climate change is always occurring.

crankyhead - May 14, 2014 3:49pm, #66049

...ocean levels rise.

crankyhead - May 14, 2014 3:49pm, #66048

Precipitation, yes. Coincidentally, the water cycle is temperature dependant. Which means, as the planet warms up, the level of ice on land does not remain constant. As all water eventually returns to the ocean, and less ice means more water...

guest1833 - May 14, 2014 3:48pm, #66047

Retired NASA SCIENTIST LES W.OODC.OCK. And...NASA's own link saying water vapor and NOT CO2 is the major player in phony global warming. Now get your mommy to run you a warm bath before your appointment with your parole officer.

OTC - May 14, 2014 3:47pm, #66046

So where did the majority of ice on land come from? outer space, or moisture from the ocean? so if it melts and returns to its source, the sea level will return to normal, eh?

crankyhead - May 14, 2014 3:47pm, #66045

P.S. While I might be boring, watching you argue with yourself, is most definitely entertaining.

crankyhead - May 14, 2014 3:46pm, #66044

Can't provide the comment # because the comment doesn't exist. Am I right?

guest1833 - May 14, 2014 3:45pm, #66043

Going to refute my data? No? Then wipe the sweat off your forehead, change your panties (I think you crapped in them), and crawl back under that rock, little crankypants. You're boring.

crankyhead - May 14, 2014 3:43pm, #66042

What was the comment # again where you provided the NASA article that states they don't agree that global warming is happening? I can't find it.

guest1833 - May 14, 2014 3:42pm, #66041

NIPCC-No unambiguous evidence exists of dangerous interference in the global climate caused by human-related CO2 emissions. In particular, the cryosphere is not melting at an enhanced rate; sea-level rise is not accelerating; and no systematic changes...

crankyhead - May 14, 2014 3:42pm, #66040

Say you fill an empty glass with ice. Then you half fill the glass with iced tea. Or even three quarters full. Then you let all the ice melt. Is the level of where you poured in the tea in the glass going to rise, or remain constant?

guest1833 - May 14, 2014 3:41pm, #66039

the link to NASA I provided said "WATER VAPOR is the major cause." the NIPCC link shows how man-made CO2 is not warming the planet. other than water vapor causing some natural warmth from natural CO2, there is no problem.just your ad hominems for liberals

crankyhead - May 14, 2014 3:40pm, #66038

1833, why won't you just provide the NASA data that supports your claim? Seems pretty simple, doesn't it?

crankyhead - May 14, 2014 3:38pm, #66037

But here's the thing OTC, to follow your a***ogy, not all of the ice is already in the glass.

OTC - May 14, 2014 3:36pm, #66036

yeah, I forgot I have ice floating in my ice tea glass

guest1833 - May 14, 2014 3:35pm, #66035

...have been documented in evaporation or rainfall or in the magnitude or intensity of extreme meteorological events.

guest1833 - May 14, 2014 3:35pm, #66034

NIPCC-No unambiguous evidence exists of dangerous interference in the global climate caused by human-related CO2 emissions. In particular, the cryosphere is not melting at an enhanced rate; sea-level rise is not accelerating; and no systematic changes...

crankyhead - May 14, 2014 3:34pm, #66033

Regardless of who put the words on the ph**o, fox's comment is still erroneous.

crankyhead - May 14, 2014 3:33pm, #66032

oh, more ad hominems, good on ya fallacy champ. Still waiting on the NASA paper.

OTC - May 14, 2014 3:32pm, #66031

I hate to be the one to break it to you crank, but an Obama supporter put those words there to attack her, hence fox's comment

crankyhead - May 14, 2014 3:31pm, #66030

But you've already stated that man made CO2 production is directly related to the increase in water vapor in tha atmosphere. Why do you insist on contradicting yourself? P.S. Still waiting on that NASA paper/article.

guest1833 - May 14, 2014 3:31pm, #66029

see #66028 http://hidedoor.com/servlet/redirect.srv/slxv/snulrvhxbfh/sqrs/p1/comment/66028 Or just pay attention the first dozen times I said this. Look a squirrel? Forget to take your riddilin cranky?

guest1833 - May 14, 2014 3:29pm, #66028

F) which is what you got in science when they got to the part where "water vapor" was shown to be the major greenhouse gas, showing GW to be a naturally reoccurring phenomena NOT the product of man-made gloom and doom which means the world will be fine

crankyhead - May 14, 2014 3:28pm, #66027

BTW, you still haven't addressed why you contradicted yourself in comment #65994 either. Any reason for that?

crankyhead - May 14, 2014 3:27pm, #66026

NIPCC is not NASA. Still waiting.

guest1833 - May 14, 2014 3:25pm, #66025

NIPCC-Global climate models are unable to make accurate projections of climate even 10 yrs ahead,let alone the 100-yr period that has been adopted by policy planners. The output of such models should therefore not be used to guide public policy formation.

crankyhead - May 14, 2014 3:22pm, #66024

What difference does the source make? You're kidding right?

NEXT PAGE


Skip to page

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 410 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560 570 580 590 600 610 620 630 640 650 660 670 680 690 700 710 720 730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800 810 820 830 840 850 860 870 880 890 900 910 920 930 940 950 960 970 980 990 1000 1010 1020 1030 1040 1050 1060 1070 1080 1090 1100 1110 1120 1130 1140 1150 1160 1170 1180 1190 1200 1210 1220 1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 1280 1290 1300 1310 1320 1330 1340 1350 1360 1370 1380 1390 1400 1410 1420 1430 1440 1450 1460 1470 1480 1490 1500 1510 1520 1530 1540 1550 1560 1570 1580 1590 1600 1610 1620 1630 1640 1650 1660 1670 1680 1690 1700 1710 1720 1730 1740 1750 1760 1770 1780 1790 1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990