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.
Get a load of this:
Greenpeace Claims Immunity from Lawsuits Because Its Claims Are ‘Hyperbole’
2:02pm EST March 3, 2017
by Katie Brown, PhD
There’s been an interesting twist of events involving Greenpeace, one of the major groups pushing the failing #ExxonKnew campaign: They’ve been sued by Resolute, a Canadian forest-products company, for defamation and false claims about the company’s operations.
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.
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.
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.
If Greenpeace is full of fertiliser, however organic and modern, it is unsustainable due to the energy required to manufacture it and should be banned. Right?
wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/02/claim-modern-use-of-fertiliser-is-unsustainable/
This isn’t a defamation or libel lawsuit. Its a RICO lawsuit. Where does hyperbole fit in?
Did you just jump in at the bottom of the thread? There are two separate actions.
I have always thought that Greenpeace is an honourable, honest, totally ethical organisation that is helping to save the world and mankind from the likes of Exxon Mobile. This opinion is, of course, not to be taken literally but is a non-verifiable statement of my sole subjective opinion.
watching CNN all day long.
/ my side of the Atlantic it’s DAY /
CNN : crying all the time.
an old german saying –
wer schreit hat unrecht.
“Who cries is wrong.”
Better translation
‘who’s YELLING is wrong.’
and the old English saying is
https://www.google.at/search?q=but+carry+a+big+stick&oq=but+carry&aqs=chrome.
If Greenpeace has lied to raise money then they’ve exposed themselves to s a lawsuit from donors. Man, wish I’d made a donation!
Gang Green always manifests itself in the same way.
Being fatal to its host, the productive citizens,it will either be excised or run unchecked to the death of its host.
Nice to see these “lovely people” are being exposed.
What a brilliant legal defence, or do they expect the Trudopian Liberals of Canada to give them a pass?
After all our Provincial Governments seem able to discard Contract Law and Federally The Law,is whatever our elected elites want it to be.
While I hope for an intelligent court decision,I am cynical.
Canada has a long history of our Kleptocrats promoting the Environmental Cash Grab.
Follow the money and politics, our Liberal Party are part of the original promoters of the UN IPCC and the creation of many of the myths that lead up to the CAGW Hysteria.
And the conviction of Green Peace will threaten the incoming Federal Carbon Tax, so essential to the on going Big Lie that is our Federal Finances.
So real tough decision for our politicized courts, rule for law or rule for their beloved ideology.
As long ago as 1998, Greenpeace admitted during the Shell Brent spar events that it lied, and presented hyperbole rather than facts, but in that case they won. The Brent Spar was towed ashore and dismantled, rather than disposed of in deep water.
After it became apparent that Greenpeace had lied regarding the Brent Spar, they were forced to issue an apology
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/greenpeaces-brent-spar-apology-1599647.html
Not a proper broadcast apology to the world at large and not for the reasons given!
macawber:
Your comment is true but fails to mention that the Brent Spar affair was a very big success for Greenpeace.
After that affair, energy companies and others have always done whatever expensive actions are required to avoid similar action from Greenpeace. Indeed, a mere hint of the possibility of ‘another Brent Spar’ is often sufficient to obtain compliance with demands of Greenpeace.
Richard
“Credulity” should probably be “credibility”. Credulity means something different.
Here’s another fun Rockefeller fact:
The CIA’s Project MKultra was let by Dr. D. Ewen Cameron of McGill University:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1946&dat=19840121&id=B4oxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=iaUFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1416,93013
I don’t know if anybody remembers, but this was investigated by both the Church committie and Rockefeller commission back in the day:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra
Some years ago, I found in the 1954 Rockefeller annual report the following excerpt (pgs 112, 112):
“McGILL UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHIATRY
The Department of Psychiatry of McGill University, Montreal, established in 1943 with the aid of another Foun- dation grant, has become a unit of key importance in the training of personnel to meet the rapidly expanding needs of Canada both in the clinical care of patients and in the devel- opment of research and investigation.
The department has enjoyed notable growth and success under the leadership of Professor Ewen Cameron. In 11 years the professional staff has increased eightfold. A new psychiatric hospital, the Allan Memorial Institute, has been developed which provides facilities for 250 resident and “day” patients, in addition to a large out patient service. Clinical teaching units have been set up in four nearby hospitals, and five research units dealing with various aspects
of mental illness are in active operation.
Special attention has been given to the development of
“day wards*’ for treating patients who are well enough to return home at night. This arrangement makes it possible to offer special work in occupational therapy and rehabilita- tion, social adjustment, and even such procedures as insulin and electric shock treatments to large numbers of patients who do not require continuous confinement. The plan has attracted general interest and is now being adopted else- where. More than usual attention is given also to maintaining contact with patients after they return to normal life, and the clinic has taken the lead in developing social clubs and
other activities for this recovered group.
The Foundation has now made a final grant to McGill
University of C$45,ooo (about $47,250) to provide tapering support through the period ending February 28, 1959.“
https://assets.rockefellerfoundation.org/app/uploads/20150530122210/Annual-Report-1954.pdf
I don’t know what the Rockefeller foundation knew or actually supported in regards to these experiments.
What I find interesting is that this CIA project was funded in part from Rockefeller money. Then it was investigated by two commissions, led by two people, one of them a Rockefeller family member. And. at that time this came out in the early 70s, most of the world’s mainstream news sources were under the Rockefeller (and Ford) funded IPI (International Press Institute).
imagine the sheer stupidity of campaigning against one of the elements in the periodic table
Yes, it is indeed sheer stupidity. First they started with Chlorine, number 17 on the Periodic Table of the Elements, and that resulted in contaminated drinking water. Now they are fighting Carbon, number 6. Of course Greenpeace and their fellow idiots usually mean Carbon Dioxide but, heck, understanding the difference would require considerably more brain cells than they possess.
In UK, you have to _have_ fame before you can sue for loss of it.
Capitalism, regulating and protecting the environment! I fell off my chair laughing
This man did not co-found Greenpeace.
He was part of a group solely concerned with protesting H bomb testing, which was one of a number of groups which came together to found Greenpeace.
He was never active in any of the other areas Greenpeace concerns itself with other than banning H bomb tests, so resigned promptly when Greenpeace adopted other areas of concern.
‘H bomb activist doesn’t support other environmental issues’ is the headline here.
That lie has been refuted over and over again.
Not that mere reality will impact what you write.
Hyperbole is exaggeration. You can exaggerate from, e.g., 3 to 93, or from -3 to -93. But you can’t exaggerate from zero, and you can’t exaggerate from -3 to 93 or even to 3. Greenpeace lied–plain and simple. And its lie defamed–plain and simple. And its appeal to hyperbole as rationale only exposes its ignorance.