I've been arguing at WUWT. Quite a few Moyhu posts begin that way, but this time, I've been sin-binned. I must be the first at WUWT to be binned for the offence of querying the accuracy of a Greenpeace publication.
Apparently, I'm still a paid troll. So I guess I should regard it as long service leave :)
Anyway the topic was Patrick Moore. WUWT claims him as a co-founder of Greenpeace. I drew attention to a letter which he wrote in 1971, introducing himself to the “Don’t Make a Wave Committee”, and asking about sailing on the upcoming voyage of the Greenpeace.
Now it seems very odd to me to be writing such a letter to an organisation you are supposed to have founded. Something didn't add up.
So, argument ensued. The principal grievance seems to be that Greenpeace is disowning him because of his change of views, and current activism in contrary causes, as shown by WUWT's enthusiasm for his tour of Australia. More of that later. Greenpeace's currently unfavorable view is expressed here.
Patrick Moore's own view is expressed here. I must say that as an account of the history, it seems to be fair enough (except perhaps to Paul Watson), and obviously he was there. So I quoted almost exclusively from it at WUWT (and here).
Now it is clear that PM has been a significant figure in the earlier years of Greenpeace. GP now says:
"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. "
Origins
There is surprisingly little disagreement about facts. PM also says:"One thing is certain. The Don’t Make a Wave Committee was established by Jim and Marie Bohlen, Paul Cote, and Irving and Dorothy Stowe in 1970.[1]"
And to clarify a point there, he says:
"Part of the continuing debate about who was a founder and who was not has to do with the fact that the Don’t Make a Wave Committee was not called Greenpeace at first but evolved and changed its name to Greenpeace over time."
In fact, on the mechanics of that, the mentioned folk did set up the DMaWC in 1970, and obtained a Certificate of Incorporation in October 1970. That, of course, requires a reasonably settled organisational structure. In 1972, they decided to change their name to the Greenpeace Foundation. From PM:
" This was accomplished simply by changing the name of the Don’t Make a Wave Committee to Greenpeace Foundation.”"
But PM applied in March 1971 for a berth on the "Greenpeace", and the response came with a Greenpeace logo. And when PM said:
"One thing is certain. The Don’t Make a Wave Committee was established by Jim and Marie Bohlen, Paul Cote, and Irving and Dorothy Stowe in 1970."
he followed up with:
"No one can deny this small committee was the seed that grew into Greenpeace."
Joining
Patrick Moore describes his own first encounter with the organisation in terms consistent with the handwritten 1971 letter, to which he links. He says:"On March 14, 1971, the committee publicly announced its plan to sail the Phyllis Cormack to the test site.[3] The Vancouver Sun covered the story the next day including a photo of Jim Bohlen and Paul Cote with the Phyllis Cormack in the background. On the same day, March 15, Bob Hunter wrote a letter of introduction to the Don’t Make a Wave Committee, asking if he could have a berth on the ship.[4] My letter with the same request followed one day later on March 16.[5] The next meeting of the Don’t Make a Wave Committee, in the basement of the Unitarian Church, was attended by about 25 people."
The Phyllis Cormack is the boat he refers to in his letter as the Greenpeace, as did the press.
Co-founders
PM includes this quote:"The late Bob Hunter, one of the most important leaders and communicators in the early years, claimed you could find a Greenpeace founder in nearly any bar in Canada."
In fact, PM is quite explicit about the basis of his claim:
" I was on that old fishing boat, so it is reasonable for me to describe myself as a cofounder of Greenpeace."
Well, the facts are not in dispute, so if you think it is reasonable, then do so. But I don't think it is common usage.
Michael Mann thinks that a large number of people who enabled the award of a Nobel Peace Prize should be called Nobel Laureates. WUWT doesn't like that one. I too think it is not common usage. People do expect more of a "Nobel Laureate" or "Founder of Greenpeace".
Foundering founders
Patrick Moore and his supporters are indignant about being "disappeared" by Greenpeace, as PM expressed here. But PM devotes almost equal enthusiasm to quenching the similar claims of Paul Watson, who diverged to form the Sea Shepherd organisation:"Paul Watson had nothing to do with the creation of Greenpeace International. He was in the room for the meeting, but he was not in the official photograph, likely because he had nothing to do with Greenpeace at the time. He may have signed a piece of paper, but he was not in any way involved in the negotiations or in the terms of the settlement. He has no right to describe himself as a founder of Greenpeace International. But that will likely not deter him."
