Sticking it to Greenpeace

Ah, this is refreshing:



Thank you, Stephen Sackur for having some balls and looking at this issue from a rational, rather than an emotional standpoint. You've got to hand it to him for pointing out that temperatures have been warmer in the past, and somehow the polar bears have managed to survive.

The full interview is: here. And as noted in the Big Hollywood blog, Leipold later asserts that there is an urgent need for the suppression of economic growth in the United States and around the world. “We will definitely have to move to a different concept of growth. … The lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model,” Leipold said. “If you take the lifestyle, its cost on the environment, and you multiply it with the billions of people and an increasing world population, you come up with numbers which are truly scary.”

Wow. What an idiot.

So, basically, he's saying, "We (Greenpeace) may or may not have been wrong (even though SCIENCE shows that we were wrong), but let's drastically (and detrimentally) change the structure of our societies to save Arctic ice (that isn't going anywhere), anyway."

Good plan.

Why do these people resent progress and success? Why is the pursuit of wealth viewed as evil? And why aren't they at least held accountable for doing thorough research before creating media hype and scares that Armageddon is near? How are these people taken seriously when we've been bombarded by Global Warming when the Earth is actually in a cooling phase (unrelated to human activity)? Or the polar bear scare, based on a picture that showed a few cuddly creatures floating on a melting chunk of ice, which claimed they were trapped and dying (when polar bears swim just fine and the ice chunk was floating very near the icy shore).

When will people stop being duped by these claims, stop "feeling" and start thinking?