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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bill Yarber
March 3, 2017 1:17 pm

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
Reply to  Bill Yarber
March 3, 2017 2:19 pm

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

Bryan A
Reply to  Bryan A
March 3, 2017 2:20 pm

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

Caligula Jones
Reply to  Bryan A
March 6, 2017 6:22 am

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.

Reply to  Bryan A
March 6, 2017 10:45 am

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

Santa Baby
Reply to  Bill Yarber
March 3, 2017 9:42 pm

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?

Reply to  Santa Baby
March 3, 2017 11:37 pm

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.

Phillip Bratby
Reply to  Bill Yarber
March 3, 2017 10:47 pm

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
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
March 5, 2017 1:41 am

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!

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
March 6, 2017 10:46 am

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

Reply to  Bill Yarber
March 7, 2017 11:18 am

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

Eric Simpson
March 3, 2017 1:20 pm

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:

Reply to  Eric Simpson
March 3, 2017 1:49 pm

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.

Eric Simpson
Reply to  tabnumlock
March 3, 2017 3:33 pm

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

Reply to  tabnumlock
March 4, 2017 5:09 am

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

Reply to  tabnumlock
March 4, 2017 5:20 am

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.

Reply to  tabnumlock
March 4, 2017 9:22 am

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. ○¿○

Reply to  tabnumlock
March 4, 2017 11:47 am

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.

Reply to  Eric Simpson
March 4, 2017 11:03 am

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

Reply to  John@EF
March 6, 2017 10:51 am

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
Reply to  Eric Simpson
March 8, 2017 6:04 pm

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

March 3, 2017 1:21 pm

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?

Reply to  Tom Halla
March 3, 2017 2:37 pm
Joe Crawford
Reply to  Taphonomic
March 4, 2017 10:01 am

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!

Reply to  Taphonomic
March 6, 2017 11:27 am

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!

Reply to  Tom Halla
March 3, 2017 2:48 pm

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

Reply to  Tom Halla
March 3, 2017 3:31 pm

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.

Reply to  Tom Halla
March 3, 2017 7:53 pm

Charging every office holder for sedition would be more gratifying!

Reply to  Streetcred
March 3, 2017 9:56 pm

Sedition? Good grief.

Reply to  Chris
March 3, 2017 11:08 pm

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.”

Reply to  Streetcred
March 3, 2017 11:10 pm


Reply to  Streetcred
March 4, 2017 6:38 am

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!

March 3, 2017 1:26 pm

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

Reply to  pstevens2
March 3, 2017 1:27 pm

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

Reply to  MarkW
March 3, 2017 2:10 pm

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.

Reply to  MarkW
March 4, 2017 1:44 am

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

March 3, 2017 1:27 pm

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.

Reply to  MarkW
March 3, 2017 1:29 pm

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.

Reply to  Tom Halla
March 3, 2017 1:41 pm

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

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Tom Halla
March 3, 2017 1:50 pm

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

Reply to  Tom Halla
March 3, 2017 2:06 pm

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.

Reply to  Tom Halla
March 3, 2017 2:37 pm

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

Reply to  Martin Mayer
March 3, 2017 2:40 pm

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
Reply to  Tom Halla
March 3, 2017 8:18 pm

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.

Reply to  Tom Halla
March 4, 2017 5:30 am

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.

Reply to  MarkW
March 3, 2017 2:34 pm

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

Taylor Pohlman
Reply to  MarkW
March 3, 2017 3:54 pm

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…

Reply to  Taylor Pohlman
March 3, 2017 7:12 pm

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

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Taylor Pohlman
March 4, 2017 5:19 am

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.

Reply to  MarkW
March 3, 2017 7:54 pm

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

Reply to  Streetcred
March 6, 2017 10:54 am

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

Reply to  MarkW
March 6, 2017 1:17 pm

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.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
March 6, 2017 1:59 pm

comment image

March 3, 2017 1:28 pm

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

Reply to  michaelroberts4004
March 3, 2017 1:43 pm

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?

Reply to  michaelroberts4004
March 3, 2017 3:38 pm

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.

Reply to  Writing Observer
March 3, 2017 7:15 pm

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

Reply to  jorgekafkazar
March 3, 2017 9:12 pm

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
Reply to  Writing Observer
March 4, 2017 10:17 am

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.

Reply to  Writing Observer
March 6, 2017 10:56 am

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.

Reply to  MarkW
March 7, 2017 2:16 am

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
Reply to  michaelroberts4004
March 3, 2017 4:39 pm

“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
Reply to  Alan Ranger
March 4, 2017 1:09 am


George Tetley
Reply to  Alan Ranger
March 4, 2017 5:37 am

Alan Ranger
another +1,000

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Alan Ranger
March 4, 2017 11:44 am

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.

Reply to  michaelroberts4004
March 4, 2017 5:40 am


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.

March 3, 2017 1:29 pm

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.

Reply to  u.k.(us)
March 3, 2017 4:40 pm

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

March 3, 2017 1:30 pm

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.

Reply to  Andy May
March 4, 2017 7:31 am

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

March 3, 2017 1:32 pm

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.

Reply to  Felflames
March 3, 2017 1:45 pm

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.

Reply to  MarkW
March 3, 2017 4:03 pm

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

You have been corrupted by the loosers.

Reply to  MarkW
March 3, 2017 11:40 pm

Larry lassoed a loser and loosed him later…

March 3, 2017 1:34 pm

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

Reply to  Kenji
March 3, 2017 6:53 pm

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.

Reply to  ATheoK
March 3, 2017 11:23 pm

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.

Reply to  Barbara
March 4, 2017 11:09 am

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

France and Russia do not seem to think so.

March 3, 2017 1:43 pm


Reply to  Arbeegee
March 3, 2017 2:35 pm

… or Greenwar.

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

Reply to  urederra
March 3, 2017 11:41 pm

Fighting for peace ?

Reply to  Arbeegee
March 3, 2017 2:40 pm


Reply to  Arbeegee
March 3, 2017 6:07 pm

Greenpiles (of you know what)

Reply to  Arbeegee
March 4, 2017 9:04 am

Green piss

Reply to  Kingfisher
March 6, 2017 11:32 am

Coming up in 11 days.

March 3, 2017 1:48 pm

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.

Reply to  MRW
March 3, 2017 1:56 pm

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.)

Reply to  MRW
March 3, 2017 4:04 pm

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

March 3, 2017 1:54 pm

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.

Reply to  philjourdan
March 3, 2017 2:57 pm

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.

Reply to  ristvan
March 4, 2017 9:02 am

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.

March 3, 2017 1:56 pm

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/

Reply to  lenbilen
March 4, 2017 4:56 am

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
Reply to  lenbilen
March 4, 2017 5:02 am

Thanks lenbilen. The video is a thriller worth watching.

March 3, 2017 1:56 pm

“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.

Reply to  TA
March 3, 2017 1:58 pm

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

Reply to  MarkW
March 3, 2017 2:18 pm

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

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

Reply to  MarkW
March 4, 2017 6:46 am

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

Reply to  MarkW
March 4, 2017 9:52 am

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.”

March 3, 2017 1:58 pm

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

Reply to  2hotel9
March 3, 2017 3:01 pm

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

March 3, 2017 1:58 pm

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?

Reply to  Marv
March 3, 2017 4:50 pm

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.

Reply to  Marv
March 3, 2017 8:02 pm

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

Reply to  Fraizer
March 4, 2017 1:52 am

Still known as ESSO this side of the pond.

Reply to  Marv
March 3, 2017 10:21 pm

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

March 3, 2017 2:03 pm

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? 🙂

Reply to  davidgraham08
March 3, 2017 3:08 pm

Depends. Do you have money?

March 3, 2017 2:06 pm

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.

Reply to  ristvan
March 3, 2017 2:13 pm

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.

Reply to  ristvan
March 3, 2017 2:21 pm

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.

Reply to  ristvan
March 3, 2017 2:45 pm

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
Reply to  ristvan
March 3, 2017 5:25 pm

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?


Reply to  ristvan
March 3, 2017 5:40 pm

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.)

Reply to  ristvan
March 3, 2017 6:20 pm

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

Reply to  ristvan
March 3, 2017 6:23 pm

(Or about misspelling your handle ; )

Reply to  ristvan
March 3, 2017 6:49 pm

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
Reply to  ristvan
March 4, 2017 11:55 am

That tookyou 7minutes! Was that a billable hour?

Reply to  ristvan
March 4, 2017 3:50 pm

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.

