Award-winning Daniel Hannan, a conservative MEP of East England, has written a critical piece of Greenpeace called: Greenland to Greenpeace: your hunger for publicity is putting our lives at risk.
h/t: R. de Haan
Readers may have noticed I’ve been focused on Greenpeace over the last week or so. The once peaceful organisation, which used to be concerned with real environmental issues, has long since turned into a militant, intolerant, greedy and increasingly violent group that is bent on forcing others to submit to their will. So I’m pleased when people like Hannan bring it up.
According to Hannan at the Telegraph:
The prime minister of Greenland – a socialist, no less – has attacked Greenpeace for sabotaging an Arctic exploration rig.
When even the socialists get mad at Greenpeace, then it’s a sure sign how radical the organisation has gotten. Greenland’s socialist PM, Kuupik Kleist, is fuming about Greenpeace’s recent criminal sabotage.
The cabinet regards Greenpeace’s action as very serious and an illegal attack on the country’s constitutional rights. It is worrying that Greenpeace, in their hunt for media exposure, violate security rules made to protect human lives and the environment.
I wrote a post about this as well.
Fantasising and drooling over the next Holocaust?
It seems so. Greenpeace has no resemblance of the organisation it used to be. Even Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore thinks the environmentalists have lost their marbles.
They depict human beings as a malignancy, a cancer on the face of the earth. There’s way too many of us. Guys like Paul Watson and a whole bunch of his ilk are coming out and saying there should only be 1 billion people, and not 6 billion people.
I fought for nature all through my years at Greenpeace, and I’m proud of what we did back then. But I do not understand how people can write off the whole human race.
They’ve gone from green to red, and are now headed for brown.
14 responses to “UK Telegraph: Greenpeace Is Turning People Off”
Probably the Greenland government just forgot to pay the last rate in protection money.
This is just too funny.
Accustomed To Disgrace.
Very minor point: on the photo. There are no trees in Greenland, or anywhere the Inuit live. No Northern Lights either, except very occasionally at the Southern tip. To close to the magnetic pole.
I spent 18 months at Thule AFB in the early ’60s.
A few more shots to the foot by Greenpiece, and they will bleed out.
A few more
It’s a photo from Wikipedia of the northern lights, which the Inuit believed was a spirit. The photo was at Wiki when you search Inuit – you’ll have to tell Wiki that there are no trees up there.
Greenpeace “funding” has long been somewhat “peculiar”, and MASSIVE.
Does anyone else remember the “well funded (well funded denial machine) denial machine piece” from climate resistance.
I wonder will Greenpeace’s anonymous and MASSIVE funding suffer.
Maybe their funders are paying for more violence.
“Whose bread one eats, whose words one speaks.”
That’s a line of thought Pierre I have been trying to “avoid”..
Will anyone manage to out the anonymous sources that so generously donate to Greenpeace, so regularly.
I wonder what a worst case cenario, ie, it’s tax payers money, would result in.
More shoulder shrugging, and “What can I do about it”, no doubt.
O/T Interesting article in Der Spiegel about ecotourism to Tuvalu: Visit Tuvalu while you still can!
Thanks Dirk! I’ll see if I can write something up in the next day or two. It’s quite funny. Like we’re surprised it’s being sensationalised.
Western governments have long since funded and succoured (via the back door and circuitous routes naturally!) the nutters of Greenpeace, this is a scandal.
We see this in many organisations PG, even the RSPB has gone down the road of advocacy and politicisation, this is obscene and in the RSPB’s case a betrayal of those early pioneers of twitchers whose gentle beautiful guides to British Birds, enlightened and thrilled me so much, getting me out into the countryside to share the experience of observing mother nature and her avian friends in all their glory.
Now they talk the talk and walk the walk of AGW advocacy and it is sad, very sad.
As for greenpeace they have morphed into a bunch of fascists.
” As for greenpeace they have morphed into a bunch of fascists. ”
There maybe an historical president for this according to Alan Caruba.
Nazi dreams were green dreams.
Didn’t the Nazi’s also start off as the National Socialists. ?
Apologies, I meant to include / attribute the link, as earlier posted on the Von Storch thread here by R. de Haan.
How silly can Greenpeace get? Imagine appealing to Dr. ManMohan Singh to save our Monsoons, as if he is Gaia Incarnate
The year 2009-10, India suffered its worst drought in almost four decades, with monsoon rains 22% below average. As seen in the photo, Greenpeace activists hung an 80-foot banner from the Mumbai-Thane Bridge addressed to the Indian prime minister on June 4, 2009.It requested him to save our monsoons given the drought situation. How mischievous this tactic is illustrated by their article 29th June 2009, titled “It’s anomaly reigning” posted 29th June 2009 in the Greenpeace India website – just a few days after this stunt:
“On assessing the historical data, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its fourth Assessment Report suggested, “warming in India is likely to be above the average for South Asia, with an increase in summer precipitation and an increase in the frequency of intense precipitation in some parts.” That the Indian monsoons are going to undergo gross changes as a direct result of climate change – rainfall will increase by ~ 20 per cent overall in the summer monsoon, but the distribution of this increase will not be evenly spread across the country.”
So what’s Greenpeace’s actual position any way? Does global warming cause increased or decreased rainfall? They say both. But it does not matter really as global warming or CO2 has nothing to do with monsoon intensity. But it finds a 1:1 correlation with ENSO – El Nino (La Nina) Southern Oscillation.
However, if the IPCC painted scenario had only been true, an increase by 20% in rainfall could have given India a double digit growth rate for agriculture and at least double that in terms of GDP. Such stupendous growth could have wiped out the face of poverty within 5-10 years in our country. If this is “climate change”, Indians should be welcoming it with open arms. But alas, more than a decade passed after the IPCC had predicted such a scenario but we find practically no such change in our rainfall long period average (LPA). The LPA, even factoring the current “exceptional” summer rainfall, remains still a shade below 100%.
This typical means justify end tactics not only eats into the credibility of not only Greenpeace but the entire NGO and environment. What public credibility has NGO/environment groups left with? If they tout they follow evidence based M&E then they should ensure their advocacy campaigns reflect this value as well.
Read more: http://devconsultancygroup.blogspot.com/2010/09/how-silly-can-greenpeace-climate.html
Thanks for the information about the long term precipitation in India! For GreenPeace: Well, they just hope nobody looks at the real data. Unfortunately for them, everybody can look at the data sources on the internet today. GreenPeace comes from the 1970ies, a time when the only sources of information were the state-controlled TV and radio stations. Their tactic is to get into this main news channel. This tactic must fail when real data becomes available to everyone. Data is to GreenPeace what sunlight is to a vampire.