Category Archives: greenpeace

Whoopee for Roundup! Glyphosate found ‘not carcinogenic’: Key European safety agency joins consensus view on herbicide’s safety

To many Round up or Glyphosphate is the most wicked weedkiller of them all.

It is highly effective and kills everything. Over 30 years ago I was advised to use it by the green experts in Liverpool to clear parts of my garden, so I could then re-seed it. I expressed my surprise as then being a naive greenie I used no weed-killers. It worked !

since then glyphospahte has been demonised especially by the anti-Green NGOs Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth.

They have been shown to be wrong.

This is yet another example of supposed green NGOs destroying our environment

*******************************

A key European safety agency says glyphosate does not cause cancer, paving the way for the herbicide to regain long-term approval for use in the European Union.

Source: Glyphosate found ‘not carcinogenic’: Key European safety agency joins consensus view on herbicide’s safety

At Last, Greenpeace Admits to ‘Rhetorical Hyperbole’ i.e lying #fakefacts

In the UK we get fed up of the terminological inexact reports and campaigns of Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace. In Canada GP come out with the exquisite euphemism

heated rhetoric is the coin of the realm.

Less delicately that would be “bloody lies”

 

But we have the same in Britain over fracking and possibly over bees.

DSCF2859

https://michaelroberts4004.wordpress.com/2014/06/09/not-for-shale/

And, of course, this is what Friends of the Earth were doing with this leaflet

foe-leaflet-cover

https://michaelroberts4004.wordpress.com/2017/01/04/friends-of-the-earth-fck-it-up/

It seems that the same thing is happening in North America  and here is an article about Greenpeace at it in the National Review, who would probably regard me as a pinko.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445373/greenpeace-environmental-groups-sued-resolute-forest-products-ontario-quebec

by RICHARD GARNEAU March 2, 2017 4:00 AM A company unfairly attacked by the environmental group has sued it. A few years ago Greenpeace and allied groups chose my company, Resolute, Canada’s largest forest-products company, to be their next victim. They compiled a litany of outlandish assertions: We were “forest destroyers,” for example, aggravating climate change, and causing a “caribou death spiral and extinction” in Canada’s boreal habitat. Greenpeace harassed companies we do business with, threatening them with the same sort of smear campaign that they launched against us and even instigating cyber-attacks on their websites. And they bragged about the damage — $100 million, in Canadian dollars — that they claimed to have inflicted on our business. They were lying about our forestry practices, so we did something that none of the group’s other targets have yet found the wherewithal to do: We sued them, in Canada, for defamation and intentional interference with economic relations, and in the United States under RICO statutes. A funny thing happened when Greenpeace and allies were forced to account for their claims in court. They started changing their tune.

 

