backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 59 comment(s) - last by kondor999.. on Jun 27 at 11:26 AM

The image at the heart of the lawsuit
Altered Photographs of Sea Level Rise to Blame

A group of Spanish homeowners and real estate developers have filed suit against Greenpeace for its global warming campaign, which they say has caused a steep decrease in the price of their beachfront properties.

The suit -- which the developers plan to present unless Greenpeace agrees to a settlement of nearly $50M -- is over resort properties in La Manga del Mar Menor, in Southwest Spain. Greenpeace, in their recent book Photoclima, prominently featured digitally altered photographs of the resort, with only the tops of apartment buildings, hotels, and palm trees barely visible above a flooded sea. The book also showed before-and-after photos of Spain's lush lemon and orange growing region of Valencia, transformed into an arid desert. "We want[ed] to create alarm and a call to action", said Juan Lopez de Uralde, Greenpeace's director in Spain.

The photos created a sense of alarm in La Manga, with property values dropping by 50 percent after the book appeared. Jose Angel Abad, an attorney representing the property owners, says "Greenpeace manipulated the expected rise [to] cause alarm. It has sunk the real estate market: no one is buying and everyone has put their apartments up for sale". The UN IPCC predicts a 30 cm increase in sea level over the next century, a rise far smaller than the vast degree of flooding depicted in the book.

The group is seeking a EUR 27 million settlement, to cover the decline in their property values.

Greenpeace says the action is intended to "blackmail" them into footing the bill for the price drop, which they blame on an oversaturated real-estate market. However, home prices in Spain rose an average of 4% in 2007, though some regions saw declines of up to 8%.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
By Andy35W on 6/16/2008 2:46:06 AM , Rating: 3
His earlier blog on 12 months wiping out years of global warming is still misquoting the original source, see here

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/05/tw...

"When the DailyTech first posted this story and referenced my blog as the source of the compilation, without ever interviewing me or asking me a single question"

"This demonstrates how one story written in one place can often go repeated, without being challenged or double checked. This happens in many types of news reports. In my 25 years in TV, I’ve seen this happen at the local level, all the way up to the national level. We’ve seen it happen with global warming stories too. The ease of electronic immediacy in reporting often runs over the accuracy in reporting, be it blogs, websites, TV or radio, the issue is the same."

Good summary of why this blog loses accuracy for spin. Still an enjoyable read though.




By masher2 (blog) on 6/16/2008 10:19:27 AM , Rating: 3
> "His earlier blog on 12 months wiping out years of global warming is still misquoting the original source"

I'm sorry, but this isn't true at all. First of all, the "original source" of that article was the temperature data itself, directly from UAH, the Hadley Center, RSS, and NASA's GISS. Watts was the source of the graphics only. His remarks were posted because one major news agency that quoted the Dailytech story mistakenly attributed the article comments as his.

Immediately upon being contacted by Watts (a few hours after the story went live), we not only updated the story to clarify that he was related to the story only by the creation of the graphics, but we removed the word itself which so offended him -- a point he makes directly in the link your reference (and you conveniently left out):

quote:
There has been no “erasure”. This is an anomaly with a large magnitude, and it coincides with other anecdotal weather evidence. It is curious, it is unusual, it is large, it is unexpected, but it does not “erase” anything. I suggested a correction to DailyTech and they have graciously complied


By jbartabas on 6/16/2008 3:28:18 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I'm sorry, but this isn't true at all. First of all, the "original source" of that article was the temperature data itself, directly from UAH, the Hadley Center, RSS, and NASA's GISS.


If the source is the data, you're still misquoting it. The data does not support "wipes out a century of warming". Did you at least bother to look at the data?


By masher2 (blog) on 6/16/2008 10:05:59 PM , Rating: 1
> "Did you at least bother to look at the data? "

The data demonstrated a 0.6C drop in one year's time-- even more if one uses the GISS dataset. Given the total warming of the past century is under one degree, a majority of it was eliminated by the cooling, yes.


