Greenland.
What is it that you think Greenland proves?
Over 509 glaciers have disappeared since 1950.
So what? The planet is in an interglacial period. That happens every interglacial period. And our present interglacial period is still 2C cooler than previous interglacial periods.
This is just fossil fuel crap!
First I shot down your argument that Greenland itself is evidence for catastrophic AGW because ice cores from Greenland prove that 8,500 of the past 10,000 years were warmer than recent decades.
You have your little routine down pat, don't you? You are all set to spew your skewed numbers at a moments notice. Problem is, less than 5% of the scientists on the planet agree with you.
So your evidence for catastrophic AGW is you were told it was true? Is that correct?
I haven't skewed anything. Everything I am sharing is in the public record. Nothing I have stated is controversial. You can't dispute that our present interglacial period is quite normal and is 2C cooler than previous interglacial periods because it's true that our present interglacial period is quite normal and is 2C cooler than previous interglacial periods. You can't dispute that it's normal for glaciers to disappear during an interglacial period because it's true that it's normal for glaciers to disappear during an interglacial period. And you can't dispute that empirical evidence from ice cores in Greenland show that 8,500 years of the past 10,000 years were warmer than recent decades because it's true that empirical evidence from ice cores in Greenland show that 8,500 years of the past 10,000 years were warmer than recent decades.
No. The evidence is all over the place! Everywhere you look. From NOAA data, to satellite data, to disappearing glaciers, to the Greenland ice sheet, etc. But you already know this and are ready to spew these garbage numbers you've rehearsed ad nausium.
Yes, I've been studying paleo-climates and the reason they changed for over 20 years.
Walk me through it. That's what this debate is for. Because I see it differently. I see the empirical evidence telling me that AGW is fake news. And I've been demonstrating that to you since this discussion began using non-controversial facts.
So what's the next piece of evidence you would like to discuss? Because Greenland and disappearing glaciers didn't cut it.
Then it shouldn't be too hard to present some of it, right?
That's the 2nd time you've asked that question and for the second time I've said, "No". Are you going to ask it a 3rd?
Non-controversial facts that only 5% of the science community agrees with?
I don't know. What's next on your script?
That was the argument you implied when you said, "less than 5% of the scientists disagree with [me]," right?
