Sciblogs ignores climate facts

Talk about spin.

Greenpeace went in to bat for the seabirds killed off by a bit of oil from the Rena – good on them. But they had a big, juicy agenda – killing off deep sea oil drilling near NZ. So they exaggerated the few Rena bird deaths. The 1300 little bodies collected became 20,000 dead, without evidence to justify the expansion.

Then they claimed that 1000 times more again “could” perish in a spill the size of the Gulf of Mexico disaster. That would mean 20 million dead birds. Well, that was ambiguously tentative, although they said later they weren’t talking just about bird deaths.

Our good friend Bryan Leyland complained to the Advertising Standards Authority over Greenpeace’s wild claims. The ASA agreed with him, saying Greenpeace made misleading claims and really shouldn’t.

Sciblogs editor Peter Griffin wrote the story up yesterday, but he can’t help revealing his bias against climate scepticism because he ends up claiming, effectively, that climate sceptics don’t keep to the science.

Just stick to the science. Both Greenpeace – and the climate sceptics, would be more convincing if they did so – and the public better informed of the true seriousness of the issues.

What is unscientific about pointing out there has been no significant global warming for 15 years? It’s true enough, look at the graph – while carbon dioxide trends relentlessly higher, the temperature is not doing likewise:

Do you have any questions, Peter?

Leave a Reply

6 Comment threads
1 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
3 Comment authors
Notify of

Griffen is a paid propagandist, funded by the NZ taxpayer.


We should also note that at no point did Bryan Leyland mention anything about climate change in his submission.

Griffin and Greenpeace might well have said that they objected to xyz because he was Jewish.

This is how I regard this taxpayer funded scum.

Alexander K

Greenpeace operate on prejudice and a desire to control. Evidence is irrelevant.

Richard C (NZ)

Griffin – What did Greenpeace do wrong? It created an ad that “misled and or deceived”.

Anything goes for Gaia.

Richard C (NZ)

Case in point:- Are you an ECO POET? Climate science needs YOU Creative writing and global warming formally allied The dividing line between creative writing and climate science – sometimes thin – has been triumphantly dissolved. A new postgraduate course at the University of East Anglia hopes to bring together “researchers in the environmental sciences, philosophy, history and literature to develop new ways of thinking about environmental change and social transitions”. And put that thermometer down. If you have experience writing “eco-poetry”, then the UEA wants to hear from you. It’s the brainchild of Mike Hulme, senior scientist at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, founder of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, and IPCC lead reviewer, features in the Climategate emails. The one-year MA/MSc in Environmental Sciences and Humanities also “aims to initiate and foster fundamental academic inquiry as well as encouraging practical and effective action.” All stirring stuff. UEA, the heart of the Climategate emails, already runs a project in “eco poetry” aimed at primary school children, intended to “stimulate and strengthen children’s environmental awareness”. You can see a leaf haiku here. It isn’t cheap, though.… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

[…] comments. First, he says the Ross Sea is “likely to be one [of] the last places in the […] Sciblogs ignores climate facts Talk about spin. Greenpeace went in to bat for the seabirds killed off by a bit of oil from the […]

Post Navigation