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)
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?!
and eslewhere on the site:
Earth to Al Gore! Earth to Al Gore!
Anyone there?
The mansion, private jet and limousine lights are no, but no-one is home….
[let’s not go there mmmmkay? ~ ctm]
[discouraging this kind of talk ~ ctm]
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….
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…….
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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Surely this should be reported to the Charity Commission? Or equivalent, outside the UK? This is totally unacceptable.
Let us ask Al what he thinks of his friend statements..
bla, bla, bla, plenty of brabbles and words.. some call it lies.
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.
Greenpeace showing their true colours. What a nasty lot. Brings a whole new meaning to the otherwise innocuous words “green” and “peace”.
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..
Andrew (01:33:37) :
Sorry, Andrew, I’m just not buying it:
If you won’t condemn this promise of assault, and it is nothing less, then you are complicit.
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.
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
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.
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.
“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.
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.