More Hot Propaganda – this time from Greenpeace

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?

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

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.

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.

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. =)

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.”

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.

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.

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

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.