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”.
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.
Wow, hyperbole much? Did you think up that pithy little statement all by your lonesome or did you get it from some Greenpeace website?
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!
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 ?)
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.
PeteM, face it, he sold out
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.
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).
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
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!
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.
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: 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
has Greenpeace ever had any credibility?
In Australia, Greenpeace are amongst the most vocal in telling us that the great barrier reef is about to die because of global warming. The reality is perhaps not so dire as they want us to believe.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24811996-11949,00.html
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
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.
Here’s an article indicating that Santa may have been able to operate from the North Pole sometimes even during supergreenhouse peroids.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/319/5860/189
I suspect that the arrangement of continents and oceans also affects polar icecaps. –
Richard DeSousa says:
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?
It certainly seems that politics is exploiting what looks like the poor quality of the measurements.
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.
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?
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! 🙂
It’s got nothing to do with science, it never did with the environmentalists anyway, it’s simply their ideology writ large now.
Santa puking at the end…. Priceless!!!
“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.
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.