From Bishop Hill, another ugly day in the climate wars. At least we have Josh.
Andrew Montford writes:
Who can forget the infamous threat from Greenpeace’s Gene Hasmi?
We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.
And we be many, but you be few.
But was this a one-off? The evidence is suggesting otherwise. In the comments thread to a particularly sick Guardian post, which was adorned with a photo of a severed head, and which I will not therefore dignify with a link, comes this from commenter Bluecloud:
Should that not be [Matt] Ridley’s severed head in the photo?
and this from the same source:
We would actually solve a great deal of the world’s problems by chopping off everyone’s heads.
Why are you deniers so touchy? Mere calls for a beheading evolve such a strong response in you people.
Ask yourself a simple question: Would the world be a better place without Matt Ridley?
Need I answer that question?
Bluecloud turns out to be another Guardian author, Gary Evans, whose day job is as a boat-driver and translator for Greenpeace.
The Guardian and Greenpeace: sick, sick people.
Bishop Hill I gather that a comment outing Bluecloud as a Guardian author has been removed from the thread. The death threat remains in place.
A translator? What does he do — translate sensible stuff into the moronic drivel that only Greenpeace people can understand?
Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 inserted Section 4A into the Public Order Act 1986. That part prohibits anyone from causing alarm or distress. Section 4A states:
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.[7]
But both the UK PM and french Pm stated that there is “No right to be not offended” backed up by the UK deputy PM stating
Quote
The deputy prime minister also said that in a free society, “people have to be free to offend each other”.
He added: “We have no right not to be offended.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-30726491
Unquote
Are they aware that such statements are against the law?
The person will be sent to the Ministry of Love for reorientation.
Looks like anyone can sue everyone based on this law. Alarmists cause me alarm and distress in their writings, so see you in court? Seems like a law primarily designed to be so vague as to maximise lawyer’s fees.
If someone can be fined by the state for displaying a sign some find offensive, then is it such a far step to execute someone for displaying a comic some find offensive? The only difference I see is in the degree of punishment. However, in taking action against the evangelist, the UK has aligned itself with those that would silence what others find offensive.
In the case of the Guardian however, what was displayed was not simply offensive or insulting. It was threatening and abusive.
Fascinating.
And you moderati put people on “Permanent Double Secret Probation” for not playing nice with these sanamabeeches?
By all means, let’s sink to their level. That would sure prove them wrong. /sarc
You are right Louis!
We should push for the opposite approach; we should ask alarmists to put their heads back on!
Alarmist’s using their heads is still unlikely though.
Great picture Josh!
ATHeoK has it. Brilliant. Their rallying cry is “off with their heads”, ours is “on with their heads” (or brains at least.
On with their heads. I like that. That slogan might actually get somewhere by showing us as more rational and safer to have around..
They have gone one further in my case and deleted my account in its entirety. Put up the truth in the Guardian once too often and you are digitally disappeared.
Down the memory hole.
Truth at the Guardian? There’s an absurd concept.
More militaristic fanaticism by the ones who brought you the ovens of Auschwitz.
And next the bastages will use the death threats against us as evidence that we all deserve “protective custody”.
I’m tempted to say “Come and get me.” But instead I’ll just suggest not to give the pricks the satisfaction.
And we be many, but you be few.
But… you do not believe in private citizens owning guns. That puts you at a distinct disadvantage, no matter how many you ‘be’.
Can you link to the Guardian article directly? The Bishop Hill post comes up “Page Not Found.”
Have a look in the Guardian yourself. It’s easy enough to do.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jan/21/matt-ridley-wants-to-gamble-earths-future-because-wont-learn-from-past#comment-46499183
I see Richard Tol, part of the IPCC, got his comment deleted.
The Guardian are fighting a desperate battle, a battle they know they are losing. The Guardian continues it’s downward trend in circulation.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/oct/10/abc-figures-show-papers-efforts-to-stem-circulation-decline
RichardSJTol apparently made TWO comments and BOTH were removed by the moderator. This is the Guardian’s modus operandi. At least Sir Harry Flashman can come here and make comments. Think about that Sir Harry.
The Guardian will also (very) frequently completely remove all evidence that there was ever a comment there in the first place. They leave a few behind with the moderator notation to give the appearance of not being extremely heavy-handed.
Don’t ever expect a reason to be given for the behaviour mind.
This might be one of Tols deleted comments according to Goddard.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/01/24/guardian-again-censors-ipcc-lead-author/
Hiya Flash,
So what’s your view on this mate?
Don’t hold back like you usually do………………….
It isn’t fair to say that everyone who disagrees with you is the same. Sir Harry Flashman is not Dana Nuticelli. He shouldn’t have to defend that unless he wants to.
The USSR and Germany opposed each other in WW2.
Was every ally against Stalin’s enemy a Stalinist?
Fair enough,
I wasn’t trying to grossly antagonise. Honest. I actually quite like whoever Mr Flashman is and he knows this. I’m equally sure I’d like his company from seeing his style. The evening would be one long mutual pisstake…Great stuff. Like my days in the military.
Mean that too…
But fair point M.
Generally I think comments like that are reprehensible and reflect badly on the commenter, but I’d still like to see them in context. Or see the article at all to see how offensive it is. In any case the guy wrote one piece for the Guardian 5 years ago so it’s not like he represents their editorial policy or anything; just another obnoxious commenter.
And don’t let them know, but even I find the Guardian annoying and sanctimonious.
Aye,
Cheers
Andy
SHF – your annoyance may be age related. I’m embarrassed to say that I used to buy it, and take it seriously, until I was nearly forty.
an unkind person might imagine that a weak personality might try to make itself grander by associating with really big stuff like ” Oh my God, the world is going to end and only I can save it”.
I’ll just get a cape & wear my underpants on the outside ( but my mum says they need a wash first !! ), so can you wait ??
What about the leotards?
You got to see it from their perspective. After a day of hobnobbing and strategising with their allies and sponsors from BP, JPMorgan, Royal Dutch Shell, the Brit and Chinese govts, etc. etc., they need to vent the self-righteous steam of hypocrisy. The venom is more aimed to keep the warmistas towing the party line, including themselves.
That’s actually the strategy every single time. It is a message to keep their own tribe frightened. They lynch us, yes, but the objective is to control their peers. We are just their means and our “heads rolling” a warning to those of them that might be starting to think for themselves.
What will the green gulag look like?
For those new here the article with the offensive comment and offensive image was written by Dana Nuccitelli – Guardian environmental contributor and has worked for Tetra Tech oil and gas services company since June 2006.
Dana Nuccitelli is a Guardian environmental contributor and has worked for Tetra Tech oil and gas services company since June 2006.
Attack big oil and take big oil money. What’s not to like?
I can’t find those comments there now.
I also can’t find any rebuttal to Matt Ridley. But that may be my lack of observational ability. Dana seems convinced that the rebuttal is so obvious that he doesn’t need to make it.
He says:
Tired of debunking or incapable?
He didn’t respond to my questioning whether all those 10^22 joules represented 0.03C, in the broken graph story (although he did valiantly stand by Abraham); so my guess is the latter.
In his statement about debunking and motives, who is he talking about? Himself?
So Greenpeace want[s] to reduce the world’s population, to solve an evironmental crisis.
But when I contacted Greenpeace about why they were not campaigning to reduce the world’s population, to solve a potential evironmental crisis, the reply from their HQ was: “we never have, and never will, campaign on population issues.” (Lisa Weatherley, Greenpeace.)
So condoms are taboo but beheading is, apparently, all the rage. Perhaps they have all changed their religion, and joined the great protection racket….
R
well I guess they could start at “reducing’ the “head” office of green peace.
Evil people need no arguments.
Too simplistic. They think they are right.
I disagree but being wrong isn’t being evil. Actions and intent are different.
No, they do need arguments to justify themselves. And they’re all too easily found.
Dark days for skeptics as the storm clouds gather. There’s so much hate in the world. And it’s hard to miss that the haters so easily delude themselves into thinking they’re the good guys. Terrorists come in many flavors.
Your right of free speech ends at the edge of my belief zone.
==================
Lol – its fun being a global warming denier. We seem to have upset the elites.
What really upsets the elites os that we’re climate change defiers!
Islamic militants and environmentalist whackos. They have a solution to all of the world’s problems.
It’s becoming more and more difficult to tell the difference between environmental extremists and Islamic extremists. If we ever hear a politician say, “the future does not belong to those who slander the prophets of Gaia,” Josh had better take extra precautions, as being a cartoonist can be a high-risk line of work.
Thanks Josh. Good cartoon.
The Bishop of the Hill is right to point this infamy. Thanks, Andrew.
They hate someone fighting back. Ridley had already mentioned the move to vitriol:
and its consequence:
Him having the platform of The Times to say that makes them even madder. Someone has to up the ante. Josh’s counter, as always, is a massive reason to rejoice. The moral bankruptcy has to become plain for all to see, lest the violent fantasies of a few bear fruit.
Looks like the Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) are taking over the MSM…
the progressive version of free speech has always been; ” your are free to say absolutely whatever you want…. as long as it is what I want you to say.”
ugh!
Joe
Correct, that is the progressives’ position on everything not supporting their beliefs and also everyone that questions them.
I do not really think they have any true beliefs. All they crave is power; what they believe has nothing to do with their agenda.
Fen’s Law:
The Left believes in none of the things they lecture the rest of us about.
dbstealey
Thanks, but I think you – or your quote of
Fen’s Law:
The Left believes in none of the things they lecture the rest of us about.
may not, in fact, allow for the Machiavellian instincts of some on the Left.
For example:
St. Albert Gore (Jr.) is – I know, ‘cos Wikipedia [which, on this occasion I cannot edit (I wonder why? maybe – obviously a protection against Al Qaeda)] omits to confirm – is, in fact, not the owner of every mansion in the Northern Hemisphere.
He may not want to be such an owner . . . .
St. Albert Gore (Jr.) does not use private jets for all his transportation – some missions, from dining table to computer, for example, are usually performed on foot. Or so it is reported!
Michael Mann – father of Mann-made catastrophic Global Climate disruption ( so it’s the same as ever it was, or something) – is actually kind to animals, loves children* , and probably only use private jets if invited – and – look – only when he wants to fly somewhere, not for merely nipping down the local gas station for a frack-pack (or might that be a ‘six-pack’?)!
* Here Laureate Mann [I’m a Nobel Laureate, too, as I was a subject of the EU when I won a Prize for – something. Aaaah – whatever the EU won a prize for . . . . for me] seriously differs from some watermelons, who want to – shall we suggest – ‘disappear’ babies until the world population is a few hundred million [or ‘thousand’, I hear].
My apologies if I seem to have a slightly jaundiced view of some fellow members of my species.
Something to do with experience, maybe . . . . . ?
Auto
[Accredited Old Fart in London]
No different than RFK Jr. wanting to execute oil execs, or that guy whos name escapes me that said every time there’s a flood in Bangladesh that airline execs should be shot.
Suzuki’s not so unkind, jail would be enough for politicians who think differently than him.
They’re taking their talking points from the higher-ups.
With greenies it’s all about the death.
If it was mad hatters tea party “off with their heads” it would be funny, but in the current world terror climate (no pun intended) this is just sick.
I don’t take the Malthusian rantings of these absurd narcissists too seriously, but I have to agree, given the sadness and hopelessness surrounding the recent ISIS executions, that does seem like a particularly vile and tasteless comment to make. As other commenters have pointed out, there does seem to be a great deal of self loathing projected outwards from the more shrill camp of the alarmists. However it is a great gauge of how effectively a piece of skeptical scrutiny has hit the mark.
Its not related to being a sceptic but from having fallen foul of people with similar attitudes that I have copped what Gene Hasmi seems to think is clever rather than immoral.
It has been almost two decades of utter crap. I go interstate often to see family and friends. Occasionally, I find that someone has been spreading rumours that I left town in a hurray because the police are after me.
I used to have that when I was younger. Except it was all of the old high school rivalries telling everyone I was in prison for murder. It was amusing to return home after 12 years away in the military to having them ask how getting gang raped in prison was. I never countered them and just told them it was like getting shot at in stupid pointless wars.
..and calling for someone’s head *isn’t* “touchy”? My irony meter broke; again.
Remember they live in a swath of emotional drivel, so to them, it’s a joke.
Here at WUWT some time back there were a couple of “professors” from some California “University” who were burning a book. It was just a “joke” of course.
It seems that after about 32 hours, and after the story went global, appearing here and at JoNova, the slimeballs who run the Guardian eco pages finally took some action and removed the offensive comments .
Remember, these are the people who employ Nazi fantasist Dana to abuse and smear climate sceptics on an almost daily basis
This is standard operating procedure for the left. I can recall being threatened by a classmate in graduate school because I mentioned I had watch[ed] Rush Limbaugh’s TV show. LOL.
Give Greenpeace credit where credit is due.
After all it is the world’s largest employer of mentally incompetent people.
Eugene WR Gallun
Hardly, the biggest employer is the Obama Administration and his cronies.