https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/27/world/cli...index.html


CNN just can't help themselves.

I saw that shite the other day and about fell out of the recliner.....

them and msnbc are propagandist idiots....I laugh at 'em every fk'n day to kickstart my a.m....

"We didn't believe this could happen, we certainly didn't know it was going to happen, but we know for sure that it is temporary and will get worse", the experts.

(03-27-2019 10:10 PM)banker Wrote:  "We didn't believe this could happen, we certainly didn't know it was going to happen, but we know for sure that it is temporary and will get worse", the experts.

Dear CNN,

"experts"



Sincerely,

q5

Didn't see anywhere in the article that explains why it isn't a good thing.

I'm surprised they didnt say "now that the glacier is accumalating more ice, there will be even more to melt, and it will cause the oceans to rise even further."

(03-27-2019 08:19 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/27/world/cli...index.html


CNN just can't help themselves.

Better ask Algore WTF is going on?

One of the reasons they changed their marketing scheme to "climate change". Glacier getting bigger wouldn't fit the global warming narrative, but you can sure spin it as "climate change"....

(03-27-2019 08:19 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/27/world/cli...index.html


CNN just can't help themselves.

Like Granddaddy used to say "It could be raining sacks of quarters and they would complain it wasn't silver dollars"

(03-28-2019 07:11 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Didn't see anywhere in the article that explains why it isn't a good thing.

Cause they’re apparently science deniers.

They didn’t see it coming, can’t explain how or why, don’t have the first clue as to how or why, but somehow know with certainty that it’s temporary and a bad thing.

MUH SETTLED SCIENCE!!!

Lemming Clods

(03-28-2019 08:42 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 08:19 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/27/world/cli...index.html


CNN just can't help themselves.

Like Granddaddy used to say "It could be raining sacks of quarters and they would complain it wasn't silver dollars"

Kind of like the analogy that if Trump was photographed walking on water CNN's headline would be "Trump can't Swim"....

You would think they'd take the opportunity to spike the football and say, "See, all the money that has been spent is starting to show results". While it would be a lie, at least it would show some level or understanding that people don't want to piss their money away.

It's one glacier. And it's the scientists talking about it, not CNN. If CNN couldn't stand good news, they wouldn't have included it in their coverage. Although any good news in the article is minimal, taken in the context of the whole article.

(03-28-2019 09:52 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  It's one glacier. And it's the scientists talking about it, not CNN. If CNN couldn't stand good news, they wouldn't have included it in their coverage. Although any good news in the article is minimal, taken in the context of the whole article.

So climate change = cancer and shrinking glacier = growing tumor. A tumor that was expected to continue growing and eventually kill you is now shrinking.

How exactly is a shrinking tumor not good news?

(03-28-2019 10:07 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 09:52 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  It's one glacier. And it's the scientists talking about it, not CNN. If CNN couldn't stand good news, they wouldn't have included it in their coverage. Although any good news in the article is minimal, taken in the context of the whole article.

So climate change = cancer and shrinking glacier = growing tumor. A tumor that was expected to continue growing and eventually kill you is now shrinking.

How exactly is a shrinking tumor not good news?

If you have 100 tumors and 2 of them are shrinking while the other 98 are growing, it isn't good news. Maybe it's better than 100 growing tumors, but that isn't saying much.

(03-28-2019 10:31 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 10:07 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 09:52 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  It's one glacier. And it's the scientists talking about it, not CNN. If CNN couldn't stand good news, they wouldn't have included it in their coverage. Although any good news in the article is minimal, taken in the context of the whole article.

So climate change = cancer and shrinking glacier = growing tumor. A tumor that was expected to continue growing and eventually kill you is now shrinking.

How exactly is a shrinking tumor not good news?

If you have 100 tumors and 2 of them are shrinking while the other 98 are growing, it isn't good news. Maybe it's better than 100 growing tumors, but that isn't saying much.

Do you have any evidence that 98% of glaciers are shrinking?

Their ratings plummeted 50% overnight. The American people are waking up.

The house eunuch claims it's because it's a slow news week lolol

(03-28-2019 10:38 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 10:31 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 10:07 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 09:52 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  It's one glacier. And it's the scientists talking about it, not CNN. If CNN couldn't stand good news, they wouldn't have included it in their coverage. Although any good news in the article is minimal, taken in the context of the whole article.

So climate change = cancer and shrinking glacier = growing tumor. A tumor that was expected to continue growing and eventually kill you is now shrinking.

How exactly is a shrinking tumor not good news?

If you have 100 tumors and 2 of them are shrinking while the other 98 are growing, it isn't good news. Maybe it's better than 100 growing tumors, but that isn't saying much.

Do you have any evidence that 98% of glaciers are shrinking?

That was an analogy but this is a brief statement from an article about mountain glaciers:

"The new study reinforces previous research showing the power of climate change over small glaciers worldwide. A groundbreaking 2016 paper, one of the first to conduct a large-scale analysis of shrinking mountain glaciers around the globe, concluded that all but one of the 37 studied sites were "very likely" retreating because of climate change—and at 21 of those sites, the influence of climate change was just about certain. The researchers wrote that the shrinking presented "categorical evidence" of climate change, making mountain glaciers a kind of underrepresented canary in the coal mine for global warming."

(03-28-2019 12:49 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 10:38 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 10:31 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 10:07 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 09:52 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  It's one glacier. And it's the scientists talking about it, not CNN. If CNN couldn't stand good news, they wouldn't have included it in their coverage. Although any good news in the article is minimal, taken in the context of the whole article.

So climate change = cancer and shrinking glacier = growing tumor. A tumor that was expected to continue growing and eventually kill you is now shrinking.

How exactly is a shrinking tumor not good news?

If you have 100 tumors and 2 of them are shrinking while the other 98 are growing, it isn't good news. Maybe it's better than 100 growing tumors, but that isn't saying much.

Do you have any evidence that 98% of glaciers are shrinking?

That was an analogy but this is a brief statement from an article about mountain glaciers:

"The new study reinforces previous research showing the power of climate change over small glaciers worldwide. A groundbreaking 2016 paper, one of the first to conduct a large-scale analysis of shrinking mountain glaciers around the globe, concluded that all but one of the 37 studied sites were "very likely" retreating because of climate change—and at 21 of those sites, the influence of climate change was just about certain. The researchers wrote that the shrinking presented "categorical evidence" of climate change, making mountain glaciers a kind of underrepresented canary in the coal mine for global warming."

You do know that just a sneeze ago, geologically, woolly mammoth and sabre tooth tigers were roaming the ice age on glaciers as far south as Arizona and beyond. West Texas was an ocean eons prior to that.

The "climate" is ALWAYS changing. What part did we play in the Ice Age?
Should we strive to be good and better stewards? Well, of course. Who argues otherwise? What sanctions are we prepared to force on China, India, and other areas? Like apparently Greenland?

(03-28-2019 01:14 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 12:49 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 10:38 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 10:31 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 10:07 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  So climate change = cancer and shrinking glacier = growing tumor. A tumor that was expected to continue growing and eventually kill you is now shrinking.

How exactly is a shrinking tumor not good news?

If you have 100 tumors and 2 of them are shrinking while the other 98 are growing, it isn't good news. Maybe it's better than 100 growing tumors, but that isn't saying much.

Do you have any evidence that 98% of glaciers are shrinking?

That was an analogy but this is a brief statement from an article about mountain glaciers:

"The new study reinforces previous research showing the power of climate change over small glaciers worldwide. A groundbreaking 2016 paper, one of the first to conduct a large-scale analysis of shrinking mountain glaciers around the globe, concluded that all but one of the 37 studied sites were "very likely" retreating because of climate change—and at 21 of those sites, the influence of climate change was just about certain. The researchers wrote that the shrinking presented "categorical evidence" of climate change, making mountain glaciers a kind of underrepresented canary in the coal mine for global warming."

You do know that just a sneeze ago, geologically, woolly mammoth and sabre tooth tigers were roaming the ice age on glaciers as far south as Arizona and beyond. West Texas was an ocean eons prior to that.

The "climate" is ALWAYS changing. What part did we play in the Ice Age?
Should we strive to be good and better stewards? Well, of course. Who argues otherwise? What sanctions are we prepared to force on China, India, and other areas? Like apparently Greenland?

The question was, is the fact that one glacier in Greenland having increased lately good news? It is if you ignore all the other glaciers.