I was just responding to your line about “some dumber-than-dirt Gizmo greyperson claiming that there’s more ice at the south pole this year than last year” by pointing out that said “dumber-than-dirt” person might be a NASA scientist.

Bearing in mind it’s always winter somewhere and summer somewhere else, that the temperature range on Earth is up to 90 degrees C or more and the planet is 70 % covered in oceans, don’t you think it’s not exactly unexpected to find unusual weather somewhere or other? Has there ever been a time where there was no…

Yes, don’t wait more than 5 years as by then the 1.7 mm/year average sea level rise as measured by tide guages might have reached a frightening 8.5 mm (1/3rd of an inch). If anyone’s still worried, I’ll buy your property off you (at a suitable discount) as long as it’s somewhere nice and hot.

Thank you for your touching concern for us “deniers” but don’t worry, it’s not necessary as I’m sure we’ll be able to outpace the current 1.7 mm/year sea level rise.

Melting sea ice desn’t raise sea level, you must have got your argument mixed up.

A very late reply to this. Note how the (incorrect) above zero reading at the North Pole has been reported recently - it’s all like “this doesn’t mean anything, it’s only weather, not climate” Not!

“SUV driving assholes” Do you not use any products of our industrial civilisation at all? Electricity maybe? Plastic?

According to recently published, peer-reviewed research, Antarctica is gaining ice mass overall.

We have limited resources available to us (The US is *trillions* of dollars in the red and EU countries are in a similar state.) so have to prioritise. Trying to prevent slightly warmer weather isn’t a sensible priority.

The article I linked to takes all of its information from reputable sources and is logically argued. You have no reply to it so resort to a silly and childish “thank you...” comment which wouldn’t sound out of place in a school playground. Oh well, just keep sticking your fingers in your ears and going “la la la”.

I note only your total lack of any actual arguments. Your reply is almost literally the same as putting your fingers in your ears and going “la la la”. The only thing I admire about you is your ability to get your comments posted at the top of the thread, although it makes the whole comment thread incoherent - what is…

Why do comments I make days after a post has been put up appear straight away but comments I made just after it was posted are still “pend1ng”?

(Thinking that you’ll probably try and pretend you don’t understand that either) The article is titled “The future of the earth will be decided this week”, not “a potential issue which doesn’t seem to have caused any clearly-identified problems *may* be microscopically affected by decisions made in Paris this week”.

(Remembering that I’m dealing with zealots, not rational individuals) Start again: I said “there can be only one biggest problem”. What do you find difficult to understand about that?

It’s interesting that the majority of comments here that are still “pending approval” several days after the article was posted are sceptical of climate change. Most of my comments contain no links, no bad language and no images but are still put into moderation.

Der - no, I’m saying the exact opposite of that.

“Complete and total scientific concensus” Hint: It’s only supposed to be 97%, although the true figure is far lower.

It does have a y-axis and the point of the graph is to show temperature has flatlined - changing the units on the y-axis (or x-axis for that matter) wouldn’t make any difference. In any case, you said it had “already been debunked” - how would you know if you’ve never seen it before?

Note to future Internet historians:I did my best to counter ridiculous global warming talking points but believers like artiofab failed to even engage with my arguments.

My source was the first hit I got on google: