Happycamper's House of Denial brought to you by ExxonMobil

[reece]

With the newly discovered fudge and subsequent adjustment, how far off was Einstein?

Isn't it apples and oranges? Why is it that no one is changing public policy based on the Theory of Relativity? It seems you are saying it is because there are still "fudge factors to figure out."

Bad analogy.

It's like parking your car under a tree limb that is partially broken. It's gonna fall. But when? Could be years. Could be while you're in your friend's house getting high. Or maybe it won't fall in your lifetime. There are some factors to consider but all you don't know them all. And, until you know all of the factors it makes no sense to change your behavior regarding parking under the tree. Right?

My point is that we still don't know what the fuck we are talking about when it comes to global warming and its causes. Therefore, we shouldn't panic to change policies without thinking them all the way through. When global warming proponents can sit down and calmly and rationally talk through what the problem is, what has caused it and what we should do about it, then they will be worth listening to. At this point in that cycle, they seem to be skipping the thinking things through part and wanting to rush into change. In this political climate, any time any politician sends up an alarm with a solution that involves limiting resources to its people, taxing its people to pay for it, etc...tread cautiously.

And speaking of bad analagies, all analgies are bad when either taken out of context or when the main point of the speaker is not understood, as appears to be the case with your understanding of my relativity analogy. Let me modify your broken limb analogy to appropriately represent what I was saying, even though it still has flaws.

What I say warming alarmists are doing is taking note of the broken limb and blaming its existence on man's warming of the environment. (Mosquito situation is a perfect example of this.) Then they go and try to pass legislation to keep us from ever breaking limbs off trees again due to warming. Warming proponents will dance around singing the praises of the legislation that will now save so many limbs from breaking without ever seeing the wealth that is transferred from the subjects to the lawmakers with the same policy. But guess what? Some tree limbs are still going to break because it has nothing to do with warming. Politicians do not care about the environment or you. They don't care if the science that backs their claims has some flaws in it. They only care if it will forward their agenda (read $$$) and be used to get something done fast.

Right. It's a conspiracy. Like I said. There is hyperbole on both sides. I used to be cynical like this. All the evil politicians and what not. But it's a cop out. It's all too easy to broad brush a group of people and declare them all evil, or lazy, or racist, etc. Everyone's motivation is greed, blah blah. And I'm sorry but it's hard to consider someone credible when you don't even understand that if something is in the Constitution it is Constitutional no matter how much you disagree with it (a little off topic but it goes to state of mind, your honor). All of the conspiracy talk just shuts me down. Not that I don't find it interesting. I am fascinated by conspiracy theories. But if we're going to have a rational conversation it can't include the "they're out to get us" argument (unless there's proof).


And I do understand you believe this stuff. I don't think this belief and intelligence are mutually exclusive. But I need more than is currently available before I can go there. Some emails taken out of context and denying the 16th amendment exists (or something like that) doesn't help.

 

[Happycamper]

Reece, what do you think to the maleria story?

 

[tuttle]

For the first time in history, this is the first year that the Northern Sea Route has been able to be run without ice breakers.

 

[Happycamper]

For the first time in history, this is the first year that the Northern Sea Route has been able to be run without ice breakers.

What do you think to the maleria story?

and show me something. a link please.

 

[reece]

Reece, what do you think to the maleria story?

I haven't read it. You got a link(s)? I prefer to go to the source(s). Not too big on accepting things posted on a message board as gospel without credible sources.

And to clarify something I said earlier about the "Russians admitting no such thing." When I quoted your post part of the link you provided read "Russians admit sending emails," or something close to that. I thought you were making that claim when according to the article the Russians deny sending the emails but admit it came from their servers. Hence my, "did you read the article...." It must have seemed like I was disputing the reporting.

 

[Happycamper]

Reece, what do you think to the maleria story?

I haven't read it. You got a link(s)? I prefer to go to the source(s). Not too big on accepting things posted on a message board as gospel without credible sources.

And to clarify something I said earlier about the "Russians admitting no such thing." When I quoted your post part of the link you provided read "Russians admit sending emails," or something close to that. I thought you were making that claim when according to the article the Russians deny sending the emails but admit it came from their servers. Hence my, "did you read the article...." It must have seemed like I was disputing the reporting.

em...I thought you were strangely latching onto the very small part of the article regarding it coming from a Serbian server.

It now seems to be a whistle blower anyway, potentionally a scientist or someone very close.


Linky http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjY0ZjkxODZmNmNiNjI5OThlYmUzZWRiN2ZiMjBiYmY=
(However it has been published in loads of places)

 

[tuttle]

For the first time in history, this is the first year that the Northern Sea Route has been able to be run without ice breakers.

What do you think to the maleria story?

and show me something. a link please.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/08/global_warming_means_no_icebre.html

I haven't read it yet. But I have a feeling it is along the lines of "all scientists are bad and they are all manipulating their data in a malicious fashion to convince people of something that really none of the mentioned scientists have any vested interest in convincing people in." I'm being overly facetious here, but having worked in and have many family members still in the scientific community the idea that hundreds of thousands of people trained in the scientific method are purposely manipulating data to achieve one common fictitious goals seems ludicrous to me.

 

[rayski]

The spread of Maleria is nothing to do with temperature changes or global warming i'm afraid.

That's not what the article says. It has`a lot to do with temperature change at high elevations. Read the article if you haven't.

Many scientific papers said this would not be the case. The IPCC can't even get their facts right regarding the temperatures mosquitos can survive at.

There is a difference between surviving and thriving. The mosquitoes are now thriving where they were not. Again, read the article.

Rayski, you never bothered repsonding to the link I provided where the Head of the Main Artic Research Centre said there was nothing unusual happening there.

Sorry. Still waiting for you to explain how you came up with:"They should speak to the International Artic Research Centre to check their facts because they have found nothing unusual or wrong there, and the ice has made big gains since 2007. In 2008 the gains were the biggest ever recorded."
Your answer was Dr. Akasofu stating that the ice loss was a result of multidecadal variability (MDV) in the Arctic and North Atlantic climate system. HUh? How does Dr. Akasofu's claim of natural ice loss prove your claim of record gains? I didn't respond because Reece brought up the incongruity.

Please follow this link to the IRAC's project on MDV and check out the graph on simulated arctic ice thickness averaged over the central Arctic Ocean:http://research.iarc.uaf.edu/multidecadal_variability/ice.php?img=Slide16.jpg

Then you respond to the Maleria thing, dragging up some news article, that does not actually prove that an outbreak of maleria is due to warmer climates. It is all based on here say.Sometimes these things just happen and you must get out of the habbit of blaming every little last thing on global warming.

I was responding to your cavalier attitude to the possible harm from climate change. I had just read the article published on Jan.1, 2010 and I dragged it up because I thought it would illustrate the seriousness of climate change--not as proof of global warming. What makes the report-- funded by the UK Department for International Development (DfID) and carried out by a team from the Kenyan Medical Research Institute (Kemri)--"here say"?
Your right. Regional climate change and individual weather events are not proof of global warming. Just as winter storms and backyard observations don't disprove it.

 

[rayski]

If that is true why did Archangel and Russia in the Artic circle have the biggest ever maleria outbreak?

There are over 2500 different species of mosquitoes throughout the world. Do you think that all species thrive at the same temperatures? They don't.

I don't trust that news article. (And I note the same article has done it's rounds already in the 'world media').

A google news search proves you wrong. But what's so bad about people being informed?

The actual truth is that Mosquito's thirve in very cold areas and have caused record outbreaks in such areas. I'm sorry, but i can't change that fact.

Yeah. A different species than in Kenya which makes it irrelevant.

 

[stickstones]

And I'm sorry but it's hard to consider someone credible when you don't even understand that if something is in the Constitution it is Constitutional no matter how much you disagree with it (a little off topic but it goes to state of mind, your honor). All of the conspiracy talk just shuts me down.

And I do understand you believe this stuff. I don't think this belief and intelligence are mutually exclusive. But I need more than is currently available before I can go there. Some emails taken out of context and denying the 16th amendment exists (or something like that) doesn't help.

As I said before, it's easier to character assassinate and write someone off.

The 16th Amendment does exist, as can be proved by my income taxes. It was pushed through during the x-mas holiday when some representatives were not there to vote. The President who signed the bill later stated he regeretted it and feared he had seriously hurt the country and personal liberty. Reagan later ordered an income tax audit and concluded it was the largest scam on Americans in history. (These are paraphrases from my memory, so don't take it as a quote.) The income tax didn't exist until 1916. What was wrong with America before then that required an income tax?

