Flooded with pink dots of deceit

In L. Ron Bolt's latest ministering to his Carbon Pinkies, he uses the three dot trick favoured by sceptics:

Greenpeace drowns the truth, and now may be made to pay:

Greenpeace gets pink spot #1, straight up. Truth — #2. Prospect of comeuppance for imagined slight — pink spot in 3rd spot.

But who is really drowning the truth? Here's Bolt's take.

A group of real estate developers and property owners in La Manga del Mar Menor - a spit of sandy, low-lying coastal land and Murcia’s premier beach resort - are threatening to take Greenpeace to court over its graphic predictions of what global warming may do to the area, which they say have caused house prices to plummet.

The lawsuit, which the plaintiffs plan to present unless Greenpeace agrees to an out of court settlement of almost EUR 30 million in damages, comes more than six months after La Manga featured prominently in a photo book published by the environmental organisation…

(T)he book, Photoclima, shows digitally modified photos of La Manga submerged in water with only the tops of hotels, apartment blocks and palm trees emerging from the blue Mediterranean…

“We want to create alarm and a call to action,” Juan López de Uralde, Greenpeace’s director in Spain, said when the book was published.

I’ll say it did. The truth, of course, that even the UN’s alarmist IPCC predicts sea level rises at the unlikely worst this century of just 59 cms. Let’s hope Greenpeace is brought to account for such deceptive and alarmist nonsense.

Next: Al Gore.

And here's what google shows he and his source have left out.

Greenpeace hopes to spur Spain and other industrial nations into action with the publication, which also uses statistics from the UN panel on climate change and visually examines the potential of reduced crop yields, parched waterways, coastal flooding, land loss, salination of ground water, forest fires, and glacial retreat.

Greenpeace’s director in Spain, Juan López de Uralde, said the intention of the book was not to use “scientific rigour” but to “create alarm and a call to action” via visuals. Europe projects an average rise in its sea levels of up to .9 meters by 2100. Photoclima features one of Europe’s premier destinations to dramatize the landscape of the future and the subsequent shape-shifting dilemmas of global proportions.

That post was dated November 29, 2007. Over six months ago. If Greenpeace claimed up front that it was art, I see no cause for complaint by Bolt, or the real estate developers. Rising sea levels has been on the cards for 20 years. Caveat emptor.

The omission is pointed out by one of his commenter, AJ, but to no avail. An rash of pink spots breaks out amongst the sceptics, and nobody can wait for Greenpeace to get what's owing.

There could be some interesting implications depending on which way this action goes. If denialist use hyperbole to claim mitigating climate change will ruin the economy, why shouldn't Greenpeace use hyperbole to claim climate change will ruin our habitats? Why shouldn't the real estate developers sue the denialists for pushing their misleading propaganda?