There is no debate.
That’s the bit you’re not getting. There’s only Big Oil and Coal etc, and the Charlatan shills they pay handsomely to make up a whole lot of crap for half wits to buy into.
Like there was no debate about Cigarettes being addictive, … and there’s no debate about vaccinations, and there’s no debate the Earth is round.
There’s the truth / Science, then there’s Greedy liars and assorted suckers, … and that’s not name calling, … it’s just the facts Jack.
YThe point I am making is that Greenland had less ice in the recent past then it does now and so did the Artic Circle in at least some places. These are known historical facts.
CO2 played no part in these climate changes…so something else made this happen. And these changes were relatively brief maybe over a only a couple of hundred years.
Well what caused those climate changes ?
PS - I acknowledge the Northwest passage was only navigated fully by boat in the early 1900s and is now used by suitable vessels at suitable times of the year due to consistent warming in the last decade or so removing the threat of icebergs…this was not able to be done in the previous hundred years and before the 1900s, was impossible … many died trying
So half wit and sucker is not name calling…ok
Everything’s got to have a name right? Swap them out for ignoramases if you like, … but thats a name too I spose. What are ya gonna do? 
(We really need a shrug emoji )
Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back up these assertions?
I am struggling to see the relevance of your questions here.
No credible scientist denies that factors like volcanic activity, solar intensity, etc etc can affect the earth’s climate, or that they have done so in the past.
But the earth’s climate is changing massively NOW, and none of these factors seems to be responsible. Whereas we also know that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can change the climate, and we know the concentrations of these gases are increasing due to human activity, and we know that global temperatures are increasing accordingly.
Your argument seems to be the logical equivalent of smoking all your life, being diagnosed with lung cancer, and then telling the doctor that it’s impossible you have lung cancer because you read an article one time about a bloke in the 50s who got lung cancer from mining asbestos.
I’ll continue to humour you on this, but your making this harder.
Quick question, do you know what the North Atlantic current is? And it’s relation to climate?
tell me more
You’ve just admitted that what you’re doing is trolling because you don’t like how other people are playing hard, and your NW passage post is textbook trolling. People will play hard because the issue is SO farking serious and the science is in.
If you want to be a part of the discussion stop pretending to be some wide eyed seeker of truth and read some of the facts being presented. But that won’t happen because your little loops are very evident. You’re the crusty corporate banker and this thread is the lunchtime madame with the dog leash and the whip. Get off somewhere else if you can’t be an adult.
I struggle to think of you other than a Troll, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
I understand the difference between climate and weather, I understand about ice caps melting and glaciers disappearing in spite of record snow falls in some parts, I understand the effects of solar activity on weather and I believe Man has been the greatest influence on climate change.
And I get a nice part of my business from Mining including coal, oil & gas.
What I don’t get is the closed mind of @sorfed , and other and the approach that you are taking on such a serious issue.
That’s good sciencing.
LOL.
No.
You apparently have no shortage of time to hang around the lunatic fringe of the internet and dump every link you find there in this thread, but every time someone mentions a basic fact that contradicts one of your borrowed screeds, it’s incumbent on them to spend their time explaining it to you here?
Do some googling. Start with wikipedia. This is information that is very easy to find IF you look for it in good faith,.
(Oh, and how are you going with the Yale climate science lecture series I linked you to earlier in the thread? Cos if you’ve got time to be hanging around Watts Up With That, then I’m SURE a dedicated seeker of truth like you would have taken the time to listen to a respected and recognised scientific expert explain the subject from the ground up, in a nurturing educational environment where no meanie will force you into believing lies by being sarcastic at you…)
me too, he did make geo sound pretty cool back then
You are right, that is not good sciencing. However it may be a credible political effect. Perhaps that is one for the political correctness thread.
I don’t think so.
The sort of constantly dropping links to anything that suits your argument, whether you’ve looked into it (or even care if it turns out not to be true) or not, certainly happens on political/ethical issues, but by the time you’re at that point then abuse (often born of frustration at the tactic) isn’t going to shift a person one way or another.
I get it, in a way.
The fantastic is certainly more interesting.
Who are the scientists ? What are their names and qualifications. Used to live next door to a bloke who claimed he was a Navy Seal and an astronaut. Did speak with a Yankee accent though.
Think he meant philosophers
That was me. Militarised space seals are a thing. I just wear the skin of a human.
No. Glass does not flow in any measurable sense in liveable environments.
Glass-making used to be somewhat shoddy, and crappy reporting (“half of all cathedral windows are thicker at the bottom”) is not evidence.
Glad I found you. How’s your wife and my kids ?