The following is a slightly improved GOOGLE-translation of the Danish post, found on

Greenpeace has seen itself as the international voice for the protection of nature and people.
Often, their struggle has been legitimate, but unfortunately it must be noted that they also have struggled against self-invented ghosts and sometimes used methods not worthy of an organization wanting to be regarded as being honest.
Primarily this is seen in the fight against nuclear power and against GMO crops.
At least here you can see how this merciless struggle has caused great harm, both to the environment and to poor people’s living conditions.
In the following, I refer to these two causes.

In addition there is a section on demonstrations, which in my view, went rampant.
Finally, there is little about defectors: Senior figures – most from Greenpeace – who saw how what they initially believed was harmful to humanity – Actually is the road to protecting the climate and to better life for people.

The fight against nuclear

Usually, the ‘information’ from Greenpeace is so vague that it is not possible to point out factually wrong information.

On this website (in the Danish language) ”Safe nuclear power is a myth “ Greenpeace – probably accidentally – come to write something that promotes the attentive reader to point out how factually incorrect ‘information’ is presented as indisputable facts.

For details I refer to another post: Greenpeace and Nuclear.

If you read this post, it is easy to see that a heavy responsibility restes on the shoulders of Greenpeace and other no-sayers.


It is impossible to say whether any GMO at all could be potentially damaging to the environment.

It depends of course on the actual GMO. Therefore it is totally irresponsible to cut everything together.
The starting point is that millions of people – perhaps an entire billion – are using GMOs in their daily food, with no apparent harm.
In relation to this, I want to mention that it has not been possible to find factual information on specific cases of claimed injuries caused by use of GMO
Of course, it must be emphasized strongly that the use of GMOs has never prevented the use of other crops.

For details I refer to another post: Greenpeace and GMO.


Apparently it is in such a way, that the livelihood of several “green organizations” depends on them to appear as those protecting humanity from something dangerous.
If there can not be found a factual danger to protect against against, so an imaginary danger can very well be used – as elaborated in the above links.

At the same time it must be understood that it will be a political death sentence for a politician, if he be accused of exposing people to danger. So, better to howl with the wolves you are surrounded by.

This, at last, is clearly seen by the prolonged evacuations in Japan and, more homely by the ridiculous discussion about the nuclear waste from the abandoned Danish nuclear test site at Risø.
That way I come to the burning question:
Is it possible to think clearly and beat some cold water into the blood?


Greenpeace Klatretur

Many of the demonstrations officially launched by Greenpeace have been on the edge of the permissible and can perhaps best be described as children’s illegal game.

A large demonstration in Peru degenerated into beginning destruction of a historical memory.
Greenpeace first tried to prevent a subsequent lawfully aftermath.

Drabsforsøg på politiBy all accounts, Greenpeace has been behind many, almost ridiculous, attempt of vandalism or have been behind the demonstrations that have become coarse attacks on experimental fields of GM crops.

In one case even the attempted murder of police.


It is very rare to see how determined activists in political or environmental organizations change their mind, and have the courage to realize that they have cheated themselves and others to follow a false ideology.

In politics, I have only two examples.

Axel Larsen Aksel Larsen was the leading activist in the Danish Communist organization and one of those who risked their lives in the struggle against Nazism.
He broke with ‘all the old’ in 1956 after the Soviet invasion of Hungary.
After being almost friendless, he returned to politics under a democratic banner.

Mikhail Gorbatjov Grobachevwas almost born, or at least brought up to believe in the Soviet system. Later, he had the courage to initiate a fundamental change.
Here I think about both the moral and personal courage.

So far I can only refer to three prominent members of Greenpeace, who have left the organization in protest.

Patric Moore was one of the founders of Greenpeace and was elected president of the Greenpeace Foundation in early 1977. Later he left the organization, to criticize its anti-human agenda and development with the statement:Patric More
“In the mid-1980s, this environmental movement abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism.”
Moore was active against nuclear energy in the 1970s, when he thought that:
“Nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear bombs and the Holocaust” and
“Everything with nuclear was evil.”
Since he came to support nuclear.

Stephen Tindale was Executive Director of Greenpeace in England until 2005.
Along with three others who also was active in environmental organizations: Chris Smith, Mark Lynas and Chris Goodall. Now he strongly recommends nuclear.

Paul Watson was active as crew and skipper aboard several of Greenpeace’s travels in the mid-1970s. He considers himself as a co-founder of Greenpeace.
In 1977 he was expelled from Greenpeace and formed Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, which fights for animal rights, especially the protection of whales.

Several other prominent environmental environmentalists, who first took part in the fight against all that just contains the word ‘Atom’, has since actively supported nuclear power as a solution to the human need for energy and protect the environment.

Mark Lynas, is an English journalist and a known previous anti-GMO activist, mostly focused on issues related to climate change.
He now criticizes Greenpeace and other organizations with which he was previously associated and is sorry to have led to the destruction experimental fields of GM crops.
In January 2012 he wrote in defense of the nuclear power he had previously fought with the words: “- – – that’s why I want more nuclear power, to prevent further releases of CO2”

James Lovelock announced in 2005 his support for nuclear power, with the statement:
“I am a Green, and I ask my friends in the green movement to drop their mindless opposition to nuclear”.

Stewart Brand suggested among other things that environmentalists should embrace nuclear power and GMOs as technologies that provide more benefits than risks.

George Monbiot is known for his work as anGeorge Morbiot
environmentalist and political activist. He has written that climate change is
“The moral question of the 21st century”.
Monbiot originally expressed deep aversion to nuclear energy and related industries.
He has, however, had other ideas and advocates now for its use.
He became convinced of nuclear energy’s relative safety after what he describes as the limited damage at reactors after the earthquake and tsunami in Japan.
Thus, he later strongly condemned anti-nuclear movements and has written:
“It has misled the world about the impacts of radiation on human health and made claims ungrounded in science, unsupportable when challenged and wildly wrong”.

Hugh Montefiore acted as trustee for the Friends of the Earth for two decades, but was forced to resign in 2004, after expressing support for nuclear power as a means of preventing climate change.

Below mentioned are few of the many others who initially were against nuclear power and GM, but later saw how these technologies should have a prominent role in the work against climate change and malnutrition.

Carol Browner
James Lovelock
Stewart Brand
Christine Todd Whitman
James Hansen
Baroness Worthington
Gwyneth Cravens
Richard Rhodes
Michael Shellenberger
Ben Heard


In a way, I was sorry to write this ‘Bull’. On the other hand, I can say that as time has passed and I have seen so much, that at best is obvious nonsense, then something must be done.

As it can be seen from the above, I am interested in nuclear power and has written a little more on
Most in order to wash away some of the mud that has been thrown on this power source.
In relation to the many conflicting peices of “information” about radioactivity, especially radon, I have written the following:

If you, my unknown reader, should have any, hopefully constructive, comments I ask you to write to me.
Yours impatiently waiting
Thorkil Søe