BREAKING: Greenpeace co-founder reports Greenpeace to the FBI under RICO and wire-fraud statutes

‘Greenpeace has made itself the sworn enemy of all life on Earth’

By Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace

Greenpeace, in furtherance of what is in effect its war against every species on the planet, has now turned to what, on the face of things, looks to me like outright breach of the RICO, wire-fraud, witness-tampering and obstruction-of-committee statutes. I have called in the FBI.

Greenpeace appears to have subjected Dr Will Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University, to a maladroit attempt at entrapment that has badly backfired on it.


Greenpeace used this dismal rent-by-the-hour office block in the Beirut souk for its entrapment scam

The organization I co-founded has become a monster. When I was a member of its central committee in the early days, we campaigned – usually with success – on genuine environmental issues such as atmospheric nuclear tests, whaling and seal-clubbing.

When Greenpeace turned anti-science by campaigning against chlorine (imagine the sheer stupidity of campaigning against one of the elements in the periodic table), I decided that it had lost its purpose and that, having achieved its original objectives, had turned to extremism to try to justify its continued existence.

Now Greenpeace has knowingly made itself the sworn enemy of all life on Earth. By opposing capitalism, it stands against the one system of economics that has been most successful in regulating and restoring the environment.

By opposing the use of DDT inside the homes of children exposed to the anopheles mosquito that carries malaria, Greenpeace contributed to the deaths of 40 million people and counting, most of them children. It now pretends it did not oppose DDT, but the record shows otherwise. On this as on so many issues, it got the science wrong. It has the deaths of those children on what passes for its conscience.

By opposing fossil-fueled power, it not only contributes to the deaths of many tens of millions every year because they are among the 1.2 billion to whom its campaigns deny affordable, reliable, clean, continuous, low-tech, base-load, fossil-fueled electrical power: it also denies to all trees and plants on Earth the food they need.

Paradoxically, an organization that calls itself “Green” is against the harmless, beneficial, natural trace gas that nourishes and sustains all green things. Greenpeace is against greenery. Bizarrely, it is opposed to returning to the atmosphere a tiny fraction of the CO2 that was once present there.

In November 2015, out of the blue, Professor Happer received an email from “Hamilton Ellis”, a soi-disant “business consultancy” operating out of rent-by-the-hour offices in a crumbling concrete block in the Beirut souk.

The bucket-shop “consultancy’s” email said that a “client”, an energy and power company “concerned about the impacts of the UN climate talks”, wanted to commission Professor Happer to prepare a “briefing” to be released early in 2016 “which highlights the crucial role that oil and gas have to play in the developing economies, such as our client’s Middle East and North Africa region”.

The email smarmed on:

“Given your influential work in this area and your position at Princeton we believe a very short paper authored or endorsed by yourself could work strongly in our client’s favour. Does this sound like a project you would be interested in discussing further?”

Will Happer replied enclosing a white paper written, with major input from him, by the CO2 Coalition, a new group that he had helped to establish earlier in 2015. He also sent a copy of testimony on the “social cost of carbon” that he had given at a regulatory hearing in St Paul, Minnesota. Crucially, he added: “I would be glad to try to help if my views, outlined in the attachments, are in line with those of your client.”

In short, he was not prepared to be bought. He would help the “client” of the “business consultancy” if and only if he was not asked to attest to anything that he did not already believe.

The “consultancy” replied:

“It certainly sounds like you and our client are on the same page.” It went on to ask whether Professor Happer’s two papers had been “part of the same initiative on CO2 reported on [by Matt Ridley] in the London Times recently, and added: “The focus we envisage for this project comes from a slightly different angle. Our client wants to commission a short briefing paper that examines the benefits of fossil fuels to developing economies, as opposed to a switch to so-called clean energy.”

The “consultancy” also wanted to know whether it “would be able to reference you as Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University if this project were to go ahead?”

It also tried to smoke out the identity of Professor Happer’s contacts in the U.S. media, and ended with a classical entrapment line:

“It would be useful to know, in your experience, whether you would need to declare the source funding when publishing research of this kind”.

Professor Happer replied that Matt Ridley was “someone the CO2 Coalition is in close touch with” and said: “The article also mentions Patrick Moore, like me a member of the CO2 Coalition, and my friend from Princeton, Freeman Dyson, who shares our views.”

He confirmed that his official title is Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Emeritus. He also reinforced his earlier message indicating he could not be bought by stating, very clearly:

“To be sure your client is not misled on my views, it is clear there are real pollutants associated with the combustion of fossil fuels, oxides of sulfur and nitrogen for most of them, fly ash and heavy metals for coal, volatile organics for gasoline, etc.  I fully support regulations for cost-effective control of these real pollutants.  But the Paris climate talks are based on the premise that CO2 itself is a pollutant. This is completely false. More CO2 will benefit the world. The only way to limit CO2 would be to stop using fossil fuels, which I think would be a profoundly immoral and irrational policy.”

Professor Happer added that he no longer had external funding following his retirement, and went on:

“My activities to push back against climate extremism are a labor of love, to defend the cherished ideals of science that have been so corrupted by the climate-change cult.  If your client was considering reimbursing me for writing something, I would ask that whatever fee would have come to me would go directly to the CO2 Coalition.  This was the arrangement I had with the attorneys representing the Peabody Coal Company in the regulatory hearings in Minnesota.  The fee I would have received was sent instead to the CO2 Coalition, a 501(c)(3) tax exempt educational organization.  The CO2 Coalition covers occasional travel expenses for me, but pays me no other fees or salary.”

The “consultancy” replied that the “client” was “completely comfortable with your views on fossil-fuel pollution”. It asked whether Matt Ridley might “help to disseminate our research when it is ready”, and whether the briefing could be peer-reviewed. “On the matter of reimbursement, we would of course remunerate you for your work and would be more than happy to pay the fee to the CO2 Coalition.”

Then another classic entrapment line:

“Our client does not want their name associated with the research as they believe it will give the work more credibility. What provisions does the CO2 Coalition provide? Would this be an issue?”

Professor Happer replied that he was sure Matt Ridley would be interested in the briefing and that Breitbart would be among blogs and syndicated columnists that could also be interested.

As for peer review, he explained that

“this normally refers to original work submitted to a scientific journal for publication, and not to the sort of articles that Ridley writes for the media, or what I think you are seeking to have written.  If you like, I could submit the article to a peer-reviewed journal, but that might greatly delay publication and might require such major changes in response to referees and to the journal editor that the article would no longer make the case that CO2 is a benefit, not a pollutant, as strongly as I would like, and presumably as strongly your client would also like.”

He said his fees were $250 per hour, and that his Minnesota testimony had required four eight-hour days, so that the total cost was $8000. He said that, if he wrote the paper alone, he did not think there would be any problem stating that “The author received no financial compensation for this essay”. He added that he was pretty sure that the “client’s” donation to the CO2 Coalition would not need to be public  according to US regulations of 503(c)(3) educational organizations, but that he could get some legal advice to confirm this if asked.

The “consultancy” replied:

“The hourly rate works for us and, as previously discussed, we are happy to make a direct donation to the CO2 Coalition, providing it is anonymous. We can look into the official disclosure regulations, but it would be useful to know whether the CO2 Coalition voluntarily discloses its funders? Presumably there are other donors in a similar position to us?”

They added:

“With regards to peer review, I raised this issue because Matt Ridley’s article on Dr Indur Goklany’s recent CO2 report said that it had been thoroughly peer reviewed. Would it be possible to ask the same journal to peer review our paper given that it has a similar thrust to Goklany’s? It’s not a deal-breaker, but I felt that it helped strengthen that piece of work.”

