Says one wit, “This is what the earth will be like if there were no women at all”.
In the news yesterday was the details of an ongoing attack against a Kiwi company that makes toilet paper by Greenpeace and WWF:
Greenpeace New Zealand and Cottonsoft are continuing to dispute claims the toilet paper company is damaging the environment.
Earlier this week Greenpeace launched a several pronged attack on Cottonsoft, claiming independent testing carried out by the environmental organisation had found mixed tropical hardwood in the toilet paper, a product associated with deforestation in Indonesia.
Yesterday spokesman Nathan Argent revealed Greenpeace sent four samples away for analysis. The samples consisted of 10 sheets of toilet paper across the range of Cottonsoft products, brought from the same shop.
‚ÄúWe sent samples of Cottonsoft toilet paper off to the United States,‚ÄĚ says Mr Argent, ‚ÄúThey were samples taken from loo rolls so basically it was Cottonsoft products taken off shelves in supermarkets from New Zealand and then they were packaged up and sent for forensic testing.
‚ÄúThe samples that were tested were Cottonsoft brands and two of those samples of the four samples that were sent tested positive for mixed tropical hardwood,‚ÄĚ he says.
In its release Greenpeace says an Integrated Paper Services (IPS) expert carried out testing. IPS is an independent tester which uses the TAPPI method of testing, a method which requires the analyst to ‚Äėbecome thoroughly familiar with the appearance of the different fibres and their behaviour when treated with the various stains‚Äô.
Cottonsoft NZ general manager Kim Calvert says the testing Greenpeace used has a ‚Äėhigh level of inaccuracy‚Äô, and is casting doubt on their claims.
Quite apart from the fact that Greenpeace and WWF are wrong and the company says that their accusations are untrue, I have¬†received¬†evidence that this campaign is being aided by the Green party. Cottonsoft emailed the co-leaders requesting a meeting and were instead passed off to the Greens forestry spokesperson Catherine Delahunty. The meeting request was for a meeting with the Greens only.
Catherine Delahunty emails Cottonsoft with an interesting revelation:
I think this email clearly shows¬†the Greens are captured by special interest groups and shows undue influence by outsiders over an MP. I think Meteria Turei and Russel Norman have some explaining to do as to why one of their MPs is having to seek permission from Greenpeace and WWF for a meeting that only involves the Green party.
If this is the Greens idea of helping create jobs then I don’t think voters want a bar of their sneaky special interest group controlled agenda.
One day the Warmists are going to be lined up and forced to apologise for the fear, lies, and taxes they foisted upon the world, I just hope that day comes soon. Meanwhile they continue to claim all manner of anomolies are caused by Global Warming. Christopher Booker tears into the warmists and exposes their techniques.
Ever more risibly desperate become the efforts of the believers in global warming to hold the line for their religion, after the battering it was given last winter by all those scandals surrounding the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
One familiar technique they use is to attribute to global warming almost any unusual weather event anywhere in the world. Last week, for instance, it was reported that Russia has recently been experiencing its hottest temperatures and longest drought for 130 years. The head of the Russian branch of WWF, the environmental pressure group, was inevitably quick to cite this as evidence of climate change, claiming that in future “such climate abnormalities will only become more frequent”. He didn’t explain what might have caused the similar hot weather 130 years ago.
If they can argue that unusual weather events that “prove” their as yet un-proven theory that the Earth is warming and humans are causing it, then the opposite must also be true, in fact the opposite is actually more likely to be true.
Meanwhile, notably little attention has been paid to the disastrous chill which has been sweeping South America thanks to an inrush of air from the Antarctic, killing hundreds in the continent’s coldest winter for years.
In America, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has been trumpeting that, according to its much-quoted worldwide temperature data, the first six months of this year were the hottest ever recorded. But expert analysis on Watts Up With That, the US science blog, shows that NOAA’s claimed warming appears to be strangely concentrated in those parts of the world where it has fewest weather stations. In Greenland, for instance, two of the hottest spots, showing a startling five-degree rise in temperatures, have no weather stations at all.
In other words, the warmists simply lie and continue to lie to prove the un-proven. Fortunately there are actually thousands of enthusiastic amateurs and some seasoned professional out there that can, with modern technology, show the world their lies.
A second technique the warmists have used lately to keep their spirits up has been to repeat incessantly that the official inquiries into the “Climategate” scandal have cleared the top IPCC scientists involved of any wrongdoing, and that their science has been “vindicated”. But, as has been pointed out by critics like Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit, this is hardly surprising, since the inquiries were careful not to interview any experts, such as himself, who could have explained just why the emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were so horribly damaging.
The perfunctory report of the Science Appraisal Panel, chaired by Lord Oxburgh, examined only 11 papers produced by the CRU, none of them remotely connected to what the fuss was all about. Last week Andrew Montford, author of The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science, revealed on his blog (Bishop Hill ‚Äď bishophill.squarespace.com) that the choice of these papers was approved for the inquiry by Sir Brian Hoskins, of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College, and by Phil Jones, the CRU’s former director ‚Äď an appraisal of whose work was meant to be the purpose of the inquiry.
This technique, you will notice has been used by the sock-puppets at The Standard and also by other “luminaries” of the left like Bomber. The sad truth too is that precious few in the MSM repeater and churnalist ranks routinely question the warmists. When they were caught pants down and in the back of a goat with the CRU emails, the MSM largely looked the other way, until bloggers released so much information that it could no longer be ignored. Similarly with the egregious errors discovered in the IPCC AR4. It is outrageous that an organisation, reputedly staffed by the world’s leading experts, made palpably false claims and the media and politicians simply shrugged and allowed them to say that mistakes happen and then continued to fund them to the tune of billions.
A third technique, most familiar of all, has been to fall back on the dog-eared claim that leading sceptics only question warmist orthodoxy because they have been funded by “Big Oil” and the “fossil fuel industry”. Particularly bizarre was a story last week covering the front page and an inside page of one newspaper, headed “Oil giant gives ¬£1¬†million to fund climate sceptics”.
The essence of this tale was that Exxon Mobil, the oil giant that is the world’s third biggest company, last year gave “almost ¬£1 million” to four US think-tanks. These had gone on to dismiss the Climategate inquiries as “whitewashes”.
It was hardly necessary to be given money by Exxon to see what was dubious about those inquiries. Not one of the knowledgeable sceptics who have torn them apart has received a cent from Big Oil. But what made this particularly laughable was that the penny-packets given to think-tanks that have been largely irrelevant to the debate are utterly dwarfed by the colossal sums poured into the army of groups and organisations on the other side of the argument.
Even the big oil companies have long been putting their real money into projects dedicated to showing how they are in favour of a “low-carbon economy”. In 2002 Exxon gave $100 million to Stanford University to fund research into energy sources needed to fight global warming. BP, which rebranded itself in 2004 as “Beyond Petroleum”, gave $500 million to fund similar research.
The Grantham Institute provides another example. It was set up at the LSE and Imperial College with ¬£24¬†million from Jeremy Grantham, an investment fund billionaire, to advise governments and firms on how to promote and invest in ways to “fight climate change”, now one of the fastest-growing and most lucrative businesses in the world.
Compare the funding received by a handful of think-tanks to the hundreds of billions of dollars lavished on those who speak for the other side by governments, foundations, multinational corporations, even Big Oil, and the warmists are winning hands down. But only financially: they are not winning the argument.
No, they are not winning the argument, except perhaps here in New Zealand where we have a Prime Minister and a government advised by an idiot, scared of upsetting the hand-wringers and panty-waists of middle New Zealand, scared to an inch of their over-taxed lives by the lies of the warmists.
I can hardly wait for the day when they will be forced to apologise. I want Al Gore to be first on the list, that is if he can tear himself away from massage therapy.
The world’s meddlers gnash their teeth over whaling whether it is for scientific purposes or for commercial. Right now the moratorium on commercial whaling isn’t working and just over 1500 whales were harvested last year in whaling activities and 31,084 in total since the moratorium began in 1986. Those figures sound horrendous. I am of course using the WWF figures and we all know how accurate and peer reviewed their information is. An independent assessment done by the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (they must be good, they have the word conservation in their title) says that “Iceland, Norway, and Japan – have brutally slaughtered over 25,000 whales under the guise of scientific research and for commercial purposes”. Note their overly emotive language. They were harvested, as we know, not brutally slaughtered. To use that terminology I would hate to think how they consider the Beef¬† industry. Somewhere between those numbers lies the truth.
But there is a problem, apart from Sea Shepherd being pirates. You see, the total number of Whales harvested in Whaling activities is somewhat less than the total number killed through other means. “Bullshit” I hear you say, but it is true. In fact the total number of whales harvested in commercial or scientific causes over the time of the whole moratorium is only 10% of the number of whale slaughtered each year by other means.“Bullshit” I hear you scream again, I also hear you screaming “Save the Whales”.
Unfortunately I am right and you are wrong. Much and all that you can’t stand that, I have evidence that conveniently the pirates and other groups forget to tell you. The WWF, note endorsed by the IWC, again notes;
“Almost 1,000 whales, dolphins and porpoises die every day in nets and fishing gear. Some species are being pushed to the brink of extinction,” said Karen Baragona of WWF’s species conservation program. “We developed this ranking to help governments and aid agencies target their investments for the best return.”
The report will be submitted to the International Whaling Commission (IWC) at its annual meeting next week in South Korea. The scientific committee of the IWC includes many of the world’s leading marine scientists, who last year endorsed the methodology of the WWF report.
The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy last year noted that by-catch is the greatest threat globally to whales, dolphins and porpoises, known scientifically as cetaceans. Bycatch is the accidental capture in fishing gear of species — including cetaceans — that fishermen do not intend to catch. Because cetaceans need to come to the surface to breathe, if they are trapped underwater in fishing nets, they die. In 2003, researchers estimated that more than 300,000 cetaceans are killed in fishing gear each year in the worlds oceans.
So, I ask you, why are we complaining about commercial whaling when the IWC will reduce the number harvested from that at present, when far more cetaceans are brutally slaughtered by other means. Far, more in fact, 31,984 harvested, 7,200,000 slaughtered in non-whaling activities since the moratorium began. Sea Shepherd (the pirates) and WWF would be far better to see a reduction by half in the non-whaling slaughter, allow 10,000 whales per annum to be harvested and that really will save the whales.
Now can we please stop the nonsense that Labour, the Greens, the Pirates and others are going on about and please address the real issue with saving the whales, because it sure isn’t whaling that is causing their alleged decline.