From a recent stint as guest host on Bill Bennett’s radio program:
“We are cooling,” Steele insisted. “We are not warming. The warming you see out there, the supposed warming, and I use my fingers as quotation marks, is part of the cooling process. Greenland, which is covered in ice, it was once called Greenland for a reason, right? Iceland, which is now green. Oh I love this. Like we know what this planet is all about. How long have we been here? How long? Not very long.”
He also got the first name wrong of Italian fascist Benito Mussolini, calling him “Roberto.”
America needs a strong, relevant, reality-based opposition party (two, preferably). Steele is only continuing the Bush legacy of gift wrapping the seats of power for the Democrats for years to come.
The Repubs won’t fire him for an anti-global warming stance. They may however, consider it for remarks such as this one in GQ magazine when Steele said abortion is, “absolutely…an individual choice”, to be decided at the state level. DOH!
Of course they won’t, nor should they. There’s a difference between being a AGW denier and defending your position with idiotic non-sequiters. It’s the latter, coupled with his Kerryesqe tendencies, that should compel the party to send him packing. They need credible, sensible leadership. Steele’s not that guy.
The Roberto/Benito thing I’ll give him as a mistake over hours of unscripted (no teleprompter!) talk. The Greenland stuff I have not looked into, and shows that he either knows much more…or much less, than even me, on the subject. That one will probably be another black eye for the man.
Please tell me how your question has anything to do with Steele’s idiotic offering of “proof” of global cooling. This isn’t a global warming thread.
Do you know how, when and why Greenland acquired its name? If so, you may want to pass it along to the Chairman, before he proceeds to lecture us about what the sun has to do with ice cream sundaes, and how it disproves global warming.
Greenlandic Green·land’ic (-lãn’dĭk) adj.
WORD HISTORY How did a glacier-covered island get the name Greenland? In Norse legends written in the 12th century and later, it is told that Eric the Red explored the southeast and southwest coasts of Greenland in A.D. 983-986 and gave the country its name because people would be more likely to go there if it had an attractive name. Greenland was warmer in the tenth century than it is now. There were many islands teeming with birds off its western coast; the sea was excellent for fishing; and the coast of Greenland itself had many fjords where anchorage was good. At the head of the fjords there were enormous meadows full of grass, willows, junipers, birch, and wild berries. Thus Greenland actually deserved its name. Another attraction of Greenland was that Iceland and northwestern Europe, including England, had a grievous year of famine in 976, and people were hungry for food as well as land.
While you are correct that it didn’t get its name for being “green” - it was, at a point in its history, green.
**out of curiousity, why shouldn’t it be decided at the state level? **
I don’t think abortion should be decided by any politician at the national or state level. Abortion should not be a political issue.
As for the Republican National Committee, they don’t agree. I was commenting on the fact that the chair of the RNC said something he is now regretting.
Please explain the Mid-Evil warming period, and why they were producing wine in England during this time?
If you start a thread with these questions, several people would be interested in a discussion. If, that is, you are willing to read the responses.
Greenland has been under a sheet of ice for the better part of 100,000 years, minor fluctuations in average temperature and percent ice coverage (somewhere in the 95% range) notwithstanding. Steele had it exactly wrong, as you noted above; the name was a ploy to encourage settlement - the green areas that Erik named the island for are largely unchanged in size and character today (minus the raft of Cod in its surrounding waters, I would imagine).
I recall Rush arguing last year that AGW is a hoax, using similar non-sequiturs. “There isn’t a smoke stack or automobile within a hundred miles of the North Pole!”
I recall Rush arguing last year that AGW is a hoax, using similar non-sequiturs. “There isn’t a smoke stack or automobile within a hundred miles of the North Pole!”
One of my first clues to Limbaugh’s lying nature was his claim that the ozone hole threat wasn’t real, because the chlorofluorcarbon molecules were heavier than air, and thus couldn’t get up high enough to destroy the ozone layer.
Easy. It was because of all the Evil. Everyone knows that Evil is warmer than Good, so, during the Mid-Evil period, it was warmer than the preceding Semi-Good or subsequent Slightly-Evil periods.
You’re worse than Steele. Everyone knows that Evil is the natural state of all things; Goodness requires action against the natural state, and therefore the expenditure of energy, and the production of heat. The greater the good, the warmer the climate.
Mid Evil sounds like my kind of time period - cords, sweaters, smartwool socks…
so the people should decide it? how, by vote? And, if by vote - how do you prevent it from then becoming a political issue when it gets tossed back to a politically appointed judge to decide?
See California and Prop 8…that was an issue that was decided by the people and their vote didn’t go over to well. I’m sure a lot of anti-abortionists would love to see it go to a people’s vote, rather than it be a political football.
And, if not a political issue - what kind of issue is it?
I think your model might have issues. Most of the evil I see today is in warm areas. You don’t see much fighting by guys in parkas or with pasty complexions.
