New exotic vacationland

[j.p.]

Either that or simply realize that there are anomalies in weather patterns.

Below is a quote of what I said early up the thread, take a look. Seems to mean anomaly to me.


"Yes. One time events mean nothing."

[k.d.]

"Yes. One time events mean nothing."

That's why you started a thread about it.

[j.p.]

Wasn't about that at all. You have to read the article to understand. It didn't have much to do with a 65 degree day.

[k.d.]

"Antarctica just hit 65 degrees, its warmest temperature ever recorded"
Give it up. This was the lede. And it continued with more global warming junk science and on top of that, it was published by Bezo's Washington Post which is simply a PR firm for the government. No credibility.
Unfortunately you don't recognize propaganda when you see it.

[j.p.]

"Antarctica just hit 65 degrees, its warmest temperature ever recorded"
Give it up. This was the lede. And it continued with more global warming junk science and on top of that, it was published by Bezo's Washington Post which is simply a PR firm for the government. No credibility.
Unfortunately you don't recognize propaganda when you see it.

It was nice of you coming clean that you did not read the article because it was published by Wapo.

We know this because the article made absolutely no mention of the science or causes behind global warming as you claim. It was simply observations of temperature trends of mostly Antarctic. That's it, you can settle down a tad. Plus the article, through extensive quoting, was effectively written by 3 scientists (non Wapo employees).

The problem you have is that Wapo had the audacity to print it.

Just curious. Do you think thermometers are a hoax ?

[k.d.]

effectively written by 3 scientists because the article made absolutely no mention of the science

[j.p.]

effectively written by 3 scientists because the article made absolutely no mention of the science

yet another dishonest parsing of words to change the meaning

[k.d.]

These are your words, not mine. This is exactly the gist of your constant contradictions and wanting to put two opposite thoughts in every post. Own it.

[j.p.]

Those are my words ? Point it out


"It was nice of you coming clean that you did not read the article because it was published by Wapo.

We know this because the article made absolutely no mention of the science or causes behind global warming as you claim. It was simply observations of temperature trends of mostly Antarctic. That's it, you can settle down a tad. Plus the article, through extensive quoting, was effectively written by 3 scientists (non Wapo employees).

The problem you have is that Wapo had the audacity to print it.

Just curious. Do you think thermometers are a hoax ?"

---

Those are my words ? Point it out


"It was nice of you coming clean that you did not read the article because it was published by Wapo.

We know this because the article made absolutely no mention of the science or causes behind global warming as you claim. It was simply observations of temperature trends of mostly Antarctic. That's it, you can settle down a tad. Plus the article, through extensive quoting, was effectively written by 3 scientists (non Wapo employees).

The problem you have is that Wapo had the audacity to print it.

Just curious. Do you think thermometers are a hoax ?"

While you at it. Point out what you believe is a contradiction.

[k.d.]

We know this because the article made absolutely no mention of the science or causes behind global warming as you claim. It was simply observations of temperature trends of mostly Antarctic. That's it, you can settle down a tad. Plus the article, through extensive quoting, was effectively written by 3 scientists (non Wapo employees).
Posted by j.p. - Today, 04:25 AM

I've read the article in its entirety 4 times and it gets dumber every time.

Every thing in the WAPO is government sanctioned bullshit, regardless of the author - employees or not.