Their condemnations of our forestry practices “do not hew to strict literalism or scientific precision,” as they concede in their latest legal filings. Their accusations against Resolute were instead “hyperbole,” “heated rhetoric,” and “non-verifiable statements of subjective opinion” that should not be taken “literally” or expose them to any legal liability. These are sober admissions after years of irresponsible attacks.   No “forest loss” was caused by Resolute, the groups concede — now that they are being held accountable. Of course, these late admissions are consistent with the findings of just about every independent journalist and commentator who has covered the dispute, from the Wall Street Journal editorial board to Enquête, a Canadian version, roughly, of 60 Minutes. Even Steve Forbes weighed in, calling our lawsuit “an outstanding example of how unfairly attacked companies should respond.” Peter Reich, one of the world’s leading forest ecologists, has said that Greenpeace has “a fundamental disregard for scientific reality.” RELATED: In a ‘Post-Truth’ Era, Greenpeace Lies to Raise Money Finally hearing the truth from Greenpeace itself is vindication, even if it comes in the form of a tortured defense of its actions, rather than a simple apology. Remarkably, despite admitting in court that its rhetoric against Resolute is not true, Greenpeace continues to disparage us publicly and privately. Just a few weeks ago, we sent it a cease-and-desist letter demanding that it stop sending to our customers threatening letters accusing us of the “destruction of forests in Quebec and Ontario.” Some news outlets in the United States have filed amicus briefs on behalf of Greenpeace, on free-speech grounds. But freedom of speech is not the same as libel and slander. And the public should ask the outlets when it can expect scrutinizing, critical coverage of what Greenpeace itself now admits are deceptive practices. More than a billion trees. That’s how many Resolute’s workers have planted in Ontario’s boreal forest, in addition to the hundreds of millions that workers have planted in Quebec. Yet for years now, the eco-provocateurs at Greenpeace have been raising money off the calculated mistruths that we are somehow “responsible for the destruction of vast areas of forest.”   Greenpeace is marauding not just our company but a way of life, one built on nurturing healthy forests that are the lifeblood of the people who live there. So far they have acted with virtual impunity and profited handsomely. One Greenpeace executive was even caught laughing on camera when he was confronted on a leading broadcast program with photos of a forest, affected by a wildfire, that the group erroneously said was “destroyed” by Resolute. It was morally wrong and yet another example that, as Greenpeace puts it, “heated rhetoric is the coin of the realm.” For me, confronting this barrage of misinformation has been more than just about business ethics. It is very personal. I was raised in Quebec’s Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean region, where my family has lived for generations. I harvested trees by hand to pay my way through school. Now 50 years later, those forest areas are again ready for harvest, and someday I will retire to this same land that my great-grandfather tilled. Greenpeace is marauding not just our company but a way of life, one built on nurturing healthy forests that are the lifeblood of the people who live there. That’s why union leaders, small-business people, First Nations chiefs, and mayors and other government officials, of all political stripes, have written Greenpeace, imploring it to halt its campaign of misinformation. In nearly every instance, Greenpeace lacked the simple decency to respond, apparently indifferent to the human consequences of its actions. Last summer, nearly 5,000 people marched through the streets of the small northern Quebec town of Saint-Félicien, demanding an end to Greenpeace’s disingenuous market campaign. Recognizing that the very viability of their communities are now held in the balance, local leaders have even “extended a hand” for eco-activists to have a dialogue with them. It is telling that Greenpeace neither showed up nor responded. As a chief executive, I often meet and engage personally with our devoted employees at the local level, in the forests where they live and work. I know we share a common interest and a responsibility to sustain the forests for tomorrow. That’s why we’re not going to let Greenpeace get away with using “rhetorical hyperbole” to make false and damaging accusations from hundreds and thousands of miles away, in its glass-walled towers in Amsterdam, Hamburg, and Washington, D.C.  We’re going to stand tall, both in public discourse and in the courts. For my part, my guiding hope is to return to the forest with the ability to face my neighbors, my family, and my community and tell them that I stood up and told the truth. — Richard Garneau is the president and CEO of Resolute Forest Products.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445373/greenpeace-environmental-groups-sued-resolute-forest-products-ontario-quebec

Donald Trump Is The First President To Turn Postmodernism Against Itself

For a longg time I have reckoned Postmodernism is a dead end as it ultimately denies the reality of anything and totally relativises history and science so that one ulimately cannot say creationism is more wrong than evolutionary science.

as Dawkins said “you cannot be a post-modernist at 36000ft” with the cabin door open.

So much of modern discourse leans to Post-modernism with the “science” behind Anti-vaxxers, anti-GMO, anti-fracking , climate change deniers etc.

Maybe Trump will be remembered by philospjers as the first Post-post-modernist!

There is much between the lines here

 

 

No one should be surprised that postmodern America chose an antihero to be our next president. Donald Trump is postmodernism embodied.

Source: Donald Trump Is The First President To Turn Postmodernism Against Itself

No, you’re not entitled to your opinion

A good article on why opinion is worthless in may cases. He cites the opinion of an Antivaxxer as being worthless as she has no qualifications or skills to give her “considered view”.  It is the same with many who are anti- GMO, Fracking, etc etc , or exponents of chemtrail , conspiracy theories and the like, who put forward bullshit opinions as if they are valued arguments based on evidence. It applies to ngos like GP or FOE

In other words

Stuff your opinion

Now read on

 

No, you’re not entitled to your opinion

Patrick Stokes Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, Deakin University, Australia

https://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978

Every year, I try to do at least two things with my students at least once. First, I make a point of addressing them as “philosophers” – a bit cheesy, but hopefully it encourages active learning.

Secondly, I say something like this: “I’m sure you’ve heard the expression ‘everyone is entitled to their opinion.’ Perhaps you’ve even said it yourself, maybe to head off an argument or bring one to a close. Well, as soon as you walk into this room, it’s no longer true. You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to what you can argue for.”

A bit harsh? Perhaps, but philosophy teachers owe it to our students to teach them how to construct and defend an argument – and to recognize when a belief has become indefensible.

The problem with “I’m entitled to my opinion” is that, all too often, it’s used to shelter beliefs that should have been abandoned. It becomes shorthand for “I can say or think whatever I like” – and by extension, continuing to argue is somehow disrespectful. And this attitude feeds, I suggest, into the false equivalence between experts and non-experts that is an increasingly pernicious feature of our public discourse.

Firstly, what’s an opinion?

Plato distinguished between opinion or common belief (doxa) and certain knowledge, and that’s still a workable distinction today: unlike “1+1=2” or “there are no square circles,” an opinion has a degree of subjectivity and uncertainty to it. But “opinion” ranges from tastes or preferences, through views about questions that concern most people such as prudence or politics, to views grounded in technical expertise, such as legal or scientific opinions.

You can’t really argue about the first kind of opinion. I’d be silly to insist that you’re wrong to think strawberry ice cream is better than chocolate. The problem is that sometimes we implicitly seem to take opinions of the second and even the third sort to be unarguable in the way questions of taste are. Perhaps that’s one reason (no doubt there are others) why enthusiastic amateurs think they’re entitled to disagree with climate scientists and immunologists and have their views “respected.”

Meryl Dorey is the leader of the Australian Vaccination Network, which despite the name is vehemently anti-vaccine. Ms. Dorey has no medical qualifications, but argues that if Bob Brown is allowed to comment on nuclear power despite not being a scientist, she should be allowed to comment on vaccines. But no-one assumes Dr. Brown is an authority on the physics of nuclear fission; his job is to comment on the policy responses to the science, not the science itself.

So what does it mean to be “entitled” to an opinion?

If “Everyone’s entitled to their opinion” just means no-one has the right to stop people thinking and saying whatever they want, then the statement is true, but fairly trivial. No one can stop you saying that vaccines cause autism, no matter how many times that claim has been disproven.

But if ‘entitled to an opinion’ means ‘entitled to have your views treated as serious candidates for the truth’ then it’s pretty clearly false. And this too is a distinction that tends to get blurred.

On Monday, the ABC’s Mediawatch program took WIN-TV Wollongong to task for running a story on a measles outbreak which included comment from – you guessed it – Meryl Dorey. In a response to a viewer complaint, WIN said that the story was “accurate, fair and balanced and presented the views of the medical practitioners and of the choice groups.” But this implies an equal right to be heard on a matter in which only one of the two parties has the relevant expertise. Again, if this was about policy responses to science, this would be reasonable. But the so-called “debate” here is about the science itself, and the “choice groups” simply don’t have a claim on air time if that’s where the disagreement is supposed to lie.

Mediawatch host Jonathan Holmes was considerably more blunt: “there’s evidence, and there’s bulldust,” and it’s not part of a reporter’s job to give bulldust equal time with serious expertise.

The response from anti-vaccination voices was predictable. On the Mediawatch site, Ms. Dorey accused the ABC of “openly calling for censorship of a scientific debate.” This response confuses not having your views taken seriously with not being allowed to hold or express those views at all – or to borrow a phrase from Andrew Brown, it “confuses losing an argument with losing the right to argue.” Again, two senses of “entitlement” to an opinion are being conflated here.

So next time you hear someone declare they’re entitled to their opinion, ask them why they think that. Chances are, if nothing else, you’ll end up having a more enjoyable conversation that way.

Read more from Patrick Stokes: The ethics of bravery

Nobel Laureate Richard Roberts: Greenpeace, green lobby spread ‘lies’ about GMOs to raise money

Like Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace also spreads falsehoods especially on GMOs.

 

It is clearly time that both GP and FoE are seen for what they really are, moneyraisers for dubious causes who don’t give a damn about Planet or People.

Why they are allowed a platform in our government discussions or the EU is a mystery

 

 

Editor’s Note: This article discusses a recent talk by Sir Richard Roberts, awarded a Nobel Prize in Medicine for his contribution to the discovery of gene

Source: Nobel Laureate Richard Roberts: Greenpeace, green lobby spread ‘lies’ about GMOs to raise money

Nobel Laureate Richard Roberts: Greenpeace, green lobby spread ‘lies’ about GMOs to raise money

|

2

Editor’s Note: This article discusses a recent talk by Sir Richard Roberts, awarded a Nobel Prize in Medicine for his contribution to the discovery of gene splicing, at Amity University. 

Activist organisations like Greenpeace and Vandana Shiva’s Navdanya have successfully blocked the introduction of genetically modified crops around the world. Bt Brinjal was banned in India, and activists are working to stop the introduction of genetically modified mustard.

Anti-GMO activists claim this process is unnatural and could produce unanticipated mutations that could be devastating for the planet.

But that’s not the case, said Sir Richard Roberts, Nobel Laureate. And banning GMOs means farmers can’t get access to the tools they need to cope with changing climate conditions, like hotter temperatures and droughts.

[India needs] better crops, you know? The monsoons are changing, you’re not getting the same rains you used to have, you’re going to need drought resistant crops, you’re going to need a lot of changes being made. You can’t do that through traditional breeding.

We now have 30 years of experience, we now know that it’s perfectly safe. There has not been one documented case of any problem, and there have been thousands upon thousands upon thousands of hectares of these crops. Not one incident.

These activists should admit that the science overwhelmingly indicates that GMOs are necessary to address the world’s agricultural and nutritional challenges, said Roberts.

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Read full, original post: Greenpeace Lies About GMOs: Nobel Laureate Richard Roberts