But here at Sea Shepherd, is an article headed 'Greenpeace Attempts to Make Captain Paul Watson "Disappear"'. It complains in identical terms of Greenpeace having earlier mentioned Watson as a founder, and now not. And yes, he was an early bird:
" I was a founding member of the Don't Make a Wave Committee in 1970 and participated as a crew-member on the first Greenpeace campaign to oppose nuclear testing at Amchitka. Greenpeace states that it was the second expedition but both the Greenpeace and the Greenpeace Too were part of the same expedition. I was on the Greenpeace Too, the ship that was in the Aleutians when the bomb went off."
So what?
Good question. I don't normally get much involved in these credentiallist issues. Clearly Patrick Moore was a dedicated and important member of Greenpeace for many years (as was Paul). And it doesn't really matter if Greenpeace founders are flooding the bars of Canada. But, as at WUWT, if there is argument, I do try to get the facts right. I actually don't have a factual dispute with Patrick Moore. I just think that some other description than founder would properly describe his role. And as he firmly says, there are indeed real founders, who made sure there was a structure and boat for him to apply to.I'm currently on "administrative leave" from WUWT, basically because AW is waving old GP pages which say something different from the current ones. The difference may well be motivated by organisational politics. But that doesn't mean the old ones are right. We actually have accounts from those that were there, including PM himself, which I have followed. Apparently, that is not to be listened to. WUWT normally would give no credence to Greenpeace, but if they hear something they like, it's Holy writ.
Posts
Hi Nick,
ReplyDeleteWould you like to continue this discussion here? I'm easy.
Yes, fine. I'll note something I said at Sou's:
DeleteI also discovered something - PM says "[the DMaWC] recruited a crew of dedicated young environmentalists and antiwar activists, myself among them, to join the committee." It's vague on timing, but tips a little toward him having earlier involvement. Obviously, though, he joined an existing committee. And he doesn't mention anything he did before applying to sail and then attending the meeting of 25.
Like you Nick, I have no dispute what Moore done, has done or what-ever his stance is on AGW/Climate Change. IMHO, the more important issue is why Greenpeace are re-writing there own history of their very existence.
DeleteMoore left in 1986 due to the direction in which GP was starting to head after David McTaggart came onto the scene in 1977-78. McTaggart was more politically minded than the others and things started to shift away from the nuke testing, whale, seal situation of the original Greenpeace to the more political 'environmental' issues such as nuke power and hydro etc.
One thing is for sure Nick, once Moore became involved with the DMAWC, he was heavily involved.
Before I go any further Nick, what is your location as there could be a communication problem. I'm on the east coast of Australia (approx 160k's north of Sydney).
I didn't realise you were down under, Bruce. I'm in Melbourne.
Delete" the more important issue is why Greenpeace are re-writing there own history of their very existence."
DeleteNoting the symmetry of the PM and PW complaints, I think the non-conspiratorial version is that they do want to get their attribution of founder back in line with common usage. PM recognises Cotes, Stowe and Bohlen, and that is what GP has pared it down to. Seems reasonable to me.
Paul Watson was not a founding member of the DMAWC, like Moore he was an 'early' member.
ReplyDeleteOK, I just report what he said. Of course, memories are also uncertain now; I can remember lots of meetings from that time, but not necessarily their timing.
Delete"This is your problem Nick, you now have to argue not with WUWT but with GREENPEACE."
DeleteDo you have a problem with the idea that Greenpeace might sometimes be wrong?
Of course, Greenpeace now prefers to acknowledge a much more limited set of founders. Both Patrick Moore and Paul Watson are complainimg about that in very similar terms.
But the fact is, these pages are not voted on by a plenary meeting of Greenpeace. Some time last century, someone was tasked to write a history page. He/she thought it would be nice to pat a whole lot of people on the back by calling them founders. Again, quoting Moore:
"The History of Greenpeace page begins, “In 1971, motivated by their vision of a green and peaceful world, a small team of activists set sail from Vancouver, Canada, in an old fishing boat. These activists, the founders of Greenpeace (my emphasis), believed a few individuals could make a difference.”[10] I was on that old fishing boat, so it is reasonable for me to describe myself as a cofounder of Greenpeace."
A generous thought, but it makes the term founder rather meaningless. Apparently Greenpeace now wants to reclaim the term for the people Moore acknowledges as the founders; the people who created the original committee, got it incorporated and funded, got a boat and advertised for crew. They weren't advertising for founders.
