Greenpeace co-founder reports it to the FBI under RICO and wire-fraud statutes


By: - Climate DepotDecember 8, 2015 11:59 AM with 29 comments

Greenpeace founder reports it to the FBI under RICO and wire-fraud statutes

‘Greenpeace has made itself the sworn enemy of all life on Earth’

By Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace

Greenpeace, in furtherance of what is in effect its war against every species on the planet, has now turned to what, on the face of things, looks to me like outright breach of the RICO, wire-fraud, witness-tampering and obstruction-of-committee statutes. I have called in the FBI.

Greenpeace appears to have subjected Dr Will Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University, to a maladroit attempt at entrapment that has badly backfired on it.

Greenpeace used this dismal rent-by-the-hour office block in the Beirut souk for its entrapment scam

The organization I founded has become a monster. When I was a member of its central committee in the early days, we campaigned – usually with success – on genuine environmental issues such as atmospheric nuclear tests, whaling and seal-clubbing.

When Greenpeace turned anti-science by campaigning against chlorine (imagine the sheer stupidity of campaigning against one of the elements in the periodic table), I decided that it had lost its purpose and that, having achieved its original objectives, had turned to extremism to try to justify its continued existence.

Now Greenpeace has knowingly made itself the sworn enemy of all life on Earth. By opposing capitalism, it stands against the one system of economics that has been most successful in regulating and restoring the environment.

By opposing the use of DDT inside the homes of children exposed to the anopheles mosquito that carries malaria, Greenpeace contributed to the deaths of 40 million people and counting, most of them children. It now pretends it did not oppose DDT, but the record shows otherwise. On this as on so many issues, it got the science wrong. It has the deaths of those children on what passes for its conscience.

By opposing fossil-fueled power, it not only contributes to the deaths of many tens of millions every year because they are among the 1.2 billion to whom its campaigns deny affordable, reliable, clean, continuous, low-tech, base-load, fossil-fueled electrical power: it also denies to all trees and plants on Earth the food they need.

Paradoxically, an organization that calls itself “Green” is against the harmless, beneficial, natural trace gas that nourishes and sustains all green things. Greenpeace is against greenery. Bizarrely, it is opposed to returning to the atmosphere a tiny fraction of the CO2 that was once present there.

In November 2015, out of the blue, Professor Happer received an email from “Hamilton Ellis”, a soi-disant “business consultancy” operating out of rent-by-the-hour offices in a crumbling concrete block in the Beirut souk.

The bucket-shop “consultancy’s” email said that a “client”, an energy and power company “concerned about the impacts of the UN climate talks”, wanted to commission Professor Happer to prepare a “briefing” to be released early in 2016 “which highlights the crucial role that oil and gas have to play in the developing economies, such as our client’s Middle East and North Africa region”.

The email smarmed on: “Given your influential work in this area and your position at Princeton we believe a very short paper authored or endorsed by yourself could work strongly in our client’s favour. Does this sound like a project you would be interested in discussing further?”

Will Happer replied enclosing a white paper written, with major input from him, by the CO2 Coalition, a new group that he had helped to establish earlier in 2015. He also sent a copy of testimony on the “social cost of carbon” that he had given at a regulatory hearing in St Paul, Minnesota. Crucially, he added: “I would be glad to try to help if my views, outlined in the attachments, are in line with those of your client.”

In short, he was not prepared to be bought. He would help the “client” of the “business consultancy” if and only if he was not asked to attest to anything that he did not already believe.

The “consultancy” replied: “It certainly sounds like you and our client are on the same page.” It went on to ask whether Professor Happer’s two papers had been “part of the same initiative on CO2 reported on [by Matt Ridley] in the London Times recently, and added:  “The focus we envisage for this project comes from a slightly different angle. Our client wants to commission a short briefing paper that examines the benefits of fossil fuels to developing economies, as opposed to a switch to so-called clean energy.”

The “consultancy” also wanted to know whether it “would be able to reference you as Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University if this project were to go ahead?”

It also tried to smoke out the identity of Professor Happer’s contacts in the U.S. media, and ended with a classical entrapment line: “It would be useful to know, in your experience, whether you would need to declare the source funding when publishing research of this kind”.

Professor Happer said: “The article … mentions Patrick Moore, like me a member of the CO2 Coalition, and my friend from Princeton, Freeman Dyson, who shares our views.”

He confirmed that his official title is Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Emeritus. He also reinforced his earlier message indicating he could not be bought by stating, very clearly:

“To be sure your client is not misled on my views, it is clear there are real pollutants associated with the combustion of fossil fuels, oxides of sulfur and nitrogen for most of them, fly ash and heavy metals for coal, volatile organics for gasoline, etc.  I fully support regulations for cost-effective control of these real pollutants.  But the Paris climate talks are based on the premise that CO2 itself is a pollutant. This is completely false. More CO2 will benefit the world. The only way to limit CO2 would be to stop using fossil fuels, which I think would be a profoundly immoral and irrational policy.”

Professor Happer added that he no longer had external funding following his retirement, and went on: “My activities to push back against climate extremism are a labor of love, to defend the cherished ideals of science that have been so corrupted by the climate-change cult.  If your client was considering reimbursing me for writing something, I would ask that whatever fee would have come to me would go directly to the CO2 Coalition.  This was the arrangement I had with the attorneys representing the Peabody Coal Company in the regulatory hearings in Minnesota.  The fee I would have received was sent instead to the CO2 Coalition, a 501(c)(3) tax exempt educational organization.  The CO2 Coalition covers occasional travel expenses for me, but pays me no other fees or salary.”

The “consultancy” replied that the “client” was “completely comfortable with your views on fossil-fuel pollution”. It asked whether Matt Ridley might “help to disseminate our research when it is ready”, and whether the briefing could be peer-reviewed. “On the matter of reimbursement, we would of course remunerate you for your work and would be more than happy to pay the fee to the CO2 Coalition.”

Then another classic entrapment line: “Our client does not want their name associated with the research as they believe it will give the work more credibility. What provisions does the CO2 Coalition provide? Would this be an issue?”

Professor Happer replied that he was sure Matt Ridley would be interested in the briefing and that Breitbart would be among blogs and syndicated columnists that could also be interested.

As for peer review, he explained that “this normally refers to original work submitted to a scientific journal for publication, and not to the sort of articles that Ridley writes for the media, or what I think you are seeking to have written.  If you like, I could submit the article to a peer-reviewed journal, but that might greatly delay publication and might require such major changes in response to referees and to the journal editor that the article would no longer make the case that CO2 is a benefit, not a pollutant, as strongly as I would like, and presumably as strongly your client would also like.”

He said his fees were $250 per hour, and that his Minnesota testimony had required four eight-hour days, so that the total cost was $8000. He said that, if he wrote the paper alone, he did not think there would be any problem stating that “The author received no financial compensation for this essay”. He added that he was pretty sure that the “client’s” donation to the CO2 Coalition would not need to be public  according to US regulations of 503(c)(3) educational organizations, but that he could get some legal advice to confirm this if asked.

The “consultancy” replied: “The hourly rate works for us and, as previously discussed, we are happy to make a direct donation to the CO2 Coalition, providing it is anonymous. We can look into the official disclosure regulations, but it would be useful to know whether the CO2 Coalition voluntarily discloses its funders? Presumably there are other donors in a similar position to us?”

They added: “With regards to peer review, I raised this issue because Matt Ridley’s article on Dr Indur Goklany’s recent CO2 report said that it had been thoroughly peer reviewed. Would it be possible to ask the same journal to peer review our paper given that it has a similar thrust to Goklany’s? It’s not a deal-breaker, but I felt that it helped strengthen that piece of work.”

Professor Happer replied that early drafts of Goklany’s paper had been reviewed by him and by many other scientists; that he had suggested changes to which the author had responded; and that, although some members of the academic advisory board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation might have been too busy to respond to a request to comment on the first draft, “The review of  Golkany’s paper was even more rigorous than the peer review for most journals”. Professor Happer said he would be glad to ask for a similar review for the first drafts of anything he wrote for the “client”.

He said he would double-check on the regulations, but did not think the CO2 Coalition, a 501(3)c tax-exempt educational organization, was required to make public any donors, except in Internal Revenue Service returns.

He checked with the CO2 Coalition, which replied that the Coalition was not obliged to identify any donors, except to the IRS, who would redact the list of donors if it received a request for the Coalition’s form 990.

On December 7 he received an email from one Maeve McClenaghan of Greenpeace, telling him that they had conducted what she grandiosely described as an “undercover investigation” – actually a criminal entrapment scam contrary to the RICO and wire-fraud statutes, and a flagrant attempt both to tamper with a Congressional witness (he is due to testify today, 8 December) and to obstruct committee proceedings – and that they intended to publish a “news article … regarding the funding of climate sceptic science.

She said: “Our article explores how fossil fuel companies are able to pay academics to produce research which is of benefit to them” and added that the story would be published on a Greenpeace website and “promoted widely” in the media. She gave Professor Happer only hours to respond.

Many of the points she said she proposed to include in the article were crafted in such a way as to distort what the above correspondence makes plain were wholly innocent and honest statements, so as to make them sound sinister. The libels Ms McClenaghan proposed to circulate will not be circulated here.

I shall, however pass on a comment made to me by Professor Happer: “I was suspicious about the email exchange from the start, so I wrote every response assuming that it might be public someday.  But what I wrote expressed exactly what I believed to be true.”

That is the comment of one of the most transparently honest scientific colleagues I am honoured to know. I am, therefore, profoundly dismayed that the organization I founded – an organization that once did good work addressing real environmental concerns – has descended to what I consider to be criminality and now also proposes to descend to libel.

Accordingly, I have decided to inform the Federal Bureau of Investigation of Greenpeace’s dishonest and disfiguring attempt at entrapment of Professor Happer, whom I know to be a first-rate scientist, colleague and friend, one of the world’s half-dozen most eminent and experienced physicists, and one who would never provide any scientific advice unless in his professional opinion that advice was correct.

The organization’s timing was clearly intended to spring the trap on Professor Happer hours before he was due to appear in front of Congress. This misconduct constitutes a serious – and on many counts criminal – interference with the democratic process that America cherishes.

I have reported Greenpeace to the FBI under 18 USC 96 (RICO statute); 18 USC 1343 (wire fraud); 18 USC 1512 (attempting to intimidate a witness due to appear at a Congressional hearing); and 18 USC 1505 (obstruction of proceedings before committees).

I shall also be asking the Bureau to investigate Greenpeace’s sources of funding. It is now an enemy of the State, an enemy of humanity and, indeed, an enemy of all species on Earth.

#

 


  • odin2

    Greenpeace is indeed a large douchebag.

    • Tricia Harrison

      .❝my neighbor’s mother is making $98 HOURLY on the internet❞….A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, $17k Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over $87, p/h.Learn More right Here….
      pf…….k
      ➤➤
      ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportOnline/GetPaid/$97hourly… ❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

  • mikehaseler

    I note Gavin Schmidt is all for releasing emails when they are from sceptic scientists!

  • maltesertoo

    Greenpeace are against chlorine? OMG. Without chlorinated water (0.5 to 1 ppm) we would all be dead of water-borne diseases. Greenpeace should be indicted for crimes against humanity.

    • souphands

      Of course they’re not against chlorine. Mr. Moore is lying.

      • aeroguy48

        I trust Mr. Moore more than the Green Fascists.

        • souphands

          Of course you do. You don’t need facts. You don’t need to research the history of his statements. You just Know.

          • Mollie Norris

            Another member of the Gang of Big Green Hypocrites, whose motto is;
            ” You don’t need facts. You don’t need to research the history of his statements. You just Know”.

            THE CHALLENGE TO CANADIAN FOREST PRODUCTS IN EUROPE:
            MANAGING A COMPLEX ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE

            Prepared at the direction of the Working Group of the
            Opportunity Identification Program of the Canada-British Columbia Partnership
            Agreement on Forest Resource Development: FRDA II. March 1995

            Greenpeace Canada led efforts in Canada to regulate the use of chlorine as a bleaching agent for pulp from about 1988 to 1992 (see Stanbury, 1993b). Indeed, the fight against chlorine and the toxic chemicals generated by chlorine bleaching such as dioxins and furans was a major international campaign directed by Greenpeace International. In the case of forestry issues in B.C., prior to late 1993, Greenpeace Canada was only one of several environmental group “players.” However, late in 1993 it seems clear that Greenpeace International decided to make forestry issues in temperate rainforests one of the major campaigns for all of the 30 national Greenpeace organizations. B.C. then became the focus of such efforts.

            Greenpeace Germany had several campaigns underway in 1994: oceans (including stopping the dumping of toxic waste); air; pure water; nuclear power; peace; chlorine (going beyond eliminating it from pulp bleaching); and forestry (notably stopping clearcutting).

            Greenpeace Germany’s campaign against unsustainable forestry practices (focusing on clearcutting) began in the fall of 1993, according to Dr. Christoph Thies who leads the campaign (and who led Greenpeace Germany’s campaign against chlorine in pulp).

            Indeed, the pressures exerted by Greenpeace and other groups in Europe on the issue of chlorine bleaching should have been an object lesson. The companies have underestimated the credibility and power of Greenpeace in
            the U.K. and Germany- -perhaps because they thought, despite available
            information, those groups were just like Greenpeace in Canada and B.C., in
            particular.

            WWF is pushing for certification and does not endorse reducing all clearcuts to one hectare as does Greenpeace Canada. Major Canadian companies need to monitor the activities of all environmental groups focusing on the forestry issue (or chlorine before it) and to seek at least a minimal dialogue with all but the most extreme groups.121

            The chlorine issue was also in contention at this time. In March 1991 Greenpeace Canada published Das Plagiat (333,000 copies) in Germany aimed at Weyerhaeuser’s Kamloops pulp mill, which (like almost all mills at the time) uses elemental chlorine in its bleaching process.

            Also in January 1992, Time magazine announced, in light of some 22,000 postcards inspired by Greenpeace U.S.A., that it would stop buying paper from chlorine-bleached pulp. Its circulation in the U.S. is 4.6 million copies. Fletcher Challenge makes the pulp made into Time’s paper at its Blandin, Minnesota mill. Only one pulp mill in B.C. then made total chlorine-free pulp.

            http://www.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/pubwarehouse/pdfs/4070.pdf

          • souphands

            Paper products. Not a 100% ban on chlorine, as the author insinuates (lies).

          • Mollie Norris

            “souphands maltesertoo • a day ago

            Of course they’re not against chlorine. Mr. Moore is lying.”

            You really can’t post anything except lies, can you/”

            Sorry – and ad homs: the hate and lie coalition

      • ole

        The green nutters indeed wants to ban chlorine:

        http://www.waterandhealth.org/drinkingwater/greenpeace.html

        • souphands

          An editorial with no citations. Really?

          • JohnFLob

            Perhaps if you were not too lazy or reactionary to follow the links available utilizing the tags at the end of Mr. Fred Reiff’s article you would find numerous citations.

          • souphands

            You are full of it and you know it. Going down a rabbit’s hole of unsubstantiated articles doesn’t strengthen your position.

            I’d encourage you to stop and think about how you reached a point in your life where you had to reject incontrovertible evidence to further your delusion.

          • JohnFLob

            WOW!
            Did I hit a nerve.
            If by “it” you mean the ability to read accurately and properly interpret available information I plead guilty.

            BTW Just what in Fred Reiff’s article was incorrect? Would you have us believe that decade after decade after decade of evidence that confirm his conclusion(s) is/are wrong?

          • souphands

            Editorials aren’t incorrect. They don’t start from a place of truth. They’re anecdotes.

          • JohnFLob

            My apologies to Whiskeys Tangos and Foxtrots.
            WTF?
            I do not know what kind of soup your hands are in but may I suggest you take them out and thoroughly wash and disinfect them. It seems to have a disabling affect on your cranium

          • jumper297

            In other words, you refuse to look at the facts that clearly refute your asinine, off-the-cuff comment. Gotcha.

          • X30X

            HAVE you ever lied to us before?

            So many Brain Dead, POS pRogressive LIEberals; so little Time.

      • Mollie Norris

        Haven’t you figured out that opponents of the AGW scam have ethical and moral values?
        The liars and frauds are AGW-alarmists.

      • jumper297
        • souphands

          Lol. You guys sure are trained well. Look up little doggy.

  • Chemist

    Criminal malfeasance is becoming increasingly commonplace with these eco-thugs.

  • Luc_Ozade

    Trying to bully others is the only method these eco-thugs/warmists have in their arsenal of weapons – since they deny the existence of empirical evidence and therefore resort to lies and propaganda.

    I am feeling that their time is nearly up.

    • Mollie Norris

      lies and propaganda in an attempt to bury the truth:

      Don’t forget Greenpeace’s campaign’s attempt to invalidate the Oregon Petition:

      Only one false name has ever appeared on the petition. It was put there by Ozone Action (now Greenpeace USA) and removed immediately thereafter.
      Art Robison
      oismdotorg/news

    • Mollie Norris

      The UN’s NWO global warming scam is a disguise for a satanic takeover of the planet. It’s consistent with the inability of warmists like souphands to speak the truth. The UN’s association with New Age satanism is well-documented.
      Odd that youtube doesn’t allow me to post this.

      “Lucifer is personally in charge of our planetary evolution – thus, our ‘creator’ [see above in gods section]. He (as Maitreya) is quoted by Creme as having “nourished” all the genius which humankind has produced, including Freud, Jung, Picasso, Mahatma Gandhi, Karl Marx and Einstein (all these reaching a ‘2nd level’ initiation). Lucifer arrived here 18-1/2 million years ago from the planet Venus, which became known by one of his names, ‘The Morning Star’. At some point Maitreya (now in a physical body) will allow Lucifer to inhabit him, when all are ‘freed from the unreasoning fear’ of this name – hence the term and goal of the ‘Luciferic initiation’. [see below in The Plan section] The number 666, held as Lucifer’s sacred number, is to be used wherever possible to hasten his appearance, or alternately, as a ‘signal for help’ to UFOs whose inhabitants serve under Lucifer.

      There are umbrella groups actively ‘networking’ other organizations into the Plan:

      the ‘International Cooperation Council’ (since changed to ‘Unity in Diversity’ – a network of 300+
      organizations),
      ‘Lucis Trust’ (publisher of Alice Bailey, once called ‘Lucifer Trust’),
      ‘Stanford Research Institute’ (educational material, including a ‘New Age Manifesto’),
      the ‘Lorian Association’ (headed by David Spangler),
      ‘Share International’,
      ‘Tara Center’ (both headed by Benjamin Creme),
      ‘Amnesty International’,
      ‘World Federalists’ (world politics),
      The ‘Networking Institute’ (prominent in the Far East),
      ‘World Goodwill’ (humanitarian aid),
      ‘New Group of World Servers'(social action),
      ‘Whole Earth catalogs’ (environment and nutrition),
      the ‘First Earth Battalion’ (US Military),
      ‘Planetary Citizens’ (global politics),
      the ‘Rainbow Coalition’ (interracial unity),
      New York’s Cathedral of St. John the Divine (interfaith dialog),
      the Pacific Institute (courses for management).
      Prominent individuals who publicly laud the New
      World Order include

      Willie Brant (German ex-chancellor),
      Prof. J. Tinbergen (Nobel Prize winner),
      George Bush (ex-U.S. president), Robert Kennedy (veteran U.S. Senator, former Attorney General),
      Margaret Mead (anthropologist),
      Carl Rogers (psychotherapist),
      Eric Fromm (psychologist),

      New Age “Bibles” (books studied and meticulously applied) include:

      ‘Reappearance of the Christ and the Masters of Wisdom’ (Creme),
      ‘Externalisation of the Hierarchy’ (Bailey) [containing ‘The Plan for the New World Order’],
      ‘The Rays and the Initiations’ (Bailey) [defining the problem of the Jews and orthodox religion],
      ‘The Secret Doctrine’ (Blavatsky) [the Aryan race theory],
      ‘Revelation: the Birth of a New Age’ (Spangler) [describing the ‘Luciferic initiation’ as a NA requirement],
      ‘The Open Conspiracy, Blueprints for a World Revolution’ (Wells),
      ‘The Critical Path’ (Fuller) [plans for undermining orthodox religions by use of computers],
      ‘The Armageddon Script’ (LeMesurier) [plans to stage a “second coming of Christ” to satisfy Christian expectations].

      1. Plans for religion: ”
      1. The reorganisation of world religions – if in any way possible – [including] their out-of-date theologies, their narrow-minded emphasis, and their ridiculous belief… 2. The gradual dissolution – again if in any way possible – of the orthodox Jewish faith, with its obsolete teaching, its separative emphasis… I do not fail to recognize those Jews throughout the world who acknowledge the evils and who are not orthodox in their thinking…[thus all who cling to Jewish identity or Israeli nationhood will be defined as orthodox, not just those who follow Torah] [Bailey and Blavatsky included Jewish Kabbalists among those who have ‘freed themselves from orthodoxy’; more later] 3. Preparation for a revelation which will inaugurate the new era and set the note for the new world religion.” (Alice Bailey, Externalisation of the Hierarchy, pp.453-454) David Spangler, Buckminster Fuller and Foster Bailey (Alice’s husband) confirmed that religious freedom must end in the New Age, to be replaced by a world-state religion.”

      http://web.archivedotorg/web/20010814061645/http:/redmoonrising.com/newman.htm

  • Tom

    I do not excuse what Greenpeace did. It was cheap, shoddy, and dishonest. I agree with the thrust of your article, but legally speaking, you’ll have a hard time making an entrapment case against Greenpeace. They’re slippery enough to know how to wriggle through that hole.

    • Sam Pyeatte

      At the very least they can be exposed as the rats they are.

  • dhjiph8uds

    John Harwood should be horsewhipped. What a freakin jackass.