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”.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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’.
Mr Watts, have you ever seen Patrick Moore’s (one of the original founders of Greenpeace) essay titled Why I Left Greenpeace”?
It got so bad that one of the founders left.
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.
@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…
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!
PeteM, if you’re going to use a canned file on multiple posts, at least run it through a spell checker first, e.g. profering, foresty.
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
Wow… what a piece of garbage…
Greenpeace is no longer a registered “not for profit” organization in Canada, for exactly these reasons.
It is now an official Political Lobbying organization.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
I didn’t realize the IPCC was speaking “ex cathedra”. I’m sorry to have questioned AGW.
Did Santa toss his Christmas cookies?
I think their real message might be a little simpler: Climate Change is as real as Santa Claus!
More proof that AGWers have a problem with the truth:-
Promoters overstated the environmental benefit of wind farms
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/3867232/Promoters-overstated-the-environmental-benefit-of-wind-farms.html
The wind farm industry has been forced to admit that the environmental benefit of wind power in reducing carbon emissions is only half as big as it had previously claimed.
cont.
Worth reading the rest.
Everywhere in the world, countries grant Greenpeace charitable status. This must be revoked now; they are a political organization that engages in political lobbying.
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!
…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.
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.
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?
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!
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.