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)
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:
@ur momisugly 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!
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.
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)
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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
“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?
Weeble (19:51:24) : No, it’s the definition of censorship. Mob rules? Nice.
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?
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.
Maybe Greenpeace should invest in carbon credits: click
Greenpeace have taken the blog down and aplogised – well said sorry but the aplogy reads as if they aren’t really.
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.
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
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?
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.
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, …….
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?
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.
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.
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…
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?