[aaron695]

The article specifically states this is a normal occurrence.

It happened 100 years ago, it happened one thousand years ago.

It ponders perhaps it's happening more often, but brings no evidence to the table on this possibility while reporting on this natural occurrence.

If you think this is science, to use examples that have always happened to convince people of change, your conception of what science is is very very flawed.

And my point is, climate deniers can see this. They see through this fake pulp for the masses (I mean seriously the article even admits it's a normal occurrence) and use this to reinforce their opposite cult views.