Damage control: Greenpeace removes threats

WUWT readers may recall this weekend our feature “Climate Craziness of the Week – Greenpeace posts threats” that appeared on the Greenpeace “Climate Rescue” blog

with the punchline:

We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.

And we be many, but you be few.

Heh. Looks like the opinions of the many outweighed the opinion of the one because now from higher up the food chain at Greenpeace, they say on that updated blog post about the author, Gene Hasmi:

Anyone who knows Gene knows he’s an entirely peaceful guy. In the interest of transparency we have moved it off site to this location,

As I mentioned in comments to that original article, I made a webcitation of the Greenpeace original URL in case they “disappeared” it.  (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5oj86Zw5q) As you read the update, you’ll see their spin. Of course it was “all taken out of context you see, and it’s those darned climate contrarians fault for it getting perceived as a threat”.

My response to Greenpeace: Bullshit!

Here’s the update-

Statement from Ananth, International Programme Director:

You’ve probably come here to read a blog post written by our colleague Gene, in which he addresses climate sceptics by saying:

“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.”

Well, we’ve taken down that post from our website. It’s very easy to misconstrue that line, take it out of context and suggest it means something wholly different from the practice of peaceful civil disobedience, which is what the post was about. Anyone who knows Gene knows he’s an entirely peaceful guy. In the interest of transparency we have moved it off site to this location, where you can read the offending quotes in context and judge for yourself:

We got this one wrong, no doubt about it. I’m holding up my hands on behalf of the organisation and saying sorry for that. Peaceful action is at the very core of what we do, so any language that even comes close to suggesting that’s not the case is something we cannot support.

Gene in his blog asks: “What do you do when patient petitioning, protest marches and court orders fail? What do you do when all the protocols and cheat codes of democracy fail? This is what you do: you reclaim the language of democracy from the twisted bunch that have hijacked, cannibalized and subverted it.”

We need to reclaim the language of democracy and tolerance. A language that is clear and precise. A language that does not confuse integrity of protest and civil disobedience with anger. One which establishes the fundamental tenets of protecting the planet for all life forms.

The climate change debate is often characterised by more heat than light, and for that reason we all need to be careful about how we express ourselves.

Of course the anti-science brigade on the web has seized on the line in Gene’s post and run with it (and will run and run and run), taken it out of context and run with it some more – it’s what the climate contrarians exist to do.

We do not look over our colleagues’ shoulders when they blog. That’s not what the web is about – and that means we’ll make mistakes. No doubt this won’t be the last one, but next time we’ll deal with it a little quicker.

Thank you for coming to the Greenpeace website, and while you’re here please take the chance to have a look round at some of the work we do.

And if you have any questions about what I’ve written here, feel free to drop me a line at: ananth[at]greenpeace.org, International Programme Director, Greenpeace International.

— Ananth

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 6, 2010 8:39 am

Except Greenpeace is all about violence on property, cowardly stunts, and intimidation of private people excercising their free rights.
Civil disobedience is against governments, not private individuals.
Greenpeace is aided and abetted by governments, and seeks to deprive other citizens of their rights in order to impose thier political demands.
Greenpeace is just one of many thugs hiding behind NGO status and self-declared righteousness.
That the logical outcome of their policies will be more, not less suffering of people only makes this half-hearted attempt at damage control more annoying.
Greenpeace does not get it. They are environmental and climate fear mongers and profiteers. The sooner they are shown for what they are, the better.

Steve Goddard
April 6, 2010 8:40 am

He is an “entirely peaceful guy.”
In other words he wants other people to commit violence for him. Saddam Hussein paid other people $30,000 to be suicide bombers, because Saddam himself was a peace loving fellow.

April 6, 2010 8:43 am

How nice of him to include his email address: ananth@greenpeace.org

Jack in Oregon
April 6, 2010 8:46 am

GreenPeace Today,
with their old fleet of pollution producing boats, are anything but green… And now with Gene’s comments, its clear they do not respect Peace.
Which gives us this classic…
“Oh No… Its worse then we thought…”
which now leads to…
“Quick, we need to hide the decline… (in Gene’s communications skills…)”

Sean Houlihane
April 6, 2010 8:46 am

These people should go off grid, and stay there. Preferably on some low-lying sandbank of an island.

Reed Coray
April 6, 2010 8:47 am

In the interest of transparency we have moved it off site to this location
What the hell does “In the interest of transparency” mean? I was confused by the phrase, but then I looked up “transparency” and “transparent” in the dictionary. Sure enough, trasnparent definition #4. easily seen through, recognized, or detected: transparent excuses. I agree, Greenpeace’s attempt at damage control is “easily seen through”.

April 6, 2010 8:51 am

He says the remark was “taken out of context”. I do not ever accept that explanation any more, unless it is specified just exactly what in the original context would have changed the meaning from the obvious one. Give us a quote, Ananth, from the original context that it was taken out of! Show us how we were wrong!

April 6, 2010 8:52 am

Okay, here is my theory;
Gene watched Avatar, mixed fiction with reality, then wrote his little Gene-Piece.

Alan Bates
April 6, 2010 8:56 am

Very tempting to use such language, Sean (08:46:50), but don’t let’s sink to their level.
They have made complete fools of themselves but have attempted to recover the situation. I believe we should be keeping an eye on them and holding them to their promises to follow the ways of democracy and tollerance and peaceful action.

Henry chance
April 6, 2010 8:59 am

Green on the outside and red inside. I recall one of these doogooder groups chased a ship loaded with baby food. It contained msg and was safe to eat. They had the food destroyed. Of course it was on it’s way to feed starving malnourished children. Todlers quit eating baby food and do not die from cancer. The groups play god and think they know what is best for all others. We had some missionary kids play with their friends and the friends ate termites and bugs. How dare they eat unlabelled and uninspected food. At least the termites were not fried in animal fat nor salted.

Myron Mesecke
April 6, 2010 9:00 am

Gene in his blog asks: “What do you do when patient petitioning, protest marches and court orders fail? What do you do when all the protocols and cheat codes of democracy fail? This is what you do: you reclaim the language of democracy from the twisted bunch that have hijacked, cannibalized and subverted it.”
Hasn’t the warmists been the ones that have hijacked, cannibalized and subverted democracy and freedom trying to control the lives of everyone on the Earth?

Rod Smith
April 6, 2010 9:00 am

I can’t speak for others, but I certainly didn’t “misconstrue” anything. I recognize a threat when I read it.

April 6, 2010 9:03 am

I must say, Ananth exhibits quite a bit of ill disguised wordiness that manages to bury within it, a small semblance of a hint of apology.
And, gosh, us Skeptics will use the ludicrous remarks often in the future. Anantha sounds like he’d like to censure our ability to do that, along with our ability to disagree with their hysteria of AGM. No debate allowed here, just ruination of the economies of the world.
If you Google Greenpeace, doubtless you’ll find some interesting history. This is not the first time that Greenpeace is violent or suggests violence. It has a ripe narrative of acting like the immature teenagers they are.
I’ve always thought that Greenpeace = Redwar! Wrong colors, wrong quest!
When Russia could no longer feed itself, when the walls fell in Berlin, when the dictators in old Macedonia were asassinated… all the Red’s turned to Green. There ideological, egotistical, fanatical, insane nature, saw an opening in “saving the environment.”
Now in the UK, Germany, the USA, et al… we see you for what you are, not capable of endearing human kindness. Ananth proves it with a “retraction” were he “hides” the offense… well done, true to form.

April 6, 2010 9:03 am

Apparently there are people who can admit to mistakes and change in the light of new information.

April 6, 2010 9:04 am
Steve Goddard
April 6, 2010 9:09 am

Apparently they think it is OK to commit a crime, as long as someone else thinks the perpetrator is a nice person.

Frederick Michael
April 6, 2010 9:09 am

The real puzzler is the words, “in the interest of transparency.” Words like, “in the interest of civility,” or, “peace,” etc. would make sense. But, “transparency”? It seems that they picked the one thing it is exactly not.
“In the interest of transparency, I have hidden this.”
I’d really like to understand the mind of those people and this is a signal moment. If we could understand how in the world he could have thought those words fit, maybe we could understand more about their “culture.”

April 6, 2010 9:11 am

“Peaceful action is at the very core of what we do..”
Peaceful through direct/indirect support of genocide (slaughter of innocents; population control: i.e. abortion), as humanity is an epidemic plague on the earth? Peacefully goading governments into turning laws, then guns against the People who consented to government being armed for the defense the People? Peacefully abusing People’s honorable desires for peaceful solutions, as a means “redistributing wealth” from the innovative/productive, to the non-productive? Peacefully plugging leaks, which are spewing their philosophical contents in public?
Q: Squeeze an orange, what comes out?
A: Not orange juice, but more correctly: WHATEVER IS INSIDE.

April 6, 2010 9:11 am

Don’t believe a word about peaceful intentions. These people are ideologue-extremists. Here is an applicable quote from the late French intellectual Jean-Francois Revel, in Last Exit to Utopia, “Absent any external political dictatorship, they [socialist/greens] like to reproduce in their relations with each other, as a sort of in vitro experiment, the effects of the phantom tyranny they long for: the condemnations, exclusions, excommunications, defamatory campaigns — the whole gamut.” He understood that if given power, they would indeed come for us all.

Philip Thomas
April 6, 2010 9:18 am

Gene is really peaceful because of the dr*gs but they made his mind all soppy http://www.facebook.com/GeneHashmi#!/GeneHashmi?v=wall

April 6, 2010 9:20 am

The paragraphs may have gone, but the threat remains.

April 6, 2010 9:20 am

“Peaceful action is at the very core of what we do”. The only time I have come across Greenpeace was when I was working at a contractor’s site and they came and invaded it with sledgehammers, bolt-cutters etc. They injured one of the security guards before using the sledgehammers on the security doors. Peaceful my a$$!

April 6, 2010 9:22 am

What a bunch of flowery nonsense. There is absolutely no substance to this “statement” (it can’t be called an apology). Apparently we are told it is easier to misconstrue what was posted than to properly interpret a call to direct violent action against individuals. You see we dumb skeptical sorts have incorrectly interpreted the post as out-of-bounds in an intellectual debate. Really Genes post was entirely appropriate and it is our retardation that forces them to remove that post. Of course all their other incorrect information and agw exagerrations remain in their original urls, but because we stupid people have incorrectly interpreted this one, it requires multiple follow on posts to explain how we’re wrong and must be moved for some reason.
I know what’s transparent now. What’s clear now is that greenpeace is a religious cult. Their behavior over the past few days is something worthy of scientology.

April 6, 2010 9:23 am

“….and cheat codes of democracy fail?”
[snip]? Democracy has cheat codes?

April 6, 2010 9:23 am

Please give some credit to Gene, for asking the question:
“What do you do when all the protocols and cheat codes of democracy fail? This is what you do: you reclaim the language of democracy from the twisted bunch that have hijacked, cannibalized and subverted it.”
Many people in the UK are thinking this, or something like it, tonight.

Dan Lee
April 6, 2010 9:24 am

I’m still curious to know what peaceful, nonviolent action they are planning to do at my house. Throw stink-bombs on my porch? Rescue my dog from the back yard? Block my driveway so I can’t drive the truck? Go through my garbage looking for recyclables?
And that is some strong, Jonestown-caliber Kool-aid they’re drinking if it took them more than 5 minutes to see how those words would come across. Or believe that their “update” (and their responses to many of the comments) would make it all better.
They seem genuinely surprised that the world isn’t buying their spin. You’d think they’d be a bit more polished about that sort of thing after all these years. Evidence that their recruitment pool is still from the “young and naive” portion of society, I guess.

April 6, 2010 9:26 am

A conditional apology is an insult and meaningless.

April 6, 2010 9:27 am

Don’t worry Mr. we are conscious of the importance of your history and your predecessors:

April 6, 2010 9:28 am

Sounds like an advocate for terrorist activities. Should not this matter be investigated by the anti-terrorist department of the CIA?

April 6, 2010 9:29 am

.”If you’re one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation…”
This says it all….

April 6, 2010 9:31 am

Anthony, your original reaction to Ananth’s weasly justifications for Gene’s very intemperate and quite stupid words which could not be ‘taken out of context ‘ was correct and I concur – it’s bullshit!
‘Out of context’ seems to have become the slender and very dodgy excuse for getting caught writing stuff one should not even say.

April 6, 2010 9:33 am

““What do you do when patient petitioning, protest marches and court orders fail? What do you do when all the protocols and cheat codes of democracy fail? ”
How about to consider that what you go for is deadly wrong, or at least not supported by the majority?

Steve Oregon
April 6, 2010 9:37 am

Too bad . That was one of the funniest displays by the loonie left I’ve ever seen.
I mean think about it on it’s face.
GreenPeace calling for a GreenWar.
Pretty special how war can be justified by the anti-war people when it suits them.
Sort of like calls for the death penalty for the perpetrator of the dragging death of a texas black man by death penalty opponents. “In this case I think it’s justified”.
Really, well what about Polly Glass killers.
They’re not so bad?

April 6, 2010 9:40 am

“We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few.”
No other context needed. This is a threat and not a peaceful one. Spin it any way you like. This triggers the flight or fight instinct in me, so I’m borrowing a shotgun for home defense.

April 6, 2010 9:42 am

Greenpeace, the environMENTALists, are an embarrassment to civilized society.

April 6, 2010 9:42 am

Taken from that link “..In the interest of….” Emerging battle-bruised from the disaster zone of Copenhagen, but ever-hopeful, a rider on horseback brought news of darkness and light: “The politicians have failed. Now it’s up to us.” OMG – there they waited, pain etched into the faces of the faithful, hope, salvation, hope – that never came. O wretched world do thy worst. HEEUUGHIE, sorry just puked all over my monitor – later.

April 6, 2010 9:45 am

I just clicked on the link to Gene’s blog, and I am somewhat surprised at his definition of ‘democracy’. And people with similar views to Gene have the nerve (or perhaps it’s merely stupidity) to theorise about sceptical plots.
My cheques from Big Oil must have gone astray in the post, or perhaps there has been a bit of a cock-up! But there again, I’m little more than a comentator on the sidelines, so perhaps the bloke who organises the payoffs for Big Oil has never had my address 🙂 .
Bullshit is far too elegant a description for Gene and Ananth’s nonsense.

Guillermo Gefaell
April 6, 2010 9:45 am

In Spain that Greenpeace article calling to unlawful actions agaisnt dissenting persons on AGW, can be a matter of the Courts of Justice. That’s a calling to terrorism.

Bruce Cobb
April 6, 2010 9:48 am

“We need to reclaim the language of democracy and tolerance. A language that is clear and precise. A language that does not confuse integrity of protest and civil disobedience with anger. One which establishes the fundamental tenets of protecting the planet for all life forms.”
Translation: We need to up our game in the propaganda and spin department, beginning now, under the guise of “democracy and tolerance”. We need to learn how to use bafflegab more effectively, so that it can’t be deliberately misconstrued and used against us by those who hate our planet and all its life forms.
Yeah, good luck with that, Greedyperps. We know how you think, and we be many more than you think.

April 6, 2010 9:50 am

They need to be careful what they wish for, as there are people in this world who will not react with an open-armed welcome when these wannabee eco-warriors show up on their front doorstep or start mucking around on their property or businesses.
Remember what the French did to the Rainbow Warrior in 1985. Push too hard and there will be some significant push-back that will not stop at all the expected places.
I believe that the laws of physics also apply to the political world and they appear to be non-Newtonian in nature, as the reaction is not necessarily opposite or equal to the action.

April 6, 2010 9:51 am

What a bunch of leftist twaddle.

April 6, 2010 9:51 am

I allways [sarc]loved[/sarc] these old Mercedes Benz diesels here (Germany),
not maintenanced since a bunch of years,
several 100.000 kms on their meters,
stinking and a Greenpeace sticker on it.
Same old way: Do as I say, don’t do as I do.

April 6, 2010 9:51 am

Those of us who are concerned for the unintended effects of human progress on our own environments – aka environmentalists – should be wary of groups like Greenpeace.
“One which establishes the fundamental tenets of protecting the planet for all life forms”
-Greenpeace Gene
There is no such tenet – do not try to establish one. It is not your planet to ‘protect’. Do not lay claim to the arrogance to speak for ‘all life forms’. ‘Life’ is much bigger than your puny mind can discern.
Peace sells, but who’s buyin’?
-Dave Mustaine

April 6, 2010 9:52 am

Greenpeace logo:
[Deleted per request.]

April 6, 2010 9:52 am

I saw that threat on line early on and thought it was just business as usual for GreenPeas.

April 6, 2010 9:52 am

This seems a very serious threat, perhaps, this time, they are ready to take us in those J.H. trains to the now updated “shortwave ovens”, replacing the nasty old ones which run on fossil fuel. History repeats itself.

Bill Marsh
April 6, 2010 9:55 am

Yep, and the wife always did something to make her husband beat her.
These clowns are pathetic

April 6, 2010 9:57 am

Smokey (09:52:03) :Forgot the text on it. Fix it to make copies of it to call the attention of the world about this real menace.

Alan the Brit
April 6, 2010 10:01 am

I have said it before, the way this country (UK) is going under Noo Labour, they will kill someone & get off scot-free as they were “defending the planet”! They’vre done everything else up to now. Now, how did that old chant line from dear old Fred Wedlock go……”Smash violence, kill the war-mongers! Be hear Saturday man, we’re having a peace riot!”.

April 6, 2010 10:01 am

While their threat of physical violence has been withdrawn, their threat of economic violence remains for every person struggling to maintain or improve their quality of life on earth.

April 6, 2010 10:05 am

Ananth Guruswamy
Program Director, Greenpeace International
Ananth is the Program Director of Greenpeace International since mid 2008. He was the executive director of Greenpeace India and established the organisation in India. Greenpeace is an international non government organization that uses creative non violent direct action to expose global environmental crimes and to force solutions that are essential to a clean and a peaceful future. Greenpeace campaigns on various issues in 40 countries across the Europe, Asia Pacific, North and South America. An electrical engineer (from Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai) by training, Ananth joined Greenpeace India in 2001 at its beginning phase and nurtured the organisation and developed the organisation as one of the major stakeholders among the Indian environmental NGO sector.

Kevin Kilty
April 6, 2010 10:05 am

“We have to destroy the village in order to save it.”

April 6, 2010 10:05 am
April 6, 2010 10:06 am

OT, but I’m hoping you all can help.
I’m trying to enlighten a colleague and here’s what I’m getting from him:
First, the argument “CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas and has little effect on climate change” is a myth.
Among scientists there is already common ground. Climate change is happening and it is because of human activity.
So what’s the most potent way to deflate these arguments?
Kind regards,

April 6, 2010 10:11 am

This attitude of complete certitude and lack of moral accountability is really starting to grate.
I feel like I’m being slowly driven mad. Does anyone else feel like this?
It doesn’t matter how many of the alarmist planks are removed, I’m still apparently to be treated with complete scorn and derision for even asking questions.
We find recently for example that the Gulf Stream is in fact nothing to worry about, and even it were, is not appreciably slowing down. This was regularly raised by alarmists I had arguments with years ago, only instead of seeing retractions of gloom and doom now, it will be quietly dropped and the “consensus” view still repeated.
Here’s one response I got today, bringing up the Gulf Stream as an issue:”Oh my, I see you too are a climate-change denier. I’m sorry, but I believe my prospects for intelligent political debate with you are less than they would be with a sheep foetus. Do forgive me if I back out before my brain, like yours, liquefies completely.”
How on earth are any of us supposed to have a rational debate with people like this? What *contrary* evidence would it take for them to even budge slightly?

Sam the Skeptic
April 6, 2010 10:12 am

Gene in his blog asks: “What do you do when patient petitioning, protest marches and court orders fail? What do you do when all the protocols and cheat codes of democracy fail? This is what you do: you reclaim the language of democracy from the twisted bunch that have hija cked, cannibalized and subverted it.”
You could always admit you were wrong, I suppose. But the left has always believed that democrarcy is oppression of the majority by the minority (look at the trade union activities of the 1970s as still the prime example).
Personally I am all in favour of ” reclaim[ing] the language of democracy from the twisted bunch that have hijacked, cannibalized and subverted it.”
The difficulty is that from where I’m standing it’s Greensleaze and Fiends of the Earth and their greedy little self-opinionated hangers-on that have been doing the hi-jacking and subverting.

April 6, 2010 10:13 am

Is Greenpeace even a relevant organization anymore?

April 6, 2010 10:17 am

I worked with an environmental socialist type man once.
He told me he was a pacifist and abhorred violence except.
He then proceeded to list the many things he would fight for.
I had to say that his list was longer than mine and I am no pacifist.
It reminded me of a saying.
“Fighting for peace is like Fu**ing for Virginity”

April 6, 2010 10:18 am

Gene says that soon after he had his epiphany in Singapore, he gave up his high-paying job and started hanging out in Sydney with a bunch of anarchist mates. I wonder how he got there – do you think he swam?

April 6, 2010 10:20 am

Someone evidently told Gene the next time he drunk-blogged he’d be off the gravy train.

April 6, 2010 10:20 am

I was semi impressed by G.P. at least archiving the original post even if they removed it. A lot of places would have simply removed it without even acknowledging it ever existed at all. So at least they did that.

April 6, 2010 10:21 am

Quo usque tandem abutere, Greenpeace, patientia nostra?
Sorry. I just felt roman about Greenpeace.

April 6, 2010 10:22 am

The “True Believer” is blind to all but that belief. That goes for all of us. I would remind everyone of that famous quote, “let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” On the other hand I know where they live too.
When the results and hypothesis of science are willfully misrepresented to further the agenda of some social/political/economic group, no matter how noble their cause, it is unacceptable, i.e. unethical.
All to often, when these sophists and propagandists are called on this issue, they claim it was not unethical but the only means available. The crux of this reasoning revolves around getting the attention of the public and the politicians on behalf of some noble cause. Were the situation as simple as that, perhaps some sympathy could be given and if not, at least understanding. Were it so, unfortunately it is not. In just about every case or situation one examines, money, power (entitlement) and faith are at the root. Those claiming the high moral ground while acting in suspect ways or from suspect motives, show themselves to be hypocritical.

April 6, 2010 10:23 am

Smokey (09:52:03) :
Greenpeace logo:

Hey Now! That’s in use by a “Green” political party. You should provide proper attributions for artwork.

April 6, 2010 10:26 am

Reed Coray (08:47:53) :
“In the interest of transparency we have moved it off site to this location
What the hell does “In the interest of transparency” mean?”
Trying long to figure what politicos really say lately, I think I can guess that a transparent thing, in their speech, is something you can’t see at all, nowhere, etc.

April 6, 2010 10:26 am

I also felt that it was incitement to violence. I think it was worded so they could say “… but we didn’t say for them to be violent …”, while it encouraged and promoted violence as the only solution to what they would call “big oil’s drones blocking needed action on climate change.”

April 6, 2010 10:27 am

They removed it but they posted them again, in a concentrated form, so that the most threatening things are more easily visible, you don’t waste time with the neutral stuff.
And under this concentrated version of Gene Hashmi’s essay, the Greenpeace ladies pretty much assure you that this is what they meant, anyway. 😉
It doesn’t look like they have tried to “unbecome” an eco-terrorist organization by this “fix”.