March 3, 2017 2:08 pm

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 .

Reply to  Amber
March 3, 2017 6:25 pm

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

March 3, 2017 2:10 pm

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
Reply to  Ken Browne
March 4, 2017 11:59 am

Ken Browne-you’re an idiot!

March 3, 2017 2:11 pm

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

Reply to  techgm
March 3, 2017 3:09 pm


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

Reply to  techgm
March 4, 2017 5:44 am

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.

Reply to  techgm
March 8, 2017 5:19 am

Fluorine, as in water supplies.

March 3, 2017 2:31 pm

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

Reply to  Terrence
March 3, 2017 2:35 pm

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

Reply to  Tom Halla
March 3, 2017 2:47 pm

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

Reply to  Terrence
March 3, 2017 2:56 pm

BTW, I live in CanaDUH.

Reply to  Terrence
March 3, 2017 7:28 pm

Innit spelled ‘C-eh-N-eh-D-eh?’

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Terrence
March 4, 2017 1:13 am

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

Reply to  Terrence
March 5, 2017 5:17 pm

“Greenpuss”? … I was thinking Greenpiss.

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

March 3, 2017 2:33 pm

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?

Reply to  Art
March 3, 2017 3:11 pm


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

Reply to  Art
March 5, 2017 5:21 pm

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.

March 3, 2017 2:45 pm

Nuke the gay baby whales for Jesus!

M Courtney
Reply to  Goggles
March 3, 2017 3:11 pm

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

Reply to  Goggles
March 3, 2017 3:27 pm

What about the transgender whales? Eh?

Are you prejudiced?

Reply to  Goggles
March 4, 2017 6:54 am

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

Reply to  RockyRoad
March 4, 2017 1:35 pm

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.

March 3, 2017 2:55 pm

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.

March 3, 2017 2:56 pm

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

March 3, 2017 2:59 pm

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
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


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

Robert W Turner
Reply to  kramer
March 3, 2017 3:25 pm

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
Reply to  Robert W Turner
March 3, 2017 5:51 pm

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

Reply to  Robert W Turner
March 6, 2017 11:04 am

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

Reply to  kramer
March 3, 2017 3:33 pm

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.

Reply to  kramer
March 4, 2017 6:59 am

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
March 3, 2017 3:02 pm

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.

March 3, 2017 3:12 pm

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

Amen, brother.

March 3, 2017 3:17 pm

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


Robert W Turner
March 3, 2017 3:21 pm

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

March 3, 2017 3:22 pm

Is this another example of Fake News?

William Astley
Reply to  Otteryd
March 4, 2017 6:43 am

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

March 3, 2017 3:23 pm

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

“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.

Science or Fiction
March 3, 2017 3:24 pm

“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:

Smells fishy.

M Courtney
March 3, 2017 3:31 pm

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
Reply to  M Courtney
March 3, 2017 4:04 pm

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
Reply to  Paul Watkinson
March 3, 2017 5:09 pm

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

Reply to  Paul Watkinson
March 3, 2017 6:42 pm

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.”

Reply to  Paul Watkinson
March 6, 2017 11:08 am

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.

Reply to  M Courtney
March 3, 2017 11:59 pm

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’

March 3, 2017 3:36 pm

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.

March 3, 2017 3:50 pm

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.

Gunga Din
Reply to  hunter
March 3, 2017 4:56 pm

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.)

Reply to  Gunga Din
March 3, 2017 10:27 pm

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.

Reply to  Chris
March 4, 2017 11:02 am

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

Gunga Din
Reply to  Gunga Din
March 4, 2017 7:27 am

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.

Reply to  Gunga Din
March 6, 2017 11:09 am

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
March 3, 2017 3:55 pm

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).

Reply to  Bill Illis
March 3, 2017 7:46 pm

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

March 3, 2017 3:55 pm

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
Reply to  KenW
March 4, 2017 6:30 am

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.

Reply to  KenW
March 4, 2017 9:55 am

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.

Reply to  Retired Kit P
March 5, 2017 1:31 pm

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
March 3, 2017 4:01 pm

This lends itself to so many bad jokes:

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


Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
March 3, 2017 5:33 pm

Reply to  johnfpittman
March 3, 2017 4:36 pm

Canada, not US. And appealable.

