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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
“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?
I’m ready to sign your real peoples petition, Anthony.
Whoops … got caught, didn’t they?
Hold on a sec … did I read that correctly?
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 …
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.
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.
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.
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”.
Smokey (09:52:03) : A text for that logo:
Grünen Über Alles
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!
Is ripping up train tracks to stop a nuclear waste shipment an example of civil disobedience?
http://en.rian.ru/world/20100406/158454069.html
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.
Daniel Ferry (10:06:59) :
Daniel,
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.
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.
Genepeace!
The UK Guardian does anumber on the “peaceful” organisation.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/apr/06/greenpeace-gene-hashmi-climate-sceptics
@Smokey
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.
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.
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.
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?
“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!