The Heartland Greenpeace Business Report

By Andy May

An intriguing report on the Greenpeace business model and philosophy has just been published by the Heartland Institute and can be downloaded here. The report was researched and written by Dr. Michael Connolly, Dr. Ronan Connolly and Dr. Imelda Connolly all of Ireland, Dr. Patrick Moore of Canada is one of the founders of Greenpeace and a past President of Greenpeace Canada, and Dr. Willie Soon of the United States. This truly international effort explains how Greenpeace has grown so wealthy and their business philosophy. Full disclosure, at the request of the authors, I reviewed this report before it was published, and have independently written about Greenpeace before (see here). This post is a brief summary of it.

The Greenpeace Business Model

Greenpeace’s annual income has more than doubled over the past 20 years from less than US$150 million to over US$350 million. Greenpeace is a Dutch company with assets in excess of US$277 million (all dollar amounts in this post are in US$), of which 64% is in cash and cash equivalents. Greenpeace is a nonprofit company and presents itself as a selfless soldier protecting the environment, but their actions suggest that their prime motivation is to collect the most money possible. The report notes that Greenpeace shut down their Irish branch because they were not generating enough income (Irish Times, January 13, 1997). According to Luxon and Wong, 2017 the Greenpeace structure is highly centralized. It requires local (that is, national) organizations to prioritize the Greenpeace global agenda.

When the Greenpeace home office senses a problem in a national affiliate it responds quickly and harshly. Greenpeace USA had had some successes protesting overfishing near Seattle and water pollution in Louisiana, but they were not bringing in enough money in 1997 to satisfy the home office. As a result Greenpeace ordered Greenpeace USA to lay off hundreds of employees and fired the Greenpeace USA executive director (New York Times and Business Insider).

Dr. Chris Rose was a strategic advisor to Greenpeace International and is an expert on environmental campaigning. He wrote a book on environmental campaigning called How to Win Campaigns. Dr. Rose’s recommendations can be summarized as follows (after a list from page 7 of the report):

 

  1. Choose a campaigning issue that you label as catastrophic and urgent.
  2. Choose a villain (enemy agent) who can’t put up much of a defense and a sympathetic victim.
  3. You (the good guy) propose a plausible solution to the campaign issue and accuse the villain (for selfish reasons) of preventing the solution from being implemented.
  4. Issue a call to action and provide a way for people to become engaged (protest marches, face painting, financial contributions, etc.), so that they can become committed to the campaign.
  5. Choose media outlets where you control the narrative. Don’t debate with the bad guys.

Rose argues that education increases knowledge and understanding, leading to a nuanced discussion of the topic, which undermines the campaign’s call to action. As a result, Rose believes successful campaigners should fight against education by deliberately oversimplifying the problem and providing a plausible, simple solution. All other potential solutions are rejected as inadequate. The “problem” is oversimplified and shown to be avoidable. An identified “enemy” (for example ExxonMobil or Proctor and Gamble) is needed to complete the story, enhance the drama, focus the public and, especially, the media. In Rose’s words on page 43 of his book: “Campaign communications need to roll out before an audience like a story.” A sympathetic “victim” or victims are needed to focus the news media and provide great news photographs and film. Rose emphasizes this on page 205 in his book:

“… the most empathetic figure in the story is you, or on your side. Don’t let the media fall out of love with your campaign through the natural tendency for it to dry out and become an elite dialogue.”


By “elite dialogue” Rose means a nuanced and intelligent discussion of the issues surrounding the problem. In other words, do not allow the public or the news media to become educated on the issue. To quote Rose’s book again (pages 23-25):

“CAMPAIGNING IS NOT EDUCATION

Campaigning involves stimulating action, best achieved by narrowing the focus and eliminating distractions and reducing options, as in advertising … Typically, it starts … with a problem and moves a target audience through the stages of awareness … concern and so on, to action.

In contrast, education expands awareness of options and complexity … It typically takes a problem and shows that it is not so simple as you may have first thought.

The educational model is great for education but not for campaigning. It reaches understanding but not action. Using it to try and decide or stimulate action is likely to lead to confusion and frustration. … Questioning fundamentals and reflecting on things is not how business, politics or war advances.”