You don't have to accept what that Greenpeace person said last century, or what some other Greenpeace person or group says now. Patrick Moore has laid out the facts, and you can form your own view. That's what I've invited you to do. But if you want to base the claim on what Greenpeace says, then you have to accept what Greenpeace says.
Anonymous: "There you go again Nick. You must learn to differentiate."
DeleteSO, Anonymous, you are saying that if an organisation changes its name from "A" to "B" then all members of that organisation at the time of that change automatically become founder members.
If you believe that I would suggest you are the one having difficulty in "differentiating"
If you look through the historic materials cited, there are really only two relevant items. One is the person describing in passing the first boat crew as founders. The other is a statement that Moore was either a founder or first member of the DMaWC, and that seems clearly wrong, on his account. No-one apart from some people at WUWT are claiming that the membership at the time of the official name change are all founders. That would populate the bars of Canada.
DeleteIt's much easier to be indignant about a perceived injustice than no injustice at all. Such an elaboration on WUWT allows the 'PM case' to fit into the genre of 'They've seen the light and recanted'. As such, it has a binding and reinforcing effect on the faithful; much like one of the reinforcement techniques used within cults i.e. 'it's us versus the world'.
ReplyDeleteAs to 'finding a Greenpeace founder in any bar in Canada', you can find an All Black trialist on any football field or in any bar in New Zealand.
Why do AW feel the need to pretend you're paid? He's quite happy banning other people (like me) just because he dislikes what I say. Has he got twitchy about the "oil money" stuff recently?
ReplyDeleteps: you've discovered this yourself I think, but a similar conversation is going on at JoNova's (http://www.webcitation.org/6RwCzTXto). Just recently Case Smit has showed up, so I've asked him why they need as much as $100k.
I don't know, but he's been on about it for a long time. He says, basically, lack of any other explanation for frequent posting. Actually, there is a simple explanation. I don't initiate many posts. But when I do, a whole lot of people jump on it, and I do try to respond. As here; just one initial post, and then a whole lot of stuff to respond to.
DeleteIt is odd, because obviously it makes it harder to scoff at the oil money claims.
> when I do, a whole lot of people jump on it
DeleteI found the same thing there, before I was banned. And its the same at JoNova's, now.
As others have started to join in on this 'discussion' (William Connolley) can we please keep this as formal as possible and communicate between ourselves in an adult fashion, hopefully without any sort of references to 'paid shrills' or 'big oil' etc.
ReplyDeleteThis discussion is not about AGW/Climate Change. As Nick stated in his OP, there are issues about this that don't just add-up.
No-one appointed you thread moderator. This discussion is about what people talk about. And since our host brought it up, the question of AW's paranoid fantasies is certainly on-topic. Have you got any idea why he keeps thinking our host is a paid shill?
Delete> as formal as possible
DeleteYou won't be telling people to "just bugger off" on *this* thread, then? You'll reserve that kind of knockabout rudeness for other places where you hope people won't notice?
Bruce,
DeleteSomehow we've been blessed with a reasonable degree of civility on this blog, which I expect to continue. AW raised the unexpected funding that I might receive, and it's very reasonable for William to discuss it. I don't myself speculate on bloggers being funded (I don't believe they are), and I hope others won't. But I'm not going to ban anyone who does. I do encourage sticking to the issues.
For myself, AW's theory is unusual, though there is a florid version here.
No problem William. I'll just bugger-off from here myself.
DeleteSorry Nick, I was hoping to have a civil discussion here, but some one came along and.......well never mind. I'm sure we'll continue this elsewhere.
A carry-over from HotWhopper which answers Nick's query about the Greenpeace logo on Moore's acceptance letter.
ReplyDeleteThe Greenpeace insignia on the letter-head of the DMAWC letter of acceptance sent to Moore was originally concepted by the DMAWC around Feb, 1970 after a meeting when Irving Stowe left the meeting, he flashed the "V" sign and said "Peace." Bill Darnell replied, "make it a green peace." At home later that night, Jim Bohlen sketched a ship with the name Green Peace (two words) on the bow. Marie Bohlen's son, designed a one-inch button with green lettering on a yellow background, with the ecology symbol above, the peace symbol below, and in the middle, the single word: GREENPEACE.
Nick Stokes - This is my first comment on your blog. You've set your place up in a clean style. So congratulations. Although we often have little or no intellectual agreement I have respected your consistent civil demeanor over the years at various blogs. I imagine the demeanor will be the same here at your place.
ReplyDeleteIn your comment @August 19, 2014 at 6:52 PM to Bruce you said "Somehow we've been blessed with a reasonable degree of civility on this blog, which I expect to continue. AW raised the unexpected funding that I might receive, and it's very reasonable for William to discuss it. I don't myself speculate on bloggers being funded (I don't believe they are), and I hope others won't. But I'm not going to ban anyone who does. I do encourage sticking to the issues."
I have no general integrity issues regarding intellectuals (including intellectuals who do climate science blog thread commenting) being compensated for their discussion of ideas or of systemic knowledge or of events. At the same time I have no issues with commenters who naturally are interested in some level of disclosure about whether some other commenters are being paid to make comments in a professional intellectual capacity.
I do not intend insult while I will ask you this direct question. Are you being financially compensated for providing your intellectual services to comment at WUWT or at any other climate science related blog?
John
John,
DeleteYour question has been raised before. The answer is no.
Nick,
DeleteThanks for your quick and direct response.
John
John,
Deleteand thanks for your kind words about the blog.
The WUWT crowd are fond of labelling you as a hair splitter. In general this is because the points you make are too difficult for them to be bothered/able to analyse for themselves so they take the lazy way out and sneer - and, boy, can they sneer - at perceived pedantry.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, though, I feel it is a rather moot point. It seems that Greenpeace were happy to regard him as a founder by virtue of having sailed on the original voyage, and only much later decided that he didn't deserve this distinction.
Bill,
DeleteI'll refer to this response. If you want to describe Moore as a founder, you can either do it by looking at the facts, and his own account is a good source. Or you can cite Greenpeace authority. The trouble is, if you cite Greenpeace as authority, you are stuck with what they say. You can't just take the bits you like.
Nick,
DeleteThe problem is that Greenpeace - or at least people whom it seems to recognise as speaking on its behalf, such as the generous-spirited historian - seem to have been saying different things at different times: Moore describes himself as having been largely erased from Greenpeace's account of its history.
Sorry, I don't wish to harp on about this, but it seems it's a battle that probably can't be won. ON which point, my congratulations to you once again for your indefatigable struggle with the likes of Watts and McIntyre and their disciples. If nothing else you certainly bring out the nasty side in them all, which does something to undermine their cause.
Bill,
Delete"The problem is that Greenpeace - or at least people whom it seems to recognise as speaking on its behalf, such as the generous-spirited historian - seem to have been saying different things at different times"
Yes, they do. But that doesn't resolve whether Moore is a founder. My point is, you either say it's true because Greenpeace says so, in which case you have to go by the current version, or look at the facts independently. I'm doing the latter, with Moore's help.
But I agree it won't get a "consensus" at WUWT. They still have to convince outsiders, though.
Nick,
ReplyDeleteHave you ever seen the vindictiveness, hostility, and general incivility that erupts when an organization based on a commonly held set of religious or political beliefs discovers substantial disagreement between members? It generally resembles an adolescent food fight. That seems to be pretty much what happened within greenpeace, with the 'victors' driving the 'vanquished' from the dining hall. Figuring out the details of exactly what happened in the food fight is too much like picking fly dung out of ground pepper for most people, including me.
Steve Fitzpatrick
Steve,
DeleteIndeed so. In fact, there seems to have been a monster of a fight in Greenpeace late-70's where Moore, on the rise, forced out Watson (W's version). Then later, W sympathisers caused Moore to leave. We're still hearing echoes of that.
But we're also still hearing about Moore the Greenpeace founder, even at Congress, and there are facts available to decide if it's true. I think it's worth looking.
"I think its worth looking."
DeleteHave to disagree on that.
There was apparently a political disagreement about the role of the organization, with Moore wanting to be less strident, and others wanting to be more strident. Moore was driven out. The result is the Greenpeace that exists today. I just don't think the details of how that happened matter very much. Certainly it matters much less than what Greenpeace does today with an annual budget of >US$250 million, dedicated mainly to influencing public policy in specific directions. I think a good argument can be made that Greenpeace's efforts to ban all genetically modified organisms (like yellow rice) is based on nonsensical 'science' and is profoundly immoral, due to the harm it does to poor people... an argument Keith Kloor, to his credit, regularly makes. Of course, some of what the organization does (like fighting overfishing) make perfect sense, but I think the organization is blind to the possibility that what they do, on balance, does real harm. My observation is that most all organizations based on rather extreme political/philosophical views are similarly blind to the harm they do. I expect you disagree.
Steve Fitzpatrick
"is profoundly immoral, due to the harm it does to poor people"
DeleteFitz is spouting more of that confused ideology. The meme essentially states that "greens" place species concerns above human concerns ... unless of course it pertains to wind turbines or solar collectors, which kill too many birds and bats for their liking. In this case, human concerns of maintaining alternative energy sources in the face of declining fossil fuel reserves are down the list in contrast to the greens not being considerate of the animals welfare (boo hoo).
To Fitz and others spouting this dogma, it is more about exercising control and maintaining their authority figure role than anything else.
WHT,
DeleteYour rant here, like most of your blog comments, and all the rubbish you used to write on the oil drum blog, is unworthy of a reasoned response.
SF
Fitz, Hits too close to home, eh? Must hurt.
DeleteG
ReplyDeleteNick
Not that I thought you got paid but it is good to see you confirming this. I hope that lays the matter to rest for once and all
tonyb
I always thought it was too implausible to worry about much. As Eliza Doolittle might have said - "Who'd pay me?"
DeleteI tried to write at WUWT congratulating you on the historic ice post. Much valuable work there. But apparently I am still binned.
My post at WUWT just disappeared when I submitted. But it is now there.
DeleteNick,
DeleteI did not see your comment at WUWT. Are you sure it is still there?
Steve Fitzpatrick
I see it at August 22, 2014 at 5:52 pm
DeleteLooks like iron curtain has come down again. I tried a comment, which would have followed this post at 10.21 am. It's now 4.20 pm there and no show. Again my post just vanished on submission, which seems to mean they are sending it to spam.
DeleteMy post broke no rules and was informative to those who want information. It said:
Mark Addinall says: August 23, 2014 at 9:42 am
"If anyone cares to remember I did that analysis some four years ago. Back when the raw data could still be had over the web. Data has gone."
It hasn't gone. It's all there, as originally reported, at ghcn unadjusted. There is even, normally, a complete accounting, with the effect of GHCN adjustments shown Amberley here. I'm pretty sure you can get unadjusted from BoM too.
Pamela Gray says: August 23, 2014 at 9:58 am
"This is germane to the brief discussion I had with Leif. He asks to be pointed to a temperature record data set used for research purposes that is valid and reliable. My response was that there were none to my knowledge."
Again, GHCN unadjusted has the original data. Go to Daily if you want lots of it. I have an index, TempLS, which works directly from this data.
If it makes you feel better, my comments sometimes get eaten on both WUWT and your blog.
DeleteRe: Greenpeace, have you looked at Rex Weyler's book? From the narrative in that, I'm not sure there are rational grounds for excluding Moore from the list of founders.
Since there isn't an original charter that lists the "founding members", I'd say his input was important in setting the initial philosophical underpinnings of the organization.
In terms of your arguments about the choices, as I see it, the historical perspective is to take the earliest extant version of the document, and stick with it except where you have an objective basis for changing the narrative. Picking a multiply revised version by default would never fly.
Carrick,
Delete"If it makes you feel better, my comments sometimes get eaten on both WUWT and your blog. "
I've commented a lot at WUWT, and had comments go into moderation frequently. But this is different. Not unprecedented - it is the same as the troll bin moderation here. My comments just disappear; the one complimenting Tony surfaced a couple of hours later, but the one about GHCN hasn't shown up.
"Re: Greenpeace, have you looked at Rex Weyler's book?"
I've had it quoted to me. But I was happy to follow Patrick Moore's own account. Do you see differences?
Since there isn't an original charter that lists the "founding members",
I think the original incorporation in Oct 1970 probably serves that role. It probably has a list of office bearers. But the claim isn't "founding member". It is co-founder. And PM recognises just 3 founders of DMaWC.
"the historical perspective is to take the earliest extant version of the document"
Why? This is an actively maintained document. Errors get fixed. The main one that gets quoted is a list including PM among the founders and first members of the DMaWC in 1970, and on his account, that is clearly wrong. He didn't join until after March 16, 1971. They may have been motivated to fix it because of his errancy, but it was wrong.
Nick, you can pick up Rex Weyler's book very cheap (used) if you're interested in a fairly neutral account of the early history.
DeleteWhy? This is an actively maintained document. Errors get fixed.
You are probably aware that memory becomes more distorted over time (people's memory does not behave like snapshots). This alone makes historical revisions that are not based on objectively traceable facts suspect. Even when the time is very short, different accounts of the same events can lead to very disparate perspectives. This of course is well known, and why the accounts of individuals (including Moore) need to be viewed with digression.
Earlier versions of documents are more likely to be accurate than newer ones, which can be driven by memory distortion, politics, and so forth. So the idea that the newest one is automatically the most authoritative one is both naive and counter to the normal practice of historians, which is as I say, to select the earliest extant version of a document, such as a history of the founding of an organization.
The main one that gets quoted is a list including PM among the founders and first members of the DMaWC in 1970, and on his account, that is clearly wrong.
I get that individuals recollections are not likely to be accurate. Moore is no exception to that. However, Don't Make a Wave was founded to stop nuclear testing in Amchitka. Greenpeace has much broader goals and perspective.
Since Don't Make a Wave is not "Greenpeace" (it is more global in extent in its goals and operations), you need the founding date of Greenpeace, not just an earlier organization with different scope, size and goals that eventually morphed into Greenpeace.
The question is, what is the earliest date you can find to the name "Greenpeace"? If you can find the organization mentioned by name in historical documents that preceded March 16, 1971, you have a valid argument that Moore is wrong. If you can find a definitive date where the name change occurred (Rex Weyland's book, or even Rex---he's on the internet---might be a useful resource there), that should serve as the founding date.
Carrick,
DeleteYes, memories do 'change' over time (get the account of what happened from both spouses 20 years after a divorce!). In an organization based on political beliefs, the temptation to 'change history' to hew to the organization's current objectives seems overwhelming, and rarely resisted.
Steve Fitzpatrick
Carrick,
DeleteI think you need to catch up with some of the material here. We do have early documents that are definitive. I tabled a copy of Moore's handwritten letter March 1971 asking about sailing on the Greenpeace. Below it is the response, with a Greenpeace logo. I also tabled a certificate of incorporation of the "Don't Make a Wave Committee", October 1970. Since the particular statement in the old Greenpeace page that AW waved at me listed him among the founders and first members of DWaMC, that is clearly wrong, without relying on remembered dates.
Moore says of the transition:
"One thing is certain. The Don’t Make a Wave Committee was established by Jim and Marie Bohlen, Paul Cote, and Irving and Dorothy Stowe in 1970."
"No one can deny this small committee was the seed that grew into Greenpeace."
The name change is documented; a certificate of incorporation in May 72 (I haven't seen it, but am told by those who have).
" This was accomplished simply by changing the name of the Don’t Make a Wave Committee to Greenpeace Foundation.”
The thing is, it is Moore's claim that he is a co-founder. And as I say above, it's based on the fact that someone writing on a Greenpeace pagesaid that everyone on the first boat should be regarded as a founder. That's not a memory issue. It's a meaning of words issue. The view that his claim is based on the change of name to GP isn't supported by anyone's memory, or any documents.
SteveF,
DeleteThe thing is, it's Moore who's claiming that he's a founder. No-one else with relevant memories is, And Moore's memory doesn't support it. So what have we got?
Nick: I'm not sure what I'm catching up on. We both agree that the objective evidence is that Moore was not a member of "Don't Make a Wave Committee". Bur Greenpeace is not the "Don't Make a Wave Committee". It is a different organization with a different scope and objectives than the Don't Make a Wave Committee. So not being a founding member of Don't Make a Wave Committee does not establish that you were not a founding member of Greenpeace.
DeleteIf you accept that Greenpeace was founded in 1972 (calling it just a "name change" is simply not an accurate description) and that Moore joined the movement that became Greenpeace prior to its founding, then you have no objective basis for saying that Moore could not have been a founding member of the later organization that grew out of the seed of the actions of the earlier organization (which nobody denies he participated in).
It becomes a question of whether Moore's input and activities within the organization were influential in the transformation of the goals of the organization from its earlier focus on stopping nuclear testing on Amchitka to the objectives of the newer organization. So this isn't at all question of the meaning of words, but rather matter of judging whether Moore's contributions to the group that participated in the activities proceeding the founding of Greenpeace, putatively in 1972, were significant enough for him to be regarded as a founding member of the newer organization.
It is well established that earlier versions of the official history of Greenpeace did include Moore was a founding member of Greenpeace, and only after the schism between Moore and the other members of Greenpeace was his name removed. In the absence of objective information that would not have been known prior to the writing of the earlier histories then I think we must view the "writing him out of the history" as not being based on an improved understanding of events that occurred decades previously.
While we cannot know the motivation behind the rewriting of history that occurred decades after the establishment of Greenpeace, it is a fact it occurred and it does not appear to be based on new information.
So there's absolutely no reason to accept the newest version of the document as canonical, a point that seems missed by you.
I know! Lets repeat all the arguments that people have already gone through, that would be a really good idea.
DeleteDo you know? Doubt it.
DeleteCarrick,
Delete"It is a different organization with a different scope and objectives than the Don't Make a Wave Committee."
There's no evidence of that. PM says it was just a name change. The funds were passed on. The relevant quote from PM is
"Part of the continuing debate about who was a founder and who was not has to do with the fact that the Don’t Make a Wave Committee was not called Greenpeace at first but evolved and changed its name to Greenpeace over time"
Yes, the organisation evolved. But it would have done with or without the name change. It seems in fact that the name change just followed practice - the voyages got a lot of publicity and were referred to as Greenpeace voyages.
"significant enough for him to be regarded as a founding member of the newer organization"
Goalpost shifting here. He's claiming to be a co-founder.
But even if you regard the name change in 1972 as a new founding, there is no evidence that Moore was anything but a foot soldier at the time.
Nick: "It is a different organization with a different scope and objectives than the Don't Make a Wave Committee."
DeleteThere's no evidence of that.
The fact they objectively have very different scope and objectives is certainly undeniable evidence of that.
Yes, the organisation evolved.
Yes. It evolved into a different organization with different goals and different lead personnel.
Goalpost shifting here. He's claiming to be a co-founder.
A co-founder of what exactly? Greenpeace or DMAWC? What's the exact quote? But it's not goal shifting from my perspective, because it's incredibly obvious that DMAWC existed before Moore's involvement.
I see Moore as an important transformational force that helped turned the DMAWC into the more globally focused Greenpeace organization that it evolved into.
But even if you regard the name change in 1972 as a new founding, there is no evidence that Moore was anything but a foot soldier at the time.
Rex Weyler's book contains evidence that Moore was more than a foot soldier, so yes actually there is evidence.
Carrick,
Delete"What's the exact quote?"
The exact quote from the WUWT post was
" a climate tour being organized in Australia with Dr. Patrick Moore, Greenpeace co-founder turned climate skeptic."
From your reading, who do you think should be called "Greenpeace co-founder"?
Carrick,
Delete"it's incredibly obvious that DMAWC existed before Moore's involvement."
Saying that was my binning offense.
Nick: From your reading, who do you think should be called "Greenpeace co-founder"?
DeleteActually I'm comfortable relying on the people in Greenpeace to make that judgement for me. What they say is:
There's a joke that in any bar in Vancouver, Canada, you can sit down next to someone who claims to have founded Greenpeace. In fact, there was no single founder: name, idea, spirit and tactics can all be said to have separate lineages. Yet, some people clearly stand out. Here are four of them.
There's a similar joke in Hollywood about meeting "actors" at bars….
Originally there were five that were listed, the fifth being Patrick Moore. If you read Weyler's book, you'll get a perspective on what Moore brought to the table with him. I think it's reasonable to include him, and it's my bet it's the virulent disagreement between Moore and Greenpeace over issues like AGW, logging and GM crops that led to his name being removed, not a desire for improved historical accuracy.
ReplyDeleteNick
Thanks for your comment over at WUWT about my sea ice article
I hope you continue to contribute to WUWT as it is only by having dissenting voices that we can open up the discussion and tackle those areas of uncertainty
tonyb
i strongly agree with this sentiment and have to admit to disappointment regarding the stance taken by wuwt in this instance . this may also be the first occasion i have ever agreed with mr connolley, regarding your attempt to provide the unadjusted data . a funny old situation all round .
DeleteIs all a bit ironic. They claim to want the unadjusted data. You keep pointing them at it. They keep banning anyone who can give them a clue. Its almost as though they want to maintain the idea that this data isn't available in order to keep the masses pumped up.
ReplyDeleteI see this often. A post starts with a plot of unadjusted vs adjusted data, and then a litany of complaints about how the unadjusted data has been done away with.
Delete