Actually it was the Vikings who found Greenland (they named it in their own language) Greenland is the literal translation. Anyway, at the time the Vikings found Greenland it was a new and farthest point they had gone west. The name was really to encourage others from what is now Scandanavia and Norway to follow west and settle, but in the end Greenland failed the Vikings cultivation was impossible and even native grasses could not sustain livestock. I guess they got tired of fish. They abandond Greenland

Thank you for the info. The vikings did settle there and I think... archeologists and socialogists are not sure why the habitation failed. It may have been a change in the weather or social problems, disease? They just aren't sure. But as studies have found it wasn't a small settlement, nor was it a short habitation as they originally thought.

A very intelligent and well thought out response. That catchall explanation probably explains why people are gullible enough to believe in the “science” of Al Gore and Osama bin laden.

You obviously don't read my real threads This one is a joke you could not comprehend because your one of them

I actually took the opportunity to play off your "Joke" turn its conclusion around and apply it to global warming believers while simultaneously taking a cynical jab at some of the advocates of global warming.

Being that I read your threads here, and none of them actually address the article, I figured a cynical jab is the only way to get you and others like you to think critically and actually formulate an argument based on the material in the article.

Keep sucking (exhaust) pipe though. I am sure you are good at that.

Yes! but don't do it under the pretext of Anthropogenic global warming!

Good point.

I agree with what you said. We need to take care of the environment and raise awareness. As I said to Jan below, this shouldn't be done through convenient scare tactics, or pseudo science generated to drive an agenda through unethical means.

It's not a "scare" tactic. It's just common sense.

You cannot spew 500 metric tons of DUST into the atmosphere every single day for decades and just claim it has no effect.

You just don't like it and thus you label it a "scare" tactic.

Stay focused. I made no claims whatsoever regarding the atmosphere or holes in the Ozone layer, nor do I “like pollution.” I dislike pollution but also dislike scaring people into hysteria using fraudulent science, to drive forth an agenda, even if the legislation that follows may be beneficial.

"...to drive forth an agenda, even if the legislation that follows may be beneficial."

Who exactly is "scared"?

We all just agree that reducing industrial pollution is a good idea AND we think it will help with reducing climate change.

You dismiss all this as "hysteria" but then in the next breath claim (yeah, right!) that you want to reduce pollution as well.

They why are you so emotionally invested in "proving" that climate change has absolutely nothing to do with industry or manufactuering?

Once again you are arguing against points that you made when you had a hypothetical conversation with yourself. From that self- argument you drew conclusions and tried to apply them to me and “the climate skeptics” all the while forgetting that it was you that made these counter arguments. The fact that you need to engage in self argumentation to create your own counter arguments and answers to these counter arguments, suggests that you are uncertain of your own opinions, and need to use this methodology to validate your own beliefs-not to me or current- but to yourself!

Your responses are littered with logical fallacies. There is no positive or negative correlation in any manner at all between a dislike of hysteria and wanting to reduce pollution.

The argument of saying that manufacturing is or is not causing global warming is one that you alone are making. As the above article indicates nothing is causing global warming as the planet itself is not warming.

Read the article before you comment. Then read, understand and address the arguments instead of posting knee-jerk scatterbrained shitty comments.

Oh yes! A hypothetical argument with yourself in which you frame the opposing argument, does well to prove your point.

It's valid. You're entire arguement is that pumping 500 metric tons of dust into the atmosphere has NO EFFECT...based on the theory that you just don't think it does.

It's (to be blunt) a retarded idea on the very surface.

Of course DUST and other particulates DOES reflect light and capture heat and have all sorts of impacts on weather patterns. And yes we will have to use goverment force in order to FORCE manufactuerer to stop spewing 500 metric tons of dust and particulates into the atmosphere.

You and all other climate change deniers rebuttal is simply "No it doesn't!" or the more scientific "Jesus loves us and he wouldn't do that!" or even "It is getting warmer on Mars so...that means that 500 metric tons of dust spewed into the upper atmosphere, uh, has no effect on anything! Ever!"

Seriously....explain to us how 500 metric tons of dust being spewed into the atmosphere every day has no impact?

