How do the 'anthropogenic global warming' alarmists counter evidence that undercuts their agenda?

It's easy.

Whenever their sometimes perposterous assertions fall apart, they just retro-fit their beloved computer models, and proclaim the new metrics actually validate the original point anyway.

Noteworthy:

"So why do we continue to hear warnings about receding Arctic ice? How is that possible when the extent is quickly approaching its 1979-2000 mean? Simple -- the rules have changed again. It’s no longer the area of the ice that counts, but rather the volume. You see, thicker winter ice is better able to survive the summer and in turn help cool the planet while reflecting sunlight back into space. And, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. “This year, ice older than two years accounted for less than 10% of the ice cover at the end of February.”

So there’s a new metric in town -- The ice that has been forming at a record pace since the 2007 record low simply doesn’t count because it’s not yet as thick and “effective” as older ice.

And that nonsense somehow gives cover to a mainstream media that, despite continually expanding ice, dutifully repeat the retrofitted analysis in headlines the likes of Arctic ice is thinner than ever according to new evidence from explorers and Arctic ice continues to shrink and thin and of course Arctic will be ice-free within a decade.

Pretty slick, huh?"

Why are we never surprised at the lack of academic and intellectual integrity shown by the "anthropogenic global warming" shysters, and those in the Tank Media/PR Team that enable this fraud?

#