Climate Scientist: We Don't Need Data, You Can See Global Warming on TV

[oldsoul]

Ancient Greenland Was Actually Green

"The oldest ever recovered DNA samples have been collected from under more than a mile of Greenland ice, and their analysis suggests the island was much warmer during the last Ice Age than previously thought.

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 beetles."

For the record, I am NOT disagreeing with you. For the sake of substantive argument, please divulge your source.

just wondering who took the photos back 450,000 years ago. Seems like what you're asking.

Nope, not what I'm asking, but nice try. I am looking for the source of the posted quote, or did I miss it?

well he posted links to both when Greenland was green and when North America came out. The two timelines don't meet. Now if you challenge the link, then you must want evidence like photos. I don't think kodak was around in either time. So, you'd be SOL

So, there is a link and I missed it. Thank you for clearing that up. Didn't really need the rest of the crap from you though. Seems you are angry and needing someone to take it out on, I am not going to be that someone.

 

[jc456]

Ancient Greenland Was Actually Green

"The oldest ever recovered DNA samples have been collected from under more than a mile of Greenland ice, and their analysis suggests the island was much warmer during the last Ice Age than previously thought.

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 beetles."

For the record, I am NOT disagreeing with you. For the sake of substantive argument, please divulge your source.

just wondering who took the photos back 450,000 years ago. Seems like what you're asking.

Nope, not what I'm asking, but nice try. I am looking for the source of the posted quote, or did I miss it?

well he posted links to both when Greenland was green and when North America came out. The two timelines don't meet. Now if you challenge the link, then you must want evidence like photos. I don't think kodak was around in either time. So, you'd be SOL

So, there is a link and I missed it. Thank you for clearing that up. Didn't really need the rest of the crap from you though. Seems you are angry and needing someone to take it out on, I am not going to be that someone.

LOL yep you're lazy. the links were all there, you should actually read all of the posts before looking like an ass.

 

[oldsoul]

I don't know that I have ever seen a more lazy bunch of people..."show your source"..."show your source"..."give us a link"...."give us a link"...what the hell is wrong with you people? Are you afraid that if you take 15 seconds to look that you will find out that he is right?...Well guess what...he is...

A quick google of what he is saying verifies it satisfactorily....

Ancient Greenland Was Actually Green

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 beetles.

From the genetic material of these organisms, the researchers infer that Greenland’s temperature once varied from 50 degrees Fahrenheit in summer to 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in winter—the temperature range that the tree species prefer.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | DNA reveals Greenland's lush past

Ice-covered Greenland was a conifer forest half-a-million years ago

Oldest Known DNA Found in Greenland Ice Core

DNA Discovery Shows Greenland's Warm Past, Altering Thoughts on Climate Change

DNA discovery reveals Greenland's warm past

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070705153019.htm

http://www.au.agwscam.com/pdf/Greenland's lush past.pdf

The above links represent about 5 minutes of looking...get off your dead asses and do something for yourselves once in a while...you sound like a bunch of magpies..."give us a link"..."give us a link"...

So now if a green greenland 450 to 800 thousand years ago presents a problem with what you believe you know...then that's just too f'ing bad, isn't it?....it is tough to argue with the discovery of DNA under 2 KM of ice... One of the articles even states that the data is contrary to what we thought we knew...but then finding out that what we thought we knew wasn't true at all isn't unusual is it?...isn't that what science is all about?....

Only in climate science does the discovery that what we thought we knew isn't true spark such universal outrage and denial...grow up you bunch of pussies.

Really? Asking for the source material of someone's claim is now being lazy? Are you insane or just stupid? Maybe you just don't understand the process of debate. When someone makes a claim, and quotes (or references a source) I would like to know the source so that I can look at the same information they did. If that makes me lazy then I am as lazy as heck.

it is when the source material was indeed provided and you don't read it. yep that would be you be lazy.

No, what happened was I missed it. I am human after all and make mistakes. When I do, I own them and take responsibility for them. You seem to be quite invested in name-calling, something for which I have no time.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't know that I have ever seen a more lazy bunch of people..."show your source"..."show your source"..."give us a link"...."give us a link"...what the hell is wrong with you people? Are you afraid that if you take 15 seconds to look that you will find out that he is right?...Well guess what...he is...

