Saturday, November 19, 2011

Greenpeace is Blocking You

Being a non-fan of climate alarmism and anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and all the catastrophic, end-of-the-world predictions they make, you naturally displease the high priests and priestess of such religion. Like Greenpeace.

Try asking Greenpeace -- and World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Oxfam, other bleeding heart environmentalist groups -- about natural factors that can possibly affect or influence, or determine, the climate and weather in one planet in the universe called Earth. Most likely you will get a blank, clueless, or deniar stare.

Denier? Oopps, that's their term to people who don't like their religion, so we give it to them. Anyway, I wrote several months ago about the Sun and galactic cosmic rays, see here, Climate stupidity 10: The Sun and GCRs don't affect climate? May 21, 2011.

Anyway, tonight, after being inactive in twitter the past few days, I checked my twitter account and the postings therein. I replied to one of @climatetreaty's tweet on, what else but climate alarmism. After replying to them, I checked Greenpeace Philippines twitter to reply to whatever alarmism they may be spreading.

Surprise, they are blocking me! Great guys, you look cute and beautiful.

I thought they were just plain cowards when you challenge them to a public debate on climate, and that's it. Then they can also be intolerant and block off those who question their religion. Halleluiah Al Gore and IPCC. Your devout followers (and dark lords, hehe) like Greenpeace are, well, your followers :-)

The last time I mentioned Greenpeace along with WWF was more than a month ago. See here.

Cheers Greenpeace. Long live AGW religion and climate stupidity and rent-seeking.

Enjoy big money and fame by fooling the public big time.

-------

On August 21, 2009, I wrote this:

Greenpeace Leader Admitted Exaggerating Loss of Sea Ice

Now the outgoing leader of Greenpeace admitted that they indeed exagerrated their claims of an "ice free" Arctic by 2030. The UN and Greenpeace (and also WWF, other environmentalist groups, big and small, national and international), live with this simple motto: "Lie if you must, just continue scaring the public, so we get our hundreds of million dollars annual funding."

Meanwhile, the Sun is still very quiet, 40 days straight now of zero sunspots. And the skies are almost always cloudy everyday. Some days, thin cloud cover, most days though have thick low-lying clouds.

Below is a portion of the commentary made by Anthony:

"The outgoing leader of Greenpeace has admitted his organization’s recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was “a mistake.”

Greenpeace made the claim in a July 15 press release entitled “Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts,” which said there will be an ice-free Arctic by 2030 because of global warming.

Under close questioning by BBC reporter Stephen Sackur on the “Hardtalk” program, Gerd Leipold, the retiring leader of Greenpeace, said the claim was wrong.

“I don’t think it will be melting by 2030. … That may have been a mistake,” he said.

Sackur said the claim was inaccurate on two fronts, pointing out that the Arctic ice is a mass of 1.6 million square kilometers with a thickness of 3 km in the middle, and that it had survived much warmer periods in history than the present.

The BBC reporter accused Leipold and Greenpeace of releasing “misleading information” and using “exaggeration and alarmism.”

Leipold’s admission that Greenpeace issued misleading information is a major embarrassment to the organization, which often has been accused of alarmism but has always insisted that it applies full scientific rigor in its global-warming pronouncements."

See Anthony Watts' full commentary here,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/19/ice-capades-greenpeace-recants-polar-ice-claim/
------

And on November 22, 2010, I also wrote this:

Greenpeace Alarmism and Anti-Coal Hysteria

One big adverse effect of climate alarmism is the implicit desire to fight high economic growth, to fight modernization. The militant environmental activists would rather see people riding bicycles and horses than ride more cars, buses and trucks because of the high carbon emission by the fossil fuel-powered vehicles.

If people ride bicycles or horses, they cannot transport several tons of farm output -- rice, corn, bananas, vegetables, chicken, swine, etc. -- in a short period. Farmers will experience huge farm losses as those agri crops, when not transported quickly to the consumers in the urban areas, will easily rot, or suffer quality deterioration, resulting to lower farm income if not losses.

Among the militant and notorious anti-coal, anti-fossil fuel, anti-carbon, anti-nuclear, anti-many things environmentalist groups is Greenpeace. The others are Oxfam and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).

Greenpeace helped agitate the folks of Maasim, Sarangani, a small town in southern Philippines, into opposing the construction of a coal power plant in the area. Their local partner group is the Maasim People’s Coalition on climate change (MP3C). See the report here today, Residents oppose coal-fired power plant project.

The Philippines is projected to experience significant power failures in the next six years or less because of not enough power plants to sustain increasing power demand by a growing economy of 94 million people (as of 2010). Thus, there is a pressing demand to put up more power plants now as it takes at least two to three years to build a new power plant to produce additional energy.

The proposed coal power plant is projected to produce 200 MW of power for Mindanao in two years. But the militants are opposing it and they are sometimes effective in launching idiotic campaigns.

Greenpeace campaign to kill coal and other non-renewable but cheaper power sources in order to "save the planet" and their new campaign to pressure the Philippine government to have at least 50 percent of power to come from renewables (solar, wind, biomass, etc.) by 2020 rests on the lousy "science" of AGW hypothesis.

Renewable power sources are fine. They expand the range of choices for the consumers. Rich and environmental do-gooder consumers can power their houses and farms with solar and wind if they wish to, fine, no problem. So long as they pay the market rate of such power sources. These are expensive power sources for now, and their power supply is not stable and not reliable. For instance, a supposedly 50 MW wind farm can actually produce only about 10 MW power on average as the 50 MW is the maximum power that it can produce -- if wind speed is at its optimum all the time, 24 hours a day.

To force the country and the private enterprises and households to rely on expensive and unstable power sources is asking the country to suffer more poverty, more power outages, more unemployment.

To Greenpeace and similar environmental activists, I have been chalenging you to a public debate on the science of AGW. Global warming was true, and so was global cooling. The planet's climate cycle of warming-cooling-warming-cooling is mainly due to natural factors (the Sun, ocean, water vapor, clouds, volcanoes, GCRs, etc.) and not because of human CO2 emission.

Prove your voodoo science before you hostage this country with your idiotic alarmism.

No comments: