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
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:
http://yonoleo.posterous.com/record-lowshighs-daily-global-average-tempera
Thanks and regards,
Daniel Ferry
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.
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.
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):
http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/job/980364/one-planet-economy-network-communications-manager
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.
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 …. ?
.
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.
Jimmy,
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.
Or beer gases.
That is one of the best ways I know of to start a very uncivil war in Australia.
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.
And walk away.
We aint priests.
“”” 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,
Ananth
– 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.
Regards.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
Greenpeace is a terrorist organization (nuff said)