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 (01:33:37) :
To be clear – Greenpeace is 100% peaceful.”
[not that I disagree with your sentiment, but that is a can of worms I will not allow into this discussion. ~ ctm]
For that statement to be truthful, you will need to embark aboard a time machine on a trip into the past for the purpose of stopping the violence committed by Greenpeace in the destruction of experimental GM crops in Norfolk, military aircraft, coal plant facilities, trepass on a parliamentary seat of government, and a plethora of other physcial acts.
RockyRoad (20:51:36) :
Ah, Greenpeace, Greenpeace, Greenpeace…
Words belie and words belittle, but here’s the truth:
You are neither Green, nor do you herald peace.
Why don’t you just change your name to “Brownwar” or “Blackhate”?
Then your name will accurately reflect your modus operandi, your threats, your thoughts, and your persona.
How terribly sad.
Or maybe “Gangrenepiece?”
———-
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.
Grow up. Like the extra heat, it isn’t ‘hidden’, it just doesn’t exist.
Nice man, that Dr. Patrick Moore.
Reply: Please be polite to Andrew. At a cursory examination he appears legitimately as someone who works with Greenpeace. ~ ctm
ctm, I fail to see why his membership entitles him to such politeness. Do we get the same in return?
Reply: Because such cross fertilization potentially promotes communication. If he behaves politely, sincere or not, then the courtesy should be returned. Besides, in general we do enforce courtesy between commenters no matter what side they come from. ~ ctm.
If you’re one of those who have spent their lives undermining climate SCIENCE, 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, Greenpeace, WWF, CRU, NASA, IPCC, EU, Carbon Trading.
Andrew (01:33:37) : QUOTE “In developing our campaign strategies and policies we take great care to reflect our fundamental respect for democratic principles and to seek solutions that will promote global social equity. ”
Is NOT what he is advocating, it should not therefore be published on an official Greenpeace Website.
D. Patterson (02:45:52) :
Greenpeace chief: breaking law justifiable in fight against climate change
The head of Greenpeace has said that it is justifiable to break the law in order to alert people to the threat of climate change. Published: 7:30AM GMT 15 Mar 2010
[….]
Kumi Naidoo has said that it is justifiable to break the law in order to alert people to the threat of climate change
[….]
Doesn’t that just say it all, so this guy Gene is not a lone “Crazy” by their standards, as the message comes down from the Top.
From working with various environmental groups over the years I reckon half their active (i.e. turn up to meetings, no just pay dues) membership would happily go along with that kind of militant action, and very few would openly oppose it.
Ironically, if the financial oxygen of unemployment benefit were cut off from green activists, so they had to get a proper job instead of sitting around all day being “radical”, the green movement would crumble overnight.
Andrew (02:39:54) :
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.
On the basis of the above rant, I’d have to say those propositions are mutually exclusive
These guys do not care about the environment. When I was fighting forest fires they would throw such a fit about where we could and could not walk on public lands for fear of destroying a precious plant or moss.
But, look at the big red letters on this site: http://www.nps.gov/orpi/planyourvisit/backcountry.htm
and read about how they are destroying the landscape here:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/01/0110_030113_organpipeclynes.html
If they cared about the environment at all, they would be up in arms about this.
“L’imposture climatique (The Climate Fraud)”.
“French Researchers Ask Science Minister to Disavow Climate Skeptic
PARIS—More than 400 French climate scientists want science minister Valérie Pécresse to take a clear stand against the country’s most vocal climate skeptic, geochemist Claude Allègre of the Institute of Geophysics of Paris (IPGP). On Wednesday, the group sent Pécresse a letter denouncing Allègre’s latest book, L’imposture climatique (The Climate Fraud), and asking her to express confidence in the climate research community. Allègre was science minister from 1997 until 2000.
The book—a series of interviews with journalist Dominique de Montvalon—includes a harsh attack on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which Allègre calls a “mafia-like system” that propagates a “baseless myth.” Climate scientists and journalists at several newspapers have argued that the book is riddled with errors, distortions of the data, and outright lies.
The dispute has played out for 2 months in raucous TV and radio debates and countless op-eds. French scientists say it’s time for the government and several prominent lab directors to take sides. The group also takes aim at IPGP Director Vincent Courtillot, another global warming skeptic.””
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/04/french-researchers-ask-science-m.html
Desperation time and they know it.
Will attacking sceptics change the climate?
I don’t think so!
“cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission”
Ha ha ha ha ha!!!! Give them complete control of the media and the UN and the major science societies and etc and they want to play the underdog? That the only way they could possibly be losing is due to a big well-funded conspiracy? The big enviro groups have spent well over a billion dollars on this issue and lose to Steve McIntyre with an acer laptop. It must really sting.
…sent the GP link to Drudge.
Are their threats just words? Perhaps not. There are numerous (hundreds) of acts of violence by like-minded individuals. A bomb at a Michigan forestry school, a tree nursery destroyed, new home developments set on fire, riots at every G8 or similar meeting. Name a single case of skeptics rioting or bombing something.
Someone up above posted the money from the Koch foundation to various think tanks like Cato Institute. Only a small fraction of the activities of these think tanks is about climate change, but even if it were this money from Koch is a drop in the bucket just compared to the GreenPeace budget, nevermind all the other climate alarmist groups, and never mind official government alarm from PSAs and official reports and government web sites (NASA, Met Office). It is hilarious really trying to make it seem that the opposition to hysteria is well-funded. Many of the key figures are retired or pay for their own blog or have even lost their jobs (some big reward there, eh?)
I have always considered myself a skeptic but the word is beginning to take on connotations that I’m not comfortable with. I guess I don’t like how polarized and politicized the word skeptic is becoming and now Greenpeace is almost at war with those “dirty” skeptics.
I think I’ll champion the cause of clearing this up for people and I encourage others to do the same. Scientific skepticism is a vital aspect of the foundation of all science and in general helps protect society from the spread of pseudoscience, superstition, and irrational beliefs.
Dummies.com handles it well: “The words skeptic and skepticism come from an ancient Greek verb that meant “to inquire.” Etymologically, then, a skeptic is an inquirer. This should form important background for an understanding of skeptical doubt. Skepticism at its best is not a matter of denial, but of inquiring, seeking, questioning doubt.”
Source: http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/examining-the-roots-of-skepticism-pyrrho-and-sextu.html#ixzz0k8T3ebwL
About time Greenpeace, WWF and the other once honest organisations were brought to heel.
How about lobbying for them to be deprived of their government grant money. How legal is it it for these people to appear as NGOs in the debating chambeers when they are partly fundeed by various givernments?
Dear Greedyp’s (p for pinheads); congratulations. You’ve gone from being a legitimate environmental organization to one that is a money-grubbing semi-terrorist one espousing lawlessness and violence against those who disagree with you. Give yourselves a big pat on the back and round of applause. You should be proud.
We be quaking in our boots. From laughter.
I left Greenpeace about 10 years ago. I went to the top, had a full blown argument about wind turbine development on peatland and wild land. There was no effort to explain the massive local loss let alone the demon CO2 loss from cutting into saturated peat…
My understanding is it starts at home, how you treat your own back yard first. It’s just like charity it really does begin at home. After winning a protracted public enquiry and seeing their mythical global message ignored. Hype was hyped to fear tactics, enabling planning applications to have consent laced with bags of money – the treatment of those who showed any kind of intelligent argument against was vitriol in a small community. “We know who you are.” has resonance to those times too.
It did not stop us then, but the composition of the atmosphere here has changed, I doubt whether we would have won if the application came through today.
Why Greenpeace feels so intense about us sceptics and yet will not admit to the tumbling numbers of members they witnessed and other groups like RSPB the real membership lost over the years – another glaring part of the Emperor’s newly bought apparel.
COP 16 MUST be a success. So… lets remove the “guys that don’t believe is us”.
The global warming movement broke and tore all institutions that we know. They divide families, political parties, religions, countries, continents, enterprises, everything. The world is broken. This guys are not just terrorists. They are a threat for the rest of the humankind. The lies of this criminals must be confronted and they must be prosecuted and expelled by the countries where they are encrusted.
Craig – If we were in charge then Obama wouldn’t be announcing off shore drilling, there would be net zero deforestation, a network of marine reserves would cover 40% of the worlds oceans, and this conversation would be powered by wind and solar.
Unfortunately, mega-corporations seem to be mainly running the show. Thanks for bringing up Koch. Good example of how things work…
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/dirty-money-climate-30032010
ctm – Yes, I work as a web producer for Greenpeace. Thanks for asking folks to be polite. They seem nice so far.
Unfortunately, I can no longer find the YouTube vid showing someone on a Greenpeace protest boat (I think it was that new, black, high-tech stealthy looking one) shooting a crossbow at a whaling vessel.
GP sounds like an oil company that gets paid by other oil companies to disrupt business for competitors. Huh, I’m sure I meant funded by “green” energy companies.
Jerome –
Here are two of Greenpeace’s core values…
+ We ‘bear witness’ to environmental destruction in a peaceful, non-violent manner;
+ We use non-violent confrontation to raise the level and quality of public debate;
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about/our-core-values
So, no one (not me, not Gene, not anyone at GP) wishes you (or any other climate skeptic) any physical harm. We disagree, and will be vocal about that. And we’ll protest, and even take *peaceful* direct action.
Clear enough?