Riddle Me This AGW Cult

[edthecynic]

Scientists have found trees under the ice in both the Arctic (2,300 years old) and in the Antarctic (4MM years old).

How is that possible?

It is "possible" only because it is a big fat LIE, as you well know!
Here is what your OWN link actually says, "discovery of 4,000-year-old chunks of wood at the leading edge of a Swiss glacier."
That's right, no trees, no forests only a few CHUNKS of driftwood.
Damn you idiots are desperate.

So the "driftwood" drilled its way under the ice 4,000 years ago?

What are you trying to say?

You can't admit you lied about trees and forests.

 

[edthecynic]

Mummified Forest Found on Treeless Arctic Island

So, once again, if there was no ice in the Arctic, the sea level was supposed to be 200 to 250 feet higher.

See the problem?

I see YOUR problem.
From your OWN link:
"When we started pulling leaves out of the soil, that was surreal, to know that it's millions of years old and that you can hold it in your hand,"

 

[SSDD]

Scientists have found trees under the ice in both the Arctic (2,300 years old) and in the Antarctic (4MM years old).

How is that possible?

It is "possible" only because it is a big fat LIE, as you well know!
Here is what your OWN link actually says, "discovery of 4,000-year-old chunks of wood at the leading edge of a Swiss glacier."
That's right, no trees, no forests only a few CHUNKS of driftwood.
Damn you idiots are desperate.

Get a clue...whole settlements have been uncovered by receding glaciers..of course there were trees...

 

[SSDD]

Scientists have found trees under the ice in both the Arctic (2,300 years old) and in the Antarctic (4MM years old).

How is that possible?

It is "possible" only because it is a big fat LIE, as you well know!
Here is what your OWN link actually says, "discovery of 4,000-year-old chunks of wood at the leading edge of a Swiss glacier."
That's right, no trees, no forests only a few CHUNKS of driftwood.
Damn you idiots are desperate.

So the "driftwood" drilled its way under the ice 4,000 years ago?

What are you trying to say?

They say whatever is necessary to keep their belief alive...hell, settlements have been uncovered by retreating glaciers...I suppose they think that there were no trees there...if you do a quick search of things uncovered by retreating glaciers, you see that it is obvious that not so long ago, the glaciers were much smaller than they are today...the deniers can't bear to think about that though...anything that calls their faith into question is unacceptable...

 

[jc456]

Can't seem to find anything about it.

Link to something that isn't a denier website?

what is it you need?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Scientists have found trees under the ice in both the Arctic (2,300 years old) and in the Antarctic (4MM years old).

How is that possible?

It is "possible" only because it is a big fat LIE, as you well know!
Here is what your OWN link actually says, "discovery of 4,000-year-old chunks of wood at the leading edge of a Swiss glacier."
That's right, no trees, no forests only a few CHUNKS of driftwood.
Damn you idiots are desperate.

So the "driftwood" drilled its way under the ice 4,000 years ago?

What are you trying to say?

You can't admit you lied about trees and forests.

Are you completely fucking retarded? YOU made up the "driftwood" that bored through the ice and you call me a liar? GFY. I posted yet another article, this time from National Geographic about trees and forest under the Arctic ice.

Again, GFY

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Mummified Forest Found on Treeless Arctic Island

So, once again, if there was no ice in the Arctic, the sea level was supposed to be 200 to 250 feet higher.

See the problem?

I see YOUR problem.
From your OWN link:
"When we started pulling leaves out of the soil, that was surreal, to know that it's millions of years old and that you can hold it in your hand,"

That's a DIFFERENT ARTICLE, ABOUT AN EARLIER TIME!!! Again, there are trees and the trees, if the ice melted, should be under several hundred feet of water and NOT HAVE GROWN AT ALL

 

[edthecynic]

Scientists have found trees under the ice in both the Arctic (2,300 years old) and in the Antarctic (4MM years old).

How is that possible?

It is "possible" only because it is a big fat LIE, as you well know!
Here is what your OWN link actually says, "discovery of 4,000-year-old chunks of wood at the leading edge of a Swiss glacier."
That's right, no trees, no forests only a few CHUNKS of driftwood.
Damn you idiots are desperate.

Get a clue...whole settlements have been uncovered by receding glaciers..of course there were trees...

Prove it was where the driftwood was found.

 

[edthecynic]

Mummified Forest Found on Treeless Arctic Island

So, once again, if there was no ice in the Arctic, the sea level was supposed to be 200 to 250 feet higher.

See the problem?

I see YOUR problem.
From your OWN link:
"When we started pulling leaves out of the soil, that was surreal, to know that it's millions of years old and that you can hold it in your hand,"

That's a DIFFERENT ARTICLE, ABOUT AN EARLIER TIME!!! Again, there are trees and the trees, if the ice melted, should be under several hundred feet of water and NOT HAVE GROWN AT ALL

The Earth and the continents were completely different millions of years ago, and NOT in the same places where they are now, idiot!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Scientists have found trees under the ice in both the Arctic (2,300 years old) and in the Antarctic (4MM years old).

How is that possible?

It is "possible" only because it is a big fat LIE, as you well know!
Here is what your OWN link actually says, "discovery of 4,000-year-old chunks of wood at the leading edge of a Swiss glacier."
That's right, no trees, no forests only a few CHUNKS of driftwood.
Damn you idiots are desperate.

Get a clue...whole settlements have been uncovered by receding glaciers..of course there were trees...

Prove it was where the driftwood was found.

HAVE YOU LOST YOUR FUCKING MIND?

It's ALL under the Arctic ice. What difference does it....oh, I see, you're flailing and grasping at straws. I got it now. You can't explain how there can be trees under the ice, if the melted ice is supposed to raise sea levels 200 feet, so you spew this idiotic stuff about driftwood and locations.

 

[edthecynic]

Scientists have found trees under the ice in both the Arctic (2,300 years old) and in the Antarctic (4MM years old).

How is that possible?

It is "possible" only because it is a big fat LIE, as you well know!
Here is what your OWN link actually says, "discovery of 4,000-year-old chunks of wood at the leading edge of a Swiss glacier."
That's right, no trees, no forests only a few CHUNKS of driftwood.
Damn you idiots are desperate.

So the "driftwood" drilled its way under the ice 4,000 years ago?

What are you trying to say?

You can't admit you lied about trees and forests.

Are you completely fucking retarded? YOU made up the "driftwood" that bored through the ice and you call me a liar? GFY. I posted yet another article, this time from National Geographic about trees and forest under the Arctic ice.

Again, GFY

You claimed the researcher found trees and forests, when all he reported was "chunks of wood." So yes you are a liar.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Mummified Forest Found on Treeless Arctic Island

So, once again, if there was no ice in the Arctic, the sea level was supposed to be 200 to 250 feet higher.

See the problem?

I see YOUR problem.
From your OWN link:
"When we started pulling leaves out of the soil, that was surreal, to know that it's millions of years old and that you can hold it in your hand,"

That's a DIFFERENT ARTICLE, ABOUT AN EARLIER TIME!!! Again, there are trees and the trees, if the ice melted, should be under several hundred feet of water and NOT HAVE GROWN AT ALL

The Earth and the continents were completely different millions of years ago, and NOT in the same places where they are now, idiot!

l

Was the Earth larger? Was the Arctic 300 feet higher?

 

[edthecynic]

Scientists have found trees under the ice in both the Arctic (2,300 years old) and in the Antarctic (4MM years old).

How is that possible?

It is "possible" only because it is a big fat LIE, as you well know!
Here is what your OWN link actually says, "discovery of 4,000-year-old chunks of wood at the leading edge of a Swiss glacier."
That's right, no trees, no forests only a few CHUNKS of driftwood.
Damn you idiots are desperate.

Get a clue...whole settlements have been uncovered by receding glaciers..of course there were trees...

Prove it was where the driftwood was found.

HAVE YOU LOST YOUR FUCKING MIND?

It's ALL under the Arctic ice. What difference does it....oh, I see, you're flailing and grasping at straws. I got it now. You can't explain how there can be trees under the ice, if the melted ice is supposed to raise sea levels 200 feet, so you spew this idiotic stuff about driftwood and locations.

You have expanded your lie from trees and forests to whole settlements, but like trees in your NG article, the settlements were not from the place where the driftwood was found, and you know it.

 

[edthecynic]

Mummified Forest Found on Treeless Arctic Island

So, once again, if there was no ice in the Arctic, the sea level was supposed to be 200 to 250 feet higher.

See the problem?

I see YOUR problem.
From your OWN link:
"When we started pulling leaves out of the soil, that was surreal, to know that it's millions of years old and that you can hold it in your hand,"

That's a DIFFERENT ARTICLE, ABOUT AN EARLIER TIME!!! Again, there are trees and the trees, if the ice melted, should be under several hundred feet of water and NOT HAVE GROWN AT ALL

The Earth and the continents were completely different millions of years ago, and NOT in the same places where they are now, idiot!

l

Was the Earth larger? Was the Arctic 300 feet higher?

What does that have to do with the fact that continents move? You just can't ever admit the truth so you either tell more lies or deflect.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Mummified Forest Found on Treeless Arctic Island

So, once again, if there was no ice in the Arctic, the sea level was supposed to be 200 to 250 feet higher.

See the problem?

