Bishop Hill Quote of the day: can't trust Greenpeace edition
Stephen Tindale is a research fellow at the Centre for European Reform. He spent six years as executive director of Greenpeace UK, which opposes GM crops. However, he has always thought that GM technology should be assessed case-by-case. He minimised campaigning on GM – never authorising direct actions against GM during his time in charge – and told Greenpeace’s campaigners to focus instead on how to make agriculture less environmentally-damaging.
The extract above is from this recent article, in which Tindale argues for just such a case-by-case assessment. Despite what he says, this does seem to be quite a turnaround.
You can see the problem for a Greenpeace director. If he had said what he really believed ten years ago, the flow of funds from the terrified public to Greenpeace would have dried up. So he kept mum; at best toned things down a bit (although not that much as these (1,2) statements from his time in office make clear). Then when he had flown the coop he could tell us the truth.
Reader Comments (20)
He was an ideological captive.
The wonderful smell of hypocrisy.
mushy peas
There is also this: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/about/stephen-tindale-executive-director-greenpeace-uk
This is the Government's opportunity to ban the commercial planting of GM crops. The results of these trials give the Government the right to ban GM crops without breaking EU rules. They must take this opportunity and ban these risky and unpredictable crops that pose such irreversible risks to our environment.
- Stephen Tindale, 2003
From a press release. Part, therefore, of some kind of campaign. But we are told the capo did not authorise any 'direct actions'. 'Nice field you've got there' being presumably just on a card held close to the chest. Are we meant to be grateful for every act of vandalism and intimidation they did not do?
"…how to make agriculture less environmentally-damaging."
Agriculture has actually created most of the British landscape which we so love. There is very little 'wild' land left. Without constant agricultural attention it quickly reverts to scrubland. Wouldn't it be wonderful if these 'environmentalists' had a clue about the environment.
Re: John Shade
> But we are told the capo did not authorise any 'direct actions'.
'Direct actions' is a euphemism for aggravated trespass and destruction property.
Anoneumouse: Tick VG. I got it. :-)
"So he kept mum"
It's just what mummies boys do, isn't it?
Patrick Moore, now a GM advocate, describes well the green peas obsession with genetics (or anything technological) in his "Confessions of a Green Peace Dropout"
John Shade. Got it in one. How loathsome, hypocritical, smug and self-satisfied your average greenie, how ignorant and preening, how entirely, absolutely and invariably wrong. Words fail me . . .
Greenpeace executives are a bunch of self-aggrandizing moral dictators and they prey on those with irrational fears for their own gain. End of, full stop. They are not and never will be elected to any position of societal responsibility as much as they would dream of that.
I learned from some research following up on an investigation involving a minor inconsequential accidental radiation exposure, equivalent to one tenth of a chest x-ray, to 200 plus individuals that the perception of risk, and consequential fear, can vary by as much as three orders of magnitude.
Greenpeace search out and prey on those who, through no fault of their own other than force of circumstances, live in fear of technology and change.
They are a despicable organization that has seriously lost its way and they do not carry the mandate they assume to have.
Hmmm, did my disdain show?
This reminds me of Eason Jordan for CNN in Iraq. Only after Saddam was toppled was he willing to talk about how they tilted the news to maintain their bureau in Baghdad.
Of course, one cannot trust Greenpeace. And since they became mainstream a couple of decades back, not even their own foot soldiers can trust them. It's freaking politics, people.
The extrapolation to February 2030 is :
- What do we know of transparency and accountability within Greenpeace ?- Where were the press why didn't they find and expose these doubts within GP ?
- I am uncomfortable with NGOs; regular politicians maybe corrupt, but at least they're under regular scrutiny and can be voted out.
- The CHRONIC problem with green/environmental-science is this CIRCLE THE WAGONS attitude towards challenging ... This is not condusive to truth and good science.
What the atmosphere INSIDE the Controversial multinational, multimillion-dollar, high-powered eco-lobbying organisation is not condusive to rational non-hysterical views being allowed to be openly expressed ?
Add to the growing list of "people who knew but put their salary above humanity"
It's all about keep up the fear.. to make Dead Minds.. Part of GPs dirty PR game ... you see if GP had opened up the GM question then suddenly you get Live Minds
"Live minds do ask such questions and climate bigots don’t like that. "
"Dead minds don’t ask, 'If we give in to your fear and stop using fossil fuels, how will we meet our energy needs of today and tomorrow?' but Live Minds will
- See more at: CFact article
If the argument about cross-contamination is ever applicable how can you ever use a case by case basis?
The unknown effects of new genes mixing in the environment would always be present.
Posted under previous thread but equally apt here:
Greenpeace showed their true colours during the Brent Spar episode, and were very open about it. Why anyone would consider them a credible source of information since then is a mystery to me.
Greens don't really want anyone to point out that we have been genetically modifying food since we started growing it.