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

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.

already posted

Yes, I showed you how his post didn't prove his claim.
Do you need another remedial reading course?

Well even if it was a frikn day, it was green, right?

Show me on that green day that NA was covered in ice and you win.
 
Why does Trump hate America?

Show me on that green day that NA was covered in ice and you win.


Try this one... if the glaciers that dug out the Great Lakes were

"paul ryan" - Google Search

"The glacier, up to 2 miles thick, was so heavy and powerful it gouged out the earth's surface to create thelake basins."


So, Todd, if the glaciers were more than a mile thick, how many ANNUAL ICE CORES were present in them???
 
Why does Trump hate America?

Show me on that green day that NA was covered in ice and you win.


Try this one... if the glaciers that dug out the Great Lakes were

"paul ryan" - Google Search

"The glacier, up to 2 miles thick, was so heavy and powerful it gouged out the earth's surface to create thelake basins."


So, Todd, if the glaciers were more than a mile thick, how many ANNUAL ICE CORES were present in them???

Unless you're going to show Greenland ice free while the 2 miles of ice were on top of the Great Lakes area, you're drifting from the topic.
 
LMFAO!!!!

What you are arguing, hilariously, is that those mile plus high ice age glaciers which dug out the Great Lakes were somehow seriously young...

Sorry, you fail.
 
LMFAO!!!!

What you are arguing, hilariously, is that those mile plus high ice age glaciers which dug out the Great Lakes were somehow seriously young...

Sorry, you fail.

I'm not arguing anything about the age or youth of those glaciers.

Simply pointing out your utter failure at proving your claim.
 
So, you cannot state the obvious, that ice age glaciers more than a mile high are more than several hundred thousand years old??

How old is the Antarctic ice age, a few months???
 
So, you cannot state the obvious, that ice age glaciers more than a mile high are more than several hundred thousand years old??

How old is the Antarctic ice age, a few months???

So, you cannot state the obvious, that ice age glaciers more than a mile high are more than several hundred thousand years old??

They could very well be that old.
Now if you showed how old they were while also showing they formed while Greenland was warm, you'd have a point.
 
Are you into like multiple time=space parallel universes??

Time for Greenland was time for NA. Those mile high glaciers were in Indiana 16k years ago. At that time, the Greenland ice age had yet to freeze the southern tip, because the Vikings were farming there 15k years later... but it is frozen now.
 
Yep, that's the level of "science" by the doomsdayers.

Leading climate doomsayer Michael Mann recently downplayed the importance of climate change science, telling Democrats that data and models “increasingly are unnecessary” because the impact is obvious.

“Fundamentally, I’m a climate scientist and have spent much of my career with my head buried in climate-model output and observational climate data trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change,” Mr. Mann told the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee at a hearing.

“What is disconcerting to me and so many of my colleagues is that these tools that we’ve spent years developing increasingly are unnecessary because we can see climate change, the impacts of climate change, now, playing out in real time, on our television screens, in the 24-hour news cycle,” he said.

Mr. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, spoke before the committee June 17 in Phoenix.

His comment drew hoots from climate skeptics, including the website Greenie Watch, which posted his comment under the headline, “‘Scientist’ Michael Mann says there is no need for statistics: You can just SEE global warming.”

“Unsurprising. The statistics are pretty doleful for Warmism,” the site said in a Monday post.

Keep reading…
Actually you can, the Weather Channel has devoted time to show the effects of global warming......
 
Are you into like multiple time=space parallel universes??

Time for Greenland was time for NA. Those mile high glaciers were in Indiana 16k years ago. At that time, the Greenland ice age had yet to freeze the southern tip, because the Vikings were farming there 15k years later... but it is frozen now.

Those mile high glaciers were in Indiana 16k years ago.

Was Greenland ice free 16k years ago?

At that time, the Greenland ice age had yet to freeze the southern tip, because the Vikings were farming there 15k years later...

1000 years ago there was no ice sheet over NA. How does a warm tip of Greenland prove your previous claims?
 
Yep, that's the level of "science" by the doomsdayers.

Leading climate doomsayer Michael Mann recently downplayed the importance of climate change science, telling Democrats that data and models “increasingly are unnecessary” because the impact is obvious.

“Fundamentally, I’m a climate scientist and have spent much of my career with my head buried in climate-model output and observational climate data trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change,” Mr. Mann told the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee at a hearing.

“What is disconcerting to me and so many of my colleagues is that these tools that we’ve spent years developing increasingly are unnecessary because we can see climate change, the impacts of climate change, now, playing out in real time, on our television screens, in the 24-hour news cycle,” he said.

Mr. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, spoke before the committee June 17 in Phoenix.

His comment drew hoots from climate skeptics, including the website Greenie Watch, which posted his comment under the headline, “‘Scientist’ Michael Mann says there is no need for statistics: You can just SEE global warming.”

“Unsurprising. The statistics are pretty doleful for Warmism,” the site said in a Monday post.

Keep reading…
Actually you can, the Weather Channel has devoted time to show the effects of global warming......
sure they do. unproven.
 
Yep, that's the level of "science" by the doomsdayers.

Leading climate doomsayer Michael Mann recently downplayed the importance of climate change science, telling Democrats that data and models “increasingly are unnecessary” because the impact is obvious.

“Fundamentally, I’m a climate scientist and have spent much of my career with my head buried in climate-model output and observational climate data trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change,” Mr. Mann told the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee at a hearing.

“What is disconcerting to me and so many of my colleagues is that these tools that we’ve spent years developing increasingly are unnecessary because we can see climate change, the impacts of climate change, now, playing out in real time, on our television screens, in the 24-hour news cycle,” he said.

Mr. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, spoke before the committee June 17 in Phoenix.

His comment drew hoots from climate skeptics, including the website Greenie Watch, which posted his comment under the headline, “‘Scientist’ Michael Mann says there is no need for statistics: You can just SEE global warming.”

“Unsurprising. The statistics are pretty doleful for Warmism,” the site said in a Monday post.

Keep reading…
Actually you can, the Weather Channel has devoted time to show the effects of global warming......
sure they do. unproven.
You've never watched the Weather Channel, where have you been?
 
Back
Top Bottom