So, we see the plan. Label an issue as catastrophic and urgent, find an enemy who will not defend itself (normally a publicly held company), propose a plausible solution, find an empathetic victim, issue a call to action, saturate the media (they won’t look at it closely), avoid debating the science and technology, and claim the “science is settled.” These are the critical aspects of a Greenpeace environmental campaign and they have used this formula over and over. They consider it imperative that the argument be kept on an emotional level, once a nuanced analysis of the issue is out, the campaign dies. Since the details and the implications of the “solution” can’t be kept secret for very long, each campaign has a lifetime. Greenpeace will milk each campaign until the money flow begins to decline rapidly, then move on to a new money-maker.

1. Find a scary issue

In Figure 1, we see a plot of expenditures of two of Greenpeace’s discontinued campaigns. Their biodiversity campaign died as people became aware that biodiversity was not declining (Dornelas, et al. 2014) and (J. Cardinale, et al. 2018), instead species populations were just moving about. Then they switched to GM (genetically modified) food, which died in 2010 as GM food was shown to be safe. It is interesting that research and public education are the reasons these donation campaigns died.

Figure 1. Source: (Connolly, et al. 2018)


In Figure 2 a breakdown of Greenpeace’s campaign expenditures is shown. It shows a multiyear waxing and waning of campaigns over time. Initially, the public can be frightened into donating because they do not understand the issue, then as they learn more, the donations decline, and Greenpeace begins to reduce campaign expenditures. It is interesting that campaign expenditures on man-made climate change have started to decline.

Figure 2. Source: (Connolly, et al. 2018)


2. Find a scary villain and a sympathetic victim

For Greenpeace, the ideal villain is a public company, because they are afraid to fight back. They just want the issue out of the newspapers and off TV. As Chris Rose has said, an enemy is essential to the campaign, because it focuses the public mind. In their “ExxonSecrets” campaign, Greenpeace chose ExxonMobil to be their enemy and claimed the company “knew” man-made climate change was dangerous and were hiding secret information that proved it. Worse, ExxonMobil was secretly funding “climate deniers.” None of this was true.

Greenpeace claims that ExxonMobil spent $1.8 million per year funding “climate denial.” They achieve this figure by counting any donation to any organization, regardless of the purpose of the donation, as funding “denial” if the organization had ever expressed any climate skepticism. Even this inflated amount is tiny compared to the more than $100 million per year spent by environmental organizations from 2011-2015 promoting climate change catastrophe due to “carbon pollution” (Nisbet 2018). According to Nisbet a significant portion of these expenditures were to oppose the fossil fuel industry.

As for the idea that ExxonMobil was hiding evidence that man-made climate change was leading to a global catastrophe, the evidence shows that they published all their findings on climate change in public scientific journals. A detailed review of ExxonMobil’s internal documents and publications can be seen here. The “villains” are generally chosen arbitrarily but are usually publicly traded companies.

Victims are carefully chosen. They must be very empathetic, photogenic and appealing to journalists. They can be animals (penguins and polar bears are excellent) or people, especially children. Lots of heart-wrenching photographs are needed along with back-stories. Greenpeace have made themselves the victims on occasion with carefully choreographed demonstrations, such as their Proctor and Gamble protest. The idea is to appeal to emotions and not the intellect.

3. Propose a plausible solution

Greenpeace must propose a solution to the problem and furiously reject all other proposed solutions as inadequate. As an example, replacing coal with natural gas is one way to reduce CO2 emissions, as proven in the United States. But, to have enough natural gas, wells must be “fracked” which Greenpeace is opposed to. Likewise, switching from coal to nuclear power plants reduces CO2 emissions, but Greenpeace is opposed to nuclear. Hydroelectric is out because it requires dams on rivers. They work through the list of possible solutions and reject all of them except for solar, wind and tidal power sources. All are intermittent and currently require backup by fossil fuels or hydroelectric, since battery technology is insufficient and too expensive. Regardless of efforts by Greenpeace and other environmental organizations, the public has become aware of how inadequate these sources are and how impractical and expensive eliminating fossil fuels is, witness the demonstrations against a carbon tax in France.

