Greenpeace is an uncompromising and an ideologic,  not realistic, organisation and are extremist.  The problem with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence. So you have to mold the evidence to get the answer that you've already decided you've got to have. You know all the answers and that makes evidence irrelevant and arguments a waste of time. You tend to govern by assertion and attacks.

Supposedly one of the major crusades of Greenpeace is climate change but they persist in ignoring that nuclear power is by far the greenest source of energy. There are other sources of energy that emit less greenhouse gases but they cannot handle the capacity and the next best energy source for producing energy with the least CO2 emission is natural gas with 443gCO2e/kWh compared to Nuclear' 66gCO2e/kWh.  Sadly when countries decide to abandoned nuclear power they don't replace it with renewable energy,  that is impossible,  they replace it with coal or natural gas.   Greenpeace in Germany acknowledged that their CO2 levels would rise because of the closure of nuclear plants but stated Germany has the right to increase its greenhouse emissions because they surpassed the Kyoto Protocol targets in 2010. Greenpeace are stuck on the outdated political idealist belief that dates back to the cold war and their narrow minded ways ignored the incredible increase in dirty coal, oil and gas that now supplies around 85% of the world energy.  

There have been many who were activists or were in Greenpeace who changed their stand on nuclear power and supported it but have had to leave in frustration.  Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace,  accused his former colleagues of being out of touch,  ignorant of facts and heavily involved in fear mongering regarding nuclear power. He left Greenpeace in 1986 and began actively working and promoting nuclear power in the 1990's.  Greenpeace have done their best to discredit him and play down his role as co-founder of their organisation. Patrick Moore said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal: 

"At first, many of the causes we championed, such as opposition to nuclear testing and
protection of whales, stemmed from our scientific knowledge of nuclear physics and
marine biology. But after six years as one of five directors of Greenpeace International, I
observed that none of my fellow directors had any formal science education. They were
either political activists or environmental entrepreneurs. Ultimately, a trend toward
abandoning scientific objectivity in favor of political agendas forced me to leave
Greenpeace in 1986."

The clincher for Moore was when his colleagues decided that Greenpeace’s policy would be to ban chlorine. “How can you ban a naturally occurring element?” Moore wanted to know. An element, he added, which when added to water systems in tiny quantities was responsible for the biggest advance in the history of public health, virtually eradicating cholera.*

Greenpeace had the pesticide DDT banned for 30 years because it contained toxins (which it was supposed to in order to kill pesticides and diseases from malaria to the bubonic plague).  In 2006, the World Health Organization acknowledged that while DDT was dangerous, but what was far more dangerous was disease. Today Greenpeace admit that DDT is a life saving product but how many people had to die in order for them to be satisfied or convinced. In Sri Lanka malaria cases went from 2,800,000 in 1948, before the introduction of DDT, down to 17 in 1964 after DDT was approved then back up to 2,500,000 by 1969 after DDT use was discontinued.  DDT has been conservatively credited with saving some 100 million lives and its banning resulted in millions of unnecessary deaths.

Greenpeace are opposed to genetically modified (GM) foods but give no reason or proof of an argument. GM foods can allow millions of starving people in the world to have food and much needed nutrients and vitamins (GM foods contain extra nutrients and vitamins).  GM crops also provide greater productivity and ability to deal with water shortages.

Every scientific study in the world including the Mexican, Indian, Chinese, American,  Brazilian, the Royal Society, the European Society have all examined the safety of GM foods and their conclusion is always the same,  that it is safe.  In the 13 years of their growth and consumption there is no evidence of harm to human health or harm to the environment.  Yet Greenpeace still continue to keep their hands over their ears and keep saying it's yet to be proved safe.

In the past Greenpeace has claimed responsibility for illegally breaking and entering and destroying GM crops. Environmentalist hysteria spread by Greenpeace regarding GM foods has prompted a number of African countries to ban food aid because it may contain GM corn. Desperate Africans have broken into government silos to take GM food aid donated by other countries that is being denied them. Yet you can go into any supermarket in these countries and buy Kellogg's corn flakes and hundreds of other prepared foods that contain GM ingredients. There are no restrictions on these foods. The people who can afford to buy them do so; yet the people too poor to purchase their next meal are denied the same foods.

Stephen Tindale, the former director of Greenpeace from 2001-2005 ,who changed his anti-nuclear stance to pro-nuclear because he saw the world had to hurry up and build more nuclear  plants before climate change worsened.  He slowly realised that any significant impact on climate change could not be done without nuclear power.   Reknown scientist James Lovelock wrote "...we have no time to experiment with visionary energy sources; civilisation is in imminent danger and has to use nuclear [...] now or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged planet".

Robert Stone,  a former anti-nuclear movie director (see movie Radio Bikini 1988) converted to pro-nuclear (see movies Earth Days  2009,  Pandora's Promise  2012), stated:

 “I really discovered there was a lot of cynicism and fatalism and apocalyptic thinking on the part of most of the environmentalists.  They really didn’t think that their solutions were ever going to work, and we were really all doomed. I don’t want to think that way.

"Pandora’s Promise” offers an opportunity to speak to leading scientists, environmentalists, scientists, activists and journalists, who had been fiercely anti-nuclear most of their lives, but then changed their minds. I wanted the film to be told through the eyes of people who were anti-nuclear and changed their minds. And I wanted to have them address why they were anti-nuclear.”

Famed environmentalist Bill McKibben accepts that nuclear must be part of any serious push towards zero-carbon, but admits being reluctant to say so in public as “it would split this movement”. And that is the nub of the matter. Environmentalists have done such a thorough job of demonising nuclear energy that many now feel unable to retreat from these positions without serious loss of face.  Anti-nuclear advocates also react defensively to opposing views because it threatens their tribal view and their self-identity.

When Greenpeace make their policies they rarely change them, even when proven right or wrong.  They see it as a marketing campaign and spread propaganda and conveniently delete and ignore arguments to the contrary.  It is no longer for the sake of saving the rain forests or saving the ozone layer but of politics and self righteousness and comes down to "my fear is more important than the facts". They won't provide facts but create a propaganda video with sinister audio, images turned to black & white ,  people crying or in pain and they will leave it to your fears and imagination alone to interpret the causes.  Some of the video images I saw were from the people left homeless from the earthquake and tsunami and had nothing to do with the Fukushima plant.  Rather than proving their point with facts they attempt to hide facts that contradict their ends and simply give a two or three word slogan for their supporters to chant.

Charities like Greenpeace rely on donations and no one is going to give money for a cause,  such as saving the polar bears,  when they will survive another 10,000 years.  They have to manufacture a sense of imminent crisis,  that the polar bears will start dying next year unless you give them money,  and then the crisis will be averted.  I can remember at my school in grade 6 we had a man from some environmental agency come speak to us children about recycling, nature and the environment.  The one thing that remained in my mind was that he said by the year 2000 there would be no more oil left in the world. US President Jimmy Carter said in 1978 that "if we didn't start looking for synthetic fuels we would run out of oil by 1990." Its 2012 and I am still filling up my car and doing oil changes.  I remember hearing the coral reef in Australia would be gone by 2008 as I remember thinking of paying a visit beforehand but it appears to still be there.

The BBC did an interview with the director of Greenpeace, Gerd Leipold,  regarding the 1995 Shell  Brent-Spar oil rig controversy where Greenpeace apologized for lying and making false claims (even though their aims of getting publicity had been achieved, at the expense of the environment). Leipold defended his position by saying: “We as a pressure group have to emotionalise issues and we’re not ashamed of emotionalising issues.”  

If you do give donations to Greenpeace just be aware that their cause is for left-wing political and anti-capitalism goals and the PR campaigns with fluffy animals is purely a front for generating money.  This has been the case since the fall of the Berlin wall when the motives of Greenpeace moved from social and environmental issues to political,  even though they lost touch with reality a decade before that.

Barry Cohen,  former left wing Australian Federal Labor Environment minister 1983-1987,  stated in an interview on the Bolt Report (TV, 2011):

"I have had a lot of dealings with them [Greenpeace]. They're not the same as they were when I was minister,  they had a lot more people who were genuinely concerned about the environment.... the problem is with the collapse of communism the left wing of the Labor party have infiltrated the greens and to a great degree control it."

Maurice Strong, U.N. environmental leader, IPCC creator and Greenpeace supporter,  stated in 1992: "Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse." Ever since 1990 the primary goal of Greenpeace is this very idea,  the destruction of capitalism.

A lot of activists hide behind conspiracy theories which gives them a license to say what they like and simply dismiss facts and evidence  to the contrary with the "cover up" excuse. "Unfortunately I can't prove what I'm saying because 'they' have covered it up".  "They" or the men in the shadows have been a great help to organisations like Greenpeace who use them whenever convenient.  It's the way they can make facts disappear.  Whenever a report comes out that proves there is no significant dangers of loss of life from Chernobyl it is automatically labelled a cover up without them even glancing at the evidence (look at an interview between Dr Caldicott and George Monbiot when Caldicott (ardent anti-nuclear) states she believes several agencies are in a conspiracy but when queried she didn't realize there was a UN Scientific Committee (UNSC) report).  One second she is uncertain and doubts the UNSC is "involved" in the cover up but as soon as she is told they have made a report that doesn't support her claims she slams them as liars and involved in the cover up without hesitation.  Meanwhile she promotes a New York Academy of Sciences report that claims millions died from Chernobyl but it hasn't been peer reviewed and was initiated and edited by Greenpeace.  Even the New York Academy of Sciences denies it has reviewed or checked facts of the publication.  Douglas Braaten, the Director and Executive Editor (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences),  stated

 “In no sense did Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences or the New York Academy of Sciences commission this work; nor by its publication do we intend to independently validate the claims made in the translation or in the original publications cited in the work. The translated volume has not been peer-reviewed by the New York Academy of Sciences, or by anyone else.” 

Facts for these people are nothing but a distraction from the story.

Another tactic they use to mute contradictory arguments is to lay a guilt trip.  It's like the people that collect money for a charity and if you say "no" they reply with something like "oh....don't you care about the children?".  And it is usually your children and family  that they use, such as "do you want your children growing up with nuclear radiation everywhere". It is a religion to them and anyone with another opinion is a monster and those who agree are the righteous ones.

British environmental scientist James Lovelock stated

"It's just the way the humans are that if there's a cause of some sort, a religion starts forming around it. It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion. I don't think people have noticed that, but it's got all the sort of terms that religions use. The greens use guilt. You can't win people round by saying they are guilty for putting CO2 in the air."

An article carried by the official Greenpeace website written by a Greenpeace member from India who calls himself "Gene" urges climate activists to resort to criminal activity in an effort to reinvigorate momentum for their stalling global warming agenda, while ominously threatening climate skeptics, “we know where you are, we know where you live,  we know where you work”.  Greenpeace didn't retract the article but deleted the threatening pieces and tried to explain away the behavior by saying the author means well and only wants to use peaceful actions. 

Greenpeace can’t get enough support/power democratically so break the laws like spoilt children throwing a temper tantrum because they don’t get what they want.  Greenpeace has a political party in a lot of countries,  so what if the Republican Party in the US doesn’t agree with a policy of the Democrats in government,  can they break into the Whitehouse and set fire to the building. Would you approve if the Republicans or Democrats acted in this same way?  Or has Greenpeace got a license to use violence if things don’t go their way because “they mean well”?   If they are always right why can’t they use the facts to prove their case and get support from the community and government like everyone else does.

It's like the old saying goes -
"If you're not a rebel by the age of 20, you got no heart, but if you haven't turned establishment by 30, you've got no brains"

* Watermelons,  The Green Movements True Colors,  By James Delingpole,  2011