Greenpeace Admits to Ice Cap Melting Exaggeration
On July 15th, Greenpeace said in a press release calling for urgent action: “As permanent ice decreases, we are looking at ice-free summers in the Arctic as early as 2030,” but in an interview with BBC, Greenpeace leader Gerd Leipold said that might not exactly be the case. See the video below:
Emotionalizing or scare tactics? The problem with fear-mongering is that it’s a double-edged sword. Chicken Little scenarios allow you to convince someone to do something they may not have otherwise done or they can make you look very foolish.
In any event, no matter how quickly or slowly the ice caps are melting, capping carbon dioxide emissions with a cap and trade system will do nothing to help and could actually hurt any attempt to slow the ice from melting. The Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill that requires carbon dioxide reductions would reduce global temperatures by negligible amounts (0.2 degree Celsius moderation in world temperature increases by 2100 and no more than a 0.05 degree reduction by 2050), but it would reduce economic activity by significant amounts.
The Heritage Foundation’s analysis of the bill estimates that between 2012-235 will lose $9.4 trillion in income (GDP). In other words, we’ll be living in a world with much less wealth. Over the same time frame, the government will collect $5.7 trillion in new taxes. A world with less economic activity and higher taxes will stifle the innovation that could actually help respond in adapting to a climate crisis.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Global Cooling was never a major scientific movement. It was falsely created into a scientific movement because of the media in their own ignorance and willingness to hype a nonsense story. The theory of global cooling never had any significant scientific support, let alone among the top climatologists. The ignorant media just doesn't understand enough science to report accurately - and that is what you get!
Also, about Greenpeace. Greenpeace are not scientists and so I wouldn't expect anything they say to hold a substantial amount of validity. They should try to parrot legitimate scientists more than they do.
I also love how global warming has such overwhelming evidence and consensus; and yet their is somehow still doubt based purely on political ideology. I suppose ignorant people are ignorant and that is how it will remain.
I can also hardily wait to hear the numerous fallacies from anti-global warming ideologues. Most of them will probably relate to their misunderstanding of the difference between weather and climate or better yet their inability to understand climatological behavior.
Young pup.What about global cooling? Not to long ago when the big thing was global cooling? What ever happened to that?
actually that was just one article back in the 70s... if you look at the body of climate research at that time there were only two papers published on global cooling, while there were many papers published on global warming at that time.
And you always go with the majority wright!
Scientists tend to follow the evidence... if there had been evidence to support global cooling then the researchers would have uncovered it, leading to more research in that area.
When there is no evidence to support something then Scientists do not invest resources in studying it.
KO why dont scientist point out the false claims they made to set the record straght.
The claims where not 'false'... the hypothesis was put forth with evidence for review, but through the review process it was found discovered that the evidence did not support a global cooling.
That is how Science works.
[That is how science works]
Thats fine and well but why not they tell the people that there hypothesis was reviewed and they were wrong.
All it takes is a bit of research into climate theories to show that the global cooling hypothesis has been discarded.
Hundreds of studies are done each year... some are supported by later studies (or support earlier studies), others are not supported (or disprove earlier studies).
I am talking about science as a hole. Yes you did but why dont other say something.