More Hot Propaganda – this time from Greenpeace

First let me say I apologize to my readers. I’m going to editorialize a bit.

Apparently nothing is off limits anymore. Now we can all honestly say that Greenpeace has abandoned any pretense of using science. It’s all about the message they believe. The message here appears to be a double fallacy packed into a slick CGI animation designed specifically to target children during the holiday season.

Greenpeace now has hit rock bottom on the credibility scale in my opinion. The next time Greenpeace cites science in a press release or blog entry, be sure to link this video in comments.

And if you see this video being aired on your local or national TV channel and find it troubling as I do, may I remind you that you can exercise your rights with a complaint to the FCC. Better yet, write to Greenpeace also and tell them what you think about this.

I await now the corruption of “Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus”.

About these ads

162 thoughts on “More Hot Propaganda – this time from Greenpeace

  1. I’m a bit confused about the point it’s trying to make. I thought Santa’s reindeer and sleigh flew through the air. Wouldn’t there be more rising thermals off open ocean?

  2. I would hope that most TV stations would have enough sense to air this late at night (if then). Pure emotional garbage that will probably only appeal to their donors.

  3. I’m not a member of Greenpeace but they have a clear point (even though I may not always agree with evertything they say) – the Earth is not an infinite resource that is immune to the effect of human activity.

    We are approaching a particular holiday so Happy Christmas to all those adding comments on this forum .

    As someone who happens to agree with the accumulating evidence about MMGW/AGW I wish to remind the majority of those profering opinons here that you are repeatedly hearing a particular sceptical point of view on this forum . Very few comments here challange this view or express a view outside of that philosophy .

    I’ve spent the afternoon enjoying a few (alcoholic) beverages with a relative who has spent 20 plus years in the area of biological research and foresty. When I asked then about whether there were significant changes indicating the world was warming (in line with MMGW) his unequivocal answer was yes.

    I’m not saying everyone understands all details of what is going to happen .
    I’m not saying computer models should be believed as the truth .

    But the idea that on average the world isn’t going to change due to increasing the concentrations of CO2 is really taking a step too far…..

    Hopefully 2009 will be a better year for all .

  4. Yep, what a LOW blow…..They will not stop! It really is a JOKE! If Santa can go down Chimneys, He can fly thru anything….Right? He doesn’t need a Ship!…LOL! Period!

  5. @PeteM,
    What I think you don’t understand about many of the people that come here is not that we don’t believe that the climate is changing. It’s that we don’t think that the insignificant insect that is man is able to change the course of temperature increases or decreases. It speaks to the arrogance that is man to think that despite the millions of years of climate change that has been occurring on the planet, that it is supposed to stop now because we are on the scene.

    I used to gullible enough to believe in the “sky if falling” predictions of Gore and his ilk, but I have as of yet to see an ozone hole over North America. The secular religion of “Man is destroying the planet” is what has made me a skeptic of MMGW.

  6. PeteM

    I’m happy to say, at this festive time, that on this blog we get both sides of the equation. It is you who needs to spend more time here so that you will learn more about CO2. Your fear of this life giving gas is irrational.

    Merry Christmas.

  7. I wonder if they realize that the language they used reads: “Climate change hits everybody save Santa Claus”.

    Technically a true statement.

  8. Dear PeteM,

    Since you posted the exact same comment on two different post threads, I will too.

    I’ve spent 35 plus years in the area of biological research and forestry, and I can unequivocally assure you that there have been NO significant changes indicating the world was warming. I challenge the conclusions of your unnamed, ‘expert’ relative. Tell him or her that I am willing to debate them on that point in this forum or any other.

  9. I think that the video clip is so stupid and comical that it is of no concern at all. The more far-out that Greenpeace and the other hypsters get, the more people smell a rat. They are hurting their own cause, IMHO.

    And to folks like PeteM, may I suggest that you pick some particular part of the AGW “problem” that interests you (ice melting, disease, sea-levels, whatever) and study that one part in detail. I can almost guarantee that you will find there is very little real science behind the fears.

  10. Pete M wrote:

    “I’ve spent the afternoon enjoying a few (alcoholic) beverages with a relative who has spent 20 plus years in the area of biological research and foresty. When I asked then about whether there were significant changes indicating the world was warming (in line with MMGW) his unequivocal answer was yes.”

    Given that biodiversity actually increases in warmer temperatures (more energy available to the biosphere), could it be that your friend sees such changes in more species? Hmmm… I thought not.

    With about 8″ of global warming in my yard, and 4 more expected tomorrow I would be very happy to see the planet go up a degree or so. However, I would like PeteM to show the “accumulating evidence” that counters much of what the data we see on this site.

  11. I was waiting to see if a house full of elves was going to fall off the ice cliff. That would have been cool. -grin-
    Greenpeace is a joke, and has been for a long time. This “commercial” won’t get much play.

  12. Two points
    1/ Santa doesn’t exist (sorry kids) just like significant AGW!
    2/ Even Santa thought that clip was vomit worthy!

  13. MikeD says:

    I’ve spent 35 plus years in the area of biological research and forestry, and I can unequivocally assure you that there have been NO significant changes indicating the world was warming

    Can we use the relative proportions of C3 vs C4 plants to tell us anything about CO2 levels over the last 750,000 years?

  14. Fun-detail, the ship has a Dutch flag.

    We have Sinterklaas over here in the Netherlands instead of Santa Claus. Sinterklaas traditionally arrives each year in November (usually on a Saturday) by steamboat from Spain (even though the bishop was originally from Asia Minor).

    Steampowered usually means coal-fired, oh my…

    More on him, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinterklaas

  15. Although environmentally aware for the best part of 30 years, sickened when the French sabotaged The Rainbow Warrier, and all for for the development of clean and sustainable technologies, videos of this nature turn my stomach. This sort of sensationalist trash serves no useful purpose and may even have an adverse effect on mankind.

    Shame on Gore and his alarmist disciples for indulging in such idiocy.

  16. I can’t tell… Does Santa puke or is that snot about 29 seconds into it… Who cares about science when you can get computers to do your bidding? Whether it be climate models or animated clips portraying our doom, it’s all propaganda…

    If people weren’t so gullible it would be funny.

  17. Sorry about my last comment! Let’s see if I can get the URL right (a “preview” option would be nice):

    And with respect to the first “Hot Propaganda” video, which was made for a Portuguese environmental organization, Quercus, you can leave comments , which is the official website for that video.

    I am Portuguese and was quite ashamed with it. I know people which are affiliated to that organization but that are know considering dropping off after I showed them the video. It’s just plain disgusting!

  18. PeteM, could you please list for us 10 scientifically confirmed examples of climate changes made to the globe due specifically to man-made CO2? I’m not asking for local stats as this is a ‘global’ problem’.

  19. Mr Watts, have you ever seen Patrick Moore’s (one of the original founders of Greenpeace) essay titled Why I Left Greenpeace”?

    At first, many of the causes we championed, such as opposition to nuclear testing and protection of whales, stemmed from our scientific knowledge of nuclear physics and marine biology. But after six years as one of five directors of Greenpeace International, I observed that none of my fellow directors had any formal science education. They were either political activists or environmental entrepreneurs. Ultimately, a trend toward abandoning scientific objectivity in favor of political agendas forced me to leave Greenpeace in 1986.

    It got so bad that one of the founders left.

  20. I think, what PeteM is traying to say is that the game is not on science, but on politics.
    The add, simply shows how proud is Greenpeace to win that game… and also to get friendly people in Obama’s future governement, in order to keep on winning next games. I feel really sorry, but these are experimental facts.

  21. @PeteM

    the Earth is not an infinite resource that is immune to the effect of human activity.

    And neither is the earth immune to the effect of the suns activity. I find it amazing… To the AGW crowd, the Earth’s climate is this static thing only susceptible to human influence. Meanwhile the two 800 pound elephants in the room: our sun (98% of the mass of our entire solar system) and our oceans (71% of our planet’s surface) are completely ignored, but man, that demigod of death and destruction, is the root cause of evil.

    Meanwhile, the propaganda machine by AGW hate machine is in full motion…

  22. PeteM (13:02:24) :
    I’m not a member of Greenpeace but they have a clear point

    I was a Greenpeacer some decades ago. Before they went off the deep end. Nothing like an ex-foo to talk about their ex… ;-)

    the Earth is not an infinite resource that is immune to the effect of human activity.

    While earth is not infinite, resources are infinite. Why? Precisely for the reason real environmentalists advocate, recycling. ALL the copper ever mined (minus a trivial quantity that went up on space shots) is still on the planet. It didn’t go anywhere. Most of it is recycled. Some new is mined each year. They same thing is true for most resources. We will use that copper for an infinite (for all practical purposes) length of time (as long as we are here.)

    The exceptions fall into two broad categories. Renewable, like forests and farms, and substitute-able, like oil and coal, where we have more ways to replace them than I have time to type. It’s just cheaper to use the oil first. (One example, Braskem – BAK, makes ‘petro’chemicals from sugar cane. We don’t need to save the oil to make plastics or anti-freeze.)

    While it is popular among the greens to scare the children with stories of impending doom from resource depletion, it just isn’t true. (As part of my major I took an upper division class at U.C. that basically proved just that… The Economics of Ecology.) We never run out of resources, we just change what is a resource.

    Even if it were true, the proposed fix is wrong. Modern economically advanced cultures drop to negative population growth. The way to fix aggregate over consumption is individual over consumption… Paradoxical, but true.

    When you have a choice of DVDs, movies, blogs, dinner out, NFL game,… you tend to spend less time chopping down the forest and having kids. THE largest correlation with lower fecundity is female education. Want to save the planet? Give every woman a college education and every guy a season ticket to football … I might wish it were otherwise, but the laws of economics are as firm as those of other fields (even if they often look like perplexing paradoxes…)

    We are approaching a particular holiday so Happy Christmas to all those adding comments on this forum .

    Agreed. Be of good cheer and enjoy the season!

    I wish to remind the majority of those profering opinons here that you are repeatedly hearing a particular sceptical point of view on this forum . Very few comments here challange this view or express a view outside of that philosophy .

    Yes, it is a most welcome island of sanity in the constant din of AGW propaganda elsewhere. I’ve also noticed a very high calibre of folks here with a wonderful “show me the study and I’ll look at it” science based attitude. And there are conflicts, but they are based in a good natured desire to search for the truth.

    Many of us (most?) are quite certain some warming happened we just think the attribution to ‘people did it’ is wrong. That is where most of the science really points. What did do it is something we frequently argue about. That is a healthy debate.

    I’ve recently posted a link that showed ozone was down 40% this year and it’s about 1/3 of GHG warming todate (and ignored by AGW adherents). That makes it a bigger factor than CO2 right there. Solar output is at least another 1/4 to 1/3 of the observed warming. Add in some bad thermometers, some strange data manipulation by Hansen, and lack of clouds in the models, and AGW goes poof! No, the science is not settled. The sun just went quiet to put an exclamation point on it.

    I’m not saying everyone understands all details of what is going to happen . I’m not saying computer models should be believed as the truth .

    Then you ought to fit in here just fine. Welcome aboard.

    But the idea that on average the world isn’t going to change due to increasing the concentrations of CO2 is really taking a step too far…..

    A true skeptic would say “Why, and show your proof”, but I’m just going to say “Yes some change, but the real question is: Will the impact be in the 0.001% band and completely swamped by all the other stuff (as the sun is demonstrating…) or larger?” And some of us add “And will it be a positive change?” as it has been every time in the geologic past…

    Take a moment to look at: http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar

    A very well done article. I find it particularly interesting because the author says ~”Accept all the data and science in the IPCC report as given, you STILL can’t know if people are causing net warming or net cooling because the particulates error band in the IPCC report swamps CO2 effects.” And then he proves it. We just can’t know, yet. The science is not settled.

    Hopefully 2009 will be a better year for all .

    2008 has been good. 2009 might be better, though colder, but I like snow ;-) May your year be a good one too!

  23. No problem about this one. The kids that still believe in Santa won’t understand the message. Only one more cartoon… The older ones, that know that Santa doesn’t exist will think someone is kidding with them…
    Silly, very silly!
    Ecotretas

  24. Greenpeace is no longer a registered “not for profit” organization in Canada, for exactly these reasons.

    It is now an official Political Lobbying organization.

  25. Mike D.

    I would say that there was some warming from the mid 1970’s but it didn’t reach the level of the early 1930’s. In the 1940’s temperature started a 30-year decline and it is likely that we are following that same pattern today. One must also realize the GISS, for example, uses a different “baseline” period in their calculation of “normal temperatures” than everyone else on the planet. GISS uses the period 1951-1980 that covers the period of cooling. So they cherry picked the coldest period since 1933 to be the baseline “normal” temperature. What that means is that we are likely to go back to “normal” only during a similar 30 year cooling period.

    As we now know have a pretty good idea that there is a roughly 30 year cycle to some major climate influencing events (ENSO, PDO), a 30-year baseline is probably incorrect and we should probably be using a 60 year baseline instead in order to capture a full phase of each cycle both the warm phase and the cool phase.

    If I use the average of 1936 to 1995 as a base “normal” period then the average temperature of the past 12 months has been about 0.25 degrees above “normal”. If I use the GISS standard of 1951 to 1980 then the past 12 months have been about 0.5 degrees above “normal” … twice as high as using the other baseline that includes a portion of a warmer period at both ends rather than the coldest period of this half-century.

  26. “the Earth is not an infinite resource that is immune to the effect of human activity”

    And obviously we should mine our 100% Natural ice cubes from Antarctica, so we don’t affect Santa.

  27. Very few comments here challange this view or express a view outside of that philosophy ./PeteM

    Haven’t you even noticed the Cartoons here? And from what I’ve seen over the past 8 years, that’s about all the AGW people have.

  28. PeteM
    Is your friend really Lewis Pugh and he and Greenpeace created an animation showing Pugh in costume on his hired diesel ship breaking free of the Arctic ice.
    Merry Christmas and to all a goodnight.

  29. As usual, whenever anyone suggests MMGW maybe something to take seriously .. several varied and contrary ( but never any supporting ) comments appear . I wish to draw attention to the curious imbalance in this . e

    Since there are a range of counter points – I’ll respond with the following points in the festive season .

    Mick C – my friend deos not need funding for his view . This is his conclusion from a life time working in this field . Curiously he once used to wonder if sunspots were a possible cause but rapidly dismissed this possibility when he looked at the information.
    I might respond with the suggestion similar to yours …. Who funds your comments ?

    Robert –
    I do understand that some ( but not all) visitors to this forum think changes are happening but are of the view that this is for ‘natural’ reasons .
    But (to me ) this just doesn’t stack up –
    You suggest man is ‘an insignificant insect’ … . then why are areas the size of small countries deforesting in the Amazon each year .
    You make comparisons over millons of years and use the word arrogance .
    The human population is many times greater now than in the past (when parts of the world were different prior to man’s terraforming activities) .
    In my view, the majority of the human species is therefore , ironically, more dependant on a productive biosphere now than in the past .
    You may want to wash this off by suggesting I am uninformed or the subject of media propoganda ( something which I would dispute) but the idea that mankind is not having a profound effect on this planet does not stand up to any impartial scrutiny.

    Also – Why do the folks here seem to think everyone offering a pro AGW opinion is a close friend of Al Gore’s (or is this something specific to US comments)- there really is a lot more information from other sources (and many parts of the world outside of North America). If the only reason some don’t like MMGW is Al Gore … well … I guess you are entitled to your opinions- however this is not an approach that seems a valid justification .

    David Porter – the thing I am concerned ( but not afraid of) is views trying to disprove any thought that increased CO2 can ever be any sort of problem in any way what so ever .
    Slipping in the word ‘life giving’ about CO2 does not suggest anything apart from an attempt to confuse the issue – ( sometime CO2 is life taking .. just as Oxygen is sometime not life giving).
    The idea that deliberately allowing the atmosphere to change composition can never have negative effect ( unless of course it’s proved to a standard well beyond that used from any other decisions) is simply complacent .

    (Obvoisly I note the idea that this forum is mainly focused on promoting articles/views that suggest man cannot be the cause of any problems.)

    Mike D – (I posted the comment – because I thought the previous thread had closed ). If you have spent 35 years in this area and not noticed any change I can’t really comment further on your offer of a public debate.

  30. Comments by James Taranto, of the WSJ (opinionjournal.com/best), on Dec. 19 should help people better understand the state of science on global warming:

    “Scientists have found two large leaks in Earth’s magnetosphere, the region around our planet that shields us from severe solar storms,” Space.com reports:

    The leaks are defying many of scientists’ previous ideas on how the interaction between Earth’s magnetosphere and solar wind occurs: The leaks are in an unexpected location, let in solar particles in faster than expected and the whole interaction works in a manner that is completely the opposite of what scientists had thought.

    Laymen may be confused by the notion of a scientific discovery “that is completely the opposite of what scientists had thought.” After all, we keep reading that all scientists agree about global warming and no one may question it. Is science infallible or isn’t it?

    The answer is: It depends. Scientific teachings that are part of the “ordinary magisterium,” such as those involving the interaction between Earth’s magnetosphere and solar wind, are not infallible. But global warming is what scientists call an ex cathedra doctrine.

    I didn’t realize the IPCC was speaking “ex cathedra”. I’m sorry to have questioned AGW.

  31. Everywhere in the world, countries grant Greenpeace charitable status. This must be revoked now; they are a political organization that engages in political lobbying.

  32. http://www.theage.com.au/environment/bush-v-city-the-great-climate-divide-20081220-72pe.html

    I saw this gem near the end of an article contrasting the willingness to believe in AGW in urban Australia vs. in the Australian bush areas. Some brainwashed kid got ambushed when asking a farmer about his carbon footprint:

    Climate change was the feature exhibit at this year’s Elmore Field Days, north of Bendigo, complete with school kids offering to calculate visitors’ carbon emissions at the door — until one farmer told a year 3 student to “f— off”.

    That farmer sounds like a tough sell!

  33. …the Earth is not an infinite resource that is immune to the effect of human activity./PeteM

    Which is true – probably as true as any other Platitude – but which therefore doesn’t really mean anything in particular in practice, very much like simply postulating, “Humans are ruining the Earth by producing fossil fuel CO2″, then virtually exclusively only repeating this statement ad lib, such as the ipcc’s “science” does.

    Check it out for yourself, Pete. The ipcc is simply not doing Science, at least by the time its “findings” and predictions get to us – which, btw, turn out to be mostly wrong.

  34. I’m intrigued by Mr Pete’s “accumulating evidence about MMGW/AGW”. Everywhere I turn I see evidence contradicting the catastrophic AGW theory and nothing but argument supporting it. What is the “accumulating evidence”?

    I am not, of course, talking of the possibility or even probability that human activity has some marginal effect on temperature because nothing turns on that. I am talking about the disastrous scenario painted so vividly by St Al of Gore and his merry men. Not only do I see no accumulation of evidence for that case, I see a diminution through the continued failure of the naughty disobedient planet to do the things St Al says we are causing it to do.

    People saying that X causes Y is not evidence in support of the proposition that X causes Y, it is mere assertion. An accumulation of assertion is worth nothing without physical evidence to back it up.

  35. PeteM (13:02:24) :

    “I’m not a member of Greenpeace but they have a clear point (even though I may not always agree with everything they say) – the Earth is not an infinite resource that is immune to the effect of human activity.”

    I didn’t see anything in the video about the Earth not being an infinite resource, just that climate change is bad, which means that there has been lots of bad going on for billions of years.

    Why don’t they make the video about global resource issues as there are so many global resource issues that we don’t adequately evaluate and factor into public policy decisions?

  36. If Santa Claus needs a new home because his has melted, he should come south to Wisconsin because so far this winter (and like last winter and the one before that) has been brutal. Here in Milwaukee this December already is ranked in 2nd place for most snow in the month, and the daily temperatures have consistently fallen below normal. The temperature is expected to drop tonight and more snow is on the way. Santa and his reindeer would love it here!

  37. PeteM, what is the clear point of the Greenpeace group – that they can only afford a sailship? This is obviously aimed at the 8 and under age group.

    The North Pole is melting? I thought the pole was made of carbon fiber reinforced graphite encasing a north-only neodymium magnet.

    PeteM

    “I’ve spent the afternoon enjoying a few (alcoholic) beverages with a relative who has spent 20 plus years in the area of biological research and foresty. When I asked then about whether there were significant changes indicating the world was warming (in line with MMGW) his unequivocal answer was yes.”

    Just what evidence was offered during your imbibing that global warming is man-made other than exchanging anecdotes “over a few?” Global warming is only man-made in the sense that Algore/UN/IPCC/Pachauri have created it with bogus computer models and irrelevent anecdotes.

    “But the idea that on average the world isn’t going to change due to increasing the concentrations of CO2 has any impact is really taking a step too far…..”

    I have been searvhing for the data that shows that anthropogenic CO2 has any significant effect on the base temperature of the Earth, if there is such thing as a base temperature of the Earth other than averaging (guesstimating) the temperatures from regional and local climates. The CO2 concentration in parts per million is said to be increasing at a current rate of 2.18 ppm (Mauna Loa) and only 0.436 ppm is due to anjthropogenic sources (the DOE ratio of natural to man-made CO2 was 5.76 to 1 up to the year 2000). The idea that the total yearly increase in CO2 is due to man kind, certainly is a step to far.

  38. A revealing look at AGW political propaganda.

    In the minds of Greenpeace and other AGW proponents, I think that they really believe that the science is settled. It’s now all about motivating the body politic to act on their belief system to save the planet.

  39. the Earth is not an infinite resource that is immune to the effect of human activity

    Wow, hyperbole much? Did you think up that pithy little statement all by your lonesome or did you get it from some Greenpeace website?

    But the idea that on average the world isn’t going to change due to increasing the concentrations of CO2 is really taking a step too far…

    Didn’t think anyone disputes that increasign CO2 will change our world….it will make it more hospitable for plant life. Did you fail basic Biology?

    As for warming, CO2 isn’t the answer. To paraphrase the 1992 election cycle: Its the Sun, stupid! Deny it all you want. Stamp your little feet and scream at the top of your lungs. Wring your hands over ‘carbon guilt’ all you want. It will not change the basic fact that its the giant ball of burning hydrogen our planet orbits, its magnetic field and the charged particles it emits that affect our climate.

    BTW, I hope future generations hold you and your ilk accountable for the millions of deaths of people living in poverty across the planet since its the actions of groups like Greenpeace that prevent developing countries from emerging from subsistence living. All those freedoms you take for granted are denied to people living in squalor in many 3rd World countries. A pox on you and your house!

  40. Still wishing all a Happy Xmas – although surprise , surprise … there are only comments supporting anti-MMGW .

    FatBigot – not sure where you’ve been for the past few decades but many of us have noticed a warming world . Great knock out argument … dislike of Al Gore is conclusive evidence that MMGW isn’t happening .

    J Peden – The only platitude I noticed was your claim that the IPCC is a non-scientific organisation . I have checked …and I disagree with your implication that the information provided by this organisation is not valid in any way . Given we are dealing with a chaotic system with variable predictions I think it’s got a reasonable handle on what may/may not occur – in some respects it may turn out to be very conservative.

    Pete – Very good point . I woudn’t be surprised to discover that they (Greenpeace) have made videos/ campaign about resource depletion but I suspect they will never be posted on this website . ( Do you really expect anything other than MMGW isn’t happening or MMGW supporters must be ridiculed will ever be posted as a lead article here ?)

  41. Desperation has set in.
    Science theory has failed them.
    Honesty has been abandoned.
    Propaganda is required to keep the fund raising going.

    They are really sick puppies.

  42. PeteM,

    If I wish to hear the views (or at least the press releases) of those who perceive that CO2 is a pollutant that causes the planet to overheat I have only to turn to the Main Stream Media – almost any page of any publication, most internet ‘news’ feeds and many hours of TV or Radio broadcasting, and their message will be made available to me. Indeed often I don’t have a choice.

    Of course most of that output avoids science entirely. Indeed they gave up on science years ago in the recognition that it was too difficult to get across to the peasants and in any case things had moved on to the point where politics was driving everything. Greenpeace, for example, is a political organisation not a scientific one.

    In the most recent years Big Business and Charity has been recruited to the cause, mostly led by the same people whose financial wizardry in recent times has led us to the superbly effective economic world we find ourselves enmeshed with today.

    How long will it be before Madoff is appointed to the role of running the US Carbon Trading Scheme? What a terrific Ponzi opportunity that is. Madoff seems to have the most up to date CV there is with qualifications for finding fraudulent activity in carbon offset indulgences.

    Perhaps your relative is hoping for financial support from such schemes? (Directly or Indirectly.)

    No matter which opinion on the CC ‘fight’ subject one leans towards, the concept of policy being made on the basis of carbon controls directing the action via fiscal instruments seems to be at least one step too far, probably several steps too far. That Greenpeace will propagandise to even the very young in order help such proposals seems to overstretch the charity mark by a long way. Tacit support for such an approach, which seems to be what you are offering, strikes me as an overly generous concession to politics over science.

  43. Brooklyn Red Leg
    The issue isn’t just whether the planet will be more habitable for plants – there is also a thought about where 6 billion people able to survive on a planet if it changes climate ( given this is an experiment we haven’t run before).

    Also – suggesting some people are living in hardship doesn’t negate any view that a particular approach may be harmful to the earths climate. Or are you suggesting ‘a pox’ on any activity that doesn’t divert money to the 3rd world poor’. (In which case I hope you are sputting a pox on defence , leisure spending , buying cars , cometic surgery, and anything else that diverts moeny that could be charitably donated to the 3rd world).

  44. PeteM
    I think you have it backwards. Nobody is denying it is a little warmer now than say the sixties. Thank God for that – I hated the winters in the sixties – sometimes they lasted till mid-april.
    What some skeptics do not like is being told that this is terrible, they are destroying the planet, they should be ashamed and pay zillions of dollars to purchase indulgences for their sins. And that this warmth is unprecedented in thousands of years.
    Are you kidding? 11700 years ago there was an Iceage in my country (Denmark).
    1500-2000 years later the climate was 23 degrees C warmer than today in mean temperatures – 23 degrees! We had freakin Pond Tortoises and Pelicans breeding in my country!
    And you are not supposed to be skeptical, when every single GCM is out of sync with actual measurements? Check out the 1988 forecasts – sorry, projections, every single one overshoots. A couple of years more on the same trend, and they will be falsified.
    And why are you so afraid of change? Almost every time something has changed in the last 150 years, it has been for the better. Change is good.
    This will be the best century ever!
    Merry Christmas

  45. Hello Anthony,

    Perhaps PeteM could be given a thread to document his (ahem) “accumulating evidence”.

    Considering how little evidence there is, this should be fascinating!

  46. I have to say , that in comparison to the Quercus video, the level of production and CGI quality of this piece is quite shoddy. PETA must be having budget troubles (good, and understandable). If I hadn’t read elsewhere what the CGI animation was intended to depict, I don’t think I would have understood it.

  47. Ed Scott

    “The CO2 concentration in parts per million is said to be increasing at a current rate of 2.18 ppm (Mauna Loa) and only 0.436 ppm is due to anjthropogenic sources (the DOE ratio of natural to man-made CO2 was 5.76 to 1 up to the year 2000). The idea that the total yearly increase in CO2 is due to man kind, certainly is a step to far.”

    The idea that increasing CO2 levels has nothing to do with burning fossil is just plain wrong (even the majority of those opposing MMGW concede this point) . If this is your starting view well … no comment.

  48. PeteM: You must have been sleeping and missed the latest news the earth has been experiencing a cooling decade due to several factors: the PDO has turned negative; the AMO is turning negative; the sun has shed all of it’s spots. Furthermore, Anthony’s survey of surface temperature gathering stations has revealed around 85% of these stations do not meet specifications as to siting. How can the AGW climatologists claim the world is getting warmer when their data is corrupt? And of course, Steve McIntyre’s blog has ripped to shreds the misuse of statistics by Hansen, Mann, Jones, Amman, etc. If you still have your head in the clouds, check out this link:

    http://www.urban-renaissance.org/urbanren/publications/Wegman%5B2%5D.pdf

  49. The issue isn’t just whether the planet will be more habitable for plants – there is also a thought about where 6 billion people able to survive on a planet if it changes climate

    ::sighs::

    [SNIP] final warning, no more posts with language like this or you will end up in the banned bin – Anthony

  50. I wrote to Greenpeace a few months back. I told them in my email that I thought that they were doing themselves no favours with their stance.

    I received a very rude reply. Greenpeace are in my opinion a bunch of thugs, just like religious zealots who believe God is on their side and can do whatever they please as a result.

    I also wrote a similar email to the World Wildlife Fund challenging them on the pro AGW stance. They disagreed with my views, but the response was very polite and well argued.

    The WWF disagree with my views, thats for sure, but they have every right to take a view different to mine. They are prepared to argue their case forcefully but without getting personal, and they have my respect for that.

  51. Richard DeSousa says:

    You must have been sleeping and missed the latest news the earth has been experiencing a cooling decade due to several factors: the PDO has turned negative; the AMO is turning negative; the sun has shed all of it’s spots.

    Yes, but what is the underlying mechanism/explanation for these things. What do they mean. Has the energy that has been building up in the oceans gotten away, or at least enough of it such that we will see a prolonged downturn in temperatures for the next 30 years? Does the absence of sunspots really mean that TSI reduces even a little bit and is it enough to result in cooling when the PDO and the AMO are turning negative?

    Furthermore, Anthony’s survey of surface temperature gathering stations has revealed around 85% of these stations do not meet specifications as to siting.

    It certainly seems that politics is exploiting what looks like the poor quality of the measurements.

  52. I’m sorry, PeteM, but I keep seeing you post assertions, but without a single piece of supporting evidence. Unfortunately, in my short time trying to understand MMGW this is typical of the MMGW promoters. Maybe you could change that and help me out by showing me something that supports your statements.

  53. PeteM
    Also – suggesting some people are living in hardship doesn’t negate any view that a particular approach may be harmful to the earths climate.

    What do you think would be better for mankind we continue with the industrial revolution and bring developing nations to the same or similar standards of living we have and enable them and us to adapt to the coming changes nature brings.
    Or we abandon the progress we made in supplying affordable energy and transportation to everybody and join the third world with expensive wind and solar power in the dark ages?

  54. Actually the clip shows Santa and his workshop is the cause of arctic warming and melting of the icecap! With the under 12 population increasing exponentially, , more toys = more warming!

    That’s why Greenpeace drugged Santa and are dragging him off to their eco-friendly reeducation camp! :-)

  55. It’s got nothing to do with science, it never did with the environmentalists anyway, it’s simply their ideology writ large now.

  56. “Yes, but what is the underlying mechanism/explanation for these things.”

    Cycles in long term weather pattern’s basically. If we knew the underlying mechanism for multi-decadal weather patterns, we would probably be tempted to mess with them and screw up the climate bigtime.

    Also, one will note the return of Pacific sardine populations that seems to happen in sync with PDO cycles.

  57. These data reveal cycles of approximately 60 year duration in the abundance of both sardine and northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax); moreover,
    during sardine absence, anchovy tend to be more abundant and vice versa.

    The mechanism driving the fluctuations remains unclear. There may be a parallel response to large-scale environmental change or competition
    for food or other biological interaction. Nine major recoveries and nine subsequent collapses of the sardine population have occurred in the past
    1700 years. The recoveries range from 20 to 70 years, with
    an average of 36 years, while the collapses range from 20 to 50 years, averaging 30 years in length.

    That was written in 2004. I suspect we might have an idea these days of what might account for those cycles and it is probably the same thing that drives climate cycles in North America.

  58. Pete M,
    Dr. Roy Spencer has been studying the climate for the better part of his life and does not share your views. His research is based on several decades of study versus climate modelers who do not study meteorology, but write programs with incomplete and incorrect information built into them. Spencer bases his conclusions on observational evidence, the bane of AGW promoters.

    Dr. John Christy as well does not agree with the “consensus” (a meaningless term in science) view on global warming. In fact, if one would consider appeal to authority as a guide, it is the pillars of climate science (Lindzen, Bryson, Singer etc.) who have stated the main tenets of alarmist AGW is wrong.

    It is apparent by witness of the various journals willing to publish anything pro AGW no matter how horrible the paper like crap through a goose, yet has now engaged in censoring scientists that may infringe on their multi-billion dollar industry. Follow the money.

    Would you care to take a guess at which side of the debate is being well funded by about 1000:1 over their opponents?

  59. BTW, I see no discrepancy in the video. If you believe in CAGW, you surely must believe Santa Claus is real as well and in big trouble because the boys and girls naughty parents are destroying the planet. Are they now teaching kids to lecture their parents for being polluters and planet killers? It wouldn’t surprise me which is why my kids don’t attend publik skools.

    My kids were watching Nickelodeon when something caught my ear. They were promoting their “Green” website, complete with video games combating the dreaded CO2 Monster. This is pure propaganda and indoctrination at its worst.

    http://www.nick.com/minisites/biggreen/index.jhtml?adfree=true&_requestid=591224#main

    “Team up as your favorite Nicktoons to battle CO2 Monsters in 3D”

    And my wife wonders why I want to cancel cable and throw the TV in the trash.

  60. Folks,

    Leave PeteM alone. He’s brought nothing to the discussion beyond simply saying that he thinks AGW is happening and it’s a bad thing. No data, no references and no rationale. It appears that he’s simply repeating what he reads in the newspaper.

    I once heard a smart man say that you can’t reason someone out of something that they didn’t reason themselves into. Unless PeteM would care to post something that demonstrates that he’s done the hard work of digging through the available literature and data sources from both sides of the argument, this aphorism is pretty clearly applicable, so why try?

    OA

  61. Dear Anthony Watts… Yes, it appeared here, in Monterrey, Mx, but in the shape of a picture Navidad, S. A. (Christmas, Inc.), where the guy on red suit and his factory is in danger by AGW and climate change. Two people rescue him through prompting the children of the world to stop emissions for stopping AGW. Now greens are showing the true nature of their thinking, i.e. pure fantasy.

  62. PeteM wrote:

    I’ve spent the afternoon enjoying a few (alcoholic) beverages with a relative who has spent 20 plus years in the area of biological research and foresty. When I asked then about whether there were significant changes indicating the world was warming (in line with MMGW) his unequivocal answer was yes.

    Now, check the geologic and fossil records. Can you truly say that Earth’s climate is static? Yes, the world was warming, but nothing points to that warming being man-made. Now, it’s cooling; again it’s not man-made. Climate changes. Period. Full stop.

  63. jae (13:53:52) writes: I think that the video clip is so stupid and comical that it is of no concern at all.
    And I add obtuse and confusing, jae, to endorse your conclusion.

  64. PeteM seems to be suffering from some serious delusions! :] There is nothing more unscientific than to make up some BS about changing C02 levels bringing some kind of horrible change. you could increase C02 massively and all it would do is make more life. Wake up dude.

    All the cyclical patterns of our planet are keeping everything very well in hand, thank you very much. It’s the height of arrogance to think we know even half of the cycles that are driving our climate! The sun and its cycles is ignored by the AGW idiots as are the decadal oscillations, and it is they which really drive the climate and are cooling the globe.

  65. E.M.Smith wrote:

    When you have a choice of DVDs, movies, blogs, dinner out, NFL game,… you tend to spend less time chopping down the forest and having kids. THE largest correlation with lower fecundity is female education. Want to save the planet? Give every woman a college education and every guy a season ticket to football … I might wish it were otherwise, but the laws of economics are as firm as those of other fields (even if they often look like perplexing paradoxes…)

    Give them Internet access! A recently announced study showed that a significant percent of women and men prefer to abstain from sex for TWO weeks, rather than go without Internet access for ONE week. =)

  66. PeteM wrote:

    In my view, the majority of the human species is therefore , ironically, more dependant on a productive biosphere now than in the past .

    Then consider that a warmer world until about 100 degrees Fahrenheit equals a more productive biosphere. Warming is a Good Thing. But you haven’t provided anything except an unnamed source who believes in the warming–nothing to support your belief that the warming is man-made.

    David Porter – the thing I am concerned ( but not afraid of) is views trying to disprove any thought that increased CO2 can ever be any sort of problem in any way what so ever .
    Slipping in the word ‘life giving’ about CO2 does not suggest anything apart from an attempt to confuse the issue – ( sometime CO2 is life taking .. just as Oxygen is sometime not life giving).

    Plants need CO2 to survive. People need plants in order to survive. I’d say that makes CO2 “life giving”. Commercial growers actually increase the level of CO2 in their greenhouses to boost plant growth! They found that CO2 levels of 800 to 1800 ppm are optimal for the majority of crops grown in greenhouses.

    Even grasslands benefit from increased CO2. “New research results from Colorado State University suggest that the effects of rising atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and global warming will lead to an increase in grass production…. The scientists observed that doubling CO2 levels caused strong and consistent increases in grass growth which was due to improved water-use efficiency.”

  67. PeteM (13:02:24) :

    I’ve spent the afternoon enjoying a few (alcoholic) beverages with a relative who has spent 20 plus years in the area of biological research and forestry. When I asked then about whether there were significant changes indicating the world was warming (in line with MMGW) his unequivocal answer was yes.

    Had you asked him “Were there significant changes indicating the world was warming (in line with the positive PDO flip in the late 1970s)” what would he have said?

    Why did you specify the sort of global warming? Is MM (man made?) warming different than natural warming? You could have asked simply “Were there significant changes indicating the world was warming?” And perhaps the follow up “Are they continuing?”

  68. The longer we go without significant change before governments take action the bigger the fudging will have to be by the IPCC to account for the changes that haven’t been predicted or haven’t occurred. I only hope we can get a few more years under our belt first, otherwise with our current luck (economic catastrophe) the CO2 may actually decline while the climate cools naturally. Then AG will say that it’s proof that a reduction in CO2 decreases the temperatures.

  69. This brainwashing of very young children is becoming a way of life. When my Grandkids come here they stare wide-eyed at Animal Planet, National Geographic, Discovery, BBC and a host of others who endlessly project into their fertile minds the unquestioned ‘fact’ that the planet is doomed, and it is us who are doing it. They are left with no shadow of doubt as to who the doomsdoers are, and they don’t even ask the question of where the electricity will come from to allow them to watch these ‘science is settled’ offerings in the future. A promise of a million hideous windmills in the sky is a good enough sop to wallpaper over everything.

  70. Pete M.

    I am all for some of this MMGW. We have a couple feet of snow on the ground and every day the temps are well below what they call normal. If you know the secret of how to warm things back up could you please share this info with us and we will do our best to implement it.

  71. I got tired of all the sleight of mouth and stopped reading. Did Pete M. ever divulge any of his accumulating evidence? Here in the Seattle area, normals for this time of year are; low 36F, high 45F. Since Sun. Dec 14. 31/34, 24/31, 25/35, 33/37, 29/30, 18/29. We have had two snow storms and now there is a third vigourous snow storm bringing 4″>16″ of snow and winds in the Cascade foothills gusting to 65mph. The coming week will have a few days when the high will get a bit above the normal low but all the lows will be sub-freezing and snow or freezing rain showers are in for every day. 8 > 14 day NOAA outlook is for below normal temps till Jan. 2. My water pipe froze Fri. morning. If the storm takes down the electricity here, life is going to be grim. I’ve been up here 16 years, this is the longest weather siege by far. Global Warming; my fundament.

  72. Has anyone notice that they had to rely to cgi animation because the reality just doesn’t correspond to their beliefs.

  73. OT
    I would like to send you a screenshot I took a little bit ago from Yahoo Weather.

    I’ve never seen “Unknown Precipitation” before.

    How do I get it to you?

    REPLY: No need. That terms is used when the observer can’t tell if it is rain/sleet/snow due to visibility issues. Or, if an ASOS unit it can’t resolve it. – Anthony

  74. PeteM (16:52:32) :
    Ed Scott

    “The CO2 concentration in parts per million is said to be increasing at a current rate of 2.18 ppm (Mauna Loa) and only 0.436 ppm is due to anjthropogenic sources (the DOE ratio of natural to man-made CO2 was 5.76 to 1 up to the year 2000). The idea that the total yearly increase in CO2 is due to man kind, certainly is a step to far.”

    The idea that increasing CO2 levels has nothing to do with burning fossil is just plain wrong (even the majority of those opposing MMGW concede this point) . If this is your starting view well … no comment.

    PeteM, take a careful look at what Ed posted. It has numbers in it. You have the word ‘nothing’. Big difference. Until you get mastery of that, you are wasting your time. I posted a specific reference for you to read about CO2 and particulates. You posted that no one gave any specific evidence. If you can’t see the cognitive dissonance in that, you are wasting your time.

    What attracts me to this site is the technical depth of the folks here and the specific technical content of many of the posts and links. What I’ve seen in your postings in this round is very low on substance and very long on commentary. Folks will interact with this for a while, but will tire of it. Some comments from some friends is not high quality science…

    I was willing to give it a second go round with you, but at this rate the “Does SO, does NOT, you’re just not listening to authority” is getting old and looking more and more like trolling and less like sincere dialog and a search for scientific truth.

    There are dozens of specific posts and links to specific science showing that the AGW thesis is broken. Just go through any of the blog entries here and pick a piece of the science. State what you think in wrong in the thesis (The Sun Can’t do that much because of ‘foo’, or particulates can’t have that much influence because of ‘bar’, or even it can’t be the ozone because {foo bar}.) Have pointers to references and be prepared to defend the thesis, not just talking points. If you can’t go there, be prepared to be ignored. Either you don’t have the chops to do it, or you don’t care about the truth; both of which are a dead end.

  75. PeteM

    How can you state that the Earth is getting warmer, when all the time there are reports of colder weather phenomena like unseasonably heavy snowfalls;
    Here on mid Vancouver Island right now
    Australia and China earlier this year and last.
    Snow in Saudi Arabia and Palestine early 2008. Ad nauseum

    Let’s not forget;
    More ice in Antarctica, and the Arctic ice sheet recovering quite quickly.
    Global ‘Cooling’ trend becoming apparent since early 2000’s
    Predicted trophosperic ‘warming’ anomoly not found.
    Atmospheric ice crystal phenomena more common (Inverted ‘icebows’) in lower latitudes than normal. Such items are regularly posted on http://www.spaceweather.com.
    The list of things not getting warmer just goes on and on and on.

    In short; a continuing lack of evidence that the Earth is getting warmer due to CO2 emissions. Give it up. The world is not going to ‘end’. Relax and have a happy Christmas instead of fighting a losing battle over a political phenomenon such as Man Made Climate Change. Merry Christmas.

  76. Like some before me, I don’t have the stamina to read through every response. Let me keep my own blessedly short and simple:

    Greenpeace has not abandoned science just because of their use of a cultural icon. It’s called pathos, and it’s an argumentative tactic. I’m sure that the individuals involved in the commercial’s creation were aware that Santa Claus is generally considered a children’s myth, and further that they weren’t actually trying to assert that they’d hauled him and the reindeer out of the North Pole. (Apparently we’re screwing the elves.) Regardless of whether you support Greenpeace or not, don’t bash it for an ad that was neither slanderous nor deceitful.

  77. PeteM (16:15:57) :

    The information provided by this organization IPCC is not valid in any way . Given we are dealing with a chaotic UN system with variable predictions, it is not a reasonable on what may/may not occur – in respect it is not conservative.

    By moving your words around we find the truth !!!
    Again PeteM your words Prove MMGW/AGW is a hoax!

  78. This is from Scientific, realist, atheists and agnostics????

    1.) I represent that remark.

    2.) I resemble that remark.

  79. J Peden – The only platitude I noticed was your claim that the IPCC is a non-scientific organisation . I have checked …and I disagree with your implication that the information provided by this organisation is not valid in any way./PeteM

    Disregarding Pete’s other tactics and acknowledging the correct admonition above that Pete is not equipped to deal with reality in a rational way:

    Ok, Pete, here you are on a site whose owner is emphasizing that the GISS and Hadley “scientists” did not bother to check any of the thermometers/citings from which they derive their temperature data, and is showing that those citings/thermometers in the U.S. very largely do not meet CRN standards for collecting data. Right?

    Then you are so brazen as to tell us that you have “checked” and found the ipcc procedures “scientific”?

    [Pete, this is only the tip of the ipcc’s anti-scientific method iceberg, btw.]

    Bite the bullet right here, Pete, and also tell us what scientific background you have that might give you some ability to discern what is science and what is not.

  80. You are right. That is a rather disturbing and ersatz piece of propaganda which should not be taken seriously.

    E.M. Smith wrote,

    What attracts me to this site is the technical depth of the folks here and the specific technical content of many of the posts and links. What I’ve seen in your postings in this round is very low on substance and very long on commentary. Folks will interact with this for a while, but will tire of it. Some comments from some friends is not high quality science. . .

    True, but as the devil’s advocate (or perhaps merely PeteM’s) I feel obliged to point out that technical depth and specific technical content do not add up to common sense, outside of which data of any sort has little perceptible value. Mr. Watts’ meticulous work is indeed valuable, and healthy skepticism, even in the face of a quite large and growing peer-reviewed scientific consensus which would hardly describe AGW theses as ‘broken,’ is welcome.

    What remains to be seen, if I may offer some non-technical commentary without running the apparently significant risk of comment deletion, is whether or not this population of statistical aberrations creates coherent deviation or bias rather than mere noise with respect to the sum total of measurements. That would seem to be a question of some import.

    It is my hope that NASA’s new carbon mapping satellite (OCO) will be able to assist in the understanding of the highly complex relationships between human industrial activities, carbon dioxide presence and distribution, and climate change in a way that will complement Mr. Watts’ work in field analysis.

    Thank you.

  81. While earth is not infinite, resources are infinite.

    Yes. At least in the sense of “not running out”. Though very few people seem to understand this.

  82. PeteM (16:28:32) :
    […]where 6 billion people able to survive on a planet if it changes climate

    Lets do a bit of math, shall we? From:

    http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-density-125.html

    we get that the top 19 cities by population density run from about 10k people per sq.km. to about 30k per sq.km. 6,000,000,000/10,000 is 600,000. So a rectangle of 600 km by 1000 km would hold everyone on the planet living in a city of the nature of Jakarta, Tehran, Manila, or Lima.

    Drop it to London density and you need 6,000,000,000 / 5,000 or 1,200,000 sq. km. Call it 1200 x 1000 km. Or a little less than 2 areas the size of Texas.

    So we could fit everyone on the planet in Texas at a density similar to what many of them are living in already, or in 2 Texas areas at the density of London. The rest of the planet would be empty. (And need I point out it would be 1/3 the area of Texas at Mumbai densities, though I’d not recommend it ;-)

    Clearly there is no land shortage and everyone could fit in a very reduced land area if we needed to. We just don’t need to.

    The area of England (not including Scotland or Wales is 139,000 or so sq.km. So it would take ten areas about the size of England built up to the density of London, to house everyone on the planet.

    Now go look at a globe. You could put 2 on each of the major populated continents (Europe, N. America, S. America, Africa, Asia) leaving Australia, all of the islands of the world, and all of the Middle East EMPTY. ) Notice that this leaves almost the whole planet empty?

    Last time I looked London was an acceptable place for most folks to live with a decent lifestyle. We are no where near running out of space to put people. That we chose to spread out is not cause for panic.

    If the climate warmed by a full 5 C, we would still have more space for everyone than we need by a very large margin, in whatever places you chose to put the cities. We would get more crops, not less (yes, I can prove it, but look up ‘degree days’ with respect to wheat and other crops before yelping.)

    The fact that we choose to use less dense cities and spread them around the planet more does not change the math. We have lots of space.

    Similar analysis can be done for water, food, minerals, etc. At the end of this you get to the conclusion that we are not running out of stuff and won’t for a very very long time. It’s just not a problem. And it doesn’t change significantly when climate changes as it always naturally does. We can live from Alaska to Phoenix today, just fine.

    Now take a minute and wrap your head around that. No shortage of land. No shortage of water (desalinize infinitely as is being done in California today). No shortage of energy (U from the ocean for millions of years as demonstrated in Japan). No shortage of food (greenhouses are about 10x to 100x more productive than the present open land we use – as is in production in Saudi Arabia and 100s of other places).

    Right on down the list. And this technological base has already been demonstrated (and in many cases is already in production use) in highly diverse climates all over the planet.

    The ‘doom and gloom’ scenario is just flat out wrong. A fantasy.

    That it continuously attracts people I can only attribute to some built in need of the human race to scare itself. Hitchcock sells.

  83. Give them Internet access! A recently announced study showed that a significant percent of women and men prefer to abstain from sex for TWO weeks, rather than go without Internet access for ONE week. =)

    I’ll tell you the truth of the matter. In poor societies, children are profitable (and utterly necessary to sustain the lucky few parents who reach old age). When societies become affluent, children become — hideously — expensive.

    It’s as simple as that. And the demographics bear it out.

  84. What remains to be seen, if I may offer some non-technical commentary without running the apparently significant risk of comment deletion

    Huh? Hardly anyone gets deleted around here. (I have that power and I have virtually never exercised it.)

  85. One more post:
    A.W. is about to ban this one mad at PeteM, But lets petem go on and on off topic. if any of us went to the pro mmgw/agw web sights we would not be allowed access!

    {Brooklyn Red Leg (17:43:05) :
    The issue isn’t just whether the planet will be more habitable for plants – there is also a thought about where 6 billion people able to survive on a planet if it changes climate
    ::sighs::
    [SNIP] final warning, no more posts with language like this or you will end up in the banned bin – Anthony }

    for those trying to change a fools mind here is a quote.
    proverbs 24:7,26:11
    merry Christmas to all and a warm holiday too!
    thank you AW for all your hard work!

  86. Folks, check this out:

    “How Venice Rigged The First, and Worst, Global Financial Collapse”

    http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_91-96/954_Gallagher_Venice_rig.html

    Read it – then replace Venice with Wall Street and/or London City – and ask yourself – could something like this happen again – as well as – what would the consequences be if – (a) this was happening right now, (b) the climate was getting colder instead of warmer and (c) all the key malthusians of the AGW-elite (in Greed Peace, WWF, UN etc.) knew that both the economy AND science ARE rigged and that the world IS heading toward a little ice-age already…

  87. Mike D – If you have spent 35 years in this area and not noticed any change I can’t really comment further on your offer of a public debate.

    Pete M – You revise the question. The debatable point was your claim that there have been significant [biological/forest] changes indicating the world is warming.

    I contend otherwise. There have been no significant biological/forest changes that indicate, or more precisely can be attributed to “warming”. The reasons are that (1) any “warming” that has occurred in the last 100 years has been minuscule at best, perhaps 1 degree C, (2) biological systems are resilient to such minuscule impacts, and (3) biological systems are affected by such a broad gamut of impacts that minuscule warming effects cannot be detected due to confounding by other factors.

    The propensity to “see” effects in complex systems from a single (minuscule) factor is not an error exclusive to GW Alarmists, but you guys dominate that particular game. WUWT occasionally serves up something similar, (anecdotal phenomena so confounded by myriad other factors as to be ridiculous), but only to get the Alarmists’ goat (and demonstrate absurdity).

    Whatever you “see” as an effect of recent warming is thus illusory on your part. Especially considering that there has been NO warming for 10 years, and in fact during the last decade global temps have sunk to 1970’s levels.

    It doesn’t matter what plant or animal species you cite. Other factors dominate changes in abundance. The signature of GW is non-detectable.

    So I win and you lose the debate, despite your refusal to participate in it. Which is pretty much the story with all you Alarmists. You can’t win the debate, so you deny its existence. Funny thing: you see illusory warming effects that don’t exist, but are blind, deaf, and dumb about the very real debate taking place.

  88. Oh deer! What depths do some wish to plummet in the morality stakes.

    Never mind everybody, Wallace & Grommet are on on Chirstmas night on BBC1! Now I believe everything they get up to.

    H C & NY to all

  89. Overall, AGW is a house of cards, a big balloon inflated with hot air.
    It takes only a pin-prick, a small vibration, to make it burst or bring it crashing down.

  90. MikeK: I admit I had to look up ex cathedra, but your comment was perfect. (Ex cathedra is the doctrine of Papal infallibility.) How pertinent to the topic of AGW!

  91. Pierre Gosselin (04:19:35) : “Overall, AGW is a house of cards, a big balloon inflated with hot air. It takes only a pin-prick, a small vibration, to make it burst or bring it crashing down.”

    It is, but so was eugenics not so long ago – also sponsored by the global elite incl. “Rockefeller & Friends”.

    Worth a read: “Rockefeller File” at http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/gary_allen_rocker/

  92. Folks…

    PeteM…Will…see any similarities?

    It’s troll-time again on good ol’ WUWT.
    Same exact “style”…same methods.
    Make some challenging, outlandish statements. Get everyone all riled up…and then never respond to specific responses and challenges. Twist wording just enough to keep the ball rolling…and keep folks here responding to him.

    It’s Whack-A-Mole time…and he/she loves getting folks here to play the game.

    Can’t get a debate on a single point. They just make a statement, and then move on to something else. Never a “Oh…Ok. You got that one…I didn’t know that.”

    Claims that no one here cares about science…that everyone here lives in an echo-chamber.

    Clearly none of this is true. Pick just about any subject that Anthony and others put up, and it’s loaded with science, and usually pretty good debate. Not to mention more than a few tongue-in-cheek comments if the rest of us are lucky.

    And in a day?…maybe 2?…gone…never to be seen or heard from again, because he/she can’t stand up to the scrutiny. They either have to admit their belief system is flawed, or ignore the facts they get presented with here to maintain it, which gets harder and harder to do, the more time you spend here.

    The one thing that was a nice touch though?…

    Wishing everyone here a great holiday season. The one statement with which I agree :)

    JimB

  93. Frances Wilson, who is the Sunday Times weather commentator, in today’s UK Sunday Times writes that:
    ‘This year has beome the 10th warmest year recorded globally (the records began in 1850). The top warmest years globally were, order: 1998,2005,2003(remember the summer?), 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2001, 1997 and 2008. Do you notice something here? Beyond all doubt global warming is here. It’s the fastest rate of global temperature rise. For us in Britain and Ireland, having sat through two dismal summers in a row, it is hard to believe that the summer of 2008 might be considered a scorcher in some parts of the world.’

    Given messages like these, is it any wonder that people believe that there is global warming going on?

  94. Somehow, Greenpeace is one of those radical organizations that the media turn to for “authoritative” comments on things environmental. The point the media misses totally (or conveniently ignores) is that this organization has become a major player in the global “anti-almost everything” industry by only being against human development. They make their careers and money by being activists and anti-everything lobbyists and have done a good job in grabbing attention and thereby raising money. In 2006 their reported global income was in excess of 177.0 million euros. Of course, they keep their personal compensation fairly confidential, but their senior people get well in excess of 100K euros in salaries and benefits annually. These people make a darn good living by being against just about everything – the rest of us try to make a good living by building, creating and serving. It’s hard to remember that Greenpeace started my alma mater UBC in the 1970’s to stop an atomic test in the Alutian Islands chain. Talk about a growth industry!

  95. I was a witness to a visit by the Rainbow warrior.My wife and I were on a sandy beach near Port Orford ,Oregon. I heard a hideously noisy boat, we looked up and here was the Warrior under power by the shall we say,the D-sail.As we watched, they shut down,and in front of local media, sailed into Port.Then when they left after their Protest there,they just fired up and motored out, never bothering to sail, and there was a good NW fetch,too.
    Frauds.Fakers.
    BTW I used to have pictures of their PBY-5 setting on a ramp in Europe,(Spain I think) dripping oil on the rampwithout any form of catch pans or kittylitter underneath.(The PBY is an old patrol/rescue aircraft.)
    Frauds.Fakers.

  96. cjfrank:
    Regardless of whether you support Greenpeace or not, don’t bash it for an ad that was neither slanderous nor deceitful.
    Perhaps not deceitful, but certainly deceptive, and based solely on propaganda. Make no mistake, the stakes here are huge. Simply put, AGW is a lie, and one of epic proportions, involving trillions of dollars, and yes, peoples lives. Also, whenever truth is subverted, fascism creeps in.

  97. E.M.Smith (00:16:02) : No Doomsday ?

    I agree that there is no real doomsday pending, from a resource point of view, but I am equally sure that government is capable of producing one. Water shortages abound from poor use policies. Food production suffers from equally foolish rules and regulations, corruption, etc.

    We may soon have a massive carbon cap and trade tax. It will accomplish nothing other than sucking billions of dollars out of potentially more useful endeavors. We have future requirements of technology that either doesn’t exist or won’t work. (try putting a CFL in your oven, but only if you have a good escape plan and paid-up fire insurance)

    Pierre, I don’t think AGW is going to pop and crash. There is just too much money to be made by the folks promoting it. They will generate whatever propaganda (Anthony has posted several) it takes to keep the bandwagon running, regardless of fact, or what a few skeptics may rant about.

    Logic and reason always yield to emotion and dogma.

  98. Thanks for once again having the backbone/spine to expose me to the blatant ramblings of Greenpeace and how unscientific their stance is to the issue of global warning.
    Its disturbing that have lowered themselves to pelt children with this drivel.
    Greenpeace people do you mind-bend your own childrens minds with this b.s.?
    I often wonder how far the left will go to push their agenda and I guess not even innocent children are even off limits.
    Greenpeace you should be ashamed of the crap you are force feeding down the countries throat. Do your research before you spout this garbage!
    Good job btw with your website!

  99. This is just a PR stunt to hide the true mission depicted in the video. They are actually kidnapping Santa to stop him from distributing coal to all the naughty people. They are just spinning it as a “rescue” mission to make them look good. Santa is just a tool for the coal industry. Why else would someone living in the Arctic promote evil CO2 spewing coal?
    It’s officially winter, try to stay warm!

  100. Katherine (19:27:04) :
    “A recently announced study showed that a significant percent of women and men prefer to abstain from sex for TWO weeks, rather than go without Internet access for ONE week.”

    This supposes they are getting some in the first place, always a dangerous assumption.

  101. A Wod (07:35:29) : Wrote:

    Frances Wilson, who is the Sunday Times weather commentator, in today’s UK Sunday Times writes that:
    ‘This year has beome the 10th warmest year recorded globally (the records began in 1850). The top warmest years globally were, order: 1998,2005,2003(remember the summer?), 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2001, 1997 and 2008. Do you notice something here? Beyond all doubt global warming is here. It’s the fastest rate of global temperature rise. For us in Britain and Ireland, having sat through two dismal summers in a row, it is hard to believe that the summer of 2008 might be considered a scorcher in some parts of the world.’

    Given messages like these, is it any wonder that people believe that there is global warming going on?

    Look on the bright side fella. Once we were were debating whether or not the debate was over. Then we were debating whether or not carbon dioxide caused it. Now we (and they) are debating whether or not it is actually getting warmer.

    Two down, one to go.

  102. Somehow, Greenpeace is one of those radical organizations that the media turn to for “authoritative” comments on things environmental.

    For those who don’t know – apparently including “the media” – the Founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, quit Greenpeace some time ago and has repudiated his own creation because of what it has evolved into.

    – I blame Atomic Energy.

  103. Professor John P. Holdren who is expected to serve as Obama’s top science adviser:

    “The few climate-change “skeptics” with any sort of scientific credentials continue to receive attention in the media out of all proportion to their numbers, their qualifications, or the merit of their arguments. And this muddying of the waters of public discourse is being magnified by the parroting of these arguments by a larger population of amateur skeptics with no scientific credentials at all.” http://undertheradarmedia.wordpress.com/

    Note: He was also Gore’s adviser on the film “inconviniently inaccurate” or whatever the name of it was…

  104. Per Freezing Finn, apparently Holdren thinks repeating quasi-religious mantras which deny reality instead constitutes describing reality. Not surprising, eh?

  105. Hi guys,

    Get real can’t believe so many people are wound up about the video. It’s a bit of fun for Christmas with an important message. I’m not even going to make comment on whether Climate Change is really happening. That arguement was ended a long time ago trying to cling to the denial its not happening is like trying to pretend santa is real once you’ve been out Christmas shopping and bought all the presents yourself!

    Get real, lioghten up and have a good Christmas you bunch of ~snip~

  106. Bah Humbug

    “I’m not even going to make comment on whether Climate Change is really happening. That arguement was ended a long time ago”

    You come on a site where everyone agrees that climate change is really happening, and has been for hundreds of millions of years – and you tell them that? You been previewing the Christmas drinks selection ??

    Any words of wisdom on carbon dioxide specifically causing global warming??

  107. Mike D. (13:47:10) :

    Dear PeteM,

    Since you posted the exact same comment on two different post threads, I will too.

    Actually Mike – on a close reading there are slight differences, possibly indicating a desire on the part of the author “PeteM” to tailor his message to the particular thread.

    He added “I’m not a member of Greenpeace but they have a clear point (even though I may not always agree with evertything they say) – the Earth is not an infinite resource that is immune to the effect of human activity.” to the second post.

    The essence of his message seems to be the warning “But the idea that on average the world isn’t going to change due to increasing the concentrations of CO2 is really taking a step too far…..”

    PeteM – Is that what you are trying to say. If so – no drama – no one here is saying that increasing concentrations of CO2 will not “on average” cause change to the world.

    I personally think that it quite obvious that increasing CO2 concentrations will have a substantial impact on the productivity of the biosphere resulting in increasing crop and fish (fish benefit from increased phytoplankton) yields resulting in increased capacity to support human food needs.

    Or were you talking about some other changes?

  108. kuhnkat (13:54:28) :

    The AGW meme is a perversion of science – unfortunately your comment is indicative of what will happen to the status of science once the AGW scam is broadly understood by the majority of people.

    The scientists who have sold themselves for this fraud have a lot to answer for.

  109. Luke (14:06:47) :

    He probably had lunch first – in the ships galley.

    and with ref to “If people weren’t so gullible it would be funny.”

    There are plenty of people who arn’t.
    Ref Blog Stats
    6,558,521 hits

  110. FatBigot (15:28:00) :

    I’m intrigued by Mr Pete’s “accumulating evidence about MMGW/AGW”. Everywhere I turn I see evidence contradicting the catastrophic AGW theory and nothing but argument supporting it. What is the “accumulating evidence”?

    When I first read that line from PeteM, I honestly thought he was talking about the increasing evidence that MMGW/AGW is a SCAM. As it turned out, I was mistaken – which I freely admit.

  111. TinyCO2 (15:11:09) :

    I think that they have also overstated the energy delivery of these systems…

  112. Christian Bultmann (18:12:54) :

    Or we abandon the progress we made in supplying affordable energy and transportation to everybody and join the third world with expensive wind and solar power in the dark ages?

    That would be the Neo Dark Ages – 2nd time around.

  113. Who, I was going to say, let the troll in?

    I love how some people ignore the climate shifts of the past, due to natural causes, then proclaim loudly, without any evidence to back up their claim, that AGW is caused solely by anthropogenic CO2. As if it’s never warmed in the past, or never cooled in the past, that our climactic system is linear and dmoniated by positive feedback. And I’m still looking for a lucid debate from PeteM, with citations, on how his position is just unbelievably backed by sound, rational, unpoliticized and unbiased science. For one Pete – what is the “global” temp supposed to be? That is a tough question as we can’t even measure our own temp in our country accurately or without a common standard. Were the MWP or the LIA in fact reality or something people just fictionalized? What effect do clouds and water vapor….sigh……..What’s the point?

    I’m so tired of the hysteria of the many groups that preofees the next “dangerous thing to happen to mankind caused by mankind”. The Club of Rome, Y2K, ad nauseum. We are not sheep here.

    Back to topic – stupid video, and Greenpeae should absolutely lose their non-profit status for taking such a blatant political stance. But there’s the rub – our “science” has become extremely politicized, so how do you separate the two? Only time will weed these people out – and unfortunately, they will wreak havoc on all of us with their well meaning, but wrong “fixes” to a non-problem.

  114. I’m in the nuclear industry. We know Greenpeace.
    They have been at the level shown by this vid for
    decades. They try some stunt. If it works, great!
    Miller time. If not, recycle it, slap on another coat
    of paint, and try it some other place. No need for
    any semblance of science or even sanity.

  115. Mongo (15:51:30) :

    But there’s the rub – our “science” has become extremely politicized, so how do you separate the two? Only time will weed these people out – and unfortunately, they will wreak havoc on all of us with their well meaning, but wrong “fixes” to a non-problem.

    Is double blind funding for basic science feasible? – that way the researchers would not know who was funding them and it would remove the idea that funding was tied to particular “consensus” results.

  116. With all the fuss iver global warning perhaps one should take time to read “State of Fear” by Michael Crichton. This explains why we are being duped into thinking the world is doomed. Governments play on our fears to keep us in a state of fear.

  117. Freezing Finn (01:26:34) :
    “How Venice Rigged The First, and Worst, Global Financial Collapse”
    http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_91-96/954_Gallagher_Venice_rig.html

    An interesting if somewhat biased and maybe even inflammatory article. I’ll have to re-read my Economic History book about that period.

    BTW, not even near the “first” financial collapse. People thousands of years ago where the same as they are today. We have more stuff and more technologies, but we’re still modern people, Mark 1. Example? See:

    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Influence_of_Wealth_in_Imperial_Rome/The_Business_Panic_of_33_A.D.

    Yes, that’s 33 A.D. as in near the time of Christ. It is almost exactly the same as the present panic, including a mortgage bubble and the failure of the best named banking houses in Rome… Though you have to replace General Motors with the Ostrich Feather Trade being off. (no smiley. It is funny, but that’s the straight history, so no smiley. Wipe that smirk off! ;-)

    Read it – then replace Venice with Wall Street and/or London City – and ask yourself – could something like this happen again –

    Banking Panics happen with great regularity. They will continue to happen as long as there are people and loans. Google “banking panic” and “financial panic” and see what pops up…

    The banking panic you cite is not special in that regard. I can’t speak to the political angle or the motivations of people dead for several hundred years, but I can say that as much as we would like to think we’re special or advanced, we are not.

    Maybe we put a new bit of lipstick on this pig that wasn’t on the last one (derivatives) but that’s about it. Lend money long (especially on mortgages), have a liquidity crisis (due to roman senators needing money by government decree or due to ‘mark to market’ by government decree), watch the banking panic develop as leveraged long loans try to morph instantly into unleveraged cash, and can’t.

    Even the bailout is the same. The sovereign reduces the onerous demands, then provides massive liquidity by taking the mortgages at collateral at 50% on the dollar or so. 2000 years and nothing has really changed.

    Remember the mantra “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” You don’t need any of the conspiracy theory speculation, just greed and stupidity…

    That’s why I don’t get excited about the propaganda as shown in the bit this thread is about. It is much easier to believe that these folks are just true believers acting in ways they believe will do good. And a bit dumb about it…

    One other weather related note: Financial panics tend to come at/near sun spot minimums. Why, don’t ask why, down that path lies insanity and ruin…

  118. Retired Engineer (09:09:58) :
    E.M.Smith (00:16:02) : No Doomsday ?

    I agree that there is no real doomsday pending, from a resource point of view, but I am equally sure that government is capable of producing one.

    I agree wholeheartedly with everything in your post. My fundamental nature is positive and I do believe that there is no need for any gloom and doom outcome, but if pushed… I have to admit that I also fully expect that there will be a catastrophe, and it will be laid at the feet of governments and power brokers.

  119. William is right, you got the video wrong. The greenies are kidnapping Santa. Check how the sleigh has been chained, so that Santa cannot use it to escape flying. And check how sick Santa is feeling, in spite of being used to doing all kind of stunts in the air with his sleigh. He is sick not because of the ship but because of the drugs they had to give him to kidnap him. It is really sad. How could they!

    Children of the world, save Santa! Destroy Greenpeace!

  120. E.M. Smith: “You don’t need any of the conspiracy theory speculation, just greed and stupidity…”

    Well, knowing that many people are indeed greedy as well as “stupid” – though I’d rather call them ignorant and/or uninformed, in most cases – makes conspiracies only easier.

    For instance – the conspiracy named the (not) Federal (nor) Reserve is not a theory – it’s just a “long term business plan”:

    “The Creature from Jekyll Island” by G. Edward Griffin intro at http://www.bigeye.com/griffin.htm

    “Tragedy and Hope” by Dr. Carroll Quigley – intro at

    http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/quig00.htm

    “FIAT Empire”

    “Money Masters”

    And just for starters…

  121. What kind of thought process is at work here? I thought the suicidal chimp thing was hilarious but I am beginning to think we are seeing infiltration by deniers attempting to make these people look (even more) ridiculous. Of course, the cartoon Santa has to be rescued by a cartoon Greenpeace sailboat (in cartoons, Greenpeace always uses sailboats) but Santa barfing off the fantail is just too perfect. This goes beyond satire.

  122. Graeme Rodaughan (14:35:12) :

    “Mike D. (13:47:10) :

    Dear PeteM,

    Since you posted the exact same comment on two different post threads, I will too.

    Actually Mike – on a close reading there are slight differences, possibly indicating a desire on the part of the author “PeteM” to tailor his message to the particular thread.

    He added “I’m not a member of Greenpeace but they have a clear point (even though I may not always agree with evertything they say) – the Earth is not an infinite resource that is immune to the effect of human activity.” to the second post.

    The essence of his message seems to be the warning “But the idea that on average the world isn’t going to change due to increasing the concentrations of CO2 is really taking a step too far…..”

    PeteM – Is that what you are trying to say. If so – no drama – no one here is saying that increasing concentrations of CO2 will not “on average” cause change to the world…..”

    Response : –
    As mentioned on the other thread — I thought this thread had finished so copied to the thread about Hansen’s presentation ( and made a few modifications as I did so) . Seems some folks are overly suspicious about this .

    BTW personally (IMHO) – I think the debate on the Hansen presentation thread is the best I’ve seen on this website .

  123. “designed specifically to target children during the holiday season.”

    I didn’t get this from the video. It seemed to appeal to a more adult/sarcastic group rather than kids.

  124. Has anyone seen this: Antarctica: A Call to Action
    It begins: “Few people have actually witnessed, first-hand, the effects of climate change on Antarctica. But Sebastian Copeland, an award-winning photographer and environmental activist, has made it a personal mission to document this fragile and quickly changing part of the world. His latest book, “Antarctica: A Call to Action” does that through images.”
    You’ve got to hand it to them: they sure know how to “sell the product”. Too bad it’s snake oil.

  125. Troy (15:24:30) : wrote:

    “designed specifically to target children during the holiday season.”

    I didn’t get this from the video. It seemed to appeal to a more adult/sarcastic group rather than kids.

    Sure as heck found a sarcastic group over here.

    In the same vein, Al Gore’s five year prediction for total loss of Arctic ice in 5 years has got a majestic 8,500 views on YouTube, with 33 comments to date.

    …. and every single one of the 33 comments are negative, sarcastic and some downright vitriolic. When the contingency, class action attorneys, looking for the billions in damages he will inevitably cause, have him in Federal Court, this is the type of juror he might expect:

    Armigerous (One week ago)

    [snip, people can go look for themselves, but we don’t use that language here]

    ~ charles the moderator

  126. Greenpeace is, and has been for some years, an organisation whose primary concern is the selling of memberships in order to pay the administration.

  127. PeteM said: “The idea that deliberately allowing the atmosphere to change composition can never have negative effect ( unless of course it’s proved to a standard well beyond that used from any other decisions) is simply complacent .”

    How dare that arrogant atmosphere! We certainly can’t allow it to change! We must control it! Now!

  128. Adolfo Giurfa (10:45:09) :
    Evidently there´s big money behind this and an also big need for power. This is what logic says; then THEY don´t have the power yet…

    I hate to feed this… I really really do… but the fact is that the use of control of energy supply as a means to social control has a long history.

    England restricted access to the forests for fuel for this reason, and the crown restricted and taxed access to coal mines in the same way. In my paranoid moments I wonder if this is just another page from the past being recycled. Then I shake it off and await the arrival of data.

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

    http://www.internalcombustionbook.com/Hostmen.php

  129. PeteM (13:51:14) :

    Graeme Rodaughan (14:35:12) :

    If I caused offence – none intended.

    BTW: Yes I am somewhat suspicious. I think “Man Made Emissions of CO2 causes Catastrophic Global Warming” is a huge lie.

  130. “Greenpeace is, and has been for some years, an organisation whose primary concern is the selling of memberships in order to pay the administration.”

    I believe GP gets most of its money as donations and they also refuse to make the sources of these donations public.

    “..the crown restricted and taxed access to coal mines in the same way.”

    Yes, but it was Thatcher who in Britain killed both the coal industry as well as the labour unions with the help of the Falkland “war” – a distracting false flag operation for the very purpose – first to replace the industry with nuclear power and to centralize/consolidate the political power related to energy – and secondly – by letting the nuclear industry rotten through “free market” capitalism – she made sure that the transition into neo-feudalism would be a lot easier once the opportunity would arrive…

    But well, she was just following orders from the malthusian Royal Family and their central banker.

    And as most of us here probably know already – Mrs. Thatcher played a key role in bringing up the whole issue of CO2 into politics also – some 30+ years ago.

    So, it’s truly amazing how far they’ve gotten already without any major opposition so far…

Comments are closed.