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
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.
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.
IN other eco news another green warrior from Australia has left the battle space,
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/a-man-with-too-much-energy-for-political-life/story-e6frg71x-1225850665805
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.
When it comes to Leftists, never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by malice.
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.
Anti-science
Skeptics are anti-scientific misconduct
Alarmists are pro-scientific misconduct
Alarmist’s are the real deniers…
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.
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!!!
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.
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!
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!
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.
No, you re-examine your message and think, “maybe we’re wrong.” At least that’s what reasonable people do.
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.
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.
Cheers
mark
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.
Hah its too late now, they’ve shown their true colours.
Can’t spin their way out of this one.
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.:-)
Pamela
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.
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.
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.
/SARCOFF/
Wow, this patching things over—how passive aggressive!
Doots (10:13:22) :
Is Greenpeace even a relevant organization anymore?
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
They make 100’s of millions. Some one thinks they are.
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.
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”
😉