Who Founded Greenpeace? Not Patrick Moore.

Yow!, what a nasty narcissistic little fraud he is.

What I don't understand is:

He could have made a good living as a corporate shill by saying nothing more than "I was one of the early members of Greenpeace, starting a year after the organization was founded." That would be completely true, and it would gain him respect.

Instead he falls into the classic narcissistic pattern of making himself out to be Ronald McDonald and ending up looking like the Hamburglar in the end.

Reminds me of Carlos Castaneda, who could have been highly acclaimed as an author of fiction, if he had only had the common sense to say from the get-go that his "Don Juan" stories were fiction based on library research about indigenous religion. Instead he claimed it was All Literally True, and ended up exposed as a fraud.

When will they ever learn?

As if Moore's expensive lies aren't bad enough in and of themselves, the fact that he's gotten himself associated with the nuclear industry is awful. We need nuclear fission in the mix if we're to stop using deadly fossil fuels. Those of us who are ferociously engaged for sustainability and also support nuclear fission as part of that picture, do not need nasty little fraudsters like Michael Moore around. Grr, grr, grr.

"Instead he falls into the classic narcissistic pattern of making himself out to be Ronald McDonald and ending up looking like the Hamburglar in the end."

Quote of the week award!!!1

"such anti-environmental positions as clearcut logging, nuclear power, farmed salmon, PVC (vinyl) production, genetically engineered crops, and mining."

nuclear power is probably better than coal if a safe version was used

farmed salmon - yum

PVC - oh god what a fantastic material

GE crops? who can say but i assume science will triumph over fear no mater how risky the science

mining? bad? duh. Get with it fools, mining is an essential aspect of everything it is to be human - could it be cleaner, duh, yes. Is some mining inherently risky (coal) probably unless we find sequestration tech or it becomes outdated and outmoded by solar, wind, nuclear etc

that leaves clearcut logging

and methinks that this is the hidden straw man in reverse. The others will be shot down as i so easily shot them down leaving logging to be tainted by the hidden dishonesty of the technique used

very slimy even if unconscious

p

By the way, reading Castaneda's work as non-fiction and realizing that it had to be fiction was one of those turning points for me growing up as a kid.

Plus, later, his nephew was my roomate. There were problems.

Peak: Greenpeace uses the anti-nuke thing at every opportunity.

Personally I'm sure that fish can be farmed clean, and in fact, the effluence of the process probably could be turned into something useful. It is fertilizer. Could be sold as premium organic fertilizer.

GMO's are a major disappointment to me. So far nothing really cool has come of it. Probably it would be an animal not a plant, tho. Or some combination of the two.

The thing is, the correct position on Nukes is not "yes" or "no" it is hold the industry's feet to the fire.

Same with mining. Also, one of the major mining projects out there is Carbon fuel and that simply has to stop.

Instead he claimed it was All Literally True, and ended up exposed as a fraud.

And the similarity doesn't end there. From what I've read, Castaneda continued to believe the stories in his books were true in spite of the damning criticism, as did some of his followers (more here. They simply ignored the whole issue of fraud and carried on with their business. I've had the pleasure of participating in a couple of Facebook discussions with Dr. Moore, and he seems equally committed to his views, unreservedly supporting anyone who spouts the basic tenets of received Climate Denialism, while promoting himself as a scientific authority.

Ya, you should check out what has been going on at Twitter.

I assigned Patric Moore's book, "Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout" as the textbook for the class I taught a couple of years ago. It's about evenly split between a kind of autobiography (the first half) and a series of chapters about major environmental issues (Logging, Nuclear power, Mining & mine waste, Climate Change, Chemical Pollution, a few others I can't think of right now) and his opinions about them.

To summarize, severely: Dr. Moore presents his opinions about the current state of major issues (which, for the purposes of my class, I defined "Issue" as "A set of interelated ideas that includes data & facts, opinions from a range of perspectives, problems, and proposed solutions'). I, personally, did not agree with several of his major opinions, such as his disagreement that climate change was even a problem worthy of discussion, but I did agree with most of his points about nuclear power: broadly pro-nuke, with strong caveats that 1) we haven't figured out what to do with the waste, yet and 2) the consequences of a major accident (this was pre-Fukushima) are severe and qualitatively different from other environmental disasters, and safety planning needs to take this into account.

In other words, a complex book full of a wide range of ideas worthy of airing out and talking about them - perfect for my 4th-year "Capstone" class in Environmental Science. Don't just agree or disagree with Dr. Moore, tell me WHY you agree or disagree, and go into detail!

Regarding his involvement with Greenpeace in the early 1970's - well, that letters certainly supports the answer "no" if one asks "was Patrick Moore a founder of Greenpeace?". But his early involvement is interesting, nonetheless.

I cannot remember if he claims to have been a co-founder or if he simply acknowledges he joined at a very early stage, but after the real founding of the organization. If he's actively telling people he was a cofounder than he's lying; if he's just letting Public Relations people get away with that statement on his behalf he's lying by not clarifying (and shutting those PR people down). If he's actually stating "I was in early, but I wasn't one of the first", then he's not lying but all of the people (see the Amazon reviews of his book for examples) saying "cofounder" are mistaken at least, or lying on his behalf (not really a favour, is it?).

That's less interesting to me than his ideas and his reasoning behind his ideas. In his book he describes his break with Greenpeace as being on fairly good terms with most of the senior members (with a few notable exceptions) and being driven by an ideological spliit - he says he was disturbed by the distinctly anti-science attitude of senior members and major campaigns. Greenpeace's ridiculous attitude towards Chlorine is the major case here: I just checked Greenpeace Canada's website and found their objections to PVC are still a component of their broad "Detox our future" campaign. Their major objection to PVC is the chlorine component of it, because (according to Dr. Moore's summary in his book) they are against all use of Chlorine for any purpose - water purification, chemical synthesis, plastics production such as PVC. To them, Chlorine = chlorine gas = war crime.

I can't find any other reason to hate on PVC, and frankly, if that is there justification for anti-PVC measures, they're delusional. It reminds me of the facebook messages I sometimes see from my cousin, warning against the dangers of water fluoridation!!!11!!! because it comes from chemicals!!!!111!!! like ACID!!!11!!!!! Mindless ranting.

So, with the consideration that I have not exhaustively read all of Greenpeace's literature on the subject, I agree with Dr. Moore on the point about Chlorine. And I agree with his other points that the broad "let's put fewer nasty things into the water" campaign is overall quite positive - clean rivers is a goal I can very much get behind.

On his other chapters I have similar mixed opinions. He's a bit too far out there on logging, I don't agree that we should just cut every tree because hey, they'll grow back! But it's true we need to use wood as a renewable resource and there are many ways we could be doing this better.

GMO's are another thing Greenpeace is wrong about. Golden Rice alone makes that case, abundantly, sufficiently, and necessarily.

Nuclear power - see above. I live (and teach) in the world's single largest source of Uranium, and several of my students have probably become directly involved in that industry. Not that we have a nuclear power plant or any plans to construct one here in Saskatchewan.

Climate change - well, yeah, Dr. Moore is clearly aligned with the loony bin on this issue. The book came out in November of 2010 - way too late to still make a believable claim about "unsettled science" or "lack of consensus".

Mining & mine waste - acid mine drainage is a big deal. Open-pit mining is a big deal. Coal mining is a very big deal. We need to mine, to extract minerals from the Earth's crust, this is clear. But we can do it better. So I broadly agree with Dr. Moore on this part. He's got some good ideas, some bad ideas, and some we-don't-yet-know-if-they're-any-good ideas in this chapter.

I'm not willing to completely disregard Dr. Moore. I continue to consider his words whenever they appear, because I respect his ability and willingness to detail how he arrived at those opinions, and I try to make up my mind based on those considerations. He's not one for soundbites, at least (unless that's changed in the past few years)

OK, I haven't been watching Twitter - has Dr. Moore become a soundbite-machine? Because if he has, that saddens me.

Apologies for misspelling and grammatical errors. I can't believe I did the "they're / there / their" thing. Ugh. Sorry.

Take 1
I used to drink and whore and beat my wife, but then I found Jesus.

Take 2
Bjørn Lomborg's first book was entitled "The Skeptical Environmentalist." Skeptical, yes, but nonetheless an environmentalist. A glad and gay environmentalist.

Moore left Greenpeace, not because he had changed, but because the organization was no longer true to its ideals.

What more could the anti-environmentalists ask for?

The claim about being a co-founder of Greenpeace appears on the home page of his "ecosense" website, though it is worded in the 3rd person. However, at about the 1:40 mark of this interview with Ezra Levant (anti-environmentalist), Patrick Moore does actively claim to be a cofounder of Greenpeace. Interestingly, he didn't use the same terminology in his testimony to Congress.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCf8AXJHu-U

I suppose one could argue that he was a member when the name of the organization was changed to Greenpeace...

Skimming the Greenpeace websites, I gather their [main] concerns with PVC are related to dioxins. Bruce Cox, as head of Greenpeace Canada, refuted Moore's claims about Greenpeace and chlorine, stating they never called for an all out ban and support its use in water purification.

As for Mr. Moor it was said a lot. Who was a founder of Greenpeace then?
Who was a people on the ship?

Tiana, I'm afraid that by the time that ship sailed, that ship sailed. Mr. Moore joined Greenpeace after it was formed but before they picked the name "Greenpeace" ... which does not make him a founder.

@ EileenOttawa: " Bruce Cox, as head of Greenpeace Canada, refuted Moore’s claims about Greenpeace and chlorine, stating they never called for an all out ban and support its use in water purification."

Ah, I didn't know that. Thanks! I'm still unhappy about Greenpeace's attitudes towards nuclear power and GMO food, but it's good to know they're not part of the "Aaiieee! Chemicals!" crowd.

http://www.beattystreetpublishing.com/greenpeace-founders-web-archive/

Let's see if you have the balls to admit you are wrong.

"Rick Sprung" Beatty Street Publishing is Patrick Moore's web site. As you know. Right?

Rick spung points to an original mistake on the Greenpeace homepage. it correctly points out the first meeting in 1970, and evidence has been provided that Patrick Moore did not apply to the organisation until 1971.

"Greenpeace even kept a copy of the letter Patrick Moore sent to them asking for a birth on a boat to engage in a nuclear protest, dated to long after the founding of Greenpeace."

Berth, If Greenpeace offered him a birth that would be news.

I always get this idiot confused with Sir Patrick Alfred Caldwell-Moore CBE, FRS, FRAS, a much more respectable guy.

The image I sent you is a screenshot of an original Greenpeace web page. Look closer. The screen shot was published on Patrick's web site, obviously. How else is he going to publish it?

It proves that Greenpeace originally considered Patrick Moore to be a co-founder. Obviously, now they are trying to re-write history. And it appears that you fell for it.

The committee's founders AND FIRST MEMBERS included.

I'm thinking they decided to get more specific in their definition of "founder" when Moore became a dickhead. Their right.

We wouldn't be having this conversation if Patrick Moore had not turned against the planet and society.

No they did not. Read the entire sentence rather than just the part he highlighted in yellow.

People with different viewpoints than me are wonderful. But Moore is a climate change science denier AND a dickhead. He is an enemy of the planet and society. No, name calling is not my response to most issues. In this case, though, it is appropriate.

TheBrummell: If he’s actively telling people he was a cofounder than he’s lying; if he’s just letting Public Relations people get away with that statement on his behalf he’s lying by not clarifying (and shutting those PR people down).

Not only that, but he's allowing the denialosphere to use his name to enhance their credibility. Which, in turn, gives him more time in the public eye, and another opportunity to promote his credentials. I see him quoted more and more often as a "climate scientist" (which he is not) in this context. It's sort of like kiting checks - you just keep inflating your credentials as a spokesperson for a point of view, and organizations then promote you as an "expert" reference. Everybody wins! Except that as this strategy gets used more often, real credentials and the value of working experts in a field are diminished.

I don't know wth is going on. I could have sworn the screen shot said "Co-founder" next to Patrick Moore's name. Strange. So, yes, it is possible that Moore was member number one instead of co-founder number three or four. Only three members were on the first trip and he was one of the three. Whatever. At that early stage, there were less than a handful of them.

Really good story. I think some people should let their ego apart. What Greenpeace does is remarkable, and their importance is not diminishing over time. Their impact is truly global and it is one of the NGOs that make a difference. Patric Moore is some fraudulent old man who thinks he can steal his 15 minutes of shame because he claims to be the founder. He could even claim that he is Captain America, if we listened to him. So the best way would be to stop writing about him, and leave him alone, don't you think?

Firstly, I would like to apologise for the length of this comment, but there are quite a few matters that appear to be incorrect in Greg's blog post and I do hope that Greg posts this comment (unlike the last two comments I made on his blog a few weeks ago that didn't even see the light of day).

If Greg had taken an hour or so to do some research on this matter, he would have found out that (the current) Greenpeace have taken matters into their own hands and have 'rewritten their own history' so to speak.

I'll start with the letter that Greg has reproduced above from 'Greenpeace' (sic). If one looks at that letter, nowhere is Greenpeace mentioned. Infact it is addressed to and the response is from the 'Don't Make a Wave Committee' (here-in DMaWC). Note the date, March 24, 1971. What's also interesting is that Robert 'Bob' Hunter, who coined the name of the DMaWC and who Greenpeace International still say to this day was a co-founder of GPI (he died in 2005), also wrote a similar letter to the DMaWC asking if he could have a berth on the ship.

The name 'Greenpeace' at this stage (1971) is nothing more than the nickname of the vessel 'Phyllis Cormack' (named after her captain John Cormack's wife) which was purchased by the DMaWC with funds raised by an out-door concert organized by the DWaWC. The flyers produced for this concert also had the name 'Green Peace' written on them, again paid for by the DWaWC. As a sidenote, it was PAUL (NOT Phil) Cote (they can't even get the names of their 'founders' right in their own rewriting of their history!) who sent Moore to Fraser River dock to inspect the 'Phyllis Cormack'.

So when did Greenpeace start/form? According to Bob Hunter (who became President of the Greenpeace Foundation in 1973-1977), it was on the return journey of that 1st voyage to Amchitka which departed on September 15, 1971;

"The key moment of the trip came a day before we limped back into Vancouver. As we all sat slumped in the galley, burned out, Bohlen announced that he was going to shut down the Don't Make a Wave Committee as soon as he got the chance. It was an ad hoc group and it had done its thing. Don't do that, I told him. Why waste all this hard-earned media capital? Fold the committee, sure, but reconstitute it as the Greenpeace Foundation. That was my main contribution, yet the moment did not find its way into my manuscript. It was an element of hope for a future revolution, and I was not hopeful as I bobbed in the harbour at Steveston, heartsick and overmedicated, writing the story of our failure. In the end I told the truth as I saw it, supposedly as it was, never mind loyalty to the cause."

On 4 May 1972, following Irving Stowe's departure from the chairmanship of the Don't Make A Wave Committee, the fledgling environmental group officially changed its name to the "Greenpeace Foundation".

Not only was Patrick Moore there right from the start, when Bob Moore stood down as President of the Greenpeace Foundation in 1977, Patrick Moore took over as Pres. In 1979, the Greenpeace Foundation morphed into Greenpeace Canada and Moore retained his position as Pres. of GP Canada until he left in 1986. He was also on the Board of Directors of Greenpeace International (which took over from the Greenpeace Foundation) from 1979-1986.

Patrick Moore clearly was more than just 'an early member' of Greenpeace.

(sources; 'Greenpeace, an insider's account. How a Group of Ecologists, Journalists and Visionaries Changed the World' written by Rex Weyler; a director of the original Greenpeace Foundation and co-founder of Greenpeace International.

Greenpeace International

Wikipedia).

Sorry correction required.
"when Bob Moore stood down as President of the Greenpeace Foundation in 1977", should of course be Bob Hunter.

BTW, Bob Hunter's wiki page lists Moore as a co-founder of GP along with Ben Metcalfe, Jim Bohlen and Irving Stowe.

If the gods really wanted to destroy Patrick Moore, they would first have made him a founding editor of The Paris Review

Excerpts from Rex Weyler's 'The Greenpeace Book'.

Greenpeace: How a Group of Ecologists, Journalists, and Visionaries Changed the World.
http://rexweyler.com/greenpeace/

Who were the founders?

Directors: Don’t Make A Wave Committee, 1970-71.

Irving Stowe (Deceased: October, 1974)
Jim Bohlen
Paul Cote
Dorothy Stowe, secretary, correspondence
Marie Bohlen conceived the idea to sail a protest boat to Amchitka Island
Bob Hunter coined the name “Don’t Make a Wave” for the ecology group SPEC (Deceased: 2005)
Bill Darnell coined the name “Greenpeace” at a meeting in 1971.

Crew of first Greenpeace Boat to Amchitka Island, 1971:

Jim Bohlen
Bill Darnell
Patrick Moore
Lyle Thurston
Dave Birmingham
Terry Simmons
Richard Fineberg
Robert Hunter (Deceased: 2005)
Bob Keziere
John Cormack (Deceased: Nov. 17, 1988)
Ben Metcalfe (Deceased: Oct. 14, 2003)
Bob Cummings (Deceased: 1987)
Rod Marining (Replaced Fineberg in Kodiak, mid-October, 1971)

Chronology, the Founding of Greenpeace
http://rexweyler.com/greenpeace/greenpeace-history/chronology/

March 1970: Paul Cote met Captain John Cormack, 60, on a Fraser River dock, and Cormack agreed to use his fishing boat, the Phyllis Cormack, for the voyage. The boat was renamed “Greenpeace” for the campaign.

October 5, 1970: Joni Mitchell, James Taylor, Phil Ochs, and BC band Chilliwack staged a benefit concert in Vancouver for the Don’t Make a Wave Committee, which raised $17,000. Thereafter, the Sierra Club and Quaker groups in the US contributed funding to the campaign.

1971: Hunter, Metcalfe, Bohlen, Darnell, and Simmons formed the activist core of the boat crew. Underground journalist Bob Cummings, ecologist Patrick Moore, engineer Dave Birmingham, medical doctor Lyle Thurston, and photographer Robert Keziere joined them. When Marie Bohlen decided to stay ashore, Lou Hogan and Rod Marining stood next on the waiting list. Marining deferred to Hogan, believing that a woman should be on the boat, as did Hunter and Metcalfe. In the end, Richard Fineberg, who had met Bohlen in Alaska, joined the crew instead of Hogan. Marining later met the boat in Kodiak in October 1971 and replaced Fineberg on the crew.

September 15, 1971: the Phyllis Cormack, rechristened 'Greenpeace' for the voyage, departed Vancouver.

October 29, 1971: On the way back to Vancouver, Hunter and Metcalfe proposed that upon their return, they should reconstitute the organization as the “Greenpeace Foundation.” Hunter borrowed the term “Foundation” from Isaac Asimov’s Foundation Trilogy.

November 1, 1971: Jim Bohlen, Irving Stowe, and Paul Cote met to wrap up the Don’t Make a Wave Committee. They decided that Hunter should set up Greenpeace Foundation as a separate organization, but this isn’t what happened. The Don’t Make a Wave Committee had legal standing and a surplus of funds, so upon reflection, it seemed counterproductive to start over. Ben Metcalfe brokered a deal to keep the organization in tact and turn its attention on French nuclear testing in the South Pacific.

January 1972: Metcalfe organized a protest against Canadian Fisheries Minister Jack Davis and Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs Mitchell Sharp. Davis had attempted to stall boat insurance for the Phyllis Cormack, and Metcalfe wanted to force Sharp to put nuclear testing on the agenda of the United Nations Environment Conference to be held in Stockholm that summer. Ben and Dorothy Metcalfe, the Stowes, Bohlens, Hunter, Thurston, Moore, and Keziere went to a Liberal Party brunch, where they confronted Davis and Sharp. After the event, they returned to the Metcalfe’s’ home and proclaimed themselves “The World Greenpeace Foundation” with Ben Metcalfe as chairman.

January 21, 1972: The Don’t Make a Wave Committee resolved to change its name to the “Greenpeace Foundation,” and turned over $9,678 to Dorothy and Ben Metcalfe.

May 4, 1972: The Provincial Societies office in Victoria, British Columbia registered the name, “Greenpeace Foundation.”

I currently have the full book sitting next to me which I borrowed from the local library.
I suggest you all do the same.

FYI Greg, my comments above have been screen-saved and archived and will no doubt show up elsewhere, along with this blog entry. To quote 'G' from above which you made 'Quote of the week award!!!';

“Instead he falls into the classic narcissistic pattern of making himself out to be Ronald McDonald and ending up looking like the Hamburglar in the end.”

The choice is yours.

(This comment can be deleted if you wish)

GregH comment #25 June 29; "I see him quoted more and more often as a “climate scientist” (which he is not) in this context".

I have to point out that using that definition of 'climate scientist', there are many others who also cannot be called 'climate scientists' which includes;

James Hansen (PhD in Physics),
Phil Jones (PhD in Hydrology),
Michael Mann (PhD in Geology),
Sir John Mason ( MSc in Physics),
Sir John Houghton (PhD in Physics),
sir John Beddington (PhD in Population Biology),
David Suzuki (PhD in Zoology),
Will Steffen (PhD in Chemical Engineering),
Tim Flannery (PhD in Kangaroo Evolution),
David Karoly (PhD in Meteorology),
Matthew England (PhD in Oceanography).
Stephen Schneider (PhD in Mechanical Engineering)
Brenda Ekwurzel (PhD in Isotope Geochemistry (hydrology))
Carl Wunsch (PhD in Geophysics)
Susan Solomon (PhD in Chemistry)
Richard Somerville (PhD in Meteorology)
Richard Alley (PhD in Geology)
Gavin Schmidt (PhD in Mathematics)
John Holdren (PhD in Plasma Physics)

Go ahead and bash people. But what was achieved by these couragous individuals was the greater focus on environmental issues. Yes , all of the people you list and write about were involved to some degree or another, the important thing is that THEY SEPRATELY or as INDIVIDUALS, brought about a change in the world consciousness.
THAT WAS THE ISSUE.
SAVE THE WORLD.
who cares who started it, we all supported it and it became a world phenomenon, even to date.
God bless them all.

BruceC, I don't quite get your comments. You show that Patrick Moore indeed was not a founder of the organisation later named Greenpeace, but your comment suggests you believe it shows the opposite?

Also, I think you mistake being a climate scientist, as in doing actual scientific research related to climate and writing scientific publications to describe that research, with the PhD somebody holds.

To the best of my knowledge Patrick Moore has exactly zero scientific publications related to climate to his name. Zero. Not one. That's as many as I have! Would you call me a "climate scientist", just because I write stuff about climate change on blogs?
Compared to us two, Greg Laden is actually a veteran in this arena (although he won't call himself a climate scientist, I am sure).

I am not sure John Holdren will call himself a climate scientist. in fact, I very much doubt he will.

Are you blind Marco?

January 1972: Metcalfe organized a protest against Canadian Fisheries Minister Jack Davis and Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs Mitchell Sharp. Davis had attempted to stall boat insurance for the Phyllis Cormack, and Metcalfe wanted to force Sharp to put nuclear testing on the agenda of the United Nations Environment Conference to be held in Stockholm that summer. Ben and Dorothy Metcalfe, the Stowes, Bohlens, Hunter, Thurston, MOORE, and Keziere went to a Liberal Party brunch, where they confronted Davis and Sharp. After the event, they returned to the Metcalfe’s’ home and proclaimed themselves “The World Greenpeace Foundation” with Ben Metcalfe as chairman.

BruceC, that's an interesting perspective.

"Ben and Dorothy Metcalfe, the Stowes, Bohlens, Hunter, Thurston, MOORE, and Keziere went to a Liberal Party brunch,"

Are you sure he wasn't a founding member of the BC Liberal Party as well? Maybe he just FOUNDED things by being in the same room?

In your comment #31, why didn't you use the same starting point (December 1968) as Rex Weyler's website? Which you're quoting. Is it because it would show that Moore wasn't there from the beginning, as he isn't mentioned as being anything other than a crew member until January 1972? And even then, your quote doesn't make him anything other than part of a group that confronted Mitchell Sharpe and then went to someone's house for tea. Is that an "official" role in the Greenpeace organization? Poor guy, he had to slave away in Paul Watson's shadow all those years, waiting for the recognition he so sorely deserved.

You claim that Greenpeace is "re-writing history", but apparently it takes one to know one. This wouldn't even be an issue if Moore wasn't trying to use his Greenpeace credentials to support his latest self-promotion campaign, and if every right-wing news organization on the continent wasn't trying to use him as an example of environmental hypocrisy.

GregH, Paul Watson didn't join Greenpeace until 1973 when he was a crew member of Greenpeace II to Amchitka. He left GP in 1977 and founded the Sea Shepherd Society, and rammed the pirate whaler Sierra in 1979.

Paul Watson is also another individual that GP is trying to 'disappear'.

Surely Paul Watson isn't an important enough distraction to forget the question I asked you?

You bought up Paul Watson's name, I didn't. Besides, do people here have reading difficulties?

GregH; "In your comment #31, why didn’t you use the same starting point (December 1968) as Rex Weyler’s website? Which you’re quoting. Is it because it would show that Moore wasn’t there from the beginning, as he isn’t mentioned as being anything other than a crew member until January 1972?

My first comment #28 states that Moore inspected the ‘Phyllis Cormack’ to see if it sea worthy enough for their planned voyage in 1971. This happened in March 1970. The letter that Greg L reproduced above from the DMaWC is dated March 1971.

Too answer your so-called question, Greenpeace was officially registered in May 1972, Moore was involved since 1970. So yes, he has been there since the start of Greenpeace which is two years after Moore arrived on the scene.

Mmmmm.....the plot thickens!

In Rex Weyler's chronology link I posted above (comment #31), there was this entry;

January 21, 1972: The Don’t Make a Wave Committee resolved to change its name to the “Greenpeace Foundation,” and turned over $9,678 to Dorothy and Ben Metcalfe.

As I went to the library to borrow this book, Greenpeace: How a Group of Ecologists, Journalists, and Visionaries Changed the World, I now have the full wording of that extract. It's on page 137.

On January 21, The Don’t Make a Wave Committee resolved to change its name to the Greenpeace Foundation. The Metcalfes, the Hunters, Patrick Moore, Rod Marining, and others remained active. The Stowes and Bohlens withdrew but stayed in contact with the Metcalfes. Stowe's closing financial statement showed that between June 1970 and December 31, 1971, the Don't Make A Wave Committee raised $62,703, and spent $53,025 on the Amchitka campaign. Stowe turned over $9,678 to Dorothy and Ben Metcalfe.

On May 4, 1972, The Provincial Societies office in Victoria, British Columbia registered the name, “Greenpeace Foundation.”

"remained active" doesn't equal "Founder". You're grasping at straws.

GregH. I don't think I am grasping at anything. There are clear discrepancies between what Greenpeace are saying now and what actually took place, even the dates don't add up. Surely even you can see that.

Rex Weyler himself also notes of the debate/dispute of the founders of the Greenpeace Foundation. Bohlen names the directors of the Don't Make a Wave Committee while Metcalfe names the attendees of the first Greenpeace Foundation meeting.

At this point, I must thank our host, Greg Laden, for allowing this discussion to take place. Greg could have easily deleted any or all of my comments and stopped it dead in it's tracks. For that, I thank you Greg. I am sure that even you can see all these discrepancies.

Regards,
Bruce Crockett
Australia

BruceC, why not claim David McTaggart as the founder? One could argue he was the one who started the international organisation that Greenpeace is today, with the Canadian branch just that: a branch. If you argue that it started with the Canadian branch, you should just as easily accept the argumentation that it started with the Don't Make a Wave organisation.

It's a little bit like determining where the Amazon River starts.

Quite an interesting chapter(s) in Weyler's book about the tussle between Moore and McTaggart (including court cases). Haven't read it all yet, only skimmed through it as it's towards the end. But that's beside the point. Greenpeace International was formed in 1979, seven years after the formation of the Greenpeace Formation.....the original 'Greenpeace'.

Sorry, that should be the Greenpeace Foundation.

Speaking of Amazon. The book is still for sale there if anyone's interested.

Given that no one here, including our host, Greg Laden, can come up with any irrefutable evidence/rebuttal to my above comments, I consider this discussion closed. In closing I wish to leave our host and his followers these following conclusions.

1) In the above statement from 'Greenpeace' they claim that Greenpeace was formed in 1970.
Incorrect. Greenpeace was formed on May 4, 1972 when The Provincial Societies office in Victoria, British Columbia registered the name, 'Greenpeace Foundation'.

2) In the above statement from 'Greenpeace' they claim that Patrick Moore applied for a berth on the Phyllis Cormack in March, 1971 after the organization had already been in existence for a year.
Incorrect. Patrick Moore applied for a berth on the Phyllis Cormack addressed to and received from the Don't Make A Wave Committee dated 12 months prior to the formation of the Greenpeace Foundation, as did Bill Hunter and other members of the crew. Not only that, Patrick Moore was present along with Jim Bohlen, Paul Cote and the Phyllis Cormack's skipper/owner John Cormack in March 1970 to inspect the vessel.

3)Greg Laden adds his own with; "Greenpeace even kept a copy of the letter Patrick Moore sent to them asking for a birth (sic) on a boat to engage in a nuclear protest, dated to long after the founding of Greenpeace".
Well, apart from the fact we all know now that letter wasn't from Greenpeace, that boat was infact the Phyllis Cormack, aka; the Greenpeace.

In closing his blog, Greg Laden asks;
So, on answer to the question “Who Founded Greenpeace?” one accurate and truthful answer is “Not Patrick Moore.” In answer to the questions “Did Patrick Moore found Greenpeace?” or “Is Patrick Moore a co-founder of Greenpeace?” the answer is “no” to both.

......I now ask Greg Laden (and Greenpeace) this question: Were Phil (Paul) Cotes, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen co-founders of Greenpeace in 1970? (Which, in itself is impossible).

If, according to Rex Weyler, was it;
a)Bohlen names the directors of the Don’t Make a Wave Committee.
or
b)Metcalfe names the attendees of the first Greenpeace Foundation meeting.

?????

If the answer is (a), then YES
If the answer is (b), then NO.

Hoo-roo from OZ,
BruceC

'ave a good weekend......and don't forget the Aerogaurd

Oops. In my haste I forgot to add the following conversation between Bob Hunter & Jim Bohlen.

"Bob: Did you know that for David McTaggart the history of Greenpeace doesn't start until Greenpeace International was founded in 1979?

Jim: The founders of Greenpeace are three people. Or the twelve who risked their asses on the first voyage in 1971. When David got a prize as the "Greenpeace Founder" in Mexico City I was absolutely fuming.

Patrick Moore was one of those twelve who risked their asses on the first voyage in 1971

Bruce C: News flash. You don't actually get to close the discussion.

Your argument is absurd. Patrick Moore was not a founder of Greenpeace. At best he was a "charter member" but that is not the same thing. The organization itself actually gets to decide this, not him, as long as they are being straight, which is the case.

In any event, whether or not he is the founder is not the important point. The important point is that Patrick Moore is a denialist of science, an enemy of the earth, and seems willing to get paid to say whatever people need him to say. This would make him a non-credible source of information.

Bruce C: News flash. You don’t actually get to close the discussion.,
Well produce some FACTS that prove my comments incorrect! Preferably from pre- Oct 2005.

http://web.archive.org/web/20051025011120/http://www.greenpeace.org/int…

"and seems willing to get paid to say whatever people need him to say.

So how is Al Gore today Greg? Hope he's got over his lame 'jet-lag' excuse for not answering any questions by the Oz media. According to the Oz press, his recent 2-day jaunt down here cost the Oz tax-payers anywhere between $30,000 - $100,000. Not to mention the 600+ tonnes of that evil, dangerous global-warming pollutant - CO2, he and Palmer spewed into our atmosphere on his three flights between Melbourne, Sydney and Canberra.

Anyway, back on subject. Isn't the title of this article, Who Founded Greenpeace? Not Patrick Moore. And isn't 95% of this article about Greenpeace's so-called 'claim' (smear) that he is not? How on that basis can you call my argument absurd and not important. It is on topic and deals directly with Greenpeace's and your claims. It's not my fault you didn't bother to do any research or fact checking before writing your article.

As far as your second part in your reply. LMAO. Typical alarmist, chicken little, arm waving, hysterical trash. You really should buy or borrow Rex Weyler's book Greg. I have absolutely no interest in Greenpeace, but since I starting to read it, I just can't put it down. Well written, very informative and easy to read/follow. I highly recommend it.

Nah, on second thoughts you wont like it. Too many FACTS involved, especially about the early days.

Bruce C: Hate to break it to you, but your comments serve mainly to show that you don't really know what you are talking about; you seem to be one of those people who spews facts without understanding them. Your comment at #33 is particularly absurd I am not sure what by what criteria you think the people listed cannot be called "climate scientists," unless you mean the fact that their degrees do not say "climate science." That is asinine, and suggests you do not understand the first thing about science. As an interdisciplinary field, climate science includes researchers from many backgrounds. What makes them "climate scientists" is that fact that they conduct and publish peer-reviewed research on climate science. Moore is not a climate scientist because not only has he not published any peer-reviewed research on the subject, but also because his absurd claims on the topic would be laughed out of any respectable scientific journal if he tried. And that is the point of this post that you have completely missed: he is being touted as a climate expert by climate deniers, when he appears in reality to be more of a mercenary shill, and the claim that he is a founder of Greenpeace is being used to give him undeserved credibility as an environmentalist.

As my last comment is still in moderation (2 days), this probably won't go through either.

Greg Laden has titled this article, "Who Founded Greenpeace? Not Patrick Moore."

Greg Laden has made this statement, "How could Patrick Moore have founded Greenpeace if he wrote this letter?

Greg Laden in comments has stated, "which does not make him a founder

Greg Laden concluded his article with, "So, on answer to the question “Who Founded Greenpeace?” one accurate and truthful answer is “Not Patrick Moore.” In answer to the questions “Did Patrick Moore found Greenpeace?” or “Is Patrick Moore a co-founder of Greenpeace?” the answer is “no” to both.

...and yet Larden, GregH & Doyle all think this is all about Moore being a so-called climate denier and a threat to the planet. A strawman argument and nothing more than a distraction to divert the readers attention away from the main subject.

In case some of you don't know, or couldn't be bothered to do any research (like our host), or just haven't kept up, Robert 'Bob' Hunter also is a co-founder of Greenpeace. He was Greenpeace's first President (Patrick Moore was it's 2nd). Not only is Hunter a co-founder of GP, he is passionately regarded as the 'father' of Greenpeace.

What is also interesting is that Bob Hunter also wrote a book titled, Thermageddon, Countdown to 2030;
http://www.amazon.com/Thermageddon-Countdown-2030-Robert-Hunter/dp/1559…

Mmmm....

A question to Greg and his readers. Unfortunately and sadly Bob Hunter passed away in 2005......so do you Greg, or any of your readers have the balls to confront Bobbie Hunter (Robert 'Bob' Hunter's widow) that he is NOT a co-founder of the Greenpeace Foundation because he had to apply for a berth (notice I spelt 'berth' correct), in writing, to the Don't Make A Wave Committee on the Phyllis Cormack; aka the Greenpeace, on the 15th March, 1971?

"I have been meaning to write this for ages...I guess you'd call it a formal application for a passage on the Greenpeace. And I guess you've had quite a few such applications"

http://www.beattystreetpublishing.com/correspondence-jim-bowlen-to-robe…

Think carefully now. Both are co-founders of Greenpeace. Both were part of the crew on the first 'Greenpeace' voyage. BOTH wrote letters to the DMAWC to be part of that voyage. Both are past Presidents of the Greenpeace Foundation. Only one denies global warming / climate change.

BruceC: Typical alarmist, chicken little, arm waving, hysterical trash.

Dude, you sure know how to make a convincing argument.

wow

what a discourse

adjudicating, i find for the defense of Moore.

I really don't know how much of a defender of the planet or the species he is or isn't. I do not know to what extent his income is derived from serving the forces of good or evil

what i do know though is that organisation like Greenpeace, no matter what the nature of their founding, are not what they used to be. Today such organisations are as most organisations - the creeps at the top take home very hefty salary packages, send their kids to the very best schools, enjoy free exciting and unique international travel and all at the expense of the multitude of naive and idealistic fund raisers that pound the streets with their incessant drivel about saving the planet (proving they have no clue of geological time frames or the evolution of species)

Greenpeace - it's $cientology in every single way except their belief system is more attractive to middle class types

Moore good guy, bad guy

really, who gives a hoot?

p

And how do explain this...

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/greenpeace_founders_…

Unfortunately for those claiming that Moore did not found Greenpeace, the internet never forgets.

Greg Laden:

"In any event, whether or not he is the founder is not the important point."

It actually is. It's important enough for you to write an article on it. And it's important enough for Greenpeace to make a big deal out of denying that Moore was a co-founder even when they have previously claimed the opposite on their own web sites.

What's even more disturbing rabbit, is that neither Greenpeace nor Greg Laden have provided a correction to the above blatant smear campaign against Patrick Moore, despite the over whelming evidence contrary to the above claims made by Greenpeace, and repeated by Laden. The person responsible for the above Greenpeace article can't even get the dates right to when his/her organisation was even founded. In addition to the above facts, we have this:

From the above Greenpeace article;

"Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace. Phil Cotes, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen founded Greenpeace in 1970. Patrick Moore applied for a berth on the Phyllis Cormack in March, 1971 after the organization had already been in existence for a year".

Deep within Greenpeace's archives there is an article written on May 2nd, 2005. The same day as Bob Hunter's death.

"In 1971, the word "Greenpeace" hadn't yet been coined"

and

.....on September 15, 1971, he and 11 other rag-tag activists would sail out to challenge the greatest military force on Earth in a rusting fishing boat they called "The Greenpeace."

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/bob-hunter/

As I said in one of my above comments, "Typical alarmist, chicken little, arm waving, hysterical trash". Infact, it's not trash.......it's a blatant LIE!

Rabbit, based on the established history, I'd explain the assertion that Moore was a founder, i.e., there before he was there, as an error.

"It actually is. It’s important enough for you to write an article on it."

No, you have missed the point. It is not important that he was a founder or not; he was not a founder, though I'd certainly call him a charter member and that should be good enough. What is important is that he is using his early Greenpeace connection to carry out his activities, which involve getting paid off to sell out the planet, our children, and grandchildren.

That is what is important.

Greg Laden:

Sorry, but when you write an article, and then evidence arises that refutes your point, you can't just say "well the point isn't important anyway."

Rabbit: My point was valid when I wrote the post, and it still is. And, there was more than one point. One: No, he's not. Two: Greenpeace is doing what they need to do (in terms of the larger picture) by distancing themselves from him. Three: It is smarmy to exploit an early association with Greenpeace (which is also being misrepresented) in order to take more money to take more action to oppose the development and implementation of good policy based on real science.

What a load of bollocks Greg. You live in a fantasy world. In the real world it's organisations like Greenpeace that are blocking billions of people globally access to cheap, reliable energy 24/7/365. It's organisations like Greenpeace who are blocking the construction of nuke and hydro power plants that WILL reduce CO2 output from energy production by up to 70%.

Greenpeace use diesel powered vessels to protest against oil platforms. Their new flagship vessel boldly claims sail and two electric motors. What powers those electric motors when the wind ain't blowin'? Two huge dirty big diesel engines, that's what!

You keep living in your fantasy world Greg, I however will continue to live in the real world.

P.S. Don't sell your overcoat just yet.

Oh, Greenpeace said it. So it must be true! What kind of activism are you playing here?

"People with different viewpoints than me are wonderful. But Moore is a climate change science denier AND a dickhead. He is an enemy of the planet and society. No, name calling is not my response to most issues. In this case, though, it is appropriate."

WTF

Did you even attend history classes when WWII was the topic? You sound like Goebbels. Disgusting.

Dray or, you need to be more clear as to whom you are addressing your comments. Also less trollish would be nice. And make sure you are not a sock puppet.

So greenpeace is still primarily anti science? I identify as an environmentalist but i want science based environmentalism. What environmental organization can i support? I'm primarily interested in sustainability, species and wilderness conservation and ending fossil fuels. I would advocate more GMO and industrial farming to preserve wildlife areas and Nuclear to provide base load carbon free energy. Are there any conservation organizations that take these positions?

You guys really have a lot to say about whether or not Patrick Moore was a cofounder of Greenpeace. And yes that is the title of this Internet link. However why is that such an issue anyway? GregH seems to think that credentials are very important. Is that true? I mean Al Core had no credentials that made him an expert on Global warming. Oh yea and he was totally wrong in his predictions. If I think Al Core is all wet with his ideas that must make me a dickhead according to Erayor. No I don't think so. I agree with Rick Spung just because somebody like Patrick Moore doesn't agree with your beliefs that doesn't give you the right to call him names and dismiss his opinion. I'm not a climate scientist, however I am a Licensed Electrical Engineer and in my line of work if somebody offers a different point of view especially on technical issues I very much want to try to understand what they are saying. Some of you people want to shoot the messanger instead of listening and try to understand the message. I think many of you are afraid of what he's trying to say. Many people try to control the discussion by discrediting the messager. Is that what you're doing? I mean really, I think you guys are missing the point. What's the elephant in the room you seem to what to avoid talking about. "Global Warming". John Hayes calls Patrick Moore an idiot. And claims mining carbon fuel has to stop. But why do you say this John? Should I believe this because you said it? What are your FACTS? Several of you guys use the word "FACTS".
I've been searching the internet and researching as much as I can about global warming. And I cannot find any "FACTS" that support this idea of Global Warming. Do any of you people have any "FACTS" to support your agruments? That's all that Pactrick Moore is claiming. And that's why he left Greenpeace. And the so called Green Movement in this country hates him for it because he dosen't agree with them and they cannot really agrue against him. So they call him names and discredit him just like some of people you do. The only thing I have been able to find proof is that CO2, a natural gas found in nature, a gas that you exhale, is a small part of what constuites green house gases. And man made CO2, which is real, is so small in comparision it's insignificant to what is produced in nature. From all contributions CO2 makes up about 4.72% of all green house gases and man made CO2 is about 0.28%. The major green house gas is water vapor at 95%. I don't think we can control water vapor so then what is all this about? How can we, humans, improve this? Some say it's all about government getting money by taxing made made CO2. Maybe but taxing it does not stop it. I know that electrical power generation can be made very very clean with almost zero polution. But what does the government do. They tax polution from Energy Plants. More money for them. Higher cost to the consumer. No improvement to the envirnoment. Instead of being so concerned with something that doesn't really exist. Why not talk about subsidizing energy plants and require them to completely stop poluting the air with carbon and anything else. The result would be up to date clean and green technology, lower cost to the consumer and a truely cleaner envirnoment. Of course If your solution is to tax energy companies out of business, you shouldn't mind paying 5 or 6 dollars for a gallon for gas with no real improvement in the envirnoment. And by the way no real commitment from the government to clean anything up either.

Hello Greg

A little more research would have uncovered the truth.

"It rather obviously makes sense that Greenpeace now would like to smear Patrick Moore for his whiltleblowing.
The Don't Make a Wave Committee - which eventually became Greenpeace - was formed in January 1970. It had a ship called Greenpeace at that time, however the organisation Greenpeace was not formed until 4 May 1972.
You will note from the link you sent that Patrick Moore joined the Don't Make a Wave Committee in 1971. As such, he was a core member at the time Greenpeace was founded in 1972.
As such, despite Greenpeace's attempts to brush him out of history, he categorically was a co-founder of Greenpeace."

Oh god this guy is still around?
He's such an ideolgical sell-sword. One minute he's speaking at nuclear energy conferences say the reason he left greenpeace is because nuclear is the only way to avert climate change. Then he's at a coal conference saying climate change doesn't exist.

This guy can't get his story straight , but that shouldnt be a surprise to anyone, as his story is whatever you want it to be as long as you can pay his fees.

@ ^ Shayne O : Yup, still around. Saw him on 'The Bolt Report'* vomiting out the usual climate denier canards this morn with the racist Climate denying presenter lapping up every word gleefully.

Nauseating really that he (Bolt & Moore) are able to lie so blatantly and spew up so much utterly wrong misinformation into our culture at such volume and with such negative impacts for all of us long term.

* See :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bolt

A far right wing polemicist "shock jock" - in essence Australia's equivalent to Rush Limbaugh or the Fox news talking heads - who was found guilty in court of defamation and of breaching our racial discrimination act.

PS. I sure wish the only Moore I still got to hear about was English astronomer, author and 'The Sky at Night' host Patrick. Sigh.

PPS. On today's Bolt Report Patrick Moore (the bad non-astronomical polemicist one) was introduced as the founder of greenpeace - predictably and great co-incidence to find it exposed as a lie so clearly here.

How utterly shameless and despicable - both of Moore and of Bolt and the media running this rubbish more generally.

@76. The Peak Oil Poet :

..if facts were staring you in the face you would not see them

Funny you should mention that!

I'm not quite sure which facts and who you are talking about here. Of all the "countless facts about global warming" ('countless' not really being a factual term unless we're mathematicians discussing infinities though I guess its poetic license) what facts are meaning to refer to because I don't see a single one stated or even indirectly implied in that comment.

Which is somewhat off topic given the subject of this thread is Patrick ("Not-theastroomer-but the Denialist lobbyist") Moore about whoem Greg Laden has provided some key and revealing facts like the letter, chronology and greenpeace statement cited.

Care to clarify?

***

There was a bad case of Peak Oil
Before which human emissions made boil
The world's temperatures climbed
And the climatologists were slimed
Yet still the facts were not foiled!

(Yeah its a limerick, hope ya like it!)

@74. The Peak Oil Poet :

"you can not predict the future – you might have infinite possibilities at play .."

Only if you assume Maxwell's Demon is not only real but commonplace and ignore the fact that
possibilities have very much varying probabilities and likelihoods.

It is possible that I'll be hit by a piano falling from a helicopter flown by a drunken Kirghizstani pilot in precisely fifty five minutes time. Its also possible I won't be. I think we can all tell what's more probable!

Equally, its possible that 98% of climate experts who have spent their lives trying to understand what's happening with our planetary climate are wrong and that basic physics needs to be rewritten and that one of the HIRGO* Deniers is about to win a Nobel prize for overturning almost everything we now know. But I sure wouldn't bet on it and do NOT think it is remotely more than a very vague and extraordinarily improbable possibility akin to my first example.

"... so it isn’t possible or practical except as a modelling exercise."

So you ignore the weather forecasters then? There's a whole industry and profession known as insurance that rather refutes your ludicrous claim there.

Oh & see :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw

Incidentally, even setting aside the modelling, multiple valid lines of observable empirical evidence such as glacier retreat, arctic sea ice decline, early flowering of many plants, shift of species located in relative climate zones etc .. indicate that, yeah, we do have a problem here.

"it’s all a guess, a bet and any good intent could be a contributor to bad, for someone, outcomes

No, it ain't merely a guess or bet. As a self-proclaimed poet you should know better when it comes to words having actual meanings.

Yes, there may be some variable outcomes from HIRGO* but when you look at the overall picture most situations for most people will be made considerably worse based on sound science.

* HIRGO = Human-Induced Rapid Global Overheating which I prefer to term this problem because it isn't merely getting nice and warm , things are overheating rapidly due to Human emissions of greenhouse gases. For instance from 280 ppm carbon dioxide pre-Industrial revolution to 400 ppm now - with 185 ppm being ice age levels showing how dramatically a few hundred ppm Co2 matters.

That, BTW, would be one of the "countless facts" about HIRGO you may have been thinking of in #76 .

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bolt

A far right wing polemicist “shock jock” – in essence Australia’s equivalent to Rush Limbaugh or the Fox news talking heads – who was found guilty in court of defamation and of breaching our racial discrimination act."

Important to note that Andrew Bolt lost the case due to the fact that his journalism was defective and he had presented some non-real imaginings of his own as thought they were facts.

I saw Patrick Moore speak recently

He never said he was a co-founder of Greenpeace
He did mention that he was Chairman for a period ??
What I do know is he has every right to express an opinion and a view - the fact he was a high credentialed member of the Greenpeace organisation most probably gives him a better than most peoples observations as to what was actually taking place over this period of time, that he was a member of Greenpeace.

The whole "Green Mentality" has taken on a religious zealot type mentality - it's as bad as extremist Christians / Muslims !!

Last I actual knew it was OK to voice an opinion - especially when there is so much conflicting rhetoric !!

Also it seems a forgone conclusion that the Left Wing of politics absolutely dominates this sector of thinking and be damned anyone who dares to question the flawed information from the likes of David Suzuki and Tim Flannery - like they are not being paid to be environmental activists ??
Last I saw they were both being very well paid to do this !!

I am all about making this world a better place but not by misinformation or bullying - an open mind with the ability to understand and digest information from both sides allows a person to make an informed decision

@ ^ Craig Thomas : Yes indeed - a common failing of the Deniers and rightwingers everywhere!

Everyone has the right to their own opinion but not their own facts as the saying goes.

Heartland still believes Moore's story about cofounding Greenpeace, as of yesterday. I'm sure they'll correct their error once they catch up on their fact checking.
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate…

Hank Roberts;
I'm sure that Greenpeace will correct their error once they catch up on their fact checking

Phil Cotes, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen founded Greenpeace in 1970
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/about/history/Patrick-Moore-…

For starters, it's Paul Cotes, not Phil.

In 1971, the word "Greenpeace" hadn't yet been coined

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/bob-hunter/

Oops!

Who's going to be the first to fire off an email to Greenpeace telling them that they are contradicting themselves?

Greg or Hank?

Um... I really hope he didn't write to ask for a birth on the boat.... I think the word you are looking for is berth.

But ... what about his arguments?

BruceC, the fact that an organization, in this case Greenpeace, was founded under a different name does not change the fact that the organization, now called Greenpeace, was founded in 1970.

There are lots of other organizations that have changed names, and no one in their right mind would then claim that the organization was *founded* at the time of the name change. Sometimes those names changes are relatively small, such as the change from Micro-Soft to Microsoft or from Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company to 3M. Some are bigger, like the Tote'm Stores (changing to 7-eleven in 1946. 7-eleven claims it was founded in 1927. Amazon was founded as Cadabra in 1994. Also Amazon says it was founded in 1994, even though the name change did not happen until 1995. Note that I deliberately selected companies that did not go through some major mergers.

Marcos,

The first 1971 Amchitka campaign was organised and partially funded by the DMAWC (by an outdoor concert organised by the DMAWC), the rest of the funds came from the Sierra Club.

Prior to 4th May, 1972, 'Greenpeace' was nothing more than a name plaque on the 'Phyllis Cormack'.

January 21, 1972: The Don’t Make a Wave Committee resolved to change its name to the Greenpeace Foundation. The Metcalfes, the Hunters, Patrick Moore, Rod Marining, and others remained active. The Stowes and Bohlens withdrew but stayed in contact with the Metcalfes. Stowe's closing financial statement showed that between June 1970 and December 31, 1971, the Don't Make A Wave Committee raised $62,703, and spent $53,025 on the Amchitka campaign. Stowe turned over $9,678 to Dorothy and Ben Metcalfe.

May 4, 1972: The Provincial Societies office in Victoria, British Columbia registered the name, “Greenpeace Foundation.”

Sorry Marco for spelling your name wrong.

You will also note Marco in my comment above there was a monetary exchange (21/01/1972) during this so-called 'name change'. In your examples above, no monies were exchanged, only a renaming of the organisation.

On the 21/01/1975, the DMAWC organisation ceased to exist, and a new organisation was born.....Greenpeace Foundation.

From memory (both Rex Weyler’s and Bob Hunter's books), Hunter, Moore and (I think) Metcalfe were the 3 representatives present at The Provincial Societies office in Victoria, British Columbia when 'Greenpeace Foundation' was registered.

Oops, that should be 21/01/1972, not 1975. Sorry

BruceC, it is still the same organization. Since you come to the rescue of Patrick Moore so much, he himself has stated this same opinion: it merely changed its name. Rex Weyler claims the same.

The Stowe's *had* to transfer that money, because it rightfully belonged to the DMAWC-now-Greenpeace Foundation.

My God! I've read a lot of comments to many blogs and articles, but this has got to be the most least satisfying to date. I usually get more info in the comment section than the article, itself. Not this one. BruceC, you are debating the title of the blog with such long winded intensity and obsessiveness, I stopped reading your comments. I'm learning nothing of importance. I'd like to here comments or debates regarding Moore's stance, right now, at present time. Is Moore using his past connection with Greenpeace for his own financial gain? Is he being used as a spokesman for certain industries, to provide a "smoke and mirrors" front man, due to his past connection to Greenpeace? How much is he getting paid to lobby and for who? And BruceC. What is your main objective? Protecting Moore? Proving yourself right? Passion for debating? Trying to hold Laden's feet to your fire? Do you hold other blogger's feet to your fire or just the one's that don't like Moore? I apologize in advance if any of these questions have been answered, but my eyes glazed over halfway through the lengthy, redundant, copy, paste comments.

As much as I detest Moore for selling out as a corporate whore, I have to defend the position that he was indeed a Greenpeace founder. Greenpeace was officially founded in 1972. Moore sailed on the Greenpeace in October 1971. I sailed on the Greenpeace Too in November 1971. Both Moore and I were founding directors of the Greenpeace Foundation in 1972. Prior to that there was the Don't Make a Wave Committee formed in 1969 of which both Patrick Moore and I were members. Greenpeace often cites the three founding members as Paul Cote, Jim Bohlen and Irving Stowe. Only Jim Bohlen was a crewmember. Cote was simply the lawyer who filed the papers. The original founding directors of the Greenpeace Foundation were Bob Hunter, Bobbi Hunter, Hamish Bruce, Rod Marining, Jim Bohlen, Patrick Moore, John Cormack, Jim Bohlen, Chris Bergthorsen, Irving Stowe, Dorthy Stowe, Will Jones, Ben Metcalfe, Bob Cummings etc. McTaggart was hired for Mururoa in 1972.

Paul, several people were involved with Greenpeace, in various capacities, at the beginning. Only some are defined by Greenpeace as founders. An organization gets to make those choices when there are choices and ambiguities. They have chosen to not count Patrick Moore as a founder for a number of reasons including abject embarrassment. Their call.

>he isn't a founder of greenpeace
>was on the boat and was apart of the don't make a wave committee when the went on the boat the greenpeace
>was part of the organization until somewhat recently

Attempting to argue simatics makes you seem desperate and petty, fyi

Greenpeace acknowledges that the crew of the Phyllis Cormack (nicknamed the Greenpeace) were the founders of Greenpeace. Patrick Moore was one of the crew - he's the guy under the "P" in this picture (http://www.greenpeace.org/seasia/ph/Global/seasia/External/image/2005/8…)

No matter how hard Greenpeace try to "vanish" him, Stalin-style, Patrick Moore was undoubtedly one of the founding members.

Best regards, Pete Ridley,
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change denier

Greenpeace does *not* acknowledge that the crew of the Phyllis Cormack were the founders of Greenpeace. No matter how much he makes this claim, Patrick Moore was undoubtedly not one of the founding members.

Pete Ridley, not just a climate change denier, but also unable to read the link provided in the blogpost above.

Hi Marco,

It's been a while since we chatted and once again you are wrong. I'll leave it to you to find the Greenpeace web-site which says " .. a small team of activists set sail from Vancouver, Canada, in an old boat. These activists, THE FOUNDERS OF GREENPEACE .. " - my bold. As everyone who has researched the history of Greenpeace knows, Patrick Moore was indeed one of those activists on the Phyllis Cormack (he's the one in the photo' directly under the "P" of the "Greenpeace" banner).

As I understand it the members of the not-for-profit organisation the "Don't Make a Wave Committee" (which organised that expedition) didn't adopt the name "Greenpeace Foundation" for its organisation until May 1972, although there are disputed suggestions that other organisations around the world had independently adopted the name Greenpeace.

As for Greenpeace web-site to which you refer, which claims that " .. Patrick Moore Did Not Found Greenpeace .. " you have been around long enough to know that you shouldn't believe everything that you are told. Regardless of what Greenpeace currently claims, Patrick Moore was a founding member of Greenpeace and made a major contribution to its success as a very wealthy global business group of not-for-profit organisations and private companies.

Best regards, Pete Ridley,
CACC Denier

On 14th Oct. I had the privilege of hearing Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore give an excellent presentation as the Global Warming Policy Foundation/Forum's annual lecture. The topic was "SHOULD WE CELEBRATE CARBON DIOXIDE?" In which Dr. Moore extolled the virtues of that essential, life-supporting substance carbon dioxide, an invisible, odourless gas without which life as we know it would not exist.

That's the same substance that supporters of the CACC hypothesis demonise as a filthy pollutant that we are filling our atmosphere with through our burgeoning use of fossil fuels.

The text of Dr. Moore's presentation is available at http://www.thegwpf.org/patrick-moore-should-we-celebrate-carbon-dioxide/ .

Best regards, Pete Ridley,
CACC Denier

Pete Ridley, you claimed Greenpeace accepted Moore was a founder. The link above shows it does not accept Moore as founder of Greenpeace, for the very good reason that Greenpeace was just a natural follow-up to the DMAW committee. Also, Moore was the one who actually created the collision with the other Greenpeace groups formed all around the world (primarily US).

Congratulations for falling again for yet another misinformer, this time Patrick Moore.
For example this: "The Panel is composed solely of the World Meteorological Organization, weather forecasters, and the United Nations Environment Program, environmentalists"
is a complete and utter lie, and if you and Moore don't know that, you are complete idiots.
"During the Eocene Thermal Maximum, temperature was likely higher than any time in the past 550 million years while CO2 had been on a downward track for 100 million years"

This is such blatant evidence of incompetent misdirection, anyone who has ever read a paper about paleoclimate of the last 500 million years will be shocked to hear someone pontificate about something he so clearly knows so little about.

More evidence of Moore not up-to-date with science comes here: "CO2 lags temperature by an average of 800 years during the most recent 400,000-year period, indicating that temperature is the cause, as the cause never comes after the effect."
Anyone still claiming this as a fact is clearly a pseudoskeptic (see: http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/ShakunFig2b.jpg)

You know what, Pete? Ask Moore to drink some glyphosate next time you meet him. He claimed it was potable ("completely safe to drink"), but then ran away when he was offered a glass ("I am not an idiot" and "this interview is over"):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM
Reminds me of Booker claiming asbestos is oh-so-safe. I am sure he'd refuse to live in a house filled with asbestos.

Hi again Marco,

Stop throwing in all of those irrelevant opinions of yours about Dr. Patrick Moore which have nothing to do with the topic of Greg's article "Who Founded Greenpeace? Not Patrick Moore."

That statement is clearly WRONG because Dr. Patrick Moore was and still is acknowledged on Greenpeace web-sites as being a co-founder. Wriggle and squirm as much as you like Marco but that is FACT.

Regardless of the misleading claim that the Greenpeace organisation and CACC supporters like you NOW wish to make that Dr. Patrick Moore was not a founding member of the organisation, there is no doubt at all that he was so and at one time Greenpeace was proud to claim him as a founding member.

It is only since he sensibly turned his back on that organisation that Greenpeace has attempted To "vanish" him as a founding member.

The facts are on record so stop making a fool of yourself.

In his E-mail of 16th Oct. Dr. Moore said of Greenpeace QUOTE ..

They are just silly. My name was listed on their websites as a founder until Feb. 2007, eleven years after I left. They took it down and wrote all that nasty stuff because I came out publicly in favour of nuclear energy. I believe we made a big mistake lumping nuclear energy with nuclear weapons when it should be lumped with nuclear medicine as a peaceful and beneficial use of nuclear technology.. See here from early Feb. 2007.

(In his E-mail Dr. Moore embedded a copy of a cached version of a Greenpeace International web-site headed "The Founders of Greenpeace" which clearly states " .. In 1970 The Don't Make a Wave Committee was established .. committees founders and first members included .. Patrick Moore, ecology student at the University of British Columbia .. ". That was Greenpeace in 2007 Marco, and there's a current Greenpeace web-site which says virtually the same thing (http://www.greenpeace.org/seasia/ph/About-us/History/the-founders/). I've saved a copy in case Greenpeace decides to "vanish" that one when it realises that part if it's empire is still telling the truth).

The word Greenpeace was first used to nickname our boat when we sailed to Alaska against the US H-Bomb tests. The name of the organization was changed in March or May 1972, From The Don’t Make a Wave Committee to The Greenpeace Foundation (Bob Hunter took Foundation from Isaac Asimov’s “Foundation Trilogy). I have the Incorporation document.

On top of this Greenpeace has always celebrates its “birthday” as September 15, 1971, the day the boat sailed for Alaska. I was there 6 months before that helping to plan the voyage, so I was not just there for the “birth” but also for the “gestation”. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/40-ye… ..

UNQUOTE.

I've posted some of these facts in a short article " (http://spotlightoncibs.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/dr-patrick-moore-co-found…) - enjoy.

Best regards, Pete Ridley,
CACC Denier

PS: Marco, please note that CACC stands for CATASTROPHIC ANTHROPOGENIC Climate Change, not climate change. There's a big difference between being a climate denier (are there any such?) and a CACC Denier

"was and still is acknowledged on Greenpeace web-sites as being a co-founder"

No he isn't! Again you ignore the link Greg Laden provided. A link to the GREENPEACE website, stating they do NOT consider him a co-founder! Yes, he is considered one of the first *members*, as the Greenpeace website states.

And why the complaint about me pointing out all the nonsense Patrick Moore spouts about paleoclimate? Suddenly I cannot mention it, but you are allowed to link to his factually inaccurate and misinformed presentation? Of course, reality is that you cannot handle the FACT that Moore doesn't know what he is talking about, making various mistakes and showing once again that you (as in you, Pete Ridley) gladly let yourself being hoodwinked by misinformers.

Oh dear Marco, facts must not be allowed to come between you and your beliefs.

This may have been written specially for you "Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not’ (Jeremiah 5:21).

That's funny coming from you, Pete Ridley, considering you were so happy to be present at misinformer Patrick Moore's lecture, and then got all upset when I pointed out just a few of the mistakes in Moore's lecture, telling me I should not change the topic...

Greg Laden asks "Who were the founders of Greenpeace?". Without a shadow of doubt one of those co-founders is ecologist Dr. Patrick Moore, who was an ecology student at the University of British Columbia. Others included Paul Cote, who was a law student at the University of British Columbia,,Jim Bohlen, a former deep-sea diver and radar operator in the US Navy, Irving Stowe, a Quaker and Yale-educated lawyer and Bill Darnell, a social worker.

More on this can be found at http://spotlightoncibs.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/dr-patrick-moore-co-found… .

Facts remain facts no matter how hard some dishonest people and organisations might try to bury them.

Best regards, Pete Ridley,
CACC Denier

Facts are that the DMAW committee just renamed itself to Greenpeace. And Moore did not found the DMAW committee...

Even one of the UK's best known CACC propagandist George Monbiot acknowledges that Dr. Moore was a co-founder of Greenpeace
" .. what do you do if your brand is turning toxic? You hire the Canadian public relations consultant Patrick Moore .. his greatest asset to the companies he represents is this: Patrick Moore was one of the founders and leaders of Greenpeace .. His credentials as a co-founder of Greenpeace, with a PhD in ecology, lend it a weight it might not otherwise possess .. " (http://www.monbiot.com/2010/12/02/the-great-ventriloquist/).

What I find upsetting on this thread, is the position of some posters that Patrick Moore does not have the right to use his history with Greenpeace as a credential. He absolutely has every right. Whether the current board at Greenpeace likes it or not, he was on that boat. Call him a founder, a charter member, or a former Chair, whatever. He has a long history with the organization and can provide his opinion on the evolution of their objectives.

Do you think anyone would have given Al Gore his Inconvenient Truth podium, had he not been "former Vice President of the United States"?

Greenpeace is trying to re-write their history now that it is inconvenient - however, the Wayback Machine has previous versions of their websites on file showing that they did, until recently, recognize him as a founding member.

http://web.archive.org/web/20021119050900/http://www.greenpeace.org.au/…

May I join your crew (got an open berth for a concerned college grad)? Sounds like a solicitation not an organizational recommendation or suggestion.

Greenpeace was successful. Dr. Moore was instrumental in/with its successes. Sounds as though he initially asked for a spot on someone else's boat. Then, upon 'coming aboard', claimed ownership of said vessel. At a minimum there's some sort of code of the sea violation to be questioned.

Exactly when did Dr. Moore begin his climatological study and research? And where can his findings and scientific publications be reviewed?

Pardon this young fellow of 20 but may I ask why in 2005 the Greenpeace website claimed he was a co-founder lol: http://web.archive.org/web/20050924150423/http://www.greenpeace.org/int…

They still claim it in 2006 and early 2007 why did they change it in 2007? :http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about/history/founders, and http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about/history/founders

Greenpeace is clearly guilty of having claimed Moore as a founder when the record shows that he was not. It should surprise no-one (even twenty year-olds) that the courtesy was revoked when he began abusing that title during his corporate shilling.

So in other words, no matter the answer on Mr. Moore Greenpeace has a history of misrepresenting their history as they see fit? How then can u trust anything they say? It's like how Stalin doctored people out of photos when they were no long friends of the Communist party lol

U know honestly this isn't one side against the other from my view. I see 2 things a paid spokesmen Mr. Moore who is willing to spew nonsense at a moments notice for a paycheck and an organization which was once based on valiant activism now degraded to the point that they too have leadership who are scrounging for a paycheck and power as well and are willing to lie and cheat in order to get and keep it.

Bob hunter said he was quicly taken into the inner circles.
He was listed as co-founder on GP websit from 2005-2006

So from their own perspective he was part of the movement that gain the momentum that became GreenPeace.

And as pointed out- he was the voice who people listen to- that also made Greenpeace grow.

Funny, Greenpeace lists him as a co-founding member.

One always has to find the money source. Track down Laden's money source and Moore looks like an angel. Laden's straw man arguments should embarrass anyone with a tinkle of journalism background.

Oh I see. You could always try the Rothchild Foundation. Or give Suzuki a call. He has lots of money and has shares in an oil company. Or how about Mann. He made money on the phony hockey stick!

Say, Phyllis, how much money did you have tied up in those tar sands there in Alberta??

Ah, so, you are an antisemite too!

The letter clearly stated that he is applying to the"Don't Make A Wave Committee" for the voyage of the 'Greenpeace'.

Greenpeace was not started until 1972, at least a year after this letter.

Thank you for providing the evidence to prove your own position is wrong.

Bob Hunter was the main conspirator in the Greenpeace movement. He wrote for the Sun newspaper and started the Georgia Straight , a then underground newspaper located in Gas Town. He not only coined the name (in crossing the Burrard St, bridge by car), he was determined to get the word peace in the slogan as that was a catchword of the day. They were protesting against clear-cut logging practices on Van. Island by McMillian Bloedel Co. Although humble in its roots Greenpeace has now grown to be a Megalithic joke.