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
Ananth Guruswamy
Program Director, Greenpeace International
Biography
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.
http://www.gfbn.com/speakers/344-ananth-guruswamy
“We have to destroy the village in order to save it.”
Peaceful? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_b_IYQMSvM&NR=1
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.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhous
and
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,
Daniel
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?
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.
Is Greenpeace even a relevant organization anymore?
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”
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?
Someone evidently told Gene the next time he drunk-blogged he’d be off the gravy train.
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.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Greenpeace, patientia nostra?
Sorry. I just felt roman about Greenpeace.
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.
Smokey (09:52:03) :
Greenpeace logo:
Hey Now! That’s in use by a “Green” political party. You should provide proper attributions for artwork.
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.
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.”
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”.
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.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhous
and
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,
Daniel
———-
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:
http://www.modbee.com/2010/04/04/1114073_p2/climate-change-is-simply-natural.html
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
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.
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 ;-}
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.
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.
– “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.
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.
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.
Respectfully,
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.)