Nope that's your entire argument you had with yourself. I made no claims regarding "liberals" or political ideologies whatsoever. I never made any arguments based on a hypothetical data set in which I concluded it would good for the environment to “pump 500 tons of dust” into the atmosphere. Those were all arguments and conclusions you made based on an internet conservation you had with yourself.

In regards to the snippet about "myself and all the climate change skeptics." You and the other followers of the global warming dogma are actually much more analogous to a religious faith, complete with a Messianic figure (gore), a global warming doomsday, blind faith and the inability to even briefly consider the overwhelming evidence refuting the claims of the church of climatology.

If the end result is exactly the same -- government regulations -- then what, pray tell, is your problem?

Whether climate change is occuring because of one man-made problem or an entirely different man-made problem.....your ass is going to get REGULATED BY GOVERNMENT.

You keep insisting that you only have a problem with climate change being presented as Anthropogenic global warming....but let's just be honest, you're worried about government regulations. That's why we're not having a passionate debate about the Dead Sea Scrolls...because the outcome of that debate wouldn't result in any regulations on industry.

And you and the other deniers believe that if you can disprove Anthropogenic global warming....then ALL climate change theories will be invalidated and thus there will never be any government regulations. Ever.

Are you denying this?

Are will you welcome with open arms strict pollution regulations for industry irregardless of whether Anthropogenic global warming is real or false?

I can tell you are confused. I will clarify. My position in this commentary is novel in that it based on the above article. I want you remember that this, and only this is my position and not the positions you came up with from arguing with yourself. Global warming, a crumbling theory, was just completely debunked by a Professor Phil Jones, one of the foremost advocates of the theory, as he stated that the planet hasn’t warmed since 1995. Therefore Global warming is not a valid pretext for implementing any policies as it is not based in science but fraud.

Now I am doubtful that led to any understanding for you. I suggest you go and read the article for what will probably be the first time. Only than will you understand and realize that regulations, pollution being a good thing, and some fantastical shit about the Dead Sea Scrolls, are all products of arguments you have had with yourself.

hear, hear

All of a sudden you disrespect what Phil Jones says, what a side splitter.

Now that he isn't on the payroll for the Global warming hysteria machine I'll take his word over yours. The planet isn't warming. .But you can still pay homage to Al Gore; religions have never been based on science so you are ok, but you still need him as a messianic figure.

This isn't about Al Gore to me, though, he is correct about the effects of climate change and knows much more about this than you ever could hope to. As is David Suzuki, Dr. Robert Correll, and a host of scientists not part of your little witchhunt. This is about the truth. You just showed your true colors here as well. You are nothing but a political mouthpiece repeating the denier lie of the day.

Global warming advocates are the ones making it political. no amount of "binding international treaties" or "global governance" will ever be enough to keep the sea levels from rising.

but this is the fantasy you live in Jan

LOL, it really bugs you that I support Al Gore doesn't it? That is what this is really all about. Good, get used to it, because it isn't changing anytime soon. Oh, and read the posts on this site. I support EVERYTHING that has to do with the environment. Matter of fact I have three entire groups dedicated to it. Again, nothing to refute the crap that was posted. The Arctic is melting, rapidly, which is the key word and It IS having an effect on atmosphere, climate, ocean currents, weather, and even the levels of PCBS, mercury and other toxins HUMANS have put into the environment. I support reversing that. What do you support besides getting on here to degrade Al Gore simply because this is his station? Don't even think to make me believe you or any of the ignorant usuals who flock to these threads with their stupid pictures and propaganda are serious about anything else.

but the thing is it is important to question, i don't know and neither do you, if someone cant accept that, i think they are lying to them-self. I think there is a lot of evidence both ways, and its interesting to look at both sides, I've read a lot of theories on it being a worldwide conspiracy, which although unlikely could be possible. But then i have seen a lot of figures which show otherwise. The source is not that viable, the mail is known for spin probably more than any other paper in the UK.
But you shouldn't just accept figures and statistics on any side of a debate, they can be twisted and manipulated. A lot of intelligent people are skeptics, if everyone just went along not questioning, wouldn't it be a boring world?
We wouldn't have made any scientific discoveries, or gone to the moon. For every 1000 scientists that thinks something truly mad, at least one great advancement must of come from it!

keep fighting the good fight, jan (:

Nothing is wrong with protecting the environment. I honestly applaud your efforts in that regard and for keeping tabs on companies like Monsanto GMO foods. Yes you are an environmentalist and you have an agenda, and you should further that agenda because it is beneficial to all of us.