While Greenpeace will offer a plausible solution, they prefer one that cannot be implemented. If they propose a real solution, it will be implemented and their donations dry up.

4. Issue a call to action

An essential part of Greenpeace’s campaigns is a “call to action” by the public. If the public can do something, they “buy into” the campaign and are more likely donate money. Examples abound, but one example “solution” is to stop using “single use” plastics. The report discusses in some detail how the Greenpeace visual of “giant ocean garbage patches” are largely a fiction and photographic trick. The concentration of plastic material in some parts of the oceans (the “ocean gyres”) is higher than in the rest of the ocean, but still extremely low (Cózar, et al. 2014). Surveys of plastic concentrations in the oceans have been performed, one is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Ocean transits to trawl for plastic in ocean surface water. The red dots are the highest concentrations of plastic, the gray areas are the “gyres.” Source: (Cózar, et al. 2014).


Figure 3 shows the location of the gyres and where plastic concentrations are highest (the red dots). The red dots have 1 kg to 2.5 kg of plastic per square kilometer of ocean, a very small amount. The plastic fragments are quite small. Figure 4 shows all the plastic fragments found in one entire trawl with a fine mesh net in one of the red areas.

Figure 4. All the plastic fragments found in one sweep of the ocean in a red spot area in the South Atlantic Gyre. Source: (Cózar, et al. 2014), figure S11 in the supplementary materials.


The trawl that collected the plastic shown in Figure 4 was in the heart of the South Atlantic gyre “garbage patch.” This trawl covered between 0.4 and 0.9 miles of the ocean in the worst “garbage patch.” Yet, the 110 fragments shown (note the graphical scale) are all that were found. I should mention that the original report had two small errors. On page 33 they said there were 106 fragments, but there are 110. They also said all the fragments are less than 1/16-inch diameter, actually while most of them are, the largest is around ½ inch across. These problems were fixed on 19 December 2018. But, 110 fragments, all less than ½ inch across, is not my definition of a “garbage patch.” The trawl net has a very fine mesh, since the smallest plastic particles recovered are much less than a millimeter across. Most plastic degenerates in ocean water fairly quickly due to sunlight, wave action and biogenic activity, besides the previous link to National Geographic, also see this post by Kip Hansen and the excellent microphotographs of degrading plastic.

Interestingly, the plastics concentration in most of the gyres is not increasing, thus the problem cannot be called “urgent.” However, the concentration is increasing in the North Pacific gyre, which suggests that the additional plastic is coming from Asia, mainly China. The concentration of plastic fragments (most of them less than 1/16 inch across) is quite small, generally less than a few hundred fragments per square mile. Despite this, Greenpeace has convinced much of the public that there are massive floating islands of plastic in the oceans, which is simply not true. In the words of Professor Angelicque White, College of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon State University (Oceanic “garbage patch” not nearly as big as portrayed in media):

 

“There is no doubt that the amount of plastic in the world’s oceans is troubling, but this kind of exaggeration undermines the credibility of scientists.”


5. Carefully choose the media outlets used, control the narrative

Greenpeace spends over $30 million per year on media and communications. They also carefully cultivate contacts in many media organizations and provide them with great film and photographs. It is unfortunate, but most in the media do not check press releases from Greenpeace and simply publish them or summaries. Yet, often these releases are misleading or simply fiction. In some cases, the fictitious press releases are deliberately malicious, as in the now infamous attack on Dr. Willie Soon, one of the authors of the report. Greenpeace fed a fictitious press release about Dr. Soon to the New York Times, where it was slightly modified and published as a news article. Later the story was proven false, but the damage was already done (see here). The malicious and untrue attack on Dr. Soon had some wide-ranging consequences as described by Dr. Richard Lindzen in the Wall Street Journal here. The onus is on the news media to check the facts. Just because the source is Greenpeace, or the Sierra Club, does not mean the press release is correct.

Discussion

This is a very brief summary of the report; the report contains much more detail and many more references. The report raises serious issues with the Greenpeace business model that may apply to many other environmental organizations, such as the World Wildlife Fund and the Sierra Club. How do we make decisions on environmental concerns? Emotion or reason? Do we use education, carefully collected data and critical thinking to guide our actions or anecdotes and doctored photographs?

Dr. Chris Rose’s rules for campaigning should give us all reason to pause and examine any environmental “call to action” critically and skeptically. I would encourage all readers to pay special attention to the report’s Appendix 3, which is entitled: “Influence of Chris Rose’s ‘How to Win Campaigns.’” Greenpeace and other campaigners (including political campaigns) use Rose’s methods and it is easier to avoid being fooled if you understand their methods. Before getting drawn into these campaigns or donating to them, do some research, get educated.

In the words of the Wilderness Society vice president of public policy Rindy O’Brien:

“Greenpeace has tended to look for ways to publicize problems instead of ways to actually solve them.”

That quote was found in a New York Times article here, Carey Goldberg of the Times adds:


“Her (O’Brien’s) comments echoed longstanding criticism by others that Greenpeace is too much of a self-promotion machine.”

That is a good summary and a good place to stop.

Works Cited


Connolly, Michael, Ronan Connolly, Willie Soon, Patrick Moore, and Imelda Connolly. 2018. Analysis of Greenpeace’s business model and philosophy. Chicago: Heartland. https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/analysis-of-greenpeace-business-model?fbclid=IwAR2zExmgrGIgmtqcdRPOfPNG9MqzT-Gm316A57hK_DmvSMkYxjGpDfdo0Y4.

Cózar, Andrés, Fidel Echevarría, J. Ignacio González-Gordillo, Xabier Irigoien, Bárbara Úbeda, Santiago Hernández-León, Álvaro T. Palma, et al. 2014. “Plastic debris in the open ocean.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111 (28): 10239-10244. doi:10.1073/pnas.1314705111.


Dornelas, Maria, Nicholas J. Gotelli, Brian McGill, Hideyasu Shimadzu, Faye Moyes, Caya Sievers, and Anne E. Magurran. 2014. “Assemblage Time Series Reveal Biodiversity Change but Not Systematic Loss.” Science 344 (6181): 296-299. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/344/6181/296.


J.Cardinale, Bradley, Andrew Gonzalez, Ginger R.H. Allington, and Michel Loreau. 2018. “Is local biodiversity declining or not? A summary of the debate over analysis of species richness time trends.” Biological Conservation 175-183. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.12.021.


Nisbet, Matthew. 2018. “Strategic philanthropy in the post‐Cap‐and‐Trade years: Reviewing U.S. climate and energy foundation funding.” Wires Climate Change. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/wcc.524.

Advertisements

48 thoughts on “The Heartland Greenpeace Business Report

  1. “Renewables” AKA wind and solar, are the poster example of a “solution” that will not solve the problem claimed, which is why Greenpeace favors them.

    • Chasing Unicorns.

      Children like Unicorns.

      A bit of a thing in the UK this Christmas it seems.

      Their farts smell bad though, according to one very young relative.

    • Places where ‘concerned’ young people, Liberals and left leaning types (with small children) can be found are canvassed – approached at random, engaged in polite conversation to find A Concern then, asked to set up an annual direct debit from their bank.
      In these days of modern communications, it can all be done within minutes in a field near the middle of nowhere

      Perfect example being, as I discovered, the Latitude music festival last year
      Watch the video, get the picture…
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hriydCh_oM

      My Greenpeace girl was a peach. Bright. Intelligent. Engaging. Attentive.
      But after 20 minutes of wide/varied conversation, she popped the question.
      I said ‘no’ – she just upped and walked without a word
      Hard

      2 things put me off:
      The totally humourless and appallingly bad language (obviously all aimed at Mr Trump) coming out of the ‘Comedy Tent’
      (see all the children in the video? nice huh)

      2. That (at least) two *seriously* heavily armed security men were wandering aimlessly around
      Frankly, they were the saddest, lost & lonely and out-of-place creatures you *ever* saw.

      I moved to have a chat with them, they visibly melted.
      I retreated and the nervous little smile on their faces said it all, even they recognised the insanity of themselves being there.

      And good grief, wtf are they supposed to do? – engage a in a gunfight, with sub-machine guns with someone/anyone in the middle of what you see in the video?
      What I mean when I rave about chronic depression and rampant paranoia

      The dangers of eating sugar innit – where’s it gonna end?

      • Yes, those sheep are actually dyed a very deep shade of pink
        The video doesn’t actually do them justice.
        (They’re there every year)

  2. It’s all about the narrative! It’s not about the science. If it were about the science the skeptics would be winning.

    Don132

  3. Hence my description of this out of all democratic control and accountability organisation as
    ”Greedpeace”.

    The world has an increasing problem which needs to be addressed of NGOs commanding huge public and governmental funding but run by unelected claques of extremists with hugely damaging and disruptive intentions. That in the UK Greedpeace is given tax breaks as a charity when it is a highly political organisation merely adds insult to injury.

    Time long overdue for the imposition of some proper rules.

  4. Grennpace’s model is simple. It is to create irrational fear of remote, intangible, unquantifid and unprovable catastrophes, that can be promoted without significant challenge to breed fear in their well meaning hard of science audience, and to monetise that fear by all means possible. There’s no business like ecobusiness.

    • Yes. H.L. Mencken had it right:
      “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
      There have been various forms of this approach over the centuries. Eco-fear is just the latest.

  5. Hey Green Peace Inc., why not do something really useful instead of spuriously labeling enemies and good guys and money grubbing based on hate? How about helping people flee North Korea and helping victims of crime and dictatorship in Latin America?

  6. Greenpeace has become exactly what it professes to oppose, namely a ruthless, mendacious machine for self-enrichment.

  7. “Choose a villain (enemy agent) who can’t put up much of a defense and a sympathetic victim … you (the good guy) propose a plausible solution to the campaign issue and accuse the villain (for selfish reasons) of preventing the solution from being implemented …”.
    ===================================================
    Echos of Alinsky; “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it”.

    • Any bully really.

      The mean fourth grader on the playground does the same thing … he’s just not smart to verbalize what he is doing.

  8. Greenpeace’s friends at the BBC have picked up some of their habits. Thus as the credibility of the Global-warming alarmism declines and public cynicism about it increases, they switch to the equally unbelievable “plastics in the oceans are going to kill everything”.

    At first sight this is actually a good thing, because there is nothing worse than attacking the energy source of modern civilization. So if they go off chasing another goose instead that may seem like a relatively good thing. Then, at second glance, you realize that the attack on plastics may well just be cover for attack on fossil fuels from another direction: their use in materials rather than their use in energy production.

    Similarly, the Greenpeace attack on GMOs has not disappeared. They switched it to an attack on the Glyphosate herbicide, because Glyphosate-resistant GMO crops currently form such a large part of the profits made by the technology.

    Greenpeace are nothing if not accomplished skillful liars.

  9. It is interesting that “winning” is pretty narrowly interpreted by Greenpeace. I would call most of their choices “moral failures”.

    The tactic of promoting emotionalism over understanding is used by the CBC which, in its talk radio activities, has hosts who continuously seek the “feelings” of those interviewed rather than trying to communicate substance and understanding. It is odd. It is like being in a classroom where independent investigation is subjected to serial extinction.

    • Hi Crispin.

      I agree with your comments about the CBC, aka “Pravda Canada”. They are doctrinaire leftists whose mission is to misinform and propagandize the Canadian public. They are a destructive, divisive force.

      Stephen Harper’s two great failures were to not get two oil pipelines built, one to each coast, and to not abolish the CBC. Now we have an imbecilic man-child as Prime Minister, and he and his advisers are doing all they can to destroy our economy and our country.

  10. It is interesting that campaign expenditures on man-made climate change have started to decline.”

    This fits with other articles, as well as their own business model point

    Greenpeace will milk each campaign until the money flow begins to decline rapidly, then move on to a new money-maker.

    … and I think they’re preparing to move to Ocean Acidification. To some extent, this is just the “Climate Change” campaign renamed, they can continue to blame it on Humanity’s profligate consumption of fossil fuels, which means they can keep the same villain, Exxon-Mobile, but with the new hot name it will pick up steam rapidly. This has been noted in at least one article here on WUWT, and look, they already have a photogenic and distressed “victim” in the Great Barrier Reef! This naturally explains the horrified over-reaction to Peter Ridd’s publications. Does James Cook University receive large donations from Greenpeace? Someone should look into that.

  11. GreenPeace is exactly the same as the old-time Mafia Shakedown operations that threatened businesses with destruction of their premises. They work on a business or concept until they have bankrupted it and then move on to a new victim.

  12. What does anyone expect to achieve by giving money to an environmental charity?

    I don’t mean local activities to improve an area or to pick up litter or even political parties campaigning for legislation. But I do mean charities that just say “This is BAD!!!!”
    They can’t do anything. It’s money down the drain.

    Consider the WWF as another example. Their logo is the panda. All pandas are owned by the Chinese Government. What influence do they have on their trademark issue?
    None.

  13. I haven’t heard one-word from Greenpeace or any other Eco group about the Chinese rape of the islands of the South China Sea.

    • And you never, ever will. Grinpiss are just farudulent narcissists imo. I woke up to them many years ago when they were sprung telling po faced lies about BHP doing seismic testing off southern Australia whil humback whales were swimming by on their migration. The facts were that the testing was deliberately done some 6 months out of sync with the migration. I rank them with paedophile priests and wall street gecko’s for integrity.

  14. I wonder…we are not given data on the area swept by the trawl or the total area of the gyre. Or whether the swept area is representative of the whole.
    Maybe the total plastic trapped in the gyre is a huge amount; maybe not. But inquiring minds want to know.

    • Read the paper or report for more details. The areas with the most plastic have no more than a few hundred fragments per square mile. The largest fragments are about a half inch across.

  15. The decline of issues graph is a delightful Christmas present. Thank you Andy & the report’s authors!

    I was heavily involved in the 90’s in public education regarding nuclear issues at the local level, my State level, and even did a few other State/local presentations. I’ve known for a long time that the nuclear issue was essentially off the radar, for groups like Greedpeace, but the chart and report demonstrates that my efforts were not futile. If you are knowledgeable on a subject that is being attacked by the “environmentalist” organizations, get mad like I did and offer your services to every community organization you can find. Community organizations are always looking for speakers. A few points I learned the hard way:
    – #1, know your audience, e.g. a suit and tie doesn’t work in a rural community. learn their interests beforehand. This is critical.
    – #2, design your presentation to tap into the audience’s high school education – build on that education.
    – #3, avoid scientific jargon as much as possible or carefully explain a term in common language.
    – #4, if debating someone, have 10 zingers prepared that will refute or make your opponent look the fool. I ate the lunches of two nationally known rabble rousers by using this technique and it was glorious.

    Again, thanks Andy et al. My best wishes to all at WUWT for a merry Christmas and happy holidays.

    • Seconded. That graph provides a perfect record of all the environmental scare stories for the last 25 years, and how they have waxed and waned. The fact that Greenpeace is currently shrinking its “Climate” funding is perhaps the first tangible sign that this scare is, finally, fading.

  16. Greenpeace business operation embodies the fact that “A fool and his money are quickly parted”.

    As long as people donate, GP will yell for more and employ creative ways to cultivate guilt and fears.

    Which works big time in societies with disposable cash.

    Cabin crew often reports that some are proud to announce that they made a donation to offset their carbon footprint prior the flight.

    Ultimately cynical since no one tips the personnel on board, those doing the hard work.

  17. Read a book called War Games by Lind Polman, a worker in the Aid Industry. It is exactly the same 5 steps described here that she details in her book, regardless of the so called crisis. And CAGW is just one big global crisis.

    The scary thing is that the CAGW crisis has its ‘donations’ in the form of tax. We are being forced, by law, to donate to this fraudulent crisis. At least with UNICEF, Greenpeace, donations are voluntary! (And yes, UNICEF did use child prostitutes, Polmans book describes this clearly).

