Yesterday, in the middle of Summer, Greenland Gained a Record-Smashing 4 Gigatons of Snow and Ice

You are funny. Every time you try to prove your feelings on this subject, you get wrecked by the data.



http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/

not my feelings, just facts. We are cooling not warming.

The ENTIRE global warming climate crisis is a fraud..

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blo ... o-be-fraud

No, we aren't. Your opinion is just that without data. Just the tiny part of an ocean that computer re-creations say be cooling leads you to believe the data collected over decades is invalid? Show me the data. Big claims require big proof.

The overwhelming data, from multiple independent sources disagrees with you and no matter how you move the goalposts that isn't going to change.

Like, one day of snowfall won't change the years of melting that Greenland is experiencing.

Look at all the gigatonnes of mass Greenland has lost:



https://www.climato.uliege.be/cms/c_565 ... -greenland

Look at all the mass lost in the ice:


http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/

4 Gigatonnes of gain isn't even a puddle in the hundreds of gigtonnes lost. You wishing it so doesn't change it.

fraud

Big claims require big proof.

Mann's graph is a fraud, NASA has admitted to manipulating temperature data (surface). The ball is not in my court, it is in the climate emergency court. All I need is one piece of data that falsifies any global warming alarmist and the theory is done.

You are arguing empirical data using opinion. I got tired of the 'Mann is a fraud' argument 20 years ago. If you want to show it's inaccurate, you are going to have to show all the sources proving it are inaccurate.

Then you are going to have to show data showing all the other sources that aren't Mann's graph, that prove Manns graph, are also inaccurate. IIRC, there are 25,000 independent sources that prove Mann was correct.

https://www.independent.co.uk/environme ... 37881.html

Big claims require big proof.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Consensus means nothing in science. NOTHING.

Fraud all of it. I don't need to spell out all the issues with Man's data. They did that in court, where he LOST.

So, he loses a defamation suit where deniers called him a child molester, and you think that reflects on climate change? That's how the deniers spun it?

And that page lists all the sources and groups who have proof of climate change, it isn't about 'consensus'. But you'd know that if you read it.

Fraud

Still not seeing any proof.

And you know very well that in Science one proof against a theory does not invalidate that theory. It simply modifies it to fit the rest of the data. And the other 24,999 data sets that prove Mann are still valid.

fraud

Yep. Keep chanting that and it might become true.

that's what climate alarmist do..

fraud