Greenpeace Leader Admits They Lied About Arctic Ice Melt

reply to post by TheAssociate


Your title is misleading. Mr Leipold never said that they lied. I watched the interview and nowhere in it did he say that Greenpeace lied. When he tried to answer the first question, he was interrupted with an "appeal to ridicule", which he then attempted to respond to before he was interrupted with a red herring which he responded to with the "emotional" comment. He never once said that they "lied about arctic ice melt"...or is there a part two to this interview? It seems you may be guilty of an "emotional" statement yourself with that thread title there.

The interviewer scoffed at his supposition as a means of showing that he felt they were exaggerating, but he did not back down from his own supposition, therefore you cannot say that he lied. What is wrong with an appeal to an emotional response in humans if arguing with the facts don't work?

Methane is a heating element. CO2 is a heating element. Humans produce both of those while at the same time removing the world of cooling elements. This is as simple as 2+2=4 to say that we are helping to heat up the planet. Is it the sole reason the planet is warming? No. But it certainly contributes in an adverse way.

Global warming scares people so instead of doing something about it they grasp at anything and anyone that will agree with them so they can go back to a carefree diet. It's like the overweight people who continue to smoke and talk about their smoking uncle who lived until he was 95 before getting hit by a bus. That is the rare exception. They ignore the overwhelming percentage in favor of the one that makes them feel better.

I love Alex Jones. I subscribe to him on Youtube, bookmark Prison Planet and InfoWars, but on one hand he brings up a few guys saying the planet is not heating up but cooling as a anti-global warming stance and three hours later will talk about chemtrails being a secret plan by the government to cool the planet (which I believe).

It is getting hotter. You all know it. I haven't seen a large snowfall since the mid-90's. We had at least one if not two every year that I was a child. You can now swim in the waters off the coast of Maine because they are in the 70's now. Maryland has 88 degree water--that's Miami temperatures.

Hide your head in the sand if you like, but I choose to do what I can (btw, I don't think the carbon tax trading scheme will work).

reply to post by A Fortiori


Explain to me why people think climate change doesn't occur it happened before were here will happen after were gone.Mars climate changes and id like to see how humans could be blamed for that one.Currently our co2 levels are no where near they have been in the past.And the earth survived just fine.The problem with global warming is they pinned the whole global warming to co2.But Co2 is not a cause its an effect warmer temperatures lead to release of co2 though abundant animal life and trapped co2 is released as ground becomes warmer. Through in the eruptions of volcano's and co2 emissions go up and down thought earths history. Did you know when co2 rises so does oxygen levels another supposed green house gas.Is the trees causing global warming?

The only reason co2 was picked was to use it to control mankind most everything produces co2. Environmentalists aren't stupid they knew if they could get people to buy into this then they could further there goals of protecting the environment the mistake was they picked the wrong horse.

Originally posted by dragonridr
Currently our co2 levels are no where near they have been in the past.And the earth survived just fine.

Maybe you can educate us on various interesting Extinction Events that took place throughout Earth's history. Obviously you don't mind being a part of next one.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Actually the highest co2 reading At the end of the Triassic and the beginning of the Jurassic, the climatological conditions of the Earth were going through some radical changes. The carbon dioxide (CO2) content in the atmosphere was at it’s highest ever levels (10 times those of present day). Thought there was no extinction event sorry to disappoint you since apparently thats seems to be important to you.

PS there has never been an extinction event that was traced to co2 levels thats kinda stupid don't you think? The last extinction event was an ice age the complete opposite of global warming. In fact there has never been an extinction event from too much heat hmmm something to think about.



[edit on 8/22/09 by dragonridr]

reply to post by dragonridr


I agree with you completely. CO2 levels in the air have always lagged the changes of the Temp. in the air.

There has never been a time in earth's history that changes in CO2 Levels in the air CAUSED air temp changes.

The whole idea of CO2 causing Global Warming is a fraud.

reply to post by VinceP1974

In other words, the data is corrupted because the sites are basically heat islands.

You are very correct, however a correction is made by ADDING MORE "HEAT"

Here is the graph of the difference between the raw data and the presented data showing how they ADDED instead of subtract to correct for urban heat effect!
cdiac.ornl.gov...



This is a fun graph to look at too i31.tinypic.com...


At lot of people have been checking and doing research lately as the cracks in "global warming" widen.

reply to post by halfmanhalfamazing

Are we looking for things to make us feel okay about littering and what we are doing to the environment??

littering has nothing to do with global warming...

thats a fact...

pollution has nothing to do with global warming.

smog has nothing to do with global warming.

what has to do with global warming?

the sun... you know... the thing that warms our atmosphere.

Its been around for a while. been through ice ages. through warming periods. If you take a gander in the upward position you might be able to spot it...

Originally posted by open_eyeballs
the sun... you know... the thing that warms our atmosphere.

Its been around for a while. been through ice ages. through warming periods. If you take a gander in the upward position you might be able to spot it...

If you take a gander at the calculations showing the effects of CO2 levels on temps, you might be able to spot a trend.

reply to post by newage2012



I am member of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth and very involved in my community and the bigger issues.

We in the UK are so way behind our European counterparts when it comes to enviromental issues, yet compared to the USA we are paragons of virtue and I wonder if it is because the necessary change in lifestyle is a threat.
Even if we...which I doubt... are not causing climate change we are littering the planet with debris and pollution this cannot go on for eternity. One day the oil will run out, there will be no more rain forests, we are loosing so many animal and insect species the whole ecology will be in melt down.

Even if enviromentalists are exagerating isn't it better to err on the side of caution so that our childrens children will not suffer the consequences of a devil may care attitude.

The ice is melting does this matter if it is thirty or a hundred years time, we have to do our best to slow or halt it now.

Originally posted by dizzylizzy
reply to post by newage2012

 

Even if enviromentalists are exagerating isn't it better to err on the side of caution so that our childrens children will not suffer the consequences of a devil may care attitude.

Not one "denier" (as you call them) I've ever met has a devil may care attitude...quite the contrary. Come down off your moral horse for a minute and just look at the facts and the people who are telling them to you.

If I'm reading between the lines, I would say you are condoning lies and half-truths "for the greater good".

Sorry, but as history shows, anyone who shuns the truth for their own political or religious crusade, does not fare well in the end.

I've been an environmentalist for 40 years and what I seen happening is the movement has been hijacked and perverted by the GW religion. With your massive obscene windfarms, carbon trading scams, bullying tactics and lies, more harm than good is being done.

Go back to fighting air and water pollution, deforestation and start using some common sense. If I hear some corporation tell me one more time to "go green", I think I'm going to scream. Greenpeace is a very wealthy and powerful corporation, by the way.

[edit on 22-8-2009 by Gamma MO]

[edit on 22-8-2009 by Gamma MO]

reply to post by GideonHM


None of what you said have remotely ANYTHING to do with the propositions which Greenpeace ans some other nations and groups are agreeing about the environment.

CO2 is not a pollutant, just like water vapor is not a pollutant, but the EPA wants to label water vapor as a polutant because then they can TAX your hybrid vehicles which emit water vapor...

The Kyoto protocol and every proposition by the UN, the EU, and similar other groups is only perpetrating the biggest hoax in the history of mankind. they are claiming mankind is responsible and they want to tax every one of us with several dozen CO2 taxes so they can get richer, and at the end nature will continue in it's way...

With more CO2 plants, trees, and the entire planets green biomass thrives, and grows more yields than with less atmospheric CO2.

A good way to depopulate the world would be to lower the atmospheric CO2 levels, then plants won't give as much yields and MORE people, as well as animals will starve to death.

CO2 does not causes the warming claimed by the AGW camp. In fact, and as i have stated several times in the Troposphere, which is the atmospheric layer closest to the surface, and it is the layer that controls surface temperatures alongside with the role of the oceans. In the Troposphere WATER VAPOR accounts for 95%-98% of the greenhouse effect, meanwhile atmospheric CO2 and the other greenhouse gases account for 2% - 5% of the greenhouse effect.

The effect of CO2 in warming is minimal, and it is not the cause of Climate Change, nor extreme weather events.

This man was caught in aother of the countless lies groups like Greenpeace make up, so that people accept their goals and agenda nomatter what.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


i love your talk about C02 and how it shows you have NO background in any field of study that allows you to present a knowledgeable understanding of the topic. i really enjoyed the less C02 = less plant production and therefore less people, what a JOKE.

your command of the topic is basic AT BEST and plain ignorant as a rule. while your take on the political side of the argument holds water, to a degree, your presentation of the science based side of the issue is incredibly weak.

Originally posted by Animal
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

i love your talk about C02 and how it shows you have NO background in any field of study that allows you to present a knowledgeable understanding of the topic. i really enjoyed the less C02 = less plant production and therefore less people, what a JOKE.

your command of the topic is basic AT BEST and plain ignorant as a rule. while your take on the political side of the argument holds water, to a degree, your presentation of the science based side of the issue is incredibly weak.

I would like to hear your knowledge - please.

It seems only fair.

Originally posted by Animal
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

i love your talk about C02 and how it shows you have NO background in any field of study that allows you to present a knowledgeable understanding of the topic. i really enjoyed the less C02 = less plant production and therefore less people, what a JOKE.

your command of the topic is basic AT BEST and plain ignorant as a rule. while your take on the political side of the argument holds water, to a degree, your presentation of the science based side of the issue is incredibly weak.

What he said is absolutely true.

Why is it that CO2 Scare Mongers seem to be the least understanding of science but very good in insults?

I didn't realize that immaturity was a sign of scientific mindfulnes.

CO2 is also a natural component of the earth's atmosphere whose levels have been fluctuating NATURALLY for perhaps billions of years.

Please show me where I said it wasn't?!?!
And since when is the fact that we(HUMANS) burn fossil fuels each day NATURAL??? Where is the logic??

And your comment about everything we eat or drink contributing to CO2 emissions is pure eco-nazi speak. Because the only solution to that so-called "problem" is to get rid of the earth's people.

"So called problem"....hahahaha!
Maybe the fact that you oppose my statement is pure "anti-eco speak"?!?
Why is it so hard to conserve our planet... must we destroy what little is left?

If you really believe in that BS, how about you set an example for the rest of us "polluters" and get rid of yourself first.

Maybe we should get rid of people who don't care about the world first...like you!

reply to post by halfmanhalfamazing


Check out this site.
199.6.131.12...
There is a chart near the bottom of the page showing the climate over 425,000 years. It is Very interesting.
You will see the Normal cycle of the earth and where we currently fall in this cycle. This shows the Bigger Picture.

Originally posted by Iseekthetruth!!!!!!!!
reply to post by halfmanhalfamazing

 

Check out this site.
199.6.131.12...
There is a chart near the bottom of the page showing the climate over 425,000 years. It is Very interesting.
You will see the Normal cycle of the earth and where we currently fall in this cycle. This shows the Bigger Picture.

Thanks... that is frightening

It's no suprise that the Carbon Dioxide levels correspond

www.learnaboutcarbon.net...

[edit on 25-8-2009 by halfmanhalfamazing]

In the last 65 million years there has only been year round ice at the poles for the last 3 million years.
So ice at the poles is a abnormal condition.
This coincided with the three million year journey from the treetops of Africa to civilization of man.
www.bbc.co.uk...

Did pre man cause ice to form at the poles.
Did pre man cause the ice age.