Reply to  johnfpittman
March 3, 2017 4:49 pm

“Need to read this:”


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
Reply to  johnfpittman
March 3, 2017 5:49 pm

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


Reply to  Mike the Morlock
March 3, 2017 6:56 pm

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.

Reply to  Mike the Morlock
March 4, 2017 3:41 am

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
March 3, 2017 4:47 pm

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.

March 3, 2017 5:00 pm

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
March 3, 2017 5:12 pm

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
March 3, 2017 5:27 pm

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.

March 3, 2017 5:32 pm

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?

Reply to  pouncer
March 3, 2017 10:58 pm

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
Reply to  pouncer
March 4, 2017 12:23 pm

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

Jerry Adams
March 3, 2017 5:36 pm

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.

Reply to  Jerry Adams
March 6, 2017 11:15 am

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

March 3, 2017 5:50 pm

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.

Reply to  ristvan
March 3, 2017 7:26 pm

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

Reply to  ristvan
March 6, 2017 11:13 am

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

March 3, 2017 5:50 pm

(From Left) Richard Brooks, Forest Campaign Manager for Greenpeace, Steve Kallick, Director, International Boreal Conservation Campaign, and Avrim Lazar, President and CEO, Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC), answer questions from the media in Toronto in 2010 after 21 member companies of the FPAC and nine leading environmental organizations unveiled the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement.




March 3, 2017 6:01 pm

Dream on guys. Goonpiece is solidly encased in Teflon coated baby polar bears. Ain’t nuthin hapnin to those hucksters.

Reply to  cephus0
March 3, 2017 6:31 pm

Not this time, against this opponent.

Reply to  cephus0
March 3, 2017 6:55 pm

And Trump was never going to be President.

Nigel S
Reply to  drednicolson
March 4, 2017 6:34 am

And sit at the ‘Resolute’ desk.

March 3, 2017 6:06 pm

Doesn’t surprise me in the slightest – they generate so much hype and spin Orwell could have had them as a department in 1984…

They are going to come unstuck.

March 3, 2017 6:23 pm

This is the kind of crap that makes WUWT look like a right-wing, knee jerk, elitist hangout, and causes me to unsub, yet again.

Reply to  Michael A. Lewis
March 3, 2017 6:37 pm

Mzl, Then please leave here, permanently. Cause you plainly do not grasp the legal issues already proved and discussed upthread. So you are frankly just more stupidity evidence. Skeptics do not need more of that. We already have more than enough in Mann, Marccott, Karl, ….

Mike Bromley the wannabe Kurd
Reply to  Michael A. Lewis
March 3, 2017 6:40 pm

I beg your pardon? Michael A. Lewis? Is this like a Facebook Troll post? “I don’t like you, or what you represent, and I’m going to unlike you, but I’ll stick around for all the booing and hissing, even if that means I have to like you in order to post about how I don’t like you!!!”

Meh. Whatever. The smell of dirty socks in your parent’s basement must be overpowering.

Reply to  Michael A. Lewis
March 3, 2017 6:58 pm

Don’t let the door etc.

Reply to  Michael A. Lewis
March 3, 2017 9:08 pm

Michael, I’m going to take a different tack than those above (no insult to them intended) and instead ask you to engage.

Can you explain precisely why this article is “crap”? Is there something in the article that is untrue? Misleading? What makes it “crap”?

Reply to  Michael A. Lewis
March 4, 2017 6:10 am

Michael A. Lewis
If you get your knickers in such a twist over this article and headline after Anthony’s qualifying explanation, then do us all a favour and jog on.

Reply to  Michael A. Lewis
March 4, 2017 7:16 am

So Michael A. Lewis–have you ever contributed to Greenpeace and are you now a member in good standing?

You sound like there’s only one side to an issue and your side is always right, even when they resort to Alinsky-style tactics.

If you support, financially or otherwise, an organization that claims dishonesty as a defense, wouldn’t it be better to disassociate yourself from that organization?

Otherwise, can you not personally be considered a co-conspirator?

(From your comment it appears the answers to my questions are a foregone conclusion.)

Reply to  Michael A. Lewis
March 6, 2017 11:16 am

The truth sure does bother you.
By the way, there are no subscription fees here.
Finally, for someone who hates this site so much, why do you keep coming back?

Paul Westhaver
March 3, 2017 6:44 pm

Grandstanding then… grandstanding now.

Then it was whales, Nuclear testing, seal hunting, automobiles, trees …

Now it is Genetically Modified Organism ADVOCACY

No…. I am not getting on board with a leftover hippy grand-stander with a pedigree of activism and actions that put humanity second to his issue du jour. He has a lot of damage to undo while he is in the midst of creating more damage.

March 3, 2017 7:49 pm

If I were the judge, I’d be bringing down the gavel as we speak.

Roger P McEvilly
March 3, 2017 8:54 pm

all green policies are heads i win, tail you lose.

March 3, 2017 9:16 pm

When can we expect a judgement in this case? Will we hear about it on wattsupwiththat?

Reply to  littlepeaks
March 6, 2017 11:18 am

The Steyn case is still dragging on almost 4 years later.

March 3, 2017 11:37 pm

More ‘What’s brown, and rings?’

Reply to  David Michael Lallatin
March 6, 2017 11:18 am

A rusty bell?

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  MarkW
March 8, 2017 7:35 pm

it makes a “dung” sound.

Johann Wundersamer
March 3, 2017 11:44 pm

GMAFB. Welcome home.

Johann Wundersamer
March 4, 2017 12:00 am

From youtube ‘aerial views of the ground’ to ‘welcome home’.

that’s progress.

Peta from Cumbria, now Newark
March 4, 2017 12:59 am

Isn’t GP guilty of Childish Behaviour here?
And why not, the rest of the world indulges in it, even the last POTUS.

Wonder why………………

Reply to  Peta from Cumbria, now Newark
March 4, 2017 7:27 am

But it’s far more serious than “childish behavior”–one observer noted the steep decline in cop killings after the last POTUS left.


I think not.

March 4, 2017 1:10 am

Greenpeace just destroyed all credibility it may have ever had. At the very least, they should be forced to add the following disclaimer, taken from their own admission in legal filings, to every publication and solicitation they make in the future:

“All statements or accusations issued by Greenpeace should be considered hyperbole, heated rhetoric, and non-verifiable statements of subjective opinion that should not be taken literally.”

March 4, 2017 1:17 am

I don’t want to go down the rabbit hole of trying to understand the case described in this article. So my comment deals only with what I can read in this WUWT article.

Opinion is constitutionally protected. Apparently rank speculation, surmise or hyperbole are not defamation.

But no reasonable jury could find that Ms. Katz’s statements about laundering money through misreporting dead chickens were anything but rank speculation, surmise or hyperbole, engendered, perhaps, by her thrill at being involved in an uncover [sic] capacity,” the court said in Mar-Jac Poultry, Inc. v. Katz.

Even if it sounds ridiculous on the face of it, it is unsurprising that Greenpeace is using the defence that they are using.

On the other hand:

… merely labeling a statement as your “opinion” does not make it so. link

That seems to be an issue in Michael Mann’s suit against Mark Steyn. link

The court has already declared in Mann’s case that argumentative or hyperbolic statements made during contentious exchanges over controversial issues do not, necessarily, “find shelter under the First Amendment simply because they are embedded in a larger policy debate.”

If we are being completely fair, we note that Greenpeace’s ‘Forest Destroyer’ remark seems similar to Tim Ball’s ‘state pen‘ remark. As always, the devil is in the details. YMMV

Reply to  commieBob
March 4, 2017 3:16 am

I don’t know if either of these suits will eventually go before a jury. IMHO going before a jury in the US is basically a roll of the dice. The US legal system often seems designed more to resolve disputes than find justice.

Reply to  commieBob
March 4, 2017 3:25 am


You say,

If we are being completely fair, we note that Greenpeace’s ‘Forest Destroyer’ remark seems similar to Tim Ball’s ‘state pen‘ remark.


Tim Ball clearly and unarguably provided a witticism when he wrote

Mann … belongs in the state penn, not Penn State.

There was no provision of wit and clearly no intention of anything other than misleading propaganda in the admitted “rhetoric” of calling a logging company a

Forest Destroyer.

Your assertion of some equivalence between those two remarks can only be
(a) stupidity verging on mental disorder
(b) a ‘red herring’ intended to pretend the Greenpeace propaganda was less egregious than it was.


Reply to  richardscourtney
March 4, 2017 7:31 am

I would not be stupid enough to predict the outcome of a case in civil court. Apparently you would.

Reply to  richardscourtney
March 4, 2017 8:04 am


I pointed out that your attempted ‘red herring’ is daft.

I did not say, infer, suggest or imply anything about any court and/or its possible decisions.

And I defer to your great experience of practicing stupidity.


Reply to  richardscourtney
March 4, 2017 8:32 am

My dear Richard, Greenpeace and Ball are two court cases. You have clearly predicted the outcome of both.

Reply to  richardscourtney
March 6, 2017 12:00 am


It is no wonder that you get so much wrong: you clearly cannot read.

You assert

My dear Richard, Greenpeace and Ball are two court cases. You have clearly predicted the outcome of both.


I refuted your assertion of what WE – n.b. “we” and not any court case – should “note” when you wrote

If we are being completely fair, we note that Greenpeace’s ‘Forest Destroyer’ remark seems similar to Tim Ball’s ‘state pen‘ remark.

Your assertion was a clear ‘red herring’ that attempted to ‘muddy the waters’ by introducing the issue of the Ball case which has no relevance of any kind to any of the matters raised in the above article.


Reply to  commieBob
March 4, 2017 10:15 am

we note that Greenpeace’s ‘Forest Destroyer’ remark seems similar to Tim Ball’s ‘state pen‘ remark.

Wow. For starters, Tim Ball used a rhetorical device to draw attention to existing bad behaviour. Greenpeace use a rhetorical device to create the accusation of bad behaviour, and further, behaviour which they themselves admit did not exist.

But the big difference (not detailed in this article) is that Greenpeace used their accusation of bad behaviour to lobby Resolute’s customers to stop buying from Resolute. Their false accusation was used as fact to deprive Resolute of revenue, and when challenged on it, admitted that it wasn’t fact at all.

To draw a comparison between the two is just…. Wow.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
March 4, 2017 11:02 am

… not detailed in this article …

I was pretty clear that my comments were directed to the contents of this WUWT article only.

I think most people here would like to see Greenpeace go down in ignominy. Probably most of us are cheering for Dr. Ball. My point is that the same points of law that should, in a just world, get Tim off the hook are the same that could work for Greenpeace.

Sometimes we have to cheer for people we don’t particularly like. There is no reason to believe that the ACLU or twenty-five media organizations have any particular fondness for Mark Steyn but they have filed amicus briefs in his support. If Steyn loses, it will set a very bad precedent that will seriously crimp our freedom of speech.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
March 4, 2017 12:11 pm

My point is that the same points of law that should, in a just world, get Tim off the hook are the same that could work for Greenpeace.

Tim used a rhetorical device to draw attention to things that are true. Greenpeace used a rhetorical device to draw attention to things that are not true, and which they admit are not true. Wow Bob, just wow.

As for restricting your comments to the content of the article, I provided you with additional information. The usual response is “Oh, I didn’t know that. That changes things.” Not “my original comment stands because I am allowed to arbitrarily ignore additional information that doesn’t fit my position”.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
March 4, 2017 9:44 pm

David wrote: “Tim used a rhetorical device to draw attention to things that are true. Greenpeace used a rhetorical device to draw attention to things that are not true, and which they admit are not true.”

In that is the key difference, shouldn’t Ball, Steyn, Simberg and Greenpeace be required to go into court and affirmatively prove the truth of what they have written? Where else can “true” and “not true” be decided?

I don’t want tan uneducated DC jury to be deciding (by a preponderance of the evidence) “the truth” about the various whitewashed “investigations” into Climategate, I think we need a better way to distinguish what is worthy of a trial.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
March 5, 2017 1:04 am

davidmhoffer March 4, 2017 at 12:11 pm

… I am allowed to arbitrarily ignore additional information that doesn’t fit my position”.

1 – My position is that we have to be fair.
2 – As ridiculous as it sounds, Greenpeace is using a defence that has been successfully used. See my links above. As far as I can tell, they are doing what they have to do.
3 – You have stated that it is a fact that Dr. Michael Mann has done something criminal that should see him sentenced to a term in a state penitentiary. Don’t do that unless you can prove it in a court of law. That’s way harder than you would think. See my links above.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
March 6, 2017 12:25 am


Having claimed I wrote something I did not, you have now added an accusation that davidmhoffer wrote something he did not when you say to him

You have stated that it is a fact that Dr. Michael Mann has done something criminal that should see him sentenced to a term in a state penitentiary

davidmhoffer made no such statement! He wrote

Tim Ball used a rhetorical device to draw attention to existing bad behaviour.

and he later clarified that by writing

Tim used a rhetorical device to draw attention to things that are true.

A mention of “bad behaviour” that is known to be “true” is not in any way shape or form stating as “a fact” that the “bad behaviour” is “something criminal”.

Making the dubious assumption that your misrepresentations are not intended to be a distraction from the point of the above article, then your responses to davidmhoffer and me demonstrate you really, really do need to undertake a course in reading comprehension.


Reply to  davidmhoffer
March 6, 2017 7:10 am

richardscourtney March 6, 2017 at 12:25 am

You implied that the case against Ball is completely without merit and the case against Greenpeace is solid. If that is the case, then Ball should win and Greenpeace should lose. That’s the same as predicting the outcome of the cases.

The question in defamation cases is about what a reasonable person would believe. If I say that you are a purple skinned lizard from Trafalmagore, nobody should believe it and it is not defamation. Any reasonable person should recognize that my statement is conjecture, hyperbole, and even deranged. Whether it works or not, that’s part of Greenpeace’s defence strategy.

With regard to David’s statement: The question isn’t what he intended to say. The question is what a reasonable person might construe that he said. Even innuendo can be defamatory. We’re dealing with civil law, not criminal law, so intent doesn’t really matter.

… the opinion privilege, requires courts to place themselves in the shoes of reasonable readers of the allegedly defamatory statement to determine whether a defendant’s allegedly defamatory statement is capable of being proven false, or whether it might be construed as satire, parody, hyperbole, or another type of figurative speech. link

With regard to Greenpeace going after Resolute’s customers, that sounds like tortious interference.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
March 7, 2017 1:55 am


Your persistent trolling is becoming annoying.

You now say to me

You implied that the case against Ball is completely without merit and the case against Greenpeace is solid.

I made clear statements and “implied” nothing. Importantly, very importantly, I have already refuted your lie that I made any comment of any kind about any court case when I wrote

My dear Richard, Greenpeace and Ball are two court cases. You have clearly predicted the outcome of both.


I refuted your assertion of what WE – n.b. “we” and not any court case – should “note” when you wrote

If we are being completely fair, we note that Greenpeace’s ‘Forest Destroyer’ remark seems similar to Tim Ball’s ‘state pen‘ remark.

Your assertion was a clear ‘red herring’ that attempted to ‘muddy the waters’ by introducing the issue of the Ball case which has no relevance of any kind to any of the matters raised in the above article.


March 4, 2017 1:31 am

‘credibility’ not ‘credulity’ is what they have lost some of. Credulity is what sustains them in the minds of poorly informed supporters, and is a feature of the supporters, not of Greenpeace itself. It does have some ownership of its credibility however. But let us hope that the ranks of the credulous have been reduced by this latest peek into the rotten core of Greenpeace, We all have limits to our credulity after all.

stan stendera
Reply to  John Shade
March 4, 2017 4:30 pm


March 4, 2017 2:37 am


How Reagan era Hollywood debunked modern science

Reply to  Jamspid
March 4, 2017 2:37 am

Let’s see what the Trump era Hollywood does

Reply to  Jamspid
March 4, 2017 7:30 am

…receipts are down; revenues are declining; Trump is not returning phone calls.

They’re been exposed (politically, of course–they’ve been exposing themselves otherwise forever.)

March 4, 2017 3:06 am


The final sentence of the above article says.

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

I suspect it was intended to say,

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

This comment is intended to be helpful.


March 4, 2017 3:20 am

Exxon provides gas for my car. The car gets me around; this makes me happy. What does GreenPeace do for me?

Reply to  BallBounces
March 4, 2017 7:31 am

…it makes you pay more for that gas.

Reply to  RockyRoad
March 4, 2017 7:43 am

And the car. 😉

March 4, 2017 3:21 am

I have to take exception to the following by the author:

…the company “knew” about climate change in the 1970s and 1980s before the world’s top scientists had come to any solid conclusions…

The “world’s top scientists” in the climate field are only “top” because of their work on a subject that is highly questionable. Hansen, Mann, and all the others are “top” only because of their work on anthropogenic global warming, which is an unproven hypothesis. The global warming we have documented (such as it is, with all the manipulation of the data) is presumed to be caused by increased CO2, but there is no actual empirical evidence of such. Being a “top scientist” in the current state of climatology is like being a “top scientist” in the field of Lamarckian evolution.