  18. I’m looking forward to the pieces on the financial/business models of the Heartland Institute and the GWPF… in the interests of fairness and transparency, this site should surely cover those?

    A certain moral superiority seems to be being claimed over orgs like Greenpeace here on behalf of skeptic orgs – is that justified? I think we need to find out

    • @ griff, Dec 21, 2018 at 12.42 am

      Greedpiss has campaigned furiously against Golden Rice, proven safe & allowed by many govts, for many years. This has caused millions of cases of irreversible blindness & early deaths in the Third World.

      Greedpiss is not only, as this fine article points out, not interested in solutions to problems, it is an anti-human abomination of an organisation dedicated to genocide & firmly intending to counter human progress.
      http://www.goldenrice.org

      Your claim to some sort of moral equivalence is, frankly, bizzarro to the point of lunacy.

      & before you even think of claiming that this world is overpopulated, read economist Julian L. Simon’s great book, The Ultimate Resource 2.
      In short, people = progress & prosperity all down human history & he has the stats & graphs to prove it. Overpopulation is yet another lie to join the pantheon of lies which together make up the CAGW nonsense scare.

      John Doran.

    • Why don’t you just go ahead and do the research and write the article, Griff. I’m sure we would all be interested your findings.

  19. Thanks, Andy for the great review on another Heartland report. They are doing a lot of good work over there.

    I implore every one here to support Heartland financially. They are making a difference.

  20. Just because the source is Greenpeace, or the Sierra Club, does not mean the press release is correct.

    Oh christ and some smaller deities! That was lame beyond recognition.

    Just because the source is Greenpeace, you can safely assume the press release is a worthless piece of communist shit propaganda even before fact-checking, and noticing that lies dominate half-truths in collecting money. Stop pretending they could be honest, as they are not. They lie to get money – and sue you to get more. Even smart children know that. Greenpeace is a darn big infecting brainfart.

    The above may contain fair traces of sarcasm, but in essential, don’t think a Greenpeace press release can be published without thoroughly discrediting your media. We have examples, oh dear.

    Yeah fnuking Exxon knew! As if we’d know now! It is minus 8C out, I’m gonna freeze if Greenpieces get their sticky fingers between me and the oil Exxon is bringing to me!

  21. If Ian Plimer is correct that
    1) many “want a meaning for life and yearn for a spiritual life”, and that
    2) environmentalism and AGW provide such meaning, and that
    3) people want to make a real difference
    etcetera

    And if, as I believe, politicians are too stupid to correctly identify the threats,
    and if many [less than good] scientists have politically positioned themselves for wealth and power,

    Then, it behooves [good] scientists to identify real threats, and recommend solutions for those threats, and
    make those problems visible to the public, which is full of people who want to be useful and want to make a difference.

    If the problems are real, and should be immediately addressed, then it should not be immoral to cast off from Rose’s recommendations, in a good guy way. Surely there is a scientific code of ethics that could be applied to clean up the technique.

    So, what are the real problems?
    Here are some terrors I see listed frequently.
    ** ? Climate change?
    ** ? Weaponized or Solar EMP affect on grid, computers, factories, transportation, furnaces ?
    ** ? Asteroid strikes ?
    ** ? Aliens ?
    ** ? 5G ? – some people (my acquaintances) swear wireless makes them ill, and 5G will be worse.
    ** ? Wind Farms ? – some people swear wind vibrations make them ill
    ** ? Lithium car battery fires ?

  22. Their business model IS “actions [that don’t] suggest that their prime motivation is to collect the most money possible.”

    All of them nutrition-bio labels is their TRADEMARK / copyright and the food producers have to pay for every single label they need to have.

    The greens don’t do no single work: no quality controlling, no emergency help when there’s health problems with consumers.

    https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-samsung&biw=360&bih=288&ei=vqAjXMi8CuimrgSE-qWIDA&q=nutrition+bio+labels&oq=nutrition+bio+labels&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.

    They it’s anyway the states due to cope with citizens health problems.

  23. the “climate believers” money swamp is immediately dehydrated when the food producers design their own product label.

    They lose nothing – they always have to adhere to their own product.

Comments are closed.