I imagines the first rule when someone suggests organisations are colluding … is not to produce a joint news release! But instead what do I find in Russia Today:
‘What are they smoking?’ Greenpeace ridicules NATO claims of Russian fracking plot
Come on! They could have at least found some other stooge organisation like the BBC or Guardian to publish it first and not gone crying to their friends and made it blatantly obvious that Greenpeace have very close ties to the Russians!
Greenpeace are the only “environmentalist” organisation that have always made a point of not taking government money. I don’t say that is necessarily true but I think they would be unwise to choose Russia as the place to break their promise for.
Also the Russians got a bit of stick/praise for arresting a bunch of GPers trying to board one of their Arctic rigs.
Would this denial of any collusion be more credible if Greenpeace got Putin to make it personally?
“Never believe anything until its been officially denied” Sir Humphrey Appleby
But that does not mean everything officially denied is true.
Come one! We all know how this would have been spun to death BY THE BBC if anything even vaguely similar happened to a skeptic.
The best bit is the deafening silence from the BBC – which tells us everything anyone needed to know about the hand-in-glove relationship between BBC “news” (propaganda) and environmental groups.
I don’t suppose Greenpeace would necessarily know about it. Money comes in anonymously and they spend it on their ‘worthy’ causes. I find it amusing for the boot to be on the other foot and the greenies having to defend money from Big Gazprom.
Like I said on BH, it’s the campaigning by the BBC, using our money, that does the real damage. They merrily parrot Greenpeace or Frack Off’s message and get them better viewing figures than a bit of Russian slush fund could ever buy.
The boot on the other foot! Precisely!
Oh the BBC are as totalitarian propagandist as any major broadcaster in the world and lie, spin and censor without compunction. But if the story is true or untrue it was that way before they got there (or rather didn’t get there).
It doesn’t feel true to me (at least to an extent remotely comparable with the billions western governments pour into both warming alarmism and “democracy awareness” in Russia’s backyard) and if there was it should have been possible to produce evidence..
Russians have the cash – Greenpeace goes where the cash is for looting; can’t blame them for that, they are smart, cunning…
You can’t blame them – but you can blame the idiot civil servants and politicians who listened to their poisoned propaganda whilst slinging evil insults at entirely altruistic people like us.
”the politicians and civil servants”
are listening to Warmist AND Skeptic’s propaganda – Skeptic’s propaganda is less believable: look at the Skeptic’s ”global temp charts” for the last 2000y” it’s with precision to one hundredth of a degree, it looks as a seismograph… for before even the thermometer was invented b] because they produced less one bushel per hectare in Devon-shire = they declared the WHOLE GLOBAL temp colder.
as long as the Warmist & Skeptics are competing who is going to tell more and bigger lies – politicians follow the majority, unfortunately
The truth: nobody knows what was last year’s ”global” temp, to save his / her life – talking, COMPARING with precision for other years… one cannot compare one unknown with another unknown; unless is in a Warmist or Skeptic’s religions!!! 2] there is no such a thing as ”warmer or colder” years for the WHOLE planet overall – that’s what the normal laws of physics say. Unless Hansen & Plimer abolish the normal laws of physics, by legislation in the parliament and in UN – all the Warmist & skeptics do is a sandpit job – unfortunately, billions of dollars squandered on a fairy-tales from both camps. Cheers
I don’t think the skeptics have ever had “billions of dollars” to squander though I would be open to evidence Stefan. The alarmists have had hundreds of billions from the states and have indeed squandered it.
Not billions, not millions, I’ve never seen anyone spend thousands (though I guess a few must have).
neilfutureboy says: ”I don’t think the skeptics have ever had “billions of dollars”
apology for my limited English vocabulary boy – NO, Warmist are lying for billions of dollars – they think globally and sponge locally
”Skeptics” are lying for feel good – ALL the ”proxy” data skeptics use is pagan crap
the truth: part of the planet always warms up more than normal – instantly other part / parts get colder than normal – never the WHOLE planet is warmer than normal; the normal / honest laws of physics don’t permit that: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/q-a/
Stefan to save anybody spending any time on your link (or arguably any link provided by warmists since you hit the trend) I point out that your link provides absolutely no evidence whatsoever for your claim that sceptics are getting billions for promotion.
My guess would be a few million $ tops while the ecofascists get several hundred billion worldwide. It seems there is no evidence for your claims, unsurprisingly because they are false. The same applies to virtually everything else alarmists say.
I’m not a Warmist, never being and never will be, I’m a denier. If you have being to my blog, you would have known that! Just that my replay to your comment has being delayed – I never use four letter words or anything similar; BUT my comments are moderated – so be patient, don’t jump the gun, read my replay to your comment above, it has being approved. cheers!
The anti-fracking Watermelons are entirely dishonest and will take money from any source, as can be observed from this nice little sting operation.
Undercover journalist James O’Keefe released his latest video featuring a sting operation to expose Hollywood environmentalists.
The video features an undercover journalist from Project Veritas posing as “Muhammad,” a member of a Middle Eastern oil family, offering $9 million in funding to American filmmakers to fund an anti-fracking movie. He was joined by a second undercover activist posing as an ad executive.
O’Keefe entraps actor Ed Begley Jr., actress Mariel Hemingway, and director Josh Tickell, who agree to the film while promising to hide the source of the funds.
The undercover activist tells the group that “if Washington, D.C., continues fracking, America will be energy-efficient, and then they won’t need my oil anymore.”
In a phone call to Tickell, the “ad executive” states, “My client’s interest is to end American energy independence; your interest is to end fracking. And you guys understand that?”
Tickell’s response: “Correct. Yes, super clear.”
Useful Idiots, Green on the outside, Red on the inside.
The influence of Arab oil money on our politics is another matter. Nor is it only, or even mainly, at the activist end. Lots of western politicos end up as consultants/on the board of a
Arab money. If you want to look for a conspiracy there is Chris Patten running the BBC and getting Saudi money (also on an EU pension which can be removed if he doesn’t play nice).
The Soviet Union did support the enti-nuclear movement and in particular diplomatically pushed the LNT linear no threshold damage hypothesis, for which there was zero evidence at the time and less now.
However the main pressure for it came from western bureaucrats.
And as an example of the problems of conspiracy – when Chernobyl exploded they accepted the LNT theory that half a million were going to die (in fact 3 did, outside the building) and started evacuating square miles and aborting 25,000 babies because of a false scare story they had pushed.
It’s not till you drain the pond that you find the dead bodies! And the bigger and deeper the pond – the less chance people thought there would be of their crimes being discovered.
What we might be seeing in this NATA exposure is a culture within government that is so used to environmental “groups” being bought and sold that they didn’t stop to think that outsiders might not know how dirty it all is.
In other words, let’s suppose the Chinese were funding global warming propaganda – the UK government attitude may well have been “Great – saves us having to do it!”
And the fact its now gone very quiet – suggests to me there is an awful lot of dirty laundry that they don’t want exposed in public.
Or perhaps simply the assumption that “if we’re doing it to them (& ourselves) & we are the good guys, they must be trying to do it to us”.