Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Simple One Word Answer to Global Warming
His Master's Voice | 3/11/09 | HMV

Posted on 03/11/2009 9:02:57 AM PDT by Hillary'sMoralVoid

When your liberal friends talk about global warming, give them the one word answer that noone can explain: "Greenland."

Why was the land that today is characterized as a huge icecap named Greenland?

Eric the Red discovered Greenland in the 980 AD time frame. He called it Greenland because of the lush green fields and valleys. He saw in Greenland a tremendous potential for agriculture. His return trips would bring settlers who would number about 5000 and build 300-400 farms.

What??????? Agriculture??? Farms??? Wait a minute, this country is nothing but a huge ice cap isn't it?

Here is a quote from "The History of Greenland" by historian Murray Lundberg. "The climate at this time was very warm, much warmer than it is today, and crops were able to do well. It seems likely that the name "Greenland" was given to the country, not just as wishful thinkful, but because it was a climatic fact at that time."

And Eric the Red was right, Greenland did become a agricualtural exporter. During early settlement period of Greenland, it became a "Cash Cow" for the Catholic Church. Agricultural goods and animal hides were exported to Norway at a healthy rate. The economic interest for the church was so great that a bishop was even appointed to the territory.

Just as stunning as the revelation that Greenland (or at least portions of it) was indeed green throughout the 900-1200AD time frame, is the mysterious, yet gradual disappearance of the once thriving settlements there. By about 1400AD, the limited records that existed indicate that the settlers gradually died out.

Here again is a Quote from Murray Lundquist: "The mild climatic period was fairly short-lived in geologic terms - by about 1200 AD, the ever-increasing cold was making life extremely difficult, and some years no supply ships were able to reach Greenland through the ice-choked seas. During this period, Norway has assumed responsibility for supplying the Norse settlers in Greenland, but as the climate worsened it became a very difficult task.

By about 1350, the settlements in southwestern Greenland had been abandoned. There is no evidence to prove where the people went to, but one persistent legend says that they went to North America, eventually settling in North Dakota. This legend claims that they were the original Mandan Indians.

In 1408, a wedding was performed in the Hvalsey Church. This is not only the last known service at Hvalsey, but also the last written record of the Viking presence in the region. It is thought that some settlers remained for another 80-90 years, then were forced to leave by the deteriorating climate..."

Wait a minute.....we had a warm period in the 900-1200AD time frame, yet there were little or no man-made CO2 emissions at that time. Certainly, if the periphery of Greenland was that temperate, there would also have been some melting of the ice cap, however large or small it would have been at that time, yet there is no record of the rising seas and resulting flooding in the ports of Europe. The seas were also relatively unobstructed in the 900-1200AD time period, yet became almost unnavigable later on. Isn't this a "global warming" story IN REVERSE that refutes what we're hearing today?

So when your friends tell you of the impending doom of global warming, just smile and say "Greenland". It really says it all.

TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: globalwarming; globalwarminghoax; godsgravesglyphs; greenland; littleiceage; medievalwarming; medievalwarmperiod; popefrancis; romancatholicism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-57 next last

1 posted on 03/11/2009 9:02:57 AM PDT by Hillary'sMoralVoid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Hillary'sMoralVoid

Yep! Greenland is Ice and Iceland is Green!

2 posted on 03/11/2009 9:04:03 AM PDT by classified
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hillary'sMoralVoid; OKSooner; honolulugal; Killing Time; Beowulf; Mr. Peabody; RW_Whacko; ...
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

FReepmail me to get on or off

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Climate Research News

Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown


Ping me if you find one I've missed.

3 posted on 03/11/2009 9:06:02 AM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hillary'sMoralVoid


4 posted on 03/11/2009 9:06:17 AM PDT by screaminsunshine (!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hillary'sMoralVoid

“Why was the land that today is characterized as a huge icecap named Greenland?”

Viking disinformation. The same reason Iceland got it’s misnomer.

5 posted on 03/11/2009 9:08:15 AM PDT by devere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hillary'sMoralVoid

And Greenland was also home to dense forests and butterflies!

6 posted on 03/11/2009 9:08:23 AM PDT by FormerACLUmember (When the past no longer illuminates the future, the spirit walks in darkness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hillary'sMoralVoid
"Groen Land !! (wat is in uw portefeulle?)"

7 posted on 03/11/2009 9:09:19 AM PDT by Zuben Elgenubi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: devere

“Why was the land that today is characterized as a huge icecap named Greenland?”

“Viking disinformation. The same reason Iceland got it’s misnomer.”

I heard the same thing. They wanted others to move on and not mess with Iceland so they called the crappy place Greenland, and the good place Iceland.

Snopes? Myth? Anyone know?

8 posted on 03/11/2009 9:16:27 AM PDT by icwhatudo (The Dow is down nearly 6,000 points since democrats took back congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Hillary'sMoralVoid

My answer to global warming is to cite the three Ice Ages that covered most of the northern hemisphere with glaciers. The most recent was about 20,000 years ago. We see ample evidence that these glaciers were here, but they are obviously no longer around. For this to have happened there had to have been some massive global cooling to form these glacier worldwide AND some massive global warming to have melted them. None of this could in anyway be attributed to man. Therefore it is inescapable that there is some mechanism that produces massive global cooling and global warming on a planetary scale that dwarfs even Al Gore’s prophecies of doom that cannot be attributed in anyway to CO2 or man. So explain this climate change mechanism and why isn’t it that the fluctuations in climate we see today aren’t just part of these natural cycles?

