ShareThis Page
News

Greenpeace exposed

| Sunday, Aug. 23, 2009

It takes only 1 minute and 38 seconds for a YouTube video titled "Greenpeace leader admits Arctic ice exaggeration" to prove the dubiousness of global warming alarmists' credibility and the reprehensibility of their tactics.

The clip, from the BBC's "HARDtalk," shows reporter Stephen Sackur mentioning that the massive Greenland ice sheet has survived much warmer periods in the past. That forces Gerd Leipold, retiring head of Greenpeace, to admit that his organization's claim that the Arctic will be ice-free by 2030 is mistaken -- and that Greenpeace twists the truth to further its eco-wacko agenda.

And when Mr. Leipold defends Greenpeace releasing alarming but inaccurate information as "emotionalizing issues" to bend public opinion, Mr. Sackur replies, "You call it emotionalizing. Others would call it scare tactics."

Later in the interview, though not part of the YouTube clip, Leipold calls for suppressing global economic growth to avert human-caused climate disaster. That confirms his real agenda: social engineering, not scientific truth.

Kudos to the BBC and Sackur for bringing low one of the high priests of the disingenuous orthodoxy that dishonestly blames mankind for warming. If more media outlets showed the same skepticism and backbone, the entire priesthood to which Leipold belongs would be defrocked.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me