Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire The Simple Proof that Global Warming is a Scam

Nobody I know plants their garden before Memorial Day here. The true garden freaks have lights and some sort of indoor arrangement until after Memorial Day.




Dave

You guys look pretty silly falling for that line.

The "green Greenland" story is a recent invention. When I was young, the common myth was more about politics. The history of it is less dramatic....

https://andreaskluth.org/2010/02/04/the-story-of-iceland-and-greenland/

Regardless of what you and I think about the climate and its history, it's important to - as that article says - "Never underestimate the power of narrative." The author's point about fiction trumping non-fiction is definitely relevant to the climate discussion.

CO2 makes up significantly less than 1% of our atmosphere. It's mass is too small to begin to make a difference by any route predicted by AGW.

Your link does nothing to disprove, in fact it supports, the facts about Erik the Red naming and settling Greenland about 982 AD during the Medieval Warm Period.
The main village grew to over 5000, but by the beginning of the Little Ice Age they were all gone. The timber had been all cut and it was getting a lot colder.
The Atlantic Ice Pack began to move south around 1250 AD.

Nor was it meant to. The point was that it wasn't named Greenland because of the island being "covered in green grass". It was greener than today, I suppose, but not even mostly green, by all accounts I have read. Don't let your argument be tainted by the exaggeration. The "deliberate misnaming" angle has been accepted history for much longer than the advent of the current global warming scare.

It's nothing more than wealth distribution. And those they are stealing the wealth from are not wealthy.

Not according to Smithsonian.com

"Accordingly, the Vikings were not just dumb, they also had dumb luck: They discovered Greenland during a time known as the Medieval Warm Period, which lasted from about 900 to 1300. Sea ice decreased during those centuries, so sailing from Scandinavia to Greenland became less hazardous. Longer growing seasons made it feasible to graze cattle, sheep and goats in the meadows along sheltered fjords on Greenland’s southwest coast."

Let's be clear. I keep reading claims on this forum that imply Greenland was named that because it was mostly green during that time. That is the "green Greenland" story that I am referring to. Perhaps that is not what people mean, but that is how it comes across and is repeated. There is a big difference in my mind between "green Greenland" and "feasible to graze cattle, sheep and goats in the meadows along sheltered fjords on Greenland’s southwest coast". This is a point that gets our side of the debate into trouble.

edit: And as I said - the "deliberate misnomer" has been accepted history, and was so long before anybody on the other side of the climate debate ever thought of it.

The only story I have in this regard (having to do with the global warming argument) has had to do with the ability to graze livestock there due to it having been a warmer climate at that time (resulting in green pastures), so I don't know what you're talking about. I made no statement about why it was named Greenland. I've always heard it was named that to encourage folks to colonize it.

ONe has only to pay attention to who the alarmists are and how they live to see it. This is nothing about changing anything meaningful....anything, and more about maintaining a certain lifestyle at status quo.

Look at the mansions they don't want to lose.

We can certainly be more aware and careful of our resource use, but shipping our manufacturing off to foreign countries so we don't pollute and destroy our own is as deceitful as anything, and it doesn't improve a thing. If humans actually are causing a measurable difference in overall climate, reverting to the use of wood or other plant-based resources for energy needs won't change anything for the positive. Quite the contrary. Then again, adding a couple billion more humans is hardly a solution either.

The only story you have? Might you back up a few posts?

Not you....



You...



If you mean to say that Greenland hasn't always been this icy, then by all means say so. But "Greenland" because it was" just gets us bogged down.

You don't think it being green in the areas they grazed livestock had something to do with it? The main point of what I said was that it was warmer then. The reason for the naming was an aside that you chose to focus on. We don't know for sure why they named it, but whether it was because it was green where they grazed livestock or because it was a selling point back home, or a combination of the two, isn't central to the point.

PS You had claimed that I said the island was mostly green, thus the name. I didn't say that.

Greenland is to big for it to be all Green Greenland, but it was Green, where its was Green. But not completely Green Greenland, because its to big.
Its full of snow and ice.

The day that the climate DOESN'T change, is the day to start getting worried.

Like the extreme dollar amounts the mining companies have to pay for coal leases, the crazy taxes imposed on coal and oil? They are trying to build some wind farms here before 2020 when the tax benefits go away because it is not profitable otherwise. I dont see wind power or solar power building schools in communities and providing infrastructure...

You are the only one getting "bogged" down...