Greenland MYTH: When Eric the Red and his Viking buddies settled Greenland, it was a lush pastoral paradise fit for farming and raising animals.

Facts: As climate change skepticism has developed into a full-blown industry, a number of myths have filtered out about historical patterns of warming and cooling: just mention the “Little Ice Age” or the “Medieval Warm Period” to your favorite skeptic, and let ‘em go…

As a history buff, I always found today’s myth fascinating. As Coby Beck at Grist notes, Viking leader Eric the Red gave Greenland its name not because it was lush and green, but because he wanted folks back home to think it was:

Greenland was called Greenland by Erik the Red (was he red?), who was in exile and wanted to attract people to a new colony. He thought you should give a land a good name so people would want to go there! It likely was a bit warmer when he landed for the first time than it was when the last settlers starved due to a number of factors — climate change, or at least some bad weather, a major one.

But it was never lush, and their existence was always harsh and meager, especially due to the Viking’s disdain for other peoples and ways of living. They attempted to live a European lifestyle in an arctic climate, side by side with Inuit who easily outlasted them. They starved surrounded by oceans and yet never ate fish! (Note: this was not a typical European behavior, and is a bit of a mystery to this day.)

The issue here, of course, really isn’t Greenland’s name; it’s the idea of a Medieval Warm Period that skeptics claim was comparable to the present day in terms of the average temperature (or even warmer!). By extension, ice melts on Greenland aren’t that big a deal: it’s happened before.

Coby has thoughts on the Medieval Warm Period, and points to information from NOAA. RealClimate, the blog for anyone interested in hardcore climate science, also presents a number of reasons why the perception skeptics have about the Medieval Warm Period are likely incorrect.

Greenland wasn’t green in the tenth century… and we don’t want it to become green this century…

MTYH: Cold weather, especially unseasonably cold weather, undermines the concept of climate change.

FACTS: "Global warming" is a problematic phrase for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the belief that cold weather somehow invalidates the concept of a global climate crisis. Climate change skeptics are quick to suggest that instances of winter storms (especially when they coincide with activities aimed at addressing "global warming") are evidence that climate change science is flawed.

Rather than exposing climate change as a myth or a mere belief, these skeptics demonstrate the logical fallacy of not seeing the forest for the trees. A recent report by Minnesota's WCCO addresses the problem with using current weather conditions as evidence of broader changes in climate:

"Don't confuse weather with climate," said WCCO's Chief Meteorologist Paul Douglas. "Weather is a snapshot, climate is a long term trend."

In other words, weather is what happens at any given moment in the atmosphere while climate is how the atmosphere behaves over decades and centuries.

Paul said the term global warming can be misleading.

"I think a better description is probably climate change because there are going to be regional variations across the globe," he said.

We need to keep a global perspective in mind because while the United States is experience record cold, some of Europe and Asia are seeing record warmth.

"Don't look out the window and make assumptions about long-term climate," said Paul. "But that goes both ways. In the summertime on the hot humid days we can't beat our chest and say this is global warming."

The Drudge Report Loves These Kind of Headlines

Grist's Coby Beck made a similar observation last November; RealClimate addresses some of the problems associated with "global warming.". And as happy as I was to see the Rev. Pat Robertson acknowledging climate change last year, we have to note that his recognition was based on the same logical fallacy as those who claim that winter storms in April are valid evidence of problems with climate science.

Our own David Anderson has suggested a new phrase: "global weirding." Given the multiple strange events we're seeing (rapid extinctions of species, shifts in weather patterns, polar ice melts, etc.), it seems appropriate. What other ways can we better communicate the issue of climate change?