By jbartabas on 6/17/2008 11:46:29 AM , Rating: 2
Again, you obviously have not looked at the data at all:

Jan 1908 : -0.479 (Hadley) -0.41 (GISS)
Jan 2007 : +0.632 (Hadley) +0.86 (GISS)
Jan 2008 : +0.053 (Hadley) +0.14 (GISS)

You fail to realize that the 0.6 C drop you're talking about was with respect with a local maximum (i.e. Jan 2007), which is not what actual scientists use to quantify the warming (i.e. your "under a degree warming"). If you really insist on using monthly data to qualify the warming, then the warming during the last 100 years in January 2008 was ~ 1.2 C.

So if you do the maths right, after the spectacular drop in temperature at the end of 2007- beginning of 2008, the warming since 100 years is still

Had = +0.53 C
GISS = +0.55 C

So much for wiping out a century of warming ... At best you could have argued about a wiping out of the warming of the last decades. That wouldn't make more sense intrinsically, but at least a superficial look at the data would give you an apparent support.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/17/2008 12:07:42 PM , Rating: 2
> "You fail to realize that the 0.6 C drop you're talking about was with respect with a local maximum "

Eh? Did you not read the article at all? The drop is specifically identified on the graph as occurring between Jan 07 and Jan 08, and further explained as such in the text -- as starting from a warm month (e.g. a local maximum) of January 2007.

> "...which is not what actual scientists use to quantify the warming "

"Actual scientists" quantify the warming pulse in many different manner -- from a monthly mean, yearly mean, sliding five-year average, normalized or not in many different manners, and against a variety of different baselined.

However, in this particular case, you cannot use anything but monthly means, as there isn't a full year's data for 2008 yet. The methodology chose was correct.

> "So if you do the maths right, after the spectacular drop in temperature at the end of 2007- beginning of 2008, the warming since 100 years is still"

I won't bother to correct your math, but I will point out that, even according to your own figures, a majority of the century's warming was erasd by that cooling trend. From 1.2C down to 0.53C is well over half the total warming experienced.

The fact remains the commonly accepted magnitude of industrial warming is *not* 1.2C, but more like 0.8C. And by that metric, nearly all the warming was indeed "wiped out".


By jbartabas on 6/17/2008 12:57:45 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Eh? Did you not read the article at all? The drop is specifically identified on the graph as occurring between Jan 07 and Jan 08, and further explained as such in the text -- as starting from a warm month (e.g. a local maximum) of January 2007.


That's not the point. The point is that you compare apples and oranges. The fact that you are self-conscious about it is irrelevant.

quote:
"Actual scientists" quantify the warming pulse in many different manner -- from a monthly mean, yearly mean, sliding five-year average, normalized or not in many different manners, and against a variety of different baselined.


The "warming pulse" ...

quote:
I won't bother to correct your math,


Please do so. However I hope you won't pretend to correct my maths when a typo is obviously the issue. The 1.2C increase is in reference to Jan 2007, before the drop you reference to occurs. I am sure that even with your flawed logic, you understand that's the point of interest.

quote:
The fact remains the commonly accepted magnitude of industrial warming is *not* 1.2C, but more like 0.8C. And by that metric, nearly all the warming was indeed "wiped out".


The fact is that you take an initial point that is above the level of global warming you are referring to, compute the difference with the T in Jan 2008 and conclude that most of the warming is wiped out. Actually most of the -0.6C just "wiped out" the additional T above the "accepted" level of warming. The residual is then subtracted to the long term average. To keep it simple,

T anomaly in 1908 : ~ -.45 C
T anomaly in 2008 : ~ +0.05 C

T in 2008 is larger by ~ 0.5C relative to the one 100 years ago. There's nothing close to "wiping of a century of warming".

Now of course you can spin it as much as you want to pretend that the wiping out of 100 years of warming was actually referring to a decrease of ~55%, which is bit more than half, but we know that's not what you meant.


By onelittleindian on 6/16/2008 11:11:51 PM , Rating: 2
How many buttsore enviromentalists are going to contradict real world data? Global warming stopped in 1998. Even the UN is admitting that we're not warming any more.


By littlebitstrouds on 6/17/2008 10:57:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even the UN is admitting that we're not warming any more.

Just for my own curiosity... where is it that they say that?


By onelittleindian on 6/17/2008 1:28:31 PM , Rating: 1
By littlebitstrouds on 6/17/2008 1:48:33 PM , Rating: 2
Laughable. Take the time to parse the article.

quote:
"When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he said. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming."


And again, before you slam, the question was: where does it say anywhere, like this fob before me stated, that the U.N. has announced they're new stance that Global Warming doesn't exist?


By jbartabas on 6/17/2008 1:54:56 PM , Rating: 2
It's a silly spin from someone who obviously know nothing about what he's talking about.

UN is just stating that natural variability for 2008 will offset the underlying GW signal. You can present as "we are not warming anymore", which is true, but irrelevant... or as relevant as any drop in temperature over a one year period in the last 150 years.


By onelittleindian on 6/17/2008 9:09:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
UN is just stating that natural variability for 2008 will offset the underlying GW signal.
Not just 2008. It's all the way back to 1998. And its expected to last at least another 10 to 15 years before warming begins again.

That's up to 25 years without warming. Learn what you're talking about before you try to debate it.


By littlebitstrouds on 6/18/2008 9:51:56 AM , Rating: 2
Quick question... When did the UN say it's changing it's view and instead saying, global warming isn't an issue. Are you mentally slow? Can you answer the question pulease.

Screw it, you're obviously not capable of not trying to draw your own damn conclusions from a misquoted one liner from Mr. Asher's sensationalistic reporting:
http://unfccc.int/2860.php
There, there you go. Doesn't look like they changed anything. So stop making egregious claims.


By onelittleindian on 6/18/2008 10:49:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
quick question... When did the UN say it's changing it's view
Learn to read. I didn't say they changed their view. They said it has stopped warming. Which is not only true, it's exactly what I said.

The UN believes it will start warming again at some point in the future. But it has stopped now.


By littlebitstrouds on 6/18/2008 11:18:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even the UN is admitting that we're not warming any more.


Quoted.

The U.N. believes there is global warming - True
The U.N. shows data that for a period of time there are exceptions to this - True
The U.N. admits we're not warming anymore - False.
Trying to dodge it, is annoying, stop. Let me retype it for you and you can keep you damn argument. Just stop making sensationalistic claims that logic out but are still untrue.

"The U.N. Has shown we have cooled but maintain that we are in the process of Global Warming."


By onelittleindian on 6/18/2008 12:32:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The U.N. admits we're not warming anymore - False.
Did you miss the day they taught English in school? Since you don't seem to understand the definition of simple words, let me help you out. "Warming" = "the process of increasing temperature". "Now" = present time, the period we are currently in.

When the planet has been cooling for ten years, is still cooling for the rest of this year, and maybe for up to 10 or 15 more years then WE'RE NOT WARMING ANY MORE. We might start warming in the future but we're doing so NOW. And That is exactly what the UN said.

We're not warming now, we are cooling. Understand finally?


By littlebitstrouds on 6/18/2008 3:07:39 PM , Rating: 2
@ one little,
Riiight, because you didn't mean to make the grand statement in your OP that the UN completely is disregarding global warming and so should everyone else. No no, you clarified that they only meant a ten year period, and that their stance is still stoutly for the idea of global warming. Which is why I re posted how the original statement should have read. You keep arguing that I'm saying they didn't say something they did, which I'm not. My argument was merely that you, like masher, use fallacy arguments and make quick one liner quips with suggestions that the reader should make the same poor assumptions you draw in your mind.

@ Masher,
I will say your analysis, like most things, is short sided. It's backed with original text, which makes your argument sound, however you always do this wonderful job of using fallacy of composition to prove your points, which is why you get so much disrespect. You really do nerf you own half descent arguements by doing so.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/18/2008 1:03:21 PM , Rating: 2
Stroud, it's obvious nothing is going to change your mind anyway. But one thing is indisputable; the original source was not "misquoted". The data was presented verbatim: perfectly and unchanged, direct from the agencies which monitor world temperatures.

