Climate Craziness of the Week – Greenpeace posts threats

This is the face on environmentalism today – publicly issued threats from Greenpeace

I find this sort of thing slightly troubling, but mostly I see it as just behind the scenes business as usual, only written down instead of part of the usual meeting rhetoric.

We need to hit them where it hurts most, by any means necessary: through the power of our votes, our taxes, our wallets, and more.


The proper channels have failed. It’s time for mass civil disobedience to cut off the financial oxygen from denial and skepticism.

If you’re one of those who believe that this is not just necessary but also possible, speak to us. Let’s talk about what that mass civil disobedience is going to look like.

If you’re one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this:

We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.

And we be many, but you be few.

“…but you be few

Yeah sure, whatever you say. Newsflash to Green Gene from Greenpeace India who wrote this.

Seen the latest US Gallup poll?

Gallup: Americans’ Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop

Or maybe this one in the UK?

Inconvenient truth in Britain – scepticism on the rise – only 26% believe climate change to be man-made

Or How about this one in Germany?

SPIEGEL Survey: How Germans Feel about Climate Change

Or the fact that the French gave up on carbon taxing?

French give up on carbon tax plan – for now

I’d say you and your friends are mightily outnumbered. h/t to WUWT reader “kwik”

======================================

AUTHORNAME. Greenpeace makes threat to skeptics. Greenpeace. 2010-04-03. URL:http://weblog.greenpeace.org/climate/2010/04/will_the_real_climategate_plea_1.html. Accessed: 2010-04-03. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5oj86Zw5q)

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate Craziness of the Week. Bookmark the permalink.

302 Responses to Climate Craziness of the Week – Greenpeace posts threats

  1. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    Let’s talk about what that mass civil disobedience is going to look like.

    Here’s what it looks like Greenpeace:

    The public turning against you because they finally see your true global warming colors and it leaves a bad taste in their mouths.

  2. These threats are certainly illegal in the USA.

  3. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    And we be many, but you be few.

    Ummm, I think you better check that math on that boys.

  4. David Alan Evans says:

    Tempted to post my name & address on there.

    Let them come after ME, they’d be decimated. People here know me & my views. I get on well with all my neighbours & it’s a society where we look after our own. I’m officially an outsider but I’ve been accepted & passed all the tests. Bring it on!

    DaveE.

  5. DirkH says:

    “We need to hit them where it hurts most, by any means necessary: through the power of our votes, our taxes, our wallets, and more.”

    Very funny. We pay Eco taxes and electricity cross subsidies in Germany for a decade now. Thank you, Greenpeace, but this threat is nothing new and it doesn’t work – it just stunts economic development a little and puts poor people at a disadvantage as a larger proportion of their income is needed for energy. Ironically that’s exactly the populace that often tends to vote for socialists.

  6. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission

    You folk at Greenpeace know well what that is. You are projecting in blaming this on others.

  7. slayer says:

    More violence to come from the intolerant, environmentalist wacko, terrorist Left!

  8. DirkH says:

    “We need to hit them where it hurts most, by any means necessary: through the power of our votes, our taxes, our wallets, and more.”

    I had to read it again to understand what the guy is really saying:
    “We need to hit them where it hurts most, [...] through the power of [...] our wallets”
    You want to hurt me with the power of *YOUR* wallets? Oh. I take everything back. Hmmm… hurt me with the big bank notes first, please…

  9. Tim says:

    I doubt they can hurt we, the skeptical, but it could divert attention from our message.

  10. INGSOC says:

    This is indeed business as usual for these folks. Look forward to rainbow warrior type crap happening very soon. A person I know inside Greenpeace (I was an active member for many years) has been mentioning a coming new campaign of agitation in an effort to wear skeptics down and frighten those on the fence into towing the party line. I guess this is the beginning… Truth is, a lot of the “part timers” in Greenpeace are beginning to snap out of it and smell the coffee with all the revelations since November last. This is undoubtedly an effort to secure their own base and stem the bleeding.

  11. savethesharks says:

    Bring it on! They scare me not.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  12. Thomas Mee says:

    “We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.” (!!!) I hope Homeland Security is keeping an eye on these guys. Better yet, maybe I’ll meet Gene from India someday at a conference …

    Thomas

  13. Hunt says:

    The ‘good’ people from Greenpeace are long gone. I’ve never agreed with Greenpeace’s methods, but at one point, they at least had noble goals. Now the goals is simply terrorism. Even the scientists have said that the suggested carbon credit system would be a token gesture, and wouldn’t do anything to curb the supposed problem.

    Instead of Greenpeace harassing people who have differing opinions, perhaps they should spend their time and money coming up with real solutions to the supposed problem. If someone came up with a solution that wouldn’t destroy our economy, and that would actually make a dent in the atmospheric CO2 while also not negatively impacting other areas of the ecosystem, people would be all over it.

  14. West Houston says:

    Quoting:
    “We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.
    And we be many, but you be few.”
    Commenting:
    Be carefull what you wish for. You are making some powerfull enemies, you snot-nosed little creeps.

    …that’s not “snipable”, is it?

  15. Tom Jones says:

    “The politicians have failed. Now it’s up to us. We must break the law to make the laws we need: laws that are supposed to protect society, and protect our future. Until our laws do that, screw being climate lobbyists. Screw being climate activists. It’s not working. We need an army of climate outlaws.”

    I’d say that they need some time playing rock hockey. Last time I looked, we were citizens with civil rights, too.

  16. evanmjones says:

    And we be many, but you be few.

    Only after FILNET.

  17. Mooloo says:

    He’s a bit of an outlier, even in the wackiness that is Greenpeace.

    Such behaviour in the West would spell the end of Greenpeace. They would be seen as being effectively a political party. Currently their fellow-travellers tend to think of them as “above” the fray, which gives them a bit of a free pass.

    Once Greenpeace start harassing non-political individuals they are doomed.

  18. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    The real enemy of Greenpeace are the global warming scientist, such as the CRU/ClimateGate scandal. ClimateGate changed the entire face of the global warming world. I am sure ClimateGate, and all the other -gates, are eating away at environmental activists. They are being pulled down by their own weapon—”the consensus”—that was supposed to silence all the arguments.

    As it turns out “the consensus” is the iceberg to their Titanic.

    These threats toward ‘skeptics’ is displacement of anger that actually belongs on themselves for their own fatally flawed agenda.

    Blame yourself Greenpeace. You are your problem.

  19. Henry chance says:

    PETA, ELF and Greenpeace are all subversive groups that alr willing to break the law and commit eco terrorist acts.
    As science is crumbling, they will increase the physical threats.
    They want punitive laws and taxation for those they don’t buy their false dogma. One of the group like Joe Romm want to also punish the poor with punitive fines, taxation and energy rationing.

  20. RevYJ says:

    So now they’re trying to intimidate me with vague threats? I can rest easier now. I thought for a minute they were going to do something really serious like accuse me of racism.

  21. Just The Facts says:

    Wow, that’s a blatant threat, i.e. “any menace of such a nature and extent as to unsettle the mind of one on whom it operates and to take away from his acts that free, voluntary action which alone constitutes consent.”
    http://chestofbooks.com/society/law/Popular-Law-10/Section-147-Criminal-Threat-Defined.html
    If any crime results from Greenpeace’s incitement, i.e. “the act of persuading, encouraging, instigating, pressuring, or threatening so as to cause another to commit a crime”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement
    then Greenpeace and “Gene” should be held criminally culpable.

    If this type of threat was made by a skeptic group, there would surely be an investigation. United States Senator James Inhofe, can you please add Greenpeace and “Gene” to your list?

  22. Rick Bradford says:

    It remains immensely important to these people to see themselves as the little guy heroically fighting huge corporate interests; hence all the projection and victimhood.

    If “we be many, but you be few”, how come it’s us who are deemed to be forcing “democratically-elected governments into submission”?

    Idiotic, but that’s Greenpeace for you….

  23. Patrick Davis says:

    The sad thing about this is that if they do “act” and actually do hurt people, they will not be convicted for it.

  24. moray watson says:

    Has this threat been peer reviewed?

    I hope the bloggers over at realclimate will denounce this kind of lunacy.

  25. Mike Bryant says:

    That sounds like a declaration of war… odd thing is they’ve been at war with sanity for years…

  26. GK says:

    It is time for us to start calling for criminal charges to be laid against the MSM journalists and politicians who have enabled the AGW hoax, the crime of the century. The few scientists who invented AGW are just doing their job (albeit incompetantly). The moron left wing activists are just doing typical leftwing moron violent activists do. It`s the MSM media and politicians who enabled the AGW hoax to propogate by lying about the science, by lying about the scientists, and by lying about every bit of it.

    The AGW hoax will never be exponsed en-mass untill the journalists and politicians who enabled it face prosecution for the fraud of the century.

    It`s only a matter of time before some left wing nut does something terrible, and for that, the MSM and politicians should face the full force our hate laws. They invoked the hate through their lies, and they should face jail for it.

    We are wasting our time arguing the facts and evidence with people who lie at every turn, and were never interested in the facts in the first place. The MSM and politicians know the globe isnt warming, they know the science is flakey, they know sea ice is increasing – but that`s irrelevant, because this was never about climate, and untill people and politicians start calling for their jailing, it will continue and get worse.

  27. Stephan says:

    This is great keep it up.. this is exactly what we skeptics need hahaha. There in the looney fringe now (AGW)

  28. Leon Brozyna says:

    There it is – the greenshirts will ensure adherence to the party line and dissenters will be dealt with accordingly.

    An interesting phenomenon this – those posturing as “liberal” are anything but as they practice intolerance and display a desire to corral their fellow citizens as though they were mindless animals to be sheared and slaughtered at will, demanding obedience and conformance to their views.

    Submit, conform or … what? And these are the type of folks who rail in outrage against businessmen who make a profit. Seems to me that their complaint is that what they have to offer won’t sell.

  29. Henry chance says:

    wiki on ecoterrorists

    Organizations that have been labeled as “eco-terrorists” in the United States include the Animal Liberation Front (ALF),[17] the Earth Liberation Front (ELF),[17]Greenpeace, the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, Earth First!.[9] The Coalition to Save the Preserves.[18] and the Hardesty Avengers.[19]

    Greenpeace generally protests through civil disobedience or sabotage[9] and has also been implicated (and in some cases indicted) in eco-terrorism and associated unlawful use of monies as well as anti-piracy laws concerning unlawful boarding of private vessels on the high seas.[20]

    If they can get people angry, they can jump on the violence bandwagon. The wackos rant about BIG Oil and want criminal charges, punitive taxation and EPA to hassle them.

  30. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    Seen the latest US Gallup poll?

    Gallup: Americans’ Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop

    Or maybe this one in the UK?

    Inconvenient truth in Britain – scepticism on the rise – only 26% believe climate change to be man-made

    Or How about this one in Germany?

    SPIEGEL Survey: How Germans Feel about Climate Change

    Or the fact that the French gave up on carbon taxing?

    French give up on carbon tax plan – for now

    ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    Winters have been getting longer and colder, with more snow. It’s Mother Nature to blame Greenpeace. I thought Greenpeace loved Mother Nature?
    What will you do about her now that she’s raining on your ‘global warming’ parade?

  31. derek says:

    facepalm!

  32. rbateman says:

    Perhaps this has something to do with the recent message from Osama Bin-Laden proclaiming AGW as one of his beliefs. The threats and violent warnings do sound familiar.
    This isn’t the peaceful movement that I am familar with from a long time ago. They used to tie themselves to old Giant Redwood trees to save them.
    Now they talk of war and killing people.
    Wow.

  33. Robert E. Phelan says:

    So, Greenpeace morphs into ELF. Nothing like a little direct action to fire up the faithful. Please, please pick me. My next door neighbor does bombs. He’s getting a little cobwebbed in retirement and might relish the challenge.

  34. Mike Davis says:

    Here in my neck of the woods we “are” waiting for your visit! :-)
    As Dirty Harry said: Make our day!!!

  35. davidmhoffer says:

    Dear GreenPeace,

    The true sign of a failed belief system is when its adherents, having failed to persuade the populace by reasoned debate, resort instead to violence. It matters not if we are speaking of the millions who died under Communism’s jackboot while their economy disintegrated, or of those murdered by Fascists determined to establish order through racial superiority, or of the brutal repression of the Dark Ages or of Islamic extremists raising their children to become suicide bombers.

    What matters is that we understand that these belief systems failed because they were founded upon a false premise. They failed because force of arms and the death of millions can obligate the populace to conform to the belief system, but no amount of brutality and extermination will make the falsehoods into something they are not. The facts will endure no matter how many people are tortured into false confessions, or how many are executed to silence those who would speak the truth. Burning books does not erase the facts within them, only the record of them.

    No one let’s go of a long held belief system easily. But those who firmly believe in themselves and their facts will redouble their efforts to convince others by means of persuasion. Those who instead resort to violence to impose their beliefs on others are, by doing so, admitting that they have no other means by which to persuade. Their arguments and evidence having failed, they turn instead to coercion.

    GreenPeace would do well to expunge from their midst those who imply that violence may be justified to win the global warming debate. If the facts and evidence are indeed with you, then redouble your efforts to research, document and persuade. But if you allow to exist amongst you those who would choose a path of violence, then you have abandoned reason and fact. You may wrap yourself in a cloak of morality, but the blood stains upon your hands will still be yours. Perhaps instead you should pause and ask why it is that you have set one toe on the same path followed before you by those who had naught but violence to suppress the falsity of their beliefs, and that this perhaps has more to do with your failure than you had supposed.

    Putting a gun to my head is not an argument. It is a descent into madness. It is an attempt to repeat history, the lessons of which you clearly have not learned.

  36. derek says:

    “Blame yourself Greenpeace. You are your problem.”

    This…

  37. Elizabeth (Canada) says:

    *yawn*

    I laughed out loud, then I was immediately distracted by other, lucid thoughts inside my head.

  38. Bruckner8 says:

    Why do we even pay attention to this drivel?

  39. Cadae says:

    “We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.”

    They do know my address as I used to donate to them every year – until about 10 years ago when my wife and I realised how bad they had become.

    I’d like to claim those donations back, as I believe they were fraudulent in their donation promotions. This latest outburst confirms that.

  40. Chris D. says:

    It’s the paragraph preceding the quote above that troubles me most:

    “Emerging battle-bruised from the disaster zone of Copenhagen, but ever-hopeful, a rider on horseback brought news of darkness and light: “The politicians have failed. Now it’s up to us. We must break the law to make the laws we need: laws that are supposed to protect society, and protect our future. Until our laws do that, screw being climate lobbyists. Screw being climate activists. It’s not working. We need an army of climate outlaws.”

  41. Benjamin says:

    “It’s time for mass civil disobedience to cut off the financial oxygen from denial and skepticism.”

    Don’t they mean financial carbon dioxide? Or is oxygen now a problem as well?

    Anyway, I suggest they start at the post office because all those Big Oil checks we skeptics are supposed to get have apparently been lost in the mail for some time now.

    I’m still waiting for mine! Anyone here get there’s yet?! Man, this is it… We need to band together and strike Big Oil hard for the money they owe us!

    (jumps up on soapbox) WHO’S WITH ME?!

    :-)

  42. Paul says:

    further proof that they know the agenda is divorced from the science. Now it is down to threats. Well just for the record, you better bring a bunch with ya.

  43. Chris says:

    Bruckner8,

    Who can turn their eyes away from a trainwreck, particularly one in slow-motion?

  44. davidmhoffer says:

    OT but over at AMSU-A the cooling trend has kicked in something awful. I kid you not, it says that sea surface temps today are 530.07 degrees cooler than this day last year.

    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/

  45. Doug in Seattle says:

    Not that Greenpeace in India is all that different from its counterparts elsewhere, but you know this will written off as just some small timers in a far off land with no real connection to big boys in NY and London.

  46. wayne says:


    GreenPeace’s public threat:

    [...]

    The proper channels have failed. It’s time for mass civil disobedience to cut off the financial oxygen from denial and skepticism.

    If you’re one of those who believe that this is not just necessary but also possible, speak to us. Let’s talk about what that mass civil disobedience is going to look like.

    If you’re one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this:

    We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.

    And we be many, but you be few.

    – — – –

    Thank you Anthony for putting this article up for the world to see bright and clear what type of people populate these radical environmentalist camps.

    My hope is that all politicians and law enforcement arms of the governments can finally see clearly what these people they are harboring in these radical environmentalist camps by giving them an air of legitimacy in the media and as lobbyists. They are not legitimate organizations but instead follow classic mafia tactics and must be rubbed out of any civil nation.

  47. Steve Oregon says:

    Now now.
    I’m sure they’d say this no different than Sarah Palin “targetting” Democrats for removal from office.

    I sense the battle heating up.
    On the economic front it appears more and more people are using their money, business and jobs to wage the bloodless civil some have predicted.

  48. Pacer says:

    davidmhoffer (20:05:25) :
    I have been working all Easter weekend and wish I could summon my brain to utter something more substantial then “Well Done”. It would have taken me years to stich together your “sense of things” which I heartily endorse. What an incredible indictment of Greenpeace and those like them.

