Greenpeace gets a prod

Greenpeace, hate speech and legitimate oil production.

Greenpeace helped out James “Climate Change” Shaw the other day with a press release of impeccable logic pointing out that tackling climate change is incompatible with looking for more oil. Impeccable, that is, on their assumptions. In truth, their reasoning is of the worst falsified kind, twisted beyond reality, there being no evidence that our emissions of carbon dioxide do anything but good for humanity and the planet.

It’s important that the warmsters justify their scary rhetoric, though, else they’ll walk all over us, so I gave Greenpeace a prod with a letter:


Your press release of December 18, 2017, states:

The science is clear. We can’t afford to burn most of the fossil fuels we have already discovered. It is incompatible with tackling climate change to look for more [hydrocarbons].

The only reason for oil exploration is to meet the market demand for oil. Considering there’s yet no widely-available alternative for transport, going to the trouble of an emergency change in our vehicles and fuels will be difficult, expensive and, looking at changes in technology over the past hundred years, will take about 40 years before the infrastructure has been built.

We need to be certain about your claim that the science is clear and we can’t afford to burn more hydrocarbons. So I’d be grateful for references to scientific documents authenticating this.



The Greenpeace office takes holidays. Their system replied:

Kia ora, Thanks for your email. We are currently away for the holidays and will be back in the office on 27th December. If you want to call us, we will be in the office from 27th to 29th December, 9am to 3pm.

Thanks and Happy Holidays
Alex, Jessie and Madeleine
Greenpeace Supporter Relations Team

That’s fine, we’ll wait. We have no alternative.

13 Thoughts on “Greenpeace gets a prod

  1. Gary Kerkin on December 24, 2017 at 11:01 am said:

    For your prod to be effective Richard, you probably should have sent a bit of C4 with it!

    Oh! Wait! I’m terribly sorry. My use of that term has probably attracted the attention of those who police our ruminations. I hope you don’t get an unexpected and unwanted visit tomorrow.

    On the other hand, maybe this is a good way to make a point. Pity it isn’t April yet!

    Merry Christmas.

  2. Richard Treadgold on December 24, 2017 at 11:08 am said:

    Hi Gary,

    You’re most amusing, thanks. I really shouldn’t labour a point you raised just for levity’s sake, but my measure of ‘effectiveness’ has an eye to the long game. We aim to corral the major players and display their duplicity to the world. Great plan, don’t know the details yet.

    Merry Christmas!

  3. Maggy Wassilieff on December 28, 2017 at 9:15 am said:

    Greenpeace Britain agrees to withdraw misleading advertisement about price of windfarm energy.

  4. Speaking of wind farms, I met up with a couple from Scotland at our house here, just before Christmas, who I had previously only met on Facebook

    They run a small hotel six doors from where my parents lived in SW Scotland

    Our connection was a mutual distain for wind energy, and a subsequent submission from me to Dumfries and Galloway Regional Council. We won that particular case, although if you drive down the Glasgow-Carlisle road you could be forgiven onto thinking that the cause is lost. That part of Scotland has been totally destroyed by hundreds of turbines as far as the eye can see

  5. Gary Kerkin on December 28, 2017 at 11:01 am said:


    We aim to corral the major players and display their duplicity to the world. Great plan, don’t know the details yet.

    I appreciate that but, frankly, I don’t think it will work. GreenPeace has not been interested in truth for a long time now. The poster, to which Maggy referred, was subject to a complaint brought by the GWPF. The claim on the poster, that wind energy had brought about a 50% reduction in electricity charges, was a blatant lie. You may recall Bryan Leyland won a complaint against GreenPeace NZ over the number of birds killed by the oil spilled from the Rena. GreenPeace claimed over 20,000 birds died, a blatant lie: the actual figure was less than 10% that number. GreenPeace were forced to withdraw the advertisement cited by Bryan. With Russell Norman in charge I expect to see the number of false claims from GreenPeace ramp up. I rather suspect that Shaw probably believes the propaganda he propagates: I doubt that Norman cares whether it is accurate or not.

    That’s why I don’t think your plan will work. Ultimately, unlike the science, it will become a matter of who shouts the loudest.

  6. Richard Treadgold on December 28, 2017 at 11:11 am said:

    I appreciate your comments, Gary, but the long view isn’t to persuade Greenpeace et al. of the truth, it’s to alert the populace of the duplicity of their revered scientific and academic institutions. It’s absolutely a matter of who shouts the loudest, and we don’t have the voices, so we’d lose. We’ll get the voters to do the shouting.

  7. I tend to agree with Gary, in that Greenpeace is essentially a criminal organisation that uses lies and deception to extort money out of corporations and gullible members of the public

    Whether we treat them as a civil member of society or a bunch of crooks is a matter of strategy

    The Trump strategy is to go hard out at calling the media “Fake News” and so on. Whether you agree with this or even like the guy is irrelevant. I think it has empowered a lot of people to come out from behind the couch and start calling these crooks for what they are

  8. Richard Treadgold on December 28, 2017 at 2:47 pm said:

    You’re right, too, Andy. No argument. Just a matter of tactics, I think. Either way, it’ll be the voters who change things, not us directly. Unless you have a suggestion?

  9. Gary Kerkin on December 29, 2017 at 1:19 pm said:

    Either way, it’ll be the voters who change things, not us directly.

    Ultimately elections and polls will change governments’ hearts and minds. But I don’t agree with you about Greenpeace, Richard.

    No matter the flavour of government, or the mood of the electorate, Greenpeace has always employed its propaganda tactics which include fabrications. By all means call it “fake news”, for most of it is. And by all means apply your, “as yet undetermined” plan to discredit them by showing their duplicity. You know you can count on my support and most of your “conversationists”.

    For my part I consider a multi-front strategy to be most appropriate. A constant targeting of adverse media to try to create unease, and support for those that have acknowledged the message. The useful niggling of bringing complaints against the media for incorrect claims or unbalanced reporting. Direct confrontation of scientists for making unverifiable claims. We are familiar with these. It’s about time we started long-term planning for them—well, at least those that are capable of being planned.

    I guess I am saying we need more than just shooting from the hip. Which is, of course, one of the things you are talking about.

  10. We have grandmaster troll International Grade in the White House batting for our team

  11. Trump’s trolling gets the expected response from the finger wagging “experts”

    Apparently Global Warming can cause the coldest winter on record

    Imagine my surprise at hearing this !

  12. Richard Treadgold on December 30, 2017 at 10:29 am said:

    “Imagine my surprise”


  13. Gary Kerkin on January 21, 2018 at 9:00 am said:

    You may recall, late last year, the GWPF announced that a complaint it lodged with the Advertising Standards Authority (UK) about false advertising by Greenpeace was upheld. Greenpeace promised the Authority it would withdraw the offending poster and video. Did they?

    Eco-warriors at Greenpeace are still claiming wind energy prices have fallen by 50% despite promising the Advertising Standards Authority they would no longer do so. The pressure group was involved in a major green lobby ad campaign promoting wind power fronted by actors Peter Capaldi and Emma Thompson. Posters – including one which went up in Westminster tube station – claimed: “The price paid for electricity from offshore wind farms has fallen by 50% over the last five years.” Wrong – in most cases the prices paid for electricity from the UK’s offshore wind fleet have not fallen at all…

    Following an upheld complaint, Greenpeace told the Advertising Standards Authority last month it would no longer make the claim. But a video featuring Emma Thompson holding a giant “50% off” sign next to an offshore wind farm is still being shown on the Greenpeace Facebook page. Thompson claims the non-existent price drop is: “it’s better than the Harrods sale”. The caption reads: “Wow – the cost of offshore wind has HALVED in the last two years!” (19/1/18)

    The GWPF reports today.

    A spokesman for the Global Warming Policy Forum, which made the successful complaint, said:

    “The ads are deliberately misleading MPs and the wider public into thinking that existing wind farms have been cutting their prices. In fact, the allegedly lower prices are only related to auction bids in so-called Contracts for Difference which apply to tentative future wind projects that will not start generating until 2021/2022 and may in fact never be built — or never generate at these low prices. As a recent study has shown, the capital costs of new offshore wind do not appear to be falling and may even be rising as they move into deeper waters.”

    When will Greenpeace keep its promise to the regulator?

    Update: It would appear that Greenpeace have finally pulled the video after this GF story

    What was that I wrote about needing more than just a prod? Greenpeace is dishonest—morally and otherwise.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation