|Founded in 1970 as a loose assortment of Canadian anti-nuclear agitators, American expatriates, and underground journalists calling themselves the "Don't Make a Wave Committee," Greenpeace is today the most influential group of the environmental Left. [...] |
In the early 1990s, the organization turned its attention to the purported threat that chlorine posed to the world's water supplies. At the time, Greenpeace asserted that it would accept nothing less than the blanket prohibition of the element. "There are no uses of chlorine which we regard as safe," declared Greenpeace activist Joe Thornton, [...]
Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore left the organization and now laments that the group has become "dominated by leftwingers and extremists who disregard science in the pursuit of environmental purity."
According to a December 20, 2005 New York Times report, "the F.B.I. investigated possible financial ties between [Greenpeace] members and militant groups like the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front." [...]
An expose of Greenpeace's fundraising practices carried out in 2003 by Public Interest Watch (PIW), a nonprofit watchdog group, led to a report disclosing that Greenpeace uses its Greenpeace Fund, a tax-exempt entity debarred from engaging in political advocacy and lobbying by the IRS tax code, to illegally direct funds to Greenpeace Inc., a tax-exempt organization permitted to engage in lobbying and advocacy but not to accept tax-deductible funds. PIW calculated that in 2000, $4.25 million was provided by the Greenpeace Fund in this way.
Greenpeace is heavily funded by many foundations, among which are the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Bauman Family Foundation, the Blue Moon Fund, the Columbia Foundation, the Compton Foundation, the Minneapolis Foundation, the Nathan orgasmings Foundation, the Scherman Foundation, Ted Turner's Turner Foundation. The organization has also drawn support from numerous celebrities, including singers Sting, Tom Jones, and Elton John, who have sponsored its "save the rainforest" campaigns. In 2004, Greenpeace received $15,844,752 in grants, and held net assets of $1,893,548. That same year, the Greenpeace Fund received grants totaling $6,866,534 and held net assets of $7,532,018.
|Greenpeace was originally the brainchild of the radical “Don’t Make a Wave Committee,” a group of American draft-dodgers who fled to Vancouver in 1969 and, supported by money from anti-war Quaker organizations, got into the business of forcibly blocking American nuclear tests. Over the years the group has loudly made its feelings known on a variety of issues (nuclear testing, whaling, and global warming, for instance), and its Amsterdam-based activist moguls pull the strings on what is estimated to be a $360 million global empire.|
Here in the United States, however, Greenpeace is a relatively modest activist group, spending about $10 million per year. And the lion’s share of that budget in recent years has gone to outrageous attempts to smear agricultural biotech products and place doubts about the safety of genetically improved foods in the minds of American consumers. [...]
Patrick Moore was one of a dozen or so activists who founded Greenpeace in the basement of a Unitarian Church in Vancouver. Within 7 years, the organization had footholds in over two dozen countries and a $100 million budget. As eco-activists in general found themselves suddenly invited into the meeting-places of business and government, Greenpeace made the decision to take even more extreme positions, rather than being drawn in to collaboration with their former enemies.
Moore broke with his comrades during this period, and has emerged as an articulate critic of his former brainchild. Referring to Greenpeace’s “eco-extremism” in March 2000, he described the group in Oregon Wheat magazine as “Anti-human”; “antitechnology and anti-science”; “Anti-organization” and “pro-anarchy”; “anti-trade”; “anti-free-enterprise”; “anti-democratic”; and “basically anti-civilization.”
Writing in Canada’s National Post in October 2001, Patrick Moore offered the following critique: “I had no idea that after I left in 1986 they would evolve into a band of scientific illiterates…. Clearly, my former Greenpeace colleagues are either not reading the morning paper or simply don't care about the truth.”
|There were lots of problems found with Poptech’s little list over at Skeptical Science – warning, there are about 800 comments there, many of them Poptech’s usual spamming, word-play and bizarre beliefs.|
|PT on April 20, 2011 at 7:04 pm | (Your comment is awaiting moderation)|
All the alleged “problems found” about the list at skeptical science I refuted or the post including my refutation was deleted. Any legitimate criticisms mentioned there were corrected on the list.
|" As soon as you can show that a ) they are remotely relevant to what I posted or said, b ) why you are so scientifically illiterate as to cling to the fiction of “proofs” c ) how your Straw man, Appeal to Ridicule arguments deserve anything more than contempt, d ) how any of these demands relate to the point that the alleged research in question is bogus nonsense. [and don't spam my comment section with your response ... just put it on your blog & I'll look at it there]|
 You making a bunch of inaccurate & irrelevant accusations framed in numerous logical errors (Straw Man, Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Ridicule, Red Herring, etc) and completely failing to address the actual points does not constitute a “refutation.”