Now you are certainly welcome to argue my analysis of that data, but unlike the environmental reporting typical in the mainstream media, I at least give you the background and information to form your own conclusions, rather than simply presenting a set of analysis as gospel.


By jbartabas on 6/18/2008 3:24:35 PM , Rating: 2
The fact that media have oversimplified analysis pointing in one direction does not excuse to do the same in the other direction. Two wrongs don't make a right. Some media "fair and balanced" think a sound approach is to invite a radical liberal and a radical conservative to debate. The only thing you get out of that is trash (personal opinion of course).


By jbartabas on 6/18/2008 3:29:15 PM , Rating: 2
We are talking about global warming here. It has not stopped (and certainly not in 1998). At least neither the UN or Keenlyside et al (i.e. those who predict a stop in the temperatures increase, see further) have said that.

There is anthropogenic global warming (AGW) trend on one hand, and global temperatures on the other. The latter is not directly interpretable in terms of AGW. Namely, observed global temperatures could be seen as the superimposition of the "warming" trend and natural variations that exceeds the GW trend over short periods of time (i.e. a few years) (this is not totally true as variability and GW are not independent processes). This is why measured global temperature become relevant in terms of climate change only over relatively long time scale. Basically, the long term trend is of the order of ~0.2 degC/decade, or 0.02 degC/year. Natural annual or pluri-annual variations of temperatures can be much larger than that, so you definitely need quite a few years to identify a trend.

So what you said:
quote:
that we're not warming any more.

could be correct if you'd refer to global temperature over a few years (actually it's more since 2001/2002, not 1998). The problem is that just before, you stated:
quote:
Global warming stopped in 1998.

which is incorrect. At least you can't back it up with the reference you've provided, i.e. the BBC article (or the report on it by M. Asher).

All UN says, and all Keenlyside et al. say, is that the present natural variation of temperatures are downward, and they offset the AGW trend. None of them said the "warming" (i.e. GW) stopped. That's your own interpretation, or actually the one you've read on a few blogs.
In their own words:

quote:
You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming. [...] La Nina is part of what we call 'variability'. There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change is that the trend is up ; the climate on average is warming even if there is a temporary cooling because of La Nina. UN meteorologist


quote:
Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade , as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming. Keenlyside et al


As a side note on Keenlyside et al.:
* their model predicts that temperatures rise again around 2015, that's not a stop in the temperature increase for the next 15 years, as you said. After that they catch up with the long term trend.
* their model includes similar parametrization of anthropogenic GW as the IPCC models.
* their model performs worst than the IPCC for the past years when compared to measured temperature, and their 2005 hindcast is likely to be wrong too.

Summary: you're correct in saying that recently global temperature has not increased (but not since 1998). The problem is that it does not necessarily says much about GW. It has happened before. You're incorrect in stating that GW stopped in 1998.


By onelittleindian on 6/18/2008 5:32:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
All UN says, and all Keenlyside et al. say, is that the present natural variation of temperatures are downward, and they offset the AGW trend. None of them said the "warming" (i.e. GW) stopped.
This is the funniest thing I've read in a long time. Temperatures are going down- but we're still warming? Haha.

At least you put the word "warming" in parenthesis to show you're giving it some special meaning, different from how the rest of the world interprets it. You kooks are truly scary. The lengths you'll go to to rationalize your beliefs are astounding.


By littlebitstrouds on 6/18/2008 7:25:07 PM , Rating: 2
You'd be surprised how many kooks have gone to great lengths to correct stupidity and bad arguments. But thank you for quoting finally the correct text, and laughing at your own mistake :-).


By jbartabas on 6/18/2008 8:18:05 PM , Rating: 2
Congratulations.
I have miserably tried to fool you with my mumbo jumbo about climate warming and short term temperature variations, but you were too smart to get tricked but such a lousy stratagem :-( I am well punished for my own arrogance, and am going to retreat cowardly before the strength of your argumentation ...