CRS, Dr.P.H.
April 6, 2010 10:28 am

Daniel Ferry (10:06:59) :
OT, but I’m hoping you all can help.
I’m trying to enlighten a colleague and here’s what I’m getting from him:
First, the argument “CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas and has little effect on climate change” is a myth.
Among scientists there is already common ground. Climate change is happening and it is because of human activity.
So what’s the most potent way to deflate these arguments?
Kind regards,
REPLY: Hello, Daniel! First of all, please know that changing the mind of a “true believer” in this stuff is nigh impossible, but if your colleague is willing to listen to reason, you should seek out writings of various scientists.
I suggest doing some research on Dr. Lindzen of MIT, his credentials are stout and he is quite outspoken on AGW. This article just appeared over the weekend:
It is true that carbon dioxide is a “greenhouse gas,” but the science regarding its effect upon the planet is far from settled. We are dealing with a very complex system with many inputs, of which chemistry is only one.
Best of luck, please return to WUWT often and let us know your experience. Cheers, Charles the DrPH

April 6, 2010 10:31 am

Since they posted an email address, I let him know what I thought about Greenpeace. I’m sure he won’t be phased by it, but it made me feel better. Nothing violent- just a reminder of the large Greenpeace bank account all the money to be made on AGW.

April 6, 2010 10:31 am

Threats are so 20th century … You never know who will log a complaint — They also attract lots of law enforcement attention … They should learn from the tea party people ;-}

April 6, 2010 10:31 am

I love it when people just stand up and call a pile of crap what it is.
Thank you. REALLY. Thank you.
So in the spirit of ” if it quacks, walks etc. . .” may I add my heart-felt concurrence:
Bull Shit.

April 6, 2010 10:37 am

I think it is interesting that when someone references the entire statement someone says, it is “taken out of context”.
Taking things out of context is when you only reference something bad that someone says without referencing anything else. When you give the entire statement, that by definition is the context. This is the same tactics politicians use when caught with the hand in the cookie jar.

April 6, 2010 10:41 am

– “What do you do when patient petitioning, protest marches and court orders fail? What do you do when all the protocols and cheat codes of democracy fail? This is what you do: you reclaim the language of democracy from the twisted bunch that have hijacked, cannibalized and subverted it.”
So, democracy is only for their side of the argument? If it works against them then it’s been “hijacked, cannibalized and subverted”. Spoken like a true hypocrite.
Green Peace has become a refuge of enviro-terrorists and Gene’s post and Ananth’s response only prove it.

Carsten Arnholm, Norway
April 6, 2010 10:43 am

So how does it help to move the same threatening words over to some other location on the web ?!?! How pathetic. The damage is done.
Admit you were totally wrong on this. Explain that you understand how it is received. Promise it will not happen again.
Greenpeace: Tell him to retract the threats or to find another employer.

April 6, 2010 10:43 am

Anthony, you could put together a better, nicely worded petition to counter this:
CBD Needs Your Help‏ –
What do more than 100 groups, preeminent climate scientist Dr. James Hansen, award-winning author Barbara Kingsolver, music star Bonnie Raitt, and well-known actor and environmental activist Ed Begley, Jr., have in common? They’ve all signed the People’s Petition to Cap Carbon Dioxide Pollution at 350 Parts Per Million.
The Center for Biological Diversity and 350.org took an historic step in the desperate fight against climate catastrophe when we legally petitioned the EPA to establish a national pollution cap for greenhouse gas pollution under the Clean Air Act. But, now we need your help to get 500,000 people to sign the ‘People’s Petition’.
With Copenhagen failing to producing a legally binding, science based agreement and the Senate moving slowly and weakly, pushing the EPA right now takes on particular importance. Time is short.
Center for Biological Diversity
351 California St., Suite 600
San Francisco, CA 94104
People’s Petition to Cap Carbon Dioxide Pollution at 350 Parts Per Million
Dear Administrator Jackson:
I support the Clean Air Act petition filed by the Center for Biological Diversity and 350.org to the EPA to cap atmospheric carbon dioxide levels at 350 parts per million — the level scientists have determined is necessary to sustain life as we know it.
The Clean Air Act works. The Clean Air Act has protected the air we breathe for 40 years, reaping economic benefits 42 times its cost. Today, the Clean Air Act is our strongest tool to immediately curb greenhouse gas pollution and global warming.
Now, more than ever, we need you to fully implement the Clean Air Act to protect the air we breathe and preserve a safe climate. I urge you to grant the petition and fully utilize all of the Clean Air Act’s successful pollution reduction programs to achieve the deep and rapid greenhouse pollution cuts needed to protect our future.
Dr. James Hansen, Climate Scientist
Bill McKibben, Founder 350.org, Author
Ed Begley, Jr., Activist /Actor
Bonnie Raitt, Musician / Activist
Barbara Kingsolver, Author
Dr. Helen Caldicott, Anti-Nuclear Activist
Dr. Michael Dorsey, Director- Sierra Club National Board
Brock Evans, President- Endangered Species Coalition
Dinah Bear, Attorney-at-Law
Curtis Moore, Author and former Republican Counsel, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate
Dr. Thomas Lovejoy, Biodiversity Chair, Heinz Center
Dr. Niles Eldredge, Curator in the Department of Invertebrates, American Museum of Natural History
Dr. John Terborgh, Research Professor Emeritus and Director, Center for Tropical Conservation, Duke University
Jonathan Baker, Co-founder, Sol Sage
Joshua Beckman, Poet
Kate Bernheimer, Author
Elise Blackwell, Author
Adam Braver, Author
Alan Cheuse, Author
Ron Currie, Jr., Author
Kathryn Davis, Author
Alison Deming, Author
Rikki Ducornet, Author
Ben Edlund, TV Writer and Comic-book Artist
Jennifer Egan, Author
Daniel Handler, Author
Oliver Houck, Author and Professor of Law, Tulane University
Alex Irvine, Author
Anna Lappe, Author, Small Planet Institute
Jonathan Lethem, Author
Victor Lodato, Author
Alec Loorz, Founder, Kids vs. Global Warming
Victoria Loorz, Co-Founder, Kids vs. Global Warming
Ben Marcus, Author
Lydia Millet, Author
Rick Moody, Author
Jenny Offill, Author
Zyg Plater, Professor of Law, Boston College Law School
Dr. Melissa Savage, Professor Emeritus, University of California Los Angeles
Aurelie Sheehan, Author
Darcey Steinke, Author
Darin Strauss, Author
Donna Tartt, Author
Lynne Tillman, Author
Fred Tomaselli, Artist
Harvey Wasserman, author of SOLARTOPIA! Our Green-Powered Earth, A.D. 2030
Don Waters, Author
Eric Zencey, Visiting Associate Professor of Historical and Political Studies, Empire State College
(All affiliations and titles listed for identification purposes only.)

April 6, 2010 10:44 am

If someone said “we know where your wind turbines are”, do you think that would “be taken out of context”? I think the police would be notified and an investigation opened. I think Greenwar opened up a nasty can of worms with very nasty unintended consequences for all sides due to their utter thoughtlessness.

Russ Hatch
April 6, 2010 10:44 am

“One which establishes the fundamental tenets of protecting the planet for all life forms”
-Greenpeace Gene
Except those life forms that disagree with me? How do you protect all life forms by threatening some that disagree with your thinking?

April 6, 2010 10:44 am

I’m ready to sign your real peoples petition, Anthony.

Leon Brozyna
April 6, 2010 10:46 am

Whoops … got caught, didn’t they?
Hold on a sec … did I read that correctly?

The climate change debate…

Did they forget their religious training? The science is settled; there’s a consensus.
Oh well, the greenshirts reacted as expected once a light was shone their way; like rats and cockroaches, they scatter back to their dank, dark, hidden crawlspaces.
I know — you were misunderstood, misquoted, and whatever was said was taken out of context … blah, blah, blah …

April 6, 2010 10:47 am

kadaka (10:23:01),
I was not aware of that logo being for real. Can’t even remember where I found it, it’s been kicking around in my picture folder for a couple of years. It just seemed appropriate for an organization that uses Greenpeace’s tactics.
Maybe a better Eco-enviro logo would be a hammer and sickle over a green tree on a red background.

Wondering Aloud
April 6, 2010 10:49 am

Mike (09:03:37) :
What are you talking about here? Your link leads to more of the same fear mongering based on bs assumptions?
If Nature is learning from mistakes of the past they are hiding it well. They want us to assumesea level rise will be greater than an unrealistically pessimistic one. While the linear assumtion they complain of is wrong, replacing it with a different set of ridiculous wrong assumptions is not something I am going to get excited about.

April 6, 2010 10:49 am

There is a very ‘warm’ source for an Indian eco-activist. In its latest reincarnation (somewhat modified by Greenpeace) it comes from a famous radical call-to-arms by the Indian author and activist Arundhati Roy at The World Social Forum, Brazil, January 27, 2003.
“We can re-invent civil disobedience in a million different ways. In other words, we can come up with a million ways of becoming a collective pain in the ass…Remember this: We be many and they be few.”
It’s now a well known saying among the radicals, and repeated all over the place, and treasured as a famous quote by Marxists, lefties and Greenies.

April 6, 2010 10:54 am

These threats are just desperate acts by desperate people. Trends forecaster Gerald Celente has often warned “When people have nothing to lose, they lose it”.
In the the USA, stalking by non law enforcement persons or licensed PI is a crime, and these threats by Greenpeace constitute an intent to stalk and harass. This would be a justified basis for Greenpeace’s tax exempt status in the USA to be revoked by the IRS.
Gene and the other thugga-greenies should just settle down and go back to watching re-runs of the spookumentary “An Inconvenient truth”.

April 6, 2010 11:02 am

Smokey (09:52:03) : A text for that logo:
Grünen Über Alles

April 6, 2010 11:04 am

They are only sorry that they got caught red-handed with their true intentions. You can be sure they support this anarchy 100%, all the way up to the top.
James Hansen condones it.
Their sick and tired of being just kooks with an agenda. Now they want to to be outlaws who bully and intimidate – now that’s real power!
“Taken out of context” my butt.

April 6, 2010 11:09 am

Greenpeace is a terrorist organization. They always have been and they are not going to change. Anyone who supports them is supporting terrorism. That is just the way it is.

April 6, 2010 11:10 am

Mauibrad (10:43:42) :Hey, buddy, you can help the world by you stopping breathing. It’s easy ya know….
Didn’t you know that you exhale almost ONE KILOGRAM of that CO2 EACH DAY and that CO2 you exhale is breathed in by plants to produce the OXYGEN you breath?

April 6, 2010 11:11 am

Really sad when peoples value sets are subverted so they care more about animals and an unfeeling planet more than they do about people.
They were a very soft target for the rich elite behind the CAGW scam. I find it really sad that they still don’t realise they are working for someone else’s agenda and will be dropped if they are no longer needed.

Michael W
April 6, 2010 11:12 am

Credit where it’s due:
“In the interest of transparency”
They had 3 choices; leave the post up, move it (which they did) or delete it altogether. They can claim transparency since they didn’t delete it.

Chad Woodburn
April 6, 2010 11:21 am

What garbage their response is. Put their original blog into a different context, and the disingenuiness of their later self-justification become apparent (not that it wasn’t from the get-go).
If someone has said something like that against PRESIDENT OBAMA, he would be arrested (or at least hauled in for serious interogation) for threatening the life of the President. Well duh, because that’s what it would clearly be!

April 6, 2010 11:22 am

Is ripping up train tracks to stop a nuclear waste shipment an example of civil disobedience?

