Hemstich, on the assumption you make, namely: "that is that there is no certainty either way about the effect on global warming of human activity", you assert (with not a scrap of evidence or argument in support) that "What is certain is that if the measures proposed by the activists are implemented the result would be the complete collapse of our socio-economic system".

"No certainty either way" would suggest prudence, wouldn't you say?

Suppose for one moment that the scientists who warn that human activity is having a dire effect on global warming are correct. What would be the effect on our socio-economic system if we do nothing about it?

Greenland wasn't given that name because it was green -- it was PR to attract settlers

Scientist Lambert's explanation of the source of the name "Greenland" is, like most everything he writes, misleading.

The etymology of "Greenland":

"After settling there, [Eric the Red] named the land Grænland ("Greenland"), possibly in order to attract more people to settle there. Greenland was also called Gruntland ("Ground-land") on early maps. Whether Green is an erroneous transcription of Grunt ("Ground"), which refers to shallow bays, or vice versa, is not known. It should also be noted, however, that the southern portion of Greenland (not covered by glacier) is indeed very green in the summer, and was likely even greener in Erik's time because of the Medieval Warm Period."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland#Etymology

It's little wonder he blogs instead of writing academic papers; he'd have trouble getting anything past peer review.

Wikipedia is not a primary source.

From the Saga of Erik the Red

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17946/17946-h/17946-h.htm

'In the summer Eirik went to live in the land which he had discovered, and which he called Greenland, “Because,” said he, “men will desire much the more to go there if the land has a good name.”'

David Latimer “I cannot see what you are getting at. I have not backed away from the suggested topics of debate - topics of important public policy. But, I remind you we've achieved a double-century for this thread. It not practical to discuss five or ten major policy ideas here.”

You pompously declared one of my earlier posts “It encourages Col Rouge to forget progress, education and human achievement – This is not scepticism. It’s a parallel universe!”

You then went on with some snotty, emotional tirade about “I care that the truth is being smeared. Does anyone else?”

Having challenged your bullying arrogance over suggesting a parallel universe, smearing the truth and gratuitous snide remarks like “Is NASA "the counter view of the rabid left" Col? “

you moved on to you making grandiose suggestions to debate“Carbon Trading, etc etc “ and

“Hey OLO! Lets move this debate forward.
We got some BIG decisions to make!”

When I commented on carbon trading you tried to escape moving the “debate forward” or evolving the reasoning behind “BIG Decisions” by suggesting some amateurish tax policy, which
I immediately dispensed and the classic line

“I am trying to encourage OLO to get on with the debate. Our political leaders accept the scientific consensus and I would prefer us to not be left behind in the debate.”

You are not “Trying to encourage OLO to get on with the debate”

You just want to thrust your ratbag theories around and denigrate anyone who challenges your arrogance.

As for “It not practical to discuss five or ten major policy ideas here.”

If your pompous dismissal of “Carbon trading“ is anything to go by, it would seem it is not practical to discuss a single major policy idea here.

You might consider it expedient for dissent to be silenced and we follow your pretentious edicts, like lemmings but I see “carbon trading” and a lot of the other sci-fi-politico babble on global warming as the edge of the cliff and I am not going to stay silent while you try to drag us over it.

The best I can work out, the "Saga of Eric the Red" is not a primary source and certainly can't be relied on as an accurate historical record. Eric lived roughly 950-1000 AD, whereas the first of two versions of the Saga were prodcued long after his death. The author(s) is unknown.

You peeved at Wikipedia for pulling your page? Playing fast and loose with the facts isn't going to get it back.