Lawless misled by the clueless

Lucy Lawless, famous actress and newly-minted Greenpeace activist, claimed yesterday:

“…make no mistake, due to the harshness and remoteness of the Arctic environment, an oil spill up there will make the Gulf of Mexico look like a children’s party.”

I agree that it’s a distinct possibility, and precautions should be taken to prevent and, at need, to clean up such a spill. No doubt about it. But then our eco-warrior says boldly:

“To see the melting of the sea ice not as a warning to humanity but as an invitation to drill for more of the stuff that caused the problem in the first place is the definition of madness. What Shell is doing is climate change-profiteering.” (Emphasis added. H/T Richard Cumming)

Lucy, turn towards your Greenpeace advisers and say after me: “What is the evidence?” Because there is no reason to believe that burning oil played any part in causing the recent loss of Arctic sea ice. Proper papers put it down to favourable winds and currents blowing the stuff into the Atlantic, where it melts.

If you truly believe our emissions were responsible, then would you say they were also responsible for a similar loss of Arctic sea ice before 1920, when the surge in temperature was steeper and even shorter than today’s? And would you agree that, though our oil burning continued almost without pause, the Arctic ice returned in full force until the mid-1950s? Do you agree that, with our burning continuing and expanding the while, the Arctic ice returned yet again until the mid-1980s, when it again contracted until a few years ago? Finally, do you agree that now, with our oil burning at new, unprecedented heights, the summer ice has once again returned to the north and is recovering as we speak?

By the way, do you agree that this memorable saga is a northern one only, and that the southern continent has endured a slow but continual increase of land and sea ice for at least 30 years?

And if humanity’s burning of petroleum products caused historical and modern episodes of northern sea ice loss, why was the recent loss of ice about the same amount, even though global use of oil is at least 120 times greater than it was in the 1920s? That is, why did the vastly increased amount of atmospheric CO2 make little difference to the amount of ice that melted? Can you agree that at least much of the variation is due to natural cycles?

Do you know that the recent northern ice depletion was in the summer only? Have your advisers told you that the extent of Arctic winter ice has remained about 10 or 11 million square kilometres greater than in the summer?

It’s very important that you re-examine your beliefs about the climatic effects of CO2. To do that, I suggest you search out some facts about it.

Visits: 417

32 Thoughts on “Lawless misled by the clueless

  1. Bulaman on 26/02/2012 at 6:49 am said:

    Never let the truth get in the way of a good story (or a photo opportunity for an ageing actress!!) sung to a famous tune “There’s no publilicity like news publicity, like no publicity I know”

  2. Andy on 26/02/2012 at 8:27 am said:

    Perfect media opportunity for Greenpeace. NZ celebrity, worth $15 million, slums it on Oil Drilling ship. Helicopter buzzing around to get all those great shots.
    Polar bears, oil spills, melting ice. Lots of tipping points and runaway things (she mentions runaway climate change and runaway oil spills on her blog).

    Made for TV activism.

    Get the T Shirt #savethearctic

  3. Andy on 26/02/2012 at 9:23 am said:

    The oil exploration is proposed in the Chukchi Sea, which is a very remote area between Alaska and Siberia.

    You have to wonder about the logistics of drilling in such an area. The concerns about potential oil spills are valid ones, in my view.

    However, the area is so far away from civilisation, and frozen for a good part of the year. Therefore, marine travel will be not possible for several months of the year. (Wikipedia says that the sea is only navigable for 4 months of the year).

    There was an incident (not reported in the MSM) of several ships getting trapped in ice in the Barents Sea recently. This kind of incident would make the drilling of oil in this area extremely hazardous for human life, not to mention marine life.

    • Andy on 26/02/2012 at 9:55 am said:

      This is a link to Richard North’s post on the Okhotsk sea drama that happened a year ago when several ships became stranded in encroaching sea ice.

      Unreported in western MSM, of course.

    • Clarence on 27/02/2012 at 10:50 pm said:

      You have to wonder about many things!

      But how should I weigh the risks/rewards of somebody else’s business venture? Should I assume that I’m in a better position than the investors to judge the prospects of success or failure?

      After the BP travails with the Horizon well, nobody could possibly believe that Shell Oil would take lightly the possibility of an uncontrollable Arctic blowout. They well know that the downside is billions of dollars and incalculable reputational damage.

      So, we can rest assured that they have undertaken meticulous risk analyses, and that these have been pored over at several levels of management. The decision to proceed probably went all the way up to the Board.

      Also, we know that US Federal and State Government Agencies have vetted the proposal and put their respective signatures on the line.

      Should we assume that the Shell Board is out of its depth – that it doesn’t really understand the risks/rewards of the oil exploration industry? If so, to whom do we turn for an expert evaluation? What if your friend’s mother thinks Shell Oil have got it wrong? What about that green activist over there? How about an actress or two?

      You have to wonder whether interfering busybodies will soon start telling you how to run YOUR business!

    • Your illuminating comments paint a picture of an imaginary world unaffected by mindless dogma and ruled instead by a cool reason.

      I’m reminded of learning as a boy about the meaning of “conservative”. A conservative approach to anything aimed to conserve resources, do the best for the people and the place and was the opposite of “wasteful”. Now, conservatives are seen only as profiteers, laying waste to forests and mountains in their endless accumulation of wealth, while only the young, daring lawbreakers really care about our surroundings. Not that they could run a business.

    • How reliable is that graph, would you say? I notice some of the globe’s warmest seawater is in the Barents Sea, north of Scandinavia, which seems strange at the end of their winter. “Warm” is a relative thing, and in this case we’re looking at only 3°C or 4°C, but up against the sea ice shouldn’t be warmer than the tropics. In my opinion.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 26/02/2012 at 3:19 pm said:

      About as good as it gets from satellites I think. You can reassure yourself from this study:-

      Accuracies of NOAA/NESDIS Sea Surface Temperature Estimation Technique in the Oceans around Japan

      I chose that plot because usually Arctic sea ice is shown as the top of the spherical globe and a bit hard to orient unless you’re familiar with the geography as it actually is.

      The Barents Sea is warmer than usual from what I can gather. It’s the Bering Sea (?) between Alaska and Siberia where sea ice has really encroached south about 300 kms more than usual I think. Willis Eschenbach posted an article on this about a month ago (maybe 2 months).

      The anomaly is specific to the Barents Sea i.e. it’s warmer than the Barents norm. Same for the tropics so you can’t associate the colour to different regions – only for the same grid cell over time.

      Hopefully helpful.

    • Good work, Richard, thanks.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 26/02/2012 at 4:38 pm said:

      Speaking of “warmest seawater”, ““Warm” is a relative thing” and SST, it’s been a beautiful day here in MtM so feeling the call-of-the-wild I decided to go for a swim. SST has finally attained my comfort zone over the last few weeks (but only just – hope that’s not a harbinger…..) so I was very enthusiastic.

      Just about to dive under when I spotted a large dark gray shape crossing about 10m ahead. My immediate instinct in these situations is SHARK, But on second inspection it was wider than long and no dorsal fin that I could see so I decided it was a ray, Remembering Steve Irwin’s demise I let it continue on it’s way before resuming my own version of what the ray did so gracefully.

      Large dark gray shapes always temper my enjoyment of swimming in the ocean I find.

    • Wow! Close call. Maintain the excellent situation awareness, Rich!

  4. Gary Kerkin on 26/02/2012 at 9:32 am said:

    Richard, is it really fair to say “vastly increased amount of atmospheric CO2” when we know that it is a trace gas and that even when the amount is doubled, it is still a miniscule component in the atmosphere?

    Andy, years ago, in Australia, I saw a T-shirt which amused me. “Save the whale. Stop whale mining. Leave whales in the ground.” I think you are right: TV opportunities, but my first thought was that maybe Lucy Lawless hasn’t had any work recently!

    • is it really fair to say “vastly increased”?

      No, but I echo the extremists. Tongue in cheek. Aim: suggest Miss Lawless thinks.

    • Andy on 26/02/2012 at 9:44 am said:

      Gary, there is a little irony here, in that the indigenous people of the region still hunt whales.
      (From the Wikipedia link above)

      The sea is named after the Chukchi people, who reside on its shores and on the Chukotka Peninsula. The coastal Chukchi traditionally engaged in fishing, whaling and the hunting of walrus in this cold sea.
      This is a rather gruesome picture of Chukchi people butchering a whale.

      Greenpeace, of course, started out with the anti-whaling campaign. This is well-documented in Patrick Moore’s book “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout”, which I highly recommend.

  5. Alexander K on 26/02/2012 at 5:00 pm said:

    I suspect that Lucy Lawless (and others involved in making and selling moving fairy-tales) live in a bubble where correct and accurate information would interfere with or obscure the agreed narrative, such as ‘the anti-science deniers are well organised and financed by big oil’.
    Nice chance for photo-ops are not to be missed by aging actresses!

  6. Andy on 26/02/2012 at 8:39 pm said:

    This isn’t going down well with the crew. this is just one example of a bitter comment posted up on the Greenpeace website.

    (my emphasis below)

    I am bitter. These people are delaying our return to our loved ones. We are very concerned about the environment, in fact, it’s a major focal point at every meeting we have onboard the ship!! Lucy and company are not doing Shell any harm, the ship is currently under contract to another company.
    The gang in the crown( the top of the derrick) are compromising every safety policy we have in place to protect our workers. We ensure every tool taken aloft is secured with some sort of anti- fall device. They are not using these devices. We spend countless hours inspecting our derrick ensuring nothing goes overboard yet every attempt at hanging a banner, the Warrior Princess and her team are dropping plastic tie wraps into the harbor. God forbid one of the many seals swimming and frolicking around swallows one!!! The have unplugged our lighting that we use to keep watch at the crown. They have said we are blaring music and blinding them with spotlights. Those statements are untrue. We blow the crane’s horn before making any lifts to warn people of the lift. The derrick is always illuminated. We have done nothing to harm these people. I pray every day that they don’t get hurt being on our rig.
    I made other posts on this blog asking them to leave and all have been deleted. I do understand eveyone’s concern for the pristine Artic environment. I have read all the information they have on thier webite regarding “#save the artic”. I have, in the past, supported Greenpeace’s actions, bought thier complilation CD (Rainbow Warriors), and even donated some of my hard earned income to support thier cause. Not anymore.

  7. Andy on 27/02/2012 at 12:05 pm said:

    This video from Shell describes in some detail the measures being taken to prevent any environmental damage in Alaskan waters.

  8. PeterM on 28/02/2012 at 7:14 am said:

    Ahh! The Greenies want us to hug trees, wear loin cloth, be vegetarian and be kind to nature.

    Imagine the amusement of my wife and I on reading this blog and then this from Worzels World in the Mangawhai Focus ” Apes know that actions speak louder than words and they communicate accordingly. I found that monkeys believe that the have evolved from humans but are generally too polite to go on about it in mixed company”

  9. Richard C (NZ) on 28/02/2012 at 7:39 am said:

    “In the early 1990s Lawless acted as a pump attendant in a television advertisement for Shell petrol.

    Yesterday, Lawless admitted she was in the advertisement but then immediately launched into an environmental tirade and ended the media session. ”


    20 years later, she’s back doing Shell ads.


    “Greenpeace NZ executive director Bunny McDiarmid said they were aware Lawless had taken part in the commercial “20 years ago, when climate change was hardly a speck on the radar”.”

    What was the date of FAR?

    • 1990. So the FAR must have been a fizzer. What-ho! A fizzer by FAR.

    • Andy on 28/02/2012 at 9:57 am said:

      yes andback in the 90s Luck Lawless was only a speck on the radar too. Now she is a minor celebrity based out of Bel Air with a net worth of $15million US; ideally positioned to preach to us mere serfs on how to live sustainably

    • Richard C (NZ) on 28/02/2012 at 10:40 am said:

      I’m wondering if a conviction might restrict her international travel and ability to work?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 28/02/2012 at 5:18 pm said:

      Lawless burglary conviction could ‘seriously impair’ travel to US

      Classic headline and ANOTHER court case to get interested in.

    • Andy on 28/02/2012 at 5:44 pm said:

      In a press release, Shell New Zealand chairman Rob Jager said he was disappointed in Greenpeace’s unco-operative stance and was concerned about the welfare of the activists still onboard

      Shell spend a fortune on safety and PR. I can imagine that they are not impressed with this media stunt at all.

      I have a friend who used to work for BP. It is a sackable offense to walk down the stairs in a BP office without holding onto the hand rail

      BP and Shell (despite the Deep Water Horizon catastrophe) are absolutely paranoid about safety.

  10. Alexander K on 28/02/2012 at 9:59 am said:

    In the same vein as the clueless Lawless is the self-styled ‘expert’ on all matters environmental pushing his warmist serial about the cold planet, old whatsisname from the Beeb, lying (lieing) in the snow going on about the ‘uncertain future’ faced by the Polar Bears, whose population seems to doing rather well since most hunting of them was outlawed.
    Pushing so many untruths in one advertisement makes me bloody angry, but doubtless this imaginary worry suits the lunatics in our government who dreamed up the illogical and unjustifiable ETS.

  11. Andy on 28/02/2012 at 10:15 am said:

    We have the know how and techology to create a clean energy economy, states the Clueless one on TV One.

    Yes, true, but Greenpeace is opposing this. They are anti hydro and anti-nuclear.
    Wind and solar can only be bit players in any energy mix.

    They oppose the only viable solutions that currently exist to move away from fossil fuels on a large scale.

    Greenpeace are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

  12. Gary on 28/02/2012 at 4:47 pm said:

    Reality will hit when she cannot travel to the USA, that means fame and fortune are over, and finally she will realise she was used by Greenpeace….and they do not care.There are plenty of other 2 bit actors whos ego and importance they put above the rest of us. May she in the future have to do another advertisment for Shell to make ends meet again.

  13. Andy on 05/03/2012 at 7:29 am said:

    Lawless was on TV One’s Sunday programme last night. She talked of “catastrophic climate change”, but was asked what she was doing herself.

    Lawless claimed that she was trying to be frugal, but had to catch a plane to Queenstown in the morning, as you do.

    Shell, they said, were unable for comment.

  14. Richard C (NZ) on 03/07/2012 at 9:12 am said:

    Another Lawless quote for the record courtesy of Tom Nelson:-

    “Here’s the weird thing. The scientists have been screaming about this for 15 years, and of late, it’s unanimous – there’s only a few wackos who deny climate change – but nobody listened…”

    15 years of screaming, no global warming. Any other “wackos” out there?


  15. and now the results…

    Lawless, Greenpeace activists sentenced

    Actor Lucy Lawless says she is proud of her efforts to stop Shell drilling for oil in the Arctic, after her actions resulted in a sentence of community work and an order to pay some reparations.

    Lawless, along with six other Greenpeace activists, was sentenced today after pleading guilty to illegally boarding an oil drillship in Taranaki.

    In New Plymouth District Court, Judge Allan Roberts sentenced the activists to 120 hours community work and ordered them to pay Port Taranaki $651.44 each.

    The activists managed to avoid having to pay $600,000 in reparations to Shell Todd.

    Judge Roberts said it was unfair to order further reparation to the company, which could take its claim to the civil courts.

    So you get fined $200 for having an out of date WOF, and three times that for causing $600,000 of lost revenue to Shell.

    Go figure

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation