Except you are the one who has posted easily verifiable false information.
So how can we say: The discussion is over?
In the same way the discussion on the theory of evolution is over.
Really? Would you care to post a certain famous graph that shows average earth temps over millions of years?
Which one, knock yourself out on Google.
Heck I'll take it you know nothing of the younger dryas either.
You don't have the slightest inclination of what I know. You have thrown out a random climatological reference under the incorrect assumption that i wouldn't know what it was as if that is some how supposed to makes you more educated on the matter. Nothing could be further form the truth. This just makes you look incredibly pathetic.
Climate changes all over the world, hour to hour, day to day, year to year, decade to decade, century to century.
More irrelevant waffle. Just keep digging that grave.
It takes an event of extra terrestrial origin to describe such an event with one exception that pales in comparison.
That "might" be the case. I say this because we don't know enough
You don;t know enough because you are not expert and are ignorant of the topic.
(because it is not documented as we weren't around) about a longitudinal study and neither does one exist. Because we haven't been around for long enough.
Firstly, we have accurate meteorological record going back hundreds of years.
Secondly, we don't have to be around, the evidence is there to collect all around us from multiple independent and verifiable sources.
Again, this just shows your ignorance of climate science.
I can remember being told at HS that London would probably be under water when I grew up.
You weren't told that from a climate scientist. What you were liekly actually told was London would be at increasing risks of flooding, which is measurably true due to sea level rises and frequency and seveity of storms. This is a hard fact, which is why the Thames BArrier is looking to be massively upgraded too lengthen its effective functional lifespan against rising sea levels.
I can also remember a certain Geography teacher making the ice free arctic predictions (which there have been several of).
The arctic summer ice is declining faster than earlier predictions . In the early 2000s it was estimated the artic would see its first ice free summer by about 2060 to 2070. The ice has been in such rapid decline that calibration of new more advanced models is predicting 2040 to 2050. If you are going to cliam the predictions are wrong then we will have to wait 20 to 30 years.
No where in that article does it mention anything close to Antarctic ice being gone. You are simply not understanding what the scientist are saying. Antarctic sea ice is absolutely only the decline area wise in some locations, this is verifiable with hard data and is exactly as prediction by climate change models. What is also true is other areas more inland witness a positive ice balance and increased accumulations of ice, exactly as predicted by climate models. That is because a warmer planet with warmer oceans melts ice on the outskirts but allows increased transportation of snow to the colder interior where it never melts. So far the Antarctic is behaving exactly as prediction since the 70s and 80s.
So you are arguing that warming (globally) produces more ice?
No I'm not, Climate scientists and advanced climatic models predict more ice in the central Antarctic, plus some other areas such as Norway and some Alaskan glaciers. Most glaciers are melting, but those that receive significantly increased winter precipitation will expand. This is high school level geography.
The questions are still needed. the answers take time. Most predictions made have been off.
Wrong, most predictions have been very accurate, and if there is any evidence for systematic errors it has been that earlier predictions were far too conservative with the rate of warming and the consequences. The Artic is melting faster than earlier predictions for example. Temperature balance is rising faster.
Why, ask yourself, is it that a lot of people coming out against it are former climate scientists?
They aren't, over 97% of climate scientists believe humans are largely responsible for the observed climate change.
The opposite tends to be the case with those trying to make claims against the scientific community have vested interests in industry and fossil fuels.
I am also very familiar with some of the more reliable climate skeptics. The fact is even they believe humans are almost entirely responsible and the consequences will be catastrophic, but they are concerned with aspect of the scientific community or economic costs rather than than the hard science.
There is literally no one credible that has anything meaningful to say that goes against the climate science majority. What you are left with are the same people that don;t believe in evolution or think the earth is flat.
Many openly admitting they do it to ensure funding.
You will have to provide references.
Carbon tax, because breathing tax would be too obvious. A statement years ago made a claim that governments would figure out a way to tax the air you breath but they can't figure out a way of forcing us to accept it.
Given the reality of catastrophic climate change, how else are you going to tackle the cause?
