I'm also puzzled by your repeated assertion that the Humboldt glacier is a "large part" of the Greenland ice sheet. It is, in fact, a miniscule portion of it. From Britannica online:

largest known glacier in the world, northwestern Greenland, 210 miles (340 km) north-northeast of Dundas. It rises to a height of 328 feet (100 m) and discharges into the Kane Basin along a 60-mile (100-km) front. It was discovered in 1853 by an American expedition headed by Elisha Kent Kane.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9041490/Humboldt-Glacier

So it's 210 miles from Dundas. Funny that it could be a large part of the ice sheet and yet be so far from this town. It discharges along a 60-mile front. Well, Greenland has over 24,000 miles in of coastline! From a Wikipedia article:

The total area of Greenland measures 2,166,086 km² (836,109 square miles), of which the Greenland ice sheet covers 1,755,637 km² (677,676 square miles) (81%). The coastline of Greenland is 39,330 km (24,430 miles) long, about the same length as the Earth's circumference at the Equator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland

Now, before you go off trying to prove that the scientists who have been studying Greenland and the ice sheet firsthand are wrong and you are right, consider this map of the Humboldt Glacier:

Scroll down a little

As you can see, it is really nowhere near the size of Greenland's total ice sheet. It's a huge glacier to be sure but it is only a very small portion of the an island so prodigiously huge that it boggles the mind.

And, yes, with that kind of land area being 80% or more covered with ice, you could easily have 5000 feet of ice average--easy. Moreover, the article also states the weight of the ice has depressed Greenland in the central part by a good 1000 feet.

It looks like you read things into articles that are not really there. Whether it's because global warming frightens you (it very definitely should) or because you have the anti-intellectual's innate distrust of scientists or a little of both, I don't know. But you seem to argue in favor of a view that is largely manufactured via misinterpretation.