[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC7bE9jopXE]
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Al Gore’s Arctic Forecast
- Mann Says He Was Correct
- “under the Intermediate Scenario”
- “under the Intermediate Scenario”
- “carbon emissions may have now peaked”
- Record Arctic Sea Ice Growth
- “4th Hottest Summer”
- Killing Joshua Trees To Save Them
- NASA Sea Level
- “getting smaller”
- “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
- Rapidly Accelerating Sea Level Rise
- Technology Advances
- “The Hour Of Decision”
- “fair & equitable”
- Michael Mann Continues His War
- Time Travelling Satellites
- Time Traveling Satellites
- Adult Content On X
- The Climate Of 1923
- Arctic Report Card
- Green Colorado
- Hottest Summer Ever
- “Sea ice could be gone by 2012, scientists warn”
- Record CO2 Growth
Recent Comments
- conrad ziefle on Mann Says He Was Correct
- Mike Peinsipp on Mann Says He Was Correct
- Mike Peinsipp on Mann Says He Was Correct
- Disillusioned on Al Gore’s Arctic Forecast
- Disillusioned on Mann Says He Was Correct
- Gamecock on Mann Says He Was Correct
- toorightmate on Mann Says He Was Correct
- Robert Denby on Mann Says He Was Correct
- Michael Abbott on “under the Intermediate Scenario”
- _Jim on Mann Says He Was Correct
That is ridiculous reporter tactics.
The “quote” was about an ice free arctic. This generally refers to NOT the Greenland ice sheet but sea ice in the arctic. Not sure WHY he let himself get suckered into talking about Greenland.
Those five metres of ice will all be gone by 2013 –
This implies that the greenland ice sheet would melt in the summer and then reconstitute itself in the winter. No scientist or even greenpeace would ever say that Greenland would be ice free in 20 years.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/by-this-summer-the-north-pole-will-be-ice-free-for-the-first-time-in-100000-years/
What is obvious is that the head of Greenpeace had no idea about the accuracy of the propaganda he is disseminating.
Steve,
Sorry , I didn’t realize that The Lincoln News Messenger was the headquarters of Greenpeace and source of their science outreach program.
the actual interview says 2030 for an ice free summer in the arctic
I wonder where people pick this misinformation up? Maybe the constant stream of lies from alarmist organizations?
Tony, you know this is the game they play. In fact, this is the game you are engaging in.
Anyone can say anything. When it is challenged and proven wrong, we can say we never said that.
You know what would give warmists some credibility? When someone does a “peer-reviewed” study about how the Amazon is in dire straits, the alarmist community would explain how and why the study was flawed and unscientific……….instead of including in the IPCC report.
Tony, you are defending blatant lies.
I am certainly not defending some idiot editor from a tiny local paper who conflates the effect of ice cap loss and earthquakes in japan and NZ. It was stupid and typical of small town people thinking they know about a subject because they have read a couple of articles.
And I certainly won’t defend Greenpeace if they say Greenland will melt in 20 years.
Then, you agree, that some things should stand on their own merits? The reporter was doing what reporters should do. Question. And question with a passion. That the person looked foolish isn’t a fault of the inquisitor, it is the fault of the person being questioned.
If wild statements are made, then the people making these wild claims should be in a position to defend such claims. But, that’s just my opinion.
In la mañana.
So TonyD is saying a small town editor is to blame for all the disinformation and totally lied or made up source material? Well now that that’s all cleared up….
Tony needs to get out of the city some time. How arrogant to call small-town people stupid. I would put them up against city-folk any day. They are more often smarter, harder workers who think for themselves. After all, they are smart enough to not live in an over-populated urban area.
Truthsword and SLP,
I live in a town MUCH smaller than Lincoln, Ca., and am quite aware of the intelligence and practicality of small town people. But there is also ignorance and foolishness that gets into local papers that is sometimes more extreme than normally found in big city editorials. That is not always true, but I see it often enough.
