Greenpeace Leader Admits They Lied About Arctic Ice Melt

Greenpeace Leader Admits They Lied About Arctic Ice Melt

belowthebeltway.com

Greenpeace issued an alarming press release about the state of the Arctic ice pack:

Now, Gerd Leipold, the retiring leader of Greenpeace,o admits that the press release was misleading:

(visit the link for the full news article)

Leipold said later in the BBC interview that there is an urgent need for the suppression of economic growth in the United States and around the world. He said annual growth rates of 3 percent to 8 percent cannot continue without serious consequences for the climate.

“We will definitely have to move to a different concept of growth. … The lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model,” Leipold said. “If you take the lifestyle, its cost on the environment, and you multiply it with the billions of people and an increasing world population, you come up with numbers which are truly scary.”

Finally some truth from Greepeace. These people are not to be trusted, particularly when it comes to things that could determine US policies. I'm sure this isn't the first time they've lied, and you can rest assured it won't be the last.

They readily admit they have an agenda to suppress economic growth in the US and around the world. They will stoop to any level, including falsifying and hiding scientific data to achieve that goal.


TA

belowthebeltway.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

The really sad part is the vast number of people that have taken this BS hook - line - and sinker...

Man made global warming is not a myth.. It is an out right lie...

One wonders when he average person will get tired of being misled, or rather led through life with a ring in their noses?

My guess is never...

At least not in my lifetime..

Good find...

Semper

Wow, talk about a gotcha moment.

I don't agree with the 'emotionalizing' euphemism the greenpeace guy gave. The interviewer is right to call it scare tactics.

I agree with what greenpeace is trying to accomplish. I don't agree with lying to do it. Rational discussion is the most important part of the climate change issue.

Do we need to curb growth? Well we certainly need to move towards a sustainable economic model. That means finding balance in the way we use and dispose of the resources we have on this planet.

The world is not an infinite resource, and it's not an infinite garbage can.

reply to post by semperfortis

My guess is never... At least not in my lifetime..

I think people are too emotionally invested in the environmentalist movement at this point to admit that man-made climate change is BS. It's become like a religion for a lot of them, and to admit that would be heresy, no matter how much evidence there is that they're wrong. Thanks for the reply.


TA

reply to post by TheAssociate


He never admitted to anything in this...

What a spin and play for misdirection...

Oh well I guess it is a conspiracy site...

reply to post by HunkaHunka

You're right. He does everything he can to avoid having to admit that Greepeace misled the public by stating that the Greenland ice sheet would be melted by 2030.


TA

I see where he said they may have made a mistake with the press release in question, but i didn't see where he said the other things, or flat out admit that they lied about what the press release said.

It would be nice to see the whole interview instead of the clip that the link gives so that we can see everything he had to say.

reply to post by chise61


Here is another article (linked in the source article):

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.

I'll try to find either the entire video or a transcript, but he does admit that he doesn't think the Greenland ice sheet will be melted by 2030, as the above mentioned press release asserts. It starts at about 1:25 in the video.


TA

Edit:

Here is a site where the entire interview can be downloaded. I'll continue looking for a place that has it embedded.

[edit on 21-8-2009 by TheAssociate]

reply to post by TheAssociate


I saw where he admitted that he doesn't think it will be melted by 2030, I just don't see where he admitted that they outright lied in the press release, he says it may have been a "mistake".

I guess Below The Beltway just has a misleading title. Not Evil Just Wrong has a better headline.

I downloaded the entire interview, i just can't seem to open the file.

This interview does not state anything...

We are contributing to global warming.

The facts speak for themselves...

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

The environmentalist movement years ago found that lieing gets laws passed.

The mining and lumber groups in Calif have 1000s of documented cases of there lies.
The problem is even though they lie to get laws passed when the lies are found out the laws stay on the books.:fla me:

Originally posted by halfmanhalfamazing
This interview does not state anything...

We are contributing to global warming.

The facts speak for themselves...

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

There's a vast difference between pollution and the "global warming" debate, to fail to differentiate between the two illustrates your lack of knowledge.

Chise61, your right he doesn't flat out say "I am a bold faced liar". Instead, we can look at what was said, and what the facts are and understand the provided information to be fictitious. This in turn makes the presenter, a LIAR.

Keep grabbing at straws people, and enjoy the carbon tax that does nothing but rape your community at every level.

If green peace gave a damn, they would be doing everything they could about the massive "garbage continent" floating in the pacific. That has far reaching and devastating effects, and its a terrible form of pollution. Instead they push a fictitious issue onto people, using malicious scare tactics, all for what? So that a carbon tax can be passed? To line the pockets of a few people, while doing nothing to actually make real progress towards lowering pollutants regardless of type.

[edit on 21-8-2009 by king9072]

So they lied about global warming ... to bring about a Communist ideology of the suppression of wealthy life styles and perpetual economic growth.



Sadly, nothing surprises me anymore.

Originally posted by king9072

Originally posted by halfmanhalfamazing

There's a vast difference between pollution and the "global warming" debate, to fail to differentiate between the two illustrates your lack of knowledge.

[edit on 21-8-2009 by king9072]

Pollution contributes to global warming... failing to understand this clearly

indicates YOUR lack of knowlege on the subject! So please explain???

reply to post by semperfortis


They will only get worse, imagine what techs will com in future, where the ptb will get people to believe exactly what they want.

Originally posted by king9072

Originally posted by halfmanhalfamazing

There's a vast difference between pollution and the "global warming" debate, to fail to differentiate between the two illustrates your lack of knowledge.

[edit on 21-8-2009 by king9072]

Pollution contributes to global warming... failing to understand this clearly

indicates YOUR lack of knowlege on the subject! So please explain???

No. Actually the global warming agenda focuses on one pollutant, Co2.

There are hundreds of other ways that we devastate our environment that far exceed the destruction of a bit of Co2.

It's even ironic that plants thrive on Co2, and as a result of raised Co2 levels in the atmosphere in the last half century, the earth has been "greener" as a whole than times in past history when Co2 was lower.

So the only issue here, is that Co2 is apparently causing "warming", which were told to believe, left unchecked, will create catastrophic changes in our environment.

That is what the entire global warming agenda based it's point on. So to say that the global warming agenda, is an agenda which all pollution will be dealt with, especially those pollutants far worse than Co2 - is ignorant at best.


So then, lets go back to the point. If global warming's number 1 enemy is Co2, yet in reality, there's a many, many more pollutants that are far worse. What is the point in giving up so much, to "combat" just one thing.


To further illustrate the currupt nature that goes into contriving such a bogus agenda. If you believe that fuel efficiency didnt change for 80 years, by coincidence your completely blind. The fact is that we could have far more energy, far cleaner than we have now. But the same people who wrote up this whole god damn mess, are the same people who are with holding that technology.

SO!

So you're telling me, you're going to trust the same people who raped, and polluted the environment, so they could force a profitable (but dirty) energy source on us. These people haven't once in history had humanities best interest at heart, only their own.

And you honestly believe there's been some sudden change of heart. Hahaha... ignorance, it's whats for dinner at your place.

[edit on 21-8-2009 by king9072]

reply to post by king9072


And of course non-coincidentally they would now like to Tax Co2 emission.

"surprise".... no .. still not surprising is it..

No. Actually the global warming agenda focuses on one pollutant, Co2.

Yes and isn't pollution causing CO2???

Every meal you eat caused CO2 emissions, every drop of water you drink!

There are hundreds of other ways that we devastate our environment that far exceed the destruction of a bit of Co2.

So that makes it okay???

Human activities such as the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation have caused the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to increase by about 35% since the beginning of the age of industrialization.[20]

Sure looks like "a bit"

It's even ironic that plants thrive on Co2, and as a result of raised Co2 levels in the atmosphere in the last half century, the earth has been "greener" as a whole than times in past history when Co2 was lower.

Greener??? With deforistation and developement??? Really???

So the only issue here, is that Co2 is apparently causing "warming", which were told to believe, left unchecked, will create catastrophic changes in our environment.

Apparently... mmm...mmm

So then, lets go back to the point. If global warming's number 1 enemy is Co2, yet in reality, there's a many, many more pollutants that are far worse. What is the point in giving up so much, to "combat" just one thing.

So thats your argument... it's okay because there are far worse pollutants??

To further illustrate the currupt nature that goes into contriving such a bogus agenda. If you believe that fuel efficiency didnt change for 80 years, by coincidence your completely blind. The fact is that we could have far more energy, far cleaner than we have now. But the same people who wrote up this whole god damn mess, are the same people who are with holding that technology.

What fact??... sounds like a theory to me

So you're telling me, you're going to trust the same people who raped, and polluted the environment, so they could force a profitable (but dirty) energy source on us. These people haven't once in history had humanities best interest at heart, only their own.

Conspiracies??

And you honestly believe there's been some sudden change of heart. Hahaha... ignorance, it's whats for dinner at your place.

Got that one wrong too... spaghetti is more like it!

en.wikipedia.org...

I'm thrilled that some guys are 100% sure in their convictions that man-made global warming is BS. Doesn't reassure me, but I'm always appreciative of people that claim peace of mind. Leipold has exaggerated, so what? The subject is tainted with exaggeration on all sides.

Seems the guys saying it's not man-made are completely ignoring the influence of human industry on the climate. Some are emphatic that it's not enough to make a difference. It's enough to show up in ice cores. It's enough to impact the presence of lichens that require clean air.

Other guys are saying that it's man-made. That's completely ignoring natural environmental changes that have ebbed and flowed for millenia. Again, ice cores indicate climate change long before man was instrumental on the environment. Interestingly, between 4-6kya the first indications of artificial pollution occur. Inter glacial periods have been part of the Earth cycle before we'd climbed out of trees (or God invented us ).

IMO a little action to reduce the pollution in the environment can only have long term benefits for the biomass of this planet. There aren't many studies that indicate pollution is a 'good thing.' Taking the position that we could be responsible for the increasing average global temperature, has benefits. If it turns out that global warming is wholly natural the reductions won't hurt. If it turns out we are 'more' responsible, at least we made an effort to avoid long-term consequences. Rarely is anything black and white.