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)
Bah whatever.
Normal behaviour… When one side starts losing an argument, they get nasty and all ‘ad hominem’ like and jump into attack mode. That’s when you know you’re winning the argument and gaining the upper hand.
*snicker snicker*
“We know who you are.”
Actually, I kinda doubt it…
Best,
Frank
Al Gore’s Weather (AGW): Debatez-Moi?
Go to ZuzukiWeb and sign in for Debatez-Moi.
Canadian Liberal Egghead Citoyen Kyoto Dion has reserved his place.
Topique: “France’s two most prominent sceptics, Claude Allegre and Vincent Courtillot, have sown great doubt in the minds of a once unskeptical French public.”
Tsktsk
…-
“Lawrence Solomon: France to hold official debate on climate change
At the suggestion of France’s science minister, Valérie Pécresse, France’s National Academy of Sciences will hold an official debate on climate change to try to defuse this newly explosive issue..
The Academy of Sciences debate, expected to be held by October of this year, follows two months of heated debate on radio and television, during which France’s two most prominent sceptics, Claude Allegre and Vincent Courtillot, have sown great doubt in the minds of a once unskeptical French public. Allegre’s new book, L’imposture climatique (The Climate Fraud), has especially caused the French public to reconsider the conventional wisdom about global warming. In this runaway best-seller (110,000 copies sold to date), Allegre, France’s most celebrated scientist and a former Science Minister in a socialist government, calls the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a “mafia-like system” that promotes a “baseless myth” about climate change.
In an attempt to stop the erosion of their public support, some 410 establishment scientists petitioned the current science minster, asking her to rebuke the skeptics and to express confidence in the climate research community. Her response was to turn to France’s National Academy with a request for a debate on the subject. The Academy’s president, Jean Salençon, readily agreed in the hopes that an airing of the issues would calm some of the fury on the subject.
Noting that the Academy does not take sides on the issue, and that the Academy’s website already reports the views of scientists on both sides of the debate, Salençon aims to defend the scientific method and the principles of scientific inquiry, not any one scientific position. When asked if sanctions might be in the cards for Allegre, a member of the Academy, or any other climate sceptics, he replied: “Under no circumstances! There is no question of ethical sanctions. Even less of an expulsion. The nomination for the Academy of Sciences is perpetual. It cannot be reversed, not even through a resignation.”
The participants in the October debate have not yet been determined.”
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2010/04/03/lawrence-solomon-france-to-hold-official-debate-on-climate-change.aspx
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/013710.html
“Y2Kyoto: The Greenpeace Militia
The climate fascists are getting restless…”
Andrew,
Your words are mendacious. You are twisting like a politician trying to distance himself from an inconvenient incident. Make no mistake – “we know where you live,” directly connotates at the very least harassment of individuals. If the Heartland instute was to put out a statment directed at CRU scientists that was even half as incendiary as that, what would your reaction be?
Greenpeace has chosen the path of conflict. What God given right does your organisation have to cattle prod our democratically elected representatives? What right to declare action against the legitimate interests of the peoples of our nations. In another time this would be called treason.
And they’ll know that many of us own guns, and know how to use them for self-defense.
What was that they were saying about “building bridges” the other week? 😀
“David Ball (10:17:00) :
Okay, maybe Andrew and Peter Hearnden are right. We drop fossil fuels and adopt alternatives. Perhaps these gentlemen could explain to me what comes next? I will gladly consider their plans if they help me to understand their plans. If you are going to lead, you have to have somewhere to go. Help me out here, as it is difficult to make the leap without my family suffering. For myself, I am not worried, but I can only go along with your ideals if I am certain my family will be safe and healthy. This may be a big hurdle, but it is the one you will have to overcome with the general public. I await your reply.”
This thread is about Greenpeace – I responded to that.
Anyway, you choose to change the subject.
My response is fossil fuels are finite so at some point we need to address that. There is lots of coal, and Oil wont run out any time soon but it may reach a peak of production fairly soon, decades, and my view is it would be sensible to think about what that means to us.
|
Greenpeace continues to transform into GreenWar.
Science fiction is coming true. I knew when I read those stories the premise sounded very plausible, and it is coming to pass.
The iconic image of Greenpeace, people in small inflatable rafts challenging mighty whaling vessels, ready to die in the defense of life, of their beliefs.
And what often happens when such passionate committed people join together for their cause? When they don’t see the expected results, that should have come from a caring thinking reasonable populace inevitably flocking to their morally-superior cause? What is the matching side of “willing to die for what you believe in?” Soldiers know it, policemen know it…
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?
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>>
Which part of “we know where you live” falls into civil disobediance?
“They also serve who only stand and wait” ~ John Milton
I also might add AND FUND.
All of these “greenies” seem to have a serious case of ADD . . . that is, Arithmetic Deficit Disorder. And constantly lie.
I might also report that the UK committed further economic suicide this last week.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7550164/Climate-Change-Act-has-the-biggest-ever-bill.html
Of these sort of things are bloody revolutions constructed, which I personally think is the intended purpose.
“johnhayte (15:06:40) :
People on this board are really prone to exaggeration. Since when is calling for civil disobedience equivalent to inciting terrorism? ”
Oh our little ecological freedom fighter Gene made threatening noises like “We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.”. That is not a call for civil disobedience but sounds more like a personal threat, don’t you think so? Granted, he’s probably insane and doesn’t even know how to handle a weapon. But maybe some of the loons that hang out on those websites do.
See my link above to the damage certain freedom fighters already do in Germany,
http://www.brennende-autos.de/
By now, they don’t kill people intentionally. This can change in an instant, lunatic enough they are.
They’ve taken it down or ar least I can’t find it.
DaveE.
Sorry. That was me. I just couldn’t find the quote.
DaveE.
Andrew (06:46:28) :
I assume then if a blogger goes against these core values they will be constrained? If not, then I’m afraid those core values are meaningless. If anyone here posted a comment as inflammatory as Gene’s, Anthony would most likeley [snip] it. If a guest poster posted something along these lines it would no doubt cause Anthony to get a lot of criticism.
What about that do you not understand? I assume you are intelligent. Do read the comments here. You should not be supporting this person, or defending him, in any way, until he publicly retracts these ridiculous statements.
I’m afraid I cannot take you seriously until you, and Gene, address this pretty fundamental point.
Loads fine for me at
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/climate/2010/04/will_the_real_climategate_plea_1.html
and my and Willis’ comment are still there.
They’ve added a disclaimer that the article is supposed to talk about civil disobedience, but they didn’t change the article’s text itself.
One must admit that at least for the moment they don’t censor as much as RealClimate, Joe Romm or Tamino.
I, for one, have never heard the phrase “we know where you live” and understood it as anything but a threat, however trivial a one.
What is next? “We know where your children go to school”?
Come on, get real, Andrew.
Re: David Alan Evans (15:34:10)
It’s back up now, with new large introductory section from Andrew (Greenpeace web producer) that basically is as he wrote above (Gene is a nice guy, we don’t want to kill anyone, etc).
johnhayte (15:06:40) :
This is not Red China, yet. Calls for acts of violence like the one from Greenpeace excerpt may be one and the same as the threat against US Governors.
We don’t do things like that in America.
We vote them out. That is what the system was designed to do, peacefully.
Forcible removal is the biggest damage that can be done to a government’s credibility.
David Alan Evans (15:34:10) :
They’ve taken it down or ar least I can’t find it>>
It is still there, along with the tirade of comments calling them out. There are feeble responses on a lot of them, along with a feeble plea from Andrew not to threaten violence and to remain polite.
Well Andrew, you posted my lengthy response which is also posted here and on my blog, so I have to give you credit for that much, but listen carefully. Violence begets violence. The storm of comments you got on your site that so frightened you and Julliette was sparked by Greenpeace. The first shot was fired by Greenpeace. If the reaction to what GREENPEACE did shocks and frightens you and Juliette, then consider for a moment what is likely to happen if some zealot, encouraged by the call to violence GREENPEACE published, follows through. Take responsibility for what you have done, stop making feable excuses or trying to paper it over with explanations of culture. You have threatened violence and it is YOU who must step back from the precipace, repudiate the article in no uncertain terms, and expunge the person who wrote it from your midst along with anyone who supports them.
Violence begets violence. Are you prepared to put a stop to what you have started?
So I posted a comment on Greenpeace’s website that is so offensive, so controversial, so threatening, that is appears that Andrew and company refuse to publish it. Here is the comment:
“Hello Gene, Andrew and Juliette
I have a simple request. Can you please review the following 5 Arctic Sea Ice Area and Extent charts from the most reputable sources of sea ice data;
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
and explain to us how these facts are supportive of the claimed catastrophic decline in Arctic Sea Ice?
We have reason to be skeptical, it is because the empirical facts do not support the claims of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Narrative. The proverbial canary in a coal mine for global warming is arctic sea ice extent and it’s currently about average. Threatening skeptics is not going to make the sea ice melt. You should be challenging the facts not the messengers.”
So is Greenpeace afraid of the facts? Andrew, what do you have to say for yourself and your organization?
“We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.”
Next stop for Gene Hashmi, maybe a real job? O’ the horror!
For Andrew from Greenpeace:
If you know Gene, and believe that his words are meant to invoke peaceful boycotts and civil disobdience, then you should contact him and get him to change the wording and issue a retraction/clarification.
Because no reasonable person would come up with your explanation after reading the text, and that’s going to do your organisation more harm than good.
If you want peaceful protests and boycotts, then explicitly state that. Using the words ‘climate outlaws’, ‘we know where you live’ etc do not sound like what you’re trying to portray.
Issue a retraction and clarify the position, you know it to be wrong.
Put OBL’s name behind those threats and change a few words and most folks call it terrorism.
Those folks behind the greenpeace and AGW fraud are pretty powerful folks.
There is big money to be made with carbon cap and trade and carbon credits.
By definition, carbon credits are money. Those who are able to create carbon credits are creating money. Money which can be multiplied 10 fold with carbon trading and loans.
I was a bit worried about what a failure at Copenhagen would mean. I am not worried about the civil disobedience part, but they have other more deadly weapons at their disposal. The same forces over the past century have been responsible for wars, terrorism, and financial depressions using drugs to fund their operations (why do you think the war on drug and war on terror have never been won). History repeats.
I’ve just been watching a documentation about Tesla. Because of him we have electricity. He got 700 patents and invented practically an entire infrastructure. And that’s what the 20th century civilization in the industrialized world is built upon.
Now, Greenpeace and others want to put the breaks on energy production. I guess we are wealthy enough to survive it – we’ll just pay the extortion racket.
Maybe even the middle class in India – where our Gene probably comes from – will not suffer that much. Oh, i forgot, Gene’s India is excempt from any carbon reduction and will probably even get a share of the 100 billion/year.
So now i understand. Gene is just acting economically, he’s not a loon – the CO2 scam plays directly into the hands of India so they must be interested in keeping it going.
Sorry that i needed so long to understand the motives. It’s *NOT* a PR SNAFU – it’s a very finely calculated move. We are testing the waters with a little “righteous” rage.
So this was the testrun for a strategy that Greenpeace will start to roll out worldwide.