April 6, 2010 11:26 am

Smokey (10:47:13) :
kadaka (10:23:01),
I was not aware of that logo being for real. (…)

Surprised me all to heck too! Who woulda thunk it?
BTW, why I would hate to give hits to a site whose address properly drops mention of it into the filters, you could hit the “Platform” link and note the eco-type stuff. I think Greenpeace would approve. Scan it to the bottom. Death penalty for genetically-modified foods? I could actually see that advocated “in defense of all life on Earth.” There are a lot of very radical greens out in the world.
Let’s just cross our fingers, note that the main page hasn’t had a news update since August 2009, and hope that’s a spoof site someone threw up and forgot.

Jose A Veragio
April 6, 2010 11:28 am

Daniel Ferry (10:06:59) :

“I’m trying to enlighten a colleague and here’s what I’m getting from him:
So what’s the most potent way to deflate these arguments?

Perhaps the clearest single indication that the IPCC promoted consensus has simply got it wrong.
The Missing Hot Spot.
Understand this, then just about everything else follows.
For clearly communicating and avoiding the many irrelevant distractions
the The Skeptics Handbook is indeed enlightening.

April 6, 2010 11:30 am

I think the definition of transparent they were looking for is the one used by system admins:
Operating in such a way as to not be perceived by users.

April 6, 2010 11:31 am

The UK Guardian does anumber on the “peaceful” organisation.

April 6, 2010 11:33 am

Can we stay away from Nazi logos? There are some thinking warmists who come here. I want them to stick around long enough to become agnostic.

Al Gored
April 6, 2010 11:35 am

Steve Oregon (09:37:32) wrote about “GreenPeace calling for a GreenWar.”
Indeed. War is peace with these Orwellian Watermelons.
And “transparency” means hiding things.
And the “anti-science brigade” are the people actually bringing science to the discussions.
It’s endless.
P.S. Smokey (09:52:03) – Your version of the logo pretty much sums it up.

April 6, 2010 11:39 am

Hashmi is an unpredictable hothead. At my site I’m asking that he resign.
He should at least apologise and admit he was wreckless and wrong.

April 6, 2010 11:39 am

Greenpeace, still sounds like an oil company, oh sorry, energy company.
‘Of course the anti-science brigade on the web has seized on the line in Gene’s post and run with it (and will run and run and run), taken it out of context and run with it some more – it’s what the climate contrarians exist to do.’
Pray tell, but what is the anti-science brigade on the web but the ones who freely choose to use propaganda based on either demagoguery or plain political rhetoric to champion their belief?
Do tell who prefer lies and simple cheats to either extorts “funds” from companies, or hound people to an “early grave”, or both, by setting aside other companies, and peoples, democratic rights and liberties?
Who rationalizes their bad behavior with irrational whining like: but they’re doing the same?
Who pays their big daddies an unseemly amount of six figures of money for what once was, and what’s still suppose to be, non-profit work?
How much was spent on salaries last year, and how much was spent on everything agw? Compare to saving the sharks? Or how ’bout the elephants?
How come there ain’t no GP muppets doing the whole disobedience inside African nature and animal reserve to protect nature and animals from the bastard poachers? How much money went to such endeavors as protecting African reserves last year?
How come GP never sues windmill companies for the same argument they used on exxon? Or well any company that pays their due?

April 6, 2010 11:41 am

“Daniel Ferry (10:06:59) :
OT, but I’m hoping you all can help.
I’m trying to enlighten a colleague and here’s what I’m getting from him:
So what’s the most potent way to deflate these arguments?”

Hi Daniel,
This sounds like you don’t believe in AGW yet you don’t know why you don’t believe in it. The average ‘warmist’ would probably be able to rattle off atleast a few good reasons why they believe in AGW (however incorrect or factual).
My advice is to let your friend believe whatever he wants but strive yourself to understand some of these issues before trying to ‘enlighten’ him. WUWT provides a lot of ammo for sceptics and covers a lot of material. You’ll find on average around 1 or 2 new threads per day on topics related to climate change (the majority of which will never see the light of day in the mainstream news… well, maybe one day).
Hope you have an enjoyable stay!

April 6, 2010 11:42 am

A Czech refugee I knew many years ago said that while the Red Army was rolling through Eastern Europe, it’s oft-repeated slogan was “We are many,” a not-so-veiled reference to it’s inexhaustible supply of cannon fodder. Quite likely where Gene picked up the remark, though his English is a bit shoddy.

April 6, 2010 11:48 am

Maybe their problem is that their eco-warriors (super name for peaceful people, warrior, great, doesn’t sound that peaceful, but seems to work with the masses so let’s just keep it) have such an inflated ego that they are difficult to control by the eco-marketing-generals. Until they get some perks and an office job and become eco-generals themselves, of course.
But i mean… don’t they have proofreaders?
The publishing process needs an overhaul. QA needs to be strengthened. QA – same problem as with Dr. Phil Jones. Seems to be endemic in AGW circles.

April 6, 2010 11:54 am

“”We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few.”
Well, we’ve taken down that post from our website. It’s very easy to misconstrue that line, take it out of context and suggest it means something wholly different from the practice of peaceful civil disobedience, which is what the post was about.”

Ahhhhh, but Ananth forgot to addres the quote:

“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.”

This last statement does not exclude the use of violence.

April 6, 2010 11:55 am

“In the interest of transparency we have moved it off site to this location”
Uh, correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t moving it somewhere else reduce if not eliminate the scar on the Gandhi image that they wish to promote of themselves?
I think so. It’s utter bullshit. They’ve no more respect for transparency than they do for “peaceful protest”.

Cassandra King
April 6, 2010 11:55 am

I feel a reality check is needed here with regard to the ego driven statement about ‘they being the many and we being the few’.
In reality it is we who are the many, we are the silent majority who wish only to live our lives in peace, we do not riot or protest nor do we issue threats or smash things when we dont get our way.
We ordinary people outnumber the tiny minority of angry zealots by thousands to one, the zealots make lots of noise and create lots of heat and gain lots of fawning media attention far in excess of what their actual case merits but the fact is the vast majority of ordinary people are losing patience with the tiny minoritys childish nonsense.
These childish fools need to be taught a lesson, it is we who are the many and it is they who are the few and the simple fact is that this noisy minority are pushing their luck, at some point the legendary patience of the vast silent majority is going to run out and the noisy childish foot stamping attention seekers are going to be on the receiving end of a hearty and well deserved slapping down.
The vast majority of us just wish to live our lives in peace, we wish only to be told the truth by our elected leaders and we wish to abide by the law and expect others to do the same.
In point of fact the fawning media bears much responsibilty for lavishing so much undeserved attention on these zealots, they take it for granted that when they pull a moronic stunt they can enjoy a worldwide coverage to inflate their importance, perhaps this has caused their bloated egos to inflate just a little too much!

April 6, 2010 12:00 pm

W^L+ (11:33:48) :
“Can we stay away from Nazi logos?”
I thought a long time before posting that logo [a couple of years, in fact. I’ve had it that long but never posted it before].
But it seemed so appropriate to the words and actions of Greenpeace that I thought I’d take a chance.
My apologies if anyone [except Greenpeace] was offended.

April 6, 2010 12:08 pm

kwik (08:52:43) : “Okay, here is my theory… Gene watched Avatar, mixed fiction with reality, then wrote his little Gene-Piece.”
Interesting, but I think I’ve got a clearer one…
Gene watched Avatar many, many times, basking in the glory that it was certain to win as many awards as the the number of times he watched it.
But it didn’t (ha! ha!)

Al Gored
April 6, 2010 12:08 pm

Smokey – In the meantime, here’s the headline over at Climate Depot right now:
“NASA’s James Hansen Off His Meds? Calls global warming the ‘predominant moral issue of the 21st century…comparable to Nazism…and slavery'”
So, apparently, references to Nazis is a ‘scientifically’ valid argument, according to this eminent ‘scientist.’

April 6, 2010 12:12 pm

Flashback from Climate Depot
Statements from warmists:
‘Shouldn’t we start punishing them now?’
“An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds”
“high crimes against humanity.”
Lots more below.
James Hansen – Huffington Post – April 5th 2010
“The predominant moral issue of the 21st century, almost surely, will be climate change, comparable to Nazism faced by Churchill in the 20th century and slavery faced by Lincoln in the 19th century.”
[my emphasis]

April 6, 2010 12:26 pm

These people are all statists.
From Advocates for Self Government”, authors of a famous quiz that shows your political leaning:
“statists consistently doubt that economic liberty and individual freedom are necessary, practical, or workable in today’s world.
Some statists call their political beliefs populism, socialism, or communitarianism. At the extreme, undemocratic end of the statist spectrum, statism also encompasses communism, fascism, and other forms of totalitarianism.”
They would like to control as much of your life as possible: what you eat, drink, do, where you work, what work you do, etc. All for the bureaucratic whims of the state. Your life means nothing, you have no individuality, except as it serves the state. And when the state deems you are no longer worth the time and energy to feed because you no longer nourish the state, i.e. old age, intransigence, malingering, etc., the state will cut you off from it’s benefits.

Al Gored
April 6, 2010 12:29 pm

Smokey – In the meantime, here’s the headline at Climate Depot right now:
“NASA’s James Hansen Off His Meds? Calls global warming the ‘predominant moral issue of the 21st century…comparable to Nazism…and slavery'”
I’m sure this ‘scientist’ will apologize any minute now…

April 6, 2010 12:35 pm

Sure, I understand! They weren’t real threats… Just like the “rotten” ice isn’t real ice. ;->

Timo van Druten
April 6, 2010 12:35 pm

I agree with W^L+. We should stay away from the Nazi logo; using the logo might be considered as bad/awful as the blogpost of Gene.
If Smokey agrees I would propose to take the particular post down.
Smokey, no offence meant.

Phillep Harding
April 6, 2010 12:36 pm

Over in the BIG sites:
the lefties who have been caught on camera are sanitizing their web presence. Need to do screen grabs on as many of the AGW supporters as possible to preserve the evidence.

April 6, 2010 12:36 pm

GreenPeace, don’t try to hide under your words.
It will never work again!
We see your true colors and none are green.

April 6, 2010 12:40 pm

I am not religious nor am I advocating, but I can’t help remembering this verse in light of the widening divisions among peoples in almost all societies. My suspicious nature wonders if it is orchestrated?
“They shall be divided, father against son, and son against father; mother against daughter, and daughter against her mother; mother in law against her daughter in law, and daughter in law against her mother in law.”

Robin Guenier
April 6, 2010 12:40 pm

Doots asked (10:13:22) – Is Greenpeace even a relevant organization anymore?
Unfortunately it is. See this in today’s (London) Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7088297.ece
Greenpeace is lobbying to block an aid project that would benefit millions of South Africans. It seems they are prepared to sacrifice some of the world’s poorest people – their education, healthcare, clean water and the opportunity for their children to grow up in an expanding economy – on the sacred altar of an unverified hypothesis. It’s shameful that they are part of a campaign that could lead directly to children’s deaths.

April 6, 2010 12:42 pm

Gene Hashmi – communications director at Greenpeace India
Posted on twitter on 9th March 2010:

“I haven’t said anything in 7 months, so why are all 32 of you mofos following me? Just so you know, I’m carrying a knife.”


April 6, 2010 12:50 pm

nofate (12:26:21) :
These people are all statists
Everything GREEN:
All statists are good hearted people who think and hope that by redistributing wealth make a good thing, however, wherever it has been applied it turns out to redistributing poverty and imposing the worst tax ever invented: Inflation through debasing currencies by an unlimited printing frenzy. Does it look familiar?…Not yet though.
Grünen blitzkrieg!

April 6, 2010 12:51 pm

Peter Sawyer at the site Climate Skeptic left this:
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″
I think it is one of the better posts yet made irt Greenpeace.

April 6, 2010 12:52 pm

Who really funds Greenpeace? Follow the money. Controlling both sides of an issue is an old tried and true method of always being in charge and one that seems, no matter how often used, works over and over and over again on the unsuspecting.
Nofate: Good description of totalitarianism which is the goal of both the extreme right and extreme left. One monster – two heads.

April 6, 2010 12:53 pm

If Greenpeace come for you, remember Leslie’s advice:

April 6, 2010 1:12 pm

hunter (12:51:14) :Great indeed!

Al Gore's Holy Hologram
April 6, 2010 1:23 pm

Asking for forgiveness then calling us the anti-science brigade when Dr Patrick Moore himself left Greenpeace because it was not only anti-science it was also anti-human and elitist.

April 6, 2010 1:28 pm

Jimbo (12:42:43) :
Gene Hashmi – communications director at Greenpeace India
Posted on twitter on 9th March 2010:
“I haven’t said anything in 7 months, so why are all 32 of you mofos following me? Just so you know, I’m carrying a knife.”

Gee, that can’t be the same Gene Hashmi, communications director at Greenpeace India, that Andrew was telling us about, because *that* Gene Hashmi, communications director at Greenpeace India, is a *peaceable guy*. Nup, it can’t be the same Gene Hashmi, communications director at Greenpeace India, at all. Two entirely different Gene Hashmiss, communications director at Greenpeace India — right, Andrew?

April 6, 2010 1:29 pm

no peace loving person would have written those threats in the first place so its obvious where the mindset of green “peace” is. They should no longer be referred to as greenpeace

Henry chance
April 6, 2010 1:44 pm

Grünen uber alles
The movement wants bad to come to those that disagree.
On Climate progress there is a rant about Massey Coal and the mining fatalities. To put it in context, James Hansen and Joe Romm have deep and unhealthy hatred for coal mining. When there is an accident, they celebrate.
At what point does greenpeace cheer when we have a forrest fire?
Green peace was involved with driving spikes into trees so loggers would hit them with chain saws and get hurt. Of course they say the workers deserve it.

Darkinbad the Brightdayler
April 6, 2010 1:54 pm

I used to be a member of Greenpeace. Back then we were all volunteers who joined up because we believed in its objectives and gave our time and efforts for free.
Now its become an NGO, a big business that employs chuggers that accost me every time I go into town and try to sell me a subscription or whatever.
I ask them why, if they truly believe in their cause, they have to be paid eight pounds an hour plus commission to do what I did for free?
30 years on it all seems a little grubby. Maybe it always was and I was just naive?

Steve Goddard
April 6, 2010 1:59 pm

Lefties are very angry that nature refuses to cooperate with their belief system.

Henry chance
April 6, 2010 2:30 pm

Don’t you like it when I mention deadly threats?
“Government-mandated fuel economy standards are deadly,” said Sam Kazman, CEI General Counsel. “NHTSA had previously projected, in the original proposal, an additional 400 deaths annually due to these standards. If a consumer product killed a tenth as many people, it would be banned outright. But because CAFE is a government policy, not only will it not be banned, it’s going to be made even deadlier.”
The EPA is forcing a deadly ruling and people don’t talk about it much. Apparently green peace isn’t interested in safer consumer products.

Steve Fox
April 6, 2010 2:30 pm

Hmmm. If they still think that’s damage control then they haven’t read the comments under it. Go take a look, everyone. It’s incredible. I looked hard, and found 3 favourable, out of hundreds.

April 6, 2010 2:47 pm

Can’t see how that could be taken out of context, that was a threat. The assertion that Gene’s a peaceful guy, is false. Empirical evidence FTW.

Paul Vaughan
April 6, 2010 2:52 pm

“We know where you live.”
That’s just creepy.
Paul Vaughan, M.Sc.
Ecologist, Parks & Natural Forests Advocate

Henry chance
April 6, 2010 2:59 pm

My complements.
The open threat is honest and expresses the movements’ core belief. Until now, green peace has been a more covert operator denying harm and damage. Don’t apologize for accurately expressing hate and intolerance to people that won’t drink green koolaid. ELF has been outed. Our green leader promised green jobs and we have none. He smokes cigarettes and tells us health is so important.
Grunen uber alles

April 6, 2010 2:59 pm

“In the interest of transparency”
Finally, I can live with that. kudos to GP.
This just proves that a brain of some of the “deep thinkers” from GP is as
transparent as……… jelly-fish. I think I’m going to elaborate little bit more about
it, add some statistics ( easy part ) and publish my findings in “Nature”
BTW, Looking for volunteers for “beer-review”

April 6, 2010 3:06 pm

Daniel Ferry (10:06:59):
OT, but I’m hoping you all can help.
On Co2 see
“Ensemble reconstruction constraints on the global carbon cycle sensitivity to climate”
“Temperature and CO2 feedback ‘weaker than thought'”
“Amplification of Global Warming by Carbon-Cycle Feedback Significantly Less Than Thought, Study Suggests”
On scientist being on common ground
Doctors used to believe that peptic ulcers were mostly caused by stress/food/
Now we know it’s mainly caused by a bacterium
“To defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact.”
Show your friend some failed predictions.
“Modellers have an inbuilt bias towards forced climate change because the causes and effect are clear.”
“General circulation modelling of Holocene climate variability”,
by Gavin Schmidt, Drew Shindell, Ron Miller, Michael Mann and David Rind, published in Quaternary Science Review in 2004.)
Over 150 peer reviewed papers.

Steve Goddard
April 6, 2010 3:10 pm

Greenpeace types around here think that life was better when the mountains were full of Grizzly bears, and 50% of children died from Smallpox, Typhoid or TB. Because they love their fellow man.

April 6, 2010 3:10 pm

‘Maybe their problem is that their eco-warriors’
Their problems are seven fold
Once upon a time they got into money, but instead of supporting a smaller organization over years and years, they grew and once they grew they needed more money to support their growth, et voila they soon need to grow to get the money needed to grow more…. alas using the same strategy every other bubble company use before they fail.
How do you get a company to grow, sorry, non-profit organization, but to pay, a lot, for the mere ability, and chance, to grow, out of your proportions.
This is where the fundamentalists, who went from getting people to think (and instead do good) to do whatever to get funds, are today, they went from rational liberal-do-gooders to something more akin to dictatorial socialist capitalism.
Just notice how they seem to more like to take to trying to somewhat ordering people about rather then explaining stuff up front, in a manner that anyone can check and balance if they so choose.
If anyone still thinks GP is all about doing good, objectively, i.e. actually doing good in a practical sense instead of only in the theoretical and the philosophical realm like WWF, by all means, go right ahead.

April 6, 2010 3:14 pm

Jimbo (15:06:26) : Your comment is awaiting moderation
Daniel Ferry (10:06:59):
OT, but I’m hoping you all can help.
Another great resource is http://co2science.org/
If your friend tells you that skeptics are being funded by big business and big oil show him or her these:
CRU Funding
British Petroleum (Oil, LNG)
Central Electricity Generating Board
Eastern Electricity
KFA Germany (Nuclear)
Irish Electricity Supply Board (LNG, Nuclear)
National Power
Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (Nuclear)
Shell (Oil, LNG)
Sultanate of Oman (LNG)
UK Nirex Ltd. (Nuclear)
Source: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
Exxon: “(how about $100 million for Stanford’s Global Climate and Energy Project, and $600 million for Biofuels research).”
“The US government spent $79 billion on climate research and technology since 1989 – to be sure, this funding paid for things like satellites and studies, but it’s 3,500 times as much as anything offered to sceptics.”
“The $79 billion figure does not include money from other western governments, private industry, and is not adjusted for inflation.”
“According to the World Bank, turnover of carbon trading reached $126 billion in 2008. PointCarbon estimates trading in 2009 was about $130 billion.”
In 2005, Pachauri helped set up set up GloriOil, a Texas firm specialising in technology which allows the last remaining reserves to be extracted from oilfields otherwise at the end of their useful life.
“He is an internationally recognized figure in energy and sustainable development, having served on numerous boards and committees including Director of the Oil and Natural Gas Company of India; Director of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;…
Source: http://www.glorioil.com/advisors.htm
“Our chemical lab in Houston is state of the art, custom built for purpose with one goal in mind – to supply the US oil industry with world class biotechnology to increase oil recovery from mature fields.”
Source: http://www.glorioil.com/technology.htm
“Our research facility in India focuses primarily on long term R&D projects such as heavy oil degradation, methane biogeneration from coal beds, and other initiatives.”
Source: http://www.glorioil.com/company.htm
CRU seeks big oil and big business cash

April 6, 2010 3:21 pm

Declared pre-meditated violence directed at the large segment of the population that seeks to just do the right thing, by finding out what is truthfully going on might include many more people than they had anticipated.
Considering the legal right the general public has to defend itself and personal property, to declare open warfare is putting your recruiters, and donations door to door collectors in the direct line of fire from any one at random who could perceive them selves to be one of the ones threatened.
Most courts of law would uphold a case, with self defense from identified member of the Org. when they show up unexpected, and say hi, I am from Greenpeace… Shots fired, and a 911 call for police backup, control and containment, coroner called, and the relatives notified.
Home owner released on his submission of complete police report.
Might just put some inhibition into the door to door collections campaigners.

April 6, 2010 3:28 pm

This might make people understand.
Is inflicting psychological damages peaceful?
GP has defined the use of non-violence, as in non-physical violence, and that’s pretty much it. Psychological, then hey it all depends, because it’s not ok to psychologically assault your mate, but of course psychologically assaulting an oil baron….
Please do think about it, why is it ok with psych-warring?
Still don’t understand, thinking perhaps it’s farfetched, what if the supposed oil baron is a mother of three?

April 6, 2010 3:28 pm

Previous comment in the accident waiting to happen category.

Stephen Brown
April 6, 2010 3:29 pm

I read both parts of Gene’s diatribe with growing astonishment and horror. I printed the entire document and showed it to a friend of mine who works (very hard) in the Crown Prosecution Service. When he read “We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few.” he said “That’s all that you need!”
He meant that what he’d read was all that I need to bring a private prosecution under the Public Order Act here in the UK for making threats sufficient to cause “alarm, distress or harassment” in me because of my disbelief in global warming/climate change and its causative factors.
If at any time ‘Gene’ decides to come to England I am going to arrest him for this crime.
If anyone knows of Gene’s itinerary for the next few years, please let me know. I’ll be there at Heathrow with a warranted Constable in tow!

April 6, 2010 3:36 pm

30 years on it all seems a little grubby. Maybe it always was and I was just naive?

IT always was that way. The Rainbow WARRIOR was a dead giveaway, isn’t it?
What else could have been the reason for naming their main battleship rainbow WARRIOR?

April 6, 2010 3:39 pm

They are nice people when they get their way and violent when they don’t.
That’s the general description of the sociopaths my friend the prison psychologist deals with every day.

April 6, 2010 3:47 pm

“What do you do when patient petitioning, protest marches and court orders fail? ”
Oh, I don’t know. Admit that you’re wrong? These people are far too used to getting their way.

April 6, 2010 4:01 pm

Gene Hasmi in his blog asks: “What do you do when patient petitioning, protest marches and court orders fail? What do you do when all the protocols and cheat codes of democracy fail? ”
Simply think if what they are pushing for is not wrong. They should do what the red used to do long time ago: “self criticsim”, that is, find some other way that could be more succesful because the older path was cleary wrong.
But these people, in their religious belief are impervious to reasoning. At least not on the basis of the traditional logic mechanisms settled by philosphers along human history.

April 6, 2010 4:32 pm

The original threats should definitely be reported to the police in all relevant countries.
Gene Hasmi in his blog asks: “What do you do when patient petitioning, protest marches and court orders fail? What do you do when all the protocols and cheat codes of democracy fail?”
Reminds me of a spokesman for a Northern Ireland paramilitary group once complaining that they had tried democracy and nobody had voted for them.

