It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The most *damning* climate report I've ever read FROM 1897!

page: 1
34
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+8 more 
posted on May, 7 2010 @ 07:52 AM
link   
The first, second and second last paragraph is ALL YOU NEED to read. Not only does it delve into the tropical plants & trees found in fossil form near the arctic circle but also describes a hospitable habitat as recent as around a thousand years ago based on artifacts!

I'll post only those excerpts but the full article can be found HERE

Paragraph 1



Two Smithsonian scientists, Charles Schuchert and David White, have just returned from the wilds of west Greenland, bringing back valuable collections. In a region of everlasting ice and snow they have been exploring luxuriant tropical forests. Far to the north of the Arctic circle they have been studying a flora consisting of palms, tree ferns, and other plants belonging properly to the neighborhood of the equator. These forests, however, and the trees and varied forms of plant life which compose them are exceedingly ancient. In fact, they disappeared from the face of the earth several millions of years ago, and only their fossil remains are found buried in the strata of the rocks. It was these remains that Messrs, Schuchert and White went to investigate. They wanted to get specimens for the National Museum, and other objects of a geological nature were in view.


Paragraph 2



Greenland was once upon a time a tropical country. That is proved absolutely by the remains of an extensive tropical flora which are found there. Where now a sheet of solid ice over a mile thick covers mountain and valley, and mighty frozen rivers called glaciers make their way to the sea and hatch icebergs, there was in earlier days a verdure-clad wilderness of luxuriant vegetation. Together with the palms and tree ferns, there were trees related to the giant sequoias of our own west coast; also representatives of the "gingko," the sacred tree of Japan and of the Eucalyptus family, which today is restricted to Australia. Climbing vines festooned the trunks of these monarchs of an ancient forest with draperies of foliage, while close to the ground grew those curious dwarf trees called "cycads," somewhat resembling palms in miniature, in the midst of a tangled undergrowth of ferns and other flowerless plants that carpted the densely wooded areas.


2nd last paragraph



On the coast of Greenland are found the long-abandoned ruins of many buildings erected by the ancient Norsemen, of rock, and very substantial. According to tradition, a Norse navigator named Gunnibiorn landed in the country in the year 872 A. D. The Norsemen certainly went as far as 75 degrees north latitude, which cannot be reached by the stoutest modern ship without serious risk. These voyages were accomplished, too, in half-decked, open boats. A stone found near Upernavik, in latitude 72 degrees and 30 minutes, bears an inscription in Runic dated 1135. In the old sagas and chronicles there is little mention of ice as an obstruction to navigation, and it is evident that the climate in those days was much warmer than it is now. Since then the glaciers have filled the fiords and have made the country uninhabitable, save in a few spots along the coast. The aboriginal Eskimo of the region were known as Skraellings, or "Little People," by the Norsemen, who treated them barbarously. But if tradition does not lie, the Skraellings got ample revenge in the end, totally wiping out the last of the Norse colonies. They built an immense raft of boats, over which they erected a low and irregular scaffolding, covered with tanned and bleached skins, so that when afloat the affair looked like an iceberg. It was turned adrift on the fiord, being permitted to float with the tide to the shore, where the Norse settlement was located. The inhabitants were taken by surprise, and all of them were killed.


I guess GREENLAND wasn't always white!

Now what is "INGSOC" and their "warmers" to do now that they've missed this piece of oldspeak???

[edit on 7-5-2010 by Atlantican]




posted on May, 7 2010 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Good post OP. S n F
Thank you for helping to expose the AGW scam for what it is, a giant HOAX



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Brilliant find!

2nd line.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Wow very interesting. Thanks for the post, more evidence to stack against the ever climbing pile



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by lernmore





lol



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   
I wonder how credible SMITHSONIAN scientists are?! LOL!!!!!!!!!

Yep this is the most amazing and relevant piece of history and I do think it will be dragged out in the talking points to come this week as the climate bills will be receiving extra attention towards mid week. Watch for it as I've sent it to everyone I can think of.

It's a beautiful insight to a time in history when scientific spin didn't cross political boundaries. The language was very heavy weighted towards the Smithsonian idea that there can be no doubt that GREENLAND was once warm. SMITHSONIAN! No hockey sticks here.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 11:56 PM
link   
This is well known, particularly the connection in Viking history. But, to an open mind, it is not damning. Just because the arctic used to be much warmer does not somehow debunk the effect of man made polluntants in the atmosphere. We know for a fact we have already degraded the ozone layer, so one cannot rule out human effect on the environment. This piece of history although relevant subject matter can't tell us what is happening now.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 


I think its meant to address the idea of total global destruction if the earth warms by a few degrees. The funny thing is, all of this controversy in the whole debate has been fueled by the most marginal 'rise' in global average temps, and thats going by the debunked IPCC report verbatim.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Hi 'Steve',


Originally posted by SteveR
This is well known, particularly the connection in Viking history. But, to an open mind, it is not damning. Just because the arctic used to be much warmer does not somehow debunk the effect of man made polluntants in the atmosphere. We know for a fact we have already degraded the ozone layer, so one cannot rule out human effect on the environment. This piece of history although relevant subject matter can't tell us what is happening now.


You mention 'open minds' but how many open minds are aware of the Medieval warm period lasting from around AD 950–1250 and the striking correlation to the the castle and cathedral building era in Europe? Isn't the historic evidence sufficient to at least consider the possibility that warmer average temperates are a GOOD thing for human civilization in as much as it has in the past greatly assisted crop yields? In a day and age where air conditioning exists and water can be pumped to where it needs to be how can warmer temperatures be considered necessarily bad?

As for pollutants NO one is in favor of those and we should obviously concentrate our collective efforts on making sure that organizations such as the American EPA ( great mandate, no funding) and their international counterparts gets the money they need to do the things we originally campaigned for. The real issue is why our collective attention is being focused on Co2 which is NOT a pollutant and in fact assists biomass growth. How does that happen when heavy industry still gets away with pumping REAL toxins, stuff that kills or slows biomass growth, into our atmosphere and rivers?

This history is also EXCEEDINGLY relevant in pointing out data can be manipulated to form 'hockey-stick' graphs that were constructed by simply igoring, or reducing the influence of, data sets that contained evidence of the medieval warm period. If the scientist who were aware of this travesty got equal air and media time we could debate the merits of each but since it was ignored and covered up it's clear that the agenda is political and self serving and that they refuse to 'trust us' ( at best) with their most accurate assessment of past events.

If people deny the holocaust, a historic reality, they are sent to jail in many European countries and yet when scientist rips out 300 years of temperature data that may lead to wide ranging misunderstanding and economic reforms that will lead to death and destruction on holocaust scales in dozens of countries we are just expected to ignore it because it's so very unlikely to seriously affect the standard of life of those who are discussing it here?

We may not be first to suffer the consequences of this undermining of and attack on modern industrial society but we should not forget that hundreds of millions WILL and that their comparative silence is the result of a lack of access and means of sharing data. Ideally that seems to be where the majority of us are supposed to stay in this corporate globalization drive but since i actually understand and know that we can all live the way the two of us do without the current environmental destruction i will continue to occasionally mention this.

I don't have the energy to pretend to want to 'save the world' but i would at least like to insist that we try to stick to what little history we have managed to piece together so as to build the best global society possible.

Regards,

Stellar


[edit on 8-5-2010 by StellarX]



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Maybe related?

Thought this might be of use as well.


Good thread, Starred&Flagged!



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Prisms tech reports, for those interested...

Tech Paper #1

Tech Paper #2

Tech Paper #3

Tech Paper #4

Tech Paper #5

Tech Paper #6



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 06:19 AM
link   
LOL Lies more lies and they keep on stock piling. Where is our al gore? Is she in hiding?



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 06:29 AM
link   
Why do you think the vikings who first settled there called it "Greenland"? cause that is what it was.
Around 1200 when they first landed there Greenland wasnt covered with ice, this happened during the centuries.

Im sure that when the Greenland ice starts melting (because of natural global warming) we will find whole settlements or even cities founded by the Vikings there, also dont forget that even greenland is affected by the Gulf stream, which abets tropical vegetation (theres palm trees on some irish coasts too)



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 06:38 AM
link   
I thought everyone was taught this in school?

I always remember them saying "just remember that greenland has ice and iceland has green". I always thought to myself ("what kindof BS is this?").


Who in their right mind would name an icy country Greenland, it never made sense.

I always knew greenland was once tropical.

Damn that Global Cooling.



Edit-

[edit on 15-5-2010 by Common Good]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Nice find, when I was in school we were taught that the Vikings who colonized Greenland named Greenland as such because 'They wanted to attract immigrants.' BS. It was because Greenland was once green!



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Atlantican
 


did you go to kansas, dude?



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Atlantican
I wonder how credible SMITHSONIAN scientists are?! LOL!!!!!!!!!

Yep this is the most amazing and relevant piece of history ...


Not to burst your bubble, but this isn't new information. I learned it back in elementary school in the 1950's. It's called the "Medieval Warm Period" (so I learned later) and was followed by the "Little Ice Age." Climatologists have known about this and other ice ages and warm periods for at least a century if not longer.

Wikipedia's got a nice article on it, but there are many other sources as well that discuss this:
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
How can we get this planet to be more temperate all over, we do NOT need winter for existence.

Heh, i sometimes wonder if we could get rid of a good 1/3 of the water on this planet, seems to have too much.



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   
A favourite quote of mine:

" I may disagree strongly with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."



new topics

top topics



 
34
<<   2 >>

log in

join