If Global Warming Promoters are Proud of all their ██████ ████████ Work, then Why do They Hide Parts of It?

We can apparently add one more situation to the growing pile of instances where folks pushing the idea of man-caused global warming are caught trying to hide inconvenient details.

GelbspanFiles.com reports:

The current USA arm of Greenpeace is arguably no more than a re-badged version of the old Ozone Action enviro-activist group which merged into it in 2000, installing its own top people there, Passacantando, Radford & Davies. If they have a perfectly reasonable explanation for blocking all the old Ozone Action web pages now, let’s hear it. I’ll reproduce it verbatim for all to see. While they’re at it, a tidy explanation of why their current executive director felt a need to scrub the Ozone Action reference out of his Greenpeace bio recently (detailed in my 8th paragraph addendum here) would be nice, too.

Otherwise, how is it possible for them to avoid the appearance that this action was done in deliberate fashion in order to hide what’s there? If Greenpeace cannot explain their way out of this, have they not joined the ranks of ClimateGate scientists deleting emails and files and hiding declines, the SkepticScience.org guys deleting critical comments and hiding their bizarre photos, the EPA hiding data / Lisa Jackson hiding emails about ██████████ , the BBC hiding their ‘global warming experts’ name list, and various other instances of ‘inconvenient content’ burial?

Read more about the complete situation…..

About these ads

6 responses to “If Global Warming Promoters are Proud of all their ██████ ████████ Work, then Why do They Hide Parts of It?

  1. Here is additional hidden information.
    Climate change is real BUT IT IS NATURAL. The U.S. government web site from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) proves it. The chart with the black temperature line shows that we are still 3 to 4 degrees centigrade COOLER than the NORMAL NATURALLY occurring high temperature of EVERY inter-glacial warm up period of the past 350,000 years!
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data2.html
    Additionally
The Meteorologic Office of England quietly released its report.
GLOBAL WARMING STOPPED 16 YEARS AGO: 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html#ixzz2Tq5LpW1G
    “Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.”

    Now it has been proven by Dr Scott Denning, professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University, that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere causes a global warming effect on the earth equal to adding the heat of a 4 watt lightbulb to each square meter. To put that into perspective, that would be like slowly turning on a 40 watt lightbulb in my 1200 sq. ft. home.
    Referring to the NOAA chart, that is the effect of heat add by additional CO2 over the past 12000 years as the CO2 level doubled from the normal low of 200 ppm to the recently observed 400 ppm. That would not noticeably change the environment of my home for me, my dog, my fish, my houseplants, or even any of the bugs or critters that would like to invade my home.

    Clearly there are more powerful causes in play warming the average earth temperature since the last glacier, by 10 or more degrees centigrade. The next doubling, if it ever occurs, from 400 to 800 ppm over the next several hundred or thousands of years, will be like slowly turning on another 40 watt light in my home.

No noticeable effect at all.

    Before we create world wide energy poverty (already a major issue in Europe) by committing trillions of dollars, based on flawed science, to deal with events that will take 600 to 800 years to occur, naturally, lets take a deep breath and spend 20 years or so to find the right science to get it right while money is used for an all of the above energy policy, to prevent energy poverty, create high paying jobs, and fix the economy first.

  2. NOTE on above post: 1200 sq. ft is similar to 10 sq. m.

  3. Willis Eschenbach

    Stephenwv, thanks for an interesting comment. However, I think you lost a digit on your last addition. 1200 square feet is about 110 square metres. See http://www.unitjuggler.com/convert-area-from-sqft-to-m2.html for confirmation.

    w.

  4. Anything that has to use cherry picked or fake data, rigged computer models and supports its agenda with slander, threats and intimidation as AGW does is not science, it’s a con.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s