I see YOUR problem.
From your OWN link:
"When we started pulling leaves out of the soil, that was surreal, to know that it's millions of years old and that you can hold it in your hand,"

That's a DIFFERENT ARTICLE, ABOUT AN EARLIER TIME!!! Again, there are trees and the trees, if the ice melted, should be under several hundred feet of water and NOT HAVE GROWN AT ALL

The Earth and the continents were completely different millions of years ago, and NOT in the same places where they are now, idiot!

l

Was the Earth larger? Was the Arctic 300 feet higher?

What does that have to do with the fact that continents move? You just can't ever admit the truth so you either tell more lies or deflect.

The continents moved in the last 4,000 years or even 4,000,000 years? Where did they move to, Atlantis?

Stop making stuff up

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Scientists have found trees under the ice in both the Arctic (2,300 years old) and in the Antarctic (4MM years old).

How is that possible?

It is "possible" only because it is a big fat LIE, as you well know!
Here is what your OWN link actually says, "discovery of 4,000-year-old chunks of wood at the leading edge of a Swiss glacier."
That's right, no trees, no forests only a few CHUNKS of driftwood.
Damn you idiots are desperate.

Get a clue...whole settlements have been uncovered by receding glaciers..of course there were trees...

Prove it was where the driftwood was found.

HAVE YOU LOST YOUR FUCKING MIND?

It's ALL under the Arctic ice. What difference does it....oh, I see, you're flailing and grasping at straws. I got it now. You can't explain how there can be trees under the ice, if the melted ice is supposed to raise sea levels 200 feet, so you spew this idiotic stuff about driftwood and locations.

You have expanded your lie from trees and forests to whole settlements, but like trees in your NG article, the settlements were not from the place where the driftwood was found, and you know it.

You made up driftwood, that's YOUR invention

 

[edthecynic]

I see YOUR problem.
From your OWN link:
"When we started pulling leaves out of the soil, that was surreal, to know that it's millions of years old and that you can hold it in your hand,"

That's a DIFFERENT ARTICLE, ABOUT AN EARLIER TIME!!! Again, there are trees and the trees, if the ice melted, should be under several hundred feet of water and NOT HAVE GROWN AT ALL

The Earth and the continents were completely different millions of years ago, and NOT in the same places where they are now, idiot!

l

Was the Earth larger? Was the Arctic 300 feet higher?

What does that have to do with the fact that continents move? You just can't ever admit the truth so you either tell more lies or deflect.

The continents moved in the last 4,000 years or even 4,000,000 years? Where did they move to, Atlantis?

Stop making stuff up

Yeah, like you are soooooo IGNORANT you never heard of continental drift!
Stop playing dumb.
Since you accept NG as a source.

 

[edthecynic]

It is "possible" only because it is a big fat LIE, as you well know!
Here is what your OWN link actually says, "discovery of 4,000-year-old chunks of wood at the leading edge of a Swiss glacier."
That's right, no trees, no forests only a few CHUNKS of driftwood.
Damn you idiots are desperate.

Get a clue...whole settlements have been uncovered by receding glaciers..of course there were trees...

Prove it was where the driftwood was found.

HAVE YOU LOST YOUR FUCKING MIND?

It's ALL under the Arctic ice. What difference does it....oh, I see, you're flailing and grasping at straws. I got it now. You can't explain how there can be trees under the ice, if the melted ice is supposed to raise sea levels 200 feet, so you spew this idiotic stuff about driftwood and locations.

You have expanded your lie from trees and forests to whole settlements, but like trees in your NG article, the settlements were not from the place where the driftwood was found, and you know it.

You made up driftwood, that's YOUR invention

Hey if you can make up trees, forests and settlements from a few chunks of wood, I can call it driftwood.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Can't seem to find anything about it.

Link to something that isn't a denier website?

230 feet just from the Arctic melt...lol. Do any AGW predictions ever come true?

How is that pertinent to my post?

Got that link?

Post #3 had the links. I just skipped to the end of the debate knowing you have no valid, on point response

Links from places other than denier websites. I looked at those and found them wanting.

Wanting 'failed modeling'..... that you will not get..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That's a DIFFERENT ARTICLE, ABOUT AN EARLIER TIME!!! Again, there are trees and the trees, if the ice melted, should be under several hundred feet of water and NOT HAVE GROWN AT ALL

The Earth and the continents were completely different millions of years ago, and NOT in the same places where they are now, idiot!

l

Was the Earth larger? Was the Arctic 300 feet higher?

What does that have to do with the fact that continents move? You just can't ever admit the truth so you either tell more lies or deflect.

The continents moved in the last 4,000 years or even 4,000,000 years? Where did they move to, Atlantis?

Stop making stuff up

Yeah, like you are soooooo IGNORANT you never heard of continental drift!
Stop playing dumb.
Since you accept NG as a source.

4,000 year < 250,000,000 years