Dr. Patrick Moore was right: @Greenpeace IS full of sh*t

I’ve never had a headline like this, but Greenpeace deserves it for their mind-bending defense in a defamation lawsuit: basically their defense is “we publish hyperbole, therefore it isn’t actionable because it isn’t factual”. GMAFB!

Dr. Patrick Moore, one of the co-founders of Greenpeace, whom they have tried to erase from their website, resigned from the organization because:

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.

Source: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/08/breaking-greenpeace-co-founder-reports-greenpeace-to-the-fbi-under-rico-and-wire-fraud-statutes/

Get a load of this:


Greenpeace Claims Immunity from Lawsuits Because Its Claims Are ‘Hyperbole’

But when Greenpeace had to answer for its actions in court, the group wasn’t so sure it could defend its claims. In fact, they admitted those claims had no merit. As Resolute’s President and CEO Richard Garneau explained in a recent op-ed,

A funny thing happened when Greenpeace and allies were forced to account for their claims in court. They started changing their tune. Their condemnations of our forestry practices “do not hew to strict literalism or scientific precision,” as they concede in their latest legal filings. Their accusations against Resolute were instead “hyperbole,” “heated rhetoric,” and “non-verifiable statements of subjective opinion” that should not be taken “literally” or expose them to any legal liability. These are sober admissions after years of irresponsible attacks.  (emphasis added)

No “forest loss” was caused by Resolute, the groups concede — now that they are being held accountable.

As the Financial Post also reported,

But now Greenpeace says it never intended people to take its words about Resolute’s logging practices as literal truth.

“The publications’ use of the word “Forest Destroyer,” for example, is obvious rhetoric,” Greenpeace writes in its motion to dismiss the Resolute lawsuit. “Resolute did not literally destroy an entire forest. It is of course arguable that Resolute destroyed portions of the Canadian Boreal Forest without abiding by policies and practices established by the Canadian government and the Forest Stewardship Council, but that is the point: The “Forest Destroyer” statement cannot be proven true or false, it is merely an opinion.”

In other words, Greenpeace is admitting that it relies on “non-verifiable statements of subjective opinion,” and because its claims are not meant to be factual, the group believes it cannot be held legally responsible for what it says.

Notably, Greenpeace has been actively pushing for legal action against ExxonMobil, alleging the company “knew” about climate change in the 1970s and 1980s before the world’s top scientists had come to any solid conclusions. When the Rockefeller-funded InsideClimate News and Columbia School of Journalism produced their #ExxonKnew hit pieces, Greenpeace immediately called for the Department of Justice to investigate ExxonMobil, saying,

The Department of Justice should open a federal investigation immediately and hold the company legally accountable for misleading the public, lawmakers, and investors about the impacts of climate change. A DOJ investigation should be broad and look into the role of other fossil fuel companies, trade associations, and think tanks in sowing doubt about the risks of climate change.” (emphasis added)

Greenpeace claims it cannot be sued because its misleading claims were not meant to be factual, but it then claims the U.S. Department of Justice needs to investigate an energy company for what it calls “misleading the public.”

It will come as no surprise that Greenpeace is also funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and Rockefeller Family Fund, the same groups that have been bankrolling #ExxonKnew every step of the way.

Representatives from Greenpeace were in attendance at a secret strategy meeting in January 2016, held at the Rockefeller Family Fund offices in New York, where the activists met to brainstorm how “to establish in public’s mind that Exxon is a corrupt institution,” “delegitimize them as a political actor,” and “force officials to disassociate themselves from Exxon.”

A former member of Greenpeace’s Board of Directors, Kenny Bruno, last year tweeted,

“I don’t want to abolish Exxon. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”

If it wasn’t already abundantly obvious, these latest developments just go to show how much credulity Greenpeace has.

Source: https://energyindepth.org/national/greenpeace-claims-immunity-from-lawsuits-because-its-claims-are-hyperbole/


I hope Resolute takes these eco-clowns for every penny they have and they get shut down. Like the case won against Gawker for defamation, they deserve it.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Bill Yarber

Greenpeace is an Eco-terrorist organization and should be forced to disband and compensate ALL those they have slandered or harmed financially, emotionally or professionally!

Bryan A

Naw, they just keep forgetting their “/SARC” tags at the end of their Hyperbole.
HMMM
Perhaps they can be held liable then

Bryan A

Perhaps a good $$$$$$$$$ 9 or 10 figure spanking is in order

Caligula Jones

Its all fun and games until someone loses an eye. Or brings a lawyer…

BTW, ““hyperbole,” “heated rhetoric,” and “non-verifiable statements of subjective opinion” that should not be taken “literally” sounds like Mark Steyn’s entire defence.

MarkW

Steyn is a satarist. That’s how he makes his living.

Santa Baby

Greenpeace was talen over by leftist with The idea of “domination of Nature”. With other words Nature has become a surrogate for the working class that did not rise up and make revolution?

Leo Smith

That, Santa Baby, is very perceptive. It has been noted that at the time (late 60s) the Left intellectuals finally espoused the Working Class as fellow revolutionaries, the Working Class basically ceased to exist.

Greenpeace is relied on by the BBC for a lot of its fake environmental news stories. If Greenpeace disbanded, the BBC would only have FoE and WWF (and a hundred or so other econut organisations) for its fake environmental news stories.

Brent Hargreaves

On the Bishop Hill site a petition to rescind the BBC’s charter is gathering momuntum. At 10,000 signatures it has to go before Parliament. Some say that BBC stands for Bolshevik Brainwashing Corporation!

MarkW

Get rid of the whole TV tax nonsense. The government should never be in the business of funding or regulation “news”.

President Trump should declare it a criminal organization, which it has become.

Patrick Moore: Worldwide Mass Extinction in 2 million Years Because of Low CO2 :

As recently as 18,000 years ago, at the height of the most recent major glaciation, CO2 dipped to its lowest level in recorded history at 180 ppm, low enough to stunt plant growth. This is only 30 ppm above a level that would result in the death of plants due to CO2 starvation. It is calculated that if the decline in CO2 levels were to continue at the same rate as it has over the past 140 million years, life on Earth would begin to die as soon as two million years [or much sooner actually] from now and would slowly perish almost entirely as carbon continued to be lost to the deep ocean sediments.
~
The point: at each period after an inter-glacial the CO2 level is dropping lower and lower, and soon it will drop to levels where nearly everything will die.

Patrick Moore explain the coming apocalypse caused by low CO2 in the video below:

Human CO2 Emissions are Wholly Beneficial – Dr. Moore:

tabnumlock

CO2 never drops much below 200ppm because as plants start to die, CO2 is released. This is the first time in earth’s history it has ever reached this “floor”. During the only other CO2 crash at the end of the Carboniferous, it got down to 400ppm. The average CO2 level in the later Phanerozoic is about 2,000ppm. It provided lots of munchies for the dinosaurs.

Yes. The issue is sea-shelled creatures extracting carbon from the atmosphere. In the past volcanic sources have been adequate to replenish that, but no longer (the earth is cooling and hence less volcanic activity).

So it got down to 180ppm last time, and the trend shows it going to ~ 160ppm the next time, and then below that. This is bordering on complete end of the world apocalypse. Literally, at least as far as most all plant and thus animal life.

Evidence of plants being stressed out from CO2 starvation is found in juniper fossils recovered from the La Brea Tar Pits during the last glaciation: http://www.pnas.org/content/102/3/690.full?sid=5e3bdf35-c2a6-4fe7-b336-eea3917571f2

Latitude

exactly….CO2 was not being replaced at the rate it was being depleted

Geoff Sherrington

ES,
Please examine time scales and global cooling and try to be more accurate. Nobody serious is linking events like volcanic activity to short-term cooling that is, say, shorter than a few thousand years. Required temperature change of globe remains unkown.

schitzree

Geoff, I think you might have misunderstood Eric’s point. I believe he was talking about how the Earths CORE is slowly cooling, and thus there is less energy to drive Volcanism which releases CO2.

Personally I’ve wondered before if this might be one more reason why intelligent life seems to be so rare in the universe. If we lived on a less tectonicly active world CO2 would have fallen permanently below extinction level long before humans came to be. And that’s just one of thousands of knifeblade balancing acts and longshots that was needed to come out just right to get to were we are today.

It’s one reason I choose to believe in a creator. Because the alternative is that we just happen to be one planet in hundreds of trillions that happened to keep rolling critical successes for a billion years. And you know our luck is going to break eventually. ○¿○

Geoff Sherrington

I do not see serious climate-related research linking volcanic activity with cooling of the core of the earth. No doubt there is some early work in progress, but matters such as volcano or earthquake prediction are not often seen in general climate reading. The fundamentals are far from settled.
Geoff

John@EF

Patrick Moore calling anyone “full of sh*t” is textbook irony.

MarkW

There goes the leftist, insulting those who dare to disagree with the narrative.
When you can’t refute, insult. It’s the leftwing way.

Steve R

Perhaps humans purpose on earth is solely to liberate trapped hydrocarbons and replenish the atmosphere for the higher life forms such as trees.

Tom Halla

Damn pity the law does not allow action against Greenpeace’s funders. The Rockefeller Family Funds have serious money, and use in seriously malevolent ways. Or can it? RICO the green blob?

Taphonomic
Joe Crawford

The RICO case “… alleges that the defendants utilized a large network of corrupt officials, pseudo-scientists, media front groups, and “marketing accessories,” all operating under complete control or undue influence of the defendants, to spread misinformation about the climate.” I could see a Lubbock, TX jury agreeing with that!

If you recall Rockefeller tried to create a false narrative that electric lighting and wiring was going to kill hundreds in the late 1800’s. All so he could keep his precious oil/kerosene business running.
It is in their DNA!

TH, the US RICO case appears extendable to ‘coconspirators which would include complicit funders. Issue of ‘conspiracy knowledge’ requiring probably email discovery.

johnfpittman

The law does allow it. The Klu Klux Klan was financially broken when the suits went against those who funded their activities. They took farms, land, and businesses. I watched it here in South Carolina. That is how they broke its back.

Streetcred

Charging every office holder for sedition would be more gratifying!

Chris

Sedition? Good grief.

Streetcred

Yes, sedition as commonly described in Wikipedia: “Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel.”

Streetcred

LOL

RockyRoad

Yes, Sedition, Chris. Let me guess: you were brainwashed in some Liberal Monolith of “Higher Education” by Marxist/Socialist anti-Capitalist Progressives commonly known as Democrats–am I right?

The worm has turned and traditional America is back: You can see the Left’s completely demonic campaign against Sessions as an indication of their fear of being discovered as criminals and their hatred for the rule of law.

From your short but revealing comment, you’re probably anti-Sessions, too!

One would hope that articles such as this will destroy any credibility Greenpeace still has.

MarkW

It would, if these articles were ever published by the MSM.

CheshireRed

MarkW….the UK Guardian has been running with the ‘Exxon Knew’ story for a while. Obviously they’re viciously activist with it. If Greenpeace cop for a fall they’ll have to publish. Having said that I haven’t seen the latest Greenpeace admission in the Guardian yet. There’s a surprise.

Oldseadog

And that, Mark, is the biggest problem of all.

MarkW

The Supreme Court has carved out a “sarcasm” exception to libel. This is for speech that is obviously not intended to be taken as truth.
For GreenPeace to try and use the hyperbole defense means that they never intended for their statements to be taken seriously by anyone.

Tom Halla

Mark, you forgot the same thing I did in my comment–this is a Canadian case, without the US rules on libel or US law in general. As far as I know, Canadian law on libel is closer to British rules.

MarkW

From my limited understanding of British libel rules, winning a settlement should be even easier than it is in the US.

Chris Hanley

I think they are being sued in the US District Court for the Southern District of Georgia.

This is not a Canadian case. It’s a RICO case filed in the Southern District of Georgia.

“The complaint included federal racketeering claims and racketeering, trademark, defamation and tortious interference claims under Georgia law.” Interesting reading: Resolute v Greenpeace.

Sorry, I’m wrong. There are two cases. Libel in Canada and RICO in the US.

Tom Halla

Thank you. I hadn’t seen any coverage of either case in the general media or online, and all I was going on was the post.

Doug in Calgary

In Canada the MSM always calls on some Greenpeace nimrod for an environmental impact statement instead of someone who might have some actual knowledge about what they’re talking about… they would never consider talking to an actual scientist.

Geoff Sherrington

International defamation laws do differ by country and are ever changing. Here Down Under we used to have frustrating corporate meetings about how to stop green NGOs from trashing reputations, but in the olden days precedents included a case where an actor was paid to supposedly find a rat tail in a restaurant’s meat pie.
Much clearer precedents now in Australia since a High Court judgement in 2007 IIRC.
It continues to dismay me that defamation damage cases are not prosecuted very actively by major corporations. At some stage you have to get some guts and take a stand for honesty.
Geoff

There are two cases, not one. See comment below.

The likely problem with that is their parallel use of these “sarcastic” comments to raise money. They can’t have it both ways – if they were “just kidding” about their accusations, by using the same charges to do fundraising, they are open to charges of fraud. Because of the widespread nature of their campaigning, it is a federal crime, at least here in the US. Will be interesting to see how they try to wriggle out of this one…

TP, yup. Greenpeace is hooked on the horns of a BIG dilemma.

Alan Robertson

This action against Greenpeace is happening at the state level, but the invisible hands on the tiller grip even tighter at the national level. This can be viewed as just one more reason that there is such a vociferous campaign against new US AG Jeff Sessions.

Streetcred

So they’re also saying that their fund raising is fraudulent ?

MarkW

I missed that aspect. Their defense against libel is to plead guilty of fraud. How interesting.

For GreenPeace to try and use the hyperbole defense means that they never intended for their statements to be taken seriously by anyone.

… which seems to support the proposition that GreenPeace is a joke. I can accept that defense, as long as they start including clown makeup, slide whistles and other devices that give clear indications that a joke is being put forth in their utterances.

comment image

Reblogged this on Peddling and Scaling God and Darwin and commented:
I am not keen on this blog Wattsupwiththat as it is too close to GWPF and climate change denial for my liking . However I would suggest that Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth actually feed these views with their unreasonable and inaccurate claims.

Though I am well to the left of both Moore and Wattsup, this blog makes some excellent points.

I also reckon GP and FoE actually damage the environmental cause both by their stridency and dishonesty.

I hope no one raps my knuckles for re-blogging this

MarkW

Pointing out that the impact of CO2 is proven to be very small is too close to “climate change denial”?
Or are you one of those people who feels that the opinions of the most extreme poster must be the official position of the blog itself?

Stay safe – your life is about to become VERY interesting. In the ancient Chinese curse sense…

You are about to encounter the complete lack of tolerance when you dispute the words of your Masters.

jorgekafkazar

There is no such curse. If there were, it would be really dumb, since the cursor lives in the same times as the cursee.

Sigh. Of course not. (The actual wording is attributed to Austen Chamberlain these days – a mis-transcription of one of his father’s phrases.)

However, there is the ancient Chinese “proverb” – “寧為太平犬,莫做亂離人”.

It is always dangerous to decide to be a human in war, rather than a dog in peace. Especially when you decide to annoy the Church of Marx – which attacks the heretic, but will absolutely destroy the apostate.

Joe Crawford

Even if it wasn’t originally an ancient Chinese curse, I still like it. It just depends on your meaning of “interesting times”. I doubt anyone would argue that we are not currently living in “interesting times”. And, some consider it a curse while others consider it a blessing.

MarkW

Interesting times in one region may be dull in another.

Regardless, it’s interesting how you assume that those of here are as intolerant as the average warmist.
More projection no doubt.

Eh? I was applauding the gentleman. The life of a Leftist who exhibits even the slightest grasp of reality is never easy. The other sharks are always waiting.

No, he won’t get flack here on WUWT – Anthony and the moderators are very prompt at spanking the few brats that wander in and sending them home to their mommies.

I’d be interested in a follow up, actually – but the poor man is probably too busy trying to keep his own blog from burning to the ground as the mob of his (former) friends throws the torches.

Alan Ranger

“Though I am well to the left of both Moore and Wattsup…”

Left, right, inside-out, upside-down … this site is primarily concerned with evidence and REAL science.
Sounds like you’re in the wrong place – you need some kind of political activist blog with lots of hot air to share around.

Stephen Richards

+1000

George Tetley

Alan Ranger
another +1,000

John Harmsworth

Exactly! I’m no right wing fanatic nor am I a socialist. Those tired old labels just betray locked in mentalities. I come here for a more objective take on a critical scientific issue for society. It is,unfortunately obvious that the field has become corrupted and the truth obscured by activists, opportunists, liars and politicians.

Retired Kit P

@4004

Well written but stupid. Defining environmental position based on political position is stupid. The ‘left’ has co-oped environmental causes without bothering to do the hard work and learn how to protect the environmental. The prefer glitter over substance.

Since I worked in nuclear power, I have a big problems with GP. I have a big problem with anyone or any group that can justify violence against me or my family. If you want to find 500 people dedicated to protecting the environment and knowledgeable about how to do it go to a nuclear power plant.

u.k.(us)

Something about wallowing with pigs, getting dirty, and besides the pigs like it.

Best not to make a habit of it 🙂
But it sure can be fun.

BCBill

Have you seen the bigger piggies
In their starched white shirts?
You will find the bigger piggies
Stirring up the dirt
Always have clean shirts to play around in

It does not matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”

Paul Watson (a Greenpeace founder) attributes this quote to Dr. Patrick Moore, another Greenpeace founder, in 1981. Others have attributed it to Paul Watson or to David McTaggert (yet another founder of Greenpeace). Either way it was frequently said by the leaders of the organization. It has been sort of a mantra for them. The earliest published sources for the quote are Forbes November, 1991 and the authoritative book Environmental Overkill by Dr. Dixy Lee Ray, 1993. Dr. Ray was also the 17th Governor of the state of Washington. She was a Democrat, but critical of the environmental movement.

Retired Kit P

I always wondered why she was not an icon of the women’s movement.

Felflames

Interesting.
Once they lose this lawsuit, Greenpeace will be seen as a bleeding whale by the sharks.
A rich ground for the lawyers to make a buck.
I predict a lot of lawsuits against Greenpeace are about to be filed.

MarkW

There certainly is a lot of material for the lawyers to work with.
GreenPeace has felt free to be lose with the facts for many years, against a lot of people.

clipe

Interesting that you used “lose” to mean “loose” when most mistakes use “loose” to mean “lose”.

You have been corrupted by the loosers.

Leo Smith

Larry lassoed a loser and loosed him later…

Kenji

If this isn’t a case for the RICO statutes … then what is ? Take-down Greenpeace and ALL of its co-conspirators !

Publish greenpp’s emails with their big donors; along with grennpp’s collusion emails with EPA, and other activist groups. Any emails between greenpp and national media would also be interesting.

I doubt greenpp keeps records regarding their actual knowledge levels in any subject.

greenpp’s lack of maturity and responsibility is certainly on stage in the courtroom. It’s a shame the MSM is ignoring the court cases.

Barbara

So far, Greenpeace has gotten away with not responding to a U.S. Congressional subpoena.

Greenpeace is an international organization with plenty of clout around the world.

Greenpeace is an international organization with plenty of clout around the world.

France and Russia do not seem to think so.

Arbeegee

Brownpeace

urederra

… or Greenwar.

I always found funny that Greenpeace´s flagship was named “Rainbow warrior

Leo Smith

Fighting for peace ?

jdgalt

Green-pants-on-fire.

drednicolson

Greenpiles (of you know what)

Kingfisher

Green piss

Coming up in 11 days.

MRW

Re: Patrick Moore’s statement

By opposing capitalism, it stands against the one system of economics that has been most successful in regulating and restoring the environment.

And providing families with the means to get a job, earn income, and provide a better lifestyle and living conditions. Without it, we’d all still be serfs.

MarkW

That’s the world the leftists want to take us back to. With themselves as the all knowing and benevolent rulers. (At least in their minds.)

Macha

Most of us probably still are serfs….just that we have slightly different lords and masters.

It might work here due to the first Amendment. But Canada does not have that, so the burden of proof of libel is a lot easier. I hope Greenpeace gets what it deserves.

pj, the US case is civil RICO. First Amendment rights are generally not in play. To paraphrase NY AG Schneiderman concerning his Martin Act suit against Exxon. First Amendment free speech does not extend to rackateering speech. To paraphase the general legal concept as taught at Harvard Law, there is no First Amendment right to scream Fire in a crowded theater unless there really is a fire.

Thanks Ristvan. I missed that the first go round, but caught it when others pointed it out. That actually is very good since that is a lot easier to win than a defamation suit. But then most entrepreneurs (in contrast to CEOs) are not stupid and figured that out way before they filed. Greenpeace picked on the wrong company this time.

Greenpeace protest got fertilized. A Limerick.

Aroma from countryside Lancashire;

the farmer gave Greenpeace its hire.

Emma Thompson got sprayed

she got frackin’ afraid.

Her bake-off, frack free, reeked of mire.

Source, The Telegraph: An angry farmer attempted to spray Oscar-winning actress Emma Thompson with manure on Wednesday after she broke a court injunction to stage a protest against fracking on his land. Ms Thompson and her sister Sophie entered a field on the Lancashire farm, where energy company Cuadrilla is planning to frack for shale gas, and baked renewable energy-themed cakes in a Greenpeace-backed protest stunt. An injunction has been in place banning protesters from the land near Preston since 2014 .The farmer, who was said to be “very upset” about being prevented from getting on with work in the field, proceeded to drive a muck-spreader around the protesters, narrowly missing the Thompson sisters and their cakes. Emma Thompson said she was staging the so-called “Frack Free Bake Off” in order to “show the government that we will not allow fracking to scar our countryside and fuel yet more climate change”. “What better way to do that, here in Britain, than hold a Bake Off?,” she asked.
With the video: https://lenbilen.com/2017/03/02/greenpeace-protest-got-fertilized-a-limerick/

tty

It’s not a new idea. It has been used in Sweden too. We have a big problem with Rumanian and Bulgarian gypsies who come here and run up shanty towns, sometimes on private land. Now it is quite difficult to get rid of them legally. You are not allowed to do it yourself, it must be done by the proper authorities. To get them to do it you must get an eviction warrant. To get an eviction warrant you must give the names of the people you want evicted (this law was made long ago in a very different society, and meant for use against tenants who won’t pay rent). So if the squatters refuse to tell their names (which they always do) there is simply no legal way to get rid of them.

So a farmer found a way. He fertilized the field all around the gypsy camp, with pig manure. Perfectly legal and worked like a charm.

Jaakko Kateenkorva

Thanks lenbilen. The video is a thriller worth watching.

TA

“But now Greenpeace says it never intended people to take its words about Resolute’s logging practices as literal truth.”

No, that’s not going to fly. Guilty!

The words were put out as literal truth. Greenpeace didn’t give any disclaimers about their honesty or lack thereof. They were pushing a lie and pretending it was the truth.

Guilty. Pay up.

MarkW

Even better, they have admitted in their court filings, that they were lying.
No defense left.

CheshireRed

Please please please, let me get what I want this time.

Ie a Greenpeace rinsing. Christ that’d be marvellous.

RockyRoad

Yes, a claim of lying is a very, very flimsy defense.

BobM

With all due respect to Anthony’s headline, it would have had more impact without the reference to Dr. Patrick Moore’s opinion, and lead with Greenpeace’s opinion of themselves:

“Greenpeace admits they are full of sh*t.”

2hotel9

As soon as I saw the words “green” and “peace” I knew they were full of sh*t.

That’s right. Real men fight for Climate Justice™.

Marv

Uh, isn’t the oil company we know as Exxon a result of
the breakup of Standard Oil, the same oil company that spawned the Rockefeller fortune?

BCBill

Yes.
The Standard Oil group of companies, in which the Rockefeller family owned a one-quarter (and controlling) interest,1 was of critical assistance in helping Nazi Germany prepare for World War II. This assistance in military preparation came about because Germany’s relatively insignificant supplies of crude petroleum were quite insufficient for modern mechanized warfare; in 1934 for instance about 85 percent of German finished petroleum products were imported. The solution adopted by Nazi Germany was to manufacture synthetic gasoline from its plentiful domestic coal supplies. It was the hydrogenation process of producing synthetic gasoline and iso-octane properties in gasoline that enabled Germany to go to war in 1940 — and this hydrogenation process was developed and financed by the Standard Oil laboratories in the United States in partnership with I.G. Farben. etc.
http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/chapter_04.htm

Fraizer

Yes. It was originally known as ESSO, as in S.O., as in Standard Oil. Rockefeller did have a sense of humor.

Oldseadog

Still known as ESSO this side of the pond.

Mike McMillan

Exxon was the result of a merger of Standard Oil of New Jersey with Humble Oil and Refining Company in 1973.

I knew and was educated about Climate Change in the 50s 60s & 70s. During Primary, Secondary & Tertiary education and also in the field while studying Geology and earths six billion year history of climate change. Will Greenpeace be coming after me? 🙂

Depends. Do you have money?

There are two lawsuits. One for defamation in Canada, to which this post pertains, and a civil RICO filed in Georgia (Resolute is listed on TSX and NYSE). I didma half hour Canadiannlaw check. Standard common law defamation, Canada has a ‘clear opinion’ exception. I do not think the ‘hyperbole’ response meets it, but not a Canadian lawyer. I see no way they can escape the US civil RICO. Co comspirators are any who supported (Rockefeller?) or echoed the false allegations (Greenpeace affilites–US and Canada are legally separate entities). Greenpeace is attempting to assert antiSLAPP in the US federal case. Don’t think that works under these fact circumstances. Will research and subpost in a few minutes.
Resolute 2016 revenue ~$860 million, liquidity (cash and equivalents) ~$460 million. Plenty of firepower to bring Greenpeace to its knees. The RICO asks for actual damages determined at trial plus 3x punative. The actual damages sought in Canada are ~$C110 million. So the US demand adds up to ~$400 million.

Ok. congress has not yet passed a federal antiSLAPP. And several federal courts have ruled state AntiSLAPP laws do not apply to federal cases. This is a federal case, so Georgia’s antiSLAPP likely will be held NOT to to apply. Moreover, I read the federal bill ( in part) and it refers to meritless lawsuits. It is obvious this one has lots of merits. Greenpeace is in deep trouble.

Tom Halla

Ristvan, thank you for your posts. I was about to reread the original Watts post, as I was unaware, as were several commenters, that there were two lawsuits.

TH, no need for thanks. My google fu is strong after many years of practice and I usually check stuff before commenting here or elsewhere if have not already done the research for my ebooks or businesses. Plus, am a licensed Harvard lawyer who knows a few legal search short cuts.

Mike the Morlock

ristvan March 3, 2017 at 2:13 pm

Hi ristvan, I think there may be something more to this.
First can G.P. defense in the Canadian case be be entered as evidence in a U.S. court.
Second, and the fun part, G.P. has testified before Congress possibly under oath. If any of the statements they made in regard to the Canadian case were used as testimony before Congress or in a U.S. Court or official proceeding they may have a perjury problem.
This defense of theirs in the Canadian case can possible reopen every land use case they were involved in.

I think they made a very, very bad mistake.
Last Can they retract the defense once the implications sink in?

michael

MM, dunno. Very complicated. But as a rule of thumb, pleadings in different jurisdictions cannot controvert themselves
in related lawsuits. These are clearly relayed. (Fancy legal stuff for : if you lie here, you lie there.)

JohnKnight

Thanks, rivstan . . for oodles of informative and well reasoned comments . . and humility in the process . . and don’t give me any shit about it ; )

JohnKnight

(Or about misspelling your handle ; )

JK, my handle is is also just part of my actual email address. I wrote three topical ebooks under the same real name, Rud Istvan. Have no desire to hide under an avatar. Heck, buy and read my ebooks.

John Harmsworth

That tookyou 7minutes! Was that a billable hour?

To my several patent lawyers on my two businesses, no. They do 15 minute increments, which leads me to time our phone calls. For them 7minutes equals 15, and 17 minures equals 30. Which Is also why I personally do the majority of that lawyering for them.
For me personally, when I was a senior partner in a multibillion revenue consulting firm and its leading global rainmaker, it all depended on the negotiated assignment. Clients wanted value and results. If the value and results got delivered, then 7 minutes WAS an hour. Of course, we came to that understanding up front in the engagement. But for junior staff under me, an hour was always an hour. Period. ‘slave labor’ from Harvard Business School, so to speak.
But you make a very nice point anyway. My 7 additional minutes here were divided 0.5 finding bill, 3.5 speed reading bill, 3 finding fed court non-applications of state Slapps to fed cases. A simple clear extension of VERY famous SCOTUS ruling Erie v. Pennsylvania, 88US492 (1874). And my WUWT billing for the comments remains 0. Seems a fair price under the circumstances.

Amber

Here’s the literal truth, Green Peace you are going to have your ass sue off and your bag men will be writing big cheques . Soon you will be door knocking to help pay your
damages tab . Patrick Moore was smart to leave .
Owe we didn’t mean it isn’t a defence it’s cowardice .

drednicolson

Moral of the story: Don’t talk any smack you aren’t ready to lay down.

What would seem almost like a no-brainer in this defamation suit, It’s before a ‘Canuckistan’ court. All Canuckistan judges are Liberal scum who are either afraid to stand up to eco-terrorism or complicit in their actions. In Canada, the law does not apply to green weenies.

John Harmsworth

Ken Browne-you’re an idiot!

techgm

Let’s see: Uranium, Plutonium, Lead, Mercury, Sodium, Carbon, and now Chlorine. What’s next to be on the list of the banned, Oxygen?

jones

Oxygen?.

What an awful atmospheric pollution event that was…….My word….Damn those cyanobacteria….

Geoff Sherrington

There is a hypothesis that the horrors of war lead to later genetic expression as hate for materials like chlorine, radioactivity, lead, etc.
I do not know if it has merit, not my field.
Geoff

singletonengineer

Fluorine, as in water supplies.

Terrence

In CanaDUH, greenpus has a status of a charity, so it pays no income taxes, and few if any other taxes. I do not think the current prime minister will revoke this cushy, tax free status.

I just checked, and YES, greenpus is a charity in the good ol’ USofA
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=7596

Tom Halla

Most of the defendants in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism case were “charities”, so it gives no immunity.

Terrence

That is true in the USA, but I think it may well be different in CanaDUH.

Terrence

BTW, I live in CanaDUH.

jorgekafkazar

Innit spelled ‘C-eh-N-eh-D-eh?’

Stephen Richards

Their main hub is Holland. The Dutch government protects them fiercely. However, if people whom they have attack so choose, greenpiss could now be sued out of existence in the form of the PPI cases in the UK. One class action suit could open the door. I’ll chuck in a few €s or £s or $s

“Greenpuss”? … I was thinking Greenpiss.

Terrorism is just fine when it’s for a good cause.

Art

Greenpeace says it never intended people to take its words about Resolute’s logging practices as literal truth.

Yeah, right. Their whole purpose is to lie and now they lie about their purpose. So tell us, if you didn’t intend for us to believe you, what did you intend?

jones

Indeed,

I’m sure what they really really meant to say was that all their proclamations should be considered as metaphor.

They intended to put up smoke screens to divert factual claims against them, in order to solicit more funds to continue their great mission of spreading factually unfounded accusations.

Hey, as long as they continue to file their fake Form 990, everything is cool.

Goggles

Nuke the gay baby whales for Jesus!

M Courtney

How would we know that baby whales are gay?
Are you trying to seduce them?
You must be a cetacean paedophile!

jones

What about the transgender whales? Eh?

Are you prejudiced?

RockyRoad

You’re not a life-long contributor to Greenpeace, are you Goggles?

Goggles

That was our counter slogan against them in the seventies. They used the same extortion racket as the Cousteau frogs. Their major expense was themselves and then diesel fuel.

Sheri

Translation: We don’t tell the truth. We are activists, not scientists and we just want your money. Send more. Do it today. Save our budget.

Peter

I always thought their name should be spelled Green Piece (of the $$$$$$ pie)!

kramer

Excellent post Anthony.

In my opinion, the Rockefeller organizations are the main driver of natural resource global control and restrictions and all that follows.

Fun fact: Rockefeller money helped create the International Press Institute shortly after WWII. At one point, they had over 1000 news sources around the world under it’s wing. Now its funded in part by George Soros.
What major US news organizations are under it? Below are some of them from their 2011 annual report:

Andrews McMeel Universal USA
Associated Press (AP) USA
Columbia University School of Journalism USA
CNN USA
Delphos Herald Inc. USA
GlobalPost USA
LA Times-Washington Post news Service USA
Missouri School of Journalism USA
San Francisco Bay Guardian USA
Scripps Howard Foundation USA
St. Petersburg Times USA
The Boston Globe USA
The Honolulu Advertiser USA
The Manhattan Mercury (Seaton Newspapers) USA
The New York Times USA
The Oregonian USA
The Philadelphia Inquirer USA
The Plain Dealer USA
The Seattle Times USA
The Toledo Blade & The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette USA
The Week Magazine USA
University of Miami School of Communication USA
University of Missouri School of Journalism USA Watertown Daily Times USA

source:
http://wayback.archive.org/web/20141130184500/http://www.freemedia.at/fileadmin/resources/application/IPI_Annual_Report_2011_Final.pdf

Do the Koch Brothers have anything under their wings that compare to this?

Robert W Turner

If you can’t monopolize, make it harder for your competition to do business because you can absorb the cost. That’s been the Rockefeller way since they couldn’t sabotage the competition the old fashioned way.

NW sage

Its still a monopolistic practice. And therefore BAD for economic prosperity.

MarkW

The solution is to make impossible for government to help one company over another.

bw

Reality, sanity, scientific integrity, factual observed data, and time favors the skeptic view.
The null hypothesis prevails, there is no difference in global temperature caused by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. The biological effect of increased CO2 from 300 ppm to 400 ppm is a positive benefit for global ecosystems.

RockyRoad

Notice how the vast majority of those newspapers and magazines are located in hotbeds of Marxist/Socialist Progressive (aka communist) Democrat-controlled areas–be they cities or states.

Apparently they’ve been successful at “educating” their readers.

Killer Marmot

The best outcome is that Greenpeace loses the case horribly AND it becomes generally recognized that their opinions are about as honest and serious as an SNL skit.

Brian

“Greenpeace IS full of sh*t … let me preach on it.”

Amen, brother.

john

So isn’t Middlebury College… My guess is weepy Bill Mckibben, Van Jones and the former Queen of the US too….

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-03/middlebury-professor-assaulted-injured-while-escorting-conservative-speaker#comment-9123656

Robert W Turner

Full of scheisse and should lose tax exempt. Someone put that bug in Trumps ear!

Otteryd

Is this another example of Fake News?

William Astley

This is an article about the source of fake climate ‘change’/environmental news.

It is an obvious in your face fact, that Greenpeace and a cottage industry of cult of CAGW supporters/groups/political parties tell lies to push a ‘vision’ which is completely removed from reality.

CAGW is 100% fake news.

Fake news is required if facts and logic do not support a cult’s agenda.

Their accusations against Resolute were instead “hyperbole,” “heated rhetoric,” and “non-verifiable statements of subjective opinion” that should not be taken “literally” or expose them to any legal liability.

comment image
comment image

bw

Patrick Moore should be near the top of any list of experts on the subject of how global climate relates to global biology/ecology.
Here is his summary of the issue delivered to the GWPF in 2015
http://www.thegwpf.org/patrick-moore-should-we-celebrate-carbon-dioxide/

“To conclude, carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is the stuff of life, the staff of life, the currency of life, indeed the backbone of life on Earth.”

Also, his insider knowledge of the workings of Greenpeace makes him a true weapon against their claims.

“It will come as no surprise that Greenpeace is also funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and Rockefeller Family Fund, the same groups that have been bankrolling #ExxonKnew every step of the way.”

It seems that the Rockefeller Foundation got a lot of influence:
“At a special advisory meeting at the United Nations held on 11 January 2002 where science for sustainability was discussed in a day-long meeting with the Secretary-General, it was publicly requested by Kofi Annan speaking to Bruce Alberts that the IAC should work with the Rockefeller Foundation to produce a list of recommendations for him within 12 months.”

IAC is Inter Academy Council – the reviewer of United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:
http://interacademycouncil.net/23450/27010/27025.aspx

Smells fishy.

M Courtney

Greenpeace have ideals. That’s easier then principles.
Principles need trust (or hope) that you understand what the right thing to do is. That’s impossible for a fundamental relativist.

But it is possible for those who think that a simple rule is enough justification to act upon. Now, I agree with the Golden Rule “Do unto others as you want done unto you”; but that is simple…
Some others believe “Might is Right” or it wouldn’t work. Wrong. In my opinion.

But Ideals are easy.
So for Idealists what you do is closer to the Ideal – so you can do something, anything, with confidence (take that relativism!)
And you don’t need to judge what you do – everything that feels ideal – then – is right at that time. At ‘then’.

And ideals are for the ‘then’. They don’t need to be right for all time. So if they are dipping in Right.
as they speak then that is acceptable. Rightness moves in waves, unless you believe that truth is (or tends towards the…) real and permanent.

Greenpeace act as though they believe that truth is never real, that there are no principles.
Just convenient for now.

Paul Watkinson

MC a friend of mine – a professional boxer – had this Golden Rule: “do unto others as you would have others do unto you……..but do it first!”

Roger Knights

The version I heard was more pointed:
“Do unto others . . . first!”

drednicolson

Niccolo Machiavelli put it this way or something like it in The Prince: “Treat men generously or destroy them. It is the wont of man to take revenge for the slightest injuries. For fatal ones, they cannot.”

MarkW

The problem is that even the dead still have friends and relatives, who can and will take revenge on their behalf. So then you have to kill the friends and relatives as well. The problem is that these people also have friends and relatives ad infinitum.

Leo Smith

Greenpeace act as though they believe that truth is never real, that there are no principles.

Of course. The philosophy of the New Left is massively muddled when it comes to truth: Having got the point that truth is relative to language and culture, they failed to get the point that its also relative to something that is actually real. Any farmer or engineer can tell you that there are things that simply happen or don’t happen whether you believe in them or not. Overwhelmingly the New Left is liberal arts as opposed to science, and urban.

They exist in a world constructed by humans, so its natural to think that everything is a human construction – even climate, and so what people believe naturally becomes the truth.

Hereabouts we call that ‘magic thinking’

Broadie

The easiest and a cheap way to expose their hipocrisy and to destroy Greenpeace and its devil child Sea Shepherd is to open a ‘Go Fund Me’ to send their leaders to protest the dredging and coral destruction in the Spratly Islands.
No Lawyers required.

hunter

Sue the donors and sponsors like Bob Barker who donated their pirate boat. Sue the foundations that collaborate with GP to plan how to slander, liable and defame.
Sue the faux journalists who enable them by repeating unchallenged their press releases as if they are actual news.
Etc.

Gunga Din

Good point.
Solyndra went bankrupt…but its CEOs didn’t.
Instead of just holding a company or origination responsible legally and financially, we need a bit more of holding the individuals involved responsible.
(Might also be nice if they stopped treating whatever a John or Jane Doe left behind as if there was suddenly a new person named “The Estate of ….” and then taxed what they left behind for their kids or whoever as if “The Estate of ….” was a real person who, as suddenly as they came into being, received an income that needs to be taxed.)

Chris

98% of estates are not taxed. And much of the wealth in the other 2% has NEVER been taxed. It is stocks that are passed on, companies, or properties.

It has ALL been taxed. YOu need a better fake news source.

Gunga Din

Wrong.
My Dad paid taxes on his income and property all his life.
After he died, his estate was taxed again, taxed to the point that the Government took a larger part of what he’d worked for and had already paid taxes on than any of his heirs.

MarkW

Even if true, so what?
In my experience, the people who are opposed to letting others inherent, have no chance of inheriting anything themselves.

Bill Illis

Let’s say Greenpeace wins. That is the end of slander and defamation lawsuits. One just has to say it was hyperbole and sarcasm and I didn’t really mean it (sarcastically noting afterward that yes you did).

BE, not this time. They are well and truly caught out.

GMAFB!? The F word fad is getting very, very tiresome. Express yourself like an adult or you will discourage people from reading valuable information.

Nigel S

Sometime it’s a life saver as it was for this North Staffordshire Regiment contingent whose hard swearing identified them.

Even by the standards of the British Army, the Regiment (and the 1st Battalion in particular) seems to have gained a reputation during the First World War for profane language. When the 1st Battalion was relieved in the front line following its defence of Delville Wood in September 1916, one of the advanced posts was missed out by mistake. The Lance-Corporal in command, suspecting something was amiss, sent a man back to the front-line trench to investigate. The soldier realised he was at some risk of being shot by his own side, and so “when he had crawled within shouting distance he enquired politely but firmly what —— bastards were holding that —— trench. The 9th East Surreys, who were the troops thus addressed, recognised the North Stafford idiom and let him in unhurt.

Retired Kit P

@Ken

Not a fad. I learned my profanity skills from my WWII navy vet father and salty friends. That how men talk, you may be confused by boys imitating men trying to be cool. It is also the responsibility a father or uncle to teach the approach time and place. Usually at 13 years old. You can never tell your mother to FO and can only say that to your father when you think you can back it up.

Never said to my father. Came close one Thanksgiving home on leave. I found my self off the ground and at the end of the block before my feet touched the ground again with my Korean War vet brother-in-law showing how the army breaks up a fight between sailors old and young. It took my sister and I a long time to understand survivor guilt was the root cause of dysfunctional family holidays.

Best communication I heard in the control room of a nuke was, “Whoever f**k*n did something un-f**k*n do it.” Damn negative temperature coefficient.

My wife, the church lady, likes me to refrain from the use of the F-word. And that point I was working at a desk. Oh phooey my computer crashed.

My wife and I were sailing in a regatta (a f**k*n race followed by beer drinking and lying). We were the last boat in a line of six on the same tack with the bigger faster boats pulling away. It was text book start and a beautiful to watch.

So while we were at risk of a collision, while racing everyone is paying attention. Except for Darryl 20 feet in front of us. In front of Darryl, the boat had lost control and the dynamics were such that Darryl’s was going ton be decapitated. I yell, “hey Darryl”. Darryl smiles and waves looking back at us. Church lady screams and Darryl looks in the direction he should have been looking all along putting the helm over at the last minute but too late to avoid a collision. The fore stay was sheared but the mast did not come down. Easier to replace than body parts.

If ever there was a time for the F-word.

Barbara

Foul language was never allowed to be used in my family. When parents use foul language, then their children will learn to do this as well.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7

This lends itself to so many bad jokes:

Surely you didn’t think we were serious?
I did, and stop calling me Shirley!

/rimshot

SMC

Canada, not US. And appealable.

clipe

“Need to read this:”

Yep.

However, Resolute spokesman Seth Kursman noted that the company’s “overarching allegation, that Greenpeace refers to and invokes its past campaigns in order to threaten and intimidate Resolute’s customers, remains part of Resolute’s pleading.”

He also added that the court has only dismissed specific examples of Greenpeace’s past campaigns from the pleadings, stating that the “ruling does not permit Greenpeace to run away from its own identity, which is very much a live issue for trial.”

“This Court decision does not in any way diminish the claims against Greenpeace of defamation and intentional interference with commercial relations.”

Mike the Morlock

johnfpittman March 3, 2017 at 4:29 pm

note the date of your link. “Sean Craig | September 2, 2016 4:46 PM ET”

note the date of the article under discussion
“2:02pm EST March 3, 2017
by Katie Brown, PhD”

Events have moved past the information within your link and it is now only a irrelevant footnote in history.
You don’t have to concern yourself with it, rest easy, G.P. is going to be scalped and skinned, so be of good spirits

michael

The Sept 2016 Financial Post article cited by johnfpittman, does however, include an amount of $7M requested by the Resolute Forest Products Inc. in its suit against Greenpeace. And according to the financial report for “GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL & RELATED ENTITIES,” 2015 (I assume 2016 is not yet available) Total Assets were €59M. I assume this is the Greenpeace being sued. Don’t know about the Rico suit and just being a humble engineer, I hope I read the annual report correctly.

johnfpittman

History of the decisions sets the stage for what can be expected. I don’t want to see them scalped as much as see the manner of the scalp. That will be more important when it comes to the Georgia case. Many of the same or similar motions are likely to be made in the US case. Bet the US lawyers suing GP are familiarizing themselves with the motions and arguments in preparation for the same or similar in US Court.

golf charlie

If Greenpeace have admitted they make up their claims, that could prove interesting in any Law Court that they may find themselves in, whether as Witnesses, or Defendants.

If sections of their fundraising activities are based on false claims, some may regard it as fraud.

eyesonu

It took a while but maybe Greenpeace has finally gotten enough rope to hang itself. Its useful life is far past the expiration date.

Roger Knights

AW has a much stronger case against the defamation of him (not mere hyperbole but malicious falsehoods) on the SourceWatch site. A win against them would have great impact in several ways.

michael hart

Resolute is well named.

I wish more corporations would show a bit of backbone. Too many of them appear to think that the likes of Greenpeace might leave them alone if they bow down, afraid of adverse publicity. The reality is that appeasement fails in the long term. The rabid environmentalists will never be satiated.

pouncer

So, is Greenpeace filing an amicus brief on behalf of Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg regarding “hyperbole” and aggressive assertions of opinion? Would Greenpeace agree that characterizing a dispute regarding statistical analysis as “molesting the data” and an — arguably — oversimplified and over-advertised graph as “fraudulent” are fair comment on a public issue? Will Greenpeace and CEI/NRO make common cause against SLAPP-happy litigants like Michael Mann, (PhD, Nobel “Laureate”, and ringmaster of the the tree-ring circus) ?

Will pigs fly?

MikeN

Indeed, NRO(but not Mark Steyn) makes the exact case of ‘non-verifiable’. This doesn’t mean the statements are false, merely that Greenpeace feels they are within the bounds of free speech. Greenpeace should make a submission on behalf of NR and CEI.

John Harmsworth

Didn’t you get the memo? Mike Mann’s climate papers were just “hyperbole”.

Jerry Adams

Perhaps the judge could require Green Peace to add the disclaimer “Parody” to every communication they issue. They’ve admitted that the statements were false. As such, any other statement they make must be suspect, including any other explanation of their intent in making the original false statement. Therefore the judge could estimate their intent in any way he chooses and it would be more trustworthy. And, since they did nothing to warn readers of the falsity of this or any other statement, a permanent, ubiquitous disclaimer would be justified.
Other possible disclaimers are left to the reader.

MarkW

The court should also permit anyone who made a donation to GreenPeas based on these falsehoods to have their donations refunded. Perhaps with interest.

It varies some by state, but your general premise is clearly wrong. Corporations are ‘legal persons’ under US law so subject to first amendment rights. See SCOTUS Citizens United lest you have any doubts.

FG, that is one reason countries are different, as Trump’s Deplorables have asserted.

MarkW

Proctor and Gamble has sued people who claimed that it’s corporate logo was a satanic symbol.