Ice Free Antarctica Until 3,000 B.C.

Ostanes, all you seem to want to do is argue, rather than having a discussion on the results of different scientific expeditions and research, so I'll leave you to it.

Please note that the article says that

Quote

Antarctic surface waters were warm and ice free between 10,000 and 5000 cal yr B.P

. It does not say that the Antarctic was ice free. If you ever had to melt ice to get a drink of water or to wash clothes, etc., you would realize that although the surface water can become quite warm, the ice is still there, below the surface water. I have no doubt the scientists are reporting exactly what they found, and that is what I am studying. If I don't understand the information, I try to find someone who is qualified who can help me out. Don't try to keep insulting me with childish remarks, like I think I know everything. I most certainly don't know everything and that's why I keep studying and personal insults have no place in a conversation or discussion with mature adults.

I realize you are studying also but if you want to interact with others and discuss the findings of different scientific endeavors, then perhaps you should lose the chip on your shoulder. If you don't want discussion, then just open a thread and post your theory like others have done. However, you must expect others to question your deductions and reasoning. A lot of the posters in this forum are students, acquiring an education to achieve their career goals. This forum was actually started by students who were in a different forum to begin with, and they got tired of certain people dominating the conversations, and not listening to what they had to say even though they were offering some wonderful dialog on a number of subjects. In this forum, people are free to express themselves, although there are a few who still don't get it, that even though someone doesn't agree with them, that person is still entitled to have their say without being insulted. How boring it would be, if this was just a mutual admiration society, where everyone agreed with what everyone else said, and no one did any research for themselves.

I said your manner of using the info is deceptive. I said this because you deliberately drop bits and pieces of information you seem to feel are relevant to whatever it is you're trying to point out, but you don't explain why you're using this information, what relevance it has to whatever you're trying to say, and in my opinion, you have misinterpreted the information given. That is not an insult. It's my observation of what you've put forward. As far as I can figure out from what bits and pieces you've been dropping about the Antarctica,
you're trying to show that the Antarctica was ice free. If that's not what you're trying to show, then I've totally misunderstood what it is you are trying to show. However, if you re-read what the article says, as I pointed out before, it does not say the Antarctica was ice free.

Perhaps you could fix the link in your first post in this thread as it doesn't work.