SUYTS,
In this case the reporter was conflating two completely separate issues, arctic sea ice melting and Greenland ice cap melting. There is certainly the possibility that if temperatures continue to rise in the arctic that it will be ice free in the summers by 2030. The quote the reporter referred to said nothing about Greenland, yet he treated the issue as if it did. If you can show me a press release where Greenpeace says the greenland Ice sheet will be gone by 2030, then the reporter has every reason to be outraged at such ridiculous claim. Otherwise he is just grandstanding.
The head of Greenpeace doesn’t even know what propaganda his organization is promoting.
Tony, see my original comment.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/bbc-interviewer-trashes-greenpeace-leader-over-arctic-lies/#comment-45970
They use weasel words and alarmist genre to mislead the public. Then when nothing happens they can say they never said that or the statements were misconstrued. That the reporter conflated two separate statements, is a result of the intentional propaganda tactics of Greenpeace and other alarmist organizations. Arctic ice means what ever they desire it to mean at the time. Steve has clearly pointed out many times how they use the term to define many different things. And now you’re blaming the reporter for Greenpeace’s (and the rest of the alarmist orgs) intentional lack of clarity.
SUYTS,
What you are saying makes no sense to me. Greenland is Greenland. It has a huge ice sheet kilometers thick, whereas arctic sea ice is a few meters thick.
If you can show me anyplace where Greenpeace has conflated the two, you would have a point. In this instance it was the REPORTER who did so, without citing anything from Greenpeace that connected the two. Greenpeace said arctic ice. reporter added in Greenland. No alarmism, except as invented by the reporter.
i certainly agree that the meaning of ice free has been rather fluid. From what I have read there is a strong likelihood that even with increasing arctic temps there are specific areas that would likely not be ice free in the summer for the foreseeable future. to me that is a minor point but not unworthy of making a point about
At -42C, the Arctic is melting like crazy.
Tony, read the source of the controversy.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/urgent-action-needed-as-arctic/
The headline is “Urgent action needed as Arctic ice melts”. After a quick introduction, it immediately starts discussing,
“…….the break-up of the Petermann glacier, one of Greenland’s largest.“
SUYTS,
I have just listened to a podcast from a glaciologist who is studying Petermann and he said pretty much the same thing.
As I was saying, Greenpeace CLEARLY differentiated between greenland and arctic sea ice. “ICE FREE ARCTIC
bad news is coming from OTHER SOURCES as well…”
What a croc. Greenpeace is intentionally ambiguous.
“Greenpeace CLEARLY differentiated between greenland and arctic sea ice.”
==============================
Hmm, perhaps our definitions of “clearly differentiated” are differentiated. The first 2 sentences of the article……
“Arctic ice is melting at an unprecedented rate. As scientists on board the Arctic Sunrise gather more data showing the urgency of the situation, world leaders stay inactive.
For the past two weeks, scientists and crew from the Arctic Sunrise have been busy gathering data, collecting samples and setting up cameras to record the break-up of the Petermann glacier, one of Greenland’s largest.”
Reading through the article, I see no clarification nor definition until the word “Update”.
The fact is arctic ice is a vague word. It can mean ocean ice, indeed, Dr. Stroeve even came here to clarify that arctic ice seems to include sea ice outside the arctic circle. That the ice shelf in Greenland is included in the arctic circle, makes it part of the arctic ice, by definition, but not by meaning.
The only clarity seen here is the liberal use of the ubiquitous term “arctic ice”. It is intentional and deliberate.
“For the past two weeks, scientists and crew from the Arctic Sunrise have been busy gathering data, collecting samples and setting up cameras to record the break-up of the Petermann glacier, one of Greenland’s largest.”
Calving glaciers are a clear sign of a build up of heat in the atmosphere……..to post-normal scientists.
I like the admission that they play on “emotions”. Sounds like a little too much right brain activity in this environmental biz.
Where’s the science? Science is emotion free. That’s what I like about it. It’s like Jack London writing: “If we can’t feed the dogs, they can feed us.” It’s like when Billy Bob Thornton tells the President (in Armageddon) that the damage from a giant asteroid impact will be: “total. Sir.” Okay, corny example, but you get my point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq6q2BrTino
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace
Environmentalists lie and/or wildly exaggerate. Standard operating procedure. They sell fear. The ends justifies the means for them.