You cannot refute one word of either.
In fact, you already agreed Antarctica has not sat on South Pole for 80 million years, which is a central thesis of McBullshit.
Let’s unpack this step by step, because your claims are collapsing under multiple layers of evidence. I'll include your arguments from when you sourced yourself (lol).
Antarctica wasn’t always at the South Pole - Correct. Plate tectonics moved it there over tens of millions of years. But the presence of dinosaurs 70 million years ago is entirely consistent with it being in a temperate latitude then. That does
not invalidate Milankovitch cycles or orbital-driven glaciation; it just contextualizes when Antarctica entered permanent polar conditions.
Greenland ice formation - Fully documented in ice cores. The Kap Kobenhavn Formation shows boreal forest DNA from 450k–800k years ago, confirming that ice sheets there grew slowly over hundreds of thousands of years. Today’s 1-2 mile thick Greenland ice sheet matches that timeline; Chicago’s ice being 2.5 miles thick and only 75k years old is impossible. It violates both measured ice core ages and mass balance physics.
Glacial timing and thickness - Ice cores, radiometric dating, and stratigraphy all show Antarctica’s 2.5 mile ice is hundreds of thousands of years old, not tens of thousands. Greenland is younger and thinner, as expected for its size and precipitation. There is no data supporting rapid Dennis Quaid style ice swings. None; zero.
Milankovitch cycles - These are real, measurable, and verified in the geological record. Sediment cores, isotope data, and astronomical calculations all align at the ~23k, 41k, and 100k year periodicities. The cycles don’t need to be fast to cause glaciation; they set boundary conditions that ice-albedo and circulation feedbacks amplify.
600 miles to a pole = ice age - This is
complete nonsense. Latitude matters for climate potential, but mass balance depends on precipitation, temperature, circulation, and feedbacks. Modern and paleoclimate data show high latitude land doesn’t automatically freeze, and lower-latitude regions with persistent cold can form ice. Geography alone doesn’t create a universal law.
CO2 forcing vs feedbacks - Direct radiative forcing is ~1C per doubling; feedbacks add another ~2C, giving ~3C climate sensitivity. These numbers are empirically constrained and incorporated into detection and attribution studies. They aren’t assumptions or hidden; they are measurable in W/m2 per K and confirmed by satellites, paleoclimate, and volcano responses.
The geological, ice core, and tectonic records don’t support your fast, lightning, pole-distance law or your Dennis Quaid ice movie narrative. Greenland and Antarctica ice histories, Milankovitch cycles, and tectonics all tell a consistent story: glaciation is slow, measurable, and amplified by feedbacks, not magically appearing because land is near a pole.
You can scream about McBullshit or Trump or canceled reports all you like. None of that changes the empirical evidence. Science doesn’t care about your narrative or your gut instinct. Your circular logic and appeals to arbitrary rules have been outclassed by decades of observation. If you were actually capable of checking data, you’d see you’re being outpaced in this discussion.
The facts stand and your “laws” collapse under them.
www.newsbusters.org