April 6, 2010 4:33 pm

The Air Vent worked pretty hard on this point. I think I was the only one demanding an apology and retraction – I did about 5 times, some were snipped. I didn’t expect it to work so I was pleasantly surprised.
They are idiotic in their statements that Gene is a good guy so it’s ok. I suppose that I’m a good guy so it’s ok for me to make threats -haha. I think they will be more careful in the near future, Ive got to say, it’s good to realize some portion of the change created by hard work.
Blogs are powerful because of readers.

April 6, 2010 4:55 pm

“We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few.”
What many alarmists fail to admit is just how deeply imbued their anger is. And how it is their anger that corrupts their good intentions.

Capn Jack.
April 6, 2010 4:58 pm

They might know we live (sic) but we know where their bank accounts are, they may be having vapors about legal responsibility..
Old Gene’s having a holiday in Thailand. Must be hard work threatening millions of people with violence and intimidation, poor diddums is hiding out out having a surf.
Greenpeace and tolerance, there’s two words you need a sattelite to map the disconnect and distance between.
They tried to ban an element on the periodic table. They are the only ones that care just ask them.

April 6, 2010 5:06 pm

Come on folks – Gene didn’t really mean to SOUND like a fascist as he was contemplating a ‘final solution’ for climate change ‘deniers’.
But, note to Gene – there are no ‘cheat codes’ for democracy. Deal, smurfball.

Capn Jack.
April 6, 2010 5:08 pm

IN other eco news another green warrior from Australia has left the battle space,
He tried to ram the ETS carbon trading scheme thru the Australian senate less than six months ago and nobody is talking about ETS anymore. Cost him leadership and rocked Australian politics into some kind of common sense.
He isn’t going surfing, tho he has been to Nepal, to get in touch with his inner banker.
Maybe Gaia spoke to him and advised him to that merchant banking needs an eco warrior.
Don’t know. I for one will not miss the the mad cloud bomber and before I get snipped, as environment minister he handed 10 million dollars for a project to bomb clouds to make rain.

April 6, 2010 5:29 pm

When it comes to Leftists, never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by malice.

April 6, 2010 5:52 pm

Remember, Greenpeace was formed to help militant environmentalist wackos get as close to being terrorists without actually being called terrorists. Never trust these guys. Retracted or not, their people got the message. You can bet plans are being made right now for militant Liberal action.

Tom Black
April 6, 2010 6:05 pm

Skeptics are anti-scientific misconduct
Alarmists are pro-scientific misconduct
Alarmist’s are the real deniers…

David Ball
April 6, 2010 6:10 pm

I am a little worried for my fathers well being. He has been invited to speak at the U of Victoria, in British Columbia, Canada by the U of Vic’s Conservative Students Group tomorrow (Wednesday). This is Andrew Weavers uni, and he was invited to speak as well, but declined for some reason (right). It has been advertised around the University, so I am sure the word got out. I am concerned about reactions to his being invited to speak. The world should be watching to see what transpires. My hope is there is no violence or even an attempt to stifle free speech. We will see how “open minded” the universities of today are, if at all.

David Ball
April 6, 2010 6:19 pm

What was it that Fat Tony said? ” Maybe your family likes cigarettes, would it be wrong to steal a truckload for your family?” The means DOES NOT justify the end. Worst rational EVER!!!

April 6, 2010 6:48 pm

The threat is the same as the one from a petulant, spoilt brat that’s not getting its way.
Such things were solved in the past by a good spanking.
A good spanking can be delivered by responsible governments freezing the bank accounts of the quasi-terrorist organization, those of its members and sponsors, and of affiliated organizations.

Pamela Gray
April 6, 2010 6:50 pm

Anti-Science??? Me??? I can’t even begin to tear this apart without going into a frothin fit!!!!! These people make me want to send them to their room without supper!!!! If Mrs. Guillory were still alive (my Jr. High Social Studies ex-Army WWII Sargent teacher), I would so let her have at ’em with her 16 inch extra thick whack-em ruler!

Pamela Gray
April 6, 2010 6:53 pm

JohnD, I am a liberal thinker! GAWDAMMIT!
Okay, need to step back and just read for a while. The stereotypes and stupid off the cuff remarks on both sides are making my hair turn redder and my cheeks ruddier than it already is. Ya’all just about got this Irish redhead ready to go all “attitude adjustment” on ya. The entire class!

Capn Jack.
April 6, 2010 7:05 pm

David the Best defence, is a word to the Board of the University, campus security and make sure there are cameras, to show case any intimdation or violence.
Personally, I cannot see value in going into the Lion’s den. Unless of course your father has plucked a few hundred thorns from paws.
Make sure the Board of the University is represented.

Jeff Alberts
April 6, 2010 7:06 pm

Gene in his blog asks: “What do you do when patient petitioning, protest marches and court orders fail? What do you do when all the protocols and cheat codes of democracy fail? This is what you do: you reclaim the language of democracy from the twisted bunch that have hijacked, cannibalized and subverted it.”

No, you re-examine your message and think, “maybe we’re wrong.” At least that’s what reasonable people do.

Pete H
April 6, 2010 7:09 pm

From the Greenpeace site:
“Based in Amsterdam, Greenpeace has 2.8 million supporters worldwide, and national/regional offices in 41 countries.”
Now that averages out at about 68,000 per country. The UK Boy Scouts have more members!
So this minority bunch of people complain, as does Gene, that the sceptics have been “cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission”, can be seen to be complete male cow manure!
I congratulated them on the Greenpeace site for turning people away from their collection tins. I suspect a loss of funds was Ananth, International Programme Director motive was for posting his pitiful defence of Gene and the lady that posted the blog.

mark ryan
April 6, 2010 7:12 pm

Dear Ananth
Since I do not know gene i will take your word that he is a peaceful person. But as some one fluent in the English language I know a threating tone when I hear one. His blog post was definitely a threat and you got to be joking blaming others for there interpretation. Gene and his friends at green peace need to take responsibility for to what they said in that post and apologize.
I am not sure what you mean by reclaiming democracy but I think you need to check your understanding of democracy. As more scientific studies come out putting doubt in the theory that man is directly responsible for massive dangerous climate change people are exercising their democratic right to freedom of speech. Subverting is people like David Suzuki pronouncing to a group university students that politicians that do not agree with his view of the climate debate should be put in jail. Subversion is the most influential scientists working behind the scenes to prevent scientists that do not share there view from being published. Finally if you want to shed more light on climate change debate why don’t you try dismissing people who with derogatory names like, twisted, contrarians, anti-science and come out and have open debates with scientists who disagree with your view.

Rich Day
April 6, 2010 7:43 pm

I reiterate my advice to them: start by storming Fort Knox, the Marine Corp Base at Quantico followed by a citizens’ inspection of Air Force One and a few missile silos in North Dakota. I’m sure nothing will happen and we can all go home happy.

April 6, 2010 8:07 pm

Hah its too late now, they’ve shown their true colours.
Can’t spin their way out of this one.

Mariss Freimanis
April 6, 2010 8:19 pm

I think there is a reasonable solution to the Global Warming problem which I think will resolve the oftentimes fractious debate between Alarmists and whom they describe as Deniers.
1) Global Warming believers are simply good religious people exercising their faith.
2) Their faith has nothing to do with science. Science depends on proof and science doesn’t label holders of contradictory views as being “deniers”. That term falls entirely under a religious mindset next to religious terms like “heretic”.
3)Although Global Warming believers have a core set of legends or a catechism, they lack a spiritual repository for their beliefs. Like the ancient pagans who believed in magical trees or rocks, they think Global Warming is actually real. This state is unevolved and unsophisticated but the norm of a nascent religion.
4) The great religions place their beliefs in a spiritual realm which is separate from everyday reality. This a wonderful and practical adaptation to the needs of reality. In the spiritual realm good battles against the forces of evil. The perpetual battle gives helpful lessons to everyday people without harming them with the battle’s “collateral damage”. This is good for everyone.
The solution:
Declare Global Warming a religion and get sophisticated about it immediately. Have the Holy Gaia in spiritual battle against the devil CO2. Convert people. Pass on to people the teachable moments from this battle so they may learn. Erect environmental churches with solar roof panels and have a windmill where a cross should be. All good religions incorporate the deposed religion’s symbols. Paint them green.
Western society has discarded Christianity as a practical fact. That leaves Islam and it will suffer the same fate in 700 years only because it’s 700 years younger than Christianity.
This in no way gets around the basic human need for religion; something has to fill that void. The solution takes into account the danger of religions in the nascent stage, when the early adherents still think it’s real. Religion in this stage can do real damage; the Mayan civilization consumed its own and the Salem witch-trials came close to doing it here. Global Warming is in the same place now, it is poised to wreak destruction on a civilization.
To be successful, Global Warming must move quickly to become a mainstream religion where all the battles and battle damage are moved to the spiritual realm. Otherwise a religion that destroys civilization destroys itself. Kind of like cancer.
Tongue firmly placed in cheek.:-)

Capn Jack.
April 6, 2010 8:29 pm

I am a centrist, so please dont get Sgt whack thacker to go whoop whoop on pipe organs
The blog does tend to get all leftie and rightie at times.
But I agree the debate is about science and climate science.
Science is meant to be liberal as in free thinking but honest integrity in rules application. Been way too much politics and not science.
He he begorrah drop the shillaleagh.

Capn Jack.
April 6, 2010 8:31 pm

And one of my quotes previous was from a founder of Greenpeace, which has become more political than environmental, everyone is a closet environmentalist to some degree.
Back in the Box Jack.

April 6, 2010 8:43 pm

Well, we’ve taken down that post from our website. It’s very easy to misconstrue that line, take it out of context and suggest it means something wholly different from the practice of peaceful civil disobedience, which is what the post was about.
Oh, ok, I believe you.

April 6, 2010 8:45 pm

Wow, this patching things over—how passive aggressive!

April 6, 2010 8:46 pm

Doots (10:13:22) :
Is Greenpeace even a relevant organization anymore?
They make 100’s of millions. Some one thinks they are.

April 6, 2010 9:25 pm

Amino Acids in Meteorites (20:46:33) :
Doots (10:13:22) :
Is Greenpeace even a relevant organization anymore?
They make 100’s of millions. Some one thinks they are.>>
Organizations are the MOST dangerous when they are LOSING relevance. Losing relevance must cause them to collapse, or to regain relevance by taking ever more extreme measure to rise to prominance once more. A rat is a timid creature until cornered. When it concludes that death is imminant unless all weapons at its disposal are used agressively, it becomes its most dangerous. Applies to cornered rats, failed activist organizations, failed religions, failed states. The bigger the rat/organization the more dangerous they are when they conclude only violence can restore them to safety/prominance. Doesn’t matter if we are talking teeth, tree spikes, suicide bombers or nuclear weapons. That one of them publicly contemplated violence (I read it in full, that’s what it was) is the proverbial tip of the iceberg. With any luck the fire storm the article ignited will make them step back.

April 6, 2010 9:27 pm

Anyone who knows Gene knows he’s an entirely peaceful guy.
“I have in my hand a piece of paper signed by Mr Gene Hasmi”

April 6, 2010 9:28 pm

Mariss Freimanis (20:19:07),
Excellent analysis. I don’t regard it as tongue in cheek. You made an accurate assessment, don’t denigrate it. Explaining what is happening, whether the adherents know it or not, is educational for the rest of us.
Belief in the unsupported AGW/CAGW “theory” is based on emotion, not on reason. That is why its proponents refuse to “open the books” on their raw data and methods. Instead, they advise their AGW true believers to “Trust us.”
AGW is largely faith-based, lacking any empirical evidence. But the Scientific Method cannot coexist with AGW. So as in any religion, AGW is taken on faith alone. It is a religious, not a scientific belief system.

Douglas DC
April 6, 2010 9:29 pm

One of my favorite anti- Greenpeese tales is one where they try an anti-whaling
protest on a fishing/whaling village in Norway. They neglected two things. One, the local boats look a lot like the old Viking Vessels of yore, and two, that
the Vikings didn’t die off….
Especially fishermen/whalers…

David Ball
April 6, 2010 9:40 pm

Thank you Capn Jack. (19:05:40) : Sage advice and addressed. Weaver wouldn’t engage even on his own turf. Father has done his homework on the subject and the lions, I can assure you. Hopefully the audience is civil because father does take questions after any oratory. Any questions. Did I mention he takes questions?

Capn Jack.
April 6, 2010 10:06 pm

It’s the code and we are all parte’s to the code, there is no parlay on the code.
Aargh and all other piratey, phlegmy sounds.
Let us know, how it works out.
and remind him a fast set of Pirate Boots are never remiss.

he he.

April 6, 2010 10:49 pm

Well, we all have a bad gene somewhere…

April 6, 2010 11:56 pm

Daniel Ferry (10:06:59) :
OT, but I’m hoping you all can help.
I’m trying to enlighten a colleague and here’s what I’m getting from him:

You’ve already received some excellent advice and links. Basically Climate Science does not use the Scientific Method and is therefore not real Science.
The ipcc Climate Science is really nothing more than a massive Propaganda Operation. However, your colleague will not see these things very readily, if ever.
But you might try this commonsense argument: if the ipcc believes its own Catastrophic AGW “science”, why does/did it exclude countries containing ~5 billion of the Earth’s ~6.7 billion people from having to follow its own Kyoto Protocols, which represent the ipcc’s alleged cure to its alleged Catastrophic AGW disease? [I added up the numbers a few years ago.]
The ipcc itself apparently does not quite believe its own “science”!
Neither do China and India, for example. They at least believe there’s something wrong somewhere in the ipcc’s apparent claims that GW is in fact a net disease, that fossil fuel CO2 will cause it, that the curtailment of fossil fuel CO2 is a cure for the AGW disease, and that this cure is not worse than the AGW disease itself.
India and China must at least believe that the ipcc’s alleged cure to its alleged AGW disease is worse than the alleged disease. Because both countries have embarked upon massive coal-fired electricity plant construction projects. China’s production of fossil fuel CO2 probably already exceeds that of the U.S..
Though consensus has nothing to do with scientific validity or “proof”, you might also ask your colleague where these facts leave his idea that there is a consensus as to “climate change”.

April 7, 2010 2:40 am

Interesting interview with Prof Robert Winston on the BBC prog HARDTalk
Science’s greatest inventions and discoveries have been responsible for the advancement of the human race, but has our development come at a price? Scientists regularly sound the alarm bells and warn of threats to our existence but do they always get it right? Professor Robert Winston is one of Britain’s most prominent scientists. He argues that for ‘every act of creation and innovation there also exists the potential for our undoing’. He talks to Stephen Sackur.

Chris Wright
April 7, 2010 3:08 am

As previously mentioned, Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace is now actually opposed to Greenpeace because he believes it has become too extreme. I’m not certain, but he may be sceptical about AGW.
Our own Patrick Moore, the astronomer, has definitely expressed scepticism about AGW.

Chris Wright
April 7, 2010 3:19 am

JustPassing (02:40:05) :
It does appear that science can suffer when there are vested interests involved. This morning I heard an interesting interview on the BBC Today program. He is an MP who is an expert on swine flu. He made some very damning comments about the World Health Organisation. He said that the WHO had exaggerated the threat of swine flu by between ten and a hundred times. Of course, companies making the innoculations stood to make a fortune out of this doom mongering.
I can’t help thinking there’s a strong parallel with the IPCC. Of course, there are two obvious differences. It only took a matter of months to show that the swine flu scare was mostly doom-mongering. With climate it will take years or decades to finally show the IPCC is completely wrong. The other difference is that the IPCC’s bad and fraudulent science will cost the world trillions of dollars, and it will cost each of us individually many, many thousands of pounds or dollars.

April 7, 2010 4:24 am

The following from:
We know where you live
A threat of violence.
This phrase has been current in the UK since the early 1990s. Of course, there’s more to this than the literal meaning of the words. What’s implied is that the aggressors have the information to locate their victim at home and intend to seek them out there and attack them.
This piece from The Times, June 1992 reported death threats to Dessa Trevisan their correspondent in Belgrade and included this threat made by ‘unidentified men’, outside Belgrade’s International Press Centre:
“We know where you live. We will break down your door and come to finish you.”

April 7, 2010 4:26 am

Well so much for their ‘openness’ – I seem unable to get a comment published on their latest blog entry:
I pointed out their hypocrisy, and the human cost, in being directly involved in the likely refusal of the World Bank to loan South Africa the money to build a new Coal fired power plant:

April 7, 2010 5:10 am

Climate craziness- What is this:
It looks like some kind of carbon-reporting-tool to identify “OIL” persons.
In some odd way im registered here. They found 1… o-n-e… place on the net withj my name involved with “bad” skeptics, and then?
You can seek for any name i suppose… im not sure what it is, but it looks bizarre..

Mark C
April 7, 2010 5:22 am

It must be remembered that Greenpeace subscribes to the revisionist’s creed, so everything they do and say is done with an extreme postmodern bent. From their interpretation of science to their spin on the above blogpost, the truth is ever fluid and adapted to fit the need of the moment. In other words they live in perpetual la-la-land. They only speak the truth by accident, because they don’t believe in absolute truth, except when they are promoting their radical policies.
The scary thing is that I have run into some of their zealots recruiting in our malls here in Cape Town. These kids know less than nothing about climate change. On both occasions I challenged them and asked questions. They couldn’t answer one of my questions. Their leader finally admitted he got all of his climate change info from Discovery channel. Needless to say I was impressed–NOT! I had them on the run and they kept referring me to the South African director to answer my questions. I finally told them they all reminded me of a bunch neophytes who were following some cult–having a zeal without knowledge.

Ed J Zuiderwijk
April 7, 2010 5:54 am

It’s a bit like the religion of (green) peace. If you don’t kowtow to them they come and get you. The idea that they could be wrong themselves obviously doesn’t occur to them. Pathetic, really.

Ziiex Zeburz
April 7, 2010 6:01 am

I to am a peace loving man, I weigh 146 kg, 1.98 meters tall, spend a min. of 2 hours a day in the gymnasium, in my spare time I teach , (101 ways to kill)
Now, Mr. Gene Hasmi care to repeat you comment to my face ? I will travel just to see how ‘green your peace really is ‘ you may be many, I like that, I may get the chance to invent 102.

April 7, 2010 6:49 am

(Sorry not sure if it was here or at BH) At least there not WWF asking you to donate 3 pounds to save rain forest that is not even under threat so they can then sell this rain forest on the CO2 market.
And i know its not scien-terrific but out of Greenpeace, WWF, Oxfam and The Red Cross i can only think of one that blows ships up.

April 7, 2010 7:51 am

Robin Guenier (12:40:38) :
Unfortunately it is. See this in today’s (London) Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7088297.ece
Greenpeace is lobbying to block an aid project that would benefit millions of South Africans. It seems they are prepared to sacrifice some of the world’s poorest people – their education, healthcare.

You beat me to it. Apparently Friends of the Earth and Christian Aid are also in on the act. South Africa is the power house of education, healthcare and economic development in Africa that can help lift the people above poverty.
Liberating the people of Africa from the yoke of poverty should be the goal of every conservationist. The natural habitat of this continent is being ravaged by the needs of those desperate for the basics of life.
Economic grow along with it’s attendant benefits, offer a real prospect of stableising the population and diminishing the never ending petty but savage human conflicts that plague the region.
Never mind the vacuous threats of the spoilt middle class brats that make up the environmentalist movement. Their real crimes lay safely beyond their sphere of comprehension.

Tom Judd
April 7, 2010 8:01 am

It’s been stated that a lynch mob is an example of the purest form of democracy. And with his rather juvenile statement, “we be many, you be few” it appears that Gene of Greenpeace is arguing for just such a thing since that statement is married with his invocation of ‘democracy’ in the same letter.
May I prevail upon the democratically knowledgeable Gene to sit down and have a little chat with Mr. Obama. Perhaps he could start by inquiring, why with popular opinion opposed, and by having to resort to
threats, bribes, and constitutional chicanery to pass it this health bill is an example of democracy? Next, Gene can shuffle over to the EPA endangerment finding – an equally breathtaking example of democracy.
Have at it Gene.

April 7, 2010 9:13 am

I always think of Greenpeace when i watch this video, she could even actually be taking about Gene.

April 7, 2010 9:33 am

“Although Global Warming believers have a core set of legends or a catechism, they lack a spiritual repository for their beliefs. Like the ancient pagans who believed in magical trees or rocks, they think Global Warming is actually real.”
Due to a lack of rigorous honesty from the purveyors of virtual worlds.

April 7, 2010 9:38 am

It is impossible for people of my age to read
‘Statement from Ananth, International Programme Director’
without thinking of the old Dan Dare comic strip in the Eagle. Ananth just has to be the chief sidekick of the Mekon – who was very green.
And the statement must concern world domination and subservience. As that was the Mekon’s eventual aim. On reflection, maybe its not from a comic strip after all…life imitating art.

Jimmy Haigh
April 7, 2010 9:39 am

Capn Jack. (16:58:38) :
“Old Gene’s having a holiday in Thailand. ”
Gene seems to do a lot of flying around. So, Gene, it’s OK to burn fossil fuels to go on long tropical holidays then?
“They tried to ban an element on the periodic table.”
Really?! Which element was that?

April 7, 2010 10:39 am

‘“They tried to ban an element on the periodic table.”
Really?! Which element was that?’
Carbon? gp don’t seem to have a very high regard for it in any of its forms. It’s bad enough in coal or oil, but its most pernicious evil is in making humanoid life forms (=people). gp do not..as a matter of policy. approve of people. Unless they are members of the brotherhood. others should be strongly discouraged….they know where we live and where we work……..

April 7, 2010 10:40 am

Mauibrad (10:43:42) :
“People’s Petition to Cap Carbon Dioxide Pollution at 350 Parts Per Million”
“Pollution?” CO2 is a natural plant fertilizer and is infused in every glass of beer, sparkling wine, and soda we drink. However, two observations:
1) Mixing metaphor (global warming) with empirical science (man actually produces 0.001155 percent of the CO2 in atmosphere,) causes great confusion.
2) Achieving the goal by addressing issues the public CARES about is a far more expedient path of action. i.e. By focusing on jobs, national security, domestic energy production – issues people poll high on – the CO2 goal can be met faster. Read the polls, focus on issues people CARE about. Voila! CO2 is reduced.

April 7, 2010 11:27 am

You have to understand how small these people feel compared to their heros. It makes them lash out. Not everyone can have the stature and impact of Marx, Che, Pot or Carlson.

April 7, 2010 11:40 am

Thanks to all who offered advice on how to deflate my colleague’s AGW belief arguments!
I used many of your suggestions.
For my efforts I was labeled a troll. It may be that some of you with more experience making these arguments would have a better chance of convincing his readers:
Thanks and regards,
Daniel Ferry

Hank Hancock
April 7, 2010 12:32 pm

We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few.

I’m trying to figure any other context that might be appropriate outside of what a reasonable thinking person would perceive. Lets see…
Given that Greenpeace has no legal authority to affect where I live and work and the last time i checked, having an opinion opposite to theirs is still falls under freedom of speech, they can’t do anything to me in the legal system. So this context doesn’t work.
Perhaps Gene is a stalker (and accordingly a sick person). Stalkers say and do these things – invest a lot of personal energy to know who you are, where you live, and where you work. They even write notes like this to their victims. But I’m sure neither Greenpeace or Gene would accept this is a preferred context so it doesn’t work.
Okay, that’s the best I can do to find another context and neither of them work. So, I guess the only context Gene’s comment could be taken in, particularly in light of his reinforcement of the context in his comment “we be many, but you be few” is a threat of violence or at the least a threat to harass – both illegal and suggestive of a person mentally imbalanced.

Steve A
April 7, 2010 12:45 pm

GreenPeace has raised insulting CAGW skeptics to an art form. The reason for this excellence in derision is that they have no irrefutable data with which to craft a persuasive argument for CAGW. Lacking data, but overflowing with faith, they deploy their talent to the basest of human endeavors, public humiliation of their fellow man.
GreenePeace ceased being a respected environmental organization when it exchanged day-to-day battles wth legitimate polluters at the local level for a seat at the table in the Beltway. And we are all the worse for it.

April 7, 2010 7:18 pm

These ‘doo-gooding’ NGOs which exist imo purely to make people feel good aobut themselves (and superior to others) really are very sinister set-ups and seem to attract a particular kind of mentality – which meshes in only too well with the AGW-Alarmist mindset.
I was reading Guardian Media in a cafe the other day, and came across this advertisement on behalf of the WWF (to which little old ladies and schoolkids give money, thinking it will save the pandas and the polar bears):
Organizations like the WWF and Greenpeace have Charity status in the UK. It’s high time this was rescinded – they are now political organisations pure and simple. All of them seem to be nothing but shills for the shadowy ‘World Government’ agenda.

April 8, 2010 12:40 am

Be glad about thıs.
The opposıtıon only resort to naked threats when theır posıtıon and organısatıon ıs about to crumble. Thıs ıs a sıgn of weakness, not streangth.
Is that the sounds of foundatıons crumblıng I hear …. ?

April 8, 2010 3:15 am

Just put this onto the greenpeace (revised article) hope it appears, hope they read it, borrowed from wiki..
Classic Groupthink explains the agw delusions..
Recognises the symptoms/results in man made global warming theory below?
Symptoms of groupthink:
Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group’s assumptions.
Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, disfigured, impotent, or stupid.
Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of “disloyalty”.
Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
Mind guards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.
Groupthink, resulting from the symptoms listed above, results in defective decision making. That is, consensus-driven decisions are the result of the following practices of groupthinking[5]
Incomplete survey of alternatives
Incomplete survey of objectives
Failure to examine risks of preferred choice
Failure to reevaluate previously rejected alternatives
Poor information search
Selection bias in collecting information
Failure to work out contingency plans.
Janis argued that groupthink was responsible for the Bay of Pigs ‘fiasco’ and other major examples of faulty decision-making. The UK bank Northern Rock, before its nationalisation, is thought to be a recent major example of groupthink.[5] In such real-world examples, a number of the above groupthink symptoms were displayed.
Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. Individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking are lost in the pursuit of group cohesiveness, as are the advantages of reasonable balance in choice and thought that might normally be obtained by making decisions as a group. During groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking.
Catastrophic, unprecedented Man Made Global (agw theory) would seem to HAVE ALL THE SYMPTOMS of groupthink. look at where the credit crunch crisis got us, when it finally crashed an burned, that only had a few of the symptoms.

Capn Jack.
April 8, 2010 3:39 am

the quote is from one of the founding members of Green Peace, he resigned and said hang on, we can’t go around banning elements.
The element is one of the Carbon series, take your pick they hate them all.
But there is a fashionable one to hate.
Yer it’s CO2, Plant food and the fockers love trees. Go figger. They hate CO2 plant food. Me I like CO2 but thats because I like to breathe out and drink beer.
Heaven help us if they want to ban oxygen.
Bloody mad. I tell yer Jimmy. I think they have sunstroke.
Even the most fanatical of religions dont ban life gases.

Capn Jack.
April 8, 2010 4:13 am

Or beer gases.
That is one of the best ways I know of to start a very uncivil war in Australia.

Capn Jack.
April 8, 2010 4:22 am

Anyway some chap asked the question, how do I explain it to people I know.
You dont, you tell them not to breathe out, you tell them to swear off any plant food and any animal that eats plants.
You tell them to stop drinking fluids because that is what the smoke stacks the media tell you are evil because it’s water vapor and evil. It’s CO2 and water and they are evil. Then if they have any common sense at all they will check it out.
You don’t argue science. You argue common sense.

Capn Jack.
April 8, 2010 5:48 am

And walk away.
We aint priests.

George E. Smith
April 8, 2010 12:09 pm

“”” Dear George,
Thanks for writing. I’d truly, dearly, love to believe your argument.
I would be the happiest man in the world to walk away from working to
stop global warming if you could convince me that every major
institute that works on this issue has got it wrong. But I simply
cannot believe that the scientific consensus, as near to certainty as
science ever gets, that global warming is happening and that it is
man-made is incorrect or manufactured. What’s more, even if I were in
serious doubt that it was correct, simple risk analysis would still
spur me to take action — because the consequences of inaction if
it’s true are far costlier than the price of taking action even if it
turns out to be false.
I respect your right to your opinion, but I do disagree, and I fear
that if we continue too long debating whether the house is on fire or
not, the window of opportunity for putting the fire out will close. I
urge you to consider the possibility that you’re wrong.
I do appreciate your taking the time to write and wish you all the best,
– Show quoted text –
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 7:43 PM, George E Smith wrote:
Hello Ananth,
I read the updated version at the WUWT site, of the Greenpeace “threat” against persons who may disagree with you as regards man made global warming.
Rest assured that most of us are savvy enough to not take this as serious call to violence.
As a New Zealander, I am fully up to speed on where violence has gotten us in some of these “environmental” confrontations. I was not living in New Zealand, when France declared war on New Zealand, by blowing up Rainbow Warrior, at the docks in My home town; with the loss of life of a GP member. That put the French on my permanent list of enemies.
What disturbs me, about this current pronouncement by Greenpeace, is not the non-peaceful rhetoric; but the apaprent assumption by Greenpeace; and presumably by you personally, that anyone who does not support the religion of man made global warming, is a dangerous kook who needs to be stopped.
I’m neither dangerous; nor a kook; nor an enemy of greenpeace.
I’m a Physicist; with 50 years of practising Physics in the search of a better world for all mankind. I work in industry, and I have never worked for any company that exploits any sort of natural resources; which our modern hi technology societies put to good use. I am not funded by any oil or gas or any such interests, and never have been; I help develop useful products; I would almost bet that you probably use something that I designed nearly every day, as a normal part of your existence. I do know that over a billion people worldwide do use a product that carries my work results.
I’m also an environmentalist; nobody on this planet cares more about the environment than I do; including you.
I’m not a global warming skeptic. In fact I am quite convinced, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that they have the “science” all wrong, and that carbon dioxide; which is essential to ALL life on earth, is not a pollutant, is not a cause of significant climate or global temperature change, and is not now and never will be any threat to either humans, or other global species, or the planet itself.
We currently live in an era where we have the lowest levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and the oceans, that have ever existed. Life on earth flourished in times with as much as 20 times present CO2 levels in the atmosphere; and during those times the temperature on planet earth never ever climbed to any level that was uncomfortable or hazardous to life.
Even today, on a typical northern summer day, temperatures ranging over almost 150 deg C from hot extremes in northern deserts (ground temperatures) to the coldest reaches of the Antarctic highlands; and that extreme temperature range could all be present simultaneously.
So earth is not a delicate fabric that is habitable only in a five deg C temperature range; life flourishes from over +60 deg C, and people survive in places that are (outside) at nearly -90 deg C.
What is missing from the science is the simple fact that earth’s comfort range of temperatures is maintained by a powerful feedback loop that depends almost entirely on the physical and chemical properties of the H2O molecule. Water is the ONLY “greenhouse” gas that exists permanently in the earth atmosphere in all three phases of ordinary matter, gas, liquid and solid, and in those last two phases water alone forms clouds that provide stron negative feedback cooling of the planet; by blocking sunlight from the ground, and reflecting a lot of it back into space.
So long as earth’s oceans exist, we couldn’t change the temperature of this planet; either up or down; even if we wanted to.
And besides Ananth, if I were to give you control of the thermostat knob for earth’s temperature, just what temperature would you set it to and why. Who or what, would YOU doom to starve or have vanish from the planet by YOUR choice of earth’s temperature.
You should contemplate just what will happen to the food availability from places like Canada and Siberia, if earth temperatures should drop much below where they are now; and how that would be different if those northern plains warmed up instead. Well of course, if your intent, is to decimate the human population of the planet; then you probably wouldn’t care about food supplies.
Those who you would label as kooks, because they do not agree with the so-called AGW scenario; mostly do so, because they understand more of the science that is NOT included in computer models of the future.
So it is not your silly childish veiled threats that disturb us; it is you failure to understand the science.
It’s NOT CO2; It’s the WATER.
George E. Smith BSc (Physics, and Mathematics, and RadioPhysics, UofAuckland 1957)

Guruswamy Ananthapadmanabhan
Programme Director
Greenpeace International
Ottho Heldringstraat 5
1066 AZ Amsterdam
The Netherlands
NL +31646184252
India: +919845535410
Fax: +31 (0)20 718 2002
Skype: ananthapadmanabhan.g
Greenpeace is an independent global campaigning organisation that acts to change attitudes and behavior, to protect and conserve the environment and to promote peace.
It comprises 28 independent national/regional offices in over 40 countries across Europe, the Americas, Asia and the Pacific, as well as a co-ordinating body, Greenpeace International. “””
The above is a letter I got from GP.
As you can see, Green peace is actually a religious organisation.
The standard argument made by “religious persons” for their belief in a supreme being; a god if you wish; is that perhaps it does no harm; but if you don’t beleive; and you turn out to be wrong; then you are in for it, after you depart this stage. The precautionary principle in a nutshell.
Well a counter agrument might be, that if you are a believer; and it turns out that you are wrong; think of all the resources that you and others like you will have wasted on the trappings of those riuals; for no result; that might have been better used to improve life on this planet.
The AGW mantra operates on the same principles.
They are willing to waste everything man has toiled for; pursuing a red herring; and as always, it will be the world’s most underprivileged; who will suffer most in a future of deprivation.

April 8, 2010 4:55 pm

Saddam Hussein paid other people $30,000 to be suicide bombers
WTF???? Steve, there were NO suicide bombers in Iraq before Blair and Shrub invaded. Idiot.

April 9, 2010 7:20 am

The Greens are, indeed, quite a crowd.
“A human group transforms itself into a crowd when it suddenly responds to a suggestion rather than to reasoning, to an image rather than to an idea, to an affirmation rather than to proof, to the repetition of a phrase rather than to arguments, to prestige rather than to competence”
– Jean-François Revel

April 9, 2010 7:22 am

Saddam Hussein paid other people $30,000 to be suicide bombers
“WTF???? Steve, there were NO suicide bombers in Iraq before Blair and Shrub invaded. Idiot.” – Antipholus Papps
Papps, you are the idiot. Hussein recruited bombers for actions OUTSIDE of Iraq. Seriously, how can someone be so stupid and still use a computer?

Bruce Cobb
April 9, 2010 2:01 pm

George E. Smith (12:09:33) :
“”” Dear George,
Thanks for writing. I’d truly, dearly, love to believe your argument.
I would be the happiest man in the world to walk away from working to
stop global warming if you could convince me that every major
institute that works on this issue has got it wrong.”
It’s always amazing how effortlessly they lie, isn’t it? Just like all AGWers, he needs for it to be true. To have it vanish would be devastating.
Oh, yes, plus “we need to act now” because even if it turns out to be false, it is better to be safe than sorry, blah-blah. What a load of codswallop.

April 10, 2010 10:40 am

Greenpeace is a terrorist organization (nuff said)

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights