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.
I would be very happy to see the planet go up a degree or so.
A degree C(ommunist) or a degree F(ascist)?
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.
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.
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.
It’s all our fault, especially when they are made to tell the truth
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/3867232/Promoters-overstated-the-environmental-benefit-of-wind-farms.html
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.
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.
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.)
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!
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…
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.
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
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.
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!
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/
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
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?
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!
I just wanted to note that apparently not even Greenpeace would bring a polar bear on board a ship.
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.
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.
Greenpeace to the rescue!
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.
I hope that all TV stations will be changed
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!