“The secret to Greenpeace’s success: It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true… You are what the media define you to be. [Greenpeace] became a myth, and a myth- generating machine.” Paul Watson Co-Founder of Greenpeace [in Forbes Magazine] November 11, 1991
You would think that this kind of remark would be made by a Anti- Greenpeace sort of person. But no, it was made by the co- founder.
Another co-founder of Greenpeace, with a Ph.D in Ecology, Patrick Moore, said that he learned after the founding of Greenpeace that “the environmental movement is not always guided by science.” (Wall Street Journal, August 22, 2009.)
Moore goes on to say:
“At first, many of the causes we championed, such as opposition to nuclear testing and protection of whales, stemmed from our scientific knowledge of nuclear physics and marine biology. But after six years as one of five directors of Greenpeace International, I observed that none of my fellow directors had any formal science education. They were either political activists or environmental entrepreneurs. Ultimately, a trend toward abandoning scientific objectivity in favor of political agendas forced me to leave Greenpeace in 1986.” The Wall Street Journal, August 22, 2009
Two founders of Greenpeace now agree it is nothing more than a political, activist, non-science-based organization.
And most of us know, of course, that Greenpeace is also big on global warming. Well, Patrick Moore also says that “Anybody who knows anything about biology knows that carbon dioxide is the most important nutrient of all of life. It is the currency of life.”
Also, Greenpeace supported the ban on chlorine. Moore says that it was one of the biggest scientific breakthroughs in history. That “Despite science concluding no known health risks – and ample benefits – from chlorine in drinking water, Greenpeace and other environmental groups have opposed its use for more than 20 years.”
An organization that was -in the beginning- intended to actually help the environment, now is full of a bunch of activists who lack credibility and reliability.
But it’s the thought that counts, right? Wrong, Greenpeace would still be credible if they were scientific. They were founded by people with scientific background; it started well. But now…
Moore concludes: “We all have a responsibility to be environmental stewards. But that stewardship requires that science, not political agendas, drive our public policy.” I agree.