Greenpeace The Slide From Science To Religious Dogma

Experimental GM wheat crop destroyed by Aussie Greenpeace Luddites

Once upon a time in the dim and distant past before Greenpeace abandoned science for religious dogma, the organisation performed a useful function in bringing to public attention abuses of the environment which, like using the sea as a dumping ground for hazardous waste and putting a stop to CFC’s in aerosol cans which really did cause a hole in the ozone layer. Coupled with their knack for publicity Greenpeace did contribute to the overall environmental well being of the planet.

Then somewhere along the way as the Great Global Warming Scam gathered pace Greenpeace abandoned science and adopted religious dogma, never has this been more clearly demonstrated than today when in Canberra, Australia a mob of Greenpeace Luddites destroyed an experimental wheat crop for no better reason than the letters GM were in the name

The crop of genetically modified wheat destroyed by Greenpeace activists in Canberra today was rated by the federal government regulator of genetically modified organisms as posing a “negligible” risk to either people or the environment.

This is in contrast to Greenpeace’s claims that the crop consisted of “untested and potentially unstable GM organisms”.

The crop was part of a CSIRO study of wheat and barley genetically modified to suppress the function of endogenous genes resulting in an altered starch compositions.

The intention was to produce a grain with higher starch content which would contribute to greater dietary fibre intake, thus improving nutrition and digestive bowel health.

Once the crop was harvested it was to be fed to rats and pigs in controlled laboratory experiments to determine whether the altered grains do, in fact, possess different nutritional properties.

It was also to be fed to a small group of volunteers as part of a controlled nutritional study. However, no material from the trial was to enter the commercial food or feed supply chain.

An experimental crop that been cleared for testing and that posed no risk; GM foods have been available in several countries for the last 10 years including the US:

Greenpeace food campaigner, Laura Kelly, also claimed that “GM has never been proven safe to eat and once released in open experiments, it will contaminate.”

However, GM foods have been on sale in several countries around the world, notably the United States, for over a decade with no confirmed cases of harm caused to any individual consuming them.

Greenpeace cited an open letter signed by eight international scientists and doctors that questioned the safety of the human trials to the conducted by the CSIRO.

However, none of the scientists are experts in the contemporary field of genetically modified organisms or their health effects, and some are actively involved environmental activism, political parties or the organic food movement.

GM foods have been available for 10 years in the US, the land of the frivolous law suit and no one has been sued for anything to do with GM foods.

As usual the scientists quoted by Greenpeace are nothing to do with GM and/or have a political agenda of wealth redistribution and following the usual pattern of the warming alarmists, probably  a significant financial investment in Green industries, as typified by Climate Pope Al Gore.

The evidence of Greenpeace’s grey propaganda push continues to stack up:

In June 2011 International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO), who are nothing more than a murky Greenpeace front organisation published a new fear work about Armageddon in the Oceans

May 2011 The IPCC were caught out again using propaganda from a Greenpeace activist as scientific fact. The IPCC SRREN report on renewable energy claimed that by 2050 renewables would provide 77% of the worlds energy needs.

This fact was cherry picked, publicised without the accompanying notes that actually said this would happen if:

But in supporting documents released this week, it emerged that the claim was based on a real-terms decline in worldwide energy consumption over the next 40 years – and that the lead author of the section concerned was an employee of Greenpeace. Not only that, but the modelling scenario used was the most optimistic of the 164 investigated by the IPCC.

Now the cat is out of the bag there are many red faces at Greenpeace and the IPCC, who can’t understand how the report was released a full month ahead of the qualifying notes.

Well let Aardvark help you understand Greenpeace/IPCC how you managed this error.

Your agenda is to push the Climate Change Scam, the scam is dying and NGOs and environmentalists will use any means or methods to keep their scam alive. Cherry picking data, or rather pushing a blatant lie, like the 77% renewables should work because as the great Winston Churchill once said “A lie is half way round the world before the truth has got its boots on”

When not pushing fear and junk science  lie scenarios Greenpeace are not averse to some eco-terrorism.