“Trust us,” Greenpeace is effectively saying to the press and public, and never mind that our sweeping assertions aren’t backed up by any measurable data or peer review. But just take a look at a press release that the group put out a few days ago, one that’s actually based on hard data, to see how far they are willing to go to deceive people with statistics.

“Greenpeace’s Video Game Shark vs. Mermaid Death Squad reaches millions,” the release, which was distributed nationally, announces. If you haven’t heard about their game, don’t feel bad — few did. It was a simplistic knock-off of the Pac-Man game that cast sea creatures as the good guys and tuna companies as the bad guys.

The game “was shared with two million viewers,” Greenpeace declared in the lead of the release. But this is almost certainly an outright falsehood. Greenpeace promoted the game mostly on Twitter but, as the chart right below from the Twitter analytics service Topsy shows, very few people cared to talk about it. As you can see, in the month following the game’s release, the game’s name was mentioned less than 30 times, while the Huffington Post article link wasn’t shared at all. So, two million viewers? Not even close.

CHART: In month after release, minimal Twitter chatter of Greenpeace game and coverage 

Greenpeace appears to be adding up the followers from the few individuals that did tweet about the game, along with the circulation of the few blogs that mentioned it, and then pretending that is the actual, total number of people that “viewed, played, and shared” the game. But as any advertising or social media professional would well understand, the number of potential people exposed to a particular item — which is called “impressions” — is a far different thing from the number of people that actually engage with the item, say by reading it or clicking on it. The average click-through rate in online advertising is about two percent at best and the rate at which people re-tweet an item is less than one-tenth of one percent.  Greenpeace is actually assuming an even further step — that people saw the item, clicked through, and then actually took time to play their game.

But don’t take our word for it! There’s an easy way for Greenpeace to show whether they are telling the truth in their press release. They can make public the raw data from the webpage where the game resides.

It’s doubtful that Greenpeace will have the integrity to come clean. But here’s a more important question for the rest of us — members of the seafood industry, retailers, journalists, and consumers. If Greenpeace can’t even be trusted to tell the truth about something as straightforward and measurable as their website traffic, then why would anyone believe what they have to say about the science and data around sustainability?

But after bombarding retailers and the larger public with too many empty gimmicks — meaningless petitions, disturbing videos, nitwitted protests — and unsupported accounts of environmental “carnage” and “destruction,” Greenpeace has created a major problem for itself. Reporters, no longer willing to accept Greenpeace’s claims at face value, are starting to question the eco-activists’ motives, data and failure to contribute meaningful solutions.

Seafood News’ Editor and Publisher John Sackton is just the latest to criticize Greenpeace for promoting gross distortions about seafood sustainability. He writes:

“The statements from Greenpeace … show just how divorced from scientific reality they are. The people they are reaching are being deliberately misinformed. … More reputable sources, including the FAO and the scientific assessments of the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation, show that tuna is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring, except within the big-eye complex, where too many juvenile fish are being caught.”

But that’s not the only reason why Mr. Sackton disapproves of Greenpeace:

“Greenpeace is silent on the steps industry is taking to address the problem – such as eliminating nets from FADs which reduces shark bycatch by 90%. If they admitted things can change, their audience would lose interest. In the same way, few conservation groups can acknowledge the tremendous success that U.S. fisheries management has had, because to do so diminishes their role as outside critics.”

Mr. Sackton also notes that Greenpeace’s annual retailer rankings report is pointless:

“The report evaluates retailers mostly on how they interact with Greenpeace, including removing fish Greenpeace asks them not to sell.”

In short, Mr. Sackton has dug a little deeper and sees the true Greenpeace: fringe, unserious and desperate. It’s just a matter of time before other reporters hold Greenpeace accountable for using them to spread sustainability tall tales.

Greenpeace campaigner Aaron Gray-Block writes that “all tuna species in the Indian Ocean region are showing signs of decline” and that “destructive fishing techniques such as purse seines with Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs)” are wreaking havoc.

But the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF), a science-based organization that partners with the World Wildlife Foundation (WWF), conservationists and regional fisheries management organization (RFMOs), shows otherwise. According to ISSF’s data-driven analysis, there is no overfishing crisis. Scientists have found that Indian Ocean “stocks of bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack are not overfished and are not experiencing overfishing, and therefore no immediate management measures are needed for these stocks.” In addition, “bycatch rates for FAD fishing” in the Indian Ocean are “relatively low.”

Still, albacore stocks in the Indian Ocean are being overfished, and small amounts of bycatch are being caught. That’s where ISSF’s scientific research, advanced monitoring technology, fruitful collaboration with fisherman and innovative methods come in. Consider that ISSF scientists are tagging different fish species to collect detailed data, or that they’re studying ways to limit bycatch using an underwater census. ISSF has also proposed strong recommendations for the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), such as “reducing catches by at least 20% from the current level” and “adopt[ing] comprehensive catch retention measures for all purse seine-caught tuna.”

ISSF has proven that Greenpeace’s “solutions” come with very serious consequences. If Indian Ocean fisheries switch from purse seining to pole-and-line — Greenpeace’s be-all and end-all fishing method — it “would actually result in a six fold increase in catch of non-target species and double the fuel used in the fishery. It also costs more to catch a ton of tuna by pole-line than by purse seine.” Of course, Greenpeace failed to consider these costs because they do not conduct economic impact studies.

Obvious to everyone but Greenpeace campaigners, canvassing tuna fisheries requires more than random yacht patrolling, helicopter flybys and haphazard “analysis.” And since Greenpeace has long-since established that it prefers hosting dance parties, protesting in costumes and programming rigged video games, it’s best it stops making exaggerated claims and leaves the high seas altogether. The real experts are working.

Reporters tempted to turn a quick story out of an impending Greenpeace press release about American retailers’ seafood sustainability practices are challenged to actually report, rather than regurgitate, by asking Greenpeace a few questions. The unscientific survey and report has become the embodiment of media groundhog day and white noise for those involved in real sustainability efforts.

NFI is urging reporters that if a release about this does make it to your desk, consider asking Greenpeace a few questions before putting it in the circular file:

1. One of Greenpeace’s reports urged Americans to “eat less fish. Reducing seafood consumption now can help lessen the pressure on our oceans.” Yet researchers at Harvard University found that low seafood consumption is the second-biggest dietary contributor to preventable deaths in the U.S., taking 84,000 lives each year. Does Greenpeace know that it’s jeopardizing the health of Americans? Does it care?
2. Greenpeace refuses to reveal the methodology used in its grocers survey. Yet academic and research organizations routinely open their methodologies to scrutiny. What are Greenpeace activists hiding?
3. Greenpeace has called on retailers to only stock canned tuna caught with poles and lines. Yet only 2 percent of canned tuna sold is currently harvested this way. How would Greenpeace ensure there is enough affordable tuna to meet consumer demand?
4. What kind of environmental impact studies has Greenpeace done on its recommended sourcing methods? What kind of economic impact studies has Greenpeace done on how it would raise the cost of, for instance, canned tuna for customers?
5. Are Greenpeace’s efforts to frighten the public by falsely distorting the true health of tuna stocks in any way related to fundraising?
6. Sources have put Greenpeace’s budget at $700,000 a day. How much of that goes for peer-reviewed research? How much is spent on publicity?
7. Greenpeace spent an incredible $32 million of donor money on the Rainbow Warrior III, a party boat used to make fundraising videos. Wouldn’t those millions have been better used for scientific research and serious sustainability efforts?
8. The largest U.S. canned tuna brands are working with WWF, the world’s leading conservation group, and marine scientists through the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation to ensure the continued health of tuna for generations to come. Why has Greenpeace repeatedly declined an open invitation to participate in these collaborative efforts?
9. Retailers and the seafood community routinely work with seafood-certification programs like the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and participate in fishery improvement projects to provide consumers with sustainably caught fish. Why does Greenpeace not recognize the work of these reputable certification programs but then take credit for their success?
10. Rather than take active part in discussions with governmental leaders, industry representatives and conservation groups, Greenpeace representatives instead demonstrate outside these meetings, often dressed up as cartoonish sea creatures. Does Greenpeace expect that experts in sustainability or the public itself should take seriously any points raised by activists dancing in plushy costumes?

While you’re working hard to buy seafood certified by third-party auditors, participate in fishery improvement projects and incorporate best practices into your policies, Greenpeace activists are dressing up in silly costumes to garner publicity and more donations.

Of course, their commitment to organizing meaningless stunts and harassing tuna companies leaves them no time to master the science behind sustainability and collaborate with true conservationists.

But Greenpeace campaigners don’t care. They’d rather make a spectacle than work behind the scenes with serious-minded organizations and companies.

Watch this short video to see more on what Greenpeace is really up to while you’re doing the hard work:

In this 60-second clip, Dr. Moore reveals how the Greenpeace fundraising model works: propaganda, misinformation, and fear.

There’s just one major problem: Greenpeace has no credibility to influence — let alone inject itself in — serious discussions about environmental and health issues. Long ago, they disqualified themselves from the ranks of serious conservationists, scientists, and researchers by resorting to immature, violent and counterproductive tactics. Greenpeace activists may be able to boast about picketing in plushy costumes, vandalizing buildings, trespassing private property, creating meaningless online games, and placing harassing phone calls, but they sure don’t have science, reason and authority on their side.

But that’s their modus operandi. They target high profile companies, bully them in accepting unrealistic demands, fundraise off of the so-called “victory” … and then harass them some more.

No one wins except Greenpeace. Why? Because their ultimatums, stuns and protests never improve the issue in question — like seafood sustainability — only Greenpeace’s bottom line.

Called “Your Pain, Their Gain,” the campaign exposes Greenpeace as a science-averse, marginalized organization that doesn’t care about helping retailers develop sustainable seafood policies — only fundraising to sustain its $700,000/day operating budget.

Privately, retailers acknowledge that Greenpeace — by its own admission — does not endorse any seafood certification programs and is not active in Fishery Improvement Projects. Retailers who know sustainability are looking for these benchmarks and Greenpeace simply does not meet them.

“This survey has nothing to do with sustaining the world’s oceans; it’s all about sustaining Greenpeace,” added NFI spokesperson Gavin Gibbons.

NFI’s campaign, hosted at www.tunafortomorrow.com/retailers, will include infographics, videos, and analysis. The site will feature case studies of high-profile companies in different industries that have continued to suffer from unrelenting Greenpeace confrontation even after meeting its initial demands.

“Greenpeace engages in what we call a cycle of abuse,” Gibbons said. “It unilaterally decides to target business and make unrealistic, endless demands; harass employees and customers; appeal to donor generosity to thwart made-up crises; and claim victory when businesses capitulate.”

With every published edition of Greenpeace’s Carting Away the Oceans report, there is less and less media attention. In 2012, the report received almost no mainstream coverage.

“Grocers are far better off communicating their sustainability efforts directly to their customers,” Gibbons said. “Besides, no matter what they tell Greenpeace, it’s never good enough. Greenpeace will always criticize them.”

Like Dr. Moore, we believe Greenpeace’s radicalism is harmful to people and the environment and undermines the collaborative, productive efforts being taken by serious conservationists.

Watch this short video to learn more about the “real” Greenpeace:

Called “Your Pain, Their Gain,” the campaign exposes Greenpeace as a science-averse, marginalized organization that doesn’t care about helping retailers develop sustainable seafood policies — only fundraising to sustain its $700,000/day operating budget.

Privately, retailers acknowledge that Greenpeace — by its own admission — does not endorse any seafood certification programs and is not active in Fishery Improvement Projects. Retailers who know sustainability are looking for these benchmarks and Greenpeace simply does not meet them.

“This survey has nothing to do with sustaining the world’s oceans; it’s all about sustaining Greenpeace,” added NFI spokesperson Gavin Gibbons.

NFI’s campaign, hosted at www.tunafortomorrow.com/retailers, will include infographics, videos, and analysis. The site will feature case studies of high-profile companies in different industries that have continued to suffer from unrelenting Greenpeace confrontation even after meeting its initial demands.

“Greenpeace engages in what we call a cycle of abuse,” Gibbons said. “ It unilaterally decides to target businesses and make unrealistic, endless demands; harass employees and customers; appeal to donor generosity to thwart made-up crises; and claim victory when businesses capitulate.”

With every published edition of Greenpeace’s Carting Away the Oceans report, there is less and less media attention. In 2012, the report received almost no mainstream coverage.

“Grocers are far better off communicating their sustainability efforts directly to their customers,” Gibbons said. “Besides, no matter what they tell Greenpeace, it’s never good enough. Greenpeace will always criticize them.”