Bishop Hill The penny drops
Feb 3, 2015 Greens Anne Glover, the EU Chief Scientist who was forced out of her job after a letter-writing campaign by green groups, has dished out a certain amount of retribution this morning, accusing Greenpeace of being dishonest about the risks and benefits of genetic modification.
I'm deeply disappointed with them, because those NGOs that you mentioned were NGOs that I used to trust and many citizens do trust. I think they have ignored the evidence and they have fabricated a scenario.
If I look at their letter, and what they describe, because I've met with many of them they know that simply it's not true what they talk about.
They have an ideology, they have a philosophy they wish to pursue. But you shouldn't try and back it up by evidence, or if you like bad calling the evidence. That's not honest.
I am constantly taken aback by the number of people in positions of power and authority who simply have no idea that many major environmental groups deceive the public in order to advance their aims. If Prof Glover is interested in becoming a little more enlightened, I commend the "Greens" tag on this blog to her.
Reader Comments (42)
The "green" environmental groups have more time to do "relationship management" with government officials than do their opposition. And I suspect they have been in the game longer.
I heard her on the drive to work on R4 and it's a good thing the motorway was relatively clear at times as I took both hands off the steering wheel to clap. I thought she came across very well even under pressure to call GMOs controversial replying that the evidence wasn't, just people's (specially NGOs) views.
Do the Greens have a target for the number of people who have to starve to death, before pronouncing their anti-GM stance a success?
Do any sane people have a clue, as to how "Genocide by Green" became EU policy?
Better late than never I suppose. Her previous attitude of 'trust' was an odd one to have about a bunch of pampered and disturbed hooligans who seek to damage society in a big way, but I fear it is still fairly common. I wish every head teacher and every school governor will take note of her reaction, and think at least twice before inviting any such greens into their schools to disturb the pupils.
I'm fully bought into the sentiment but here are three paragraphs of atrociously clumsy English in there including a spelling mistake. Makes me wonder if they are transcription errors?
"Do any sane people have a clue, as to how "Genocide by Green" became EU policy"
Apathy vs the many tyrannical people of the Commission.
To check exactly what she said, go to the Today programme site
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05102t1#auto
and listen from about 1:53.
Paging Alex Cull...
"I think that many people are against GM technology or GM crops because of an ideological position. But it isn't controversial to think about the evidence, because the evidence is very clear that the technology is safe..
I'm deeply disappointed with them, because those NGOs that you mentioned were NGOs that I used to trust, and I think many citizens do trust, they are like an unelected voice of citizens, and I think that they have ignored the evidence and they have fabricated scenarios .. because I've met with many of them ...they know that simply its not true what they talk about... they have an ideology, a philosophy, that they wish to pursue, they shouldnt try to back it up... that's not honest."
How many roads, must a man walk down,
Before he learns how to drive?
How many millions, must starve to death,
Before they're fed to survive
How many times must the insults fly out,
Before they're forever banned
The answer my friend, is sneering at the Greens,
The answer is sneering at the Greens
Welcome to the real world Prof.
She was on HARDtalk this morning. I only watched briefly but I'm not sure I agreed with her AGW comparisons.
HARDtalk - Anne Glover
Thanks for the link Paul. Streaming is blocked at work. I'll have a listen tonight and if it is transcription have a quiet word with the telegraph.
It's a shame these people only think to speak up (and I'm looking at YOU Owen Paterson) once there is no more financial incentive for them any more - once they've already left.
For once put your convictions over your bank balance.
She wasn't fit for the post.
She seemed surprised that NGOs weren't interested in the truth - and yet she was meant to advise on issues brought by NGOs?
She should have been able to tell the Commission why the NGOs are technically wrong and so help to distinguish the physical reality from the political reality.
But she blundered around with mere facts and now the EU has decided to just stick with the political reality.
She wasn't fit for the post if she ever thought a charity, industry or party was ever disinterested.
It's truly amazing how many people there are who are taken in by the green NGOs - but most of them get their "facts" from the BBC and Grauniad, which are propaganda outlets for the green NGOs. You might have thought that 'top' scientists would be a bit less gullible.
For years Greenpeace and others have been saying 'accept the consensus and ignore sceptical scientists when it comes to climate change, but ignore the consensus and believe un-named sceptical scientists when it comes to GM, pesticides, insecticides etc etc'. It' shouldn't be too difficult for an intelligent person to see this.
She says "(Green NGOs) they are like an unelected voice of citizens"
... hmm Flippin Orrible
I think that many people are wary of GM technology or GM crops because, once introduced, it will be difficult to control cross pollination.
I read that non-GM farmers (in the US ?) that had their crops tainted by GM cross pollination were prosecuted for STEALING the technology and were at great risk of losing their land, and livelihoods. In addition, if they had had organic crops, it would have made their crops unsellable in their original market.
Is this still happening?
Anyway, the 'poor' can be used to see if there are any side effects.
If you read that in a green publication, it is probably a lie or at the very least a misrepresentation.
The article says a lot, one of the most telling perhaps being: “Mr Juncker axed the post of chief scientific adviser after coming under intense pressure from Greenpeace and other lobby groups to abolish Professor Glover's post because of her views.”
Mr Juncker (unelected) axes a post in the European government because some (unelected) groups do not like the views of the present incumbent.
Prof Glover is the same age as me (though looks about 20 years younger).
But how can someone with such impressive credentials have taken 58 years to realise that Greenpeace are a bunch of lying sanctimonious hypocritical bastards?
Nobody elects Greenpeace.
She trusted them on things where they shared the same innate worldview so she didn't bother to check out their equally dubious claims on overpopulation, deforestation, species extinction, resource depletion, peak oil, fracking etc. If she hadn't bothered to check out GM foods for herself then she'd have implicitly trusted them there too.
This cognitive dissonance is what much of academia does best, partly due to laziness and partly due to being overly pessimistic about mans effect on the planet in the first place thanks to the ever-depressing media. But where something affects crucial public policy everyone should be bothered to do some background reading. Will it ever dawn on her to read something less pessimistic now about the other wild claims of greenpeace. Well I really doubt it!
It is one of the biggest subversions of democracy that elected governments take public sentiment from NGOs/lobby groups, rather than directly from the public itself.
It is a fundamental misconception that NGOs/lobby groups in some way represent the public/public opinion; they do not, they represent their own self absorbed interests, often politically motivated or motivated by greed and/or power and/or control.
Breitbart covers the issue Academic Attacks Greenpeace For “Ignoring The Evidence” On GM Crops
I'll second that, Phillip. I use attitude to GM and cAGW as the positive control and negative control respectively in my private test of who is both up to speed and honest with science.
Never mind GM crops. The House of Commons has just agreed to GM babies
I wonder what Greenpeace's view on that is and how Caroline Lucas voted.
I'm with clovis (not that my English is good). What the heck is 'bad calling the evidence'?
As several people have pointed out, these NGOs only represent a tiny minority of the public. Most probably the lot that vote green anyway. With the publication of the green manifesto a lot of official supporters are wondering 'remind me, why was I suporting them?'
Governments need to stop belieiving that just because the public have a soft spot for SOME of their policies, they want all the NGOs views to be incorporated into main stream policies. Are you listening Cameron? If we want to go green, we vote green! Almost all of the green charities campaign for one thing (save the tiger) but spend the bulk of their effort elsewhere (green taxes).
In their total opposition to GM the Green groups really show much they actual value science, has they 'deny' what the science tells them because it fails to support their ideology. Meanwhile they promote the 'magic shaken water ' approach to medicine.
On Hardtalk this morning Glover said that she was employed only for years of Barroso's term in office and she didn't know if Juncker would want a replacement. She had told Junker before he came to office that she would not want to continue her roll after Barroso had finished. She also said the scientific consensus was regards to the technology used to generate GM crops not a consensus that GM crops where safe.
How many birds must the wind turbines kill,
Before they fall from the sky
How many seas must a wood pellet sail
Without hypocracy or lie
How many men must we drive from their land
And leave homeless to die
The answer my friend, is sneering at the Greens
The answer is sneering at the Greens
"... Greenpeace consider all the evidence in relation to GMOs, and unlike advocates for these products we consider them in their political, agricultural as well as scientific context...."
Thus says Greenpeace in rebuttal. The point of their "political, agricultural as well as" scientific context is important. They are admitting they are ideologically driven, not just "products" driven.
Greenpeace is open here. The problem is that their supporters and the public and the politicians don't hear what they are saying, and if they do hear it, they are not comprehending what is being said.
The conflict about GMO products is not a conflict about scientific expectations. Greenpeace know Golden Rice is better for people. Greenpeace is opposed to the GMO on purpose, a religious thing based on fear of unexpected results, fear of unwanted changes to the lives of other lifeforms as well as the lives and livelihoods of farmers. Greenpeace has taken the Precautionary Principle to heart; better the devil you know than the devil you don't.
You have to be very, very attentive to the words. Just as Obama can get away with claiming a definitive agreement with China to cap its CO2 by ignoring the fact that the "cap" has no number attached, and the date of 2030 has an "about" word in front of it. What Greenpeace wants - as what Obama got - is not what the popular press or public perceives.
The Green groups are opposed to the principle of many modern world changes, not the changes themselves. Just as the fundamental Islamists are opposed to the principle of women driving leading to something else - like an organized opinion that is effective in opposing some plan the current, male governors propose - they oppose GMO food, fracking, nuclear energy and pesticides in principle. Something might happen, you can never tell, so just don't go there.
The Luddites set the example. The status quo was "okay", in their opinion, so don't screw with it: something terrible like antibiotics might occur and God's will would no longer dominate. A disaster, certainly.
How much sham pain, can one man ingest
Without once sensing fraud
How many claims of its worse than we thought
Without the world getting bored
How many times must the people cry out
And like science, just be ignored
The answer my friend, is sneering at the Greens
The answer is sneering at the Greens
Without GMO crops, the world would be increasingly hardpressed to feed itself. European Maize yields already plateaued around 2000, while US yields have continued to increase thanks mainly to GMO. In places like Mexico and India, introduction of Bt Maize (mainly against root cutworm, hard to control with pesticides since in soil) improves yields up to 30%. Same yield result in Bt cotton in India against pink bollworm, despite being easier to control with pesticides. Details in chapter 3 ( food) of Gaia's Limits published in 2012.
Mike Jackson at 4.57pm
According to the Guardian, Green MP, Caroline Lucas voted in favour of mitochondrial donation and therefore supports GM babies but opposes GM crops!
Latimer Alder
Wildly O/T
Prof Glover has a wonderful Annie Lennox accent and looks cute. Sure that's why she got the job. Hard to believe she's 58. Roger Pielke Jr had her job and its ramifications well sussed.
I am the same age as prof Glover and look roughly as young as she does. There are a couple of legitimate ways to look younger. One is never to leave the house. The other is
Meet the woman who says she hasn't smiled for FORTY YEARS... so she doesn't get wrinkles
Even celebrities such as U.S. TV star Kim Kardashian, 34, have admitted trying not to smile or laugh ‘because it causes wrinkles’. And some experts believe that this bizarre trick might work. Dermatologist Dr Nick Lowe says: ‘It can be an effective anti-ageing technique. Undoubtedly, there are some actresses who have retrained their facial expressions to this end.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2935632/Meet-woman-says-hasn-t-smiled-40-years-doesn-t-wrinkles.html
I met a 21 year old a couple of years ago who (almost) never smiles. I met a 62 year old man who nearly floored a whole room by showing his pensioner's bus pass.
Clue. Beauty is a curse.
esmiff
George Melly once asked Mick Jagger about his wrinkles. Jagger countered that they were laughter lines, to which Melly responded: "nothing's that funny".
Rod
Mark Lynas was on Hardtalk last week, describing his conversion to GM crops (golden rice, at least). I imagine there were a few curled toes at the Beeb!
There's now a full transcript of the Anne Glover segment on this morning's Today programme, here:
https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/2015/20150203_r4
Come on "Follow the Money". The anti GM lobby is being lead by the traditional seed sellers. Or perhaps my cynicism is misplaced.
Google "Seed Sellers £" number 6 is GM watch...something to take note of.
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.
Greenpeace LIES..??
Well - you could knock me down with a feather....