AnOTHER Open Challenge for my AGW Friends

[Toddsterpatriot]

You were asked a question, CHOSEN ONE.

Why are you TOO CHICKENSHIT to answer it????

It's been years, you still can't show that the most recent ice sheet was on
top of the Chicago area for millions of years in a row.

Your crazy is getting old.

 

[EMH]

It's been years, you still can't show that the most recent ice sheet was on
top of the Chicago area for millions of years in a row.

Your crazy is getting old.

Simply lying is what you do, because you are a card carrying member of Zionist Fascism, and you hate truth as much as Dr. Mann and crock do....

How old were the 2.5 mile thick glaciers covering Chicago in the past 20k-5 million years?

This is where the climate debate is now stuck. Every piece of land within 600 miles of a pole is in ice age, everything outside of that is not. Nobody has attempted to dispute that. It is the clear truth of Earth today. Milankovitch Cycles, which I call McBullshit Cycles, take a very...

www.usmessageboard.com

This is where the climate debate is now stuck.

Every piece of land within 600 miles of a pole is in ice age, everything outside of that is not. Nobody has attempted to dispute that. It is the clear truth of Earth today.

Milankovitch Cycles, which I call McBullshit Cycles, take a very "Dennis Quaid" approach to ice ages - they are lightning fast, quick, and agile. They come and go really fast.

Since 2010, Milankovitch has replaced "North American Ice Age" with the claim that the ice on Chicago recently that was 2.5 miles thick was only 75k years old.

Really....

My side, which is just me now, since all of the pre 2010 reports on North American Ice Age online have been "canceled" and replaced by McBullshit, is that North America was covered with Ice Age glacier down to Chicago and beyond for 30-50 million years.


So we have a dispute, a healthy thing for SCIENCE...

What is the EVIDENCE???


1. LIFE

Any evidence of LIFE on Chicago for the past 50 million years .... NO

Any evidence of LIFE on Greenland.... YES

Ancient Greenland Was Actually Green

Greenland was once carpeted in lush forests, a new study shows.

www.livescience.com

The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetle

A 2-million-year-old ecosystem in Greenland uncovered by environmental DNA - Nature

Analysis of two-million-year-old ancient environmental DNA from the Kap København Formation in North Greenland shows there was an open boreal forest with diverse plant and animal species, of which several taxa have not previously been detected at the site, representing an ecosystem that has no...

www.nature.com

So it is fair to say that the ice covering Greenland started up north in the past 2 million years, got to the middle of Greenland 400-800k years ago, and flushed out the Vikings in the 1400s on the southern tip, since when the Vikings found the Southern Tip of Greenland, they called it GREENland because it was green and were able to farm there for centuries before the Greenland ice age pushed them off...


Any evidence of life on Antarctica?

antarctic dinosaurs 70 million years ago - Google Search

This Cretaceous period dinosaur lived about 70 million years ago, towards the end of the Mesozoic Era. A bipedal, long-necked, plant-eating dinosaur (a sauropod) was discovered in the Antarctic interior by William R. Hammer and his team in late 2003.


For the record, prior to 2010 nobody disputed that Antarctic ice was at least 40 million years old. McBullshit disputes that completely...


2. Speed of ice age glacier

Indeed, the data from Greenland above is the best data we have, since it is recent and conclusive. It took Greenland's ice age somewhere between 500k years and 2 million years from its beginning at the northern part of Greenland to get to where it is now.


That is WAY SLOWER than McBullshit suggests.


3. size of the glacier

Greenland's ice is not yet 2 miles thick anywhere. Below the Arctic Circle, Greenland's ice is under 1 mile thick.

Hence the claim of 2.5 mile thick glacier on Chicago being 75k years old is, well, NOT SUPPORTED BY DATA POINT GREENLAND at all.

Antarctica has 2.5 mile thick glacier. There is a dispute over the age of those too. McBullshit claims it is not that old and that while sitting on the South Pole Antarctica has frozen and thawed over and over like Dennis Quaid claimed in the movie "Day After Tomorrow"

4. ice cores

antarctic ice cores years - Google Search

The oldest continuous ice core records to date extend 123,000 years in Greenland and 800,000 years in Antarctica. Ice cores contain information about past temperature, and about many other aspects of the environment


And hence it is fair to say that the 2.5 mile thick glacier on Antarctica is WAY OLDER than 75k years... to put it mildly.

Even the Greenland ice is way older than that too, and it has yet to get to 2 miles thick



5. tectonic plate movement

Reiny recently claimed Greenland is part of North America. Not on my map. But it is on the SAME TECTONIC PLATE moving on the same vector because of the angle of the fault in the North Atlantic

north atlantic ocean floor map - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

That fault has pushed Greenland NW and Europe SE for tens of millions of years, and hence explains why all of Europe's glaciers are melting while Greenland went into ice age. It was also pushing North America NW until NA got to its closest point to the pole, and then NA started moving SW on the SAME VECTOR on a SPHERE...

Accepting the 600 miles to the pole = your land entered an ice age

North America would have been in ice age for 30-50 million years, and would have been where Greenland is today 30-50 million years ago. The accepted date of that prior to 2010 was 50 million years...




Hence, the evidence that the glaciers on Chicago 2.5 miles thick were 75k years old is contrary to ALL DATA ON ICE AGES AND GLACIERS on the planet today.

The ice cores prove glaciers 2.5 miles thick TODAY are WAY OLDER than 75k years.