9 posted on 03/11/2009 9:16:41 AM PDT by The Great RJ ("Mir we bleiwen wat mir sin" or "We want to remain what we are." ..Luxembourg motto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hillary'sMoralVoid; CygnusXI; Entrepreneur; Defendingliberty; WL-law; Genesis defender; ...

Global Warming Scam News & Views
Entrepreneur's Compilation of
The Best Global Warming Videos on the Internet

10 posted on 03/11/2009 9:16:54 AM PDT by steelyourfaith (Yo, Washingtonians, the American people called. They DEMAND their country back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hillary'sMoralVoid


11 posted on 03/11/2009 9:17:05 AM PDT by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hillary'sMoralVoid

We took our young nephews to see a 3-D feature, ‘Under The Sea’ a few weeks back.

The VERY FIRST THING out of the chute was a statement to the effect that the beautiful Great Barrier Reef off of Australia’s coast didn’t exist for millions and millions of years, but when it started, it grew up off of an old, DEAD coral reef.

Toward the end of the movie then had about 15 minutes of showing how the Great Barrier Reef was being destroyed by you and me. Yes, YOU and ME! It’s all our fault! Nature has NOTHING to do with it.

When we left the movie Husband said to me, “Don’t EVEN say it! I know what you’re going to say!” LOL!

It’s maddening!

The same thing with our GORGEOUS Great Lakes that we are blessed to live among. If it weren’t for NATURE changing the landscape, we wouldn’t have all those glorious hundreds of millions of gallons of fresh water to support life here.

Gee. Wonder how much of that is MY fault? Grrrrr!

12 posted on 03/11/2009 9:19:07 AM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin (Save The Earth. It's The Only Planet With Chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zuben Elgenubi

On the northern tip of Newfoundland is L’Anse Meadows, which is the site of a viking settlement. Evidence there indicates that the sea was one or two meters higher during the same period when they used it as a vessel repair station. There are some dwelling remains and the remains of a iron forge where they probably made iron nails from swamp iron. They also found some nuts that were from the mainland of NA.

13 posted on 03/11/2009 9:19:12 AM PDT by Oldexpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: classified

Loooooong time lurker, first time poster. I actually signed up to respond to this.

When I was in the public education system (the 80s and early 90s), we were taught the naming convention was an elaborate ruse to fool any invaders into attacking Greenland, thinking it would be nothing but verdant fields, and therefore worth attacking, while Iceland would remain protected. I guess this wouldn’t work so well if the attackers didn’t speak the language, or didn’t have a map with the names written on them.

This is absolutely what I was taught.

Thanks very much for the post,


14 posted on 03/11/2009 9:20:04 AM PDT by B-online
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: classified

I’m not sure there is anyone claiming “the earth’s climate has been perfectly static forever, and humans broke it!” (well, some stupid people, but that’s beside the point). The argument is just that CO2 (and other gases, like methane or water vapor) don’t allow longer-wavelength radiation to escape into space (like the glass panels in a greenhouse - it acts kind of like a 1-way valve for radiation). The million-dollar question is: Is the amount of extra ‘greenhouse’ gas we’ve vented into the atmosphere causing significant amounts of extra radiation to be captured? (to the point where it would actually increase the earth’s average temperature and cause changing weather patterns, in addition to other ecological nastiness).

Theoretically, it’s very possible. If we put a giant glass dome over the earth, it would be hot as heck here. If you changed the atmosphere to half-methane, it would probably have a similar effect. That’s sound science (try it yourself, build a greenhouse!).

Now should we go crazy and destroy our industrial infrastructure? No, that’s stupid, and only stupid hippies are in favor of that. But it’s worth keeping an eye on it. If anyone *actually* believed global warming was an issue, and *actually* wanted to do anything about it, we would be building nuclear powerplants as fast as we could pour the concrete, because nuclear waste is a pretty easily manageable problem compared to a superheated planet.

If any of your friends believe in global warming, smile and say “then why aren’t you for nuclear power?” Trying to sound clever and say “hey look, it was warmer at some point in the past” is a silly argument to anyone with any kind of scientific training, and it makes people dismiss your argument.

15 posted on 03/11/2009 9:23:21 AM PDT by OH4life
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hillary'sMoralVoid

I’ve been preaching this for years to all the Global Warming/Climate Change nuts. Farley Mowat in his book “Farfarers” mentions this as well.

16 posted on 03/11/2009 9:23:49 AM PDT by CholeraJoe (Train relentlessly, fight fearlessly, kill without remorse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hillary'sMoralVoid

Obama Mulls Ramming CO2 Bill Through Congress In Budget
Last update: 3/11/2009 12:19:38 PM

By Ian Talley

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)—Democratic leaders - including U.S. President Barack Obama’s top budget official - are considering a procedural tactic that could give them the power to ram a controversial climate change and energy bill through Congress.