  49. Dr A Burns says:

    Chris D. (20:15:00) :
    Just before that para:

    “We need to join forces with those within the climate movement that are taking direct action to disrupt the CO2 supply chain. ”

    I suppose this means they will be only operating at night and walking while holding their breath. Sounds like a brief protest.

  50. Anton says:

    Henry chance (19:26:27) said:

    “PETA, ELF and Greenpeace are all subversive groups that alr [sic] willing to break the law and commit eco terrorist acts.”

    PETA is not a subversive group, though some of its members (read “officers”) may support subversive groups, and it does not commit eco terrorist acts, though some of its officers have been accused of financing them. Most members of PETA are ordinary people uninvolved in political dirty tricks. The vast majority are kids who love animals and wouldn’t hurt anyone.

    I suspect most members of Greenpeace are equally uninvolved in the militant nonsense, and when they realize their organization advocates terrorizing innocent people, they will run the other way. The majority of believers and non-believers in AGW are not violent and crazy. They are just products of whatever information they’ve been taught, and whatever other information they’ve acquired on their own.

    What Green Gene fails to realize is that the most outspoken skeptics of AGW today are former believers, and they are not going back to their previous state of innocent credulity. Once they discovered they’d been lied to and manipulated, their future course was set.

    By exaggerating, fabricating, and scare-mongering, Greenpeace has shot its own raft, and denouncing everyone else while it’s sinking is not going to plug the hole.

    Green Gene appears to be a nutcase, not a template.

  51. DJ Meredith says:

    They’ve made the threat, now we wait for the action. The logical targets would be anything “fossil fuel” related, which would be a strategic target in terms of Homeland Security.

    I say, if you want to be a terrorist, then enjoy the consequences.

  52. GregO says:

    Wow. Greenpeace people – take a deep breath and count to ten or attend a meditation seminar on non-violence or something. I mean really. Chill out.

    The polar bears are fine; the arctic is fine, CO2 isn’t toxic at 300 or so parts per million; there isn’t a mass extinction going on; and you know what? This is all good news. No need to resort to such intellectual violence. Go find something other than this phony AGW stuff to focus your attention. Threatening people is illegal, ill-advised and uncalled for.

  53. Paul Vaughan says:

    Most people care about parks & natural forests. They used to be able to assume “greens” were looking out for such things. Not any more. “Greens’” former respect for nature has been abandoned in favor of anthropogenic computer fantasies. If asked – “Do you care about the environment?” – many people now answer: “Yeah, I care about climate change.” Conflating computer fantasies & nature (the real thing) is undermining focus on protection of parks & natural forests.

    Paul Vaughan, M.Sc.
    Ecologist, Parks & Natural Forests Advocate

  54. theduke says:

    Whenever you see the phrase “by any means necessary,” used by environmental fanatics, it should prepare you for all kinds of semi-violent, disruptive and truly annoying behavior to come in the near future.

    Radicalization is now becoming the norm in our age. Professional, lifelong radicals like the GreenPeace nitwits will not be outdone. Be prepared.

  55. RockyRoad says:

    Ah, Greenpeace, Greenpeace, Greenpeace…

    Words belie and words belittle, but here’s the truth:

    You are neither Green, nor do you herald peace.

    Why don’t you just change your name to “Brownwar” or “Blackhate”?

    Then your name will accurately reflect your modus operandi, your threats, your thoughts, and your persona.

    How terribly sad.

  56. Steve in SC says:

    They sound like North Koreans or Iranians.

  57. Daniel H says:

    This just illustrates how contradictory and meaningless the Greenpeace name has become as it adopts an overtly violent agenda to further its extremist ideology. To add insult to injury, this war against CO2 is allegedly being fought on behalf of the natural “green” environment which is absurd since green things tend to thrive under heightened CO2 conditions. So we have yet another contradiction. It’s reminiscent of the “Ministry of Peace” from George Orwell’s famous novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, about which Wikipedia states the following:

    As with all the other Nineteen Eighty-Four ministries, the Ministry of Peace is named the exact opposite of what it does, since the Ministry of Peace is in charge of maintaining a state of war. As one of the obvious phrases, the meaning of peace has been equalized with the meaning of war in the slogan of the party, which is “War is Peace”. As with the Ministry of Love the name is somewhat accurate just not in the normal sense of the word. The Ministry helps to keep the peace internally by venting the population’s rage at an external foe.

    So Greenpeace (Newspeak: Greenpax) just needs to find a populace that is enraged enough about CO2 emissions to commit violent reprisals against skeptics and they’ll be in business!

  58. Lindsay H. says:

    didn’t i read somewhere the leader of greenpeace gets paid 460000 dollars a year, and the organisation takes in 1 billion plus a year ? the eco fascist movement has been clearly alive and well . Nice to see a bit of rain on their parade.

  59. AnonyMoose says:

    Keep in mind that Greenpeace has for a long time operated ships which seek out other ships, approach hazardously near, ram, and endanger the crews. Is it outlandish to expect them to behave similarly on the roadways and sidewalks?

  60. D. Patterson says:

    How many quatloos are bet for the day and hour when the source is scrubbed from the Internet?

  61. magicjava says:

    [quote GreenPeace]
    cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission
    [/quote]

    Dang it! I just went out today and got a brand new cattle prod.

    Is it still ok for me to cattle prod China into submission?

  62. Skip says:

    I sent the author of that article my name, address and phone number and challenged them to come after me.

  63. BCGreenBean says:

    Now this.. I find alarming. I’ve been a ‘grassroots’ environmental activist here in BC for the better part of the last 17 years, but paradoxically I’m also a skeptic. Odd position to be in, to be sure, but skepticism served me so well in the past that I’ve never felt the need to set it aside. Everytime Big Oil makes a statement about environmental damage, or whatever flavor of ‘big dirty polluting industry of the month’ makes claims about their eco-friendliness, I’m skeptical. I doubt. I scrutinize. I research, and I do my homework. Unfortunately for Greenpeace (and related organizations), I’ve found a wealth of information here and elsewhere(ClimateAudit in particular), that despite my best efforts I can’t reconcile with the official narrative on climate change. Information that casts (for me) credible and significant doubts upon the validity of the underlying science of climate change, and has long since caused me to retreat to cautious language when discussing the topic with other people on ‘this’ side of the fence. I find it disturbing that others like me can be privy to this same information and (imho) rational contrary analysis and still be anywhere near as confident in their beliefs.

    Beyond that, I simply haven’t seen anything over the years that convinced me of the link between mankinds (arguably paltry) CO2 emissions, and the observed temperature rise. That the climate changes, isn’t in doubt, it always has, and for reasons that still haven’t been fully explained. Temperatures go up. Temperatures go down. Ok lately they go mostly up, but they have been since the MWP. The weather isn’t precisely the same from one year to the next. And virtually *none* of these changes are without historical precedent, to my knowledge.

    Greenpeace can count me out, they’ve clearly lost the plot and divorced themselves from common sense. There’s something very wrong about all of this, and I intend to find out what. But I have the sneaky suspicion that this was never about helping the planet at all. Call me skeptical.

    (Sorry for the long post, been lurking for half a year, and just wanted to get that off my chest.)

    Cheers,

  64. Christian Bultmann says:

    Isn’t Greenpeace a tax exempt organization, what taxes they don’t pay are they talking about.
    What will there civil disobedience look like they stop flying around the world to protest for reducing carbon emissions?
    Turn there own lights off instead of telling everybody else to turn there’s off?
    Apologize for been instrumental for the ban of DDT to the developing world.
    They finally all move to Cuba,Venezuela or North Korea?

    Of topic:
    The EPA’s regulations are based on how much global warming there was, for the last few years that would mean we should drive larger cars with higher fuel consumption?

  65. April E. Coggins says:

    This is why I use my real name. I want them to make no mistake about who I am or where I live.

  66. Steve Oregon says:

    Skip,

    Look out your kitchen window.

  67. Frederick Michael says:

    The media has ignored ecoterrorism so far, but the situation is ripe for a quick reversal. If Greenpeace acts on their threats, they could see a real tipping point.

    Remember when and how the cliche, “going postal” began? Imagine if “going Greenpeace,” gets in the vernacular meaning to be incoherently, criminally insane.

    As in, “Ted Kazinsky totally went Greenpeace.” Or, “Earth First went Greenpeace with another Hummer dealership.”

    They should be walking on eggshells.

  68. Chuck Norris says:

    Does this mean I’m going to be thrashed by a twig brandished by a guy in a grubby koala suit?

    Bring it on…

  69. Mr Lynn says:

    We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.

    I wouldn’t take this kind of threat idly. Remember how opponents of same-sex marriage were publicly identified and harassed in California. The extreme left is entirely capable of extra-legal and even illegal action if is aims are thwarted. It would be wise for public figures on the side of climate realism to lock their doors.

    /Mr Lynn

  70. AEGeneral says:

    We need to hit them where it hurts most, by any means necessary: through the power of our votes, our taxes, our wallets, and more.

    You don’t have anything in your wallet. You’re unemployed. Thus, you don’t pay taxes.

    We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.

    But do you know where I keep my super-secret spiral notebook? Didn’t think so.

  71. Willis Eschenbach says:

    I went to the publicly issued threat Greenpeace site. They have a place for comments. I left a comment for them, we’ll see if it gets through …

  72. Layne Blanchard says:

    The power of a presidency reveals many things. You would not hear of this a few years ago. But everyone should be very alarmed, and begin NOW to work very hard not just to turn this around, but to CRUSH it into oblivion. This has been simmering in the background, and will leap to the fore every chance it gets. We must Destroy it. It isn’t enough to overwhelm and overrule for a few years. This is a fatal infection. It must be absolutely destroyed, or it will forever return until it destroys us.

  73. Aaron says:

    Did the author of that GreenPEACE bit even bother to read the name of his own organization?

    Someone should let them know that in most of America, people are prone to self-defense and firearms owned by private citizens outnumber the population in total. At nearly any given point in this nation’s geography, you can take a group of 100 people and almost guarantee that at least one of them is carrying a lawful, concealed weapon and has been trained how to use it in defense of person and those around.

    So good luck, GreenVIOLENCE. You should count yourselves lucky that now that you and your ilk have been outed, us decent folk didn’t act like you have and decide to have tar and feather parties at your expense.

  74. David Ball says:

    The beast has been cornered. With science and public opinion no longer on it’s side, this loathsome creature will lash out with all it’s breadth and fury, signifying nothing.

  75. magicjava says:

    [quote Amino Acids in Meteorites (18:56:47) :]
    And we be many, but you be few.

    Ummm, I think you better check that math on that boys.
    [/quote]

    They probably want to check the grammar on that, too.

  76. magicjava says:

    [quote davidmhoffer (20:27:42) :]
    OT but over at AMSU-A the cooling trend has kicked in something awful. I kid you not, it says that sea surface temps today are 530.07 degrees cooler than this day last year.

    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
    [/quote]

    I wouldn’t take it too seriously, David. Channel4 on the Aqua AMSU failed completely 2 years ago. NASA now makes up the readings themselves. See:
    http://magicjava.blogspot.com/2010/03/nasa-responds.html

  77. davidmhoffer says:

    Willis Eschenbach (21:43:29) :
    I went to the publicly issued threat Greenpeace site. They have a place for comments. I left a comment for them, we’ll see if it gets through …>>

    I posted my comment (above) as well. I doubt that it will get through, but I know someone had to read it to know to trash it.

  78. D. King says:

    If you’re one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this:

    We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.
    And we be many, but you be few.

    And we be sane, It’s a shame about you!

  79. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    fueling spurious debates around false solutions

    What debate? Where are you, “Al…baby”?

  80. Pyeatte says:

    Wow, these characters have gone off the deep end, what with their fradulent AGW ship hitting an iceberg called Climategate.

  81. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    And we be many, but you be few.

    That was supposed to scare us? Oh ya, you’ve got Ben Santer. Ok then, we’ll stay out of alleys. How’s that, babe?

  82. Pete H says:

    “We must break the law to make the laws we need. Until our laws do that, screw being climate lobbyists. Screw being climate activists. It’s not working. We need an army of climate outlaws.”

    Says everything about todays Greenpeace. We cannot convince skeptics with our bad science, so we will spit our dummies (pacifiers) out and use violence and threaten people.

    Maybe Juliette on April 1, 2010 10:56 AM who posted the comment on the blog is the one that should worry about her safety! Silly Girl, at least you admit ITS NOT WORKING!

  83. Dr A Burns says:

    Henry chance (19:26:27) said:
    “The majority of believers and non-believers in AGW are not violent and crazy. ”

    … perhaps this should have been :
    “The majority of believers in AGW are not violent and crazy. The majority of non-believers in AGW are not violent nor crazy. “

  84. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    AEGeneral (21:40:51) :

    We need to hit them where it hurts most, by any means necessary: through the power of our votes, our taxes, our wallets, and more.

    You don’t have anything in your wallet. You’re unemployed. Thus, you don’t pay taxes.

    If they want to pay more out of their wallets, and more in taxes, for global warming what will be left to pay for what is put in their bong?

  85. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    Chuck Norris (21:34:29) :

    Does this mean I’m going to be thrashed by a twig brandished by a guy in a grubby koala suit?

    Bring it on…

    They may be brandishing a bong, or a pipe, or other such paraphernalia. They’ll probably miss and fall when they swing.

  86. John says:

    A greenie jihad. The beginning of the last stand for AGW.

  87. Just The Facts says:

    For any of you angry folks reading through, I have a simple challenge. Review the following 5 Arctic Sea Ice charts from the most reputable sources of sea ice data;
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png
    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
    http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

    and please explain to us how these facts are indicative of the claimed catastrophic decline in Arctic Sea Ice Area and Extent.

    There is a reason that we are skeptical, it is because the empirical facts do not support the claims of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Narrative. The proverbial canary in a coal mine for global warming is arctic sea ice extent and it’s currently about average. The climate is moderating, what are you so angry about?

  88. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    Steve in SC (20:52:10) :

    They sound like North Koreans or Iranians.

    Interesting way to put it. I just saw a woman from Iran interviewed by Jon Stewart a couple of days ago. She said some secret police types used intimidation to stop her from writing books. They put her in jail and had a monkey court trial. Fortunately they let her off saying, off the record, they knew she was innocent. They were only trying to intimidate her. She has since gotten out of the country.

    Here is the 6:41minute video interview

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-march-31-2010/roxana-saberi

  89. Hockeystickler says:

    Greenpeace – starving poor people, one gallon of ethanol at a time.

  90. I have been protecting the environment on the property I own for 30 years, composting and planting native species that have been lost from the area. I provide cover and browse for wild game of all kinds, and any guns I have are to protect them and my family.

    I have dedicated my life to providing for increases in natural fertility, both of the land, and the lives it carries. I am working on expanding man’s knowledge of how the weather really works to generate a better weather forecast system, than we have now, so others can do as I have with less effort and better results.

    If these fools want to come to my house to help me fertilize trees, I’ll have to plant to cover them, well I could use all the help I can get. I know the local county attorney, and most of the storm spotter sheriffs deputies, rather well, they might loan me a back hoe.

  91. Al Gore's Holy Hologram says:

    Stating that they “Know where you live” is a personal threat against one’s private property and family. Everyone should forward this to the police, FBI and New Scotland Yard with a complaint. There are acts now in place to deal with criminal threats of terrorism.

  92. Al Gore's Holy Hologram says:

    For those of you speculating about the organisation’s name, it is a play on the American government’s term for communism during the 60s, Red Menace.

    Likewise Code Red is transformed into Code Pink by female communist activists seeking to strengthen the cause of authoritarianism worldwide.

  93. Peter Wilson says:

    “cut off the financial oxygen from denial and skepticism.”

    Does that mean all those cheques from Big Oil Inc are going to stop arriving? Oh no, however will I finance my blog commenting?

  94. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    moray watson (19:32:22) :

    I hope the bloggers over at realclimate will denounce this kind of lunacy.

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

    Nah. I wouldn’t look for that.

    Instead, James Hansen will testify in court (while using the title ‘NASA’ with his name) that these threats are justified.

  95. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    You know, I think Greenpeace pushed some wrong buttons here. Just sayin……….

  96. UK Sceptic says:

    I can sum up my contempt for these people in one word – cretins!

  97. Anton says:

    Dr A Burns (22:12:51) said:

    “Henry chance (19:26:27) said: ‘The majority of believers and non-believers in AGW are not violent and crazy.’

    “… perhaps this should have been…’The majority of non-believers in AGW are not violent nor crazy.’”

    No, I, Anton, said it. I quoted Henry Chance at the opening of my letter. And no, I didn’t make a grammatical error. I meant “violent AND crazy,” as in the guy making the absurd threat. I’m convinced that a majority of AGW believers ARE kind of crazy in the sense that they don’t investigate or question, just believe, which doesn’t strike me as rational.

    Incidentally in your interpretation, “or” should be used instead of “nor.” “Or” follows “not,” but “nor” follows “neither.”

