This is the face on environmentalism today – publicly issued threats from Greenpeace
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?
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)
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.
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
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.
“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?
Federal judge Napolitano explains what is going on with the recently passed healthcare bill: <a [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKmJwm9nSLU&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1]>
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.
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.
“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…
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.
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….
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.
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.
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.
” We dont want to kill you or hurt you, we just want you to do what we tell you.”
Green”peace” mission statement 2010?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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..
Andrew (02:02:05) :
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.