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.













Greenpeace Admits to Ice Cap Melting Exaggeration
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
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 .
- jfh
August 20, 2009 3:49PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
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.
- ttut21
August 20, 2009 6:36PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
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 .
- MrBook
August 20, 2009 8:20PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Things change
Young pup.What about global cooling? Not to long ago when the big thing was global cooling? What ever happened to that?
- countryboy
August 20, 2009 9:15PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Memory.
Most people have short memories. You are not suppose to remember that, it shows your age.
- mike1948
August 20, 2009 10:20PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Will
You got me on that one,Its sad that poeple cant remember that long!
- countryboy
August 20, 2009 10:26PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
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.
- MrBook
August 21, 2009 5:03AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Cooling
And you always go with the majority wright!
- countryboy
August 21, 2009 5:35PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
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.
- MrBook
August 21, 2009 6:33PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
KO
KO why dont scientist point out the false claims they made to set the record straght.
- countryboy
August 23, 2009 8:43AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
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.
- MrBook
August 23, 2009 9:22AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
OK than
[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.
- countryboy
August 23, 2009 1:02PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
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.
- caelum
August 21, 2009 11:51AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.