Greenpeace-logo

Greenpeace Admits to Ice Cap Melting Exaggeration

Video by Heritage Foundation
(August 20, 2009) in Society / Global Warming

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.

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • jfh
    slowly, slowly, the fearmongering that

    'progressive' action groups have engaged in for years is coming home to roost.

    We need no more spin from Al Bore and the rest--just honest science .

    - jfhUS August 20, 2009 3:49PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • ttut21
      Still

      It doesn't mean that we shouldn't progress as the human race and not try and destroy the planet.
      The human race can only occupy 1/1000 of the earth. We're fragile as a species.

      - ttut21US August 20, 2009 6:36PM

      Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • MrBook
    crying wolf

    In using exaggerated or unfounded claims Greenpeace has damaged the credibility of those who are putting forth serious claims about the dangers of climate change .

    - MrBookUS August 20, 2009 8:20PM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • countryboy
    Things change

    Young pup.What about global cooling? Not to long ago when the big thing was global cooling? What ever happened to that?

    - countryboyUS August 20, 2009 9:15PM

    Reply to this Recommend (2) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • mike1948
      Memory.

      Most people have short memories. You are not suppose to remember that, it shows your age.

      - mike1948US August 20, 2009 10:20PM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • countryboy
        Will

        You got me on that one,Its sad that poeple cant remember that long!

        - countryboyUS August 20, 2009 10:26PM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • MrBook
      cooling?

      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.

      - MrBookUS August 21, 2009 5:03AM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • countryboy
        Cooling

        And you always go with the majority wright!

        - countryboyUS August 21, 2009 5:35PM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • MrBook
          right.

          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.

          - MrBookUS August 21, 2009 6:33PM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

          • countryboy
            KO

            KO why dont scientist point out the false claims they made to set the record straght.

            - countryboyUS August 23, 2009 8:43AM

            Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

            Thank You for your Comment

            We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

            • MrBook
              false?

              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.

              - MrBookUS August 23, 2009 9:22AM

              Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

              Thank You for your Comment

              We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • caelum
    huh

    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.

    - caelumUS August 21, 2009 11:51AM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

Even a three year old can grasp the beauty of nature and understand the ramifications of pollution and global warming.

-- Blog on Smog

See Related...