By jbartabas on 6/17/2008 11:50:09 AM , Rating: 2
1/ I am not an environmentalist,
2/ Please refrain to talk about data you obviously know nothing about, and are probably unqualified to interpret.


By onelittleindian on 6/17/2008 1:30:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am not an environmentalist
Judging by your your attempts at arithmetic in your previous posts, you're no mathematician either.


By jbartabas on 6/17/2008 1:38:03 PM , Rating: 2
Smart people can see a typo when they see one. Try to figure out what reference year makes sense if you can (hint: I have included the anomaly of Jan 2007 for a reason).

Now you do the maths yourself and conclude whatever you want.


Aah, Greanpeace..
By hippypig on 6/12/2008 9:00:14 PM , Rating: 3
Scum of the lowest order.




RE: Aah, Greanpeace..
By stacialene on 6/12/08, Rating: 0
RE: Aah, Greanpeace..
By masher2 (blog) on 6/12/2008 10:29:28 PM , Rating: 5
Greenpeace isn't what it was during the heady days of the 60s and 70s:
quote:
[Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore] charges that Greenpeace and other big environmentalist organizations began to veer away from truly environmental concerns and wade deeply into socialist extremism in the mid-eighties and nineties.

"Unfortunately," he contends, "much of the environmental movement was hijacked by activists from the social and political Left who now use green rhetoric to cloak agendas that have more to do with anticorporatism and antiglobalization than with science or ecology.


RE: Aah, Greanpeace..
By Randy Marsh on 6/13/2008 12:29:50 AM , Rating: 2
Watch the relevant Penn & Teller's Bullshit for an interview with Moore where he says just that.


RE: Aah, Greanpeace..
By Segerstein on 6/13/2008 8:34:49 AM , Rating: 4
If it weren't for the Greenpeace's fear mongering about nuclear energy, we wouldn't be so much dependent on foreign sources of energy!!!

One thing is to take care that people live in a healthy environment. Quite another is pagan worship of Mother Nature with all its current species.

I bet that if liberals lived in the era when dinosaurs were still around, they would blame humanity & the rich guys for their decreasing numbers.

- Dinosaur Protection Act, against global cooling, that would cost 85% of the worlds GDP.


RE: Aah, Greanpeace..
By FITCamaro on 6/13/2008 6:18:47 AM , Rating: 4
Please enlighten us to anything worthwhile that Greenpeace has done in the past decade.


RE: Aah, Greanpeace..
By xxsk8er101xx on 6/13/2008 6:40:47 PM , Rating: 2
They're responsible for fear mongering around the world. If you don't know by now fear mongering is the same as terrorism. Terrorist do the same thing greenpeace does and i propose we declare greenpeace a terrorist organization.

Greenpeace is responsible for millions of deaths around the globe by declaring cloned food that could have fed millions of Africans - unsafe. This caused them to not eat the food and starved themselves.

greenpeace should honestly be investigated for genocide, murder, various conspiracies, terrorism, fraud, and slander.

They should also be gathered, lifted, and be relocated to the south pole where they belong. Multi-country anti-greenpeace coalition will unite on a common goal to build a greenpeace maximum security prison in the south pole where they will be tried and sentenced for the above crimes.

Seriously they are that bad. Anyone who believes anything from greenpeace are sheep and nothing more. Greenpeace is just as bad as hasbola or al quieda or any other terrorist organizations.


RE: Aah, Greanpeace..
By jbartabas on 6/13/2008 6:57:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Greenpeace is just as bad as hasbola or al quieda or any other terrorist organizations.


Or "al nino".


RE: Aah, Greanpeace..
By littlebitstrouds on 6/17/2008 11:09:00 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
They're responsible for fear mongering around the world. If you don't know by now fear mongering is the same as terrorism. Terrorist do the same thing greenpeace does and i propose we declare greenpeace a terrorist organization.

Come on, you're laughable. You're using fear mongering, to call out a fear monger. It's like a playground mob setting in these threads... you all get carried away and next thing you know anyone who believes in global warming is sacrificed to the holy Mr. Asher.

Not saying it's not a valid point, I'm just saying you can't fight fear mongering with more absurd comments, or you stoop to that level. Seriously calm down, go talk to people who are your friends, and get them to understand why these type of organizations are dangerous, and actually do something productive. This crap isn't helping.


RE: Aah, Greanpeace..
By MrPoletski on 6/16/2008 4:40:53 AM , Rating: 3
Yanno people call the French cheese eating surrender monkeys and rib them about losing world wars and such.

But they are the only bunch to ever have the balls to say... oh FU** YOU Greenpeace! and sink their flagship vessel;)

So the answer to your question is... GET SUNK, and provide me with a big fat gut-laugh!!


RE: Aah, Greanpeace..
By elgueroloco on 6/16/2008 5:46:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

Please enlighten us to anything worthwhile that Greenpeace has done in the past decade.

Greenpeace is the biggest environmental group in the world. Some people have a hard time believing a big organization like that would lie to them.


Worthwhile? Probably nothing. Also, in spite of being the largest environmental group in the world, the oil industry, by giving us something relatively clean to burn instead of trees, coal, and whales, probably does 50 times more good for the environment and humanity in 1 year than Greenpuke has done in its entire history. Think of all the trees we would have to burn every year to replace the energy we get from oil and natural gas.


RE: Aah, Greanpeace..
By Polynikes on 6/18/2008 10:53:05 AM , Rating: 2
We'd be out of trees by now if we'd been using them for the past century, I'd wager.


RE: Aah, Greanpeace..
By jamdunc on 6/21/2008 11:24:45 AM , Rating: 2
Well I knock Greenpeace for putting lives at risk. And for not getting their information correct.

I have work colleagues, who were doing a survey on marine life along a pipeline using a ROV. They were checking that the life wasn't being harmed (when in actual fact, most oil rigs/piplines end up teeming with life around them) when along came a Greenpeace vessel and started jamming all available radio frequencies in protest at the Oil/Gas Industry. And by all, I mean even the emergency frequencies, so any injuries or casualties that may have occured and there would have been no way to contact land and get a medivac out.

So yes, Greenpeace are arseholes! And usually students who have yet to experience the 'real world' outside of University/College and still believe everything they're told.


Suprising
By Suntan on 6/12/2008 1:20:21 PM , Rating: 2
What suprises me is that a large group of people would react to such an extent based on anything Greenpeace said.

You have to know that they are biased on the subject.

Wouldn't you take 5 minutes to research for an unbiased opinion when you first heard of their "claims" of complete submersion of your neighborhood?

-Suntan




RE: Suprising
By porkpie on 6/12/2008 1:37:05 PM , Rating: 5
Greenpeace is the biggest environmental group in the world. Some people have a hard time believing a big organization like that would lie to them.

Foolish, I know. But there it is.


RE: Suprising
By nosfe on 6/12/2008 1:45:57 PM , Rating: 5
I would, but i also know a lot of people who've been asking me what "intel"(instead of CPU) i have in my computer or they tell me that the their email isn't working because yahoo.com doesn't load when they start their browser.

Uninformed people make up the majority of humanity, like it or not


RE: Suprising
By jbartabas on 6/12/2008 4:05:39 PM , Rating: 2
It's more that 5 minutes research would tell them about widespread corruption of local Spanish authorities, leading to numerous constructions on the coast possibly to be declared illegal. That and a general slowdown in the market, you don't need more to pop a bubble ...


Doubtful
By jbartabas on 6/12/2008 3:18:07 PM , Rating: 3
Greenpeace creating a drop of 50% in real estate price ... sounds a bit ludicrous. In Europe too most people know what honesty to expect from Greenpeace ...

It sounds more like real estate developers that haven't seen the economic slow down and real estate pop coming. Let's see if they really try to bring the case in front of a court.

PS: Michael, as you are an adept of non-misleading titles, you may want to change yours for "Greenpeace threatened to be Sued Over False Global Warming Claims". As far as I understand it, there's nothing done yet, just an "settlement" attempt.




RE: Doubtful
By P4blo on 6/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: Doubtful
By lifeblood on 6/13/2008 3:42:23 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, they need to buy the property 1 block back from the beach. Once sea level has risen a bit and the houses in front of them wash away they can sell it for a sweet profit as beachfront property. Where their is change their is opportunity.

Greenpeace loves twisting the facts. When the natives of northern Alaska were allowed to start hunting whales again a few years back, Greenpeace and Sea Sheppard started telling the people about the high levels of iron in the whales and claiming it will cause deformities in their kids if they eat it. Basically they were trying to scare them into not hunting the whales. It caused a bit of anguish and confusion. If you've ever been to northern Alaska, their is rather limited resources and whale hunting was one of the ways the natives historically managed to survive.


RE: Doubtful
By fxyefx on 6/13/2008 11:07:21 AM , Rating: 2
I agree; some random media isn't what will directly cause such a large drop in prices... It's the minds of the people integrating a huge number of variables that determines what they believe the property is worth...


RE: Doubtful
By 4play on 6/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: Doubtful
By porkpie on 6/13/2008 1:52:03 PM , Rating: 2
The false part is making a predicted one foot rise look like a 40-foot rise in the picture.


RE: Doubtful
By Keeir on 6/13/2008 1:56:06 PM , Rating: 3
The False part has to do with a greenpeace book that mis-stated greatly the scientific conclusions on the near term impact of global warming.

Greenpeace made the mistake of providng "fake" pictures of real places underwater by such and such a year. Unfortunely, thier book is only supported by fringe (extreme side) of data on sea level rises and not IPCC. Furthermore, actual changes to a particular area depend not just on the Sea Level changes. Greenpeace would have been much better to picture cross section cartoons with varies prediction levels shown, (IE, this prediction, IPCC prediction, etc).


Greenpeace will win
By phattyboombatty on 6/12/2008 2:14:05 PM , Rating: 4
There's no way Greenpeace would lose this lawsuit. Their iron-clad defense is lack of reasonable reliance. They will simple argue "there's no way we could have reasonably expected that anybody would actually believe a word we say."




RE: Greenpeace will win
By FITCamaro on 6/13/2008 6:20:26 AM , Rating: 2
Heh. A valid defense.


RE: Greenpeace will win
By cmontyburns on 6/13/2008 1:35:37 PM , Rating: 3
[Heh. A valid defense.]

[They will simple argue "there's no way we could have reasonably expected that anybody would actually believe a word we say."]

are you sure?

[" We want[ed] to create alarm and a call to action", said Juan Lopez de Uralde, Greenpeace's director in Spain .]

(shakes head...)

i wonder if the spanish courts will find this very damming.


I've got a better idea.
By peldor on 6/12/2008 2:00:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The group is seeking a EUR 27 million settlement, to cover the decline in their property values.

If the property value has really declined 50%, Greenpeace should just buy it for 27M instead.




RE: I've got a better idea.
By mvpx02 on 6/12/2008 2:26:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If the property value has really declined 50%, Greenpeace should just buy it for 27M instead.


If property values dropped 50%, that means they were originally worth 54M Eur. The owners want full value, not half.


good!
By kattanna on 6/12/2008 1:11:33 PM , Rating: 2
sue them. i am so sick of greenpeace and their like.

BTW.. thats an awesome pic for the article. perfectly puts them in their place.




Doubtful
By cmontyburns on 6/13/2008 11:34:33 AM , Rating: 2

our family owns a good sized beachfront property in an island in asia. the property gained 80% more landmass in the last 15 years. we got it resurveyed and re-appraised.

mama is now selling 40% of the original lot for twenty million bones. suuweeeeet...




By kondor999 on 6/27/2008 11:26:43 AM , Rating: 2
Look at the French nuclear power system. It's brilliant IMHO (standardization on one reactor design allowing high reliability and economies of scale).

Wouldn't nuclear power, even with it's production of a relatively small amount of waste, be a much better alternative than fossil fuels?

I just can't understand why the environmentalist groups don't push for this. It makes me really question their true motives.




"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki