Greenpeace Leader Admits They Lied About Arctic Ice Melt

reply to post by semperfortis


Apparently, our entire solar system is heating up, so our poisoning the environment is not the cause. Yet, is still unsustainable. I feel that the deeper message here is very important.

We cannot continue to maintain a society where one percent of the population holds ninety percent of the wealth. Honesty is key here. Greenpeace plays its part in the deception just like everyone else.

Even though fossil fuels may not be the source of global warming, we cannot continue to exploit a limited resource that produces toxic by products, and not expect severe consequences.

We already have implementable technologies that can even run cars on water with little effort, and the cost is reduced through mass production (HHO gas, a different phase of H20, although it is typically used as a super fuel additive). Just an example. aquygen.com...

This current system of mass consumerism is the issue Greenpeace is trying to address here, but they MUST be completely honest in the process of implementing positive change. So what? Being honest will reduce their ability to make as hard a hitting statement, better than being caught in a lie, no matter how trite it may seem at the time.

Even the slightest dishonesty on the behalf of Greenpeace destroys any positive message they may intend to present. I.E. this current societal model is unsustainable, but so is dishonesty and it is a sign of the greater trends facing societies across the globe. Honesty is always a stronger message than fear.

reply to post by Rockpuck

So they lied about global warming ... to bring about a Communist ideology of the suppression of wealthy life styles and perpetual economic growth.

Unfortunately that is what you are supposed to believe if you penetrate the first level of lies.

If you go all the way back to 1972 you will find Maurice Strong paid for a small group called Greenpeace to attend the first U.N. Conference on the Human Environment, the 'Stockholm Conference' From 1971, Strong served as a trustee for the Rockefeller Foundation so it should be no surprise to find Greenpeace is well funded by the Rockefeller Foundations.

If you do more digging you find Strong was Alternate governor at the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Asian Development Bank 1968-1970 and was an advisor for the World Bank. Strong has also been heavily involved with oil. From 1958 to 1961, he formed M. F. Strong Management Ltd., Calgary and assumed the management of Ajax Petroleums Ltd., which he reorganized to form Canadian Industrial Gas and Oil Ltd. At that time, it was one of the largest Canadian independent energy companies (now Norcen). And most currently the Oil for food scandal



And David Rockefeller is the Rockefeller of International banking, and Standard Oil fame who has controlling interest in not one but four international Oil Companies. Rockefeller who has hosted luncheons at the family's Westchester estate for the world's finance ministers and central bank governors, following the annual Washington meetings of the World Bank and IMF. Rockefeller whose Chase Bank served as training grounds for three World Bank presidents, John J. McCloy, Eugene Black and George Woods.

To put it bluntly Greenpeace is a very useful tool of the international bankers who do not want the unwashed masses using THEIR resources. Environmentalism is a good way to keep the resources under lock and key until the bankers can acquire title to the land. Debt for land swap anyone?

I don't detect a lie in that the GP person said. Dramatization? Almost certainly. He did look at different climate models and scenarios. Given that we receive reports of incredibly fast ice melting from around the globe, on daily basis, I would say his message was not even remotely wrong.

The title of the thread is intentionally misleading.


[edit on 21-8-2009 by buddhasystem]

reply to post by halfmanhalfamazing


Earth to halfmanhalfamazing:

CO2 is also a natural component of the earth's atmosphere whose levels have been fluctuating NATURALLY for perhaps billions of years.

And your comment about everything we eat or drink contributing to CO2 emissions is pure eco-nazi speak. Because the only solution to that so-called "problem" is to get rid of the earth's people.

If you really believe in that BS, how about you set an example for the rest of us "polluters" and get rid of yourself first.

Originally posted by centurion1211
And your comment about everything we eat or drink contributing to CO2 emissions is pure eco-nazi speak. Because the only solution to that so-called "problem" is to get rid of the earth's people.

Demagoguery at its best! With its "Reductio ad Absurdum" etc.

The numbers of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere are not fictitious, this is hard science facts. That the energy consumption (directly related to how much CO2 is dumped) in the US is higher than anywhere else is also a fact.

Please don't resort to Nazi (Reductio ad Hitlerum) and other such laughable tricks. It's like I'm saying "maybe you should quit smoking in view of your poor health" and you reply "you are a Nazi because you just want to get rid of me, to solve my smoking problem". Bullcrap.


[edit on 21-8-2009 by buddhasystem]

Originally posted by TheAssociate
reply to post by semperfortis

 

My guess is never... At least not in my lifetime..

I think people are too emotionally invested in the environmentalist movement at this point to admit that man-made climate change is BS. It's become like a religion for a lot of them, and to admit that would be heresy, no matter how much evidence there is that they're wrong. Thanks for the reply.

TA

You are correct, but that does not justify raping the environment for every last drop of oil we can find. Species are still dying left and right, I say that evolution must replace less capable species, but we are the keystone species.

We are abusing what we have for cheap foreign goods that eventually fill our landfills, and contaminate the environment. Luxury is not worth the long term costs. Your statement feels like an excuse to keep burning fossil fuels, not that I am accusing you of such, rather that is how it is coming off.

I rarely if ever agreed with George W.'s statements, but when he said we are addicted to oil, he was right. An addiction is an addiction regardless if it is heating up our biosphere. Something has to give. I can't justify paying 3.00 or more per gallon of gas, thank the gods I take the bus. It helps.

I would rather people cut down on fossil fuel consumption because they are concerned about the heating of the environment, rather than continuing on this one way ticket to starvation. If gas hits 5.00 per gallon, industry will grind to a halt. People will freeze to death in the winter (maybe not as often, but honestly people will).

This has to stop, and the corrupt energy industries are more concerned about paying millions of dollars on PR commercials and lobbying congress than they are about utilizing already existing non-oil technologies (they do to a degree, but money is their concern, not sustainability).

They will not listen, and this argument of Greenpeace manipulating the evidence (although wrong in my opinion), and environmentalists beating global warming to death is a straw man/red herring argument that distracts from the point that private interests are in control of governmental policies, and they will exploit natural resources no matter what the environmental toll through discovery and extraction of these resources.

If you go all the way back to 1972 you will find Maurice Strong paid for a small group called Greenpeace to attend the first U.N. Conference on the Human Environment, the 'Stockholm Conference' From 1971, Strong served as a trustee for the Rockefeller Foundation so it should be no surprise to find Greenpeace is well funded by the Rockefeller Foundations

Is that you, Ron S?

reply to post by Gamma MO

Is that you, Ron S?

No but I was certainly around then and even a member of Sierra Club at that time. Luckily I was able to learn and see beyond the rose colored glasses.

All anyone has to do is follow the Maurice Strong, David Rockefeller, World Bank threads and a smelly mess will appear on the end of the fishingline.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by centurion1211
And your comment about everything we eat or drink contributing to CO2 emissions is pure eco-nazi speak. Because the only solution to that so-called "problem" is to get rid of the earth's people.

Demagoguery at its best! With its "Reductio ad Absurdum" etc.

The numbers of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere are not fictitious, this is hard science facts. That the energy consumption (directly related to how much CO2 is dumped) in the US is higher than anywhere else is also a fact.

Please don't resort to Nazi (Reductio ad Hitlerum) and other such laughable tricks. It's like I'm saying "maybe you should quit smoking in view of your poor health" and you reply "you are a Nazi because you just want to get rid of me, to solve my smoking problem". Bullcrap.

[edit on 21-8-2009 by buddhasystem]

OK, smart guy ...

Instead of playing the "shoot the messenger" game, what do YOU think the solution is if the problem is defined as everything humans do is causing pollution that harms the planet?

Come on, let's hear just one solution that does not involve culling the human population. Remember that saying we have to do anything that reduces food or energy production will also cause mass death due to starvation - which equates to a nazi-like eugenics program. Hence the name "eco-nazi".

So, come on, let's hear your solution(s).

Originally posted by king9072

There's a vast difference between pollution and the "global warming" debate, to fail to differentiate between the two illustrates your lack of knowledge.

Chise61, your right he doesn't flat out say "I am a bold faced liar". Instead, we can look at what was said, and what the facts are and understand the provided information to be fictitious. This in turn makes the presenter, a LIAR.

Keep grabbing at straws people, and enjoy the carbon tax that does nothing but rape your community at every level.

If green peace gave a damn, they would be doing everything they could about the massive "garbage continent" floating in the pacific. That has far reaching and devastating effects, and its a terrible form of pollution. Instead they push a fictitious issue onto people, using malicious scare tactics, all for what? So that a carbon tax can be passed? To line the pockets of a few people, while doing nothing to actually make real progress towards lowering pollutants regardless of type.

[edit on 21-8-2009 by king9072]

Good post. It is important that people realise the difference between showing respect for the planet and buying into the Global Warming/Climate change movement. It is not as a Black and White issue as the media makes it out to be. It does seem as the days pass by that this Climate Change issue has sinister motivations behind it, as you pointed out.

People on both sides should stop dividing over the issue. This includes people who support the Climate Change Movement - most of them probably think their actions to reduce emissions will benefit the planet and future generations to come.

Isn't that the speciality of TPTB? Getting Blind Zombies to do what they think is right, but actually benefits their masters more than themselves?

[edit on 21/8/2009 by Dark Ghost]

Simple solution and the only way is to be vegetarian. I am not going to give you the facts and figures from start to finish on the meat trade but you will find meat consumption is the biggest greenhouse gas contribution then anything else. BUT as I have read other posts no one bloody cares...its a case of I am alright jack....

[edit on 21-8-2009 by loner007]

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry

Well you have certain points that are correct concerning the global warming movement and its profitability. But, I can easily look out the window and compare the weather of today to 10 years ago. Global warming is real. If you really believe that what we are doing to the planet has no effect, then, you are in denial.

No, I don't have a stance on it because there is no evidence to support for or against it.

en.wikipedia.org...

What I do have is a knowledge of events, a simple understanding of Earths climate history, and other popular phobias that the people have had.

I can easily draw the conclusion, based on past events, lack of scientific backing, and corruption found in those who profit from this, that this is just a popular mania.

Whether we actually have any sort of impact on the planet warming up is an unknown. We don't know. You drawing the conclusion that we DO have an impact on it is just hysteria. You've drawn a conclusion based on climate change. If you lived in the 70's, and in the U.S., you'd draw the conclusion that the Earth was cooling.

Edit: To clarify, I do have a stance on global warming as a man made phenomenon. I don't have a stance on global warming as natural because there is no stance to be had.

[edit on 21-8-2009 by Credge]

Originally posted by centurion1211
Instead of playing the "shoot the messenger" game, what do YOU think the solution is if the problem is defined as everything humans do is causing pollution that harms the planet?

Not everything humans do harms the planet. Again, don't sway the argument by exaggerating the premise. "Only Sith speak in absolutes".

Come on, let's hear just one solution that does not involve culling the human population.

Culling usually means taking a group of animals and killing off a part of that group. Nothing like that was ever proposed by Greenpeace or any sane person that I know. Again, you are trying invent a substance for your post that is lacking from get go.

Remember that saying we have to do anything that reduces food or energy production will also cause mass death due to starvation - which equates to a nazi-like eugenics program. Hence the name "eco-nazi".

Gosh, you have become a one-trick pony and just can't compose a sentence without throwing in a "Nazi" or two. Energy can be produced in many different ways, and can also be consumed in many different ways, so instead of screaming "fascism" you might as well spend some time learning the subject.

reply to post by TheAssociate


Op you state in your title:

Greenpeace Leader Admits They Lied About Arctic Ice Melt

show me where. link the text. otherwise your statement can be seen as nothing but a lie.

sorry but it is that simple. you make a statement of fact yet provide no proof of it.

that my friend is dishonesty pure and simple.

if you want to rally your cohort feel free, but at least do it honestly.

not only is the site you have linked to here a blog based on nothing but opinion and lacking proof or facts, this is in no way a 'news' story. it is pure hype and does not belong in this forum.

[edit on 21-8-2009 by Animal]

reply to post by centurion1211

How about not being closed minded, hmm? Or perhaps not fueling the politico-industrial complex by conserving a little more than you already do? How about taking a few extra minutes to pick up someone else's litter on the ground?

I bet you don't care and want the sky blackened with the fires of industry. You are taking a personal affront to his statements because you feel justified in your toxic, come what may attitude. I bet you litter, or at least you wouldn't pick up someone else's litter, because there has to be someone who is paid to do it right? Sure.

Eat your junk food, litter as much as you want, and sit before your flashing control devices, because that is all you care about.

And for The Associate:
Oh there was once a well known MIRC (Internet Relay Chat) adage that said "He who plays the Nazi card loses the conversation". Buddy, you lose.



[edit on 21-8-2009 by GideonHM]

Originally posted by centurion1211
OK, smart guy ...

Instead of playing the "shoot the messenger" game, what do YOU think the solution is if the problem is defined as everything humans do is causing pollution that harms the planet?

Come on, let's hear just one solution that does not involve culling the human population. Remember that saying we have to do anything that reduces food or energy production will also cause mass death due to starvation - which equates to a nazi-like eugenics program. Hence the name "eco-nazi".

So, come on, let's hear your solution(s).

#1. Local Organic Agriculture ~ Reduces the consumption of petroleum based products in production (fertilizers and pesticides); Reduces the use of petroleum used in crop care; Reduces the energy consumed in packaging; Reduces the energy consumed in transportation.

#2 Creating Localized Solar, Wind, Biomass, and Hydro Energy Fed Grid Systems. this is accomplished by allowing such energy devices purchased by home / land owners to be tied into the already existent grid for credit / payment.

#3 Invest in Mass Transportation as an alternative to both personal transportation and the dependence on semi-shipping.

There rally is a massive amount of actions that can be taken on both a personal and collective level. None of what I have noted will cause any loss of life, on the contrary it would undoubtedly add to the quality of life.


EDIT TO ADD:

Originally posted by centurion1211
reply to post by halfmanhalfamazing

 

Earth to halfmanhalfamazing:

CO2 is also a natural component of the earth's atmosphere whose levels have been fluctuating NATURALLY for perhaps billions of years.

And your comment about everything we eat or drink contributing to CO2 emissions is pure eco-nazi speak. Because the only solution to that so-called "problem" is to get rid of the earth's people.

If you really believe in that BS, how about you set an example for the rest of us "polluters" and get rid of yourself first.

Two things mate...

First, if it is so painfully obvious that all the so called 'hype' surrounding a human connection to climate change is nothing more than 'hype' why would those who realize this reality have to make threads as painfully misleading and dishonest as this one to prove that point? I mean really, if all the information is on YOUR side why the need to resort to such tactics.

Secondly, if the human connection is, again, so obviously NOT true why the need to talk to those who don't agree with you as you have here? What do you expect to gain through such disrespect? Certainly not 'discussion' of ideas?


[edit on 21-8-2009 by Animal]

BBC is the #. I'm seriously gonna start sending money to them as I get more myself.

reply to post by TheAssociate


greenpeace lie routinely - never trusted them since i had personal insight into the brent spar fiasco

If it's any consolation, no one bases US policy on what Greenpeace claims, since Greenpeace has no standing in the scientific community. They've also shown themselves to be unreliable in the past.

This is one reason why I never listen to extremist groups such as Greenpeace, PETA, and others. They feel their mission is so important, they are willing to lie to accomplish their goals. That doesn't mean they don't have a point - often they do. However, it does mean that the information they offer is not to be taken as reliable.

Unfortunately, now they look like the "boy who cried wolf". Even their legitimate claims and concerns are likely to be dismissed as more lies. Good work, Greenpeace.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
So they lied about global warming ... to bring about a Communist ideology of the suppression of wealthy life styles and perpetual economic growth.
Sadly, nothing surprises me anymore.

In the 80's Greenpeaces funding fell massively. A friend of mine who work for intel in Canada told me they know that the single biggest funder of Greenpeace back then was an east german company that was a front for the KGB.

www.freerepublic.com...