Weather forecaster makes mincemeat of Greenpeace

From Watts Up With That?

[Not that Greenpeace showed up for the debate - they chickened out, possibly when they found out who they were up against. Kind of like Al Gore in that respect!]

For those of you who don’t know him, Joe Bastardi is one of the lead forecasters for AccuWeather. He’s also a global warming skeptic.

Fox news invited Greenpeace to come on and support their press reports here and here that:

“Climate change is driving a new generation of fires with unknown social and economic consequences,”

and

“With climate models predicting increased heat waves in the coming years, we are fast approaching a global emergency.”

These are statements from Miguel Soto, Greenpeace Spain forests campaigner. I think he’d be surprised to learn, and possibly even deny, that the biggest contributor to the cause of California wildfires was an ocean cooling event, La Nina.

Fox news invited Greenpeace to come on, they initially accepted. Then late declined. Perhaps they heard they’d be up against Joe Bastardi. Watch the video as Joe takes apart the Greenpeace argument and more.

For further background, see my arguments on 60 minutes recent re-run about global warming and wildfires.

More rubbish from 60 Minutes tonight. “The Age of Megafires”

Posted via email from Garth's posterous

While Exxon-Mobil pays $23 million to sceptics...

...billions and billions and billions of dollars flows the other way.

 

"Follow the hot money"

 

And this doesn't count the billions of dollars in income that the marketers of fear like Greenpeace and the WWF have made in trading on climate change concerns.

 

The WWF internationally took only five years up to around 2005 to make over $2 billion US. Greenpeace took twice as long to make a similar amount of money.

 

Extraordinary amounts of money in anybody's language.

 

As I understand though, the WWF no longer publishes its accounts online. Wonder why?

 

And yet it is the chicken feed handed out by Exxon-Mobil that everybody talks about.

 

Ask yourself this though, who has all of the high-profile and very well paid spokespeople? It isn't the sceptics is it?

 

Here in Australia the only people who's full time job it is to speak and lobby about climate change, whether for Greenpeace or the WWF or the Climate Institute etc, are all on the alarmist side.

 

Whereas the sceptics are either that unusual beast, a conservative journalist like Andrew Bolt or people, very often retired, blogging in their spare time.

 

There are powerful transnational interests seeking to influence the debate on climate change, (or more accurately, seeking to prevent any debate), which are very well funded. They are Greenpeace, the WWF and similar organisations.

 

Posted via email from Garth's posterous