Trump Is Right, the Greenies Are Lying – Patrick Moore Did Co-Found Greenpeace

A grafiti by street artist TVBoy shows a scene of famous Italian movie 'La Dolce Vita' with actors Marcello Mastroianni and Anita Ekberg, on November 14, 2017 in Rome. This initiative of environmental NGO Greenpeace with the street artist Tvboy is part of the campaign 'Clean Air Now' to denounce …
ALBERTO PIZZOLI/AFP/Getty

President Trump has tweeted in support of Greenpeace co-founder turned arch climate skeptic Patrick Moore.

So naturally, the Climate Industrial Complex has responded as only it knows how.

Not, of course, by trying to refute Moore’s arguments. (That would be tricky: the truth is that there is no climate crisis and the great global warming scare is Fake Science)…

…but by trying to airbrush Moore out of Greenpeace’s history by claiming that he was not one of the founders of the organisation.

Read the rest on Breitbart.

How I Totally Crushed the Ocean Acidification Alarmist Loons

Delingpole
Meet Dr Phil Williamson: climate ‘scientist’; Breitbart-hater; sorely in need of a family size tube of Anusol to soothe the pain after his second failed attempt to close down free speech by trying to use press regulation laws to silence your humble correspondent.
Williamson – who is attached to the University of East Anglia, home of the Climategate emails – got very upset about some articles I’d written for Breitbart and the Spectatorpouring scorn on his junk-scientific field, Ocean Acidification.

In my view Ocean Acidification is little more than a money-making scam for grant-troughing scientists who couldn’t find anything more productive to do with their semi-worthless environmental science degrees. The evidence that Ocean Acidification represents any kind of threat is threadbare – and getting flimsier by the day.

But if, like Williamson, you are being paid large sums of money to conduct a research programme into Ocean Acidification, you’ll obviously want to defend your mink-lined, gold-plated carriage on the climate change gravy train. So first he wrote a long, earnest defence of his income stream in Marine Biologist.

Then, when no one cared, he made a formal complaint about one of my articles to the UK press regulatory body IPSO. And to judge by the punchy tone of this piece he published in Nature before Christmas, he fully expected to win.

Tragically, though, he just lost.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

OK Everyone: Your Chance to Salt the Slug of Ocean Acidification

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to steer these shysters towards a career more suited to their talents ie: “You want a large fries and a McFlurry with that?”

Basically, what I require from you is some solid scientific input. (Not snark and smart-arsery: that’s my domain). Anything useful you have in the form of comments or links which thoroughly rebut Williamson’s article below I will incorporate into the body of the piece.

To try to avoid confusion I have put my original article on Ocean Acidification in bold; Williamson’s attempted rebuttal in regular typeface; and the guest criticisms of people like Patrick Moore in italics.

Read the rest (there’s a LOT) at Breitbart.

Ocean Acidification: Your Chance to Help Kill This Dodgy Scam Once and for All!

The very name is a lie: no our oceans are not turning acid; still less are our corals and marine life under any threat of dissolving in what the New York Times once hysterically described as “our deadened, carbon-soaked seas”.

Yet still this junk-science scare story refuses to lie down and die because there are so many vested interests determined to prop it up.

Here is the latest egregious example. Published at The Marine Biologist (“the magazine of the marine biological community”) it purports to be a damning refutation of one of my many articles calling out the Ocean Acidification lie.

There was a time when I would have just ignored it: the guy who wrote it – one Phil Williamson – is the embodiment of Upton Sinclair’s dictum that “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

Not only is Williamson based at the “University” of East Anglia – aka Climate Alarmism Central, heavily featured in the Climategate scandal – but since 2010 he has been paid as Science Coordinator of the UK Ocean Acidification research programme. This project has received around £12.5 million of UK government funding, most it provided by the Natural Environment Research Council (for which conveniently Williamson also works).

Also: who reads The Marine Biologist anyway? Many, many fewer people than will have read my original pieces at Breitbart (here and here ) and in the Spectator.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Greenpeace Co-Founder Patrick Moore: Skeptics Are the New ‘Thin Green Line’

No, not the Green McJob (TM) creation scheme being hosted by the United Nations at Le Bourget for the benefit of 40,000 troughers, kleptocrats, island nation guilt trippers, activists, bureaucrats, apparatchiks, junk-scientists, one world government freaks, environmental lawyers, corporate rent-seekers, teat-suckers and other assorted eco-fascist protozoa.

Rather, I mean the Paris Climate Challenge, a tiny three-day event being hosted in the centre of town by retired Church of England vicar Philip Foster and a tall blogger called Roger ‘Tallbloke’ for a ragtag group of – at best – 40 climate skeptics.

I was tempted to take a photo of them for this article. But I decided it would play right into the enemy’s hands.

Empty chairs and mostly grey-haired men with wild eyes and a mad-professor demeanour: it would have confirmed everything the greenies like to claim about climate “deniers” – that they’re old to the point of being senile, eccentric to the point of insanity and so out of touch with reality that no one wants to hear what they want to say anyway.

And you know what? If I were in the unfortunate position of having no scientific arguments left to support my case that’s exactly the kind of sad and desperate smear job I’d resort to as well.

Probably, I’d add that “deniers” smell of wee-wee (or poo-poo, if I really wanted to drive the point home); and, if at all possible, I’d try to follow the example of luminaries like President Obama, Bernie Sanders and the Prince of Wales and hint gently that these disgusting people were also kinda, sorta responsible for the Paris massacre and the San Bernardino massacre because by denying the reality of man-made global warming they helped cause the alleged “drought” in the Middle East which drove thousands of law-abiding, peace-loving Muslims straight into the arms of Islamic State.

Luckily for me, though, I’m not in that unfortunate position. Rather I’m on the side of the argument which has pretty much everything going for it: the science, the economics, the moral high ground, the intellectual credibility, the wit, charm and tell-it-like-it-is fearlessness…

But, yes, most of all what we have on my side of the argument are the facts.

There were lots of these at the Paris Climate Challenge conference – the kind of hard, verifiable scientific ones which simply weren’t available to the people up the road at the COP21 event.

Facts like:

The lack of observational evidence for “man-made” global warming

The 19-year “pause” in global warming which none of the alarmists’ models predicted.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Greenpeace’s Forest Policy Is Unsustainable

Here is a guest post from one of my environmental heroes, Patrick Moore. The reason he’s an environmental hero is because, unlike so many campaigners in the green movement, he doesn’t believe that in order to save the world its necessary to destroy Western industrial civilisation.

I highly recommend his superb book Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout which describes how he lost his faith in the organisation he co-founded:

Since I left Greenpeace, its members, and the majority of the movement have adopted policy after policy that reflects their antihuman bias, illustrates their rejection of science and technology and actually increases the risk of harm to people and the environment. They oppose forestry even though it provides our most abundant renewable resource. They have zero tolerance for genetically modified food crops, even though this technology reduces pesticide use and improves nutrition for people who suffer from malnutrition. They continue to oppose nuclear energy, even though it is the best technology to replace fossil fuels and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They campaign against hydroelectric projects despite the fact that hydro is by far the most abundant renewable source of electricity. And they support the vicious and misguided campaign against salmon farming, an industry that produces more than a million tons of heart-friendly food every year.”

Patrick’s guest post begins here:

Imagine a situation in which an activist group with certain political ambitions and close ties to a computer manufacturer engaged in a campaign of threats against specific UK retailers.

Targeted retailers were told that they must buy computers from only a select manufacturer (the one closely associated with the activist group) and no other, to the detriment of the retailer, market competition, and consumers at large. If retailers dared to purchase from any other computer manufacturer, the activist group would continue a campaign to spread misinformation, harass and embarrass the retailer, and sully its name brand. If this fictional scenario were made real, it would likely be cause for an investigation. In the world of organized crime, this type of strategy has a name: racketeering.

And yet when my former colleagues at Greenpeace employ a similar strategy to target Indonesian forest product producers (albeit without the threat of violence often associated with racketeering) they’re hailed as leaders by their fellow environmental activists.

Greenpeace is threatening name-brand retailers and manufacturers who do not agree to a Greenpeace-backed wood fiber and paper policy that gives preference to one particular forest certifier, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), over all other forest certification bodies.

For Greenpeace, it doesn’t matter that other forest certifiers enforce rigorous forest certification standards that either match or exceed those of the FSC. It doesn’t matter, my old group says, that Indonesian forest product producers adhere to strict environmental and social standards and provide enormous benefits to local and often poor people in the areas where producers operate.

It doesn’t matter that leading Indonesian forest product producers are aggressively certifying plantation forests through a range of independent, third-party standards including Indonesia’s rigorous national standard, Lembaga Ekolabel Indonesia (LEI).
Instead, what matters to Greenpeace is its close association with the FSC. Greenpeace was instrumental in the FSC’s founding and maintains, along with its fellow environmental activists, tight political control over the organization. It follows that Greenpeace wishes to see only the FSC thrive and all other certification standards perish.

No other forest certifier has the advantage of Greenpeace support. Not only does Greenpeace promote the FSC. Greenpeace actively threatens any retailer or manufacturer that decides to purchase wood and paper products certified using other, equally rigorous forest certification standards.

Greenpeace is essentially attempting to create a monopoly for the FSC in Asia by using a strategy of threats and intimidation.

It won’t work.

Greenpeace tried a similar strategy in North America, pushing home improvement retailers, home builders, and other wood and paper product purchasers to buy only FSC-labeled product. But home improvement retailers and home builders eventually realized they could provide better value to their customers while still ensuring sustainable forest practices by giving preference to a range of forest certification standards. Having failed to secure an FSC monopoly in North America, Greenpeace is now attempting to do so in Asia, with a particular focus on Indonesia.

The real tragedy is that for the sake of a forest certification label and in the name of monopoly, Greenpeace is ignoring the true causes of forest destruction in Indonesia: unsustainable agricultural practices, illegal forest encroachment, and illegal logging and poaching.

Targeting Indonesia’s legal and sustainable forest sector will do nothing to prevent forest destruction in the country and will likely only exacerbate deforestation. And promoting an FSC monopoly will limit consumer choice and market competition while having no impact on forest sustainability.

It’s time for Greenpeace to end this wrong-headed, damaging approach.

Related posts:

  1. Is Policy Exchange the most loathsome think tank in Britain?
  2. If this is Britain’s energy policy, we’re toast
  3. Greenpeace and the IPCC: time, surely, for a Climate Masada?
  4. Shock US Senate report: left wing ‘Billionaire’s Club’ using green groups to subvert democracy, control the economy