Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: 107 Nobel laureates sign letter blasting Greenpeace over GMOs [View all]HuckleB
(35,773 posts)29. Greenpeace’s Colonialist Ambitions
https://risk-monger.com/2016/07/01/the-nobel-savage-greenpeaces-colonialist-ambitions/
"...
Why is this happening now given that the activist campaigning has been going on for almost two decades? In recent months NGOs have expanded a myth that Golden Rice does not work, is dangerous and that NGO campaigns are not responsible for the delays in developing the technology. Seeing how NGOs can take a debunked article and turn it into a successful social media campaign (Glyphosate 101), scientists felt the need to speak out.
So how did Greenpeace respond when faced with such a scientific slap on the face? Did they acknowledge the eminence of the scientists and take the evidence the Nobel laureates presented into consideration? Did they express regret for the loss of life from Vitamin A Deficiency? Did they request a meeting or conference to discuss the issue and present their own research on how ecological farming will transform impoverished countries and solve malnutrition?
Come on now! This is Greenpeace: the most arrogant and egotistical assembly of zealots history has ever had the horror to have witnessed! On the day that the Nobel laureates presented their letter, Greenpeace released a scathing response accusing industry of overhyping Golden Rice for global approval, reinforcing the anti-GMO myth that the technology does not work and continued to push their alternative of ecological agriculture (farming with no inputs or technologies whatsoever). The NGOs four citations were to a biased news article, an undocumented and unattributed hearsay from IRRI and two to their own reports against Golden Rice. Talk about defending their scientific credentials! Greenpeace also retweeted an article in Ecowatch where the head of the Organic Consumers Association, Ronnie Cummins, declared that all of the Nobel Laureates were paid by Monsanto! Argumentum ad Monsantium!
This is classic Age of Stupid behaviour. Greenpeace is not engaging in debate with the leading scientific minds. They present neither facts nor evidence but rather attempt to cast doubt and undermine trust. They were responding to their tribe, sayng what their followers wanted to hear and disregarding the rest. But their tribe is getting marginalised: good leaders will continue to abandon the NGO; funding will decline (2015 financial statements showed yet another dramatic increase in fundraising expenses) and the mainstream public will continue to consider Greenpeace as an obstacle to progress and technology.
..."
The list of Greenpeace colonization activities is stunning. Check it out.
"...
Why is this happening now given that the activist campaigning has been going on for almost two decades? In recent months NGOs have expanded a myth that Golden Rice does not work, is dangerous and that NGO campaigns are not responsible for the delays in developing the technology. Seeing how NGOs can take a debunked article and turn it into a successful social media campaign (Glyphosate 101), scientists felt the need to speak out.
So how did Greenpeace respond when faced with such a scientific slap on the face? Did they acknowledge the eminence of the scientists and take the evidence the Nobel laureates presented into consideration? Did they express regret for the loss of life from Vitamin A Deficiency? Did they request a meeting or conference to discuss the issue and present their own research on how ecological farming will transform impoverished countries and solve malnutrition?
Come on now! This is Greenpeace: the most arrogant and egotistical assembly of zealots history has ever had the horror to have witnessed! On the day that the Nobel laureates presented their letter, Greenpeace released a scathing response accusing industry of overhyping Golden Rice for global approval, reinforcing the anti-GMO myth that the technology does not work and continued to push their alternative of ecological agriculture (farming with no inputs or technologies whatsoever). The NGOs four citations were to a biased news article, an undocumented and unattributed hearsay from IRRI and two to their own reports against Golden Rice. Talk about defending their scientific credentials! Greenpeace also retweeted an article in Ecowatch where the head of the Organic Consumers Association, Ronnie Cummins, declared that all of the Nobel Laureates were paid by Monsanto! Argumentum ad Monsantium!
This is classic Age of Stupid behaviour. Greenpeace is not engaging in debate with the leading scientific minds. They present neither facts nor evidence but rather attempt to cast doubt and undermine trust. They were responding to their tribe, sayng what their followers wanted to hear and disregarding the rest. But their tribe is getting marginalised: good leaders will continue to abandon the NGO; funding will decline (2015 financial statements showed yet another dramatic increase in fundraising expenses) and the mainstream public will continue to consider Greenpeace as an obstacle to progress and technology.
..."
The list of Greenpeace colonization activities is stunning. Check it out.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
60 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
This is the part where some mouthbreather says 107 nobel laureates are taking money from Monsanto.
Act_of_Reparation
Jun 2016
#2
FINALLY, Science is fighting back against the pseudoscientific piffle of the anti-GMO morons! eom
MohRokTah
Jun 2016
#3
Agreed. I'm not against GMOs per se, but I DO oppose a lot of the business practices that accompany
Coventina
Jun 2016
#7
Those business practices predate the introduction of GMOs, sometimes by decades, so what...
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#9
Not really, and part of it is biology, a lot of crops are hybrids(not GMOs), and to save time...
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#13
The issue is that GMOs can be environmentally friendly, and seed saving counterproductive...
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#16
You seem to be ascribing to me a bunch of opinions that I don't have and have not expressed.
Coventina
Jun 2016
#17
That is true, and I apologize about ascribing such opinions to you, call it a prejudice...
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#18
Yeah, what I really can't stand are those who discard the tools we have because they...
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#20
It's just another anti-GMO talking point that has been shot down numerous times
Major Nikon
Jul 2016
#31
So that they can help increase suffering in the world? So they can halt and hinder scientific...
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#10
It's very hard to argue with especially after looking at the breakdown of which category they won:
RAFisher
Jun 2016
#14
Good. The Left must aggressively go after ALL anti-science Luddites within our midst.
Meldread
Jul 2016
#28
The anti-GMO brigade has a lot in common with the anti-vaccination crowd (nt)
Nye Bevan
Jul 2016
#36
I find gross hyperbole goofy. Do you have any evidence to back up the claim that Green Peace has
Chathamization
Jul 2016
#41
It doesn't look like Greenpeace was responsible for Zambia's decision, so I'm not sure what your
Chathamization
Jul 2016
#47
"Greenpeace has since published a letter that it sent African governments at the time encouraging
Chathamization
Jul 2016
#49
So you have no evidence that Greenpeace had any influence on Zambia's decision
Chathamization
Jul 2016
#54
Again, do you have any evidence showing Greenpeace influenced Zambia's decision, or that Zambia's
Chathamization
Jul 2016
#58
None of the links you posted even make those claims, which is why you haven't quoted from them
Chathamization
Jul 2016
#60
Go, Greenpeace! Keep ignoring science! Keep working to harm people and the planet!
HuckleB
Jul 2016
#44
Thank Jeebus you're around to keep track of who is and who is not really a scientist.
Act_of_Reparation
Jul 2016
#56