I think you are over reacting mate. There was absolutely nothing wrong in this little stint that GP cooked up. I was very funny and well worth the effort and it also highlighted the issue.

I dont see any misleading of anyone. The stint unfolded and now is there for all to see. Nobody has been missled.

Get off your high horse mate and start helping address the Global Warming issue here in the NS. Something you have been terrible at.

Considering how GW is going to impact the working class and women's and kids rights and future I would have thought that this would have been a big issue for NS. Just cant understand why it isn't?

Does The New Statesman still rely on revenue from Shell advertising? If it does, I need say no more.

Hi Martin,

Can you be absolutely certain that these sorts of activities aren't actually both legitimate and more effective as a means of activism? If the end result is that people think more carefully about what they believe, the extent to which they can be manipulated, that's a positive result. If the short-term result is that people focus more critically on the activities of Shell, believing them to be incompetent, that's a positive result. I wonder how that weighs against this unquantifiable number of people who previously trusted Greenpeace (an organisation well known for activism which verges on the extreme) suddenly feeling that they're 'the bad guys'. When I look at the people above criticising the organisation, I don't get the sense that any of them are prior supporters who have been let down.

Not many people believe hoaxing and trickery is de facto evil. The moral trickster is a well known figure in folklore and the idea of a piss-taking prank is something the British seem inherently warm towards. Plus, it runs interference on Shell's attempts to control its own image. That's a very important function if you ask me.

Do you want the Arctic to survive? Homes for polar bears, narwhals and other polar-dependant animals to survive? Then why drag all this over, except to make a few points against a body which is trying - literally - to keep the Arctic pristine for all the world - and world health and climate stability.
I don't read much criticism against sHell's Arctic plans in your article...what a strange way of looking at the situation - just like the police, who arrested a polar bear, no mention of the destruction sHell's actions will bring......

I think the legal letters are very wrong. But as for the campaign itself, I don't see it as any more dishonest than most advertising ventures.

The problem with the green movement is that it wants to have its cake and eat it too.

It started as a fringe element of modern society. That meant that it attracted true believers, extremists who will do anything if it furthers the cause, a neo-religious zealotry that accepts and supports radical action in furtherance of the central tenets of the faith.

As the movement has become more mainstream over subsequent decades, many of those original leaders have become anointed saints of the movement, the insightful few who saw it coming. Some have moderated their views to avoid alienating the majority, while others have not, but even the moderates cannot bring themselves to disown the radicals completely. And from time to time, the radicals come up with an idea that - in hindsight - is ridiculous, extreme, and so over-the-top that it cannot fail to alienate the cause's popular support, and convinces the moderates that it is worthwhile. The result is a PR disaster.

At the same time, the environmental movement has become big business. Green credentials are vital to popular support, and the self-imposed arbiters of green credentials are, once again, the leading spokespeople for the cause. Greenpeace recieves millions in donations each year. That there is an inherant conflict of interest and potential for corruption seems to have escaped their attention. To keep the money rolling in, you need to maintain a state of fear in the public, and the occasional scare campaign works nicely to achieve that.

The problem is that as the world moves toward a higher level of environmental responsibility and starts actually working to fix the problems, hard-nosed realists take over the actual management of projects and programs, and the radicals in the green movement become even more marginalized within their own playground. To maintain their credibility, to maintain their prophits, or simply to push for more extreme efforts rather than realism-based compromises, it becomes ever more necessary to resort to radical and extreme promotional tactics. By failing to shed the radicals, the Green Movement itself, as exemplified by Greenpeace, will increasing relegate itself BACK to its fringe-movement origins, a collection of extremists and radicals.

That makes it easier for idiocy like this anti-shell campaign to get approval. It doesn't happen for just one reason - it happens because the stars align, and many people with different priorities and agendas become convinced that this will advance those priorities and agendas, and the people with the common sense to say 'no' are either distracted, shouted down, or simply off their game that particular day. Guys: It's not 1970 anymore. Radicalism undermines your cause - get a grip and have a schism, or you will all have your credibility stripped away by a radical minority.

Wow, if corporations/ governments destroy the environment it's fine, no matter how many people living in the Arctic detest it, and if Greenpeace uses innovative stuff it's fail. News manipulates us all the time, everyday.

This was a humorous campaign Martin, and even if you do not support Shell, you have given a point for people to support them.

Just another day at the office for Greenpeace. Lie, cheat, and steal. Hey, I bet Peter Gleick is a member. Remember kids.....it's for the cause. GREEN = RED

http://climatedepot.com/a/16681/Greenpeace-cofounder-Dr-Patrick-Moore-Th...

It'a been Shell all along pretending to be Greenpeace pretending to be Shell. What a clever way to turn us against Greenpeace!

A US$5 billion fine for irreparable damage in the Niger Delta, which will take 30 years to clean up. I'm not sure if that is an outrageously low fine for Shell, or if Greenpeace should cease all activities since proper punishment is already being served. Thank God for journalists such as Martin Robbins who focus on the real issue of the proper manner in which to engage in informing the public; I no longer need to critically think about Greenpeace or Shell or the environment or the media for that matter. I'll just sit here and wait to consume properly packaged messages, and ignore all the rest.

This article is the story of a journalist's ego being hurt by the fact that a well communicated lie can carry more truth than his journalistic skill will ever carry.

This article is a hoax, right?

Isn't it illegal to post faux-Legal threats while impersonating an actual (albeit shady) corporation?

One thing: your update makes it look like Greenpeace have published the explanation today, possibly as a result of your article (or anyway, in response to pressure they received today). It's in fact over a month old.

I thought it was pretty obvious the first layer of this was a hoax. I didn't know about the second layer - fake intimidations to bloggers. Did bloggers receive emails that pretended to be from Shell? That's bad. Were bloggers encouraged to pretend they'd received intimidating emails from Shell? That's less bad. In both cases that's a step too far.

But I don't agree with condemning the first act - the fake marketing campaign and website. I thought it was a good way to apply reverse psychology (like in the video of the library in Troy, MI, and the book burning party) and make people think about what really is at stake.

But I agree, the hoax should end when it achieves its purpose: when it makes people reflect on the issue, it opens their eyes... then it must move on to filling them with factual information about why the campaign exists.

I do like how just because someone points out the flaws of one group, people automatically assume it means they must be "for" the opposite group.

From this article I did not get the perception that the author was pro Shell, in fact I think he seems quite the opposite, however people are attacking him as if he is dragging the oil out of the ground himself, whilst setting fire to trees and eating baby seals.

You can be on the same side of the argument than someone and still disagree with how they represent your side.

The behaviour of Greenpeace hinders the work of the people they claim to be on the side of. If they continue to make up stories that media outlets publish and then have to embarrassingly retract later, who will listen when they actually have something important to say?

Also quite simply... lying is bad (My mum says so, so it must be true)... if you want to set yourselves up as the good guys... don't tell lies.

Your point about drawing away from 'real scandals' is a little rich. Greenpeace have been tirelessly working at their Save the Arctic campaign for a solid month now. They take one day for some viral marketing (that was very obviously a hoax from the outset - a cursory google would have shown that), that yes, perhaps may have its flaws, and they get criticised for 'taking away from real scandals.' You're all talking about Greenpeace, Shell and it's presence in the Arctic aren't you?

What a droll article. I think it is great that Greenpeace are using subversive tactics to highlight the damage that Shell and their ilk are causing and the potential risks that are very likely due to Shell's deplorable attitude to drilling in the Arctic.

It is quite difficult to get stories such as the damage being caused by Shell into the media, especially when these days there are more and more companies destroying our planet.

Well done Greenpeace for using inventive ways to gain publicity for this.

It was quite obviously a spoof - just by using the journalistic tool called 'google' would tell you that.

Greenpeace have put together a humorous campaign highlighting the not-so-funny cavalier attitude that Shell has towards our shared environment. Yes they could have run something that wasn't edgy, that softly berated Shell for their appalling record but I doubt that would have generated as much interest.

Greenpeace haven't been trustworthy since before the Brent Spar debacle. I've worked for Shell and I could divulge far more horrific things that they as a company have been responsible in the past, but as far as Brent Spar went - it was utter lies. Greenpeace cost the British taxpayer MILLIONS of pounds in forcing the government of the day to investigate an outright lie for little more than their own ego and publicity. While I was at school and naive enough to believe that Greenpeace stood for environmentally responsibility, I joined - as did a lot of my school friends - why wouldn't you when your teacher is encouraging you to form an opinion on the world and it's future? Imagine our surprise when as young adults in the employ of oil company's we get letters from Greenpeace asking if we would be willing to take photographs of offshore installations for them! This is the true face of Greenpeace, a surreptitious, conniving entity that is no more virtuous than the oil companies they contend they are protecting us from.

what, Greenpeace no better than a pack of cynical liars when it suits them? i thought that was an established fact whenever they talk about nuclear energy.
the depressing irony is that Greenpeace is as culpable for ensuring Global Warming continues on its current path as is Shell, BP etc.

Good. Another "own goal" for Greenpeace.

After they destroyed the wheat with the environmental benefits last year, they lost a lot of their science-based supporters. Now if they have turned off their previously-supportive media outlets, maybe their fact-free stunts will not be quite so effective in the future.

We can only hope.