You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: My View on Climate Change Part 4 - The Maps!!!
I don't believe these ones do. If you haven't looked into these maps before it may be interesting. I have updated the article to include the maps and sources.
Will do. But was the larger point received? That there isn't good reason to suppose the ancient cartographers responsible for that map were more knowledgeable about the planet than modern scientists?
It is the sort of thing that would only be compelling to somebody looking for anything at all which aligns with their perspective.
They are showing details of the land mass that are under 100's of feet of ice now. We only know they are there due to seismic surveys. The maps themselves aren't that accurate. Perhaps I didn't do a good job of presenting the information. Admittedly I was pretty rushed putting this together and I didn't have a very good outline for my video.
I wouldn't go that far. It's a fine video, we just disagree about the significance of a 500 year old map.
It also bears repeating that AGW does not consist of the claim that it has never been warmer in Earth's history, we already know it has. Rather it's that the current warming is anomalously rapid, and coincides in a causally established way with the industrial revolution. We don't have to guess at how or why, because we know what the greenhouse effect is and how it works.
You have to remember that this is just one point of data in my overall view of the subject. Hence the series. Is the warming anomalously rapid? If the coast of Antarctica didn't have ice 500 years ago then that would sort of be proof that the earth could cool, and warm rapidly would it not?
Yes, it's been warmer overall in the past but records show it's never increased so quickly.
500 years isn't especially rapid. Recent climate change is happening on the scale of decades.
This is sort of my point of contention though. Our actual accurate records only go back maybe 170 years? Further then that and the temperatures are basically a best guess using other data like tree rings, coral growth, ice cores etc. So do we really know that the temperature changes are anomalous or are we just being told that due to a political agenda?
The people that create the temperature data from those sources also claim that the south pole has been covered in ice for tens of thousands if not millions of years. So if this area was charted 500 years ago or even several thousand years ago and didn't have full ice sheets then clearly something is wrong with their predictions.
Also, one of the strongest arguments against anthropogenic global warming is the Medieval Warm Period which had warmer temperatures then we do now. This weather during this period is well documented and there is a historical written record that it was very warm in Europe and North America.
The counter argument to this from the climate scientists is that this warming was only in the northern hemisphere and that during that time period the southern hemisphere was colder so global temperatures were still colder then now. However these maps would potentially debunk that theory, they seem to be proof that Antarctica was warmer as well. Which would mean that both northern and southern hemispheres were warm and therefor global temps were higher then they are today.
Only if AGW claimed it's never been warmer. But it doesn't. It only claims the most recent warming has been anomalously rapid. This is a common misunderstanding I see all over the place these days.
Do you recognize there exists a corporate agenda to confuse and mislead the public about this issue to prevent loss of profits? Remember how the tobacco companies did the same thing, misleading the public about the health effects of smoking by paying off corrupt scientists to say smoking is harmless? They did the same thing to conceal the health effects of leaded gasoline before that.
Why were they lying those times, but not this time? Why were the scientists they paid off to say smoking and leaded gasoline were harmless wrong then, but right about AGW?
Additionally, the maps bring into question almost all of our modern history teachings. Clearly Antarctica wasn't discovered in 1840. Yet, if you google "when was Antarctica discovered" that is what you are told. Should you trust information from people that are either stupid or lying?