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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Ben Pile

Ben Pile Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @clim8resistance

25 Oct
Billionaire-backed activists styled as "academics" against democratic debate, freedom of speech, democracy, science...
Whitmarsh believes that her research can help engineer social values, so that the government can elicit the public's obedience, rather than execute the public's wishes, as tested by democratic process. She was one of the four 'expert leads' that ran the UK Climate Assembly...
You can read my report on the Climate Assembly for the Global Warming Policy Forum at netzerowatch.com/climate-assemb…
Read 12 tweets
23 Oct
Friends! Here is my new project, which I need some help with.
For the duration of COP26, I will be producing a daily livestream chat with guests -- #FLOP26 -- to give the other sides to the story being peddled in Glasgow and on most news media.

I have lots of excellent guests lined up, to speak about the history of the COP meetings, the UK political establishment's bizarre love affair with the green movement, #Climategate, eco-bureaucracies, the fatal flaws of #NetZero... From the science to the politics...
You can help support this daily, 1 hour livestream, by clicking on this link and making a donation, or going direct to paypal.com/paypalme/BenPi….

climate-resistance.org/support
Read 5 tweets
22 Oct
How we know that climate change is bullshit, even if it's real.

In this episode Gavin Schmidt and colleagues demonstrate the pathological bad faith that prevents them from engaging in cool-headed, rational, dispassionate, and objective scientific debate.
What this tells us is that the climate debate does not improve as its location moves from the Internet and its flame wars, up the ranks of institutional science and global political agencies.
This has been obvious to many since the late chair of the IPCC, Rajendra K. Pachauri asked, "What is the difference between Lomborg’s view of humanity and Hitler's?"
Read 8 tweets
22 Oct
Making people anxious and depressed was the *deliberate* and well-understood intention of the green movement. Especially children.

Fact.

Here's a discussion I stole, way back in 2008, where a shrink discusses making people anxious for the planet.

Here's that discussion in context...

"...instead of using psychiatric insight and techniques to reduce excessive anxiety, shame, and guilt for global warming these emotions will need to be increased in the unconcerned."

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
Read 7 tweets
21 Oct
The Green Alliance knows very well that the public do not share its weird and dark ideology.

That's why they published reports showing that the public do not raise the issue with MPs.

And that's why they lobbied for a Climate Assembly, which they controlled.
The Climate Assembly was an attempt to overcome the public's lack of interest in the climate agenda -- to manufacture a mandate for #NetZero, as I explain here.

netzerowatch.com/climate-assemb…
Climate technocrats and fake academics had to force the Assembly into making decisions, and to then torture the data from their votes, to make it look like the Assembly had agreed with them, as I show in the report and here.
Read 7 tweets
20 Oct
Guido asks, "why BEIS is happy to even entertain this nonsense in the first place…"

Because they are desperate, and they are completely divorced from reality and the public, but they cannot let let go of the ideological dream.
BEIS, and other departments before them have been engaging lunatic academic psychologists for YEARS.

The green shrinks told politicians and civil servants that they knew how to engineer social values and norms, to elicit pro-climate behaviour.
Billionaire philanthropists gave them millions, and funded entire research departments.

One of them was one of the four 'Expert Leads' who ran the UK Climate Assembly.

They pose as academics but they are among the most unhinged ideological zealots.

netzerowatch.com/climate-assemb…
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(