The administration and Democrats such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., hope to avoid obstruction by the Republicans and centrist Democrats who fear the potential economic impact of legislation to ax greenhouse gas emissions.

The tactic is being discussed because of the dramatic impact of the bill: collection of “climate revenues” from a proposed cap-and-trade system could represent a major source of future revenue for the federal government.

Democratic leaders are considering a process in the Senate known as “budget reconciliation,” meant to fine-tune the government’s expenditures and revenues later in the year, which needs only 51 votes compared to the standard 60 needed for contentious legislation.

Some leaders see the alternative as an option of last-resort. Yet even having this option under consideration is raising the ire of many lawmakers and reveals how serious Obama is about passing a bill that axes greenhouse gas emissions.

“Reconciliation is not the first place we would go, but we’re at the beginning of the discussion and aren’t going to take anything off the table at this point,” Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag told Dow Jones Newswires Tuesday after a budget hearing in the Capitol.
An aide with a senior Democrat said lawmakers are considering the option simply because “we want to get it passed, that’s our strategy.” Obama will face more than a handful of Democrats who’ve already voiced objections to the president’s stringent climate change proposal.

In Obama’s fiscal year 2010 budget outlined earlier this month, the administration said it expected to start collecting “climate revenues” from a cap-and-trade system in 2012. Based on a very conservative price estimate of $20 a ton, Obama hopes to glean at least $646 billion by 2020 from the program, which would represent a significant future source of revenue for the federal government.

Those revenues would be raised by a 100% auction of carbon credits - the right to emit greenhouse gases - but only around $15 billion a year would go towards funding low-carbon energy technologies, according to the Obama plan.
A raft of senators from Rust Belt and coal-producing states last year said they couldn’t support a climate proposal introduced onto the chamber floor, a bill less stringent than the president’s proposal. They warned such a bill needed “great care” in crafting due to potential impacts on the economy, energy prices and industry competition. Those same senators, including Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., and Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., have again joined forces this year and are drafting a set of principles they say should guide climate bill legislation.

The Environment and Public Works Committee chairman, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said slipping the climate bill into the budget reconciliation process may be the easiest route. The procedure also could be used for other controversial energy provisions that could mandate renewable energy production and give greater federal authority to site electricity transmission.

Surveying the legislative landscape, the administration is using a multi-pronged approach to cutting greenhouse gases. The president has also directed the Environmental Protection Agency to draft new regulations for greenhouse gas emissions through the existing Clean Air Act.

Forcibly creating new climate laws, either through the Clean Air Act or budget reconciliation, is highly controversial.
When Obama’s predecessor George W. Bush used the budget reconciliation process to push through his tax cuts in 2001, some Democrats were outraged, accusing the administration of by-passing the Democratic process.

Leaders in Obama’s own party are warning about the tactic.
Sen. Max Baucus, a Democrat from coal-state Montana and the chairman of the Finance Committee, said “it’s not a good idea,” and the partisan nature of such a strategy would cause the administration trouble.

“It’s possible 51 votes could be found, but at what cost?” he said on the sidelines of party lunches. “There’s lots of ways to throw sand into the Senate’s gears ... even with reconciliation, there are ways to slow things down,” he cautioned.

Sen. Nelson said he was opposed to reconciliation, “because I don’t think it’s the appropriate way to deal with climate change. That needs to go through the regular order.”
Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said Congress needed more debate on climate change before passing legislation.
Bingaman, who has supported a less onerous climate bill, suggested using reconciliation for climate change or including energy provisions would hinder passage.
“It gets difficult to pass the bigger and more complex any legislation gets,” he told reporters.

Republicans are more blunt. “It’s a horrible idea, would be seen as a vast power grab and would be wildly unpopular,” said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a member of the Senate GOP’s leadership team.

One way the administration could build support would be to give emission credits to some sectors such as utilities most exposed to a cap-and-trade program.

“This is going to be extraordinarily difficult to accomplish,” said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad. D-N.D., at a panel hearing Tuesday. It is “unlikely the bill will pass if it doesn’t have money set aside for industries that will be especially hard hit.”

17 posted on 03/11/2009 9:27:10 AM PDT by Vn_survivor_67-68 (CALL CONGRESSCRITTERS TOLL-FREE @ 1-800-965-4701)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ

I saw this thing on TV a few months back where a some scientist was sitting in Central Park in NY. He was sitting on rocks that were covered by glaciers during the last ice age.

I tell people that they had better hope we can cause global warming, because the next ice age is due and if it does happen, approx 3/4 of the World’s population will die.

18 posted on 03/11/2009 9:28:01 AM PDT by jrestrepo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo
This is from the Smithsonian Natural History Museum, Greenland
19 posted on 03/11/2009 9:30:14 AM PDT by Foolsgold ("We live in the greatest country in the world and I am going to change it" Barry O'boomarang 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten

Was actually supposed to be called Buttland. Thailand is just to confuse people.

20 posted on 03/11/2009 9:32:18 AM PDT by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-57 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson