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)
Andrew,
The more money for skepticism the better…
The less money for GreenFascism the better…
Thanks for making the skeptics lives easier…
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.
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).
“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.
Hey! where did all the ‘Green Uniform’ comments go to? I was enjoying them.
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?
Where’s Gene? Isn’t he going to respond?
Andrew – why don’t you invite your mate to join in?
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
@ur momisugly 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?
“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?
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
Here’s the more professional version of the second clip above: (Bird strike at about 2 mins.)
Forget it – I see you’ve posted this already!
“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?