Greenpeace: Yeah, we misled, but we needed the emotionalism!

posted at 8:47 am on August 20, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Phelim McAleer, the co-director of Not Evil, Just Wrong, catches the BBC in an act of journalism when interviewing Greenpeace leader Gerd Leipold. The activist organization insisted in a July 15th press release that all of the Arctic ice would disappear by 2030, a claim which reporter Stephen Sackur finds ridiculous — and for good reason. Watch Leipold backpedal in this 98-second clip from the interview (full interview here):

The BBC, later in the interview, gets to the heart of Greenpeace’s agenda:

Although he admitted Greenpeace had released inaccurate but alarming information, Leipold defended the organization’s practice of “emotionalizing issues” in order to bring the public around to its way of thinking and alter public opinion.

Leipold said later in the BBC interview that there is an urgent need for the suppression of economic growth in the United States and around the world. He said annual growth rates of 3 percent to 8 percent cannot continue without serious consequences for the climate.

“We will definitely have to move to a different concept of growth. … The lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model,” Leipold said. “If you take the lifestyle, its cost on the environment, and you multiply it with the billions of people and an increasing world population, you come up with numbers which are truly scary.”

The global-warming movement isn’t really about climate. It’s about stunting the economic growth of the West. That’s why groups like Greenpeace like to “emotionalize” rather than conduct and promote actual science. They’re interested in specific outcomes, not scientific truth, and that specific outcome is statist control over energy production and economic activity to redistribute wealth.

Be sure to watch my interview with Phelim and his co-director and wife Ann McElhinney from last weekend, and to participate in the worldwide premier of Not Evil, Just Wrong.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

“Leipold said later in the BBC interview that there is an urgent need for the suppression of economic growth in the United States and around the world. He said annual growth rates of 3 percent to 8 percent cannot continue without serious consequences for the climate.”

That would explain the totally irrational Cap and Trade bill that the house passed last month. The only conceivable outcome of the bill is to raise revenues for the government, and to squash our economy.

iurockhead on August 20, 2009 at 10:15 AM

I’d like to see McAleer interview Gore!

Star20 on August 20, 2009 at 9:50 AM

Gore won’t do interviews, he does press releases.

I do find it funny that our typical HA trolls are not here. (except you blatantblue).

barnone on August 20, 2009 at 10:17 AM

RedWar.

Count to 10 on August 20, 2009 at 10:17 AM

…practice of “emotionalizing issues” in order to bring the public around to its way of thinking and alter public opinion.

Typical Nazi / Obama approach to getting what you want.

Alden Pyle on August 20, 2009 at 10:19 AM

This reminds me: Must read State of Fear someday…

apostic on August 20, 2009 at 9:13 AM

SOF is a great book – well worth another reread before I go back to school. Crichton was a wonderful writer and brilliant researcher. I miss him and I am sorry that we will not hear from him again.

InTheBellyoftheBeast on August 20, 2009 at 10:21 AM

Greenpeace: But we have to lie to you! We’ve gotta protect our phony baloney issues!

Dark Eden on August 20, 2009 at 10:21 AM

Have you, at last, no shame?

Reality? We don’t need no steenking reality!

Like any cult, the glorious ends permit any crooked means.

Greensleaze.

profitsbeard on August 20, 2009 at 10:24 AM

activistcash.com

See the financial and personal connections.

daesleeper on August 20, 2009 at 10:25 AM

A pretty clear demonstration that Greenpeace fails the “Goals” test for distinguishing science from junk science. Remarkably, on all three grounds: ideological (they’re clearly politically motivated), cultural (anti-West) and commercial (they hope to get more funding than they would otherwise). It’s a trifecta!

ironman on August 20, 2009 at 10:27 AM

OT:

(except you blatantblue).

barnone on August 20, 2009 at 10:17 AM

BB is most certainly not a troll.

coldwarrior on August 20, 2009 at 10:27 AM

barnone on August 20, 2009 at 10:17 AM

I yam what I yam, douchebag.

blatantblue on August 20, 2009 at 10:37 AM

Is barnone in collusion with the Atheling?

blatantblue on August 20, 2009 at 10:38 AM

I wonder how many school text books this lie has made it into?

mph on August 20, 2009 at 10:43 AM

And we’re suppose to accept changing our lives and allowing government to control most of it because of these lying, conniving, self righteous, sacks of …..

Hobbes on August 20, 2009 at 10:49 AM

“We will definitely have to move to a different concept of growth. … The lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model,” Leipold said.

Keep in mind his definition of rich includes what we would call poor in America.

Of course based on Obama’s promise to only tax the rich, this is a common leftist view on wealth.

18-1 on August 20, 2009 at 10:57 AM

For years Rush has said environmentalism is the new communism, and here he is vindicated by Greenpeace itself.

I rarely flat-out agree with Rush’s stance, and this is one of the cases I didn’t start of believing at first. Over time I thought about it and watched the drama and sure enough, I came to the conclusion Rush was right.

Neo on August 20, 2009 at 10:59 AM

AGW is aboout raising taxes and controlling other peoples lives from a position of moral superiority. What have facts to do with it?

Since 1940, which is a period of almost 70 years, the global temperature has been falling in 50 of them. And that’s not even counting the urban heat island effect on the temperature guages. But whose counting?

Fred 2 on August 20, 2009 at 11:00 AM

Control the Fear and you control the population. Be afraid; give me money. Be afraid; surrender your rights. Be afraid, and bow down. There are many competitors for this dark prize. It’s not just wrong, it’s Evil. Resist.

Kenosha Kid on August 20, 2009 at 11:10 AM

Gerd Leipold needs to join the VHEMT.

Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.

Soon.

profitsbeard on August 20, 2009 at 11:16 AM

“Democrats Force Quick Vote on ‘Cap and Tax’ Legislation, Citing an ‘Escalating Skepticism Crisis’ Regarding Climate Warming Theories”: http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/06/democrats-force-quick-vote-on-cap-and.html

Mervis Winter on August 20, 2009 at 11:19 AM

The global warming movement is about eugenics.

jharada on August 20, 2009 at 11:20 AM

Leipold and Greenpeace are just taking a page from the Obama playbook. When your motives are pure, it’s okay to LIE. Just the sort of thing you need to build TRUST.

GarandFan on August 20, 2009 at 11:22 AM

If you can’t sway people to your side by telling the truth, shouldn’t you reconsider the righteousness of your side?

SKYFOX on August 20, 2009 at 11:25 AM

“We will definitely have to move to a different concept of growth. … The lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model,” Leipold said.

Of course. Because if you cripple economic growth, only “the rich” will feel the effects.

Tonus on August 20, 2009 at 11:29 AM

BB is most certainly not a troll.

coldwarrior on August 20, 2009 at 10:27 AM

Agreed.

But speaking of trolls, I know liberal343 got the hammer yesterday, but I also haven’t seen any posts since late Tuesday night from “Deep Brain”, aka Bill Schmalfeldt. Did he get the hammer too? Hw was tossing out cheap ad hominems like there was no tomorrow…

Del Dolemonte on August 20, 2009 at 11:30 AM

Not quite accurate:

That would explain the totally irrational Cap and Trade bill that the house passed last month. The only conceivable outcome of the bill is to raise revenues for the government, and to squash our economy.

iurockhead on August 20, 2009 at 10:15 AM

The CRAP/TAX is actually a United Nations grab via US legislation. Please note that the UN Climate TREATY, with it’s BALI amendment, is being used throughout this piece of sh*t. BALI is merely and end run around KYOTO protocol.

It’s 1428 pages {if memory serves} and plainly uses INTERNATIONAL LAW to bind us to an OPEN ENDED United Nations power grab.

When I called Senator DeMint’s office and 3 other Reps, none, I repeat………NONE of the staff knew that the UN TREATY was included in the bill multiple times! Out of the 4, I spoke to 3 staff members who were supposedly working on the bill for their bosses.

V.

lilspitfire on August 20, 2009 at 11:34 AM

Not Evil, Just Wrong.

Why in the WORLD would you come to the outrageously foolish conclusion that this people are “Not Evil, Just Wrong” . . .

Thay ARE evil. PURE evil.

seanrobins on August 20, 2009 at 11:55 AM

(except you blatantblue).

barnone on August 20, 2009 at 10:17 AM

You have no idea what you’re talking about. Blatant has a good reputation here. You’re either mistaken or malicious. I’ll reserve judgment for now.

Esthier on August 20, 2009 at 11:55 AM

The enviro wackos also “emotionalized” the plight of the polar bears because they’re such an effective symbol.

More Enviro Lies

PattyJ on August 20, 2009 at 12:15 PM

Del Dolemonte on August 20, 2009 at 11:30 AM

No, the troll in question is all over the Kennedy thread.

One other thing — I further understand from Greenpeace that the polar ice cap is at greater risk on Super Bowl Sunday than any other day. Weird, huh?

Mr. D on August 20, 2009 at 12:16 PM

(except you blatantblue).

barnone on August 20, 2009 at 10:17 AM

Just missed the /s tag I suppose. You’re not a fool, right?

DarkCurrent on August 20, 2009 at 12:28 PM

That’s why groups like Greenpeace like to “emotionalize” rather than conduct and promote actual science. They’re interested in specific outcomes, not scientific truth

This is nothing new among the greenies. Having been in the environmental, health and safety field for more than 20 years I can tell you groups like Greenpeace, Sierra Club, et al are not about sound science when considering ways to improve and protect our environment.

A great example of this that I use in lectures is the introduction of MTBE in gasoline. About 15 years ago several environmental groups forced legislation to require gasoline producers to formulate a cleaner and more efficient burning gasoline. The gasoline manufacturers requested 3-4 years to study the best formulation but the greenies screamed that 3-4 years was too long and the manufacturers were merely stone-walling and through the courts forced them to come up with a formula within a year.

The gas manufacturers chose MTBE, while it did create a cleaner and more efficient burning gasoline it also happened that MTBE was extremely miscible with water and once in the water it was very difficult to separate it.

Now there are many underground aquifers contaminated with MTBE due to leaking underground storage tanks forcing many gas stations out of business, resulting in 100′s of million in cleanup costs, and lots of polluted water.

Had the greenies allowed the gasoline manufacturers ample time to study the various additives this could have been avoided, however as this thread points out sound science and environmental protection is not their core agenda and never has been and using emotional hot buttons is their way of fooling the uneducated lemmings into following them!

Liberty or Death on August 20, 2009 at 12:33 PM

Anyone wanna bet this article is nowhere to be found on Pravda/Huffington Post?

adamsmith on August 20, 2009 at 12:39 PM

Moral relativism at its best. The ends justify the means is at the heart of every major human tragedy in history. Liberals are blind to the danger their adherence to ideology above truth represents.
 
A society that can not be ruled by truth will eventually be ruled by the sword.

ClanDerson on August 20, 2009 at 12:58 PM

(except you blatantblue).

barnone on August 20, 2009 at 10:17 AM

Huh?

What’d I miss?

ladyingray on August 20, 2009 at 1:00 PM

“We will definitely have to move to a different concept of growth. … The lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model,”

People like to demonize the wealthy nations and their impact on the environment, but, I’m not sure it holds up under scrutiny.

I’d bet my life savings that a neighborhood like the one Bill Gates lives in has done far less damage to the environment than the average slum in India.

Sewage treatment facilities, water reprocessing and recycling, environmentally protective landfills…..these were not things created and utilized by the world’s poor, though, these are things that they could benefit from greatly.

Instead of romanticizing poverty as some low-impact, Gaia-approved way of life, people should be realistic about the great toll that being that poor can take on both the environment and on human lives.

My guess is that many of the people in charge are well aware of that, but, their goal has less to do with saving the earth or improving people’s lives and a whole lot more to do with cutting the human population way, way, way back.

JadeNYU on August 20, 2009 at 1:05 PM

You are right to criticize Greenpeace for releasing inaccurate information in an attempt to get an emotional response. I wish you were as excited about criticizing Sarah Palin for inaccurately talking about “death panels” in an attempt to get an emotional response. Especially seeing as how her comment got much more play than Greenpeace’s. Seems like maybe you’re not terribly interested in highlighting an inconvenient falsehood.

Also:

The global-warming movement isn’t really about climate. It’s about stunting the economic growth of the West. That’s why groups like Greenpeace like to “emotionalize” rather than conduct and promote actual science. They’re interested in specific outcomes, not scientific truth, and that specific outcome is statist control over energy production and economic activity to redistribute wealth.

That’s so preposterous. What would be their motivation for doing this? They want to redistribute wealth… for what reason?

On the opposite side, it’s quite clear why corporations would want to ignore climate change and keep polluting – it maximizes their profits. When you try to draw a line to sinister motives on the left, it simply doesnt wash.

That doesnt automatically mean that climate change activists are correct – obviously one can be sincere and still be wrong (though I believe they are right). But trying to tar them with evil conspiracy theories is just foolish.

Occam’s Razor. Maybe climate change activists want to limit greenhouse gases and such because… oh, I dont know… maybe because they dont want climate change.

orange on August 20, 2009 at 1:06 PM

For years Rush has said environmentalism is the new communism, and here he is vindicated by Greenpeace itself.

I rarely flat-out agree with Rush’s stance, and this is one of the cases I didn’t start of believing at first. Over time I thought about it and watched the drama and sure enough, I came to the conclusion Rush was right.

Neo on August 20, 2009 at 10:59 AM

I live in MA and when I was young and stupid back in the 70s I was part of the environmental movement. We didn’t call it that but it was the same movement as today. I quit when I realized that most of the people were anti-human and were talking about elimination of humans which they consider as some sort of evolutionary abnormality. If you have ever seen the movie or read the book, “The 12 Monkeys” you will see the dream of these whack jobs. I not trying to paint all people concerned with the environment as this but the leaders are of this mind. The majority of people in the movement are being mislead and act as nothing more then useful idiots.

RagTag on August 20, 2009 at 1:07 PM

Don’t ever give a nickle to ‘save the planet tards’ again.

BL@KBIRD on August 20, 2009 at 1:11 PM

Gerd Leipold needs to join the VHEMT.

Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.

Soon.

profitsbeard on August 20, 2009 at 11:16 AM

I couldn’t agree more. I find it quite disgusting, that these people deem themselves among the elite, deserving to live, thrive, and prosper, while they cast a finger of blame on everyone else, and deem them unfit, and unworthy of life.

If he’s so believing in his crap, let him , and others be the first to make that ultimate sacrifice. Pelosi would be a good pick. How DARE she order planes, at the expense of the environment!!!

capejasmine on August 20, 2009 at 1:11 PM

That’s so preposterous. What would be their motivation for doing this? They want to redistribute wealth… for what reason?

orange on August 20, 2009 at 1:06 PM

Are you that naive? Do some research and you will see that most if not all of the “leaders” are hardcore leftest and communist. Look at the money trails and you will find a lot of hard core leftest and communists that support the movement. For 70 years the left has searched for their wedge or silver bullet to kill capitalism and democracy and they absolutely think they have found it with Global Warming. Nothing ever proposed by them does anything for the environment and in some cases is worse for it. What it does do is slap totalitarian controls on people. If they were so concerned for the environment why do they give a pass to the countries that pollute the most? Why is it that every proposal cripples first world nations with restrictions and payments? Why do only first world nations have to have meet standards but others don’t? The first world nations are the most technological nations on the planet and can find many ways to combat pollution but the only proposed ways are to limit growth and economy while funneling wealth to poorer countries.

RagTag on August 20, 2009 at 1:18 PM

even George Carlin, someone I rarely ever agreed with, pegged these people and their bs

Son of Sam Kinison on August 20, 2009 at 1:22 PM

Got to youtube & type in George Carlin on Global warming (7:34 long)

Son of Sam Kinison on August 20, 2009 at 1:25 PM

Emotionalism is all they have. I hope Rachel Carson enjoys her time in hell for sending millions of Africans to their graves.

Nasty, racist, lefty c^%t.

PimFortuynsGhost on August 20, 2009 at 1:26 PM

All kittens will be dead by 2011 unless all of you immediately send cash to the mankai relief fund.

You’ve been warned!

mankai on August 20, 2009 at 1:27 PM

All kittens will be dead by 2011 unless all of you immediately send cash to the mankai relief fund.

You’ve been warned!

mankai on August 20, 2009 at 1:27 PM

All bunnies will be dead unless you send all the money you receive for kittens to the RagTag Relief Fund.

RagTag on August 20, 2009 at 1:29 PM

According to Rush’s Algore Countdown to Doom clock, we have 6 years, 5 months and 7 days to act to save the planet from scorching. (Rush started the clock almost 4 years ago since Algore said the planet would scorch in 10 years.) They all lie. It’s what they do. And of course emotionalism justifies the means.

Christian Conservative on August 20, 2009 at 1:38 PM

Emotionalism is all they have. I hope Rachel Carson enjoys her time in hell for sending millions of Africans to their graves.

Nasty, racist, lefty c^%t.

PimFortuynsGhost on August 20, 2009 at 1:26 PM

Now, now lets not be really nasty. She only wanted DDT to be used effectively which wasn’t happening. The overuse of it was the problem and it was creating resistant strains of the very insects it was targeting. I could be argued that by the time it was banned it was already pretty much useless. I remember when I was young and a friend of mine dad was a farmer. His rule of thumb was that if a pound of insecticide killed a the bugs in his field in ten days then ten pounds would kill them in a day. Of course he was wrong but that didn’t stop him. We have the very same problem with antibiotics becoming useless by over use.

Ok enough of that.
Many species revert from their adapted changes after the threat has gone away. Darwin observed this himself when studying birds. We could most likely do better if we rotate pesticides every so often. The time may be ripe for a reintroduction of DDT to combat malaria and other insect borne health problems. The problem is in trying to convince a government that has decide that DDT is bad forever.

RagTag on August 20, 2009 at 1:44 PM

Mr. Leipold, if you want emotionalism you could get someone to punch you in the face.

TrickyDick on August 20, 2009 at 1:45 PM

They all lie. It’s what they do. And of course emotionalism justifies the means.

Christian Conservative on August 20, 2009 at 1:38 PM

But Gore is in it for the money not the destruction of humans or the restricting of countries. He wants the first world countries to buy his carbon credits. He did good and his scam will go down in history as one of the greatest.

RagTag on August 20, 2009 at 1:46 PM

RagTag on August 20, 2009 at 1:44 PM

Carson was a eugenicist–look at her partnerships and her career; she had no problem with people being eradicated to save her precious birds. I have no qualms in lacking sympathy for her painful death. I feel we haven’t been nasty enough in attacking this despicable person.

And DDT is effective against malaria, I don’t have time to look for the recent studies that show this, but it should be reintroduced. The deaths and some of the lack of development in Africa could have been prevented, but lefties would prefer for non-developed nations to continue their 13-century lifestyles. Makes them more “exotic” and “authentic.”

PimFortuynsGhost on August 20, 2009 at 1:51 PM

You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity… We can’t imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven’t got the humility to try.

blatantblue on August 20, 2009 at 8:55 AM

Lefty eco-nuts have a defective mental image of the size of the Earth versus the size of the human race. They imagine a carton caricature of the globe which has gigantick smoke stacks and factories thrusting into the sky from every square inch of land. They imagine entire countries covered in concrete, entire continents glowing with electric light when viewed from space. They picture gigantic cartoon giants stomping over the planet, grinding every last natural habitat into the dirt to make way for car parks and power stations.

What they don’t picture is the Earth as it really is, a ginormous planet with a light sprinkling of human dust specks here and there, the evidence of whom is barely visible from space. It’s like they’ve never flown in an aircrat and looked down to see just how much of the land is untouched and uninhabited.

Any aliens watching us must be splitting their sides to observe the global warming movement. The sheer naïve arrogance of these humans, to believe that they can change their planet’s climate at all, never mind in such a negligible space of time.

Sharke on August 20, 2009 at 2:06 PM

That would be “gigantic”. Damn bus, wretched Blackberry.

Sharke on August 20, 2009 at 2:08 PM

the only proposed ways are to limit growth and economy while funneling wealth to poorer countries.

RagTag on August 20, 2009 at 1:18 PM

You never addressed my question. Why would they wish to do this?

orange on August 20, 2009 at 2:27 PM

But Gore is in it for the money not the destruction of humans or the restricting of countries. He wants the first world countries to buy his carbon credits. His scam will go down in history as one of the greatest.

RagTag on August 20, 2009 at 1:46 PM

True, RT, and I just heard that some British folks selling carbon credits and living high on the hog as a result were arrested for income tax evasion. A fraud upon a fraud. Wonder if Gore is paying his income taxes from all the carbon credits he’s selling?

Christian Conservative on August 20, 2009 at 2:35 PM

Yeah, we misled, but we needed the emotionalism!

Couldn’t that be used to explain Obama’s 2008 campaign, too?

txhsdad on August 20, 2009 at 2:35 PM

I yam what I yam, douchebag.

blatantblue on August 20, 2009 at 10:37 AM

Who said that, Socrates?

No, Popeye.

(Can’t remember the movie that was in)

BobMbx on August 20, 2009 at 2:55 PM

You never addressed my question. Why would they wish to do this?

orange on August 20, 2009 at 2:27 PM

You don’t really want an answer, and any answer given would go in one ear and out the other. You’ve already stated you believe this scam, regardless of how much scientific evidence goes the other way (and none of it goes your way, FYI).

But to give you the only answer that makes sense, it comes down to money and power. My evidence? Your high priest, algore himself. When he starts ACTING like there’s a planetary crisis, I might listen when he talks about it. Until then, he’ll be laughing his way to the bank (with your money).

runawayyyy on August 20, 2009 at 3:31 PM

daesleeper on August 20, 2009 at 10:25 A

Thank you for that website info! I just spent a few minutes reading up on the Tides Foundation and Center-unbelievable. I kept seeing the Tides name in posts but didn’t understand how it worked.

journeyintothewhirlwind on August 20, 2009 at 3:36 PM

You never addressed my question. Why would they wish to do this?

orange on August 20, 2009 at 2:27 PM

If the tone of your question were incredulity then I would fully agree with you. Why would anyone be so stupid as to want to redistribute wealth and thus put the brakes on the very economic growth which has been instrumental in lifting the poor from the horrors of primitive subsistence they knew before the Industrial Revolution?

Alas, that’s not what you meant. It’s as if you’re denying the philosophical motive of socialists altogether, like a defense lawyer asking a jury: “why would he kill his wife? It just doesn’t make sense!”

Sharke on August 20, 2009 at 4:50 PM

yes we lied…but it’s for your own good. does that sound familiar?
Yes…I know what my constituents want, but I’m gonna do what’s good for them instead…they’re just so stupid, someones gotta look out for em’.
I paraphrase but…elitist assholes.

Obama is a liar and Truth is killing his Marxist agenda.

Army Brat on August 20, 2009 at 11:26 PM

Comment pages: 1 2