Greenpeace admits "emotionalizing" is one of their tactics

Gerd Leipold, executive director of Greenpeace International appeared on the BBC show "Hardtalk".

When pressed about a specific issue where Greenpeace appeared to have exaggerated their claims, Leipold admitted they are "emotionalizing issues", and that they do it willfully and consciously. He went on to defend this practice saying that they do not feel they gain enough sympathy for their statements if they do not "emotionalize" their messages.

We, as a pressure group, have to emotionalize issues, and we are not ashamed of emotionalizing issues.

Gerd Leipold - Executive Director of Greenpeace International, 2009

He may call it "emotionalizing", but  that is merely a euphemism for scare-tactics, FUD and propaganda. When he calls it "emotionalizing" he is in effect green-washing the act of lying.

Greenpeace was not late to react to this and the signature "Brian" posted a blog entry lambasting BBC, saying they got it wrong about the factoid that triggered the confession. But while that blog post may be technically correct, it is insignificant because Leipold still admitted that "emotionalizing" is indeed a Greenpeace tactic.

If Greenpeace cannot argue their cases without "emotionalizing", they are not only justifying skepticism, but rather necessitating it. This confession shows that scrutiny is long overdue. It proves it's time we started looking at if they know what the heck they are talking about or just bilking sympathizers for money with whatever fairy stories they can come up with.

After all... we don't exactly lack examples of  "emotionalizing" in the nuclear issue from Greenpeace...

Aftonbladet, kärnkraftverket och fantasiskaparen

Vår favorit-tidning Aftonbladet, med deras knivskarpa analytiska förmåga och djupa insikt i teknik och vetenskap (OBS: lätt sarkasm) slog till idag med den lysande rubriken "Forsmark stoppade nya "Beck"-filmen". Vid första anblick låter rubriken som att Forsmark använt sig av någon flummig säkerhetslag för att utöva censur genom helt sonika stoppa produktionen och hindra filmen från att någonsin visas. Men så fort man börjar läsa artikeln så kryper det fram att fullt så dramatiskt var det inte:

"Hej, Forsmark? Jo, vi vill in med ett helt filmteam hos er. Och... uhm, hallå?"
"Hej, Forsmark? Jo, vi vill in med ett helt filmteam hos er. Och... uhm, hallå?"

Tanken var först att man skulle filma scener inne i kärnkraftverket men efter att ansvariga tagit del av manuset nekades inspelningsteamet tillträde.

– De skickade ett utkast av manuset till oss. Men vi tackade nej, vi kan inte ha filminspelning inne på anläggningen av säkerhetsskäl, säger Claes-Inge Andersson, informationschef på Forsmark.

Att privata bolag inte får tillträde till samhällsviktiga anläggningar, och tillika skyddsobjekt, för att leka teater därinne... jag vet inte riktigt vad ni tycker men för min del har jag inga större problem med det. 😀

Så varför ville de då filma därinne? Fantasiskaparen (manusförfattaren) Rolf Börjlind förklarar...

Continue reading Aftonbladet, kärnkraftverket och fantasiskaparen

Nuclear power opponents trying to silence harsh criticism

This article is long overdue. Earlier I didn't pay much notice to people using the power of the "delete" button on their blogs to shut out criticism of their reasoning - or lack of such. Just now however things stepped up a bit as Allianz Insurance, partner to the World Wildlife Foundation in creating the so called Climate Scorecards, just did the same thing.

Before we get to them, take a look at others who have discovered some of the practical buttons that comes with being a blog administrator.

Monica Antonsson, of the blog "Änglagård, Tjernobyl och Jag", recently turned off the ability to post comments on her blog. She claims that this was because "[She] was terrorized by a rabid nuclear power lover". What happened was that practically every blog post she made was quoting some other nuclear opponent. She admitted herself that she did not even fact check these quotes, only that she found them "interesting". Most of these quotes had errors of fact, grossly exaggerated the state of matters or were in some other way worthy of criticism. When members of Nuclear Power Yes Please pointed that out to her, she claims we "spit on the information".

Monica claims that she is not opposed to nuclear power, that she is "only collecting information". But the links on her blog, not to mention her behaviour in general in the matter, tells a very different story. You don't have a link with the headline "No to more nuclear power. You can sign (the petition) here!" when you are  "just collecting information".

The thing that finally made her snap and turn off comments was when I relayed to her the fact that every nuclear reactor that replaces the equivalent amount of coal power saves up to 15 000 lives. Her immediate reaction was to lash out and call me a liar, without checking the fact. I relayed to her the data behind the statements, and she immediately dismissed them as conspiracies by the EU and the UN, and shortly thereafter turned off the ability to further criticise what she posed.

This is what she calls "being terrorized". Well, I guess someone coming up to you telling you "You're so very wrong" and showing he has good cause for it(!) is quite terrifying. 😀

Peter Swedenmark is a former editor in chief, and chief of the opinions & debate desk of a Swedish newspaper. After only two posts he made opposed to nuclear power under which I had discussions with other people on his blog, he quickly shut me out because "[he] didn't want this to become a playground for nuclear proponents". I guess having had the say-so of who gets to voice their opinion in the paper and who doesn't was stuck as an old habit.

Anders Grönwall, press secretary of the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation(SNF) did not appreciate when I criticised their hate-campaign against nuclear power where they among other things constantly and next to obsessively call it "expensive and dangerous". I wrote a comment on that saying that this had a certain likeness in method to another well known hate-campaign we all know about. The exact comment was:

Nobody except ardent opponents of nuclear power believes the scare-mongering where you are saying "Beware of the Jew...", sorry, "Beware of Radiation, it will come and get you!

Anders Grönvall mailed me and said "It feels as if you are trying to say that nuclear opponents are like nazis". I mailed him back and told him that this was of course not the case since trying to conserve nature and nazism were of course(!) completely unrelated. Such a connection would be completely invalid and silly. I also told him that I did not intend to not remove the comparison of the method since scare-mongering was the key issue I was criticising. He ignored all of those arguments and just repeated he wanted that wording removed. When I again wrote him a lengthy email explaining that if SNF did not agree, all they needed to do was defend themselves and argue the case. This mail he just ignored completely, never answered and withheld the comment.

And now, the latest one,  Thilo Kunzemannof Allianz SE. As you know we posted a critical blog entry about how WWF and Allianz wantonly manipulated emissions data on the climate scorecards. A bit later I found the Allianz web page about the scorecards for 2009. A conversation had already started and Thilo had posted a sour comment where he tried to defend Allianz saying they had not lied because they had in some places told people that they had changed and misepresented the data. I posted a comment saying that a lie does not become diminished just because you admit to it.

A strange turn of events then followed. Thilo mailed me and said he wasn't going to approve the comment, claiming it was insulting to call them liars just because they admitted to lying. 😀 When I checked the page though, the comment was there, despite him saying he wouldn't approve it. 24 hours later still, I got a email saying that the comment had been removed, and indeed it had. Luckily I saved a screenshot of it; you can grab it here.

All in all, we are seeing a pattern where nuclear opponents are getting increasingly desperate when their claims are getting challenged. Having had the stage practically to themselves for over 30 years, they are finding themselves stumped when someone else gets up there with them and starts criticising their arguments. 

Well they better get used to it. Trying to shut us out will not make us go silent. Oh no, quite the contrary. 😀

P.S: Greenpeace didn't approve my comment critical of their Hiroshima Day article either. But I might write that one off since they don't seem to be accepting any comments at all on those pages.

We must abolish wind power because of World War I and II.

Yes it is true; the use of wind power is a constant reminder and an insult to all the millions of people that suffered and died in the world wars. And the reason for this is steel.

Steel was used to kill, maim and terrorize countless millions of people from 1914 to 1919 and 1939 to 1945. It was used in rifles, in tanks, in artillery shells and hand grenades. All of it culminating with the steel birds Enola Gay and Bockscar dropping atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Steel and war are forever linked because you simply cannot wage war without steel.

The connection between war and wind power is steel. Practically every wind turbine in the world uses steel. Steel is everywhere in them: in the tower that holds up the turbine; in the gearbox; in the bolts that hold it together, just to mention a few examples. This of course means that wind power always connected with the use of weaponry and war.

Wind power is an insulting tribute to the memory of those who died in the world wars. Turning away from wind power and, in turn, weapons and war should be a true lasting legacy and memorial of those victims.

What?! Wait...

Continue reading We must abolish wind power because of World War I and II.