All you have demonstrated is that you don’t seem to be able to even understand the Climate Brief articles, much less respond to them rationally.
 You quibbling details and at best demonstrating that your list is merely hopelessly, laughably irrelevant rather than utterly, hopelessly, laughably irrelevant does not actually constitute a “refutation” either.
As I note in this article, given that you fill the list with papers that do not support your claim in any way, the surprise is that it is merely 900 and not 90,000. Demonstrating that your fraud list is actually 0.2% of the literature rather than 0.1% or lower does not give it any added credibility.
 Let me know when it would matter or why anyone would care.
 Good, I look forward to you NOT harrassing me with any more of this irrelevant nonsense."
|PT on April 20, 2011 at 7:25 pm | (Your comment is awaiting moderation)|
 It is relevant because you stated, “the first post shows how 90% of the authors of these papers are the same tiny cabal, all part of the Exxon stable of Denier scientists.”
b ) my use of the word “proof” here has nothing do with the mathematical/scientific definition of the word.
c ) I have not stated a strawman argument here nor made an appeal to ridicule.
d ) These demands relate to the false charge that, “90% of the authors of these papers are the same tiny cabal, all part of the Exxon stable of Denier scientists” not your strawman.
I have never spammed your comment section ever, I have always directly replied to a comment.
It is clear you are unable to provide the proof to support these false allegations.
 Everything I stated was accurate and I actually point out that the criticisms are strawman arguments, I do not make any.
 What I stated in that post was irrefutable, it has nothing to do with quibbling with details. His whole argument is based on search totals that are impossible to verify and filled with erroneous results.
 Can you provide me with the 1001 results for any of his Google Scholar searches. The more you dodge this, the more you demonstrate you cannot defend that post. I can promise you I will be relentless on this point if you refuse to concede something so obviously irrefutable.
I am very eager to hear your response to 3 and 4 as I would like to do a blog post on the computer illiteracy of alarmist blogs, the question is – will it include you? Because these points are not debatable they are how Google Scholar works.
|"Quibbling details. Pielke posted on his blog that you should remove all papers by him and his father, and being the arrogant little ideologue that you are you actually argued that he didn’t understand his own work.|
Others have stated quite publicly that their work does not belong on fraud lists like yours, and you stated that you understood science much better than they, thereby revealing both your dishonesty and and your utter cluelessness.
Spare us the craven and obvious dishonesty … try acting with actual integrity for once."
|PT on April 20, 2011 at 6:57 pm | (Your comment is awaiting moderation)|
No what I argued was he did not understand why his papers were listed and I made changes to the list because of that post to make it more clear. The fact remains I have never received an email from Pielke Jr. or ANY scientist on this issue.
I am acting with integrity, which is why I included the disclaimer,
Disclaimer: The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors. The reason for this is a small minority of authors on the list would not wish to be labeled skeptical (e.g. Harold Brooks, Roger Pielke Jr.) yet their paper(s) or results from their paper(s) support skeptic arguments against AGW alarm.
Pielke Jr.’s post was addressed here,
Rebuttal to “Better Recheck That List”
|That would be new, but even if now true, you have undermined your credibility in so many other ways (lying, irrational & irrelevant comments, abusing peoples time and energy, etc) that it simply isn’t possible to take you seriously anymore.|
Here’s a deal … you remove all of the errors, lies and frauds on your website, and dealing with your comments will be my #1 priority 24/7.
As it is (ie looking at your comments & website), it simply isn’t possible to believe that accuracy about anything concerns you.
|PT on April 24, 2011 at 6:47 pm | (Your comment is awaiting moderation)|
What would be new? I always post as Poptech (or some obvious variant, depending on what is available) if possible.
I have not lied about anything, all my comments are rational and on topic.
There are no errors, lies or frauds on my website.
|I will get to your drivel when I get to it. The way to have your comments posted immediately is to consistently be honest, factual and relevant.|
As it is the number of errors and lies in your comments means it is a lot of work to clean them up, and despite your delusions of adequacy you are neither important nor interesting enough to either censor or make a priority.
|PT on April 24, 2011 at 6:55 pm | (Your comment is awaiting moderation)|
Apparently being honest, factual and relevant is a way to have your comments censored here. No matter as they all will appear on my site so the world can see your dishonesty.
BTW if I am so unimportant and uninteresting then why do you have so many childish blog posts about my website?
|PT on April 21, 2011 at 7:55 am | (Your comment is awaiting moderation)|
This article is completely refuted,
Rebuttal to “Poptart gets burned again, 900 times”