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
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.
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…
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?
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.
Well, we all have a bad gene somewhere…
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”.
OT
Interesting interview with Prof Robert Winston on the BBC prog HARDTalk
Overview
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.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00r3v6y/HARDtalk_Lord_Winston_Professor_of_Science_and_Society/
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
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.
Chris
The following from:
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/we-know-where-you-live.html
We know where you live
Meaning:
A threat of violence.
Origin:
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.”
Well so much for their ‘openness’ – I seem unable to get a comment published on their latest blog entry:
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/climate/2010/04/coal_kills_clean_renewable_fue.html
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:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7088297.ece
Climate craziness- What is this:
http://www.carboncapturereport.org/cgi-bin/biodb?PROJID=9&mode=viewpersonname&name=frank_lansner#MSMTOC
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..
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.
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.
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.
(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.
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.
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.
I always think of Greenpeace when i watch this video, she could even actually be taking about Gene.
“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.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mekon
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.
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?
@Jimmy haigh
‘“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……..
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.
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.