Professor Happer replied that early drafts of Goklany’s paper had been reviewed by him and by many other scientists; that he had suggested changes to which the author had responded; that Matt Ridley might also have been a reviewer; and that, although some members of the academic advisory board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation might have been too busy to respond to a request to comment on the first draft, “The review of  Golkany’s paper was even more rigorous than the peer review for most journals”. Professor Happer said he would be glad to ask for a similar review for the first drafts of anything he wrote for the “client”.

He said he would double-check on the regulations, but did not think the CO2 Coalition, a 501(3)c tax-exempt educational organization, was required to make public any donors, except in Internal Revenue Service returns.

He checked with the CO2 Coalition, which replied that the Coalition was not obliged to identify any donors, except to the IRS, who would redact the list of donors if it received a request for the Coalition’s form 990.

On December 7 he received an email from one Maeve McClenaghan of Greenpeace, telling him that they had conducted what she grandiosely described as an “undercover investigation” – actually a criminal entrapment scam contrary to the RICO and wire-fraud statutes, and a flagrant attempt both to tamper with a Congressional witness (he is due to testify today, 8 December) and to obstruct committee proceedings – and that they intended to publish a “news article … regarding the funding of climate sceptic science.

She said: “Our article explores how fossil fuel companies are able to pay academics to produce research which is of benefit to them” and added that the story would be published on a Greenpeace website and “promoted widely” in the media. She gave Professor Happer only hours to respond.

Many of the points she said she proposed to include in the article were crafted in such a way as to distort what the above correspondence makes plain were wholly innocent and honest statements, so as to make them sound sinister. The libels Ms McClenaghan proposed to circulate will not be circulated here.

I am profoundly dismayed that the organization I founded – an organization that once did good work addressing real environmental concerns – has descended to what I consider to be criminality and also proposes to descend to libel.

Accordingly, I have decided to inform the Federal Bureau of Investigation of Greenpeace’s dishonest and disfiguring attempt at entrapment of Professor Happer, whom I know to be a first-rate scientist, one of the world’s half-dozen most eminent and experienced physicists, and one who would never provide any scientific advice unless in his professional opinion that advice was correct.

The organization’s timing was clearly intended to spring the trap on Professor Happer hours before he was due to appear in front of Congress. This misconduct constitutes a serious – and under many headings criminal – interference with the democratic process that America cherishes.

I have reported Greenpeace to the FBI under 18 USC 96 (RICO statute); 18 USC 1343 (wire fraud); 18 USC 1512 (tampering with a witness due to appear at a Congressional hearing); and 18 USC 1505 (obstruction of proceedings before committees).

I shall also be asking the Bureau to investigate Greenpeace’s sources of funding. It is now an enemy of the State, an enemy of humanity and, indeed, an enemy of all species on Earth.

Note: This article was updated shortly after publication to better delineate some quoted text

153 thoughts on “BREAKING: Greenpeace co-founder reports Greenpeace to the FBI under RICO and wire-fraud statutes

  1. How could they think that threatening a witness to Congress was acceptable? That is what this is, after all, a threat. Do they simply think that the law does not apply to them, or are they so insular that they have never so much as watched Law and Order?

    • @benofhouston: Ben, this is just my opinion, but I think their motivation for this has to do with the size of their heads. Green NGOs like Greenpeace have endowed themselves with so much righteousness, virtuosity and nobility that they feel they are above the law and entitled to do things like this.

      It doesn’t matter to them if pushing fossil fuels and nuclear energy out of the picture is irrational due to the lack of viable and scalable alternatives. Fossil fuels and nuclear are just way too evil to tolerate. If western civilization has to collapse in the absence of fossil fuels and nuclear, then so be it. It is the price that western society must pay for its evil ways.

      When it is an issue of Greenpeace the “good” vs. humanity and fossil fuels the “evil”, then anything goes. IMO, this is the way the are wired to think. I wouldn’t waste my time in an effort to rewire their brains so that they think in a more rational way.

    • They are zealots, they don’t think. They believe they are on gods mission & are above the law.
      As with any self perpetuating religious cult you can never have enough martyrs to boost your ratings.

    • This is the same Greenpeace that destroyed parts of a world heritage site in Peru last year.

      Their message if everything to them, and nothing will stand in their way. Not even the law.

      • Thanks Arsten for reminding us of that. In today’s world incidences like those and others seem to quickly forgotten they are just as barbaric as ISIS and the Taliban’s destruction of ancient and religious sites all across the ME and Africa and elesewhere. And a BIG thanks to Dr Patrick Moore for this outstanding letter to the FBI!

    • Ben you asked “How could they think…”
      I suspect the leaders at Greenpeace are feeling rather invincible lately. The F.B.I., by all accounts will do a fair and thorough investigation. But let’s not forget Greenpeace has an advocate, President Obama, who has grossly influenced investigations and selective prosecution in government agencies during his two terms in office. Likewise the Attorney General, Loretta Lynch who is proving to be a perfect pawn of the POTUS, may well quash any prosecution of Greenpeace should one be warranted.
      Such is the current political reality having a community organizer in the White House. Perhaps in 2017 the table will be turned and credibility restored.

      • The real fun part that the left may not realize. All these cases where the Attorney General has used “Prosecutorial Discretion” to drop investigations, can be picked back up by the next Attorney General. Only if a case is dismissed by a judge in court “with prejudice” does the accused walk free.

      • Exactly, Owen. The statutes of limitations will not expire on these crimes for quite some time, if ever.

    • RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

      Source: 12 Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky

      This is especially effective when most of the press is in on the “sting”, either intentionally or by virtue of ideological blinders.

    • Look at how they behaved when the oil platforms from the North Sea had to be dismantled. Their campaign was founded on the lie that a gigantic amount of oil remained in the tanks and would create giant oil spills. As if an oil company would be so stupid it would leave valuable oil in place. It cost the companies a billion dollars to tow it back to land and cut it into small pieces.

      Years later, when the lie was outed, Greanpiece said it alway knew. So what, it was for a good cause.

    • The law only applies to someone, if the govt is willing to prosecute.
      This administration does not prosecute it’s friends and allies.

    • The law generally has not been applied to these groups, and the people in them, for the past few decades. Why would they, or anyone else for that matter, assume that it will be applied them in this case. If the FBI does decide to investigate. Greenpeace will immediately start a campaign against the US world wide, with the help of other groups such as the WWF, to claim victimization and that they are the subject of a witch hunt be the evil imperialist capitalists and oil Barons who secretly run the USA. This campaign will be supported by the UN and the current US government, who also believes that the US is evil will fold and shut down the investigation.

      This will go nowhere while the current President is in office.

  2. I hope that the FBI treats this with the diligence and vigour that they have used in investigating FIFA under RICO. Above all I hope they are immune to political pressure from the CiC.

    • Old England : exactly my thoughts, inspired by yesterday’s BBC Panorama programme about the corruption exposed at the heart of FIFA.
      The investigator , Andrew Jennings, had been researching the FIFA bosses around Seff Blatter for fifteen years , but basically made no effective impression.
      A book written about the Qatar world cup bid unmasked similar corruption , but also with no visible effect .
      The only breakthrough came when the FBI started to investigate the American and Caribbean FIFA bosses and the manipulation of fees (100s million dollars) affecting world Cup ticket sales (think of the corruption around carbon credits and carbon taxes). Since Obama has no knowledge of or interest in soccer FBI were permitted to get involved with , so far , the arrest , suspicion or suspension of 39 FIFA bosses including the Godfather , Seff Blatter.
      By analogy,if there is scandal and corruption involving Greens , bankers and politicians and the billions being discussed at Paris , and already paid into the renewable subsidies, it will only be opened up by the efforts of the FBI – but will Obama allow them to investigate ?

      • That is Sepp Blatter. He is actually called Joseph – I don’t know why he is known as Sepp. Any allegations of racism are unfounded. White or brown, Sepp does not care. It is the contents of the envelope he cares about.

    • Look at the white wash over the IRS selectively refusing to grant non-profit status to conservative organizations, their illegal demands for supporter information and their release of confidential information to supporters of Obama.

  3. Go Patrick!!

    Downside is, what are the chances of finding a Federal agent willing to investigate a “goody 2 shoes” such as Greenpeace? Surely their career would be mud if they tried?

    • He didn’t. From what I can tell, they believe that the only proper response to someone saying “I am from a coal company” is to hold up a silver cross to ward them off.

    • Greenpeace doesn’t appear very smart let alone moral. You are trying to make sense from nonsense!

  4. What goes through the minds of people who will sit in their dark little holes and dream up these sleazy scams to stifle honest scientific comment? Thank-you, Dr. Moore, for presenting this information. I’ve forwarded the link to your article to several people who are Greenpeace supporters.

  5. Well, it couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of people.

    I have no idea what Greenpeace was originally like, but I do know what it is today: an activist organisation, which has become almost immune to the facts and any form of science.

    Like a cancer, or a big bureaucracy, Greenpeace lives only to grow and grow, always damaging and eventually killing its host. Its fund raising tactics would shame some of the worst pseudo-Christian cults.

    And like any good cult, it has a strong following of the faithful; those who are truly gullible and stupid, eager to open their wallets at every opportunity in order to have their souls continually cleansed and thereby rewarded in recognition for being a true acolyte.

    The economic and environmental damage that Greenpeace can claim responsibility for through its actions and persistent peddling of bad science is truly incredible. Anything ISIL might try and do fades into insignificance against what Greenpeace has achieved.

    • “…but I do know what it is today: an activist organisation, which has become almost immune to the facts and any form of science. ”

      Call them for what they really are: eco-terrorists.

      From destroying world heritage sites to the deaths of millions of children. I would say they’re even worse than ISIS.

      • “…they’re even worse than ISIS..”

        Not yet. They aren’t posting videos of beheadings yet, Let’s not get carried away. There is a gulph, a broad one, between vile and monstrous. ISL is monstrous, GP so far is merely vile.

  6. Umm,
    Noble Cause Corruption?
    Reads hat way to me.

    But when a founder refers the organisation to the FBI – referencing RICO – it suggests that, maybe, perchance, there is at least the faintest shadow of a – hypothetical – problem.

    Auto – as you have gathered, not wholly doubt-free.

  7. Having been subjected to the alarmfest of the BBC this week and the horror that is Roger Harrabin, it is clear to me that just about every organisation at just about every level has been ‘appropriated’ – Trojan horse fashion.

    • Yup. You cant believe that what appears to be happening is a gigantic conspiracy, fraud and attempt to subvert democracy and political and scientific freedom, but every time you check, there it is staring you in the face.

      Germans didn’t believe that the Nazi party were killing Jews on an industrial scale, either..

      • And the money! They along with their ilk thrive by demonizing capitalism/Monsanto/Exxon/ et al for the eyes and ears of those ignorant, gullible….charitable saviors of mother earth. I’ve lectured myself not to become the cynical old ranting guy, but damn Leo, Its wide spread and poison to our society.

      • When communism fell in Russia, the communists needed another cause to champion. Most of them chose environmentalists. Most major environmental organizations are now watermelons. Green on the outside, red to the core.

    • fret,
      How much of the Desmond damage is referenced to Abigail/B/C not being much more than ‘winter storms’?

      Granted Desmond turned out to dump a ‘record’ amount of rain [details to check], the ease with which we glided through Abigail, and the B and C ‘storms’, may have – possibly – lulled folk to ignore that build up – it’s just ‘another’ storm.
      Tragically, Desmond was not that.

      Are bad outcomes on the Met Office’s conscience? ?

      I ask . . . .

  8. This might be investigated only if a republican president is elected next year. With Obama in office there is not a snowball’s chance in hell of the FBI lifting a finger. Congress can’t even get hold of supposedly publicly owned e-mails from NOAA.

    • Would it not be a hoot if Ted Cruz, the chairman of this hearing, became the next US president?

  9. If the FBI investigates, as we hope, they have the reputation for leaving no stone unturned. This could be the first pebble that starts the landslide as they look in detail at GreenPeace’s funding, organisation and activities.

    Remember GreenPeace has been chucked out of India and hopefully they will be chucked out of the US. As they get funding from the EU, they might find that they are being asked difficult questions across the World.

    I expect Greenpeace will say that this is simply an unsanctioned act by a junior member of their staff and they would never sanction it, being as pure as drivem (unpolluted) snow.

  10. Many of us in the UK would like to see, in the UK, USA style States’ and Federal investigations and prosecutions that have recently been organised and carried through on major companies, including banks, and their senior Board Members as well as organisations such as FIFA. Bankers and senior Directors here have been getting away with a great deal with only a light slap on the wrist and even hardly any financial penalties.

    As to Greenpeace, this episode and evidence of their perfidy does not surprise me. I hope the Feds hit them hard. 20 years or so ago, North Sea Oil Operators wanted to dispose of a North Sea Oil Platform, which was being shutdown, by simply sinking it in deep water in the North Sea. Greenpeace typically protested loudly via rent-a-gob and rent-a-mob and their tame media contacts that the Rig was full of extremely hazardous materials and chemicals and that sinking the Platform would create a catastrophic environmental marine disaster. They insisted that the Rig be towed back to land in the UK and dismantled under very tight conditions with massively expensive measures to separate out and safely dispose of all the hazardous materials and chemicals. The Operator said that no such significant problems existed but, eventually, they backed off as there was a lot of bad publicity, and they did, at very considerable cost, what Greenpeace wanted.

    Surprise, surprise! When the rig was dismantled onshore virtually none of the hazardous materials and chemicals claimed by Greenpeace were found, and nothing that the vast diluting effect of the North Sea could not have naturally and safely accommodated. Predictably, Greenpeace never commented, let alone apologised, and for reasons unknown, apparently, the Operator nor any UK government or legal entity thought fit to sue Greenpeace.

    Their arrogance and deceit continues under various banners! They need stepping on – severely, if only because they tar all environmentalists, many of whom do an excellent service for the world, with the same brush!

    • My recollection of the Brent Spar episode was that Greenpeace openly stated afterwards that the message was more important than the facts.

  11. Contacting Professor Happer and threatening him (blackmail?) the day before he was due to appear as a Congressional witness certainly looks like a possible attempt to interfere with the testimony of a witness.

    Here in the UK, if proved I believe this would be grounds for prosecution for “perverting the course of justice”. (maximum sentence – life imprisonment).

    What hope freedom of speech if they will not even allow you to testify to congress without interfering or blackmailing you!

    Wow, these people really are radicalised.

  12. I saw this spun earlier today something similar too climate denier scientist ready to take bribes to work for fossil fuels industry and not disclose sources or some such rubbish. The headline was effective and thousands will buy into it. Pitiful and pitiless.

    • Please document actual harm and forward it to the author. For example if a more extreme miswording of the claims makes it into print, possibly by pre-arrangement, it adds to the damage to his person and may show RICO intent to commit character assassination. Look in your papers, TV’s and document the calumny. If the harm is real, following a threat that is real, the consequences must also be real.

      One line of attack for Greenpeace is to ‘make an example’ of someone, in this case a witness, so as to exert pressure on other witnesses in future with a demonstration of the ability to cause actual harm and therefore showing the capacity to make a threat ‘with menaces’ – backed up by a credible threat of personal harm, particularly harm of reputation and therefore credibility.

      It is clear that Greenpeace makes threats against individuals and companies, and backs up those threats with actions intended to cause harm. They do this to raise funds, as has been previously described here in relation to squeezing money out of companies they ‘choose not to expose’ if ‘donations’ are made to then ‘undo’ or ‘compensate’ for the ‘harm’ they have identified. In most precincts it is called a ‘shake down’.

      Greenpeace has for a long time operated outside the law as a tactic, mostly civil disobedience but not all. Patrick claims it was effective. He should know as he participated. We remember. Well, they learned didn’t they. Their motto is ‘we break the law in order to save you from yourselves’. Maybe it is time to start applying the law to save Greenpeace members from themselves – – funders and the managers.

      I’ll bet they carefully checked to see if the operation was not illegal if conducted from within Lebanon. If the threat with menaces was issued from the UK it is likely they can be prosecuted successfully. Given the geographic spread, it is going to be difficult to claim it was not a sanctioned operation.

      • Crispin … here’s a couple headlines I found, right away, by simply googling Greenpeace.

        1. Greenpeace exposes sceptics hired to cast doubt on climate science. (The Guardian)

        2. Undercover Greenpeace activists buy off corrupt academics in a climate science sting. (Boing Boing)

        ‘Extreme miswording,’ indeed.

    • “The headline was effective and thousands will buy into it” Luckily putting a detailed account of the episode on this website will reach tens of thousands of people who can help them return it for a full refund.

  13. Their vandalism of the Nazscar Lines seemed to me a clear confirmation that Greenpeace is now driven by pure misanthropy at the expense of any intelligent thought. I am wary of bandying around the word ‘fascist’ as it is far too easily diluted, but the tone of shrillness in the voices of special interest groups operating under the banner of environmental ‘justice’, along with the self image of ideological superiority and purity is chilling. I hear the feet of the disaffected, spoiled, angry Facebook generation (of which I am one), falling ever more closely into step. They are guided by the emotional manipulation of a coterie of failed ex Marxists and rent-seekers, able to indulge the god complex of a cult leader spouting any kind of pseudo scientific nonsense, knowing every word will be swallowed wholesale by legions of insecure idiots desperate for social approval, while themselves stuffing their trousers full of money, all in a paper thin ‘good cause’. While there is genuine poverty and injustice in the world, and real environmental damage being done, the entire CAGW movement is just a huge circle jerk for the biggest group of a***holes ever to walk the planet.

  14. GreenPeace is worse than the above evidence shows.
    It being I was out and about counting the NVA and VC gathering to attack Ka Shan Marine Base I-Corps S. Vietnam and the count was large, very large and enough that without the new sensor tech we had the base would have been over run. Too the big brass ask our unit how many we figured were in the pipe line. We reported , huge numbers it is clear. So the big brass did start talking about possible use of nukes.

    Use of nukes would have been and still is a real bad thing in my humble opinion.

    That took me to GreenPeace later after my time in senor work over in Laos etal.

    After a time I too saw the problem and was vocal in my interactions with those in leadership at the time.

    I was approached before a meeting and told in plain thug language that it would be in my health’s best interest to no longer be there and not to come back.

    • read my post fully it stated –
      ‘Weeds’ are ALL beneficial…..IF you know what you are doing.”
      YOU clearly don’t.

  15. By opposing fossil-fueled power, it not only contributes to the deaths of many tens of millions every year because they are among the 1.2 billion to whom its campaigns deny affordable, reliable, clean, continuous, low-tech, base-load, fossil-fueled electrical power: it also denies to all trees and plants on Earth the food they need.

    Dr. Moore may have left Greenpeace, but he has apparently not lost their mutual flair for hyperbole and dubious logic.

    • I’m not sure what you mean by hyperbole or dubious logic. He didn’t state that it denied all food to trees and plant, he stated that “…it denies to all trees and plants…”

      In my opinion this is a true statement. If I deny you a portion of your required caloric intake, I am denying you the food you need. I’m not denying you all food, but I *am* denying you a portion of it.

      • If I deny you a portion of your required caloric intake …

        … then I will likely become ill and possibly die. Since plants and trees thrived prior to the industrial revolution, obviously they were already obtaining the required amounts of CO2.

      • Brandon,

        The people who raise plants in real greenhouses pump in CO2 to 1200 or more ppm. They do this because it helps the plants grow. There is an upper limit after which more CO2 does not help. I think it is somewhere around 1500 ppm. This looks to be the level evolution has programmed into the plants.

        They can live at 200 ppm but they really need much more to flourish. See?

      • Markstoval,

        The people who raise plants in real greenhouses pump in CO2 to 1200 or more ppm. They do this because it helps the plants grow.

        No dispute. Note, however, that the argument has changed from “food they need” to “food which helps”. I don’t consider the latter formulation (yours) hyperbolic.

        [1500 ppmv CO2] looks to be the level evolution has programmed into the plants.

        Hothouse tomatoes are about as far from a “naturally” evolved organism as I can imagine … :)

        They can live at 200 ppm but they really need much more to flourish. See?

        No I don’t see since CO2 is not the only resource knob twiddled in the (worthy) aim of agricultural yield optimization.

      • “Brandon Gates

        December 8, 2015 at 4:40 pm”

        Extra CO2 REDUCES the demands on WATER a plant needs. It still needs nitrogen, sunlight and water, but importantly not as much water. Commercial growers know this. It’s proven. Large expanses of Spain, which are largely arid, are covered with plastic “greenhouses” pumped full with CO2 and use less water and grow crops all year round thanks to controlled water irrigation and CO2.

      • Patrick MJD,

        Extra CO2 REDUCES the demands on WATER a plant needs.

        I repeat: no dispute.

        Large expanses of Spain, which are largely arid, are covered with plastic “greenhouses” pumped full with CO2 and use less water and grow crops all year round thanks to controlled water irrigation and CO2.

        Especially in arid regions, greenhouses also play a role in reducing evaporative losses. However, consider that the vast majority of the world’s agriculture does not take place in such tightly controllable conditions. Think of it this way: how would you respond to me if I asserted that CO2 is the sole determinant of outdoor temperature?

        Also consider: weeds are plants too.

      • Also consider: weeds are plants too.

        so are you saying we should have less CO2 so the weeds don’t grow ??
        you don’t know much about botany or the carbon & water cycles do you !!

        BTW interesting food intake comparison –
        Humans die at 150 calories/day, you can just survive on 250 calories/day but are healthy at 1200-1500
        Plants die at 150 ppm CO2, survive on 250ppm CO2, are very healthy at 1200-1500ppm CO2.
        coincidence ??

      • 1saveenergy,

        so are you saying we should have less CO2 so the weeds don’t grow ??

        No. More weeds implies more weeding.

        Plants die at 150 ppm CO2, survive on 250ppm CO2, are very healthy at 1200-1500ppm CO2.

        For the third time now: no dispute.

      • No. More weeds implies more weeding.”

        yes but – More weeds implies more nitrogen & carbon fixing …..more composting….better soil….less artificial fertilizer. ‘Weeds’ are ALL beneficial…..if you know what you are doing.

      • 1saveenergy,

        More weeds implies more nitrogen & carbon fixing …..more composting….better soil….less artificial fertilizer.

        Weeds compete for the same nutrients, water and sunlight to grow that the desired crop plants do, which has the effect of reducing crop yield per unit resource.

    • Well,
      On the one hand, the definite article does not permit of the meaning “some of the food”; it pretty much has to be “all the food”.
      On the other hand, “the food they need” does not specify the criteria of “need”. It doesn’t have to be “need for survival”, it could be “need in order to look pretty”, or “smell nice” or “make a tasty,nutritious meal”.

      I have no use for greenpeace but … hyperbole? That’s how I see it, too.

      • mebbe,

        On the one hand, the definite article does not permit of the meaning “some of the food”; it pretty much has to be “all the food”.

        Yes, that’s how I read it as well.

        On the other hand, “the food they need” does not specify the criteria of “need”.

        Indeed. OTOH, he is explicitly making argument that elevated CO2 is good for plants, and Greenpeace are therefore hypocrites for not supporting elevated levels of it in the atmosphere. I’m taking issue with his logic on that point.

        I have no use for greenpeace …

        Alas, neither do I. Their stance against nuclear power as a CO2 emission mitigation scheme particularly agitates me.

      • lol, ok: charging Greenpeace with obstruction, racketeering and wire-fraud over a political stunt strikes me as a tad far fetched.

      • He is not “nit picking” he is diverting your attention from the main object of the article and the RICO claim ( rightfully so) by Patrick Moore, don’t fall into the trap!

    • OK, he should have said, “food they all like and some need.” (I.e., the ones around the Sahara, etc.)

      • rogerknights,

        Or, ” … food, which when increased promotes growth.” I’m glad you brought up the Sahara because this is where I think the wheels fall off his argument: water is probably the limiting resource when it comes to plant growth [1] — and more to the point, improving crop yields. Even the cheapest of cheap energy would get expensive in a hurry if it were pressed into widespread service at water desalination facilities.



        [2] Carbon dioxide is a primary substrate of photosynthesis. Increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations (Ca) are expected to lead to a CO2 fertilization effect where photosynthesis is enhanced with the rise in CO2 [Farquhar, 1997]. While a land-based carbon sink has been observed [Ballantyne et al., 2012; Canadell et al., 2007] and satellites reveal long-term, global greening trends [Beck et al., 2011; Fensholt et al., 2012; Nemani et al., 2003], it has proven difficult to isolate the direct biochemical role of Ca in these trends from variations in other key resources (such as light, water, nutrients [Field et al., 1992]) and from socioeconomic factors such as land use change [Houghton, 2003]. This complexity can be reduced by focusing on warm, arid environments, where water plays the dominant role in primary production and where foliage cover (F, the fraction of ground area covered by green foliage), plant water use, and photosynthesis are all tightly coupled. It is in these warm, arid environments where the CO2 fertilization effect on cover should be most clearly expressed. While widespread greening has been reported in these environments [Beck et al., 2011; Fensholt et al., 2012], the year-to-year variation in precipitation (P) at individual sites makes it very difficult to extract a clear fingerprint of the CO2 fertilization cover effect.

      • Bartleby,

        The “cheapest” way to desalinate water is nuclear.

        Would be my vote for industrialized nations, but not for Africa. I suggest, very tongue in cheek, that it might be more viable to backhaul fresh water with oil tankers.

        Greenpeace don’t like nuclear either.

        The main reason I don’t much care for Greenpeace.

    • I’ll go out on a limb and suggest that within the context of being denied access to clean affordable power they need to burn whatever trees and plants they can find, instead of being able to let them grow and flourish. So perhaps a missing comma or two. I think of the aerial shot of the border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic. On the Haiti side, a barren wasteland on the D.R. side lush forests.

      • iMac,

        The lack of modern power infrastructure in Haiti is not due to the meddling of external powers, but rather the presence of a repressive local regime that cares more for its own enrichment at the expense of a broadly lucrative modern economy. Same for N. Korea …

        … and most of Africa. One might argue that first world military intervention might be the only near-term hope for the peoples of those countries, but it hasn’t happened — and likely won’t — because, frankly, there would be very little percentage in doing it.

      • The Editor,

        N. Korea, on the other hand must be a great place for astronomy, because of the lack of “light pollution”.

        Sure, in places that aren’t directly downwind from one of China’s major population centers … :)

        They ought to have the greatest astronomers on the planet.

        One feature of Supreme Leaders is that they tend to not leave much in the budget for doing pure science.

  16. Greenpeace has its benefits:

    2012: HuffPo: Joe van Brussel: Danny Kennedy and Sungevity: Solar Power Is Here
    In California, one of the states hit hardest by the Great Recession, Danny Kennedy is working to spur growth and innovation by casting light on an often-misunderstood industry: solar energy…
    Kennedy transitioned into the entrepreneurship game after working with Greenpeace, where he helped run the company’s Sydney office and managed campaigns in the Australia Pacific region. His experience with Greepneace not only helped him develop the tools and experience necessary to run a business, but it also taught him critical lessons about bringing people together with a common mission…
    Kennedy attended a large conference in San Jose, CA, for the solar energy industry where then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger spoke to solar entrepreneurs. In his speech, the governor promised to support solar initiatives, and he later followed through on that promise. “He was giving that speech and the rhetoric was raving,” Kennedy recalled of the experience. “It was him at his finest form. A new governor speaking to a group of venture capitalists and entrepreneurs. People were in their chairs, pumping their fists and I was sitting there and said, ‘Wow, this is awesome. It’s really here.'”…

    2 Dec: Politico: POLITICO California Playbook, **presented by Chevron: BROWN blasts Republican climate ‘disgrace’
    By Carla Marinucci & Jesse Rifkin
    Bottom line for the big Paris stage: It’s about who will emerge the winners (and losers) in the race to clean energy…
    ALONG FOR THE RIDE (TO COP21): Led by Gov. Brown and NextGen Climate founder Tom Steyer, the delegation will include Jim Mahoney, Global Corporate Communications & Public Policy Executive, Bank of America; K.R. Sridhar, Founder and CEO, Bloom Energy; Thad Hill, President and CEO, Calpine; Thad Miller, Executive Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary, Calpine; Pasquale Romano, President and CEO,ChargePoint; Nancy Pfund, Founder and Managing Partner, DBL Investors; Sister Susan Vickers, RSM, VP Corporate Responsibility, Dignity Health; Bernard J. Tyson, Chairman and CEO of Kaiser Permanente, Kaiser Permanente; Raymond J. Baxter, PhD, Senior Vice President, Community Benefit, Research and Health Policy, Kaiser Permanente; David Crane, CEO, NRG Energy; Anthony Earley, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President, PG&E Corporation; Cathy Zoi, CEO, SunEdison Frontier Power; Rob Davenport, Chairman, ***SUNGEVITY and Lyndon Rive, Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, SolarCity
    ** Presented by Chevron: California’s DOERS do a lot of flying. As one of the state’s top suppliers of aviation fuel, we help millions of Californians get where they’re going. **