So is McBullshit wrong??


To me that is shockingly obvious. McBullshit is about fudging climate history after homO went silent

obama climate silence 2010 2012 - Google Search

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Simply lying is what you do, because you are a card carrying member of Zionist Fascism, and you hate truth as much as Dr. Mann and crock do....

How old were the 2.5 mile thick glaciers covering Chicago in the past 20k-5 million years?

This is where the climate debate is now stuck. Every piece of land within 600 miles of a pole is in ice age, everything outside of that is not. Nobody has attempted to dispute that. It is the clear truth of Earth today. Milankovitch Cycles, which I call McBullshit Cycles, take a very...

www.usmessageboard.com

TLDR

Where is your evidence?

 

[Crick]

So what we have here is junk science. Garbage in, garbage out.

Not that you would know the difference, but the science behind AGW theory is completely solid.

If things were really as serious as we are told, it seems we would be forcing nations like India and China to reduce emissions.

India, China and the US are signatories to the Paris Climate Accords. I'm sure you'd like a more forceful approach, what with that not being white and all.

We would do things like boycotting their merchandise and manufacturing items in other nations with far less pollution.

Were you under the impression that those were actions the US government could take? The UN? Feel free to boycott whoever you like and get your merchandise manufactured wherever you like.

 

[ding]

It is typical of those with lower IQs to resort to this when confronted with truth they cannot refute.

You just described yourself perfectly.

 

[ding]

Not that you would know the difference, but the science behind AGW theory is completely solid.

The science behind the instantaneous radiative forcing effect of CO2 is solid. It's 1C per doubling of CO2. That's it. That's the only science.

 

[Batcat]

Not that you would know the difference, but the science behind AGW theory is completely solid.

India, China and the US are signatories to the Paris Climate Accords. I'm sure you'd like a more forceful approach, what with that not being white and all.

Were you under the impression that those were actions the US government could take? The UN? Feel free to boycott whoever you like and get your merchandise manufactured wherever you like.

No. If the situation was truly serious and our world would become unlivable if we didn’t do something right now, the UN would take measures against China, India and the United States if we didn’t reduce our pollution.

 

[Flash]

Environmental Wacko talking points:

1. We are all going to die, die I say!

2. Cold is weather, hot is man made climate change.

3. Lying is justified for the common good.

4. Do as I say, not what I do.

5. There were no hurricanes until man made global warming.

6. EVs get recharged with Unicorn farts.

 

[Crick]

Environmental Wacko talking points:

1. We are all going to die, die I say!

2. Cold is weather, hot is man made climate change.

3. Lying is justified for the common good.

4. Do as I say, not what I do.

5. There were no hurricanes until man made global warming.

6. EVs get recharged with Unicorn farts.

AGW denier talking points

1. Lie

 

[EMH]

TLDR

Where is your evidence?

A link to all the evidence in another thread is not "evidence"

A lot of the Jew Supremacist Zionist Fascist judges did that with the evidence of election fraud...

There's no evidence, because I won't allow you to present it...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A link to all the evidence in another thread is not "evidence"

A lot of the Jew Supremacist Zionist Fascist judges did that with the evidence of election fraud...

There's no evidence, because I won't allow you to present it...

A link to a thread that doesn't have any evidence isn't evidence.

 

[EMH]

A link to a thread that doesn't have any evidence isn't evidence.

So the issue of how many years of ice core data from Antarctica isn't "evidence."

Why?

Seems like pretty good data. If you think the Antarctic Ice Cores are not "evidence," then tell us what is YOUR EVIDENCE that 2.5 mile thick glaicers on Chicago were under 70k years old....


HINT - we have only one area on Earth with 2.5 mile thick ice....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So the issue of how many years of ice core data from Antarctica isn't "evidence."

Why?

Seems like pretty good data. If you think the Antarctic Ice Cores are not "evidence," then tell us what is YOUR EVIDENCE that 2.5 mile thick glaicers on Chicago were under 70k years old....


HINT - we have only one area on Earth with 2.5 mile thick ice....

No, the issue is you have no evidence for your 30-million-year claim.

 

[EMH]

No, the issue is you have no evidence for your 30-million-year claim.

Tectonic plate speed and documented past motion.

Size, thickness, speed of glaciers today.
Ice core evidence.

Indeed, you have McBullshit, which is outed as a FRAUD on BOTH POLES....

unless you believe Antarctica was still on the South Pole 70 million years ago....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Tectonic plate speed and documented past motion.

Size, thickness, speed of glaciers today.
Ice core evidence.

Indeed, you have McBullshit, which is outed as a FRAUD on BOTH POLES....

unless you believe Antarctica was still on the South Pole 70 million years ago....

You sound very convincing.

So, still no evidence?

 

[ding]

Not a lick.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not a lick.

At a certain point, even medication can't fix his crazy.

 

[Crick]

No. If the situation was truly serious and our world would become unlivable if we didn’t do something right now, the UN would take measures against China, India and the United States if we didn’t reduce our pollution.

And on that you conclude that all the science is... what? Mistaken? Lies? Exaggeration?

 

[Batcat]

And on that you conclude that all the science is... what? Mistaken? Lies? Exaggeration?

I conclude that the science of Global Warming is profit driven and full of corruption.

 

[Crick]

I conclude that the science of Global Warming is profit driven and full of corruption.

I think you're dodging. Do you believe the scientific conclusions of, say, the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report are intentionally false?