Quote from Tresor:
Yes, what are your beliefs. So far they are your beliefs that you did not support with any logical argumentation or calculations.
Well I haven't really posted many "beliefs." I've just been tearing your points apart like a dog with a bone. For example, your next one:
Let me qoute my points again:
1. History: Vikings arrived in a green island 1000 years ago, grew apples there, called the island Greenland.
I'm not sure which part of Greenland grew apples, but contrary to your theories it wasn't named because it was green.
To give you a little history Greenland was named by Eric the Red who felt that if he gave it an attractive name people would be more likely to settle there.
Yes, some parts were warmer than they are now -- but here's the funny part -- the Norse changed the climate via deforestation and changing the vegetation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_climate_optimum
So now do you understand how there are ancient ice cores in an area you thought was fully lush and green?
From history you know that there was NO INDUSTRY on Earth at that time to pollute the atmosphere to cause the green-house effect. Ergo, humans did not cause the greenhouse effect 1000 years ago. What makes you believe (not know, only believe) that humans caused the greenhouse effect these days?
Know. Unless you have some explanation of how CO2 molecules are not absorbing infra-red, or there isn't more CO2 and the Keeling curve is incorrect.
2. Physics: the simple experiment that you didn't do would prove idiosyncratic water abilities to absorb the ice.
I did the experiment. I filled a glass of water and dumped a bunch of ice on the table, since most ice is on land. I then had a mess. You know, it doesn't take a genius to google any of this.
3 Biology: photosynthesis; the more CO2, the better for the planet.
Please define the word "deforestation" for us. Do you understand what it means?
4 Geography: water cycle. The hotter, the more humidity (more water absorbed in the atmosphere), the more precipitation (also on the poles, thus retaining H20 as ice) = stable oceans / sea / lake water reserves.
First you'll have to get the entire antarctic to not be a desert.
So, it's not happening, humans haven't caused it anyway, and even if it is everything will be just fine. You may wish to stick to one incorrect argument or people will accuse you of denialism.
The above points can be used by a ten year old child to debate the CO2 scam.
Is that where you got them from?
The above points do not contradict. You did not prove these points wrong. If you did, this would mean that elementary school books need to be written from scratch.
You jump around from point to point and it only takes one sentence, or two sentences to blow your points out of the water. For example, your glass experiment when most ice is on land.
"A layer of ice up to two miles thick covers a continent as big as the United States and Mexico combined. Antarctic ice contains 70% of the world's fresh water (
90% of the world's ice). If it were divided up, every person on Earth could have a chunk of ice larger than the Great Pyramid. Although 98% of Antarctica is ice, there is land underneath the ice cover, unlike the Arctic where the ice floats on top of the ocean."
http://www.gma.org/surfing/antarctica/antarctica.html
I had also posted links to wikipedia where you could see with your eyes that CO2 levels had nothing to do with sea level increase / decrease in geological past.
If this is not suffiecient we can move to more advanced concepts, e.g. different saltness level vs ability of water to freeze.
Regards
Please, either give up or change your mind, but stop humiliating yourself.