  98. wayne says:

    magicjava (21:56:32) :

    [...] I wouldn’t take it too seriously, David. Channel4 on the Aqua AMSU failed completely 2 years ago. NASA now makes up the readings themselves. See:
    http://magicjava.blogspot.com/2010/03/nasa-responds.html

    Just read your article, very enlightening! No wonder some things don’t seem to jive.

  99. JER0ME says:

    more from these paragons of virtue:
    http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/dirty-money-climate-30032010

    Exposing the dirty money behind fake climate science

    Key front groups take Koch cash and do their dirty work

    * Mercatus Center – 
$9,247,500 received from Koch foundations 2005-2008 [Total Koch foundation grants 1997-2008: $9,874,500]

The Mercatus Center is a conservative think-tank at George Mason University, in which Charles Koch sits on the Board of Directors.

    * Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFP) – 
$5,176,500 received from Koch foundations 2005-2008. 

Beginning in 2008, Americans For Prosperity organised fake ‘grassroots’ local events across the US including the “Hot Air Tour”, featuring a hot air balloon, that was intended to build opposition to US legislation on clean energy and climate change.

    * The Heritage Foundation – US$1,620,000 received from Koch foundations 2005-2008 [Total Koch foundation grants 1997-2008: US$3,358,000].
The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank that misinterprets science and policy regarding the climate and uses its conclusions to argue against action against climate change.
    * Cato Institute
- US$1,028,400 received from Koch foundations 2005-2008 [Total Koch foundation grants 1997-2008: US$5,278,400].
The Cato Institute focuses on disputing the science behind global warming and questioning the rationale for taking action.

    And I thought it was a bunch of concerned and mostly retired professionals trying to sort out the facts from the deluge of lies. Silly me!

  100. Bill Tuttle says:

    We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.
    And we be many, but you be few.

    That was the best laugh I’ve had in a month

    What’s their weapon — Annoyance-Fu?!

  101. JER0ME says:

    and eslewhere on the site:

    I can’t understand why there aren’t rings of young people blocking bulldozers, and preventing them from constructing coal-fired power plants.”–Al Gore

    Earth to Al Gore! Earth to Al Gore!

    Anyone there?

    The mansion, private jet and limousine lights are no, but no-one is home….

  102. KPO says:

    [let's not go there mmmmkay? ~ ctm]

  103. Squidly says:

    [discouraging this kind of talk ~ ctm]

  104. Peter Hearnden says:

    Sorry, but where is the rule that says: ‘The blogosphere is not a place to express opinion.’?

    Some of the comments in this thread are breathtaking over reactions to an vigorously expressed opinion. Of course WUWT never sees vigorously expressed opinion does it….

  105. Peter Plail says:

    I do wish that Greenpeace would run Google Ads.

    It has given me a lot of satisfaction over the last few weeks clicking through on the ads for RavPach’s speaking tours to make sure that some of his income is diverted to WUWT. It may not be much but if we all do it…….

  106. JAN says:

    Thomas Mee (19:11:43) :

    “Better yet, maybe I’ll meet Gene from India someday at a conference … ”

    Does that mean you feel tempted to do a Santer on him?

  107. Peter Plail says:

    Peter Hearnden (00:39:45) :

    Some peoples’ “breathtaking over reactions[sic]” are other peoples’ “vigourously expressed opinions”.

    How is it an overreaction to express concern over thinly-veiled death threats?

    Now let me get back to watching the Formula 1 CO2 fest in Malaysia!

  108. Annabelle says:

    Call me naive, but I was shocked by the Greenpeace article.

    I remember the days when I admired Greenpeace for saving whales, and other laudable causes. I have donated money to them on a number of occasions (though not recently since I became an AGW sceptic). I even visited Rainbow Warrior when I had the opportunity a few years ago, although it was a disappointing experience – the Greenpeacers who were on board at the time were very unfriendly and seemed quite arrogant, as activists often do.

    Nevertheless I have always had a bit of a soft spot for Greenpeace, and I am truly shocked that they could publish this nasty, hate-filled article on their official website. I also thoroughly resent the implication that I am unable to think for myself. They won’t be getting any more money from me. I have posted a comment (with my real name) on their website but I very much doubt it will be published.

  109. K says:

    This is the best possible news for skeptics. It means the shock troops of the opposition will start using violence and outrages to get attention. This will also effectively cut them off from contact with the mainstream political power brokers. They were a lot more dangerous when they were working inside the system. If they have to crawl out from under their rock it means they’ve lost the levers of power.

  110. MartinGAtkins says:

    Lindsay H. (21:03:54) :

    didn’t i read somewhere the leader of greenpeace gets paid 460000 dollars a year, and the organisation takes in 1 billion plus a year ?

    Greenpeace USA reported income of 26,000,000 for 2008. It’s very unlikely the Executive Director Phil Radford is payed anything like 460,000 per year.

    http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center/reports4/2008-2009-annual-report

    AnonyMoose (21:06:41) :

    Keep in mind that Greenpeace has for a long time operated ships which seek out other ships, approach hazardously near, ram, and endanger the crews.

    Greenpeace does indeed indulge in maneuvers on the high seas that endanger shipping and have led collisions. As far as I am aware though it has never deliberately rammed another ship.

    The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society does deliberately ram shipping and fixes spikes to it’s ships hulls in an attempt to hole the other ships hull.

    The Sea Shepherd crew are criminals. One is under arrest in Japan and officially indicted on five charges.

    Peter Bethune of the Sea Shepherd has been charged with vessel intrusion, infliction of bodily injury, forcible obstruction of duty, destruction of property, and violation of weapon control laws.

    If found guilty I hope they lock the creep up for a long time.

  111. Andrew says:

    Hey Anthony,

    Thanks for printing Gene’s quote in context – so that people see he’s talking about protest, civil disobedience, consumer boycotts and public exposure of the hidden money behind climate denial.

    To be clear – Greenpeace is 100% peaceful.

    You can read about our core values here…

    http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about/our-core-values

  112. Jimmy Haigh says:

    A someone said before, these nutters are so far to the left they’ve gone all the way around to the extreme right. It’s getting more dificult not to invoke Godwin’s Law by the day.

  113. Jeremy Poynton says:

    Surely this should be reported to the Charity Commission? Or equivalent, outside the UK? This is totally unacceptable.

  114. From Holland says:

    Let us ask Al what he thinks of his friend statements..

    bla, bla, bla, plenty of brabbles and words.. some call it lies.

  115. Peter Miller says:

    Amongst the leadership and opinion formers in the alarmist camp, there are many living very comfortable lifestyles. Understandably, they wish a continuation of this status quo.

    So whether it be GISS, CRU, Greenpeace or others, the desire to perpetuate the status quo requires continuous funding, which in turns requires scaring the lumpen proletariat and/or providing unscrupulous left-leaning politicians with a green reason to increase taxation.

    As every reasonable human being knows, Greenpeace and good science are almost mutually exclusive. Sensationalism is another matter altogether, but if you ‘cry wolf’ many times and no wolf comes, you start to lose credibility even with the lumpen proletariat.

    This, in turn, results in coffers being depleted and a threat to the status quo. Solution? Ratchet up the scare stories, mobilise the masses against the unbelievers – Adolf and Karl would be proud of these tactics.

    I don’t know if this has any relevance: a couple of friends of mine in Toronto used to collect funds for Greenpeace and were allowed to keep 40% of what they collected. Neither likes to talk about the experience or Greenpeace now.

  116. Expat in France says:

    Greenpeace showing their true colours. What a nasty lot. Brings a whole new meaning to the otherwise innocuous words “green” and “peace”.

  117. Peter Wilson says:

    Andrew (01:33:37) :

    “Thanks for printing Gene’s quote in context – so that people see he’s talking about protest, civil disobedience, consumer boycotts and public exposure of the hidden money behind climate denial.To be clear – Greenpeace is 100% peaceful.”

    Dude, that is not how it reads to me. It reads to me as though this guy is quite explicitly giving up on peaceful means as ineffective, due to that pesky democracy thing, at “saving the planet”. He and his band of Captain Planeteers are planning to take direct action against those they see as “undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission”

    Which would mean most people commenting on this blog, I would think.

    I’d be worried if I didn’t think this guy is probably just a blowhard..

  118. JER0ME says:

    Andrew (01:33:37) :

    Hey Anthony,

    Thanks for printing Gene’s quote in context – so that people see he’s talking about protest, civil disobedience, consumer boycotts and public exposure of the hidden money behind climate denial.

    To be clear – Greenpeace is 100% peaceful.

    Sorry, Andrew, I’m just not buying it:

    If you’re one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this:

    We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.

    And we be many, but you be few.

    If you won’t condemn this promise of assault, and it is nothing less, then you are complicit.

  119. Pops says:

    So Greenpiss now agree that the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior was a good thing, seeing as how it was being used for, quote, “bankrolling junk science, fuelling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission,” end quote.

  120. Andrew says:

    Well, I’ve known Gene for years, and can can comfortably say a couple things about him…

    1) He’s no blowhard.

    2) He’s a genuinely peaceful guy.

    Yeah, he’s up for direct action – that means civil disobedience, protests and the sort. It doesn’t mean violence.

    Reply: Please be polite to Andrew. At a cursory examination he appears legitimately as someone who works with Greenpeace. ~ ctm

  121. PaulsNZ says:

    GreenPeace are too stupid to realize that their plans are out in the open…any actions will be deemed “terrorism” and considering how jumpy the “Police” are someone in green-peace could get hurt!. I suppose they will call them Martyrs.

  122. GixxerBoy says:

    Is this what they are reduced to, underhand threats? Can’t take the facts, huh? I used to be a member of Greenpeace. I am passionate about environmental protection, but Greenpeace are just exposing themselves as a political activist organisation. It’s why I left.

  123. Jason F says:

    “we are many, they are few”

    I think they might have used Mike’s nature trick on their numbers! As if the green retoric hadn’t got silly enough years ago.

  124. D. Patterson says:

    Peter Wilson (02:23:58) :
    I’d be worried if I didn’t think this guy is probably just a blowhard..

    The leader of Greenpeace announced plans to commit illegal acts on March 15th, so the threat of coercion by “direct action” of Greenpeace is openly stated and credible. Such “Direct Action” in the past has resulted in physical violence, destruction of property, amd intimidation of commerce and legislators.

    Greenpeace chief: breaking law justifiable in fight against climate change
    The head of Greenpeace has said that it is justifiable to break the law in order to alert people to the threat of climate change. Published: 7:30AM GMT 15 Mar 2010
    [....]
    Kumi Naidoo has said that it is justifiable to break the law in order to alert people to the threat of climate change
    [....]
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/7443307/Greenpeace-chief-breaking-law-justifiable-in-fight-against-climate-change.html

  125. Al Gore's Holy Hologram says:

    “Andrew (01:33:37) :
    To be clear – Greenpeace is 100% peaceful.”

    [not that I disagree with your sentiment, but that is a can of worms I will not allow into this discussion. ~ ctm]

  126. D. Patterson says:

    Andrew (01:33:37) :
    [....]
    To be clear – Greenpeace is 100% peaceful.

    For that statement to be truthful, you will need to embark aboard a time machine on a trip into the past for the purpose of stopping the violence committed by Greenpeace in the destruction of experimental GM crops in Norfolk, military aircraft, coal plant facilities, trepass on a parliamentary seat of government, and a plethora of other physcial acts.

  127. Allan M says:

    RockyRoad (20:51:36) :

    Ah, Greenpeace, Greenpeace, Greenpeace…

    Words belie and words belittle, but here’s the truth:

    You are neither Green, nor do you herald peace.

    Why don’t you just change your name to “Brownwar” or “Blackhate”?

    Then your name will accurately reflect your modus operandi, your threats, your thoughts, and your persona.

    How terribly sad.

    Or maybe “Gangrenepiece?”
    ———-
    Andrew (01:33:37) :

    Hey Anthony,

    Thanks for printing Gene’s quote in context – so that people see he’s talking about protest, civil disobedience, consumer boycotts and public exposure of the hidden money behind climate denial.

    Grow up. Like the extra heat, it isn’t ‘hidden’, it just doesn’t exist.

  128. Allan M says:

    Nice man, that Dr. Patrick Moore.

    Reply: Please be polite to Andrew. At a cursory examination he appears legitimately as someone who works with Greenpeace. ~ ctm

    ctm, I fail to see why his membership entitles him to such politeness. Do we get the same in return?

    Reply: Because such cross fertilization potentially promotes communication. If he behaves politely, sincere or not, then the courtesy should be returned. Besides, in general we do enforce courtesy between commenters no matter what side they come from. ~ ctm.

  129. A C Osborn says:

    If you’re one of those who have spent their lives undermining climate SCIENCE, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this:

    We know who you are, Greenpeace, WWF, CRU, NASA, IPCC, EU, Carbon Trading.

  130. A C Osborn says:

    Andrew (01:33:37) : QUOTE “In developing our campaign strategies and policies we take great care to reflect our fundamental respect for democratic principles and to seek solutions that will promote global social equity. ”

    Is NOT what he is advocating, it should not therefore be published on an official Greenpeace Website.

  131. A C Osborn says:

    D. Patterson (02:45:52) :
    Greenpeace chief: breaking law justifiable in fight against climate change
    The head of Greenpeace has said that it is justifiable to break the law in order to alert people to the threat of climate change. Published: 7:30AM GMT 15 Mar 2010
    [....]
    Kumi Naidoo has said that it is justifiable to break the law in order to alert people to the threat of climate change
    [....]

    Doesn’t that just say it all, so this guy Gene is not a lone “Crazy” by their standards, as the message comes down from the Top.

  132. Liam says:

    From working with various environmental groups over the years I reckon half their active (i.e. turn up to meetings, no just pay dues) membership would happily go along with that kind of militant action, and very few would openly oppose it.

    Ironically, if the financial oxygen of unemployment benefit were cut off from green activists, so they had to get a proper job instead of sitting around all day being “radical”, the green movement would crumble overnight.

  133. Peter Wilson says:

    Andrew (02:39:54) :
    Well, I’ve known Gene for years, and can can comfortably say a couple things about him…

    1) He’s no blowhard.

    2) He’s a genuinely peaceful guy.

    On the basis of the above rant, I’d have to say those propositions are mutually exclusive

  134. brodie says:

    These guys do not care about the environment. When I was fighting forest fires they would throw such a fit about where we could and could not walk on public lands for fear of destroying a precious plant or moss.

    But, look at the big red letters on this site: http://www.nps.gov/orpi/planyourvisit/backcountry.htm

    and read about how they are destroying the landscape here:
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/01/0110_030113_organpipeclynes.html

    If they cared about the environment at all, they would be up in arms about this.

  135. maz2 says:

    “L’imposture climatique (The Climate Fraud)”.

    “French Researchers Ask Science Minister to Disavow Climate Skeptic

    PARIS—More than 400 French climate scientists want science minister Valérie Pécresse to take a clear stand against the country’s most vocal climate skeptic, geochemist Claude Allègre of the Institute of Geophysics of Paris (IPGP). On Wednesday, the group sent Pécresse a letter denouncing Allègre’s latest book, L’imposture climatique (The Climate Fraud), and asking her to express confidence in the climate research community. Allègre was science minister from 1997 until 2000.

    The book—a series of interviews with journalist Dominique de Montvalon—includes a harsh attack on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which Allègre calls a “mafia-like system” that propagates a “baseless myth.” Climate scientists and journalists at several newspapers have argued that the book is riddled with errors, distortions of the data, and outright lies.

    The dispute has played out for 2 months in raucous TV and radio debates and countless op-eds. French scientists say it’s time for the government and several prominent lab directors to take sides. The group also takes aim at IPGP Director Vincent Courtillot, another global warming skeptic.””

    http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/04/french-researchers-ask-science-m.html

  136. james griffin says:

    Desperation time and they know it.

  137. Bryan says:

    Will attacking sceptics change the climate?

    I don’t think so!

  138. Craig Loehle says:

    “cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission”
    Ha ha ha ha ha!!!! Give them complete control of the media and the UN and the major science societies and etc and they want to play the underdog? That the only way they could possibly be losing is due to a big well-funded conspiracy? The big enviro groups have spent well over a billion dollars on this issue and lose to Steve McIntyre with an acer laptop. It must really sting.

  139. pgosselin says:

    …sent the GP link to Drudge.

  140. Craig Loehle says:

    Are their threats just words? Perhaps not. There are numerous (hundreds) of acts of violence by like-minded individuals. A bomb at a Michigan forestry school, a tree nursery destroyed, new home developments set on fire, riots at every G8 or similar meeting. Name a single case of skeptics rioting or bombing something.

    Someone up above posted the money from the Koch foundation to various think tanks like Cato Institute. Only a small fraction of the activities of these think tanks is about climate change, but even if it were this money from Koch is a drop in the bucket just compared to the GreenPeace budget, nevermind all the other climate alarmist groups, and never mind official government alarm from PSAs and official reports and government web sites (NASA, Met Office). It is hilarious really trying to make it seem that the opposition to hysteria is well-funded. Many of the key figures are retired or pay for their own blog or have even lost their jobs (some big reward there, eh?)

  141. Skepshasa says:

    I have always considered myself a skeptic but the word is beginning to take on connotations that I’m not comfortable with. I guess I don’t like how polarized and politicized the word skeptic is becoming and now Greenpeace is almost at war with those “dirty” skeptics.

    I think I’ll champion the cause of clearing this up for people and I encourage others to do the same. Scientific skepticism is a vital aspect of the foundation of all science and in general helps protect society from the spread of pseudoscience, superstition, and irrational beliefs.

    Dummies.com handles it well: “The words skeptic and skepticism come from an ancient Greek verb that meant “to inquire.” Etymologically, then, a skeptic is an inquirer. This should form important background for an understanding of skeptical doubt. Skepticism at its best is not a matter of denial, but of inquiring, seeking, questioning doubt.”

    Source: http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/examining-the-roots-of-skepticism-pyrrho-and-sextu.html#ixzz0k8T3ebwL

  142. JMANON says:

    About time Greenpeace, WWF and the other once honest organisations were brought to heel.
    How about lobbying for them to be deprived of their government grant money. How legal is it it for these people to appear as NGOs in the debating chambeers when they are partly fundeed by various givernments?

  143. Bruce Cobb says:

    Dear Greedyp’s (p for pinheads); congratulations. You’ve gone from being a legitimate environmental organization to one that is a money-grubbing semi-terrorist one espousing lawlessness and violence against those who disagree with you. Give yourselves a big pat on the back and round of applause. You should be proud.
    We be quaking in our boots. From laughter.

  144. ammonite says:

    I left Greenpeace about 10 years ago. I went to the top, had a full blown argument about wind turbine development on peatland and wild land. There was no effort to explain the massive local loss let alone the demon CO2 loss from cutting into saturated peat…
    My understanding is it starts at home, how you treat your own back yard first. It’s just like charity it really does begin at home. After winning a protracted public enquiry and seeing their mythical global message ignored. Hype was hyped to fear tactics, enabling planning applications to have consent laced with bags of money – the treatment of those who showed any kind of intelligent argument against was vitriol in a small community. “We know who you are.” has resonance to those times too.

    It did not stop us then, but the composition of the atmosphere here has changed, I doubt whether we would have won if the application came through today.

    Why Greenpeace feels so intense about us sceptics and yet will not admit to the tumbling numbers of members they witnessed and other groups like RSPB the real membership lost over the years – another glaring part of the Emperor’s newly bought apparel.

  145. JoeFromBrazil says:

    COP 16 MUST be a success. So… lets remove the “guys that don’t believe is us”.
    The global warming movement broke and tore all institutions that we know. They divide families, political parties, religions, countries, continents, enterprises, everything. The world is broken. This guys are not just terrorists. They are a threat for the rest of the humankind. The lies of this criminals must be confronted and they must be prosecuted and expelled by the countries where they are encrusted.

  146. Andrew says:

    Craig – If we were in charge then Obama wouldn’t be announcing off shore drilling, there would be net zero deforestation, a network of marine reserves would cover 40% of the worlds oceans, and this conversation would be powered by wind and solar.

    Unfortunately, mega-corporations seem to be mainly running the show. Thanks for bringing up Koch. Good example of how things work…

    http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/dirty-money-climate-30032010

    ctm – Yes, I work as a web producer for Greenpeace. Thanks for asking folks to be polite. They seem nice so far.

  147. Chris D. says:

    Unfortunately, I can no longer find the YouTube vid showing someone on a Greenpeace protest boat (I think it was that new, black, high-tech stealthy looking one) shooting a crossbow at a whaling vessel.

  148. 1DandyTroll says:

    GP sounds like an oil company that gets paid by other oil companies to disrupt business for competitors. Huh, I’m sure I meant funded by “green” energy companies.

  149. Andrew says:

    Jerome –

    Here are two of Greenpeace’s core values…

    + We ‘bear witness’ to environmental destruction in a peaceful, non-violent manner;

    + We use non-violent confrontation to raise the level and quality of public debate;

    http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about/our-core-values

    So, no one (not me, not Gene, not anyone at GP) wishes you (or any other climate skeptic) any physical harm. We disagree, and will be vocal about that. And we’ll protest, and even take *peaceful* direct action.

    Clear enough?

  150. Chris D. says:

    Greenpeace, WWF, and others could really pull off a coup if they were to actually join the skeptical community in calling for greater transparency in climate science (instead of thwarting replication), its peer review, less tribalism, and higher quality/less bias in the media’s reporting of matters relating to climate.

    Glad to see someone with Greenpeace posting here – the enviro justice movement has legitimate concerns. Some of the methods are troubling, though. Justice is found through the legal system, not by creating more injustice.

  151. Aunty Freeze says:

    Perhaps green Gene would like to visit me in a couple of weeks when I’m pre-menstral, I’ll be ready :0)

    Talking of a couple of weeks, there will be a meeting in my local market town in Somerset (UK) called ’2010 election, Ask the climate question’. Residents have been invited to go along and ask questions about climate change to candidates. It is organised by green and conservation groups.
    My 12 year old son was told that he could submit a question at school, so I sent him in with a list of 6 questions which were not the usual ‘How do we save the polar bears’ type questions that they were expecting :) His eco greenie teacher looked at them and just said ‘interesting’ and walked off.

  152. DirkH says:

    Talking about breaking the law, “we be many but you be few”, and general leftist attitudes towards the property and safety of *OTHER* people…

    In Berlin and to a lesser degree in Hamburg left wing radicals have made it a habit to set fire to high end sedans like Mercedes and bigger Audi’s. They usually walk past a parked vehicle in the night and place a barbecue lighter on a tyre, light it and walk away. The rubber will take some time to catch fire. When police and firemen arrive our Eco-Freedom Fighter will already be in a safe distance.

    Here’s a german website with a map:

    http://www.brennende-autos.de/

  153. INGSOC says:

    I wonder how many real environmentalists are out there… You know, ones that have not drunk the carbon cool-aid and still care about the actual environment. While those that claim AGW as the sole cause of concern for the planet become ever more shrill and apocalyptic, the real and not modeled environment is in fact suffering badly. That does not seem to matter anymore; not as long as you screw in a few CFL’s and drive a Prius.

    What a sad state of affairs. I am certain that this era will be considered one of the darkest of ages. Greenpeace merely confirms it.

  154. Enneagram says:

    The proper channels have failed. It’s time for mass civil disobedience to cut off the financial oxygen from denial and skepticism

    So you took away CO2 from our respiration and with it the oxygen producing green vegetation, and now you menace to take away the “financial oxygen”?
    Let me tell you that if there is any oxygen of that kind ALL IS YOURS since a long, long time, because, as you know, big money always funds big fools, as any normal thinking human being is clever enough not to care about silly matters.

  155. DirkH says:

    “Andrew (06:27:42) :
    [...]
    Unfortunately, mega-corporations seem to be mainly running the show. Thanks for bringing up Koch. Good example of how things work…”

    The “evil mega-corporation” Koch owns Cargill. Cargill operates a biodiesel refinery a few km south of where i live. From your writing i assume that that is evil now, and not green or renewable anymore, right?

    One of the reasons i don’t believe anything from the Greens anymore is the way certain things can be green, benign and sustainable one day and evil, hellish, mega-corporation-evil stuff the next day.

    Probably Koch just stopped paying the pizzo.

  156. COM says:

    @ enduser

    ‘This was posted to a very left-leaning forum.’

    I agree to some extent. The leftivists can be quite overbearing on Reddit.com – but there is still room for a variety of opinions. For instance, I came to this page from:

    http://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/

    Polite, well reasoned, well backed up discussion is welcome.

  157. DirkH says:

    “Andrew (06:46:28) :
    [...]
    + We use non-violent confrontation to raise the level and quality of public debate;”

    Rich, Andrew, simply rich! “We be many but you be few”!

    I applaud you!

    No, really. That was hilarious.

  158. DirkH says:

    “Andrew (06:27:42) :
    [...]
    and this conversation would be powered by wind and solar.”

    … and would be down 18 hours of the day.

  159. _Jim says:

    Hmmmm … Iowahawk missed including the enviro-weenies as a ‘hazard’ in his latest tome, to wit:

    Journo-Politico Violence: Deadly Threat or Menacing Trend?

    http://bigjournalism.com/dburge/2010/04/03/journo-politico-violence-deadly-threat-or-menacing-trend/

    It begins satirically thusly:

    A Public Safety Alert from David Burge
    Executive Director and Chief Research Officer
    The Media Violence Project / Center for the Study of Politician Sociopathy

    At the Media Violence Project, our charter is to protect public safety by researching, documenting and raising awareness about the ever-increasing wave of violent, disgusting crimes perpetrated by members of the American news media. It is a largely thankless task — often requiring a cast iron stomach — but if our work has prevented one more American child from falling victim to a criminally insane anchorman or newspaper reporter, it will all have been worth it.

    Were it not for the plethora of embedded links, cites and supporting media accounts, one would this was a complete work of fiction …

    .
    .

  160. davidmhoffer says:

    Andrew (06:27:42) :
    Craig – If we were in charge then Obama wouldn’t be announcing off shore drilling, there would be net zero deforestation, a network of marine reserves would cover 40% of the worlds oceans, and this conversation would be powered by wind and solar>>

    Andrew – to previous comments of yours, no rational person could read the tirade on the Greenpeace web site and come to any conclusion other than it is an endoresement of violence. Quoting from the Greenpeace charter is no more relevant to this matter than trying to show that Al Qaida is peaceful by quoting from the Quran. It is actions that speak the loudest and this article was a call to actions of violence. If Greenpeace is in fact peacefull, they would publicly repudiate it. That they do not also speaks loudly because then it comes to matters of this nature, silence is taken as endoresement by many.

    As for this conversation being powered by wind and solar, perhaps some day that would be practical. If it were true today, it would have been accomplished via the death of 3/4 of the earth’s population, starved to death by the lack of food production enabled and distributed by fossil fuels.

    What value is your solution if 6 billion people must die for it?

    I’m sure you have answers, arguments, evidence, to show that such a solution is possible without killing off most of humanity. I will not listen to one single solitary word of it until the call for violence is retracted and publicly repudiated.

  161. ammonite says:

    Andrew- What a joke ‘this conversation driven by wind and solar’ how much have you read on this excellent website? This is the kernel of your whole problem. Greenpeace solutions and matras are a tragic skewed mess. Your organisation’s belief system clouds the reality and will not listen to their own. Your organisation has no credibility now.

    Leave your job and work for a small business. Learn about reality and where your donated salary comes from. Learn about the slow death of the wildlands through wind energy saturation, the corrupt use of hydro to prop up wind energy. Learn about the imposition of blasted spines of hills, the use of concrete and cement, the carbon losses, the effects to birds, spawning fish, land scarred- once pristine well beloved land, the waste, the expense to communities. The bribes, the backhanders, the irreparable damage to archaeological sites .. it goes on. Learn.

  162. Tom Black says:

    Big Oil is behind this!!!

    As financial supporters of the CRU they infiltrated and coerced the scientists to send all those damaging e-mails, what better way to sour public opinion?

    They may have even convinced the IPCC to change that Himalayan melt date, (“you know Raj if you just move the zero to between the two and three, it will make much more impact”)

  163. Jimbo says:

    “We need to hit them where it hurts most, by any means necessary: through the power of our votes, our taxes, our wallets, and more.
    …..
    We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.”

    Shouldn’t the police be called in at this stage? Someone a little unhinged might just take those words as a sign for some ‘action’.

  164. hunter says:

    We may see a good 2 run homer- AGW imploding and taking the Greenpeace industry with it.

  165. Richard M says:

    Andrew (06:27:42), it appears you still think skeptics are “funded” as you post on a skeptic website whose existence is solely due to a vast number of concerned individuals. As it turns out Greenpeace is far more of a “mega-corporation” than anything related to skeptics. The big supporters of “wind and solar” are mega-corporations like GE.

    Take a little time and search for the truth.

  166. _Jim says:

    As a rhetorical question, has Mark Potock of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in Montgomery, Alabama in and charge of their “Intelligence Project” got these ppl on his watch list of subversive organizations?

    Oh, sorry, he only tracks right-wing orgs of this kind … never mind.

    .
    .

  167. D. Watt says:

    Greenpeace = terrorist!

  168. davidmhoffer says:

    “We are many and you are few”

    As one of the few does that make me Fewish?
    Because prior to this I thought I was Jewish
    The global warming you have surmised
    Is derived from data circumsised
    You know where I live, you will make me listen
    What if still I do not learn the lesson?
    Will you then propose a final solution
    To rid the planet of man’s pollution?
    Who shall live and who shall die
    To hide away the global warming lie?

  169. _Jim says:


    Andrew (06:27:42) :

    Craig – If we were in charge then Obama wouldn’t be announcing off shore drilling,

    Purely a PR move on Obama’s part; to quote Institute for Energy Research: (an excerpt)

    This is a huge step backward for America’s energy security.

    Prior to today’s announcement, the vast majority of OCS areas were open for business. No longer. Today, while President Obama may have stated his support for increased energy development in the Eastern Gulf (which requires congressional action) and the Southern Atlantic (which he’ll study over the next year), he also announced that he would delay the development of the energy resources off Virginia’s coast and lock up vast resources off the Alaskan coast.

    Additionally, those who cheer the President’s newfound support for domestic energy resources should remember that the very same President’s FY 2011 budget proposal includes upwards of $36 billion in new oil and natural gas taxes, which will discourage domestic production, especially in areas like the Southern Atlantic that have little to no existing infrastructure. While today’s rhetoric made for a good news cycle, the policy is not a step forward, but a huge leap backward.

    Canada drills for oil in the North Atlantic. Cuba, Brazil, and Venezuela produce energy in the water to our South. The Russians do the same to our West. Yet, America, the most technologically advanced nation in the world, with the most stringent environmental policies on the books, remains the only nation that imposes burdensome regulations and endless streams of red tape on domestic production. Americans want to stop embargoing our own oil. The president’s plan expands that existing embargo, and Americans will pay the price.

    So you see, his announcement was PURE window dressing; your crowd is getting what you want (ham-stringing of the US); ask ‘your leaders’ and verify this, if they are sharp enough to discern what just happened …

    .
    .

  170. peterk says:

    and of course we won’ t see a word of this in the MSM. they would rather report about an inconsequential small ‘militia’ group

  171. Jimbo says:

    From Greenpeace blog :o)

    “We need to be inclusive. We need to join forces with those within the climate movement that are taking direct action to disrupt the CO2 supply chain.”

    “We need to embrace the conservatives too, the ones that choose scientific rigour and court injunctions as their weapons.”

    Even if they succeeded by 50% they would shave a trace amount from a trace gas which would not make any difference to the mean global temperatures in 2100. What a waste of bandwidth!!!

    http://weblog.greenpeace.org/climate/2010/04/will_the_real_climategate_plea_1.html

  172. Peter Wilson says:

    Andrew (06:27:42) :

    “Unfortunately, mega-corporations seem to be mainly running the show. ”

    Amazing that Greenpeace is still flogging this particularly lifeless nag. Greenpeace’s own analysis on Exxonsecrets confirms the pathetically small amounts of money involved on the sceptic side ($23 million over how many years?!?). Against George Soros, WWF and Greenpeace. The alarmist cause has many orders of magnitude more cash than any sceptic thinktank.

    Funny how the real world is a mirror image of how you guys imagine it.

    If money was the deciding factor the debate really would be over.

  173. Digsby says:

    “We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.”

    Claiming that this can be construed as anything but a physical threat is like claiming that a “trick” can mean anything but what we all really know it means.

    But I don’t think, as many of you apparently do, that this is a general threat against sceptics at this time; rather I see it as a specific threat against certain prominent individuals in the sceptic community, whose home addresses and places of work these fascist thugs almost certainly do know already. I would urge these individuals to contact the police for their own safety.

  174. Marlene Anderson says:

    Greenpeace is an ironic name for an organization that advocates green wars. Reminds me of 1984 and the Ministry of Truth which was new-speak for Ministry of Misinformation.

  175. Tim Clark says:

    Andrew (06:27:42) :
    Craig – If we were in charge then Obama wouldn’t be announcing off shore drilling, there would be net zero deforestation, a network of marine reserves would cover 40% of the worlds oceans, and this conversation would be powered by wind and solar.

    LOL!

  176. Lazarus Long says:

    “And we be many, but you be few.

    Ummm, I think you better check that math on that boys.”

    Grammar, too.

  177. Rupert says:

    @Jimbo.
    If Greenpeace really want to ‘disrupt the CO2 chain’ maybe they should consider chopping down the Amazon rainforest and pouring acid into the Pacific Ocean – that would do the trick if I understand the CO2 cycle correctly

  178. Gary Pearse says:

    Gee ‘Goonpeace’ knows who we are, where we live and where we work. If this is true, then they would know we aint getting a penny from anyone for doing our duty. Although when they find out who we are, they can always adjust the data and make us all proxy billionaires.

  179. DJ Meredith says:

    “..The proper channels have failed. It’s time for mass civil disobedience to cut off the financial oxygen from denial and skepticism…”

    What they seem to be missing is that there is no single valve, no single source. Worse yet, if they effectively cripple an energy industry and increase costs to the consumer, the ripple effect backlash will do them far more harm and alienate the unwitting public that currently supports them.

    Btw, I told them to email me if they’d lost my address. Disobedience on my property or to me results in uncomfortable stimulation of nerve endings.

  180. Kay says:

    Michael Crichton is crowing and saying, “I told you so!”

    Greenpeace: the biggest terrorist organization on the planet.

  181. Channon says:

    So;
    Not Green
    Not Peaceful

    Someone needs a new Mission Statement methinks!

  182. Rich Day says:

    I suggest they storm Fort Knox, Marine Corp Base Quantico and for good measure, try to shut down the NYSE.

  183. Jimbo says:

    “we be many, but you be few”

    I may be wrong here but I think the opinion polls say otherwise.

  184. Speechless in Seattle says:

    “We be many, but you be few.”

    Don’t take this too lightly. What they mean is:
    “We have an army of full-time, experienced, well-funded, professional and semi-professional above-the-law devotees of agit-prop, and a large following of useful idiots; but you, skeptics, have few (if any) of those things.”

  185. jaypan says:

    I’d call this eco fascism and green’peace’ is the organization behind.

  186. David Ball says:

    Okay, maybe Andrew and Peter Hearnden are right. We drop fossil fuels and adopt alternatives. Perhaps these gentlemen could explain to me what comes next? I will gladly consider their plans if they help me to understand their plans. If you are going to lead, you have to have somewhere to go. Help me out here, as it is difficult to make the leap without my family suffering. For myself, I am not worried, but I can only go along with your ideals if I am certain my family will be safe and healthy. This may be a big hurdle, but it is the one you will have to overcome with the general public. I await your reply.

  187. Ed Murphy says:

    Greenpeace could soon attract Neoconservatives to trump up some evidence that GP possesses WMD and is aiding OBL with this kind of talk. There’s always Jeb Bush…

  188. Charles. U. Farley says:

    “We know where you live.”

    Implied threat of physical harm.
    File with your local FBI office, department of homeland security or other security organisation.
    Nothing less than cowardly pussy terrorists masquerading as environmentalists.

  189. Annabelle says:

    To Andrew from Greenpeace:

    If Gene didn’t mean to be threatening and intimidating, then he needs to say so very clearly. Becuase as it stands, his article reads like a threat of violence to me. That is the usual implication of the stock phrase “We know where you live” – surely Gene is aware of that? If he isn’t, you need to explain it to him.

  190. Bill Tuttle says:

    Andrew (02:39:54) :
    Well, I’ve known Gene for years, and can can comfortably say a couple things about him…
    1) He’s no blowhard.
    2) He’s a genuinely peaceful guy.

    Have you spoken to him recently? His words are those of an “Apocalyptic True Believer” — the sort who can be radicalized in a very short time by a person adept at manipulating people’s emotions.

    Yeah, he’s up for direct action – that means civil disobedience, protests and the sort. It doesn’t mean violence.

    A call for direct action *is* a call for violence. It’s the euphemism every Western radical from syndico-anarchist to bright-Red revolutionary uses to avoid using the v-word — makes it easier for their lawyers to get them more lenient sentences. But don’t take my word for it — read Bill Ayers’ manifesto, “Prairie Fire.”

  191. Expect more of this from the green movement. We’ve entered the ‘social marketing’ phase of the anthropogenic global warming movement.

    Greenpeace has been patting itself on its back for ‘unearthing’ Koch Industries. Apparently they’ve been researching for months for this. :)a

    They are also bright enough to think of themselves as a spontaneous group involved in environmental protection whereas the skeptical world is made of mindless zombies kept animated on financial oxygen.

    More about the marketing of climate change

  192. Allan M says:

    Andrew (06:27:42) :
    Craig – If we were in charge then Obama wouldn’t be announcing off shore drilling, there would be net zero deforestation, a network of marine reserves would cover 40% of the worlds oceans, and this conversation would be powered by wind and solar.

    So you consider the whole planet to be your personal zoo.

  193. Bill Tuttle says:

    Rich Day (09:43:53) :
    I suggest they storm Fort Knox, Marine Corp Base Quantico and for good measure, try to shut down the NYSE.

    Simultaneously.

    Lotta training ammo available for the tankers at Knox, and I hear the Marines are looking for a few good combatives targets — ummmmmm — assistant instructors. Not sure about the NYSE, though. I don’t think Wall Streeters are in any mood to take live prisoners…

  194. Al Gore's Holy Hologram says:

    Dr Patrick Moore left this organisation he co-founded because it became anti-scientific, anti-human, irrational and elitist.

    Everything Greenpeace does is to help one corporation over another or to hinder development in poorer countries, especially on a racial basis. If you’re brown Greenpeace doesn’t want you to live in a house or drive a car. It wants you to live up to the myth of the noble savage and not use the energy resources that should be reserved for wealthy countries.

  195. kwik says:

    It is strange that Greenpeace dont like CO2.

    CO2, food for green life. More three-growth, less deserts.

    Very strange. They should love CO2.

  196. David, UK says:

    “And we be many, but you be few.”

    What are they trying to do now? Scare us with the ‘pirate’ talk? We be many, Jim lad! You be few! Arrrrrrrrr!

    I’m positively shaking.

  197. RockyRoad says:

    Not a threat but a promise to Greenpeace:

    This Climate Realist, together with other AGW pacifists, realists, denialists, skeptics and dissidents, will hit AGW distortionists and eco-terrorists where it hurts most, by any means necessary: through the power of our logic, our discussions, our donations, political involvement, and more.

    The proper channels are succeeding. It is time to step up mass political, social and scientific involvement to cut off the improper and dishonest influence AGW has had on plastic politicians and trough-feeding, activist scientists worldwide.

    As one who believes this is not just necessary but also possible, we speak to you, AGW distortionists and eco-terrorists: We will report and counter your mass civil disobedience with a global watch, rule of law, logical persuasion, and friendly discourse.

    As one who has spent his life studying and applying the precepts of science and engineering for the betterment of myself, my family, friends, neighbors and all mankind, I and others like me refute your Progressive climate legislation, junk science, and threatening tone. Your anti-civilized behavior supported by spurious debate based on false data, false premise, and false solutions makes your AGW theory impossible to convincingly defend. As you apply your methods of violence, threats, and coercion, and by pitch-forking politicians to yield to your warped set of values, hear this:

    Our primary weapon is the Internet; our bullets include the vast array of scientific arguments that refute your false positions and misinformation campaign. We are not afraid of your hysteria and your death threats. As someone who has lost the argument, you have now turned to violence.

    We know who you are and will send the police to round you up if you behave in a criminal manner. You are on notice. We will use all means to defend ourselves, our family, friends, community, and country. We are not without resources and certainly not without resolve.

    Our cause is peace, our approach is logical, and our methods are scientific.

    You may be many, but you are becoming far fewer.

  198. Luboš Motl says:

    Just if you don’t know: the “Gene” is Gene Hashmi, the communication director of Greenpeace India. Sources proving the statement and extra data about it on my blog:

    http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/04/greenpeace-we-know-where-you-live.html

  199. BCGreenBean says:

    Argh, not the MWP, I meant the LIA. That’ll teach me to post without coffee. Grrr!

  200. Northern Exposure says:

    Bah whatever.

    Normal behaviour… When one side starts losing an argument, they get nasty and all ‘ad hominem’ like and jump into attack mode. That’s when you know you’re winning the argument and gaining the upper hand.

    *snicker snicker*

  201. Frank Kotler says:

    “We know who you are.”

    Actually, I kinda doubt it…

    Best,
    Frank

  202. maz2 says:

    Al Gore’s Weather (AGW): Debatez-Moi?

    Go to ZuzukiWeb and sign in for Debatez-Moi.

    Canadian Liberal Egghead Citoyen Kyoto Dion has reserved his place.

    Topique: “France’s two most prominent sceptics, Claude Allegre and Vincent Courtillot, have sown great doubt in the minds of a once unskeptical French public.”

    Tsktsk

    …-

    “Lawrence Solomon: France to hold official debate on climate change

    At the suggestion of France’s science minister, Valérie Pécresse, France’s National Academy of Sciences will hold an official debate on climate change to try to defuse this newly explosive issue..

    The Academy of Sciences debate, expected to be held by October of this year, follows two months of heated debate on radio and television, during which France’s two most prominent sceptics, Claude Allegre and Vincent Courtillot, have sown great doubt in the minds of a once unskeptical French public. Allegre’s new book, L’imposture climatique (The Climate Fraud), has especially caused the French public to reconsider the conventional wisdom about global warming. In this runaway best-seller (110,000 copies sold to date), Allegre, France’s most celebrated scientist and a former Science Minister in a socialist government, calls the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a “mafia-like system” that promotes a “baseless myth” about climate change.

    In an attempt to stop the erosion of their public support, some 410 establishment scientists petitioned the current science minster, asking her to rebuke the skeptics and to express confidence in the climate research community. Her response was to turn to France’s National Academy with a request for a debate on the subject. The Academy’s president, Jean Salençon, readily agreed in the hopes that an airing of the issues would calm some of the fury on the subject.

    Noting that the Academy does not take sides on the issue, and that the Academy’s website already reports the views of scientists on both sides of the debate, Salençon aims to defend the scientific method and the principles of scientific inquiry, not any one scientific position. When asked if sanctions might be in the cards for Allegre, a member of the Academy, or any other climate sceptics, he replied: “Under no circumstances! There is no question of ethical sanctions. Even less of an expulsion. The nomination for the Academy of Sciences is perpetual. It cannot be reversed, not even through a resignation.”

    The participants in the October debate have not yet been determined.”

    http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2010/04/03/lawrence-solomon-france-to-hold-official-debate-on-climate-change.aspx

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/013710.html

    “Y2Kyoto: The Greenpeace Militia

    The climate fascists are getting restless…”

  203. Vincent says:

    Andrew,

    Your words are mendacious. You are twisting like a politician trying to distance himself from an inconvenient incident. Make no mistake – “we know where you live,” directly connotates at the very least harassment of individuals. If the Heartland instute was to put out a statment directed at CRU scientists that was even half as incendiary as that, what would your reaction be?

    Greenpeace has chosen the path of conflict. What God given right does your organisation have to cattle prod our democratically elected representatives? What right to declare action against the legitimate interests of the peoples of our nations. In another time this would be called treason.

  204. Jeff Alberts says:

    Gary Pearse (08:53:04) :

    Gee ‘Goonpeace’ knows who we are, where we live and where we work. If this is true, then they would know we aint getting a penny from anyone for doing our duty. Although when they find out who we are, they can always adjust the data and make us all proxy billionaires.

    And they’ll know that many of us own guns, and know how to use them for self-defense.

  205. Charles. U. Farley says:

    What was that they were saying about “building bridges” the other week? :D

  206. Peter Hearnden says:

    David Ball (10:17:00) :

    Okay, maybe Andrew and Peter Hearnden are right. We drop fossil fuels and adopt alternatives. Perhaps these gentlemen could explain to me what comes next? I will gladly consider their plans if they help me to understand their plans. If you are going to lead, you have to have somewhere to go. Help me out here, as it is difficult to make the leap without my family suffering. For myself, I am not worried, but I can only go along with your ideals if I am certain my family will be safe and healthy. This may be a big hurdle, but it is the one you will have to overcome with the general public. I await your reply.

    This thread is about Greenpeace – I responded to that.

    Anyway, you choose to change the subject.

    My response is fossil fuels are finite so at some point we need to address that. There is lots of coal, and Oil wont run out any time soon but it may reach a peak of production fairly soon, decades, and my view is it would be sensible to think about what that means to us.

    |

  207. kadaka says:

    Greenpeace continues to transform into GreenWar.

    Science fiction is coming true. I knew when I read those stories the premise sounded very plausible, and it is coming to pass.

    The iconic image of Greenpeace, people in small inflatable rafts challenging mighty whaling vessels, ready to die in the defense of life, of their beliefs.

    And what often happens when such passionate committed people join together for their cause? When they don’t see the expected results, that should have come from a caring thinking reasonable populace inevitably flocking to their morally-superior cause? What is the matching side of “willing to die for what you believe in?” Soldiers know it, policemen know it…

  208. johnhayte says:

    People on this board are really prone to exaggeration. Since when is calling for civil disobedience equivalent to inciting terrorism? Is the Chinese Communist Party the gold standard on civil rights for people on this board?

  209. davidmhoffer says:

    johnhayte (15:06:40) :
    People on this board are really prone to exaggeration. Since when is calling for civil disobedience equivalent to inciting terrorism? Is the Chinese Communist Party the gold standard on civil rights for people on this board>>

    Which part of “we know where you live” falls into civil disobediance?

  210. LarryOldtimer says:

    “They also serve who only stand and wait” ~ John Milton

    I also might add AND FUND.

    All of these “greenies” seem to have a serious case of ADD . . . that is, Arithmetic Deficit Disorder. And constantly lie.

    I might also report that the UK committed further economic suicide this last week.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7550164/Climate-Change-Act-has-the-biggest-ever-bill.html

    Of these sort of things are bloody revolutions constructed, which I personally think is the intended purpose.

  211. DirkH says:

    “johnhayte (15:06:40) :

    People on this board are really prone to exaggeration. Since when is calling for civil disobedience equivalent to inciting terrorism? ”

    Oh our little ecological freedom fighter Gene made threatening noises like “We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.”. That is not a call for civil disobedience but sounds more like a personal threat, don’t you think so? Granted, he’s probably insane and doesn’t even know how to handle a weapon. But maybe some of the loons that hang out on those websites do.

    See my link above to the damage certain freedom fighters already do in Germany,
    http://www.brennende-autos.de/

    By now, they don’t kill people intentionally. This can change in an instant, lunatic enough they are.

  212. David Alan Evans says:

    They’ve taken it down or ar least I can’t find it.

    DaveE.

  213. David Alan Evans says:

    Sorry. That was me. I just couldn’t find the quote.

    DaveE.

  214. JER0ME says:

    Andrew (06:46:28) :

    Jerome –

    Here are two of Greenpeace’s core values…

    + We ‘bear witness’ to environmental destruction in a peaceful, non-violent manner;

    + We use non-violent confrontation to raise the level and quality of public debate;

    http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about/our-core-values

    So, no one (not me, not Gene, not anyone at GP) wishes you (or any other climate skeptic) any physical harm. We disagree, and will be vocal about that. And we’ll protest, and even take *peaceful* direct action.

    Clear enough?

    I assume then if a blogger goes against these core values they will be constrained? If not, then I’m afraid those core values are meaningless. If anyone here posted a comment as inflammatory as Gene’s, Anthony would most likeley [snip] it. If a guest poster posted something along these lines it would no doubt cause Anthony to get a lot of criticism.

    What about that do you not understand? I assume you are intelligent. Do read the comments here. You should not be supporting this person, or defending him, in any way, until he publicly retracts these ridiculous statements.

    I’m afraid I cannot take you seriously until you, and Gene, address this pretty fundamental point.

  215. DirkH says:

    Loads fine for me at
    http://weblog.greenpeace.org/climate/2010/04/will_the_real_climategate_plea_1.html

    and my and Willis’ comment are still there.

    They’ve added a disclaimer that the article is supposed to talk about civil disobedience, but they didn’t change the article’s text itself.

    One must admit that at least for the moment they don’t censor as much as RealClimate, Joe Romm or Tamino.

  216. JER0ME says:

    I, for one, have never heard the phrase “we know where you live” and understood it as anything but a threat, however trivial a one.

    What is next? “We know where your children go to school”?

    Come on, get real, Andrew.

  217. kadaka says:

    Re: David Alan Evans (15:34:10)

    It’s back up now, with new large introductory section from Andrew (Greenpeace web producer) that basically is as he wrote above (Gene is a nice guy, we don’t want to kill anyone, etc).

  218. rbateman says:

    johnhayte (15:06:40) :

    This is not Red China, yet. Calls for acts of violence like the one from Greenpeace excerpt may be one and the same as the threat against US Governors.
    We don’t do things like that in America.
    We vote them out. That is what the system was designed to do, peacefully.
    Forcible removal is the biggest damage that can be done to a government’s credibility.

  219. davidmhoffer says:

    David Alan Evans (15:34:10) :
    They’ve taken it down or ar least I can’t find it>>

    It is still there, along with the tirade of comments calling them out. There are feeble responses on a lot of them, along with a feeble plea from Andrew not to threaten violence and to remain polite.

    Well Andrew, you posted my lengthy response which is also posted here and on my blog, so I have to give you credit for that much, but listen carefully. Violence begets violence. The storm of comments you got on your site that so frightened you and Julliette was sparked by Greenpeace. The first shot was fired by Greenpeace. If the reaction to what GREENPEACE did shocks and frightens you and Juliette, then consider for a moment what is likely to happen if some zealot, encouraged by the call to violence GREENPEACE published, follows through. Take responsibility for what you have done, stop making feable excuses or trying to paper it over with explanations of culture. You have threatened violence and it is YOU who must step back from the precipace, repudiate the article in no uncertain terms, and expunge the person who wrote it from your midst along with anyone who supports them.

    Violence begets violence. Are you prepared to put a stop to what you have started?

  220. Just The Facts says:

    So I posted a comment on Greenpeace’s website that is so offensive, so controversial, so threatening, that is appears that Andrew and company refuse to publish it. Here is the comment:

    “Hello Gene, Andrew and Juliette

    I have a simple request. Can you please review the following 5 Arctic Sea Ice Area and Extent charts from the most reputable sources of sea ice data;
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png
    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
    http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

    and explain to us how these facts are supportive of the claimed catastrophic decline in Arctic Sea Ice?

    We have reason to be skeptical, it is because the empirical facts do not support the claims of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Narrative. The proverbial canary in a coal mine for global warming is arctic sea ice extent and it’s currently about average. Threatening skeptics is not going to make the sea ice melt. You should be challenging the facts not the messengers.”

    So is Greenpeace afraid of the facts? Andrew, what do you have to say for yourself and your organization?

  221. J.Peden says:

    “We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.”

    Next stop for Gene Hashmi, maybe a real job? O’ the horror!

  222. brc says:

    For Andrew from Greenpeace:

    If you know Gene, and believe that his words are meant to invoke peaceful boycotts and civil disobdience, then you should contact him and get him to change the wording and issue a retraction/clarification.

    Because no reasonable person would come up with your explanation after reading the text, and that’s going to do your organisation more harm than good.

    If you want peaceful protests and boycotts, then explicitly state that. Using the words ‘climate outlaws’, ‘we know where you live’ etc do not sound like what you’re trying to portray.

    Issue a retraction and clarify the position, you know it to be wrong.

  223. pft says:

    Put OBL’s name behind those threats and change a few words and most folks call it terrorism.

    Those folks behind the greenpeace and AGW fraud are pretty powerful folks.
    There is big money to be made with carbon cap and trade and carbon credits.

    By definition, carbon credits are money. Those who are able to create carbon credits are creating money. Money which can be multiplied 10 fold with carbon trading and loans.

    I was a bit worried about what a failure at Copenhagen would mean. I am not worried about the civil disobedience part, but they have other more deadly weapons at their disposal. The same forces over the past century have been responsible for wars, terrorism, and financial depressions using drugs to fund their operations (why do you think the war on drug and war on terror have never been won). History repeats.

  224. DirkH says:

    I’ve just been watching a documentation about Tesla. Because of him we have electricity. He got 700 patents and invented practically an entire infrastructure. And that’s what the 20th century civilization in the industrialized world is built upon.

    Now, Greenpeace and others want to put the breaks on energy production. I guess we are wealthy enough to survive it – we’ll just pay the extortion racket.

    Maybe even the middle class in India – where our Gene probably comes from – will not suffer that much. Oh, i forgot, Gene’s India is excempt from any carbon reduction and will probably even get a share of the 100 billion/year.

    So now i understand. Gene is just acting economically, he’s not a loon – the CO2 scam plays directly into the hands of India so they must be interested in keeping it going.

    Sorry that i needed so long to understand the motives. It’s *NOT* a PR SNAFU – it’s a very finely calculated move. We are testing the waters with a little “righteous” rage.

    So this was the testrun for a strategy that Greenpeace will start to roll out worldwide.

  225. Andrew says:

    brc – I think Gene was very clear. He talks specifically about civil disobedience. He doesn’t suggest violence anywhere in his blog.

    For the last time before I go to bed:

    Gene’s actually a nice guy. He’s peaceful. He’s rightfully impatient and angry with politicians lack of action on climate change, but he doesn’t condone violence.

    Greenpeace has a 39 year track record of peaceful activism. It’s part of our DNA, part of what makes us who we are. We don’t condone violence, and that’s not changing.

    Folks can interprate Gene’s comments as they wish, and say what they wish. They can cherry pick quotes, or statistics, or bits of data. That’s life on the internet.

    What I would like is to hear the same condemnation of violence, that I’ve made here and on the Greenpeace blog.

    Good night and Happy Easter.

  226. Just The Facts says:

    Andrew (18:37:00) :

    “What I would like is to hear the same condemnation of violence, that I’ve made here and on the Greenpeace blog.”

    While we obviously disagree on the substantive portions of the global warming debate, I am in complete agreement that this disagreement should be settled in a reasoned and peaceful manner. The next step towards this is Greenpeace retracting Gene’s threatening article, apologizing and judiciously avoiding such incitement and inflammatory rhetoric in the future. We are aggressive in patrolling skeptics to assure that the tone from our side is reasonably amicable, e.g. here is one of my comments to another skeptic on WUWT from May 17th, 2009, “We are not going to win this by name calling or by belittling others, we are going to win this because the facts are on our side. Anything that distracts attention from the clear and unbiased communication of the facts is counter to our objectives.” Our intent is to convince you of the merits of our position by overwhelming you with facts and logic, hopefully your, Gene and Greenpeace’s intent is the same.

    Peace

  227. rabbit says:

    This should be a lesson to Gene never to post at 2 AM after an evening of shooters, meth, and speed balls. It never reads the same in the morning.

    But seriously, folks, GreenPeace is a business, not much different than any other. And now they’ve got some renegade spouting off about breaking the law, and making vague, mafia-style “nice little business you got here” threats.

    This could hit GreenPeace right where it hurts – their pocket books. There are too many donors who have warm, fuzzy feelings about GreenPeace, but who take a dim view of breaking the law. If GreenPeace detractors (and they are legion) were to widely publicize this, donations could drop.

    And that would be far more catastrophic to them than a hundred whales falling to Japanese harpoons.

    So what does GreenPeace do about those — like Gene and Andrew — who hurt the bottom line? The same as any big business: Remove these thorns in their shoes.

  228. johnhayte says:

    “Which part of “we know where you live” falls into civil disobediance?”

    Green Peace has a history of picketing the homes of powerful people they see as instrumental in destroying the environment. It may be annoying and ultimately ineffective, but it is hardly incitement to commit violence.

    People like Lubos Motl however, constantly fantasising about “greenies” and other AGW proponents being shot or thrown into quarantine – is that incitement to violence?

  229. Smokey says:

    Federal judge Napolitano explains what is going on with the recently passed healthcare bill: <a >

  230. davidmhoffer says:

    Andrew (18:37:00) :
    brc – I think Gene was very clear. He talks specifically about civil disobedience. He doesn’t suggest violence anywhere in his blog.>>

    Andrew, you are defending the indefensible. It matters not how well you know him, what you believe he meant, or even if you are right. It only matters what he said, which was a call to violence and a threat. If he retracts it that is one matter, but you do yourself no service by claiming that the words mean other than what they say.

    I will also address your repeated attempt on the GreenPeace site and here to draw attention away from Gene’s call to violence and toward Koch and Exxon. I have new for you. No reports funded by either of these organizations are required to discredit the global warming hypothesis. All that is required are the numbers from the IPCC AR4 report itself, a decent physics text book, and a bit of math.

    As AR4 admits, the effects of CO2 on temperature decrease logarithmicaly as CO2 increases. The cooling response of the planet increases exponentially as temperature increases. These facts alone make tipping points ludicrous, and arrive at a theoretical temperature increase from 1920 to now of about 2 degrees due to the increase since 1920 of CO2 to present levels. Although CO2 has risen only 38% since 1920, the logarithmic decline in effect combined with the exponential increase in cooling response from the planet demand that the bulk of the warming caused by CO2 increases to already have happened. We have seen only 0.6 degrees increase in temperature since 1920, roughly equal to the 0.5 degrees of temperature increase in the 90 years prior to that. Even were we to assume that CO2 increases in temperature were being offset by natural cooling processes (a rediculous assumption) we are still left with the fact that additional CO2 increases will have a decreasing warming effect, the earth will continue to have an exponentialy increasing cooling response, and the net of it all is that it would take massive amonts of fossil fuel consumption, hundreds or thousands of times what we are consuming now, to make any difference.

    If Koch and Exxon are paying for misinformation such as this, then they must have doctored every physics text book for the last few hundred years, a remarkable feat unto itself, and in addition to which they now owe me a substantial sum of money which I will pay you a 50% commission if you can assist me in collecting.

  231. crosspatch says:

    It is my feeling that Greenpeace’s support demographic is aging and becoming increasingly less willing to engage in “massive civil disobedience” at least compared to their willingness to do so in the 1960′s.

    Oh, and I noticed all the employees at a local CVS wearing WWF stickers on their uniform shirts yesterday. I won’t be shopping at a CVS pharmacy anymore.

  232. Van Grungy says:

    “Gene’s impatient because the best science tells us we’re nearing a tipping point – and after which the climate shift might accelerate out of our control.

    He also knows that the acting sooner rather than later reduces the overall cost. ”
    April 5, 2010 12:32 AM
    —————-

    I guess this all depends on what you consider ‘best science’… It’s either science or just a grant generating mechanism based on the word of a few ‘pal reviewers’…

    What troubles me isn’t that The Religion of Greenpieces believes ‘man’ can control the climate… It’s that you don’t realize how much of a Fascist Hate Machine your Religion has become…

    It must be hard to back someone up who has probably lost touch with what is real on the ground…

    I wonder what The Religion of Greenpieces will say when donations drop precipitously in the wake of this ‘clear’ manifesto?

    This is to Gene,
    Good job getting rid of the Imperialists that brought India Democracy, Rule of Law, a common language (English)…

    When some whack job does take this message of action to heart with a violent bent and acts out in The Religion of Greenpieces name, will this post still stay up?

    All it takes in one person to be riled up and make a bad choice… Then this blog post becomes ‘incitement to violence’…

    I hope for decent folks sake this doesn’t happen, as much as some might hope for The Religion of Greenpiece’s demise, to lose one human life is too high a cost just to bring disrepute to The Religion of Greenpiece’s door…

    —–

    That probably won’t get posted on The Religion of Greenpiece’s blog… So I happily re-post here…

  233. Geoff Sherrington says:

    Andrew (18:37:00) : Allegation: Greenpeace has a 39 year track record of peaceful activism.

    Contrary evidence: (1) Tree spiking. (2) Dangerous movements at sea with a vessel. (3) Public incitement to disobey laws.

    There are more, but this is enough to start.

    Would any greenpeace sympathiser be game enough to deny these and tell the “true Greenpeace” story? Ready for a smack in the mouth if you fib? We know who you are.

  234. Al Gore's Holy Hologram says:

    This shouldn’t be a surprise anyway. In the past Greenpeace has created adverts where it specifically and proudly implied it would brainwash very very young children to become hoody wearing vigilantes who will commit violence against adults….

  235. Barry Woods says:

    This did not appear the first time I tried:

    Juliette as you replied to me directly in the blog, please give the courtesy of a right to reply: (I will post this at watts up as well, the first time i posted it, it did not appear.)

    Juliette(Greenpeace said to me:
    “What about Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Nelson Mandela? They were definitively outlaws”

    Shame on you:
    Greenpeace/Juliette

    Can anyone imagine any of these outstanding people saying:

    ‘we know where you live’

    especially Rosa Parks!!!!!

    I consider that, as many other people would, an out an out threat personally, to me and my family..

    Why say it?

    Are they going to come and knockon my door and have a friendly chat over a cup of tea…

    That was a threat…
    The law says people can ‘perceive a threat’

    I am shocked to see that this was from a communications director for Greenpeace, I had thought that it was just some words of some randon activists…

    Can you not see that this could incite ‘some’ people (ie they ‘misinterpret’ Gene – to be generous – to be ‘climate outlaws’ – does that include violence – sounds at least like violent acts) to acts of personal intimidation and violence…

    Please publically apologise, and make a statement, to prevent any lunatic bringing Greenpeace into further disrepute. I am worried for my personal safety and my families, as I do not agree with catastrophic unprecedented man made global warming, it is an example of a popular delusion and the madness of crowds.

  236. Luboš Motl says:

    JohnHayte:

    // People like me however, constantly fantasising about “greenies” and other AGW proponents being shot or thrown into quarantine – is that incitement to violence? //

    This is a call for authorities to do their duty and preserve the basic rule of law in the civilized countries. I am sorry but if an organization is trying to stop the construction of a mine or a power plant which is legally taking place on its owner’s land, and is approved by any office whose agreement is legally needed, they have to be stopped and arrested.

    If someone is collecting the information about politically inconvenient people’s addresses and workplaces with the stated intent of “hurting where it hurts most”, he must be arrested, too.

    If such an organization became a credible threat and its power would grow so that the law enforcement authorities couldn’t deal with that peacefully, well, then the members of such a group would have to be shot just like the members of any other terrorist organization that gets out of control, such as Al Qaeda.

    It may sound counterintuitive for you or others that some radical green groups are getting to the same level as Al Qaeda, but Gene Hashmi’s text is a hint that one can’t exclude such a transformation in the near future. So far, the equivalence between Al Qaeda and Greenpeace is at the level of the words only. If Greenpeace starts to act according to the new template, the equivalence will be physical, and indeed, it will have to be dealt with analogously with other terrorists organization.

    If you call the physical annihilation of dangerous terrorists who threaten the lives of innocent people an “incitement to violence”, then yes, I am calling for violence. Unlike the green groups’, my call is just a call for defense against an attack.

  237. Barry Woods says:

    To make it clear…

    Gene is a Communications Director for Greenpeace.

    Not just some activist…

    His would could incite some random extremists…
    think extreme animalrights activities, they are only saving animals…

    think what saving the planet extremists might get up to…

    gene’s words gives them a poltical motivation/excuse.

    to be sure, this is a political staement/act.

  238. Charles. U. Farley says:

    ” We dont want to kill you or hurt you, we just want you to do what we tell you.”

    Green”peace” mission statement 2010?

  239. Andrew says:

    Hey Geoff,

    1 – That’s not a tactic Greenpeace has ever used, and we don’t condone it.

    2 – That’s an accusation, not a fact. Our captains have the same certifications and expertise as their industry counterparts.

    3 – Breaking the law is not the same as violence. Sometimes greater harm is done by obedience than by disobedience.

    And I think in point three we have found our difference.

    We can argue about technicalities and semantics over point 1 and 2 all day, but I’m interested in hearing what folks here think about point 3.

  240. Vincent says:

    Lubos Motl,

    “This is a call for authorities to do their duty and preserve the basic rule of law in the civilized countries.”

    Ah yes, but GP et al, and the government are different sides of the same coin. When you see the government paying NGO’s to lobby them and then use that as evidence of support for their policies, then you know that governments themselves are as much part of the scam as these disgusting NGO groups.

  241. JER0ME says:

    People:

    They are actually answering comments. I seriously recommend dropping the abuse against Gene and his misguided post, and confronting them about their stand generally. There is an audience. It will be growing, and fast, due to the controversy.

    Use it to spread the word, before the thread gets pulled.

  242. kadaka says:

    johnhayte (15:06:40) :

    People on this board are really prone to exaggeration. Since when is calling for civil disobedience equivalent to inciting terrorism? Is the Chinese Communist Party the gold standard on civil rights for people on this board?

    I seem to remember hearing that China is now the Number One Polluter of CO2.

    Thus it makes perfect sense that Greenpeace should immediately take on China. The crisis must be dealt with now, we are in dire need of immediate carbon reform. The problem will not be solved with the urgent speed required by extorting great-grandmothers into paying exorbitant sums for energy to subsidize wind farms. This requires a top-down approach, start with the largest dirtiest polluters for maximum impact!

    Dear Greenpeace: Best of luck with the environmental protests and civil disobedience in downtown Beijing. Remember, your success in China is vital to saving Mother Earth from absolute destruction.
    Make the sacrifice! Do the right thing!

  243. Barry Woods says:

    Hey Lubos:

    Your earlier long comment at Greenpeace seems to have gone ‘missing’

    They may be dumping all the reasonable replies and keeping, stuff that makes them look good…

    I had one go missing, it appeared after I tried again, and said I would post here as well..

  244. JER0ME says:

    Andrew (02:02:05) :

    3 – Breaking the law is not the same as violence. Sometimes greater harm is done by obedience than by disobedience.

    And I think in point three we have found our difference.

    We can argue about technicalities and semantics over point 1 and 2 all day, but I’m interested in hearing what folks here think about point 3.

    In isolation, I agree. These are absolutely not the same thing, although ‘most’ violence is against the law, the opposite is not true (ie not all illegal activity is violent).

    An interesting quote from Churchill in a political broadcast: “Perhaps it is better to be irresponsible and right, than responsible and wrong.”

    Now, that could probably be taken as valid by both sides of the current debate, which I find interesting.

  245. Annabelle says:

    Andrew, I agree Point 3 of your post is where things start to get interesting. I think most people would agree with your contention that sometimes greater harm is done by obedience than by disobedience – the problem is, people don’t agree on what constitutes the greater harm. It’s easy to justify direct action, civil disobedience etc when it’s done for a cause we support, but what about when it’s done for a cause we DON’T support?

    How would you feel if “deniers” took direct action against climate activists? Targetting their work places and homes? (Let’s assume the action is non-violent but nevertheless disruptive and upsetting for the people on the receiving end).

    There are many things I don’t agree with, but since I live in a democracy, I respect the rule of law. You can’t have it both ways – we either respect the rule of law or it becomes meaningless and anarchy prevails.

  246. Smokey says:

    Andrew (02:02:05) :

    “Breaking the law is not the same as violence. Sometimes greater harm is done by obedience than by disobedience.”

    So you won’t mind if I pick your pocket, or steal your car. Especially if it’s in a good cause — which I, not you, get to define.

  247. Vincent says:

    Andrew (02:02:05) :

    “3 – Breaking the law is not the same as violence. Sometimes greater harm is done by obedience than by disobedience.

    And I think in point three we have found our difference.

    We can argue about technicalities and semantics over point 1 and 2 all day, but I’m interested in hearing what folks here think about point 3.”

    Yes of course, breaking the law may be acceptable. An example I would make is of the Nazi law that first disenfranchised the Jews, and then forcibly exiled them to concentration camps. Anybody who broke those laws is a hero in my book.

  248. Vincent says:

    Andrew (02:02:05) :

    “3 – Breaking the law is not the same as violence. Sometimes greater harm is done by obedience than by disobedience.

    And I think in point three we have found our difference.”

    I don’t think you have found a difference. I am sure that most people here agree that sometimes more harm is done by obedience than by disobedience. Some obvious examples include opposition to slavery and the National Socialist persecution of the jews.

    However, if by civil disobedience, you mean disrupting energy production and forcibly shutting down power generation then I would say that is an act guaranteed to cause harm. Even if you don’t succeed in acheiving disruption, that does not absolve you. The mere act of conspiring to deprive society of energy, and the beliefs and aspirations of such deprivations that extend to the whole world and its poorest inhabitants, is a position that is antithetical to human welfare, is intrinsically evil and is to be condemned in the strongest possible terms by all decent people.

  249. Peter Hearnden says:

    Interesting post by Annabele and ‘Smokey’.

    Annabelle you ask good questions, and my reply is whether you feel strongly enough that you have to do something that might involve breaking the law is your decision – people who do that face the consequences, be the Greenpeace or a (to use your word) a ‘denier’. But, we can’t, surely, live in a state where no one protest because they fear might break a law as a consequence of such a protest about something they think wrong – that would be communism or fascism?

    Smokey, it’s not about law breaking per see but about doing something you think right, about protesting, and that if you break the law doing that you know you face the consequences. If you feel Greenpeace are so wrong you need to steal from them them I think you should do that and (like all activists) face the consequences of the law. But, a better parallel would be if you blockaded Greenpeace (peacefully) and we ‘guilty’ of obstruction or damage.

    Both of you, to stress, Greenpeace are not about direct action on people – but about protest, action even against what they think wrong. We’re talking civil disobedience not violence.

  250. Van Grungy says:

    Andrew,

    The more money for skepticism the better…

    The less money for GreenFascism the better…

    Thanks for making the skeptics lives easier…

  251. DirkH says:

    GreenPeace is interested in keeping it going Copenhagen-style.

    Project guilt on rich countries and collect indulgences.

    Have China and India build as many Coal fired plants as they need. This will also perpetuate the “problem” and keep the scheme going.

    Up the hatred and threats by having posts like the one by Communications Director Gene whenever needed. This one is probably a warmup for Bonn.

    They know full well that the Maledives won’t sink. It’s a money making machine. Our governments are paying Greenpeace to continue doing that so that they can take a share of the indulgences – probably the lions share.

    It’s an interesting strategy. We’ll see how it works out for them.

  252. Andrew says:

    Dirk,

    Actually, we’re working hard in China, India, Brazil and other up and coming economies to get them on the right track.

    Of course we work differently in different places. We can’t use the same tactics in China that we do in Brazil or India.

    What happens, right now, is that you have a lot finger pointing. China points the finger at the “west” (which is historically responsible for the problem) the US points the finger at China (which some say has already topped the US in total emissions, though not per capita of course).

  253. DirkH says:

    “Andrew (05:16:11) :
    [...]
    What happens, right now, is that you have a lot finger pointing. China points the finger at the “west” (which is historically…”

    China gets 60-80% of all carbon credits in the CDM mechanism, a lot of them for destroying that byproduct of CF production – earning more through the CDM mechanism than through sales of CF.

    Maurice Strong resides in China and works the system for them.

    I think they get along pretty well.

    Even the wikipedia doesn’t cover this up.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Development_Mechanism

    Andrew, good luck with your organisation’s master plan.

    We both know that CO2 is only a means to an end.

  254. Maureen Patterson says:

    Hey! where did all the ‘Green Uniform’ comments go to? I was enjoying them.

  255. Smokey says:

    Andrew (05:16:11),

    The U.S. has voluntarily cleaned up 99% of its pollution without the need for international agreements — and still Greenpeace makes us the bad guys. Why don’t they spend some of their multi-millions on newspaper and magazine ads pointing out that China is one of the filthiest, most polluting countries on Earth?

    China is currently building 2 – 4 coal-fired power plants every week, and plans to continue at that rate until at least 2024. None of the plants have adequate particulate emission controls. Their industrial waste goes directly into the rivers – and then to the oceans – as raw sewage and pollution. The difference between China and the West is that China cares more about money than cleaning up pollution. In the West, a clean environment trumps money. [India, Brazil, Russia and many other countries are almost as bad. But China is the worst offender.]

    Certainly Greenpeace’s present course of action in dealing with China has been a complete failure. A jeweler friend I’ve known for 35 years travels to China 2 – 3 times a year for a week at a time. His descriptions of the polluted rivers, lakes and air are astounding. He won’t go outside without a mask there because the times he did he got a persistent cough that lasted for months.

    We have cleaned up our environment at our own expense. China has a trillion US dollars, but uses almost none of them to clean up their own particulate emissions [40% of U.S. West Coast air pollution comes straight from mainland China].

    Either Greenpeace is a U.S./West-hating organization run by corrupt propagandists, or they’re bought and paid for by China. Probably both. If there’s a third possibility, why don’t you tell us what it is?

  256. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Where’s Gene? Isn’t he going to respond?
    Andrew – why don’t you invite your mate to join in?

  257. Smokey says:

    Peter Hearnden (03:57:17) :

    “…we can’t, surely, live in a state where no one protest because they fear might break a law as a consequence of such a protest about something they think wrong – that would be communism or fascism?”

    Major strawman argument. You set up your strawman and skillfully knocked him right down, evading the issue.

    In reality, we live in a state that allows peaceful protest. Who designated Greenpeace as the arbiter of when protesters can damage others’ property, trespass, and otherwise become scofflaws? Answer that. And while you’re at it, tell us the difference between kristallnacht and the illegal tactics Greenpeace uses. Who are really the Communists and Fascists?

    Legal protesting is protected, and even encouraged. But breaking the law over political differences, and threatening those who are skeptical of AGW is never acceptable.

  258. HoiPolloi says:

    I’ve read this GP rant from Gene. This dude sounds very deperate and frustrated that GP is fighting an uphill battle re climate change. Not because of the “deniers” but because of the very facts, like the Arctic being back on track within 3 years of predicted armageddon and IPCC constantly dropping the ball.
    Now I can understand this dude’s frustration, but writing these piece of garbage is actually rather alarming.
    It remembers me of the Rote Armee Fraction in the 60/70′s. They started as genuine engaged people, but soon degraded in violence just because of their desparation and frustration against the status quo which they apparently were unable to change.
    Gene must be very, very careful with his stirring up people amongst some might not be as peaceful as Green Peace might wish.

    Green Peace continious defending this utter garbage is a major mistake in it’s company policy and certainly further hurting their organisation. A friendly advise, act as Toyota; admit the mistake and start reparing the damage.

  259. Just The Facts says:

    Andrew (02:02:05) :

    “3 – Breaking the law is not the same as violence. Sometimes greater harm is done by obedience than by disobedience.

    And I think in point three we have found our difference.”

    This is a point of agreement for us, laws are laid down my man and man makes mistakes, thus it is not inherently moral or good to follow the law. However, one must be careful to pick one’s battles, and in global warming, I think Greenpeace has chosen the wrong side.

    Walk with me for a minute. We don’t understand how the sun works, we don’t understand how the clouds work, we barely understand how the oceans work and volcanic activity is a complete wild card. Our understanding of Earth’s climate system is rudimentary at best.

    We have 130 years of highly suspect surface temperature data and 31 years of reasonably accurate satellite data, on an approximately 4,500,000,000 year old planet. Our understanding of the history of Earth’s climate system and its average temperature is rudimentary at best.

    I terms of what we know about Earth’s climate and its average temperature, there seems to be reasonable evidence of a significant ocean component based on the cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation;
    http://icecap.us/docs/change/ocean_cycle_forecasts.pdf
    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/PDO_AMO.htm
    http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~mantua/REPORTS/PDO/PDO_egec.htm
    http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~mantua/REPORTS/PDO/PDO_cs.htm

    And there also may be a significant volcanic component based historical observation:
    http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html
    http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991vci..nasa…..R
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011222.shtml

    Looking at the myriad of variables involved in Earth’s climate system;
    http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7y.html
    http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/whatfactors.pdf

    it is clearly folly to assign primary driver status to any one variable when we have a rudimentary understanding of such an astoundingly complex system.

    Based on our limited understanding of Earth’s climate system, any predictions about Earth’s climate system and the long term trajectory of its average temperature are, at best, educated guesses. We are still learning how to accurately measure Earth’s temperature, much less accurately predict it 50 – 100 years into the future. Those who claim to be able to accurately predict the long term trajectory and likely future state of Earth’s average temperature, are either deluding themselves, or lying.

    Greenpeace, why have you chosen the side of the deluded scientists, the bloated governments, the power brokers, the established interests and yes, big business? You are supposed to be on our side…

  260. Peter Hearnden says:

    And while you’re at it, tell us the difference between kristallnacht and the illegal tactics Greenpeace uses.

    I can see any comparison between the two so you’ll have to enlighten me.

  261. Smokey says:

    Peter Hearnden (06:30:10),

    Maybe you’re starting to get it. There is no difference in tactics. The only difference is in the degree of damage caused.

    You were the one who brought up Communism and Fascism. Both encourage lawbreaking — until they get power. Then all dissent is ruthlessly crushed.

    You can add Socialism to the others, because as we know, Communists are simply Socialists in a hurry.

    Argue that breaking the law and threatening opponents is OK if Greenpeace says it’s OK, but you won’t get much support here or anywhere else outside of eco-thug organizations. But I would still like to hear your explanation of why Greenpeace plays kissy-face with China, when China is the planet’s major polluter — and attacks the cleanest countries on the planet instead.

  262. Peter Hearnden says:

    Maybe you’re starting to get it. There is no difference in tactics. The only difference is in the degree of damage caused.

    No, I don’t see the similarities in the tactics between Greenpeace and kristallnacht and I’m asking you to explain them. This is what Wiki says about kristallnacht “Kristallnacht was triggered by the assassination in Paris of German diplomat Ernst vom Rath by Herschel Grynszpan, a German-born Polish Jew. In a coordinated attack on Jewish people and their property, 91 Jews were murdered and 25,000 to 30,000 were arrested and placed in concentration camps. 267 synagogues were destroyed, and thousands of homes and businesses were ransacked.“. I can’t see how that was in any way like what Greenpeace do so, again, I’d like you explain why you see them as the same.

  263. Tom Black says:

    Andrew and Juliette

    From all your comments it shows you fully support Gene, your only defense is to say he is a genuinely peaceful guy, it appears you have passed the point of no return for any retraction.

    In the future please don’t blame big business for any drop in support of your organization.
    Like the CRU and the IPCC, you are self destructing.

  264. David Ball says:

    I am disappointed that my question (which was not a change of subject as it relates to Greenpeace agendas and goals) went unanswered. I am truly interested in what Andrew referred to as “getting these countries on track”. On track to what? People would be more willing to follow if you made it clear where we are going. This is what I am trying to understand. Judging by the response from Peter Hearnden, it is apparent that they themselves are not clear on where this will end up. That is what concerns me. When I see someone speeding in their car, I always think that they are in a hurry to get to their accident. “We must act NOW” rings hollow for me (especially since I have been waiting for the catastrophe for 25 years). Gene has to take his foot off the throttle.

  265. RockyRoad says:

    Smokey, the reason is that the end justifies the means, yes any means, to these watermelons. They can use all sorts of illegal behavior, spew all manner of lies, and threaten until, as you say, they get power and then all dissent is crushed, as in Tiananmen Square crushed.

    The amazing thing is that this type of approach is taught at many of our prestigious liberal universities, and the students swallow it whole (and much of the populace that supports these places are clueless). Many students never recover from this type of brainwashing, but all should ask for their tuition back, for they have been robbed of a true education; lies mixed with the philosophies of men are all they’re taught.

    And some wonder why the USA and other countries are going south. It isn’t hard to see the reason.

  266. JeffK says:

    If anyone has paid attention to the activities of GreenPeace the others (Sierra Club, Earth First, WWF, etc.) they would notice a trend…it is always against capitalists countries.

    Where was their ‘outrage’ & civil disobedience against the Soviet Block countries back in the 70′s-80′s about their industrial waste & pollution??

    Where was their ‘outrage’ & civil disobedience after the first Iraq War against Iraq when Sadam used the ‘torched earth’ solution in Kuwait by burning all of the oil wells??

    Where *is* their ‘outrage’ & civil disobedience against China about their industrial waste & pollution??

    Where *is* their ‘outrage’ & civil disobedience against the South American & SE Asian countries about their rain forrest deforrestation??

    I’m sure there are other international issues which could have drawn their video cameras to document & show as proof they are truely interested in “global” issues but they mainly focus in the past on three countries – Japan, Great Britain & the United States. They are not pro-earth, they are anti- capitalists & they are just giving China a pass because…

    1) China is still communists
    2) They would really get punnished for any civil disobedience there and, like children, they do not want to get punnished for breaking the law.

    Just my $.02

    Jeff

    Just my $.02

  267. Vincent says:

    David Ball,

    “I am truly interested in what Andrew referred to as “getting these countries on track”. On track to what? People would be more willing to follow if you made it clear where we are going. This is what I am trying to understand.”

    I am with you all the way on this question, David. They have avoided answering you, because, imo, they don’t have an answer. Their whole philosophy is based on opposition. I am also eager to hear what the “right track” actually looks like to them.

  268. Just The Facts says:

    Andrew

    I submitted another comment to your website, very similar to my comment above, i.e. Just The Facts (06:06:57), and it’s another no show. Is there a reason that you post every vile spitting comment submitted, yet filter out factual posts presenting the case for reasoned skepticism?

  269. Kay says:

    @ Andrew (01:33:37) :

    Hey Anthony,

    Thanks for printing Gene’s quote in context – so that people see he’s talking about protest, civil disobedience, consumer boycotts and public exposure of the hidden money behind climate denial.

    To be clear – Greenpeace is 100% peaceful.”

    Ha! You wish! I saw you guys in action at the G20 last year when you decided it would be a good idea to hang a sign on a bridge in my hometown, tying up traffic for hours and almost killing yourselves in the process. (And after all that, the sign was BACKWARDS. Go figure.) Did you really think that little stunt would win you any friends? Bringing traffic to a halt might have got you noticed, but how much carbon was burned while you played with people’s lives and livelihoods?

  270. Peter Hearnden says:

    “David Ball (07:33:15) :

    I am disappointed that my question (which was not a change of subject as it relates to Greenpeace agendas and goals) went unanswered…”

    David, I gave an answer – and a honest answer. Again: I think fossil fuels are finite. I think oil production will probably peak within decades or sooner. After that supply will probably fall and demand will either follow suit or the price rise. I think that has consequences for us and I think we ALL need to accept that. People like me are free to think about solutions to problems are they not? That’s what I think. But, sorry, I’m not a spokesman for Greenpeace, I just give my view.

    Perhaps you can say what you think my answer is so we can see where you’ve got my position wrong?

  271. pgosselin says:

    Anthony,
    Here are two clips they don’t want you to see.
    h/t Dirk Maxeiner: http://www.achgut.com.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkbU1tS_UQc&NR=1

  272. pgosselin says:

    Here’s the more professional version of the second clip above: (Bird strike at about 2 mins.)

  273. pgosselin says:

    Forget it – I see you’ve posted this already!

  274. mick says:

    “3 – Breaking the law is not the same as violence. Sometimes greater harm is done by obedience than by disobedience.

    And I think in point three we have found our difference.”

    Yep, here’s Greenpeace laying down the law & telling us all how it will be, whether they’ve got the law, or their money, or raw power behind them or not. But he must have some sense of entitlement to believe they’re the only ones with a will to disobey. I suppose that entitlement also runs to an expectation of full protection under the law while they busy breaking it too?

  275. Lance says:

    The comments behind the article – http://weblog.greenpeace.org/climate/2010/04/will_the_real_climategate_plea_1.html – are hilarious.
    99,9% of the comments rips Greenwar a new one… A couple of new ones, damn.
    And the attempt at damage control is soooo bad, first this naive chicky “Peace” Julliete gives it a go. Followed by Andrew the “Greenpeace web producer”. Then Brian “Head of Digital Communications” takes over. Here’s what he had to say in response to somebody commenting on the fact that 99% of the comments was -to put it mildly- critical:

    @ Response from Brian to Post by: Fred | April 5, 2010 8:30 AM
    “We’ve not put out a call to our supporters to flock to this blog entry. We’re busy sending them here:.”…”..To DO SOMETHING about climate change rather than debate whether it’s happening or not.”

    Sigh! What a shame. “Lets do something about something rather than debate if it even exists, consequences be dammed.

    Hey guys, lets do something about plant suffering instead of debating wether or not it exists, just to be sure!

  276. SouthAmericanGirls says:

    They are truly desperate! wattsupwiththat.com (WUWT) and other sites have showed that their “science” is actually pseudoscience that deliberately ignores the INCONVENIENT TRUTHS that show their theory is worthless. Cheers to WUWT! I think we have almost won on the intellectual side, the problem is, will we win in the political side? Politicians, for milleniums, have alleged with charlataneries and falsehoods like AGW that we must give them even more opressive power and $trillions in taxes. Will we win the political fight? Now even a political win seems possible, but of course, not certain since politicians are what they have always been.

  277. P Wilson says:

    One finds that the great advances in science – Galileo, Newton, Darwin, et al were not trying to subvert the proper course of scientific or social understanding in order to propose a theory that might, in fact, have good reason to be true. On the other hand, persecution, threat, and harrassment is used where there is no good evidence to propose a theory. (Persecution is used in theology, not arithmetic, for this reason)

  278. AlexB says:

    This is a shame. I’ve read the Greenpeace media backpedaling but nothing can hide the intent behind these words. The best thing we can do is try to keep a level head and continue to encourage constructive dialogue. Greenpeace have hurt thier cause with this kind of language. Lets be sure we don’t fall into the hole with them.

  279. Fitzy says:

    Would a major divide be forthcoming within Greenpeace? As a student of history, thats the best way to disable a threat, has Greenpeace been captured by Fundamentalists, ‘Useful Idiots’, with the ultimate purpose of the complete discrediting of Greenpeace.
    From where i’m sitting, its worked, unfortunately. We still have industrial waste degrading the environment, but with the WWF and Greenpeace off on a Co2 tangent, the very real ecological issues are going on the back burner.
    So who speaks for the environment now? Could it just be, after all the mudslinging,…its actually we the Skeptics?

  280. David Ball says:

    Peter Hearnden (10:22:33) :Ok, now we are getting somewhere. I agree with your timeline on oil, although I would put it at 5 decades or so. But we are very close on that. I would love to see an energy alternative that was viable without subsidy. I am confident that this can be achieved, but we need to have a stable economy and resources for the research. Perhaps I am wrong in the belief that you would have us living like the Flintstones. As I stated, my concern is for my family, which includes having the income to provide food and shelter for them. This is as basic as it gets and what most of the world deals with. Panicking is never a good reaction to anything, and you have to admit that many who believe what you believe think we should panic. Crying wolf (especially if you are not sure there IS a wolf) will only turn the public against you, eventually. That appears to be happening now. I take no pleasure in this. It may surprise you to know that my family and I are “greener” than the vast majority of “greens”. My love of nature and search for the understanding of our world may indicate that we are not all that different in our world-view. Can we find more common ground and solutions that work for all?

  281. Phillep Harding says:

    Don’t read for a day, and all sorts of interesting stuff breaks loose.___ GreenPeace is probably close enough to the European crazies to bring the Black Bloc into the US. I recognize the body language from a weirdo I worked with, the Black Bloc has members who are sexually excited by adrenaline. ____ In other news, Green Peace had a ship here in SE Alaska a few years back. They were treated to the sight of bare buttocks in several places as locals mooned them.

  282. AlexB says:

    RE: Charles. U. Farley (01:52:33) :

    “” We dont want to kill you or hurt you, we just want you to do what we tell you.”

    Green”peace” mission statement 2010?”

    LOL, sums it all up.

  283. Memory Vault says:

    comment posted at the Greenpeace blog

    To Juliette, Andrew, Brian, Grateful Child, Mike G and all the rest of the good folk at Greenpeace . . . .

    Guys, please stop wasting your much-valued time and effort debating with all these redneck flat-earth deniers who insist on trying to discredit you and the organisation’s fantastic efforts. They are just jealous because you guys won, and they lost, and now there’s stuff-all they can do about it. I mean, let’s consider the score board:

    1. Despite tens of thousands of years of climate following a natural, repeating cycle of 25 – 30 years alternate warming and cooling, you managed to convince people that just this once, the last warming cycle would continue upwards “forever” unless drastic changes were made.

    2. Despite the entire record of human history being one of growth, posterity and plenty in the “warm” periods, and famine, starvation and suffering in the “cool” periods, you managed to convince people that, just this once, “warm” is bad, and “cold” is good.

    3. Through your demonizing of fossil fuels and all realistic viable energy alternatives for the past twenty years, you have managed to ensure the western world is going into this next cool period with a dramatic energy deficiency.

    4. As a spin-off of that campaign you have managed to ensure that 30% (so far) of the world’s previously surplus agricultural productivity has now been diverted to biofuel production.

    5. Meanwhile your colleagues over at Goldman Sachs and elsewhere have managed to collapse the entire financial structure of the western world.

    So, the world is going to get cold, crops are going to fail, people are going to freeze and starve, and there’s no energy, no surplus food, and no finance to do anything about it. Meaning about two billion people are now facing slow, miserable deaths over the next decade, with nobody actually able to be held accountable. Least of all you guys.

    Which is what it was really all about right from the start, wasn’t it? The greatest genocide in history with total plausible deniability for all you perpetrators.

    So, stop wasting time debating with these losers. Get out and celebrate, before the food and energy riots start.

    Peter Sawyer – author – The GreenHoax Effect © 1990

    You know where I am and I work from home

  284. Weeble says:

    “It’s time for mass civil disobedience to cut off the financial oxygen from denial and skepticism.”

    Isn’t that the definition for septic shock?

  285. David Ball says:

    Weeble (19:51:24) : No, it’s the definition of censorship. Mob rules? Nice.

  286. Peter Hearnden says:

    David Ball “Can we find more common ground and solutions that work for all?” possibly, hopefully even and it would help if you will accept I don’t want us to live like the Flintstone, that I care just as much about my family as you do, that I’m not panicing or crying wolf. Can YOU do that?

  287. Geoff Sherrington says:

    Andrew (02:02:05) :

    1. Andrew the apologist denies tree spiking by greenpeace sympathisers. Sorry, for some years I sat in on the monthly manangement meetings of a large lumber company. Happen to have known some facts.

    2. Denies dangerous movements at sea with a vessel. For the record and the reality, greenpeace went into shipping so it could be violent against other ships. Some claim that it was to count whales – you can do that without going close to other ships. I am told that the US Navy has a large encyclopaedia on whales and their noises. Besides, there is video of ship clashes that even an idiot would find hard to deny. Might not be 100% greenpeace brand, but sure is a franchise.

    That’s 2/3 of the way to a gob smack.

    Then the little bit of semi-literary confusion -
    “Breaking the law is not the same as violence. Sometimes greater harm is done by obedience than by disobedience. Breaking the law is not the same as violence. Sometimes greater harm is done by obedience than by disobedience.”

    What nonsense. Most men conduct a gentlemanly life (ditto for ladies) by avoidance of violence, lawlesness, harm and disobedience. Those like greenpeace who set out to make trouble, who forever seem to have an impediment that makes them bitter to others, can cower in their own corner. Some migrate from one locus of friction to another, like professional malcontents. They should not be fed or encouraged to breed.

    They are non-entities.

    I do not see or hear them.

  288. Smokey says:

    Maybe Greenpeace should invest in carbon credits: click

  289. Jason says:

    Greenpeace have taken the blog down and aplogised – well said sorry but the aplogy reads as if they aren’t really.

  290. David Ball says:

    Peter, re-read my post. I am trying to communicate with you. There is no hostility in my post. What I am trying to point out is that we are not all that different in our views. I understand your mis-trust, for I feel that as well. Always on guard for the next attack. It has disabled communication between our two camps. Read DesmogBlog and see what was written about my father just recently. http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball-your-source-lies-slander-and-misleading-climate-science. How would you feel if that was your father? That posting is grounds for liable. Perhaps you can understand why I am so (snipped) off at the believers. They do not fight fair and they have WAY more money than we do. It is kind of funny that many of you believe that we (blogs like WUWT?) are influencing peoples beliefs. This may be true to a certain extent, but it is more likely that people are just getting tired of having AGW shoved down their throats. There will be a backlash, especially if there does not appear to be any runaway warming. This has nothing to do with skeptics, yet we are being blamed. Is this not misguided? People are reacting to the shrill cries of catastrophe not to skeptic’s efforts. My opinion only.

  291. kwik says:

    Yes, Greenpeace has removed the original threats now.

    But Gene is probably still working for them.

    I read somewhere his past was in different advertising bureaus.

    Thats quite typical for large corporations.

    They hire in advertising types to run “Green Campains”.

    Pictures of a desert, talking about an ice-free Antarctica…..

    Lunatics at work.

    REPLY: Note the webcitation link in the story. The original remains there. – Anthony

  292. Henry chance says:

    Green peace manufactures threats to position themselves with power if they offer solutions

    Swine flu [H1N1 virus] may infect half the U.S. population this year, hospitalize 1.8 million patients and lead to as many as 90,000 deaths, more than twice the number killed in a typical seasonal flu, White House advisers said. In a report by the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology, President Barack Obama today was urged to speed H1N1 vaccine production… Read full article here.

    We were told half of us would get swine flu. Of course there was protection in the pipeline. At what point do I become insensitive to a real threat?

  293. Peter Hearnden says:

    David Ball,

    I know people, good people, members of Greenpeace here in the UK. I read WUWT and see what was written about these people. How would you feel if that was said of good people you know? Tbh, I dare not say if I’m a member for fear of the reaction here…

    What is going on here, on this blog, is an attempt to discredit everyone involved in Greenpeace, the whole organisation, based on the words of one person. It’s ABSURD!

    Your father. I think he is wrong about a lot of things. No more than that. No one likes seeing nasty things being said about a close relative – be they you or members of Greenpeace.

  294. David Ball says:

    Okay, I tried to communicate. These were threats, spin it how you like. Greenpeaces’ actions and words have discredited them, not any comments made by anyone here. Perhaps you can specify where my father is wrong while you are at it. I’ve made an attempt to break through some of the barriers and you have done nothing but evade, evade, evade. Just as you have done with every post you have made on WUWT?. You have not answered a single question posed to you by anyone. It is almost as if you are paid to monitor this site and obfuscate at every opportunity. Talk about denial, …….

  295. Peter Hearnden says:

    David, I’ve answered all your questions – the very opposite of evasion. Oh, and please don’t make baseless allegations of me. I’m here as an interested individual, I’m not paid by anyone to do this and I’d thank you to withdraw that comment – OK?

  296. Geoff Sherrington says:

    Here is a newspaper report from Tasmania’s “Mercury” a year ago.

    February 26, 2009

    “ANTI-whaling activist Paul Watson has admitted spiking trees in Canada and standing with Peter Garrett in protests.

    The Steve Irwin’s captain made the statement at a packed talk to about 600 people at the University of Tasmania last night.

    Captain Watson said he made no apology for sinking ships in whaling countries, because nobody had died and he had never been charged.”

    You can argue that Paul Watson is not greenpeace, but he’s usually seen as such by the public.

    Peter Garrett is, of all things, Australia’s Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts.

    There is no moral or ethical problem caused by destruction of greenpeace if it is found to be lying.

  297. JER0ME says:

    Question:
    Perhaps these gentlemen could explain to me what comes next? I will gladly consider their plans if they help me to understand their plans. If you are going to lead, you have to have somewhere to go. Help me out here, as it is difficult to make the leap without my family suffering. For myself, I am not worried, but I can only go along with your ideals if I am certain my family will be safe and healthy. This may be a big hurdle, but it is the one you will have to overcome with the general public. I await your reply.

    Non answer:
    My response is fossil fuels are finite so at some point we need to address that. There is lots of coal, and Oil wont run out any time soon but it may reach a peak of production fairly soon, decades, and my view is it would be sensible to think about what that means to us.

    Qestion (repeated):
    I am disappointed that my question (which was not a change of subject as it relates to Greenpeace agendas and goals) went unanswered. I am truly interested in what Andrew referred to as “getting these countries on track”. On track to what? People would be more willing to follow if you made it clear where we are going. This is what I am trying to understand. Judging by the response from Peter Hearnden, it is apparent that they themselves are not clear on where this will end up. That is what concerns me. When I see someone speeding in their car, I always think that they are in a hurry to get to their accident. “We must act NOW” rings hollow for me (especially since I have been waiting for the catastrophe for 25 years).

    Non answer:
    David, I gave an answer – and a honest answer. Again: I think fossil fuels are finite. I think oil production will probably peak within decades or sooner. After that supply will probably fall and demand will either follow suit or the price rise. I think that has consequences for us and I think we ALL need to accept that. People like me are free to think about solutions to problems are they not? That’s what I think. But, sorry, I’m not a spokesman for Greenpeace, I just give my view.

    I have to agree that the main question remains unanswered. “What next?”

    I think we all agree that fossil fuels will run out, but what do you intend to do about it? I think that has not been answered, sorry.

    I think everyone who believes AGW is a real issue should by 100% renewable energy. Now. That way, the investment will be made, renewables will be cheap enough to be more attractive to oil (in time), and nobody gets told what to do by governments or GP.

    Of course no environmental organisations will push that simple approach as it does not make them any money. If that is not true, please tell my why you do not do this simple thing.

  298. Peter Hearnden says:

    I’m not in Govt, I’m not paid by Greenpeace to be here either. What would I do?

    Well, since we agree fossil fuels are finite I think we all agree we need to prepare for that future. So, yes, more renewable energy, more efficient use of fossil fuel – laws to make cars more efficient (US cars are miles behind europe in this respect – our car does 50mpg with ease). Nuclear power as well (though it’s not a solution on it’s own). And lots of measures to make energy use more efficient. Simply shouting at or insulting people who see the problem and offer uncomfortable solutions (because what ever happens post peak oil wont be easy – unless we grab the oil thats left and put it off for a while…) wont make reality go away.

    I don’t think anyone can pretend it’s easy. The readily available power in oil is both energy dense and pretty safe – it’s a great thing and something likely to be squandered in just a few lifetimes. Is there another as convenient power souce? Not that I’m aware of. Are the solutions perfect? No. Again, is doing nothing a better solution? My view is it isn’t.

    So, send your flak (hell, I’ve seen enough – but you could try ‘you want to send us back to the stone age’ for starter if you like..) but, when you’ve done, offer a better vision! You square the circle of ever rising energy demand and finite energy supply…

  299. David Ball says:

    Why has it been so hard for you to have this discussion? Why dance around the issues? It seems that our views are not all that different save one. I do not believe that Co2 drives the climate. Is this the only point of contention? If it is, I am curious as to your need to disrupt the conversations here. If you believe that no one here seeks solutions, you have been misinformed. It is what is most important and it is positive. As far as you not being part of a group monitoring and disrupting the discussions here, I remain unconvinced. The evidence is in your posts. I am sorry you view my questions to you as “flak”. What did you expect posting on a site that obviously is counter to your views?

  300. Barry Woods says:

    I posted this on greenpeace as wel, my last comments have not appeared there.

    Please watch it ALL, (not for children)please circulate, I’m disgusted at the casual attitude to murder these troops have… injured man daring to crawl away, shoot him..

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/7558741/US-military-video-showing-2007-Apache-attack-on-Iraqi-civilians-posted-on-YouTube-Full-video.html

    people picking up bodies, taking the injured away, children in the car shoot them..

    Maybe I’m not the person you automatically think I am, a ‘deniar’, allowing people to label ‘deniars’ sceptics’ or ‘insurgents’ strips them of their humanity, and allows violence..

    ‘we know where you live’ is just the start of this process.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/7558741/US-military-video-showing-2007-Apache-attack-on-Iraqi-civilians-posted-on-YouTube-Full-video.html

    Just in case you give to much power to the UN..

    I don’t want to be considered an insurgent’ or ‘climate sabatouer’ Ed Milliband – mister of climate and energy…

    USA troops murdering journalists..

    Please read what I have posted again, and some of the other sceptical comments… I fear that the authority that casually kills, will be turned on others in the future..

    I wan to save the environment, just I know agw theory is an over hyped delusion..

  301. Saar says:

    Sometimes pressure, bullying, or a little threatening is what’s needed to push certain individuals and organizations to action and to make them clean their act up. As they say, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

    Here, take a look at more articles about Greenpeace: http://www.ecoseed.org/index.php?option=com_search&searchword=greenpeace&searchphrase=exact&ordering=newest

Comments are closed.