by giladedelman Sun Nov 14, 2010 11:43 pm
Ah, thanks for the question.
So, the argument introduces one explanation for the decline of the Norse settlements -- temperatures got too low for human habitation -- and concludes that this explanation cannot be correct because there's evidence that directly contradicts it: Inuit settlers continued to survive.
So, the evidence of the Inuits is inconsistent with the claim that temperatures were too low for human habitation; after all, the Inuits were humans who continued to inhabit the region.
Does that make sense to you?