Free Markets, Free People


Greenpeace’s dumb answer to a good question

Apparently Greenpeace has decided that dissent and disagreement (especially when it is effective) doesn’t warrant protection under the right to free speech.

That’s especially true if you’re a dirty, rotten global warming “denier”.

From a FAQ on the Greenpeace site, this question: “Don’t the deniers have a right to free speech?"

No poisoning of the well with the question, is there?  They couldn’t ask “don’t those who disagree with the theory of man-made global warming have a right to free speech”?

If they’d phrased the question that way it might have been harder to attempt to justify this idiotic answer (not that it can be justified even with their poison question):

"There’s a difference between free speech and a campaign to deny the climate science with the goal of undermining international action on climate change," Greenpeace argues. "However, there’s also responsibility that goes with freedom of speech – which is based around honesty and transparency.  Freedom of speech does not apply to misinformation and propaganda."

Because, you know, there’s consensus and the science is settled and all that.  Nothing like smug but unsubstantiated faith in their crumbling cause, huh?

Given the last sentence, if Greenpeace believes that to be true one has to wonder when they’ll begin to self-censor.

Let freedom, scientific inquiry, honest debate and free speech ring.

Or join Greenpeace.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

28 Responses to Greenpeace’s dumb answer to a good question

  • “However, there’s also responsibility that goes with freedom of speech – which is based around honesty and transparency. Freedom of speech does not apply to misinformation and propaganda.”
    ————————————————————————————————————–
    Then Green Piece (O’Crap) and the rest of the Collective are in DEEEEP spit…

  • “Freedom of speech does not apply to misinformation and propaganda.”"
    So, if I disagree, and never say word one other than I disagree and I am not convinced. Even if I don’t refute, show data, or even ask questions, and quietly disagree when asked, I’m NOT permitted to think or say that, because I’m spreading misinformation and propaganda?
    ========================================================================
    Good to know. Mark that on my forgive’0′meter so I know what the calibration point is for possible future reference.

  • http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2012/04/totalitarian-climate-kook-wants-warming.html
    ———————————————————————————————————–

    Here’s an example. Wonder how this phuc lives…

    • @Ragspierre Well, he hacked into an internet site – so, we can be sure of two things….he lives in his mom’s basement, and he has a computer, which he’s probably NOT powering by peddling a bicycle (attached to a generator).

  • ‘That ordeal prepared him for the scrutiny that descended upon him as a result of the manufactured scandal called “Climategate,” and for the latest investigation into his science, this time for taxpayer fraud of all things, by Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli.

    Smelling a politically motivated witch hunt, Greenpeace has stepped into the fray with its own investigation into the Attorney General and possible relationships with global warming deniers.’ … Greenpeace is really into that transparency thing

  • if “Freedom of speech does not apply to misinformation and propaganda.” Then they should all be locked up because they have provided nothing but.

  • The Bill of Rights says, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech….”, not that ‘anyone can say anything they want.

    Climate deniers are principally Christian Fundamentalists—and that is no bastion of ‘honest debate and free speech’.

    You have to understand scientific method and inquiry in order to talk about it—otherwise it’s just talk, that’s all.

    • @tadcf The Bill of Rights says, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech….”, not that ‘anyone can say anything they want >>>>> With obvious and well defined exceptions that we all are aware of (fire in a crowded theater etc) – please explain to me how those two statements don’t amount to basically the same thing? And I’d dare say a Christian fundie is more open-minded than you. PS- The irony meter pegs out on your “you have to understand scientific method to talk about it” comment. I’m gonna use it (and attribute it to you) next time some global warming doomsayer uses the word “consensus”m which is the opposite of science,

      Thanks!

    • @tadcf What an idiot. Seriously, why do you embarrass yourself here?

    • @tadcf “You have to understand scientific method and inquiry in order to talk about it—otherwise it’s just talk, that’s all.” OK hotshot… put up your scientific qualifications.

    • @tadcf – Quote: “he Bill of Rights says, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech….”, not that ‘anyone can say anything they want.”

      Spoken like a true, half-literate thug.

      • @Sharpshooter As always, he knows enough to know the parts he needs right this second at this time, in this place, the rest, pretty much made up as he goes along. His actual knowledge and understanding of a thing is like a small cracked vase in a big box. The rest is the cheap packing materiel he pours in around the vase.

    • @tadcf “Climate deniers are principally Christian Fundamentalists—and that is no bastion of ‘honest debate and free speech’.”

      I’m an atheist and I’m a skeptic of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (do pay attention to ALL of those adjectives and refrain from pretending that any of them don’t exist).

      The label of “denier” is generally a straw man, ignoring that many skeptics do not make such blanket denials.

      “You have to understand scientific method and inquiry in order to talk about it—otherwise it’s just talk, that’s all.”

      Then you, Al Gore, and a whole boatload of alarmists are disqualified.

      The scientific method of inquiry is based upon SKEPTICISM and REPRODUCIBILITY. Declaring science “settled” or yammering about “consensus” is anti-scientific. It’s a betrayal of the fundamentals of scientific investigation.

      Meanwhile, many of the alarmists distort data, utterly fail to use proper statistical methods, over-simplify highly complex systems by ignoring variables or arbitrarily fix variables to values which get them the results they want, refuse to share their data or algorithms (thus blocking attempts to reproduce results), and engage in aggressive propaganda in an attempt to shout down anyone who dares to question their orthodoxy.

      I’m a skeptic, but I’m not a “denier”. I’ll allow that it’s possible that the catastrophic predictions may come true (well, at least those which haven’t already failed to come true). But I also know that the world’s climate has always changed due to natural forces and those forces will probably have more impact than what the alarmists suggest, meaning anthropogenic causes may be negligible.

  • Does this surprise anyone really? Beneath every single leftist is a petty (or not so petty) authoritarian

    • @The Shark Funny, I always thought the same about conservative reactionaries.

      • @tadcf Yes, we’re all reactionaries, anyone who doesn’t agree with you, or think like you, is automatically a reactionary.

      • @tadcf – You might want to investigate what the word “reactionary” means and what it implies.

        In short, it’s that character you see in the mirror.

      • @tadcf Hey pal, you’re the one who’s setting out rules for who can or can’t comment, while throwing out a hefty dose of religious bigotry to boot. You’re a petty authoritarian, and your own comments prove it. If the shoe fits, wear it, and I bet you have quite a few like it in your closet.

  • Hey, count your blessings. At least Greenpeace doesn’t call us sterile and inbred for being “deniers”.

  • @DocD Nanny Pelosi is quite ready to make it so…
    ————————————————————————————————————-
    “We have a clear agenda in this regard: [DISCLOSE], reform the system reducing the [role] of money in campaigns, and amend the Constitution to rid it of this ability for special interests to use secret, unlimited, huge amounts of money flowing to campaigns,” Pelosi said at her Thursday press briefing.

    “I think one of the presenters [at a Democratic forum on amending the Constitution] yesterday said that the Supreme Court had unleashed a predator that was oozing slime into the political system, and that, indeed, is not an exaggeration,” said Pelosi. “Our Founders had an idea. It was called democracy. It said elections are determined by the people, the voice and the vote of the people, not by the bankrolls of the privileged few. This Supreme Court decision flies in the face of our Founders’ vision and we want to reverse it.”
    —————————————————————————————–
    There you have it…

    • @Ragspierre the founders would have run her out of town on a rail…what they created was a Republic, and I doubt she knows the difference between that and her democracy.
      ==========================================================
      Nancy’s as big an expert on our government as she is on Catholic dogma.

  • @looker If I recall correctly, Pasteur was MOST opposed by the learned doctors of his day. Many REAL scientists are…

  • Or, if you can’t shut them up, just burn down their houses and steal their land: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevezwick/2012/04/19/a-tennessee-firemans-solution-to-climate-change/

    • @myweeklycrime Steve “offsets”. I wonder if he’s gone out to make sure the money he put into “offsets” has been put into ‘offsets’ and if those ‘offsets’ actually offset the amount of warming he generates by riding public transit and powering his PC so he can rant.
      All in all though, I’d be willing to sign up for Steve’s program and take my risk that the climate isn’t warming because of me…if that means my house, or my island, or whatever he thinks I’m going to suffer from my wrong headedness…..provided I now get to pay not dime one for the warmists bullshit in increased costs to products and power up front. I mean, if I’m going to have to pay on the backside if I’m wrong, I don’t want to be paying on the front side to subsidize his view. He’s asked me to belly up to the bar if I’m wrong, so I’d like not to be paying the bar tab at all until I actually order my preferred poison.

  • Ockham’s razor states ‘The simplest explanation is usually the correct one’

    Distilling ‘climate change’ down to its essence by considering what these folks propose as solutions, and you will find common threads: Somebody who claims to know better than you, will dictate to you, how much energy you will be allotted & how you are to use it, your access to which modes of transport, your access to which foods, in-short, how you are going to live your lives.

    The Left in general and the Eviro-nazi movement in particular are predicated upon Societal Control. Once their Societal Control is total, our fiat currency becomes meaningless.

    Take note of who is pushing the lies, (Malfeasant Media) then ask yourself what they stand to gain in turns of control, power & wealth, then the madness starts to make sense.

    Orwell, Hayek, Rand, Huxley…. We ignore their warnings at our peril.

    • @Constitution First It would be kinda comical, the frenzied panic they seem to be in, were it not for the fact that they want to force the rest of us to run with their herd over the cliff.