Greenpeace: “Executives Of Major Fossil Fuel Companies Could Face Personal Liability For Funding Climate Denialism”!

Aztec sacrificeAttention skeptics.

Greenpeace International is calling to make executives liable for funding “climate denialism“.

This would be tantamount to abusing the legal system as a weapon to harass and shut down freedom of science and the fundamental human right of freedom of expression.

Are bloggers next?

The next obvious step would be to go after bloggers for spreading “climate denialism“, as most of them, this blog included, are not funded at all and are running purely voluntarily. All the blogs I know operate independently of any funding activity taken by fossil fuel companies. Greenpeace writes:

Greenpeace International, WWF and the Center for International Environmental Law have written to the executives of large insurance corporations as well as fossil fuel and other carbon major companies [1], seeking clarity on who will pay the bill if such a lawsuit is brought against their directors or officers [2].

Generally, liability policies provide coverage for claims that put individual directors’ and officers’ assets at risk. These liability policies protect individuals who are conducting their business in good faith but are at risk of being held liable for undesirable business occurrences, which may be beyond their control.  However, a serious question is whether these policies would cover a director facing a climate-related claim [3].

The belief that corporate executives are guilty of brewing bad weather events is no different than ancient tribes psychopathologically blaming and sacrificing humans at an alter in a bid to appease angry gods.Today environmentally fanatic activists like those at Greenpeace are calling for the same thing. This gets down to raindancing and weather-brewing. Read on…

Leanne Minshull, Greenpeace International’s Climate and Energy Campaigner, says the cost of climate change is personal. ‘It’s personal to the victims of super typhoon Haiyan who lost family members and homes in the Philippines. It’s personal to farmers in California and Australia whose land is now too dry for farming. It should also be personal for any oil, gas and coal company directors who mislead the public by funding climate denialism and stopping action on climate change. The responsibility – not just the devastating effects – should be personal.'”

If anything, NGOs and Greenpeace need to be held personally accountable for blocking Golden Rice in Asia, a food that could have prevented millions of children from going blind and thousands of dying prematurely from vitamin deficiency.  That we know is absolutely very clear.

Carroll Muffett, President of the Center for International Environmental Law, says from ‘asbestos to tobacco to oil spills, history shows that those who mislead the public, the market or the government about the risks of their products, or the availability of safer alternatives, can face substantial legal liability, both as companies and as individuals. As the impacts of climate denialism and regulatory obstruction become clear, we want to understand how corporations, insurers, and officers and directors are allocating those risks among themselves.  Just as importantly, we ask what steps they’re taking to prevent the misconduct that creates those risks in the first place.'”

Samantha Smith, leader of WWF‘s Global Climate and Energy Initiative, says fossil fuel companies owe it to their shareholders and the public to tell us the truth about the devastating impacts of their activities on our shared climate. ‘Sooner or later, those who hide the facts and oppose policies to fight climate change will be held to account by the courts. By signing this letter, we hope to bring attention to the importance of truthful, transparent and responsible corporate reporting and policy engagement on climate change.”

The responses from the fossil fuel companies and insurers and will be published on the Greenpeace International website.”

The Greenpeace proposal is the latest authoritarian bully-tactic designed to intimidate those who have different scientific opinions, to stamp out scientific dissent, and to force a universal junk-science based green ideology on the rest of the population. Greenpeace is pioneering the newest path to thought totalitarianism.

 

18 responses to “Greenpeace: “Executives Of Major Fossil Fuel Companies Could Face Personal Liability For Funding Climate Denialism”!”

  1. weathercycles

    Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
    Sort of reminds me of the religious wars

  2. Soarer

    So does this mean that Greenpeace executives will take responsibility for the actions of their ship and activists in the Arctic, or anywhere else they choose to break the law?

    Can we expect to see the real culprits (as opposed to the terminally naive) languishing in a Russian gaol any time soon?

    Their complete lack of self-awareness is staggering, but not surprising.

    1. Recovering Lutheran

      Also, does this mean that all those who supported the ban on DDT can be held responsible because of the millions of people in Third World countries they helped to kill? If Rachel Carson’s campaign to ban DDT was not a deliberate act of genocide, then genocide does not exist.

      I just want to know if Greenpeace is really serious about their let’s-exterminate-the-enemies-of-the-people thingy. If they are serious, shouldn’t they turn themselves in for prosecution and punishment? Do they not really believe what they preach?

      BTW: the malaria issue is very personal for me. Next week my wife and I will return to her home country for a long visit with her family. She lives in a malaria-ravaged country – the sort of place the greeniacs prefer to forget about. So when a rich, pampered Western environmentalist starts yammering about how we are using too many pesticides and why can’t we just live in harmony with nature, I take it for what it is: a racist attack on my family.

