http://wattsupwiththat.com/

This is why some find it hard to hug a tree

On Aug 19, 5:19*pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/

This is why some find it hard to hug a tree

Why, because Greenpeace forgot to add the word "sea" in their press
release that said Arctic ice may be gone by 2030? BBC reporter
Stephen Sackur should have known that instead of making a big issue
out of it, but then that's entertainment!

Cheers, Alastair.

Alastair wrote:
Why, because Greenpeace forgot to add the word "sea" in their press
release that said Arctic ice may be gone by 2030? BBC reporter
Stephen Sackur should have known that instead of making a big issue
out of it, but then that's entertainment!

Yes, Greenpeace meant that the Arctic Sea Ice could be gone by 2030, not the
Greenland Ice Sheet.

If you watch the interview then that becomes obvious.
________________
Nick.
Otter Valley, Devon
83 m amsl
http://www.ottervalley.co.uk

On Aug 19, 7:41*pm, "Nick Gardner"
wrote:
Alastair wrote:
Why, because Greenpeace forgot to add the word "sea" in their press
release that said Arctic ice may be gone by 2030? *BBC reporter
Stephen Sackur should have known that instead of making a big issue
out of it, but then that's entertainment!

Yes, Greenpeace meant that the Arctic Sea Ice could be gone by 2030, not the
Greenland Ice Sheet.

If you watch the interview then that becomes obvious.
________________
Nick.
Otter Valley, Devon
83 m amslhttp://www.ottervalley.co.uk

Yes,

Here is the section from the press release.

Ice free Arctic

Bad news is coming from other sources as well. A recent NASA study has
shown that the ice cap is not only getting smaller, it’s getting
thinner and younger. Sea ice has dramatically thinned between 2004 and
2008. Old ice (over 2 years old) takes longer to melt, and is also
much harder to replace. As permanent ice decreases, we are looking at
ice-free summers in the Arctic as early as 2030.

The release is talking about sea ice. The quote has been
(deliberately) taken out of context, and the Greenpeace boss agreed
that the Greenland ice would not disappear by 2030 which was correct
but ... see the release itself:

Urgent action needed as Arctic ice melts
http://www.greenpeace.org/internatio...eded-as-arctic

Cheers, Alastair.

..the quote read out onthe BBC states

On Aug 19, 9:05*pm, Alastair wrote:
On Aug 19, 7:41*pm, "Nick Gardner"

wrote:
Alastair wrote:
Why, because Greenpeace forgot to add the word "sea" in their press
release that said Arctic ice may be gone by 2030? *BBC reporter
Stephen Sackur should have known that instead of making a big issue
out of it, but then that's entertainment!

Yes, Greenpeace meant that the Arctic Sea Ice could be gone by 2030, not the
Greenland Ice Sheet.

If you watch the interview then that becomes obvious.
________________
Nick.
Otter Valley, Devon
83 m amslhttp://www.ottervalley.co.uk

Yes,

Here is the section from the press release.

Ice free Arctic

Bad news is coming from other sources as well. A recent NASA study has
shown that the ice cap is not only getting smaller, it’s getting
thinner and younger. Sea ice has dramatically thinned between 2004 and
2008. Old ice (over 2 years old) takes longer to melt, and is also
much harder to replace. As permanent ice decreases, we are looking at
ice-free summers in the Arctic as early as 2030.

The release is talking about sea ice. *The quote has been
(deliberately) taken out of context, and the Greenpeace boss agreed
that the Greenland ice would not disappear by 2030 which was correct
but ... see the release itself:

Urgent action needed as Arctic ice meltshttp://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/urgent-action-needed-as-...

Cheers, Alastair.

.the quote read out onthe BBC states

So; why exactly is this "disgraceful hyperbole", Lawrence? Perhaps the
only "disgraceful hyperbole" is your own? You could have at least
bothered to watch the video before quoting from the, hopelessly
biased, blog.

Dawlish,

I cannot support your vendetta against Lawrence. His vendetta against
the BBC now seems much more to the point!

Cheers, Alastair.

PS. I have cut your comment out in consideration for those who have
kill-filed you.

"Dawlish" wrote in message
...
On Aug 19, 9:05 pm, Alastair wrote:
On Aug 19, 7:41 pm, "Nick Gardner"

wrote:
Alastair wrote:
Why, because Greenpeace forgot to add the word "sea" in their press
release that said Arctic ice may be gone by 2030? BBC reporter
Stephen Sackur should have known that instead of making a big issue
out of it, but then that's entertainment!

Yes, Greenpeace meant that the Arctic Sea Ice could be gone by 2030, not
the
Greenland Ice Sheet.

If you watch the interview then that becomes obvious.
________________
Nick.
Otter Valley, Devon
83 m amslhttp://www.ottervalley.co.uk

Yes,

Here is the section from the press release.

Ice free Arctic

Bad news is coming from other sources as well. A recent NASA study has
shown that the ice cap is not only getting smaller, it’s getting
thinner and younger. Sea ice has dramatically thinned between 2004 and
2008. Old ice (over 2 years old) takes longer to melt, and is also
much harder to replace. As permanent ice decreases, we are looking at
ice-free summers in the Arctic as early as 2030.

The release is talking about sea ice. The quote has been
(deliberately) taken out of context, and the Greenpeace boss agreed
that the Greenland ice would not disappear by 2030 which was correct
but ... see the release itself:

Urgent action needed as Arctic ice
meltshttp://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/urgent-action-needed-as-...

Cheers, Alastair.

.the quote read out onthe BBC states

So; why exactly is this "disgraceful hyperbole", Lawrence? Perhaps the
only "disgraceful hyperbole" is your own? You could have at least
bothered to watch the video before quoting from the, hopelessly
biased, blog.

The interview was on the hopelssy biased BBC, hopelessly biased toward AGW
:-0

On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:39:49 -0700 (PDT), Alastair wrote in


Dawlish,

I cannot support your vendetta against Lawrence. His vendetta against
the BBC now seems much more to the point!

Cheers, Alastair.

PS. I have cut your comment out in consideration for those who have
kill-filed you.

I totally agree Alastair. He seems to be picking on anything Lawrence
posts.

--
Mike Tullett - Coleraine 55.13°N 6.69°W posted 19/08/2009 22:22:39 GMT

On Aug 19, 10:22*pm, Mike Tullett wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:39:49 -0700 (PDT), Alastair wrote in


Dawlish,

I cannot support your vendetta against Lawrence. *His vendetta against
the BBC now seems much more to the point!

Cheers, Alastair.

PS. I have cut your comment out in consideration for those who have
kill-filed you.

I totally agree Alastair. He seems to be picking on anything Lawrence
posts.

--
Mike Tullett - Coleraine 55.13°N 6.69°W *posted 19/08/2009 22:22:39 *GMT

Hi Mike,

I have been watching this talk by James Hansen, a NASA director.
http://www.pages-osm.org/osm/publiclecture.html
He stopped campaigning about global warming in the late 1980s because
he was such a poor public speaker, but now feels he must do it again
so he can face his grandchildren with a clear conscience. Here's a
chance to see why he gave up, and why he took it up again!

It is difficult enough getting the message across, when the American
Congress and public are in the thrall of powerful lobbyists, without
the BBC joining in their dirty games.

Cheers, Alastair.

On Aug 19, 10:22*pm, Mike Tullett wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:39:49 -0700 (PDT), Alastair wrote in


Dawlish,

I cannot support your vendetta against Lawrence. *His vendetta against
the BBC now seems much more to the point!

Cheers, Alastair.

PS. I have cut your comment out in consideration for those who have
kill-filed you.

I totally agree Alastair. He seems to be picking on anything Lawrence
posts.

--
Mike Tullett - Coleraine 55.13°N 6.69°W *posted 19/08/2009 22:22:39 *GMT

Hi Mike,

I have been watching this talk by James Hansen, a NASA director.
http://www.pages-osm.org/osm/publiclecture.html
He stopped campaigning about global warming in the late 1980s because
he was such a poor public speaker, but now feels he must do it again
so he can face his grandchildren with a clear conscience. Here's a
chance to see why he gave up, and why he took it up again!

It is difficult enough getting the message across, when the American
Congress and public are in the thrall of powerful lobbyists, without
the BBC joining in their dirty games.

Cheers, Alastair.