Monday Mirthiness – #GreenpeaceKnew

Last week, we carried the revelation that in a legal defamation case brought against GreenPeace by a forest products company (GreenPeace claimed they were “forest destroyers” among other things), that GreenPeace claimed their defense was “we publish hyperbole, therefore it isn’t actionable because it isn’t factual“. Given the spirit of such hyperbole, I came to the conclusion that “Greenpeace IS full of sh*t“.

I’m not the only one, Josh weighs in. Remember, these are the same clowns behind the #ExxonKnew campaign, which has turned out to be disastrous for them and failed.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
70 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
troe
March 6, 2017 9:56 am

Hahahaha…. will the irony penetrate the mainstream media. Unlikely but then we already knew that Greenpeace was a comedy skit.

Greg
Reply to  troe
March 6, 2017 10:01 am

presumably that evidence was given under oath. So there is now an official record that #GreenpeaceKnew that they talk SH*T and don’t expect anyone to believe them.

That should be useful in the future.

MarkW
Reply to  Greg
March 6, 2017 10:43 am

If I remember the original article, the statements were taken from court filings. As such, they are signed as being truthful and always signed in the presence of a notary.

AndyG55
Reply to  Greg
March 6, 2017 12:21 pm

How much of the IPCC reports is built around Greenpeace SH*T !!!

MarkW
Reply to  Greg
March 6, 2017 12:56 pm

There was one section that cited a GreenPeas pamphlet as one of it’s sources.

Mike Bromley the wannabe Kurd
Reply to  troe
March 6, 2017 10:04 am

The MSM is still hung up on the Australian Border Fence outside of Vienna.

CEH
Reply to  Mike Bromley the wannabe Kurd
March 6, 2017 10:42 am

Didn´t know that Australia had crossed the Alps, backtracking Hannibal?

TA
Reply to  Mike Bromley the wannabe Kurd
March 6, 2017 11:41 am

I’m betting he meant Austria. 🙂

Janice Moore
Reply to  Mike Bromley the wannabe Kurd
March 6, 2017 1:13 pm

And I would not be surprised, if on his phone and his phone is as “smart” as mine is, if he TYPED “Austrian.”

I have learned the hard way to (oh, great — what a pain!) re-read EVERY word of my texts. Once, I was re-named “James” and “Hwy 101” became “Hey 101” and others… and Ukelele (seriously!) was my phone’s idea for a word I can’t recall at the moment — I caught that one, lol.

On the other hand, now, using my phone is a lot of FUN! 🙂

(have you ever sent a text ON PURPOSE letting the phone pick words for you? — oh, man, that was so funny…. — of course, I told my girlfriend that was what I was doing first!)

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Mike Bromley the wannabe Kurd
March 6, 2017 1:56 pm

Mike Bromley the wannabe be happy not confronted with

https://www.google.at/search?q=vlad+the+impaler&oq=vlad+the+&aqs=chrome.

Bob Burban
Reply to  Mike Bromley the wannabe Kurd
March 6, 2017 5:09 pm

A journalist that I knew wrote an article on Hugh Morgan, the Managing Director of Western Mining Corporation. The spell-check came out with “Huge Organ” … and was caught before publication.

Reply to  Mike Bromley the wannabe Kurd
March 7, 2017 1:52 am

I am taking this comment exactly as written. The MSM does have severe problems with geography.

Even very local geography – remember the “news” anchor who thought the tampons went on her ears?

MarkW
Reply to  Mike Bromley the wannabe Kurd
March 7, 2017 7:27 am

You should be able to disable auto complete. I did on mine.

Henning Nielsen
Reply to  troe
March 6, 2017 11:39 am

Some places, Greenpeace is no joke. They are banned from India:

“Five months after it suspended its licence to receive foreign donations, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) cancelled the registration of Greenpeace India on Wednesday.”

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/greenpeace-indias-registration-cancelled/article7613184.ece

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Henning Nielsen
March 6, 2017 11:52 am

They were delicenced in Canada as a charitable op for political activism, but the probably get their wings again from Trudeau.

Reply to  Henning Nielsen
March 7, 2017 7:33 am

I just wished Josh would have used two different figures, these guys look like lumber jacks ( and they are Okay), Instead he could have used some long haired dope smoking peace sign wearing hippies or guys with hammers and 6 inch nails while pounding them into trees, or a couple of divers with mines attaching them to a fishing boat ( or a navy vessel) for that matter at least one well dressed lawyer type or.. well you get the picture. Their power was immense and I hope it is destroyed.

E.M.Smith
Editor
Reply to  troe
March 6, 2017 4:34 pm

@Troe:

You have a typo… k for h ….

lee
Reply to  E.M.Smith
March 6, 2017 5:15 pm

I have had the “skits”, not a comedy for me. For those around me?

Hugs
Reply to  E.M.Smith
March 7, 2017 9:58 am

Skit is Scheiße for Swedish.

golf charlie
March 6, 2017 10:05 am

Greenpeace finally gets honest, but The Guardian and BBC have failed to mention this landmark achievement.

Janice Moore
March 6, 2017 10:11 am

Greenpeace in a crowded theater:

“Fire! Fire!”

john harmsworth
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 6, 2017 10:25 am

Greenpeace in a crowded swimming pool, “Fire! Fire!”

Brian R
Reply to  john harmsworth
March 6, 2017 10:33 am

Greenpeace in the middle of a burning theater, “Save the Whales!”.

Janice Moore
Reply to  john harmsworth
March 6, 2017 11:23 am

Just to be perfectly clear — implied in my comment was the fact that there was no fire in the theater (just using the classic example of a limit on freedom of speech).

drednicolson
Reply to  john harmsworth
March 6, 2017 12:57 pm

Though the Supreme Court Justice who originally used that example would later lament how it came to be applied far outside the context in which he used it.

Flyoverbob
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 6, 2017 11:19 am

Given the spirit of such hyperbole.

Latitude
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 6, 2017 11:24 am

Greenpeace to anyone….”we don’t do that”

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 6, 2017 1:04 pm

@Brian R:

Greenpeace in the middle of a burning theater, “Save the Whales!”.

Nah. They’d be protesting that the smoke was harmful to humans/wildlife and that it should be taxed to make the theatre safe.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Harry Passfield
March 6, 2017 1:17 pm

Yes, Harry, lol. And they would make a movie about it — to be shown “in theaters everywhere!” 🙂

Janice Moore
Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
March 6, 2017 2:20 pm

Dear Herr Wundersamer,

I am afraid to look at anything you post aimed at me after what you have said to me in the past, here on WUWT. Someone else will have to be brave enough to take a peek at that.

Your ally for science truth…. from a safe distance,

Janice

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
March 6, 2017 2:28 pm

Janice you’re welcome.

You’ve got the guts to read.

I’ve got the guts to comply.

Happy ever after.

dam1953
March 6, 2017 10:16 am

Time to hang the rotting carcass of the Greenpeace albatross around the AGW neck.

Mark from the Midwest
March 6, 2017 10:30 am

The defense seems like a poison pill, by this line of reasoning much of their fund raising could be construed as fraudulent. This is a case where the legal strategy is so poorly conceived that it really could bring the organization down.

Steamboat McGoo
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
March 6, 2017 2:54 pm

For some reason the GreenPeas “defense” Reminds me of a scene from Monty Python & Holy Grail where John Cleese is heard to indignantly and self-righteously complain, “Oh! She turned me into a newt!”.

He then realizes that everyone is looking askance at him – wondering why he isn’t (presently) a newt. So he rather sheepishly admits, ” I got better.”

Janice Moore
Reply to  Steamboat McGoo
March 6, 2017 3:17 pm

{At ~ 00:11 – 00:19}

…. I got better.

(youtube — “Monty Python”)

lol, McGoo — You’ve done it again. 🙂

Janice Moore
Reply to  Steamboat McGoo
March 6, 2017 3:23 pm

FYI for the Mister Magoo-challenged 🙂 —

“Oh, Magoo, you’ve done it again!”
(congratulating himself, as usual)

(youtube — Mister Magoo cartoon)

Nigel S
March 6, 2017 11:00 am

Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your mouth
Blowing down the backroads headin’ south
Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your teeth
You’re an idiot, babe
It’s a wonder that you still know how to breathe

Dedicated to their supporters

JPeden
Reply to  Nigel S
March 6, 2017 9:33 pm

You hurt the ones that I love best
And cover up the truth with lies
One day you’ll be in the ditch
Flies buzzing around your eyes
Blood on your saddle

Dedicated fbo their detractors

Pat Frank
March 6, 2017 11:05 am

So for all the donations given on the basis of self-admitted lies, can Greenpeace be sued for false advertising and soliciting money under false pretenses?

It seems to me a case for conscious f_r_a_u_d exists and there should be something class-actionable here.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Pat Frank
March 6, 2017 11:26 am

I like it, Pat. The lawsuit would likely end up won (one way or another) by the defendant, but, it has the potential of serving the wonderful purpose of forcing Greenpeace to take shelter under the 1st amendment’s Freedom of Religion.

🙂

TA
Reply to  Pat Frank
March 6, 2017 11:43 am

People ought to demand their money back.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  TA
March 6, 2017 6:26 pm

They’d have to cough up the “green”! Lol!

Joel Snider
March 6, 2017 11:55 am

‘No one believes us anyway.’

Unfortunately, that’s not true. I have several friends who use to send me daily propaganda from GP, which puts out so much garbage, you could literally make a full time pursuit out of debunking all the tripe they put out and you’d still never catch up.

And admitting that they publish hyperbole – because emotions are what donations are based on – doesn’t seem to affect the believers in the slightest.

Svend Ferdinandsen
March 6, 2017 12:04 pm

Greenpeace knew is good. Why did they not told us that our use of fossil fuels would destroy the world?
If they did not know at that time, how would others have known.

Caligula Jones
March 6, 2017 12:09 pm

Sounds like whenever Michael Moore gets caught telling lies (i.e. on a day ending in -ay): I’m just exaggerating to prove a point.

As I mentioned, this should be Mark Steyn’s defence against Mann…

Reply to  Caligula Jones
March 6, 2017 12:57 pm

Steyn’s defense against Mann is better and simpler, revealed in his book. He wrote that Mann’s science was fradulent. And it is. Mike’s Nature trick. Centered PCS producing hockeysticks from red noise. No one can be defamed by truth.

Janice Moore
Reply to  ristvan
March 6, 2017 1:25 pm

Indeed, Forrest. Likely, it is largely due to Australian tort law being based on English law. The Star Chamber felt that preventing violence “caused” by the “outrage” of having horrible truths known about oneself was the controlling principle (excitable people, those British!). While in the U.S., freedom of speech is the controlling principle (and it is the duty of the potentially “outraged” (at the truth about themselves) person to exercise self-restraint).

drednicolson
Reply to  ristvan
March 6, 2017 1:52 pm

Mac: Hey, everybody! Whoever eats at Joe’s will defecate!
Everybody: Defecate? That’s sounds bad! Let’s get outta here.
Joe: You’re hurting my business, Mac. I’ll sue!
Mac: It’s the truth! You gonna tell the judge that whoever eats at Joe’s WON’T defecate?
Joe: It’s a lie of omission! People do that no matter where they eat!
Mac: And Joe’s is one of those “where”s. I didn’t say “Whoever doesn’t eat at Joe’s won’t defecate.” did I?
Joe: But they don’t know that “defecate” is a fancy word for poop. You exploit their ignorance!
Mac: That’s their problem, not mine. Go educate them if you like.
Joe: You’re using a nominally true statement maliciously, to defame me and my business!
Mac: No one can be defamed by truth, bud. See ya in court.

(Do I need a /sarc?)

commieBob
Reply to  ristvan
March 6, 2017 3:55 pm

No one can be defamed by truth.

Even if one sticks to strictly factual statements it is possible to defame someone. All you have to do is lead people to a conclusion by implication or innuendo. Memphis Pub. Co. v. Nichols (Tenn. 1978)

Janice Moore
Reply to  ristvan
March 6, 2017 6:51 pm

Slander or libel by implication or by innuendo are NOT protected speech. That is, the “truth” which is a tort defense is: the meaning or implication a reasonable person without special knowledge of the situation would attach to the defendant’s words.

There is no “technical loophole” in tort defense as there is at times in contract law. Even in contract law, the reasonable seller/buyer standard is the default/UCC position.

Roger Knights
Reply to  ristvan
March 6, 2017 6:52 pm

“Even if one sticks to strictly factual statements it is possible to defame someone. All you have to do is lead people to a conclusion by implication or innuendo.”

I think that’s known as casting a false light.

MarkW
Reply to  ristvan
March 7, 2017 7:34 am

rednicholson: And my opponents sister is a known thespian.
Allegedly from one of LBJ’s early campaigns.

MarkW
Reply to  Caligula Jones
March 6, 2017 12:58 pm

Truth is always the strongest defense against libel. At least that’s the law here in the US.

George McFly......I'm your density
March 6, 2017 12:24 pm

I think Josh may have made a mistake with the cartoon. The two fools have too many teeth to be real protestors 🙂

drednicolson
Reply to  George McFly......I'm your density
March 6, 2017 2:06 pm

They skimmed enough off the top from all those solicited donations to get dental implants. 😉

PaulH
March 6, 2017 1:24 pm

“But Sweetheart, I know I told you I had no interest in Linda anymore, but what I said were non-verifiable statements of subjective opinion that should not be taken literally”.

I try that next time, the reaction should be interesting. 😀
/snark

Alan Robertson
Reply to  PaulH
March 6, 2017 1:30 pm

I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant

Janice Moore
Reply to  PaulH
March 6, 2017 1:38 pm

—– An Interesting Day —–

Paul: “…. but what I said were non-verifiable statements of subjective opinion that should not be taken literally.”

Sweetheart: Oh — that — is — just — GREAT, Paul. So, all these years — YEARS! — every time you said, “You are the best thing that ever happened to me” and “You have beautiful eyes” and…. and (swallow a sob) “I don’t care what you look like, I love you for YOU” and stuff like that, it was just a big pile of LIES!

Or not?

(icy cool, now)

I will never know, now, will I? …………….

………… DON’T you touch me!!

{{{SLAM!}}}

scccrrrrrrreeeeeeeech! RRRRRRrrrrrrrrRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR! (car backing out and leaving)

PaulH (sigh — dial, dial, dial): Hello, Dad. What do I do NOW???

March 6, 2017 1:47 pm

I think Josh meant to write: #GreenpeaceKnowNowt

March 6, 2017 2:06 pm

I posted this in the other Greenpi** topic, but this is a far better place to put it again, in the same spirit of … hyperbullsh … I mean “hyperbole”:
comment image

Hivemind
March 6, 2017 10:39 pm

How about #GreenpeaceLies

Roger P McEvilly
March 7, 2017 3:42 am

I’m holding up 5 fingers, but its hyperbole, so when I tell you, I’m holding up 4 fingers.

Straight out of 1984.

Wondering Aloud
March 7, 2017 4:21 am

Let me get this straight. The same people who have been pushing for Rico action against Exxon for not telling all they supposedly knew… These same people have been knowingly and deliberately lying for political and financial gain for a generation? Why is this not a RICO case?

MarkW
Reply to  Wondering Aloud
March 7, 2017 7:36 am

It is.

David Ball
March 7, 2017 9:12 am

So, they DON’T know where we live?

venusnotsowarmasitshouldbewithallthatco2
March 7, 2017 10:22 am

on their website (about..) they claim to “take personal responsibility for their actions”

doesnt look like it ..

Barbarus
March 12, 2017 12:37 am
%d bloggers like this: