This is bullshit.
What Greenpeace's fake news department do is manufacture stories out of thin air, using the fact of their 'research' as a fig leaf for not having discovered anything.
What Greenpeace's fake news department do is manufacture stories out of thin air, using the fact of their 'research' as a fig leaf for not having discovered anything.
https://twitter.com/GreenpeaceUK/status/1452199182924664842
See for yourself. These views on the Greenpeace story are from people I have otherwise zero agreement.
They demonstrate that what Greenpeace claim to have 'exposed' is simply the normal IPCC process.
sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reactio…
They demonstrate that what Greenpeace claim to have 'exposed' is simply the normal IPCC process.
sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reactio…
But Greenpeace and others are zealots in the extreme.
They want to be able to claim that the IPCC reports are more conservative than the science they contain, because their politics depends on the most alarmist possible (or impossible) interpretation of facts.
They want to be able to claim that the IPCC reports are more conservative than the science they contain, because their politics depends on the most alarmist possible (or impossible) interpretation of facts.
That is to say that, rather, Greenpeace have never liked facts, nor even science, but that scientific authority is all the same essential for advancing their agenda.
Ultimately, they are anti-science. But it is convenient, for now.
Ultimately, they are anti-science. But it is convenient, for now.
I.e., 'science' has never comforted Greenpeace on i) nuclear power, ii) genetic modification, iii) industrial agriculture.
Greenpeace has resisted consensus on those issues, and used its vast annual budgets to support the counter position on their advancement.
Greenpeace has resisted consensus on those issues, and used its vast annual budgets to support the counter position on their advancement.
In this respect, Greenpeace is entirely promiscuous with institutional science. And it's fair enough to observe that institutional science is promiscuous itself.
Greenpeace will accept "the science" when it suits, but reject it when it doesn't. And institutional 'science' will happily put its alignment with green NGOs and other climate alarmists ahead of the facts for reasons of political expediency, too.
Back to the story...
What Greenpeace has never explained is why 'oil, coal and meat producing countries' should not be free to interrogate the science, nor to advance alternative hypotheses on what are categorically very loose scientific claims in the first place.
What Greenpeace has never explained is why 'oil, coal and meat producing countries' should not be free to interrogate the science, nor to advance alternative hypotheses on what are categorically very loose scientific claims in the first place.
According to @BBCJustinR , "The leaked documents consist of more than 32,000 submissions made by governments, companies and other interested parties...".
But that is what the IPCC is *supposed* to do.
But that is what the IPCC is *supposed* to do.
The point, then, is that Greenpeace and the BBC are more toxic to good science and policy than any influence of 'oil, coal and meat producing countries'.
Some of those countries have large populations of poor people, for whom radical emissions reduction would be fatal.
Some of those countries have large populations of poor people, for whom radical emissions reduction would be fatal.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