 

[rayski]

Politicians do not care about the environment or you. They don't care if the science that backs their claims has some flaws in it. They only care if it will forward their agenda (read $$$) and be used to get something done fast.

I think it's more about doing what will keep them in office and the money needed for election. I don't think it's about funneling tax money to themselves. The flaws are just what you get when you don't know everything about something. Would you put off treating a serious medical condition until they know all there is to know about the cause?

The income tax didn't exist until 1916. What was wrong with America before then that required an income tax?

According to Wikipedia there was an income tax before 1916: "The first United States income tax was imposed in July 1861, at 3% of all incomes over 800 dollars in order to help pay for the war effort in the American Civil War. This tax was repealed and replaced by another income tax in 1862."

 

[reece]

And I'm sorry but it's hard to consider someone credible when you don't even understand that if something is in the Constitution it is Constitutional no matter how much you disagree with it (a little off topic but it goes to state of mind, your honor). All of the conspiracy talk just shuts me down.

And I do understand you believe this stuff. I don't think this belief and intelligence are mutually exclusive. But I need more than is currently available before I can go there. Some emails taken out of context and denying the 16th amendment exists (or something like that) doesn't help.

As I said before, it's easier to character assassinate and write someone off.

The 16th Amendment does exist, as can be proved by my income taxes. It was pushed through during the x-mas holiday when some representatives were not there to vote. The President who signed the bill later stated he regeretted it and feared he had seriously hurt the country and personal liberty. Reagan later ordered an income tax audit and concluded it was the largest scam on Americans in history. (These are paraphrases from my memory, so don't take it as a quote.) The income tax didn't exist until 1916. What was wrong with America before then that required an income tax?

No character assassination. Your previous statements made it seem you didn't believe it existed. As I said before, disagreeing with a law is another matter.

 

[reece]

Politicians do not care about the environment or you. They don't care if the science that backs their claims has some flaws in it. They only care if it will forward their agenda (read $$$) and be used to get something done fast.

I think it's more about doing what will keep them in office and the money needed for election. I don't think it's about funneling tax money to themselves. The flaws are just what you get when you don't know everything about something. Would you put off treating a serious medical condition until they know all there is to know about the cause?

The income tax didn't exist until 1916. What was wrong with America before then that required an income tax?

According to Wikipedia there was an income tax before 1916: "The first United States income tax was imposed in July 1861, at 3% of all incomes over 800 dollars in order to help pay for the war effort in the American Civil War. This tax was repealed and replaced by another income tax in 1862."

I believe it was found unconstitutional at some point. In 1916, we decided to amend the Constitution thereby making it Constitutional. Like anything else there are many branches such as the amendment wasn't ratified because Ohio wasn't a state. Earned wages are not income. There are some strong arguments. I read a good bit of one SCOTUS opinion upholding the income tax. I read a news article about another decision finding for a man who refused to pay his income taxes. But it isn't as it seems from that statement. I don't want to hijack the thread. I just wanted to be clear where stickstones was coming from on this.

 

[Happycamper]

Rayski: I did read your article, probably a lot more carefully than you did.

It is not a new article, despite what the date says. A quick google would have shown you this, It has already gone around the world media a few years ago. It may have had a small refresh, but almost the exact same article has been published a number of times before.

Also another quick google check would have shown you that Malaria outbreaks have occured in the same high regions in Kenya many times before, it is not a new problem. If you are unwilling to acknowledge the difference now is no DDT (again a quick google check will show you the effect not using it in developing countries has) then that is your own look out.

1999 WHO report published in conjunction with the U.N. and World Banks Roll Back Malaria partnership, states: malaria among highland populations is better described as a re-emerging [underlining in original] problem rather than a new, unprecedented phenomena. This paper, written by scientists at the Kenya Medical Research Institute, documents that malaria [e]pidemics in highland Kenya, varying in magnitude, location, and effect, were to recur throughout the 1940s. As for Nairobi, that city experienced malaria outbreaks in the 1920s, 30s, and 40s, according to the WHO report, which is entitled The epidemiology, politics, and control of malaria epidemics in Kenya: 1900-1998. [/b]

((Just reading the above report you don't need a degree in rocket science to realise maleria has been re-emerging in the higher regions again since at least 1999, and most likely since a few years prior). So it backs up my point this is not a new article/report/discovery/, this has been reported years ago)).

The WHO report also casts a skeptical eye on climate playing any significant role in Kenya malaria resurgence. Measuring temperature and rainfall in Kenyas Kericho district in the highlands, the study states that there is no obvious effect of warming in this area since 1967. The U.S. CDC reported similar findings in 2005. The CDC study concluded: Doubts exist as to the plausibility of climate change as proximate cause of epidemic malaria because global warming cannot explain the World War II epidemics. Dramatic increases in malaria in the 1990s are not mirrored by prospectively collected climate data. And malaria researchers have also noted that the disease was endemic in many of other regions of the world, including the American South, until DDT eradicated malaria in those places after World War II

What brought an end to malaria in these regions for decades until it recently resurfaced? In substantial part, the spraying of DDT. Following concerted attempts to interrupt transmission during the 1950s and 1960, malaria risks declined significantly, says the WHO study. And DDT was a large component of these concerted attempts.

According to the WHO paper, authorities in Kenya began spraying DDT in the 1940s, with an immediate 98 percent reduction in some regions. The report credited this spraying in substantial part for malaria not reoccurring in Nairobi after a flood in 1961

 

[Happycamper]

''Dramatic increases in malaria in the 1990s are not mirrored by prospectively collected climate data''.(taken from the 1999 WHO report)''

So what happened at this point? Ah yes thats right Kenya reduced and eventually stopped using DDT in the 1990's due to pressure from WHO and environmental groups. (and ultimately because they couldn't fund it themselves)

Please find attached article showing how 'roll back malaria' (started in 1998) compares to the use of DDT.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles 2004/Spring2004/DDT_Africa.pdf

It even states that the highland areas in Kenya are high risk to maleria outbreaks, and this article was written in 2004. ''The epidemic prone areas are the highlands where about 23% of the population live''. ((No mention of global warming, only lack of DDT and the WHO 'Rollback Malaria Programme'))

So Kenya has had outbreaks in its highland areas for some time now, going back to at least the 1990's. And seemingly they are 'prone' to it in those areas.

The who report stating this is a re-emergence of malaria came out in 1999, Which again is uncannily around the same time DDT got phased out. Fancy that!

When South Africa tried not using DDT for a few years the infection rate went up by 450% and increased mortality rate from malaria went up 1000%.

The whole reason the WHO started the 'Roll back Malaria' campaign in the first place was because of the dramatic impact of 'encouraging' other countries not to use DDT had. Infection levels went through the roof, and was seen in every single country that stopped using DDT. Malaria re-emerged in areas they had managed to nearly eliminate it from (including the highland areas of Kenya).

I just can't understand how you can be so blinkered to this Rayski and willing to trust a news article that leaves an extremely important if not fundemental part of the story out.

 

[Happycamper]

The malaria mosquito, according to Professor Paul Reiter, the worlds foremost expert, is capable of surviving in temperatures as low as 25 degrees Celsius (13 Fahrenheit). Its only dependence upon temperature is that, during the breeding season, it requires an ambient temperature of at least 15 degrees C (59 F). Since there has been no increase in mean global surface temperatures for the past ten years, the area of the planet where the temperature reaches 15 degrees C during the breeding season has not increased: so there is no possible scientific basis for saying that the current high malaria mortality owes anything to global warming.


Paul Reiter is a professor of medical entomology at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, France. He is a member of the World Health Organization Expert Advisory Committee on Vector Biology and Control. He was an employee of the Center for Disease Control (Dengue Branch) for 22 years. He is a Fellow of the Royal Entomological Society. He is a specialist in the natural history, epidemiology and control of mosquito-borne diseases such as dengue fever, West Nile Virus, and malaria

Rayski What I really like about Professor Paul Reiter, is that he can get his facts right, unlike that news article and the IPCC unfortunately.

 

[Happycamper]

For the first time in history, this is the first year that the Northern Sea Route has been able to be run without ice breakers.

What do you think to the maleria story?

and show me something. a link please.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/08/global_warming_means_no_icebre.html

I haven't read it yet. But I have a feeling it is along the lines of "all scientists are bad and they are all manipulating their data in a malicious fashion to convince people of something that really none of the mentioned scientists have any vested interest in convincing people in." I'm being overly facetious here, but having worked in and have many family members still in the scientific community the idea that hundreds of thousands of people trained in the scientific method are purposely manipulating data to achieve one common fictitious goals seems ludicrous to me.

Sorry to break it to you..

Thermageddon fever disappears 70 year trade route

http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/sept2009/nepassage-reopened.html



Andrew Orlowski - The Register - 14th September 2009


One of Russia's commercial maritime trade routes for the past 70 years has been "re-opened" by a press hungry for dramatic Global Warming scare stories - but who failed to check the most basic facts.



I've traced this fascinating example of "eco-churnalism" - peddled by both BBC Radio and its website, the Daily Mail, The Independent, Reuters and many others - back to its origins, with a press release from a German shipping group. But first of all - what on Earth is the Northern Passage?

Also called the Northeast Passage or North Sea Passage, it's a trade route that in summer months links the North European and Siberian ports to Asia, around the Arctic Circle. Orient-bound traffic heads east, then South via the Bering Straight.

Much of the Siberian North coast lies outside the Arctic Circle, and the route offered significant gains over the alternatives via Suez or the Cape. But until technological advances in the early 20th Century it was considered too hazardous for commercial operation.

Since the 1930s the route has seen major ports spring up, carrying over 200,000 tons of freight passing through each year, although this declined with the fall of the Soviet Union.

But none of this ever happened, we learned on Saturday. The Independent reported that the journey had been traversed for the very first time, proclaiming that two German ships had completed "the first commercial navigation of the fabled North-east Passage", proclaiming it "a triumph for man, a disaster for mankind". BBC Radio followed suit

Interestingly, the BBC is now downplaying the hype, referring only to "German ships", and admitting that the route has been "passable without ice breakers in 2005", neglecting to tell us that this journey required substantial assistance from ice breakers. So much for global warming.

Its quite interesting to see how the same story gets twisted by the media.

 

[stickstones]

camper...could you please use quotes so I know when the article ends and your commentary begins? Thanks.

 

[tuttle]

I will hand it to you, you do try hard to bend facts to your liking. The article I posted never said anything about the route never being used before, nor did I insinuate such a thing in my post.

neglecting to tell us that this journey required substantial assistance from ice breakers

This runs counter to everything that I am reading, link please. You are right the shipping route was open in 2005, but with icebreaker escort.

 

[Happycamper]

The point i was trying to make was how the same story can be twisted differently by the media. That is the way the BBC (and seemingly all UK press) presented it. This is what is happening to so many stories that are getting put out. It's despicable.
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/sept2009/nepassage-reopened.html

The BBC are supposed to be saying it was open without needing ice breakers in 2005, i haven't checked it out but i bet it can be found somewhere.

 

[Happycamper]

So just to clarify this statement is false :

''The team from the Kenyan Medical Research Institute (Kemri) said that while similar outbreaks elsewhere have been attributed to multiple factors including drug resistance and changes in land use, the only change on Mount Kenya is a rise in temperature.

The average temperature in the Central Highlands was 17C in 1989, with malaria completely absent from the region. This is because the parasite which causes malaria can only mature above 18C''

1. Mosquitos (and yes, the ones that carry malaria) only need 15c in breeding season. Any areas that these mosquitos live are always at continuous risk of outbreaks. ]Its almost laughable when you think about it, they are talking about an average yearly mean temperature, like it remains static . Did no one point out to them that the daily temperature fluctuates?

2. In 1989 when apparently it was completely absent from this region, DDT was still getting used. So to make out the only difference on Mount Kenya is the temperature (which actually even in 2005 studies found no evidence of global warming in the area since 1967) is also false. It is not surprising malaria has returned to areas again after DDT was 'banned'. It has done the same time and time again in developing countries that stopped using DDT.

I would also like to point out the reason why this story is something that the environs keep pushing.

It takes attention off the WHO (under pressure from the green movement) restricting and stopping the use of DDT and the effect that has had on Malaria. Instead they can point at 'global warming'.

The second and probably most important reason is if they can convince enough influential governments that human suffering is happening now (due to global warming) it gives them much stronger, almost 'unstoppable powers' some would say. Proving that human suffering is happening now is a very very important step of the campaign.

And that is the reason why this story keeps getting pushed.

And when you think about it, it's very clever. The Environmental groups have caused millions upon millions of deaths and untold human suffering, they can just walk away and blame it on global warming. They are getting away with murder.

 

[Happycamper]

In the UK we are getting 17 inches more of snow, it's the coldest winter for 100 years...but yup means nothing apparently because colder, wetter, drier and hotter have all been proved ''the debate is over'' tm to be caused by global warming.

A Vicar was praying for global warming (as reported in the news) the other day.

And before someone starts harping on about apparently we are warming

Since there has been no increase in mean global surface temperatures for the past ten years**, the area of the planet where the temperature reaches 15 degrees C during the breeding season has not increased: so there is no possible scientific basis for saying that the current high malaria mortality owes anything to global warming.


Paul Reiter is a professor of medical entomology at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, France. He is a member of the World Health Organization Expert Advisory Committee on Vector Biology and Control. He was an employee of the Center for Disease Control (Dengue Branch) for 22 years. He is a Fellow of the Royal Entomological Society. He is a specialist in the natural history, epidemiology and control of mosquito-borne diseases such as dengue fever, West Nile Virus, and malaria

**it's 13 years now.

 

[Happycamper]

Britain is not suffering alone with the unusually cold temperatures. Across Asia, America and Northern Europe, hundreds of millions are struggling with freezing temperatures. Seoul in South Korea is Battling its heaviest snow in more than 70 years, with up to 10 inches of snow this week. Up to 12in has blanketed Beijing. At least 122 people have died alone in Poland where temperatures have plummeted to below minus 25c (-13f) in the last few days. (daily Mail)

The good old Met office was predicting (to the sound of much fanfare with many press releases) at the Copenhagen talks how this year (2010) was unquestionably going to be the hottest year ever on record.

This year is our coldest winter for 100 years, last year was the coldest for 30 years. The excuse last year put out by the Met office regarding an extremely cold winter is that there is a 5 year cycle of when the Uk gets an exceptionally cold winter. So after smashing through last years record, what is the reason/excuse this year?

This is typical of the type of nonsense that the Met office keeps putting out, and managing to grab some pretty big headlines when they do. Another classic is this one:

2007 is likely to be the warmest year on record globally, beating the current record set in 1998, say climate-change experts at the Met Office (Met Office)

I just love the use of the phrase 'climate change experts'.

 

[Happycamper]

This is an example of what happens in the media all the time

The Australian Reptile Park, which makes anti-venom for funnelweb bites, has recorded higher than usual numbers of funnel-webs and warned the plague could get worse.

Rex Gilroy, who runs Katoomba Rotary Club's dangerous spiders hotline, said a long period of dry weather followed by heavy rain and high humidity over Christmas prompted an explosion in numbers.

"I think climate change might have something to do with it. This season there's more moisture and coolness and the spiders have been able to breed up," he told the Sydney Morning Herald.

Climate change has got flop all to do with it, the person making that statement has absolutely no authority or credentials to make such a statement, but yet the fingers still get pointed towards 'global warming'.

At least the MET office are admitting they got it wrong (again) regarding extreme cold weather in the UK. The temperature in highlands in Scotland the other night was very close to the South pole temperature.
The sea froze in dorset at Poole harbor.

Met Office 'experts' admit they failed to predict Big Freeze

They said it would probably be a 'mild' winter.
Yesterday the so-called experts at the Met Office faced up to their failure to predict the biggest deep freeze for 100 years and admitted: 'We're disappointed.'
Already under fire for last year's infamous prediction of a 'barbecue summer', the weathermen had said there was just a 20 per cent risk of a colder-than-average winter

The met office confidently keep assuring us (without question 'The debate is over' tm) the long term picture is the average global temperature are going to keep going up, yet they can't even get the extremely short term predictions right.

PICTURE: FROZEN SEA AT DORSET

 

[Happycamper]

Taken from the BBC News: live clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByKXmMUL808

Gerd Leipold, the outgoing leader of Greenpeace, admitted that his organization's recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was "a mistake." Greenpeace said in a July 15 2009 press release that there will be an ice-free Arctic by 2030 because of global warming. BBC reporter Stephen Sackur on the "Hardtalk" program pressed Leipold until he admitted the claim was wrong.

This clip is of the green supporters at Copenhagen talks and proves a point, almost painful to watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEtPCSr3n1Q