Greenpeace, hate speech and legitimate oil production.
Greenpeace helped out James “Climate Change” Shaw the other day with a press release of impeccable logic pointing out that tackling climate change is incompatible with looking for more oil. Impeccable, that is, on their assumptions. In truth, their reasoning is of the worst falsified kind, twisted beyond reality, there being no evidence that our emissions of carbon dioxide do anything but good for humanity and the planet.
It’s important that the warmsters justify their scary rhetoric, though, else they’ll walk all over us, so I gave Greenpeace a prod with a letter:
Hi,
Your press release of December 18, 2017, states:
The science is clear. We can’t afford to burn most of the fossil fuels we have already discovered. It is incompatible with tackling climate change to look for more [hydrocarbons].
The only reason for oil exploration is to meet the market demand for oil. Considering there’s yet no widely-available alternative for transport, going to the trouble of an emergency change in our vehicles and fuels will be difficult, expensive and, looking at changes in technology over the past hundred years, will take about 40 years before the infrastructure has been built.
We need to be certain about your claim that the science is clear and we can’t afford to burn more hydrocarbons. So I’d be grateful for references to scientific documents authenticating this.
Thanks.
UPDATE:
The Greenpeace office takes holidays. Their system replied:
Kia ora, Thanks for your email. We are currently away for the holidays and will be back in the office on 27th December. If you want to call us, we will be in the office from 27th to 29th December, 9am to 3pm.
Thanks and Happy Holidays
Alex, Jessie and Madeleine
Greenpeace Supporter Relations Team
That’s fine, we’ll wait. We have no alternative.
Views: 935
For your prod to be effective Richard, you probably should have sent a bit of C4 with it!
Oh! Wait! I’m terribly sorry. My use of that term has probably attracted the attention of those who police our ruminations. I hope you don’t get an unexpected and unwanted visit tomorrow.
On the other hand, maybe this is a good way to make a point. Pity it isn’t April yet!
Merry Christmas.
Hi Gary,
You’re most amusing, thanks. I really shouldn’t labour a point you raised just for levity’s sake, but my measure of ‘effectiveness’ has an eye to the long game. We aim to corral the major players and display their duplicity to the world. Great plan, don’t know the details yet.
Merry Christmas!
Greenpeace Britain agrees to withdraw misleading advertisement about price of windfarm energy.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5213733/Activists-withdraw-advert-making-false-claim-wind-farms.html
Speaking of wind farms, I met up with a couple from Scotland at our house here, just before Christmas, who I had previously only met on Facebook
They run a small hotel six doors from where my parents lived in SW Scotland
Our connection was a mutual distain for wind energy, and a subsequent submission from me to Dumfries and Galloway Regional Council. We won that particular case, although if you drive down the Glasgow-Carlisle road you could be forgiven onto thinking that the cause is lost. That part of Scotland has been totally destroyed by hundreds of turbines as far as the eye can see
Richard,
I appreciate that but, frankly, I don’t think it will work. GreenPeace has not been interested in truth for a long time now. The poster, to which Maggy referred, was subject to a complaint brought by the GWPF. The claim on the poster, that wind energy had brought about a 50% reduction in electricity charges, was a blatant lie. You may recall Bryan Leyland won a complaint against GreenPeace NZ over the number of birds killed by the oil spilled from the Rena. GreenPeace claimed over 20,000 birds died, a blatant lie: the actual figure was less than 10% that number. GreenPeace were forced to withdraw the advertisement cited by Bryan. With Russell Norman in charge I expect to see the number of false claims from GreenPeace ramp up. I rather suspect that Shaw probably believes the propaganda he propagates: I doubt that Norman cares whether it is accurate or not.
That’s why I don’t think your plan will work. Ultimately, unlike the science, it will become a matter of who shouts the loudest.
I appreciate your comments, Gary, but the long view isn’t to persuade Greenpeace et al. of the truth, it’s to alert the populace of the duplicity of their revered scientific and academic institutions. It’s absolutely a matter of who shouts the loudest, and we don’t have the voices, so we’d lose. We’ll get the voters to do the shouting.
I tend to agree with Gary, in that Greenpeace is essentially a criminal organisation that uses lies and deception to extort money out of corporations and gullible members of the public
Whether we treat them as a civil member of society or a bunch of crooks is a matter of strategy
The Trump strategy is to go hard out at calling the media “Fake News” and so on. Whether you agree with this or even like the guy is irrelevant. I think it has empowered a lot of people to come out from behind the couch and start calling these crooks for what they are
You’re right, too, Andy. No argument. Just a matter of tactics, I think. Either way, it’ll be the voters who change things, not us directly. Unless you have a suggestion?
Ultimately elections and polls will change governments’ hearts and minds. But I don’t agree with you about Greenpeace, Richard.
No matter the flavour of government, or the mood of the electorate, Greenpeace has always employed its propaganda tactics which include fabrications. By all means call it “fake news”, for most of it is. And by all means apply your, “as yet undetermined” plan to discredit them by showing their duplicity. You know you can count on my support and most of your “conversationists”.
For my part I consider a multi-front strategy to be most appropriate. A constant targeting of adverse media to try to create unease, and support for those that have acknowledged the message. The useful niggling of bringing complaints against the media for incorrect claims or unbalanced reporting. Direct confrontation of scientists for making unverifiable claims. We are familiar with these. It’s about time we started long-term planning for them—well, at least those that are capable of being planned.
I guess I am saying we need more than just shooting from the hip. Which is, of course, one of the things you are talking about.
We have grandmaster troll International Grade in the White House batting for our team
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/946531657229701120
Trump’s trolling gets the expected response from the finger wagging “experts”
https://i.stuff.co.nz/world/100247928/as-trump-lauds-good-old-global-warming-heres-the-truth-about-climate-change
Apparently Global Warming can cause the coldest winter on record
Imagine my surprise at hearing this !
“Imagine my surprise”
Priceless!
You may recall, late last year, the GWPF announced that a complaint it lodged with the Advertising Standards Authority (UK) about false advertising by Greenpeace was upheld. Greenpeace promised the Authority it would withdraw the offending poster and video. Did they?
https://order-order.com/2018/01/19/greenpeace-breaking-promise-watchdog-fake-wind-claims/?utm_source=CCNet+Newsletter&utm_campaign=fb73df4f84-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_01_20&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fe4b2f45ef-fb73df4f84-36406133 (19/1/18)
The GWPF reports today.
What was that I wrote about needing more than just a prod? Greenpeace is dishonest—morally and otherwise.
Greenpeace NZ has had its Charity status declined.
Decision of the Charities Registration Board just released:
https://www.charities.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Greenpeace-of-New-Zealand-Incorporated-Decision.pdf