Suzie

The last ice age occurred from approximately 110,000bc to 12000bc. It is not thought contrary to scientific agreement that Neanderthals rubbing sticks together to cook their antelopes melted the glaciation. Prior to this ice age there was also the so called snowball Earth when there was ice even at the equator, the reasons for this if explained by scientist are lies because the reasons for this are just not known. However the climate nazies who ban all thought not in agreement with the new world agenda know everything, just ask them.

Any answer that I would give would offend the climate nazies that burn any book, article or internet post that does not agree with Hitlers climate change agenda. That said do the nazies that ban all opinions different than their own really care about the truth?

The current warming trend began at the high point of the last ice age, when the ice began to melt. Now you know, do you think any scientist can dispute this scientifically? I give precise answers Always

So you believe in what the supposed scientist say, and accept this without a single fact, just that they are in agreement. If this is wrong just say in one sentence why the glacier that covered North America could have melted without help from the industrial age

The claims I made are that none of you can articulate what the evidence is that humans are responsible for climate change. Links don't count for squat because I can provide links proving bigfoot, nessie, aliens and a hundreds links disproving climate change. I do not want a link war because nothing on the internet is verifiable as I just pointed out. The fact remains that no person can articulate how glaciers formed and melted without human help, but now all climate changes are caused by humans. Now explain how the single thousands of feet thick glacier that covered most of North America melted without human help? You can't except to deny that this ever happened, or to be a denier of science How can an ice core be dated without knowing how many years of surface ice have melted? Or are you claiming that no melting occurred? Are pictures of people coring ice evidence? Of what exactly Some people see climate change in the photo below, it's not. The photo shows an example of air pollution When did the current warming trend begin? Are you saying that if someone has faith in science, that this is wrong and you will not allow this???

I have not denied anything, I am asking you why you believe as you do, and you just threw that answer back to me. Spock would call this illogical

In other words you have no info, just your faith in science which also has faith in itself

I can locate this info, but you do not have it.... This is faith not science Climate change killed 98 to 99 percent of all species long before the first human. We are just another species, in fact the only way we live is to travel off the Earth as the next mass extinction is a matter of when not if You neglected to include what it is that you understand you know the evidence. Fact, faith requires no evidence, just a need to belong to a group. The climate science group is therefore faith based. You can prove this wrong with evidence that massive climate changes did not happen before humans. You can also be serious only after you stop driving

You neglected to provide either the evidence or how it was gathered. Also the rate of change now is far less then when the entire earth was ice covered, or from when this ice melted. In a court one must both detail not just the evidence, but how it was gathered, none of that has happened. But since all scientist agree, which they do not you accept bogus unverified evidence

How can glacial ice be dated, being that in warm periods which clearly happen, the ice at the top will melt. Which erases years or decades, or even hundreds of years of ice. So ice care dating makes the assumption that the top players are recent when they may well be millenia old. Since the amount of this melt can never be known, what use is ice core dating

It's a lot more complex than that you say, and since you are a scientist you can not explain it. You are describing religious faith, not in God but in the scientist that have never explained this, which does not matter because you choose to believe. If the temp dropped enough to cover all of Canada and half of America, this denotes massive climate change. Then it warmed enough to melt this we have more massive climate change, all without humans. So why do scientist want the climate to stop changing, isn't that like demanding that volcanoes stop erupting What is gradual about glaciers covering two thirds of north America melting, or those glaciers forming due to massive temp drops? Bye the way taking ice cores of already melted glaciers is not possible, nor is it possible to be credible and not account for this melt

And please refrain from saying all scientist agree, because that is no different then saying all Christians believe in Jesus and all Muslims believe in Allah. So be cognitive that all scientist who are in agreement have actually formed a religion. Be aware that I know that climate change is happening, and has always been happening even before humans knew that the Earth was a planet and for 5 billion years before that. 98 percent of all Earth ice was melted by the year 10,000bc, no matter if Mann only wants to look at the last 1000 years, which is like looking at life as it began 1000 years ago. Why are million year old fossils scientifically relevant and only the last 150 years of temp matters, because the statement that climate is changing faster now is NOT scientific until the past is evaluated

I suppose it depends upon what one considers hot, but since water is no longer liquid at 28 to 32 degrees depending on the dissolved mineral content, and at 212 degrees it begins to turn into vapor, the definition of hot as observed by the human is anything over body temp 98 degrees and boiling. Water at this temp does not freeze, thus anyone who observes it freezing faster then water at below this temp is observing an anomaly in need of investigation.

or try to hunt invasive species to extinction? Doesn't matter if it is carp, in the missisippy or pythons in the everglades or zebra mussels in the great lakes. For some reason humans seek to exterminate any species that moved into a new zone. By this standard we should be eliminating the people who drained the everglades and dammed too many rivers exterminating them of native fish species. So isn't the human the Earths most invasive species and should they be eliminated in order to preserve the ecosystem? Or are ecosystems designed to change which is the reason that 98 to 99 percent of all species are extinct? Food for thought as you step on that anthill

Hot water does not freeze