And the whore awoke and turned to him, sleepily, and said: “I had an awful dream in which you were unfaithful to me with another woman.”
More than 107 Nobel-Prize-winning scientists have signed a letter urging—oh, come on, pleading—with Greenpeace to end its worldwide opposition to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Pleading not in the name of science, however, but humanitarian concern for millions of children in the “developing” nations who go blind, and then die, of Vitamin-A deficiency.
The world’s top scientists are upset with Greenpeace, the worldwide nonprofit organization, with an annual budget of almost a quarter-of-a-billion Euros, which started in Vancouver in 1970 to defend “nature” against human beings. I mean, by that, to oppose, at every step, mankind’s use of reason, science, technology, engineering, and industry to adapt nature to satisfying man’s needs. To Greenpeace, this made man the freak of the Universe because all other species survive by adapting themselves to nature or dying out. Greenpeace co-founder, Dr. Patrick Moore, told Savvy Street: “When I left Greenpeace 15 years later they, and much of the environmental movement, were portraying humans as the enemies of the earth … I had to leave.”
Many of the world’s leading scientists are disappointed with Greenpeace. More than 107 Nobel-Prize-winning scientists have signed a letter urging—oh, come on, pleading—with Greenpeace to end its worldwide opposition to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Pleading not in the name of science, however, but humanitarian concern for millions of children in the “developing” nations who go blind, and then die, of Vitamin-A deficiency. These children, say the Nobelists, could be saved if Greenpeace did not block a genetically engineered strain of rice, called “Golden Rice,” that would supply the deficiency. Not surprisingly, still courageously combatting the organization he helped to found, Patrick Moore is a leading advocate and proponent of Golden Rice.
“We urge Greenpeace and its supporters to re-examine the experience of farmers and consumers worldwide with crops and foods improved through biotechnology, recognize the findings of authoritative scientific bodies and regulatory agencies, and abandon their campaign against ‘GMOs’ in general and Golden Rice in particular,” the letter states.
Read this further excerpt from the letter sent to Greenpeace. It would seem to tug at the conscience:
“Greenpeace has spearheaded opposition to Golden Rice, which has the potential to reduce or eliminate much of the death and disease caused by a vitamin A deficiency (VAD), which has the greatest impact on the poorest people in Africa and Southeast Asia.
“The World Health Organization estimates that 250 million people, suffer from VAD, including 40 percent of the children under five in the developing world. Based on UNICEF statistics, a total of one to two million preventable deaths occur annually as a result of VAD, because it compromises the immune system, putting babies and children at great risk. VAD itself is the leading cause of childhood blindness globally affecting 250,000 – 500,000 children each year. Half die within 12 months of losing their eyesight.”
Nothing that man has created “occurs naturally.” Get off your butt and make a list, with the heading: “All I Have that Improves My Health, Comfort, Longevity, and Enjoyment of Life that is Not Found in Nature.”
Well, you old farts! Didn’t you ever read and grasp the mission of Greenpeace? You don’t have to hack the organization to find it. Greenpeace’s international web site will tell you. GMOs represent “genetic pollution.” Anything man creates is pollution:
“Genetic engineering enables scientists to create plants, animals and micro-organisms by manipulating genes in a way that does not occur naturally.” [Emphasis added.]
Well, nothing that man has created “occurs naturally.” Should I really list, for you, the grand parade of unnatural human progress? Get off your butt and make a list, with the heading: “All I Have that Improves My Health, Comfort, Longevity, and Enjoyment of Life that is Not Found in Nature.”
Now, the story gets so funny that you could puke. The Washington Post writes:
“Nobel laureate Randy Schekman, a cell biologist at the University of California at Berkeley, told The Post, ‘I find it surprising that groups that are very supportive of science when it comes to global climate change…can be so dismissive of the general views of scientists when it comes to something as important as the world’s agricultural future.’”
Greenpeace is surprisingly consistent in its principles. What is not “natural,” what is created by man through science and technology, is Greenpeace’s enemy. Arguably, the ideologues of Greenpeace are the instigators and driving force behind the entire “global warming/climate change” crusade. The argument is that anthropogenic CO2 through a complex and highly-controversial process is causing a steady warming of the Earth’s mean atmospheric temperature that threatens the survival of mankind on our planet. What is not “natural” here? The Industrial Revolution, both the one that made possible today’s most prosperous, advanced societies, and those today in countries, like China and India, striving to achieve the health, prosperity, and longevity of the United States, Europe, and Japan.
But the scientific case for “global warming” has faltered, weighed down by endless predictions proved wrong: climate models that do not predict next year’s—never mind the next century’s—climate; and the abrupt halt in “global warming” in 1998. But the scientists involved, caught up in the ideology and immense political clout of Greenpeace, go on insisting that, if not “global warming”—now discredited—then “climate change”—mandates that we shut down the motor of our prosperity: the fossil-fuel energy industry. In fact, that always was the goal of Greenpeace, which never cared about the science.
The ideology driving the failed “global warming/climate change” hypothesis is that mankind’s conquest of nature, via the Industrial Revolution, must be halted and reversed at any cost. That is the mantra of the Old Left and New Left and the principle of the environmental as contrasted with the “conservation” movement: Science, technology, engineering, and industry are man’s weapons against the natural. Man and his means of survival are unnatural.
If Greenpeace’s mission is unraveling the market economy, with the consequences of that for all of us, why would it care for a few millions of miserable children who could be saved from blindness and early death by genetically modified “Golden Rice”?
How can the doubtless well-meaning Nobelists hope, now, to enlist Greenpeace in the cause of scientific modification of the very genetics of the “natural world” to save a few million blind and dying children in Africa and Asia? Greenpeace, advancing beneath the banner of the “natural,” is prepared to watch you die.
On the battlefield of global warming, too many scientists have done the bidding of Greenpeace; too many cooperate in destroying any scientist who opposes Greenpeace. To me, it is chilling to see the Nobelists, in their plea to Greenpeace, appeal to “…the findings of authoritative scientific bodies.” Do you think Greenpeace isn’t laughing? Where were you when the leadership of the world’s great scientific bodies, such as the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, issued a report backing the conclusions of the U.N. International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)? And when the world’s oldest state-sponsored organization, the U.K. Royal Society, declared for the cause, violating its ancient policy “never to give their opinion as a body” because science is decided not by consensus but by evidence? Do you think Greenpeace doesn’t now know you can be bought and sold?
How can the doubtless well-meaning Nobelists hope, now, to enlist Greenpeace in the cause of scientific modification of the very genetics of the “natural world” to save a few million blind and dying children in Africa and Asia?
Greenpeace, advancing beneath the banner of the “natural,” is prepared to watch you die.