    2009: From Greenpeace To Green Power: Sungevity CEO Danny Kennedy (Part 1 of 7)
    Danny Kennedy: Greenpeace is unique in that it has an incredibly trusted brand and is well known. Even if you do not like it you know the brand, and it has a hell of a fund-raising machine.
    SM: What years did that work encompass?
    DK: I did that from 1993 through 2007.
    SM: You left very recently!
    DK: I left Greenpeace to start Sungevity.
    (from Part 2 link) KENNEDY: I happen to be very close to the solar industry because I have been an advocate and champion of it for a long time. ***Greenpeace in many ways has created markets for it through its policy setting and campaign work. I knew a lot of the players, and I knew the way the industry was developing…
    SM: Does San Francisco provide a rebate from the city or from the utilities?
    DK: They provide it from a dedicated municipal rebate fund. It is unusually high and rich and has been brought down a bit. There are other cities around the state that do it simpler. There is also a California state rebate and a federal tax credit. In the stimulus environment that could be converted to a tax refund, almost like a cash grant…

      • in the piece – “From Greenpeace To Green Power: Sungevity CEO Danny Kennedy” – where Kennedy claimed Greenpeace helped to create the solar market, he also said: “I knew a lot of the players”.

        would he be referring to any of the following:

        13 May: Bloomberg: Stefan Nicola: E.ON to Expand Solar Sales in Germany in Tie-Up With Sungevity
        The U.S. developer (Sungevity) also has sales and marketing relationships with the Sierra Club, home-improvement store chain Lowe’s Cos Inc. and General Electric Co.

        April 2014: Bloomberg: Justin Doom: Sungevity Receives $70 Million From Investors Including EON, GE
        Sungevity Inc., a closely held developer of rooftop systems, received $70 million from a group of investors including E.ON SE and General Electric Co. to expand in Europe and Australia…
        Jetstream Capital LLC led the funding round. It was the first investment from EON, the largest utility in Germany. General Electric, the world’s largest maker of power-generation equipment, had invested previously.
        Sungevity now has raised more than $200 million…

        23 July: Huffington Post: Katherine Boehrer: Solar Company Sungevity Raises $1.5 Million For Nonprofit Partners
        The company’s partnership program,, works with nonprofit organizations to raise money for their causes while encouraging their members to choose Sungevity for their solar installations. Sungevity has now donated more than $1.5 million to nonprofits ranging from the Sierra Club and Save the Frogs to schools and science centers…
        “Every home that we get to go solar, Sungevity gives us $750 back,” said Sierra Club Chief of Staff Jesse Simons said in a promotional video. “This has been a great revenue-generating tool for the Sierra Club.”…


      • So what? Greenpeace teaches it’s members how to milk the subsidy cows that it helped create. How does that benefit anyone but Greenpeacers?

      • The above is all cut & paste garbage, designed to confuse and discombobulate readers. The schemes which are reported on, might provide however a handy list of names for the FBI to include in their investigations into money laundering allegations made against Greenpeace and their compadres.

    • How many Green$Please members dropped out after the Peru debacle? I’ll bet they can be counted on one hand. When you are saving the earth, you’re the Slick Willy of racketeers.

      • When you are saving the earth, you’re the Slick Willy of racketeers.

        love it !!
        Where I’m from, A Slick Willy means premature ejaculation.

      • 1saveenergy,

        I believe that was part of the double meaning behind giving former President Clinton the nickname “Slick Willy”. The put down was implied while also being a straight play on his given name with the fact the man seems to be able to get away with anything.

  17. Greenpeace is one the many eco terrorist outfits for hire. They are all funded through big foundations like Tides and the Oak foundation. Who act as money launders for vested interests who don’t want to be identified. In the link below is an example list of eco outfits and money they’ve received. Many times these foundations will pass money from one to another before it finally goes to the outfit it’s intended for. To try and make it harder to trace.

  18. There is zero chance of the FBI doing anything as long as a Democrat sits in the White House. Just look at Lois Lerner and the IRS. Flagrant violations of the law are written off with a comfy retirement package.

  19. There’s an old joke:

    A mathematician, an engineer, and a statistician are all interviewed for the same job. Each of them are brought into the boss’s office individually and asked only one question.

    The mathematician comes in and is asked “what is 2 + 2?” To which he answers “obviously it’s 4”

    The engineer is asked the same question. “Well it’s hard to say for sure, I’d have to make a few calculations, draw up some graphs. Let me get back to you in about a week.”

    Finally, the statistician is brought in.

    “What’s 2 + 2?”

    The statistician then casually closes all the blinds in the room and slyly asks “what do you want it to be?”

    Greenpeace was obviously trying to trap Dr. Happer into acting like the statistician in the above joke.

    Dr. Happer was very clear that he would state opinions that he had already publicly stated. He also said that he would do it for a charitable donation. He is clearly not a gun-for-hire and did not fall into the proffered trap.

    • The way I heard it, the one who asked “what do you want it to be” was an economist. Statistics is all about taking seriously Cromwell’s message to the Long Parliament: “Consider it possible that you may be wrong.”

    • There is an article in a midwestern sociology journal (one author was Ditto, IIRC) that made the assumption that if a climate contrarian had any relationship with a climate-skeptic think-tank, he was a shill. Even if the association occurred after the contrarian had already expressed those views. For instance, it put Aaron Wildavsky, author of But Is It True? in this category, because of his association with the Independent Institute.

      The other weak point in this article’s logic was its assumption that any association, regardless of how minor, was incriminating. This is a natural assumption for a fervent leftist, especially a sociologist (people are pawns of powers), but it’s a stretcher applied to the real world.

      The third smear is glossing over the details of what dollar amounts these associations involve–presumably because they are so piddling. Travel expenses? Speaker’s fees? Reprint fees (for articles in think tank journals)? Commissioned article fees? Fees for serving on a board of advisors? Only the latter might amount to something large (five figures).

      Nevertheless, it’s a good bet that Ditto, the midwestern journal, its readership, and those who have read the citation of the article as scientifically establishing that climate sceptic scientists are all shills (something I’ve read confidently asserted by a couple warmist know-it-alls) all swallow this unthinkingly and yearn for MOAR.

  20. greenpiss, one of the worst types of corporates,for that is what they now are. run for the benefit of a few by manipulating the useful idiots that support and fund them.

  21. …imagine the sheer stupidity of campaigning against one of the elements in the periodic table

    Well they really should start campaigning against gravity which is highly discriminatory against out of shape people, old people and toddlers learning to walk. How many toddlers must smash their heads against coffee tables before countries across the world step in and do something. Greenpeace must immediately demand that we start blowing off chunks of the earth into space so as to reduce Earths mass and thereby the gravity burden so many have to bear.

  22. Oh please, please let this happen. I’ve been waiting for someone with real credibility to take down Greenpi$$

  23. This is just a simple case of money. Green thieves livlihood and ultimately its existence are being threatened. If people knew they are no longer needed and in fact are irrelevant, well, that woukd make the green thieves very upset indeed. Good for this fellow to speak up. It never is good to see the monster created out of benevolence and good intentions raze the village.

  24. It does feel good when intelligent people with scientific backgrounds actually fire back at the lowlife fostering the CAGW hoax.

  25. “This was the arrangement I had with the attorneys representing the Peabody Coal Company in the regulatory hearings in Minnesota. ”

    Bill Of Rights United States Constitution

    Amendment VI
    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

    Before Greenpeace gets to excited in their lust to prove scientist are in coal or oil companies’ pockets, they might “Pause” and reflect that in any type of hearing with the Government the entities being questioned have the right to seek out witnesses on in their own defense. Or to have them summoned.

    Note Dr Will Happer was working for the Attorneys representing the Peabody Coal. Witness tampering (again) anyone?


  26. Pot, Kettle, and monumental Irony.
    In a report on the climate promoters’ attack industry, you can see why they call themselves “green”:

    Dollar amounts: Foundation Search databank and IRS Forms 990

    The assets behind the Search and Destroy Workshop’s three sponsors is more than
    half a billion dollars, $601,443,379, according to 2013 Forms 990.

    • Kann Rasmussen Foundation $89,261,719;
    • Mertz Gilmore Foundation $125,045,056;
    • Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment $394,136,609.

    Combined with the assets behind the many funders of all the Workshop’s participants,
    the financial clout represented here is many billions of dollars.

    Add to this many tens of billions from government agencies, all directed to support the party line,
    and you have a fiscal juggernaut that is behind an industrial campaign of public indoctrination.
    Woe to those who get in the way.

  27. The irony is wonderful. At a Senate Comittee investigating the manipulation of data, gatekeeping and enforcement by climate mullahs on dissent, you have a Greenpeace goon seeking to compromise and manipulate witness testimony. This should be part of the committee minutes and investigation. It is the kind of thing that happened to Willie Soon, and other victims of the clime syndicate (a Steynism) intimidation and threats. But a live “walk on” enforcer is priceless.

  28. Listen up people, greenpeace are a subversive organisation in India and have been banned by that Goverment and had its bank accounts frozen as I believe, a Marxist fraud wagon of monkeys.

  29. Wow! Thank you Patrick for [finally] starting to give the GreenP*$$ s the hell it certainly has deserved and counting. Hopefully, the FBI + poss. other authorities will perform proper and unbiased, detailed investigations, ie. the like they’re performing vs the FIFA etCons.

    Looking forward to learning of the further progress in this vital matter.

    Sharing this here in Sweden.

  30. Reblogged this on Norah4you's Weblog and commented:
    Please note following from the bloggarticle:

    The organization I co-founded has become a monster. When I was a member of its central committee in the early days, we campaigned – usually with success – on genuine environmental issues such as atmospheric nuclear tests, whaling and seal-clubbing.

    When Greenpeace turned anti-science by campaigning against chlorine (imagine the sheer stupidity of campaigning against one of the elements in the periodic table), I decided that it had lost its purpose and that, having achieved its original objectives, had turned to extremism to try to justify its continued existence.

    Now Greenpeace has knowingly made itself the sworn enemy of all life on Earth. By opposing capitalism, it stands against the one system of economics that has been most successful in regulating and restoring the environment.

    By opposing the use of DDT inside the homes of children exposed to the anopheles mosquito that carries malaria, Greenpeace contributed to the deaths of 40 million people and counting, most of them children. It now pretends it did not oppose DDT, but the record shows otherwise. On this as on so many issues, it got the science wrong. It has the deaths of those children on what passes for its conscience.

    I have written a Swedish bloggarticle regarding Greenpeace not being a Goverment of the World not an elected Parlament or any kind of Official Administration: Greenpeace ingen världsregering

    Greenpeace is not what they try to tell the World.

  31. Major policy influence within the UNFCCC and the IPCC has been achieved by Dr Bill Hare, Greenpeace Director of Climate Policy (at least until 2008 or 2010) who, since 2002, has been a “visiting scientist” at the German Potsdam Institute for Climate Change Impacts, on “sabbatical” from Greenpeace, although his name has now been removed from the Potsdam staff pages. Whilst there he was attached to Stefan Rahmstorf’s department.

    He is currently running an outfit called Climate Analytics,, which he started whilst still at Potsdam with funding from the Grman Federal Government. It was based at Potsdam, but he now operates out of offices in Berlin, shared with another outfit which he is responsible for creating, Climate Action Tracker, is monitoring the “promises” from nations,

    He has been a contributor to IPCC reports since the Second Assessment and was a Lead Author and co-writer of the Synthesis Report and Summary for AR4. He is a member of Working Group II AR5 Writing Teams Part A “Global and Sectoral Aspects, Ch. 1 — Point of departure.”

    Bill Hare was operating for the IPCC and for Greenpeace and the Climate Action Network all at the same time, over many years, writing and co-writing IPCC documents which are the basis for current global pronouncements on emissions and climate.

    The image link,, shows this “IPCC Senior Scientist”, author for AR5, Lead Author in AR4, and co-writer of the Synthesis Report, sporting his Civil Society credentials as a member of Climate Action International, at the 28th Session of the UNFCCC Subsidiary Bodies and Sessions of the AWGs (Ad Hoc Working Group), 2-13 June 2008, Bonn, Germany.

    He has an honorary doctorate from Murdoch University in Australia,

    Part of the citation says: “Since 1992 he has been Climate Policy Director of Greenpeace International and led its contribution to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and Kyoto Protocol negotiations. Mr Hare has also been an expert reviewer and contributor to the assessment processes of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since its inception.”

  32. The FBI, like the rest of the justice department is a wholly owned subsidiary of the current administration.
    Don’t expect any justice from them.

  33. Can’t wait to hear Mark Steyn’s comments on this. Thanks Patrick for your efforts to put a stop to the madness.

  34. The original Greenpeace entrapment story on Facebook has 438,000 likes.Search “greenpeace investigation” People here need to make more of
    a presence on Facebook.

  35. I’ve been correcting over and over the slander put up by the activists on Dr. Happer’s wiki page today and have now received warning that I’ll be blocked if I continue to do so. Have emailed Wikipedia about the issue but would welcome a few more people doing the same.

  36. ”Greenpeace has made itself the sworn enemy of all life on Earth” – said Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace.

    Greenpeace has made itself the enemy of open benevolent society and has accepted malevolence as it planned mental state.


  37. I happened to catch part of a PBS (the public/private TV network in the US) report from Paris that Dr. Happer had been caught trying to hide the source of his funding. I don’t usually pay any attention to them because they have such biased reporting, but a false report like this will be used against skeptics for years as proof that they are all funded by Exxon Mobil and are willing to conspire to conceal the truth. It will be stated right along with the 97% claim.
    To liberals, at least in the US, the ends justifies the means, any means necessary. Lying is perfectly acceptable to them and whenever confronted with a lie they got caught telling, they just brush it off by saying “everybody lies”.

    • Carl I sincerely support what you’ve said, but I believe it’s past time to stop calling these people liberals. They call themselves liberals, there’s absolutely no reason anyone else should. In fact, I think it’s time we made a point of not calling them liberals.

      I’m a liberal. I was a liberal before the “Progressive” party stopped calling themselves Marxists and decided “Progressive” was more acceptable in the US.

      There’s nothing liberal about their politics or their behavior. I won’t lecture anyone on the meaning of the word, but it continues to irritate me ever time I hear someone use the term to refer to them. I’m actually proud to be a liberal and I don’t appreciate being tossed under the bus by the likes of these useless blood sucking parasites.

      I’m accepting nominations for a new and more descriptive name for them. I suggest “pond scum”.

      • Seconded.. The two corners of this argument are authoritarian vs egalitarian. The left / right divide is, and always was, a means of stifling dissent – a cattle prod brandished by activists and profiteers in order to keep the faithful from straying too far, lest they be branded gun toting oil brand loving xenophobic rednecks.

  38. There are examples aplenty of the malevolent and racketeering character of todays so-called Green organizations that used to be a revered and earnest ‘conservation and natural history’ movement so wonderfully signified by the footsteps and words of people like Thoreau, Muir, and more. More than a few of us, like Patrick Moore, have left those organizations in disgust at their methods and mania that has transformed them into money-making machines via their ubiquitous ‘donate here’ buttons. They have forsaken good science for spin mastered sound bites and ‘direct action’ photo ops that sell via social media.

    However just because there is despicable profiteering by greens under the flag of climate change does not mean everything about that issue is false. CO2 indeed is a major crisis to our natural world, first and foremost it impacts the oceans that are 70% of this blue planet. Long before the conflated crisis of climate change forces people to walk uphill away from rising seas those seas will have become so changed that people may have long chosen to be as far away from them as possible as their ecology shifts towards seas of fetid slime.

    Like my old friend and business partner Patrick I have taken a path away from Greenpeace and its ilk but remaining true to caring for Mother Nature. Take for example my work to develop and deliver ocean pasture restoration as a means to grow more plants in the natural world. It’s like restoring trees only in the seas which cover nearly ten times the area of this planet as forests. My proven technology that is simple, safe, sustainable and immediately deployable has been banned from the agenda at the Paris COP21 meeting simply because at a cost of just a few million dollars per year it can manage billions of tonnes of the worlds menacing CO2. That is the lions share of the CO2 crisis repurposed into ocean life itself for a tiny fraction of 1% of the climate/carbon taxes being sought by the tens of thousands attending the Paris pork fest. No wonder it is so vigorously opposed, a new disruptive technology ready for global deployment to save the planet from the lions share of the CO2 problem at a cost too cheap to meter.

    • “CO2 indeed is a major crisis to our natural world, first and foremost it impacts the oceans that are 70% of this blue planet.”

      Nainoa, the planet is in fact starved for lack of carbon dioxide. But do you have any evidence to support your above referenced assertion?

    • “Nainoa Mariner

      December 9, 2015 at 12:39 pm

      …true to caring for Mother Nature.”

      What? This rock we live on has no concept of what “Mother Nature” is! That is a silly human construct. This rock is just that, a rock with a bit of “air” and a bit of water and a bit of soil that does have life forms on it. Many life forms have come, and many more have gone. It would, and can, destroy all life on it in an instant. This rock cares not for us! So, why should we care for mother nature?

  39. Promotes the typical Believers STRAWMAN meme,”deniers are making up lies because they are paid to lie by big oil money.Bla Bla Bla …same tactics as tobacco companies”
    Echoed by the media the average person buys it.The averge person doesnt realize the government spent $80 Billion and big oil is falsely represented to offer a few hundred per hour.

  40. Fess up first Happer did make a 1% error. Alhough of course there are mountains of real quality evidence challenging the alarmist claims and that shouts of “Big Oil Conspiracy” are just a lame excuse to dismiss them all, instead of tackle them in rational argument, we know they play by Alinsky rules and will use any old trick, but skeptics have to be whiter that white.

    Surely the only dirt that GP really have is Happer saying this ?

    ..he did not think there would be any problem stating that “The author received no financial compensation for this essay”

    ..when strictly speaking the report could have added “a charitable donation was made instead” (or left both phrases off). The report would probably be treated the same by the reader. I’d ask for the former, but it’s the kind of thing where if someone pushed you you’d say OK “It’s strictly true I received no fee”.

    No one in the real world thinks that scientist spends hours writing and receives no favour. Indeecd I have seen essays on The Conversation, where in the conflict of interest box they declare none, but when you go to their CV you find one.

    A 99% error would be if Happer came out with his authentic report and then the client said “oh it’s not alarmist for us, we’ve rewritten it, you just sign here and we’ll handover a big pile of $$$”, and he agreed to that. That, that would be corruption !

    In the real world you can hire a consultants/scientists and choose your scientist by reputation. Then when he/she writes the kind of report they have a reputation for without cheating with the data that isn’t corruption.

    So Greenpeace are making a big deal of the $8,000 Peabody paid over to charity for Happer’s week of court work..but where’s the rest if GP says bigoil has been paying skeptics billions ?

  41. So what you got Greenpeace :?
    #1 Proof that Climate Alarmism is the “one true dogma” and that challenge only arises cos there is a huge conspiracy of big oil ?
    …Or #2 at least proof of an evil denier scientist who only writes pages of arguments pointing out flaws in CAGW arguments cos he lives the high life on a continuous feed of BigOil dollars ?
    That would be a pretty big story..making a big splash, wouldn’t it ?

    But NO all you’ve got is a scientist who says he’ll agree to write a report with a note written on the front saying “The author received no financial compensation for this essay” omitting to say that his fee went to his favourite charity instead. Wow how many years do you get in jail for that ? Oh, none cos everyone assumes that when scientists write a report they receive something out of it like prestige, awards, networking, favours somehow etc.

    Not to worry, tabloid journalist know the trick is to keep up the momentum and run the small story as if the big one has been proved and 9 times out of 10 you’ll get away with it without being flattened for libel, cos the justice system isn’t very just. It seems that is what GP have done. You can print any old story demonising the-foreigners/the-enemy and your supporters will lap it up..whereas the target won’t have the power to do anything about it

    The Greenpeace story does seem libelous and defamatory as it unjustly damages Happer with claims bigger than the evidence.
    “he was secretly taking money from the fossil fuel industry” he wasn’t so that’s libel.
    He didn’t receive a dime his favourite charity has received $8,000 and the donation was allowed to be secret under the rules just the same as GP have anonymous donors.
    I’m pretty sure that similar libels are now floating about ..It would be just to see the BBC take a hit

    The RICO idea, is interesting. As that legal way with the government paying the costs is stronger than the libel way.
    GP in their haste clearly conspired to break rules

  42. What about agreeing to keeping the funder’s name off the report ? Happer may have seemed to do that ,
    as shown in the email exchange ..not yet deleted from the Greenpeace archive dump.
    – I guess Happer will face a long jail sentence for that NOT ..It is an era of intimidation of skeptic funders,Iit was a Middle East client..and I am sure Green optimism reports funded by some Green energy association are funded ultimately by subsidy farm corps.

    INTIMIDATION : I think that ultimately is what the Greenpeace (peace ? sic ) operation was about. Sending a message to other scientist, “You talk to skeptics and we’ll hound you as well..It’s not worth it”..With activists in Paris putting “cancelled stickers” over Skeptic event posters, plastering walls with “wanted evil” posters and then having the gore to claim violation of free speech when they are asked to leave a meeting ( that they are likely to there to disrupt).

    • ‘Having the gore’ … excellent!

      ‘Sergeant, you got a lot of god-damned gall to ask me if I’ve rehabilitated myself!’

  43. I left GP for the same reasons as Patrick Moore & at about the same time. It had been taken over by a group of violent Trotskyites who had little or no interest in the environment but saw GP as a ready made organisation full of nice if naive people wiling to risk themselves for the planet who therefore were easily duped .
    Sadly they have been very successful but do almost nothing ‘for the planet’.

  44. Feh. I am NOT impressed by Moore’s about-face.

    Greenpeace was ALWAYS a Red front. Greenpeace was ALWAYS a criminal conspiracy. Greenpeace was ALWAYS a terrorist conspiracy.

    This is like the guy who plays piano in the whorehouse and tells the cops “I’m shocked, SHOCKED, to learn that prostitution was taking place on the premises!”

    • No it wasn’t, the first years were OK until it was infiltrated, at that point I left at around the same time as Patrick.
      Sounds like you weren’t there, you just mouth off with your belief but no knowledge, just like a warmist does.

Comments are closed.