However, pseudo scare science like global warming should not be used as a vehicle to further that agenda,. Many environmentalists recognize that a global concept that involves a human generated apocalypse is a very useful tactic for getting policy passed to further their environmental agenda, and will defend the concept even when they know the weight of scientific authority is against it. While their aims are noble, their methodology is still fraudulent and dishonest, and that’s why I will ask you again to drop the global warming and directly advocate for the environment

This story has also been picked up by the examiner, the wallstreetJournal and numrous other news orgainzations.

http://www.examiner.com/x-6503-Ft-Lauderdale-Science-News-Examiner~y2010m2d15-Ke...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703630404575053781465774008.html

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/02/16/climategater-jones-stunnin...

You simply show your disconnect by stating in one breath that you are against Monsanto, and then saying that global warming is not part of the environmental dialogue. You simply cannot stand up against their deforestation of Latin America to grow Gm soy, for instance, and not admit that the deforestation causes an increase in Co2 emissions. It clearly shows a lack of knowledge of science and shows a political agenda. One is inextricably linked to the other. Therefore to state that anthropogenic global warming is not real is ignorant, because HUMANS cut down trees, HUMANS deplete soil carbon, and HUMANS run coal plants. So the only agenda you have shown here is your own, and it isn't about truly tackling environmental problems of which global warming is one.

I am afraid you are the one showing your disconnect from reality Janifer. You don't have to be a card carrying member of the Church of Climatology to be an environmentalist. Your point about deforestation is only valid if: (1) you believe the planet is warming and (2) you believe carbon causes the planet to warm.

If you actually read the above article, you can address the first condition without having to even address the second.

So while you think I may have subtly revealed some insidious agenda. I can say that you have overtly revealed yours in that you refuse to even read or acknowledge anything that may be critical of your position.

Its called Climate Change get used to it, weather patterns around the world are changing
global warming was a misnomer. Climate change is whats happening and its going to get a whole lot worse because people are not very bright
Do you buy car insurance?
You pay federal unemployment insurance?
People buy life insurance
But people are opposed to spending tax dollars to buy the insurance that can maybe change the speed or halt the man made change that is occuring.

I'm opposed to spending tax dollars we don't have on anything in an economic recession. And I sure as hell don't want my taxes raised for anything.

Guess what, your taxes and everyone elses are going to go up when our bond rating drops. Did you read the news today that China dumped tens upon tens of billions in treasury notes and Japan has become our biggest debtor or were you too busy attacking the so called left wing loonies. Get real dude no amount of budget cutting at the federal level can ever balance the budget even with 7.5% economic growth for the twenty years.
You ought to go take some classes in economics because you don't know jack shit

Bullshit. Bill Clinton could balance the budget, with no Republican help by the way. So why can't Obama?

It was called the dot com boom in econimic terms used for that period when dot.com companies exploded all over creating the greatest number of millioniares in the shortest period of time in use history. The tax base soared, Bill Clinton utilized pay as you go just as Obama now has to slower the growth of federal spending. I'm recalling from memory on this statisic but at one time during that period there were thirty five thousand millionaires being made a year, it was at least a year maybe less, but Clinton had nothing to do with the dot com boom, he mearly rode an historical economic event as high tech consumer products became ever more available to the masses. Creating thousands of new start up companies that well, expanded the econmy

Yes, I remember very well, no need for the history lesson. But what does that have to do with balancing a budget. 1 plus 1 still equals 2. If you only have 1, you can't spend 2. If you can't afford it, don't buy it. I balance my budget, why can't the government.

umm have you seen current lately? not alot of conservatives on here.

conspiracy!! lulz

because he says his data shows that there has been no increase in temp for the last 15 years, but cant produce the data? sure

your right I am sorry. I am going to write Professor Jones and complain that he did not bring his 15 years of data with him when he did the interview. I mean he should really be able to fit that in one trapper-keeper right?