All of your pet arguments are dismantled here:

http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

With further links for further study in each topic section.

Special bonus link for bilejones:

http://www.grist.org/article/antarctic-ice-is-growing/

No. You go check it out. Meanwhile, do you mean the new version (I saw that someone here commented that temperatures in the Medieval Warm Period were not as warm as today) or the old version (the one in which geologists have long accepted the inferred temperature levels of the time)?

*Sigh*

OK, I did look it up. Check this link:

http://www.grist.org/article/the-medieval-warm-period-was-just-as-warm-as-today/

complete with further links to explore.

Extra credit if you go to the parent page:

http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

where you'll find refutations of all the usual denier arguments.

The drawings of Erik's contemporaries of the settlements, revealing (among other things) what was growing there might have been part of his great scam as well, for all I know. So why did the settlement remain and why did it depart some decades into the mini-ice age? Or do I go to Yahoo answers for that too? Apparently it's the definitive source for Norwegian translations.

Go read Jared Diamond's book "Collapse." He discusses the case of the Greenland settlement at length.

But I always thought "the question of Climate change" was definitely answered a long time ago

Yep - but I thought the root causes of terrorism were pretty well understood too. And yet Glenn still writes posts about it and we discuss it.

it's not Glenns or my fault that some idiots still try to dispute it.

True again, but idiocy isn't isolated to the topic of climate change, nor is it in short supply - quite the opposite, usually.

While often frustrating, I will say it does spice up the comment section.

And that's why I think y'all might be much better off discussing climate change or collapsing towers, than what causes Terrorism!

I'd just like to say:

1) Glenn did open the door in Update II

2) talking about what causes terrorism is much less interesting. Besides, Glenn provided the answer in his post! US policy in the middle east, i.e. invasions, bombing, and otherwise interfering in Muslim countries leads to terrorist blowback.

All that's left is to smackdown the lame protestations of the neocon commenters.

At least climate change is a problem with serious consequences. I wouldn't put terrorism in that category.

I get this crap from my own niece, who's a climatologist. Oh look, she says in a recent email, September was the warmest globally since 1880! Oh my, such a massive frame of time, sort of reminds of Tommy's idea of an 'age'. Of course, not a peep about the fact that it still wasn't as warm as the Medieval Warm Period that preceded the mini-ice age. Funny, we don't hear much about that these days. Didn't you ever wonder why Greenland is called "Greenland", since it's covered with ice?

You should listen to your niece.

The Medieval Warm Period has been discussed many times in many places - go check out RealClimate.

As for the naming of Greenland example, it doesn't do any credit to your argument.

Here is a link:

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060921133110AA6CrU3

The whole thing (warming) has shifted focus from pollution and toxicity.

Good point.

It might be, except that CO2 emissions ARE pollution (it warms the planet), and ARE toxic (it acidifies the ocean, killing coral reefs and shellfish). Concern over climate is concern over pollution and toxicity.

Actually, zero, it's your response that showed that you haven't seriously studied the issue. Libertarian was pretty much dead on.

Like most myopic who think they don't need glasses and assume they know something because of what others tell them, you assume that all vision must be as your's, else it is faulty. When someone doesn't actually see what you think you see, you assume they need glasses.

You couldn't be more wrong.

I can't refute your argument for because you failed to make one. This is just name calling and wild accusation.

Why is it that people are so resistant to accepting the results of the climate scientists? The only reason I can think of is that they don't like the conclusions of the research.

Unfortunately, that is not a good reason to reject those conclusions.

I wish I'd seen your response before typing mine. I would have saved myself a lot of time.