Emma wrote on Feb 16
th, 2012 at 10:12pm:
Hey Gizvoid, you're the one denying it. You and your conjecture of the time it took in 900-1300AD to shrink- AND REGROW is simply a nonsense.
There were not billions upon billions of people, animals, factories, airtravel ,,, and the list goes on... in THOSE DAYS.
YOUR argument is simply untenable.
There CAN BE NO valid comparison, as you'd like, because the facts are NOT the same.
You CANNOT in all honesty suggest this..if you grasp this.... so you are just a s..,..stirrer. Yeah. We know.!!
How is it nonsense??.....Don't you expect the Arctic to recover at some point in the future?? (either through natural means or by 'reduction of Anthropogenic C02).
However, in order to claim my points about the time line for previous Arctic melts are 'conjecture', you need to:
A) Prove that mankind alone is responsible (which you can't), or
B) Prove that the rate of change NOW is higher than it has been in the past (which, so far, none of you have been able/willing to do)...
You're are using the warmist argument as the basis for 'proving' warmist argument....That's circular reasoning ( of the Biblical sort...i.e the Bible proves God exists, because the Bible says so)...
Try refuting my position that the Arctic ice lose is a natural and cyclic happening, without using 'because there's more people now' as the entire explanation...
Tell me how much greater the 'rate of change' is now, compared to 880 ad to 950 ad.....one times, two times, five times etc...(with comparative figures......maybe tonnes of ice lost per year/decade then and now?)