"There may have been regions of Greenland that were 'greener' than today but this was not a global phenomenon... The Greenland ice sheet is at least 400,000 to 800,000 years old.... So where did the Green in Greenland come from? According to Wikipedia, legend has it was good marketing on the part of Erik the Red who figured it would attract more settlers (if he was more vain, it may have been called Redland). Or perhaps its a derivation of Engronelant or Gruntland. The main point is while the ice sheet has always been there, Greenland probably was somewhat warmer during the Medieval Period and part of Greenland was green."
http://skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green-intermediate.htm

Those ancient ice-sheets are in trouble today. Data from NASA's GRACE satellites show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica (upper chart) and Greenland (lower) have been losing mass since 2002. Both ice sheets have seen an acceleration of ice mass loss since 2009. (Source: GRACE satellite data)
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/
Not only is Greenland losing ice but that these ice losses are accelerating at a rapid pace
http://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2009GL040222
Further evidence suggests that although ice losses have up to this point primarily occurred in the South and Southwest portions of Greenland, these losses are now spreading to the Northwest sector of the ice sheet
http://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2010GL042460
Although there have been some gains at high altitudes, significant ice losses are occurring at low altitudes
http://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2008GL034816
Along the coastline where glaciers are calving ice into the oceans far quicker than ice is being accumulated at the top of the ice sheet
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/311/5763/986

In conclusion: the MWP may have warmed some small areas of Greenland but it is now losing ANCIENT ICE. That is a first in hundreds of thousands of years!

Dear Max Green,

Do you want to hear something really funny? Loudmouth told me he has about a dozen degrees including a BA and a BA (Honns). I brought up the name Foucault and he said he didn't have a clue who Foucault was, which makes me think he is a total BS artist.

and as he could have looked 'Foucault' up on the net then me thinks that he is having a lend of you.

Dear Is Mise,

His initial reply was spontaneous. He only made out that he had some knowledge of Foucault after I pointed out to him that an Arts grad would be aware of Foucault, suggesting that he looked him up on the web after being caught out. But that's okay, Loudmouth is not the only BS artist claiming to be educated. Hasbeen said he has a BSc in engineering from Sydney Uni but upon investigation it appears that Sydney Uni has never awarded a BSc in engineering, only BEs. If they want to pretend they are something they're not then I say let them enjoy themselves.

For the record, I'm not a scientist nor claiming to be any sort of expert on climate change. I'm just saying there's enough reasonable evidence for anyone of a reasonable mindset to ask questions, hear the denialist 'challenges', read the peer-reviewed replies and make a decision.

I've listened to the likes of Martin Durkin and friends recycle the same tired old myths time and again. Science adapts with new data, but denialist dogma doesn't. It's stuck on, like a disease you just can't shake. The peer-reviewed responses do not just dismiss the old arguments but come up with NEW data that continually reinforces and REFINES the current paradigm! Denialists just dig in, coming up with vague assertions about 'dozens of MWP papers' but unable to quote a single paragraph that shows how these papers are different to conventional MWP papers.

Under all the annoyance from deniers, I actually feel pity for them. Just IMAGINE believing in a conspiracy theory that goes back 163 years to Eunice Foote! A conspiracy that somehow involves every physics lab and National Academy of Science on the planet and survived WW1, WW2, the Cold War and collapse of the Berlin wall! It absolutely boggles the imagination. But if deniers have got anything, it's lots of imagination. *Fevered* imagination!

Well once more can those who deny the whole thing tell us who is behind what they name fraud and why?
Been asking from first post but no one took the time to set down a case that man made climate change was a fraud because
Because who made it so? why?
Science is no small rock on the road, driving around it, telling us they know better, needs us to be told why it is fraud
When GreenLand got a run in the conversation,we got close to admitting the anti case thrives on miss information