Reply to  James Schrumpf
March 4, 2017 3:44 am

….. or alchemy!

Harry Passfield
March 4, 2017 3:41 am

How perfectly disingenuous of Greenpeace to oppose Resolute’s logging practices yet not issue a peep about clear-cutting timber in NC for wood-pellets to feed the subsidised – low effieciency – power generation in Drax. You’ve got to destroy the planet to save it (hyperbole).

Reply to  Harry Passfield
March 4, 2017 5:56 am

“You’ve got to destroy the planet to save it (hyperbole).”

…… Nah, that’s sarcasm. 😉

Rhoda R
Reply to  Harry Passfield
March 4, 2017 12:27 pm

Or protest the WWF for clear cutting tropical forests to plan palm oil plantations.

March 4, 2017 3:42 am

There was a case years ago in the North Sea when Shell wanted to simply sink one of the first North Sea Oil Platforms that it was de-commissioning. Greenpeace led a vociferous campaign stating this should not be allowed because the toxic wastes and materials on-board would generate a massive environmental disaster. Shell eventually backed off and spent £millions towing the Platform to a specialist Dry Dock in the UK where specialists techniques were used to remove and treat all such toxic wastes and materials and environmentally dispose it! Low and behold, the quantity of such toxic waste and material discovered was relatively miniscule and, given the dilution effects of the sea, would have created no environmental problems. Greenpeace never apologised!

Reply to  macawber
March 4, 2017 6:02 am

If I remember correctly this was in the mid 90´s, the platform was called Brent Spar and Greencrap overestimated the amount of toxic waste by a factor of 10. Anything in the MSM? Nope.

Reply to  macawber
March 6, 2017 11:23 am

GreenPeas is a big believer in the linear, no threshold theory of harm.
In their “minds” even one molecule of a toxic substance was too much.

Johann Wundersamer
March 4, 2017 4:16 am

What that thread leads to:

“My true New Yorkers, my die-hard Katz’s fans, know that we serve the best hot dogs in the city. We are consistently rated as No.1 in the hot dog department. There’s a reason for that: We make them with all-natural beef and crispy casing, and they’re juicy in the center. So get a hot dog first. Then, while you’re waiting for your pastrami, you eat your hot dog-it’s the perfect app. And there’s only one way to eat a hot dog, with mustard and sauerkraut. None of that Chicago dog nonsense: no relish, no pickles, no salad garnish, no ketchup. Well, ketchup is OK -if you’re under six years old. Don’t hate me, Chicago. I was rooting for the Cubs, but you don’t know how to eat a goddamn hot dog.”

Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
March 4, 2017 7:19 am

You forgot the diced onions… mustard, kraut AND onions….

Gotta teach these New Yorkers everything….

🙂 sarc; and that other one… hypergolic was it?

March 4, 2017 4:40 am

I find Greenpeace’s defence unbelievable
The main defence against defamation is that the alleged defamatory statements are true
Greenpeace appears to seek to turn that principle on its head by arguing that its statements about Resolute were untrue!!

I cant see how such an illogical defence can be

March 4, 2017 5:46 am

The degenerate Rockefeller family trying to kill their founder and benefactor’s business is proof again that succeeding generations have a marked tendency to devolve and sink back into the pack.

March 4, 2017 5:47 am

” Canada has a ‘clear opinion’ exception.”

Saying “The world would be better off without Company X” is opinion. Saying “Company X kills people” is a statement of fact. Yeah, don’t see how they’re worming their way out of this one… guess they’ve gotten used to people not wanting to spend the money to hold them to account.

Reply to  kcrucible
March 6, 2017 11:25 am

“In my opinion, company X kills people” is an opinion.
“Company X kills people” is a declaration of what you believe to be a fact.

March 4, 2017 5:53 am

So Greenpeace openly admit that they distort the facts and make untruthful accusations……. in other words, that they lie and defame.

Such a debased organization should not be allowed to damage the reputations of people and business. They must be held to account…. They also must pay for the damage they have caused.