When all the industries that Greenpeace hates (i.e. all industry) are accused by Greenpeace of using the same "tactics" and "tricks", isn't it time to realise that what Greenpeace is against is democracy, debate, rule of law?
"OMFG! All these evil companies are using the same tactics!"
"What you mean, defending themselves?"
But unpack Greenpeace.
What are Greenpeace's tactics?
Alarmism.
Fearmongering.
Lies. Lies. lies.
Obstruction.
Harassment.
Vandalism/criminal damage.
Nobody is allowed to disagree with Greenpeace.
Greenpeace doesn't want the people that green law will be imposed on to have a say about those laws.
It doesn't want the industries that will be affected by green laws to have a say.
If you disagree with Greenpeace, they will smear you, and write fake stories about how you're part of a conspiracy. They will get their idiot drones to picket your businesses and sabotage your property.
Then they hide behind 'science'.
They are a force for bad in the world.
So when do we get to decide whether or not we want organisations like Greenpeace dominating politics, using its hundreds $millions/year budget to lobby politicians, obstructing the streets, and deciding what we may or may not use/buy/etc?
Perhaps we should take direct action?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There's an entire chapter on "Libertarians" in the green demonology.
But there is no evidence anywhere that Moniot et al have understood, let alone read an argument from a 'libertarian'.
"Libertarianism" is a position that exists only in the green imagination.
So it's all the more ironic (or moronic) that Monbiot tries to claim that it is libertarianism that is the developmental disorder, not his own failure to develop any ability to negotiate his will against others, or a sense of proportion.
I.e., if you disagree with Monbiot, it's the end of the world.
*Exactly* the same reaction produced when a toddler fails to assert their will on the world.
There is no nuance to the green understanding. It is wholly narcissistic.
But ignorance of this... erm... fact... is rife among those who claim to best represent 'dealing in facts'.
It gets worse than the notion of science being synonymous with 'facts'. Some even confuse science for its object.
Science is neither fact nor noumenon. It's the process by which we attempt to discover facts and to shorten the distance between noumena and explanation.
Watch Myles Allen waffle on @thecoastguy's show about "loading the dice", to try to explain the flooding in Germany and link it to climate change. (Followed by a very decent studio discussion.)
The 'scientific' method is called 'Attribution'.
This method of 'attribution' is discussed here (which you've probably already seen).
It is not science. It adds nothing to our understanding of the climate. It is literally intended only to construct political messages, and for use in climate lawfare.
"Loading the dice" is a terrible analogy because it does nothing to explain the policy failure. Pseudo-scientists like Myles Allen in fact want to fix the dice, to urge even worse policies. The promise that climate change mitigation will produce fewer floods is a lie.
It is the Katrina fallacy, again, which lets idiot hacks like George Monbiot blame the deaths in Germany on journalists he dislikes -- to use them as moral blackmail against criticism. Ideology in motion.