A quick google of what he is saying verifies it satisfactorily....

Ancient Greenland Was Actually Green

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 beetles.

From the genetic material of these organisms, the researchers infer that Greenland’s temperature once varied from 50 degrees Fahrenheit in summer to 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in winter—the temperature range that the tree species prefer.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | DNA reveals Greenland's lush past

Ice-covered Greenland was a conifer forest half-a-million years ago

Oldest Known DNA Found in Greenland Ice Core

DNA Discovery Shows Greenland's Warm Past, Altering Thoughts on Climate Change

DNA discovery reveals Greenland's warm past

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070705153019.htm

http://www.au.agwscam.com/pdf/Greenland's lush past.pdf

The above links represent about 5 minutes of looking...get off your dead asses and do something for yourselves once in a while...you sound like a bunch of magpies..."give us a link"..."give us a link"...

So now if a green greenland 450 to 800 thousand years ago presents a problem with what you believe you know...then that's just too f'ing bad, isn't it?....it is tough to argue with the discovery of DNA under 2 KM of ice... One of the articles even states that the data is contrary to what we thought we knew...but then finding out that what we thought we knew wasn't true at all isn't unusual is it?...isn't that what science is all about?....

Only in climate science does the discovery that what we thought we knew isn't true spark such universal outrage and denial...grow up you bunch of pussies.

Really? Asking for the source material of someone's claim is now being lazy? Are you insane or just stupid? Maybe you just don't understand the process of debate. When someone makes a claim, and quotes (or references a source) I would like to know the source so that I can look at the same information they did. If that makes me lazy then I am as lazy as heck.

it is when the source material was indeed provided and you don't read it. yep that would be you be lazy.

No, what happened was I missed it. I am human after all and make mistakes. When I do, I own them and take responsibility for them. You seem to be quite invested in name-calling, something for which I have no time.

You didn't miss it.
He provided no link that backed up his claim.

 

[LaDexter]

Yes, one cannot possibly have an original thought - only parroting counts...

 

[jc456]

I don't know that I have ever seen a more lazy bunch of people..."show your source"..."show your source"..."give us a link"...."give us a link"...what the hell is wrong with you people? Are you afraid that if you take 15 seconds to look that you will find out that he is right?...Well guess what...he is...

A quick google of what he is saying verifies it satisfactorily....

Ancient Greenland Was Actually Green

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 beetles.

From the genetic material of these organisms, the researchers infer that Greenland’s temperature once varied from 50 degrees Fahrenheit in summer to 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in winter—the temperature range that the tree species prefer.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | DNA reveals Greenland's lush past

Ice-covered Greenland was a conifer forest half-a-million years ago

Oldest Known DNA Found in Greenland Ice Core

DNA Discovery Shows Greenland's Warm Past, Altering Thoughts on Climate Change

DNA discovery reveals Greenland's warm past

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070705153019.htm

http://www.au.agwscam.com/pdf/Greenland's lush past.pdf

The above links represent about 5 minutes of looking...get off your dead asses and do something for yourselves once in a while...you sound like a bunch of magpies..."give us a link"..."give us a link"...

So now if a green greenland 450 to 800 thousand years ago presents a problem with what you believe you know...then that's just too f'ing bad, isn't it?....it is tough to argue with the discovery of DNA under 2 KM of ice... One of the articles even states that the data is contrary to what we thought we knew...but then finding out that what we thought we knew wasn't true at all isn't unusual is it?...isn't that what science is all about?....

Only in climate science does the discovery that what we thought we knew isn't true spark such universal outrage and denial...grow up you bunch of pussies.

Really? Asking for the source material of someone's claim is now being lazy? Are you insane or just stupid? Maybe you just don't understand the process of debate. When someone makes a claim, and quotes (or references a source) I would like to know the source so that I can look at the same information they did. If that makes me lazy then I am as lazy as heck.

it is when the source material was indeed provided and you don't read it. yep that would be you be lazy.

No, what happened was I missed it. I am human after all and make mistakes. When I do, I own them and take responsibility for them. You seem to be quite invested in name-calling, something for which I have no time.

You didn't miss it.
He provided no link that backed up his claim.

correct, he provided two links, one for Greenland and one for North America. Now kids, you have to do a little work and combine the two data points and intersect the timelines. and baddaboom will you look at that.

at 450,000 years Greenland was green and 450,000 years ago North America was still ice to Indiana. would you look at that. match!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't know that I have ever seen a more lazy bunch of people..."show your source"..."show your source"..."give us a link"...."give us a link"...what the hell is wrong with you people? Are you afraid that if you take 15 seconds to look that you will find out that he is right?...Well guess what...he is...

A quick google of what he is saying verifies it satisfactorily....

Ancient Greenland Was Actually Green

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | DNA reveals Greenland's lush past

Ice-covered Greenland was a conifer forest half-a-million years ago

Oldest Known DNA Found in Greenland Ice Core

DNA Discovery Shows Greenland's Warm Past, Altering Thoughts on Climate Change

DNA discovery reveals Greenland's warm past

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070705153019.htm

http://www.au.agwscam.com/pdf/Greenland's lush past.pdf

The above links represent about 5 minutes of looking...get off your dead asses and do something for yourselves once in a while...you sound like a bunch of magpies..."give us a link"..."give us a link"...

So now if a green greenland 450 to 800 thousand years ago presents a problem with what you believe you know...then that's just too f'ing bad, isn't it?....it is tough to argue with the discovery of DNA under 2 KM of ice... One of the articles even states that the data is contrary to what we thought we knew...but then finding out that what we thought we knew wasn't true at all isn't unusual is it?...isn't that what science is all about?....

Only in climate science does the discovery that what we thought we knew isn't true spark such universal outrage and denial...grow up you bunch of pussies.

Really? Asking for the source material of someone's claim is now being lazy? Are you insane or just stupid? Maybe you just don't understand the process of debate. When someone makes a claim, and quotes (or references a source) I would like to know the source so that I can look at the same information they did. If that makes me lazy then I am as lazy as heck.

it is when the source material was indeed provided and you don't read it. yep that would be you be lazy.

No, what happened was I missed it. I am human after all and make mistakes. When I do, I own them and take responsibility for them. You seem to be quite invested in name-calling, something for which I have no time.

You didn't miss it.
He provided no link that backed up his claim.

correct, he provided two links, one for Greenland and one for North America. Now kids, you have to do a little work and combine the two data points and intersect the timelines. and baddaboom will you look at that.

No, none of the links he provided had enough detail to back up his claim.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, one cannot possibly have an original thought - only parroting counts...

Your original thoughts were funny, and not backed up by any proof.

 

[jc456]

Really? Asking for the source material of someone's claim is now being lazy? Are you insane or just stupid? Maybe you just don't understand the process of debate. When someone makes a claim, and quotes (or references a source) I would like to know the source so that I can look at the same information they did. If that makes me lazy then I am as lazy as heck.

it is when the source material was indeed provided and you don't read it. yep that would be you be lazy.

No, what happened was I missed it. I am human after all and make mistakes. When I do, I own them and take responsibility for them. You seem to be quite invested in name-calling, something for which I have no time.

You didn't miss it.
He provided no link that backed up his claim.

correct, he provided two links, one for Greenland and one for North America. Now kids, you have to do a little work and combine the two data points and intersect the timelines. and baddaboom will you look at that.

No, none of the links he provided had enough detail to back up his claim.

yes they did I pointed to it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

it is when the source material was indeed provided and you don't read it. yep that would be you be lazy.

No, what happened was I missed it. I am human after all and make mistakes. When I do, I own them and take responsibility for them. You seem to be quite invested in name-calling, something for which I have no time.

You didn't miss it.
He provided no link that backed up his claim.

correct, he provided two links, one for Greenland and one for North America. Now kids, you have to do a little work and combine the two data points and intersect the timelines. and baddaboom will you look at that.

No, none of the links he provided had enough detail to back up his claim.

yes they did I pointed to it.

Liar.

 

[jc456]

No, what happened was I missed it. I am human after all and make mistakes. When I do, I own them and take responsibility for them. You seem to be quite invested in name-calling, something for which I have no time.

You didn't miss it.
He provided no link that backed up his claim.

correct, he provided two links, one for Greenland and one for North America. Now kids, you have to do a little work and combine the two data points and intersect the timelines. and baddaboom will you look at that.

No, none of the links he provided had enough detail to back up his claim.

yes they did I pointed to it.

Liar.

li·ar
[ˈlī(ə)r]
deceiver · fibber · perjurer · false witness · fabricator ·
equivocator · fabulist · storyteller
ORIGIN
Old English lēogere (see lie2, -ar4).
RELATED FORMS
liar (noun)
liars (plural noun)

is that the definition you're looking for?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You didn't miss it.
He provided no link that backed up his claim.

correct, he provided two links, one for Greenland and one for North America. Now kids, you have to do a little work and combine the two data points and intersect the timelines. and baddaboom will you look at that.

No, none of the links he provided had enough detail to back up his claim.

yes they did I pointed to it.

Liar.

li·ar
[ˈlī(ə)r]
deceiver · fibber · perjurer · false witness · fabricator ·
equivocator · fabulist · storyteller
ORIGIN
Old English lēogere (see lie2, -ar4).
RELATED FORMS
liar (noun)
liars (plural noun)

is that the definition you're looking for?

Yes, that describes you. Thanks!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't know that I have ever seen a more lazy bunch of people..."show your source"..."show your source"..."give us a link"...."give us a link"...what the hell is wrong with you people? Are you afraid that if you take 15 seconds to look that you will find out that he is right?...Well guess what...he is...

A quick google of what he is saying verifies it satisfactorily....

Ancient Greenland Was Actually Green

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | DNA reveals Greenland's lush past

Ice-covered Greenland was a conifer forest half-a-million years ago

Oldest Known DNA Found in Greenland Ice Core

DNA Discovery Shows Greenland's Warm Past, Altering Thoughts on Climate Change

DNA discovery reveals Greenland's warm past

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070705153019.htm

http://www.au.agwscam.com/pdf/Greenland's lush past.pdf

The above links represent about 5 minutes of looking...get off your dead asses and do something for yourselves once in a while...you sound like a bunch of magpies..."give us a link"..."give us a link"...

So now if a green greenland 450 to 800 thousand years ago presents a problem with what you believe you know...then that's just too f'ing bad, isn't it?....it is tough to argue with the discovery of DNA under 2 KM of ice... One of the articles even states that the data is contrary to what we thought we knew...but then finding out that what we thought we knew wasn't true at all isn't unusual is it?...isn't that what science is all about?....

Only in climate science does the discovery that what we thought we knew isn't true spark such universal outrage and denial...grow up you bunch of pussies.

Really? Asking for the source material of someone's claim is now being lazy? Are you insane or just stupid? Maybe you just don't understand the process of debate. When someone makes a claim, and quotes (or references a source) I would like to know the source so that I can look at the same information they did. If that makes me lazy then I am as lazy as heck.

it is when the source material was indeed provided and you don't read it. yep that would be you be lazy.

No, what happened was I missed it. I am human after all and make mistakes. When I do, I own them and take responsibility for them. You seem to be quite invested in name-calling, something for which I have no time.

You didn't miss it.
He provided no link that backed up his claim.

correct, he provided two links, one for Greenland and one for North America. Now kids, you have to do a little work and combine the two data points and intersect the timelines. and baddaboom will you look at that.

at 450,000 years Greenland was green and 450,000 years ago North America was still ice to Indiana. would you look at that. match!

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 beetles.

Sometime. Not the entire time. DERP!

 

[jc456]

correct, he provided two links, one for Greenland and one for North America. Now kids, you have to do a little work and combine the two data points and intersect the timelines. and baddaboom will you look at that.

No, none of the links he provided had enough detail to back up his claim.

yes they did I pointed to it.

Liar.

li·ar
[ˈlī(ə)r]
deceiver · fibber · perjurer · false witness · fabricator ·
equivocator · fabulist · storyteller
ORIGIN
Old English lēogere (see lie2, -ar4).
RELATED FORMS
liar (noun)
liars (plural noun)

is that the definition you're looking for?

Yes, that describes you. Thanks!

what describes me? you asked for Liar. That was the definition I gave it clearly points out how it describes you factually. Keep trying though, your reading skills just might get better. I'm not betting on that, but blind squirrels like you can find acorns they say.

 

[jc456]

Really? Asking for the source material of someone's claim is now being lazy? Are you insane or just stupid? Maybe you just don't understand the process of debate. When someone makes a claim, and quotes (or references a source) I would like to know the source so that I can look at the same information they did. If that makes me lazy then I am as lazy as heck.

it is when the source material was indeed provided and you don't read it. yep that would be you be lazy.

No, what happened was I missed it. I am human after all and make mistakes. When I do, I own them and take responsibility for them. You seem to be quite invested in name-calling, something for which I have no time.

You didn't miss it.
He provided no link that backed up his claim.

correct, he provided two links, one for Greenland and one for North America. Now kids, you have to do a little work and combine the two data points and intersect the timelines. and baddaboom will you look at that.

at 450,000 years Greenland was green and 450,000 years ago North America was still ice to Indiana. would you look at that. match!

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 beetles.

Sometime. Not the entire time. DERP!

so you think it was a day, a week, a year? Or since they used a 350,000 year window that maybe it was a longer time frame. And, during that time, did North America have ice? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

 

[LaDexter]

Sometime. Not the entire time. DERP!

and the fact that Greenland has been moving NW for the past 100 million years... well, that's just another "data" to be ignored???

What caused Greenland's recent ice age? What made it get COLDER??

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

it is when the source material was indeed provided and you don't read it. yep that would be you be lazy.

No, what happened was I missed it. I am human after all and make mistakes. When I do, I own them and take responsibility for them. You seem to be quite invested in name-calling, something for which I have no time.

You didn't miss it.
He provided no link that backed up his claim.

correct, he provided two links, one for Greenland and one for North America. Now kids, you have to do a little work and combine the two data points and intersect the timelines. and baddaboom will you look at that.

at 450,000 years Greenland was green and 450,000 years ago North America was still ice to Indiana. would you look at that. match!

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 beetles.

Sometime. Not the entire time. DERP!

so you think it was a day, a week, a year? Or since they used a 350,000 year window that maybe it was a longer time frame. And, during that time, did North America have ice? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

so you think it was a day, a week, a year?

I don't have any opinion on the length.
Just pointing out the failure to back up his claim.

And, during that time, did North America have ice?

Did it? Post your evidence.

 

[jc456]

No, what happened was I missed it. I am human after all and make mistakes. When I do, I own them and take responsibility for them. You seem to be quite invested in name-calling, something for which I have no time.

You didn't miss it.
He provided no link that backed up his claim.

correct, he provided two links, one for Greenland and one for North America. Now kids, you have to do a little work and combine the two data points and intersect the timelines. and baddaboom will you look at that.

at 450,000 years Greenland was green and 450,000 years ago North America was still ice to Indiana. would you look at that. match!

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 beetles.

Sometime. Not the entire time. DERP!

so you think it was a day, a week, a year? Or since they used a 350,000 year window that maybe it was a longer time frame. And, during that time, did North America have ice? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

so you think it was a day, a week, a year?

I don't have any opinion on the length.
Just pointing out the failure to back up his claim.

And, during that time, did North America have ice?

Did it? Post your evidence.

Did it? Post your evidence

already posted by LaDexter. You have it, read it, again, I don't do probono work.

Well even if it was a frikn day, it was green, right? How is it he lied? he never gave a timeline on how long.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sometime. Not the entire time. DERP!

and the fact that Greenland has been moving NW for the past 100 million years... well, that's just another "data" to be ignored???

What caused Greenland's recent ice age? What made it get COLDER??

and the fact that Greenland has been moving NW for the past 100 million years

How far did it move?
Has your claim morphed into, "Greenland was warmer when it was further south than North America"?
Because that would be funny.

What caused Greenland's recent ice age?

I'm more interested in "what caused one in North America during the same period that Greenland was warm"?

 

[jc456]

rinse!