  3. DirkH

    Greenpeace has become a disorganized shadow of its former militant self.

    David McTaggart was, til his death in 2001 (69 years old, head on car crash) the dictator of Greenpeace;
    profiteer, psychopath, peddler of dioxin-polluted olive oil sold as organic
    http://www.torontofreepress.com/2001/0001a3.htm

    I wonder who’s the head now. Looks to me like an organization run into the ground by consensus decision making.

  4. DirkH

    “Carroll Muffett, President of the Center for International Environmental Law”

    I have a hard time believing that the BRICS and the 56 nations currently watching the creation of the BRICS development fund carefully will give a flying fart to the machinations of a Western-run “Center for International Environmental Law”.

  5. yonason

    Wouldn’t it be only fair then that it should cut both ways, with Greenies personally liable for the millions who have died, and the massive economic harm they’ve caused because of the lies they have been telling for decades?

  6. mwhite

    Greenpeace would then have to prove CAGW.

    The science with ALL OF THE RAW DATA and ALL OF THE CODE TO REPRODUCE THE RESULTS????

    1. Graeme No.3

      Quite right, but they are arrogant and hysterical enough to think they can.

      The resulting furore will destroy them.

  7. John de Melle

    Re. MWhite @ 18;58

    That was my thought, too

  8. Svend Ferdinandsen

    Then what about those who uses the products?
    The fossils would not be produced or sold if no one would buy them.
    How many from Green Peace, WWF and so on has stopped using those products.
    It remain to be seen that the fossil companies forces peoble to use their products or giving them free away just to harm the world.

  9. Layne

    Obama “gifting” control of the internet to the “international community” is (I suspect) really a plan to place the internet under a censorship of a cabal of un-elected “bureaucrats”. Most likely a cabal of UN psychopaths. I think there’s a very good chance they intend to close down all dissent.

    This is also likely to open the door to a worldwide taxation scheme. The world is in very dire trouble.

  10. George Daddis

    It would be interesting to learn just what “facts” these evil corporate executives are hiding. Seems to me the Greens are perfectly capable of broadcasting, with the help of politicians and the media, what ever “facts” they think would help would help their “cause”.

  11. Rod

    It was the Nazis that first said “tell a big enough lie, repeat it often enough and give it government backing and most people will believe it.

    So will the Greens and other alarmists face personal liability for the billions spent/wasted on CO2 reduction subsidies if it turns out CO2 has no role in global warming?

  12. DirkH

    Interesting bit found by zerohedge:
    MSM blame Gold weakness on SOI indicating El Nino – BUT as zerohedge points out- SOI has over the past month swung all the way from EL Nino nearly to La Ninja territory!
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-30/here-what-slide-gold-being-blamed-hint-weather
    Keep in mind that it’s an 8 to 9 month predictor.
    Looks like the grinch stole the warmists’ El Nino.

  13. Greenpeace: “Executives Of Major Fossil Fuel Companies Could Face Personal Liability For Funding Climate Denialism”! « wchildblog

    […] NoTricksZone, by P Gosselin on 29. Mai […]

  14. Kevin Marshall

    I agree with mwhite. To prove the harm of “denialism” would first require proof of what is being “denied” – that is CAGW.
    There is another defense. Suppose the consensus of medical scientists still believed that blood letting with leeches was an effective method of treatment for certain types of disease or malady. Further suppose that a fanatical opponent of the scientific consensus destroyed a leech farm, which, by chance, had leeches with a highly contagious disease. Although the scientific consensus could say that people’s lives were put in jeopardy by the leech destruction, that particular leech shortage would turn out to be of net benefit.
    Even if Greenpeace got this measure into law, the defense would be that funding “denial” is still of net benefit, as the policies being pursued are pretty useless in reducing global CO2 emissions, and economically grossly net harmful to any country that pursues them. So opposing “the truth of climate science” is pretty much the same as destroying diseased leeches.

  15. Jimbo

    The WWF was founded by a tobacco baron named Dr. Anton Rupert.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1508360/Anton-Rupert.html

    WWF then started accepting money from oil companies like Shell.
    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/04/11/the-wwfs-vast-pool-of-oil-money/

    Even Greenpeace has been known to sip on Big Oil.
    http://www.infowars.com/big-green-oil-money-wwf-founded-with-money-from-royal-dutch-shell/

  16. Darragh McCurragh

    There’s an easy way to end these harrasments: charge and try Greenpeace and comrades under the RICO act …