Jo Nova has a brief but important note about the past of Greenland. According to the mainstream global warming hypothesis, the melting of ice in areas depends upon heat, with more heat, after a point, more melting. It seems to make sense and is thus intellectually seductive; you can think of homely examples like leaving a tub of frozen ice cream in a hot car.
But the climate on the Earth is not a simple closed box-like thermodynamic (heat) system, and non-linear, meaning having multiple effects. Thus, in periods over the last 2.6 million years, Greenland's ice sheets did melt, but carbon dioxide levels were low. So, there must be other factors involved, but carbon dioxide is not one of them. If so, then the mainstream climate change narrative takes another body blow. One wonders how many such blows this giant of deception can take before falling for the 10 count?
"The Experts thought Greenland's ice has been there for the whole Pleistocene era, or the last 2.6 million years. It was just another useless consensus, stultifying science — feeding the myth that the climate was perfect until Big Coal screwed it up.
Finally, 30 years after the famous GISP ice core was hauled out of the Greenland summit, someone has bothered to study the dirt at the bottom and found poppy seeds, willow twigs and insects there, where they were not supposed to be. They discovered a vibrant tundra ecosystem where there was supposed to be an ice-cap. The obvious conclusion is that cavemen didn't cause it, and that there must be some huge other natural forces at work that we have no clue about. Our climate models didn't predict this, because CO2 was low then and clearly, the models are hopelessly incomplete. We are babes in the wood on the third rock from the sun.
The captive science PR writers don't tell us that CO2 might be irrelevant compared to the big mystery forces we don't understand. Instead they tell us that this means that the Greenland icesheet is more fragile than we realized and could melt again (send us your money!)"