Greenpeace Claims Immunity from Lawsuits Because Its Claims Are ‘Hyperbole’


Locutus
+1
#1
Greenpeace is admitting that it relies on "non-verifiable statements of subjective opinion," and because its claims are not meant to be factual, the group believes it cannot be held legally responsible for what it says.
There’s been an interesting twist of events involving Greenpeace, one of the major groups pushing the failing #ExxonKnew campaign: They’ve been sued by Resolute, a Canadian forest-products company, for defamation and false claims about the company’s operations.

But when Greenpeace had to answer for its actions in court, the group wasn’t so sure it could defend its claims. In fact, they admitted those claims had no merit. As Resolute’s President and CEO Richard Garneau explained (external - login to view) in a recent op-ed,

A funny thing happened when Greenpeace and allies were forced to account for their claims in court. They started changing their tune. Their condemnations of our forestry practices “do not hew to strict literalism or scientific precision,” as they concede in their latest legal filings. Their accusations against Resolute were instead “hyperbole,” “heated rhetoric,” and “non-verifiable statements of subjective opinion” that should not be taken “literally” or expose them to any legal liability. These are sober admissions after years of irresponsible attacks.

more

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/...-full-of-****/ (external - login to view)
 
taxslave
+3
#2  Top Rated Post
Sounds like they admitted to defamation
 
Locutus
+1
#3
green scum
 
Wake
+1
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by LocutusView Post

Greenpeace is admitting that it relies on "non-verifiable statements of subjective opinion," and because its claims are not meant to be factual, the group believes it cannot be held legally responsible for what it says.
There’s been an interesting twist of events involving Greenpeace, one of the major groups pushing the failing #ExxonKnew campaign: They’ve been sued by Resolute, a Canadian forest-products company, for defamation and false claims about the company’s operations.
But when Greenpeace had to answer for its actions in court, the group wasn’t so sure it could defend its claims. In fact, they admitted those claims had no merit. As Resolute’s President and CEO Richard Garneau explained in a recent op-ed,
A funny thing happened when Greenpeace and allies were forced to account for their claims in court. They started changing their tune. Their condemnations of our forestry practices “do not hew to strict literalism or scientific precision,” as they concede in their latest legal filings. Their accusations against Resolute were instead “hyperbole,” “heated rhetoric,” and “non-verifiable statements of subjective opinion” that should not be taken “literally” or expose them to any legal liability. These are sober...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Greenpeace admits this but the MEMBERS of Greenpeace do not believe it for a second. They are so mentally ill that I cannot tell where or when this started. But we need to take extreme actions against them. Greenpeace originally wasn't this insane monster. Saving the whales was probably far overblown because the liberal politicians could use it but the actions themselves weren't uncalled for.

But the very things they originally fought for have been achieved and we're now seeing things like "Save the Honey Bee". Children who believe that they have to match the things that their PARENTS thought they did but in fact did not.

In warming allowed gigantic increases in plankton and the things that most whales and other filter feeders need. And there has been increases in all sea life everywhere. But does the stop the "environmentalists" from claiming otherwise>? Not at all.

We see them crying for "GREEN ENERGY" in an attempt to destroy the thing that achieved their goals. It doesn't matter at all to them that these sources of green energy aren't green at all. There is a nut cake here who thinks that somehow you can remove energy from the tide flow in and out of the Bay of Fundy and that this won't wreak havoc with the environment.These people know NOTHING about even the lowest grade of science and babble like idiots about how they can improve things by wrecking them.

The identical things that they would attack normal people for doing, they themselves would commit in a split second. Environmentalist in a pig's eye.
 
bobnoorduyn
+1
#5
The plaintiffs' counsel must be just gobsmacked, essentially having had the defendants make your case. This is a major political lobby group, not the Enquirer, and their word is taken seriously by enough politicians that many industries have suffered, possibly needlessly and unjustifiably. It will still have to be proven that harm was done as a direct result, and how much, but a major judgement could sink the organisation and hopefully have other environazi groups that play fast and loose with facts go hiding under rocks, where they belong.

Quote: Originally Posted by WakeView Post

There is a nut cake here who thinks that somehow you can remove energy from the tide flow in and out of the Bay of Fundy and that this won't wreak havoc with the environment.would commit in a split second.


I don't know where the "here" is that you are referring to, but the engineers seemed to have not thought that Fundy ice sinks, which it does, or that it would be ingested into the turbines causing major damage, which it has. I know it is frustrating to some when they realise theory and reality don't always meet.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by WakeView Post

We see them crying for "GREEN ENERGY" in an attempt to destroy the thing that achieved their goals. It doesn't matter at all to them that these sources of green energy aren't green at all. There is a nut cake here who thinks that somehow you can remove energy from the tide flow in and out of the Bay of Fundy and that this won't wreak havoc with the environment.These people know NOTHING about even the lowest grade of science and babble like idiots about how they can improve things by wrecking them.



The Green Energy term seems to be applied only with reference to CO2 not the environment as a whole in general. With regards to this specific idea, I have heard it before. I think it could work and be done with minimal environmental impact ... perhaps not today but sometime in the future. But it will be a surge power at best able to generate power likely 4 times per day only.
 
bobnoorduyn
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiingView Post

The Green Energy term seems to be applied only with reference to CO2 not the environment as a whole in general. With regards to this specific idea, I have heard it before. I think it could work and be done with minimal environmental impact ... perhaps not today but sometime in the future. But it will be a surge power at best able to generate power likely 4 times per day only.


I'm sure it can be done with minimal impact as well, though it wouldn't be just 4 times per day because tides rise and fall continuously, it would just be the null times of high and low tides where the power generation would be at its lowest. The environmental impact on sea life would probably be as it is with aviary life and wind turbines. But, yes, it could only be used as a supplementary source of power, and as I said, winter poses a major set of challenges. But the Fundy tides are a thing to see, if you are ever out there go to Hall's Harbour, it was the best place I found to give visitors the experience of the high and low tides along with a very picturesque landscape, be patient, and bring your camera. Oh yeah, and your wallet, you're gonna wanna eat or buy something there too, everyone does.
Last edited by bobnoorduyn; 3 weeks ago at 12:14 PM..
 
Hoof Hearted
#8
Where have all of the grasshoppers gone? I remember as a kid our lawn used to be teeming with them.
 
Jinentonix
+1
#9
Those a$$hats at Greenpeace are morons these days. I'm sure we've all already seen this image but it does demonstrate how self-important those sh*ts think they are. Just as added info, the President of Peru isn't even permitted to set foot on these lands.


You bet it's time for a change. It's time someone took these f*ckers to task for their nonsense.
 
bobnoorduyn
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoof HeartedView Post

Where have all of the grasshoppers gone? I remember as a kid our lawn used to be teeming with them.


Still see them, they seem to run in cycles like everything else, just hope they don't come back as locusts, they kinda do that too now and again.
 
Wake
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by bobnoorduynView Post

The plaintiffs' counsel must be just gobsmacked, essentially having had the defendants make your case. This is a major political lobby group, not the Enquirer, and their word is taken seriously by enough politicians that many industries have suffered, possibly needlessly and unjustifiably. It will still have to be proven that harm was done as a direct result, and how much, but a major judgement could sink the organisation and hopefully have other environazi groups that play fast and loose with facts go hiding under rocks, where they belong.




I don't know where the "here" is that you are referring to, but the engineers seemed to have not thought that Fundy ice sinks, which it does, or that it would be ingested into the turbines causing major damage, which it has. I know it is frustrating to some when they realise theory and reality don't always meet.

I hope they record that statement from Greenpeace and every time that we have a Congressmen try to use them as a reference we should play it in open session.

Quote: Originally Posted by JinentonixView Post

Those a$$hats at Greenpeace are morons these days. I'm sure we've all already seen this image but it does demonstrate how self-important those sh*ts think they are. Just as added info, the President of Peru isn't even permitted to set foot on these lands.


You bet it's time for a change. It's time someone took these f*ckers to task for their nonsense.

The only thing we need to do is stop taking them seriously.

Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiingView Post

The Green Energy term seems to be applied only with reference to CO2 not the environment as a whole in general. With regards to this specific idea, I have heard it before. I think it could work and be done with minimal environmental impact ... perhaps not today but sometime in the future. But it will be a surge power at best able to generate power likely 4 times per day only.

There are places in the bay where they could generate quite a bit of power. But in doing so you lose movement in the exhaust stream of water. The sea life in the bay has evolved to live with this HUGE motion of water. Slowing it down would no doubt change the bay on a fundamental level.
 
Curious Cdn
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by WakeView Post


There are places in the bay where they could generate quite a bit of power. But in doing so you lose movement in the exhaust stream of water. The sea life in the bay has evolved to live with this HUGE motion of water. Slowing it down would no doubt change the bay on a fundamental level.


What "bay" would that be?
 
captain morgan
#13
 
Curious Cdn
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

What would piling two-yard-high mounds of beaver pelts in exchange for one (1) Brown Bess musket have to do with climate change conspiracies?
 
Wake
+1
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious CdnView Post

What "bay" would that be?

No one expects you to be able to keep up with the conversation.
 

Similar Threads

5
Afghan army claims a win
by Praxius | Oct 23rd, 2008
2
Listeriosis claims B.C. woman
by B00Mer | Sep 8th, 2008
2
U of A claims gene may help fight HIV
by karrie | Feb 29th, 2008
no new posts