Friday not so funny – 'off with their heads' !

From Bishop Hill, another ugly day in the climate wars. At least we have Josh.

off-with-their-headsAndrew Montford writes:


 

Who can forget the infamous threat from Greenpeace’s Gene Hasmi?

We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.

And we be many, but you be few.

But was this a one-off? The evidence is suggesting otherwise. In the comments thread to a particularly sick Guardian post, which was adorned with a photo of a severed head, and which I will not therefore dignify with a link, comes this from commenter Bluecloud:

Should that not be [Matt] Ridley’s severed head in the photo?

and this from the same source:

We would actually solve a great deal of the world’s problems by chopping off everyone’s heads.

Why are you deniers so touchy? Mere calls for a beheading evolve such a strong response in you people.

Ask yourself a simple question: Would the world be a better place without Matt Ridley?

Need I answer that question?

Bluecloud turns out to be another Guardian author, Gary Evans, whose day job is as a boat-driver and translator for Greenpeace.

The Guardian and Greenpeace: sick, sick people.


 

Advertisements

202 thoughts on “Friday not so funny – 'off with their heads' !

  1. A translator? What does he do — translate sensible stuff into the moronic drivel that only Greenpeace people can understand?

    • Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom
      The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 inserted Section 4A into the Public Order Act 1986. That part prohibits anyone from causing alarm or distress. Section 4A states:
      (1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
      A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.[7]

      • But both the UK PM and french Pm stated that there is “No right to be not offended” backed up by the UK deputy PM stating
        Quote
        The deputy prime minister also said that in a free society, “people have to be free to offend each other”.
        He added: “We have no right not to be offended.
        http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-30726491
        Unquote
        Are they aware that such statements are against the law?

      • Looks like anyone can sue everyone based on this law. Alarmists cause me alarm and distress in their writings, so see you in court? Seems like a law primarily designed to be so vague as to maximise lawyer’s fees.

      • On 13 October 2001, Harry Hammond, an evangelist, was arrested and charged under section 5 of the Public Order Act (1986) because he had displayed to people in Bournemouth a large sign bearing the words “Jesus Gives Peace, Jesus is Alive, Stop Immorality, Stop Homosexuality, Stop Lesbianism, Jesus is Lord”. In April 2002, a magistrate convicted Hammond, fined him £300, and ordered him to pay costs of £395.[19][20][21]

        If someone can be fined by the state for displaying a sign some find offensive, then is it such a far step to execute someone for displaying a comic some find offensive? The only difference I see is in the degree of punishment. However, in taking action against the evangelist, the UK has aligned itself with those that would silence what others find offensive.
        In the case of the Guardian however, what was displayed was not simply offensive or insulting. It was threatening and abusive.

    • And next the bastages will use the death threats against us as evidence that we all deserve “protective custody”.

  2. I’m tempted to say “Come and get me.” But instead I’ll just suggest not to give the pricks the satisfaction.

    • And we be many, but you be few.
      But… you do not believe in private citizens owning guns. That puts you at a distinct disadvantage, no matter how many you ‘be’.

  3. Can you link to the Guardian article directly? The Bishop Hill post comes up “Page Not Found.”

  4. an unkind person might imagine that a weak personality might try to make itself grander by associating with really big stuff like ” Oh my God, the world is going to end and only I can save it”.

  5. You got to see it from their perspective. After a day of hobnobbing and strategising with their allies and sponsors from BP, JPMorgan, Royal Dutch Shell, the Brit and Chinese govts, etc. etc., they need to vent the self-righteous steam of hypocrisy. The venom is more aimed to keep the warmistas towing the party line, including themselves.

    • That’s actually the strategy every single time. It is a message to keep their own tribe frightened. They lynch us, yes, but the objective is to control their peers. We are just their means and our “heads rolling” a warning to those of them that might be starting to think for themselves.
      What will the green gulag look like?

      • For those new here the article with the offensive comment and offensive image was written by Dana Nuccitelli – Guardian environmental contributor and has worked for Tetra Tech oil and gas services company since June 2006.

        BusinessWire – 6 June 2012
        PASADENA, Calif.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Tetra Tech, Inc. (NASDAQ:TTEK) announced today that it has acquired Rooney Engineering, Inc. (REI), an oil and gas pipeline planning and engineering firm based in Colorado. REI has worked on projects across the United States, including in Alaska and the Gulf Coast, but many of the firm’s current clients are strategically located in the Bakken and Niobrara shale oil regions. REI generates annual revenue of approximately US$30 million.
        http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20120606006706/en/Tetra-Tech-Expands-Services-Shale-Oil-Market

      • Dana Nuccitelli is a Guardian environmental contributor and has worked for Tetra Tech oil and gas services company since June 2006.

        BusinessWire – 6 June 2012
        PASADENA, Calif.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Tetra Tech, Inc. (NASDAQ:TTEK) announced today that it has acquired Rooney Engineering, Inc. (REI), an oil and gas pipeline planning and engineering firm based in Colorado. REI has worked on projects across the United States, including in Alaska and the Gulf Coast, but many of the firm’s current clients are strategically located in the Bakken and Niobrara shale oil regions. REI generates annual revenue of approximately US$30 million.
        http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/00000000000000/en/Tetra-Tech-Expands-Services-Shale-Oil-Market

        Attack big oil and take big oil money. What’s not to like?

  6. I can’t find those comments there now.
    I also can’t find any rebuttal to Matt Ridley. But that may be my lack of observational ability. Dana seems convinced that the rebuttal is so obvious that he doesn’t need to make it.
    He says:

    “Rather than attack my arguments, my critics like to attack my motives.” That’s undoubtedly because when an individual keeps repeating the same myths over and over again, people eventually grow tired of debunking those myths and naturally question the motives of the individual who keeps making them.

    Tired of debunking or incapable?

    • He didn’t respond to my questioning whether all those 10^22 joules represented 0.03C, in the broken graph story (although he did valiantly stand by Abraham); so my guess is the latter.

  7. So Greenpeace want[s] to reduce the world’s population, to solve an evironmental crisis.
    But when I contacted Greenpeace about why they were not campaigning to reduce the world’s population, to solve a potential evironmental crisis, the reply from their HQ was: “we never have, and never will, campaign on population issues.” (Lisa Weatherley, Greenpeace.)
    So condoms are taboo but beheading is, apparently, all the rage. Perhaps they have all changed their religion, and joined the great protection racket….
    R

    • Too simplistic. They think they are right.
      I disagree but being wrong isn’t being evil. Actions and intent are different.

  8. Dark days for skeptics as the storm clouds gather. There’s so much hate in the world. And it’s hard to miss that the haters so easily delude themselves into thinking they’re the good guys. Terrorists come in many flavors.

    • It’s becoming more and more difficult to tell the difference between environmental extremists and Islamic extremists. If we ever hear a politician say, “the future does not belong to those who slander the prophets of Gaia,” Josh had better take extra precautions, as being a cartoonist can be a high-risk line of work.

  9. They hate someone fighting back. Ridley had already mentioned the move to vitriol:

    Then a funny thing happened a few years ago. Those who disagreed with me stopped pointing out politely where or why they disagreed and started calling me names. One by one, many of the most prominent people in the climate debate began to throw vitriolic playground abuse at me. I was “paranoid”, “specious”, “risible”, “self-defaming”, “daft”, “lying”, “irrational”, an “idiot”.

    and its consequence:

    Most of the people who attack me seem to think I am a “denier” of climate change because that’s what a few hyperventilating bloggers keep saying about me. It’s not, of course, true. It’s these flame guardians who polarise such debates.

    Him having the platform of The Times to say that makes them even madder. Someone has to up the ante. Josh’s counter, as always, is a massive reason to rejoice. The moral bankruptcy has to become plain for all to see, lest the violent fantasies of a few bear fruit.

  10. the progressive version of free speech has always been; ” your are free to say absolutely whatever you want…. as long as it is what I want you to say.”
    ugh!
    Joe

    • Correct, that is the progressives’ position on everything not supporting their beliefs and also everyone that questions them.

      • I do not really think they have any true beliefs. All they crave is power; what they believe has nothing to do with their agenda.
        Fen’s Law:
        The Left believes in none of the things they lecture the rest of us about.

      • dbstealey
        Thanks, but I think you – or your quote of
        Fen’s Law:
        The Left believes in none of the things they lecture the rest of us about.
        may not, in fact, allow for the Machiavellian instincts of some on the Left.
        For example:
        St. Albert Gore (Jr.) is – I know, ‘cos Wikipedia [which, on this occasion I cannot edit (I wonder why? maybe – obviously a protection against Al Qaeda)] omits to confirm – is, in fact, not the owner of every mansion in the Northern Hemisphere.
        He may not want to be such an owner . . . .
        St. Albert Gore (Jr.) does not use private jets for all his transportation – some missions, from dining table to computer, for example, are usually performed on foot. Or so it is reported!
        Michael Mann – father of Mann-made catastrophic Global Climate disruption ( so it’s the same as ever it was, or something) – is actually kind to animals, loves children* , and probably only use private jets if invited – and – look – only when he wants to fly somewhere, not for merely nipping down the local gas station for a frack-pack (or might that be a ‘six-pack’?)!
        * Here Laureate Mann [I’m a Nobel Laureate, too, as I was a subject of the EU when I won a Prize for – something. Aaaah – whatever the EU won a prize for . . . . for me] seriously differs from some watermelons, who want to – shall we suggest – ‘disappear’ babies until the world population is a few hundred million [or ‘thousand’, I hear].
        My apologies if I seem to have a slightly jaundiced view of some fellow members of my species.
        Something to do with experience, maybe . . . . . ?
        Auto
        [Accredited Old Fart in London]

  11. No different than RFK Jr. wanting to execute oil execs, or that guy whos name escapes me that said every time there’s a flood in Bangladesh that airline execs should be shot.
    Suzuki’s not so unkind, jail would be enough for politicians who think differently than him.
    They’re taking their talking points from the higher-ups.
    With greenies it’s all about the death.

  12. If it was mad hatters tea party “off with their heads” it would be funny, but in the current world terror climate (no pun intended) this is just sick.

    • I don’t take the Malthusian rantings of these absurd narcissists too seriously, but I have to agree, given the sadness and hopelessness surrounding the recent ISIS executions, that does seem like a particularly vile and tasteless comment to make. As other commenters have pointed out, there does seem to be a great deal of self loathing projected outwards from the more shrill camp of the alarmists. However it is a great gauge of how effectively a piece of skeptical scrutiny has hit the mark.

  13. Its not related to being a sceptic but from having fallen foul of people with similar attitudes that I have copped what Gene Hasmi seems to think is clever rather than immoral.
    It has been almost two decades of utter crap. I go interstate often to see family and friends. Occasionally, I find that someone has been spreading rumours that I left town in a hurray because the police are after me.

    • I used to have that when I was younger. Except it was all of the old high school rivalries telling everyone I was in prison for murder. It was amusing to return home after 12 years away in the military to having them ask how getting gang raped in prison was. I never countered them and just told them it was like getting shot at in stupid pointless wars.

      • Here at WUWT some time back there were a couple of “professors” from some California “University” who were burning a book. It was just a “joke” of course.

  14. It seems that after about 32 hours, and after the story went global, appearing here and at JoNova, the slimeballs who run the Guardian eco pages finally took some action and removed the offensive comments .
    Remember, these are the people who employ Nazi fantasist Dana to abuse and smear climate sceptics on an almost daily basis

  15. This is standard operating procedure for the left. I can recall being threatened by a classmate in graduate school because I mentioned I had watch[ed] Rush Limbaugh’s TV show. LOL.

  16. Give Greenpeace credit where credit is due.
    After all it is the world’s largest employer of mentally incompetent people.
    Eugene WR Gallun

      • I may disagree with someone, but I will defend their right to say it. I truly believe that. However, if you say something, you must suffer the consequences. I think Mr. Hitchens is vulgar, and mistaken about some things, but I agree with his basic concept that you are free to speak and listen. Listening will help me prepare my response. Allowing others to speak doesn’t imply my acceptance. Indeed, threats should be met with outrage. It is unfortunate (though not for the Guardian) that publicity surges with threats of violence.

  17. Instead of trying to behead anyone who disagrees (and might have guns and ammo), wouldn’t it be a bit easier to show some empirical evidence of man-made climate change ? Like point at it with sword or something …..
    …… if there was any, a 9-year old with a toy sword would be able to do it.

  18. Meanwhile. . .
    “It’s worse than we thought!”
    What? ‘Science’ journalism, of course:

    The U.S. has caused more global warming than any other country. Here’s how the Earth will get its revenge.
    By Chris Mooney
    Last year, we learned what is probably the worst global warming news yet — that we may have irrevocably destabilized the massive ice sheet of West Antarctica, which contains the equivalent of nearly 11 feet of sea level rise. The rate of West Antarctic ice loss has been ominously increasing, and there are fears that if too much goes, the slow and long-term process of ice sheet disintegration could accelerate. . .

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/01/22/the-u-s-has-contributed-more-to-global-warming-than-any-other-country-heres-how-the-earth-will-get-its-revenge/
    /Mr Lynn

  19. How nice! And on the same day the Wall Street Journal has a book review of “Killers of the King”.

  20. I knew someone back in the days of the USSR that had relatives in Moscow. (He may have also had dual citizenship.) He was talking with some students about the USA and freedoms etc. They liked what they heard. Then a young member of the Communist Party came up.
    To make a long story short, he said that the Communist didn’t want peace. She said they did and there would be peace when the world accepted the wisdom of communism.
    He said that he would never accept communism.
    She said, “Then we will kill you.”
    Her definition of “peace” seemed to be that peace would reign when all are eliminated that might oppose.
    Different cause. Same solution.
    (Same source?)

    • The closest analog to ‘consensus climate science’ is Lysenkoism under Stalin. Even the methods are more and more similar. Hence warmunism in essay Climatastrosophistry.
      Which also documents several other equally ugly equivalent episodes from 2010 through fall 2014. Death, criminalization, mental institutionalization… Including 2 by Al Gore, which went largely unreported in MSM.

  21. These are probably the same goons who would march with the “Je suis Charlie” crowd.
    Totally unable to see their rampant hypocrisy and the ugly creatures they have become.

    • These are probably the same goons who would march with the “Je suis Charlie” crowd.
      Totally unable to see their rampant hypocrisy and the ugly creatures they have become

      Are you sure this is what you wish to say?
      I do not speak French but it is my understanding the “Je suis Charlie” is much like saying “I am Charlie” [Hebdo] and promoting tolerance for and freedom of expression for journalists and their right to depict any historical character without fear of retribution.
      It seems to me your statement refers to the “goons” as the intolerant environmentalists who would be unlikely to march with others supporting tolerance.
      Or did I misunderstand your post?

      • F. Ross,
        I mean no disrespect for those supporting Charlie Hebdo and free speech.
        However, I could easily see these “journalists” joining hand in hand with the “Je suis Charlie” crowd in support of press freedom, yet, upon returning to their lofty journalistic caves, turn right around advocate the beheading of those on the other side of the climate divide and totally missing the hypocrisy of both actions.

      • @Rick K
        January 23, 2015 at 6:05 pm
        ‘However, I could easily see these “journalists” joining hand in hand with the “Je suis Charlie” crowd in support of press freedom, yet, upon returning to their lofty journalistic caves, turn right around advocate the beheading of those on the other side of the climate divide and totally missing the hypocrisy of both actions.’
        You are 100% right Rick.
        http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/

    • Plaudits to F.Ross for teasing out the intent of Rick K’s post.
      If you know what you’re thinking, it might not occur to you that your succinctly poignant comment is pure ambiguity.

      • That is the most terrifying thing I have ever read, and it easily qualifies as hate speech. But the writer is not smart enough to understand her own stupidity.

      • What’s really disturbing is the number of people I run across who think the same way. It’s a growing position through most of the western world.

  22. Every whiny, thin-skinned, PC nitwit with their panties in a knot, their nose out of joint, files a ton of law suits, calls for boycotts, organizes demonstrations, pickets the offender and even tangential connections. Pitch a fit, fall on the floor, kick your heels, toss a tantrum in the halls of Congress and silence more free speech more effectively than any pair of AK-47s.
    Pretty much abolished the “n” word that way, didn’t you? Just ask Paula Deen. Or Si of Duck Dynasty. How about them Washington Redskins? A few radical, extremist, AGW alarmists are calling for incarceration and/or execution of climate change deniers, aka skeptics. Guess they only lack AK-47s, hoodies, and the list of names and addresses.
    So Obama failed to send big enough big dogs to the demonstrations and stayed home himself. Powerful irony sensed it he did, bog o’ hypocrisy detected, umhmmm. Glassesasas housesasasa. Casting stonesasasas.
    The press, staunch defenders of free speech, nothing but a giant sorry-ass joke.

  23. Well, I guess it’s a good thing we still have a 2nd amendment. They’re welcome to take my head at the same time they pry my gun out of my cold dead hand. I doubt it will come to that though…at least, I hope not.

    • SMC Friend, I don’t think they have heard the old saying… don’t bring a knife to a gun fight.
      Why is it the people who are least skilled in dispensing violence are the first to embrace it?
      michael

      • Mike, that just means I’ll have a nice escort to hell when I finally run out of ammunition.
        As for your question, I think it’s because they have no real personal experience with violence. It’s all a theoretical exercise for them.

      • Firing a gun into the air or even toward an enemy for the cameras is one thing.
        Picking a target, then judging the bullet drop and if the wind might move the bullet 3 inches, is another.

  24. The general population is littered with deranged individuals that have a hard time distinguishing between reality and perception.
    Regardless of the situation, if you catch the attention of somebody that has a screw loose and strongly opposes your view and sees you as a threat to their objective, your life can be in danger.
    I was a television meteorologist from 1982=93 for a CBS TV affiliate here in Indiana. In 1983/4, a deranged, gay male stalker decided that me dating my current wife was unacceptable in his world. He broke into my car, then my apartment twice(knew my schedule since I was on tv) then burned down my apartment and almost killed 5 people living in the apartments above me.
    It may have been him that fired a 22 bullet into my car, 6 inches over my head in 1985.
    Funny thing is that I grew up in Detroit amongst the violence and fights and all that stuff……but confrontations and hatred didn’t target just me.
    However, when a deranged person decides to target you for something related to who you are or what your view is, don’t underestimate the danger.
    I’ve written numerous articles about climate change and weather for our local paper. There are always plenty of comments. Some positive, some negative. A few of the negative comments have been so hateful and threatening as to bring my wife to tears…………..she just can’t understand the emotions that this subject triggers in some people.
    I’m the volunteer scholastic chess coach for 4 different schools here and loved by hundreds of students and families. However, it only takes one of the many fanatical people to see you in opposition to their objective to present a legit threat to you.

    • Re Mike Maguire:
      A cardiologist was just shot and killed in Boston by the son of a patient in his care, who died. The doctor left a wife and three kids (a fourth on the way). Sometimes the crazies seem to win. Thank you for carrying on in spite of it all.
      /Mr Lynn

      • Massachusetts has some of the toughest anti- gun laws on the books, yet those restrictive laws didn’t save the doctor. It’s the man, not the machine.

    • I wish I had a solution. It’s a sad commentary on our society that expressing a contrary opinion can trigger a death sentence from some lunatic. The best you can do is live every moment to its fullest. There’s no way to live your life without offending someone. Please everyone, be very careful out there and watch your back. We wouldn’t want to lose you.

  25. I would invite the supporters of this outrageous comment to take one step in my direction and utter those words, it will be the last breath they take. I’m repulsed by these morons and such low brow intelligence makes me feel sorry for their parents, who, I’m sure, tried their hardest to teach right and wrong. Apologies fellow bloggers, I’m absolutely frustrated and I thank you for shedding the truth on this topic.

  26. I always think to myself when I’m debating those kinds of people who the Bishop quotes, that if the revolution ever comes, if we are ever being ruled by some kind of eco-dictatorship, these are the people who will be the sadistic concentration camp guards.

  27. I advocate some cooler heads here. It does not help anyone to express frustrations in this way. Greenpeace is an organization that became rich by appealing to human empathy (and their emotional projections) with wild animals. The fact that the French scuttled their Rainbow Warrior was the best thing that ever happened to their coffers. Greenpeace will not change – their trade is way too lucrative. Simply ignore them – don’t call them names.

    • Just plug your nose…they will eat their own in the end. Knowledge is power, you know who they are.

  28. How can anyone NOT like and appreciate Matt Ridley? The man invariably cheers me up every time he speaks. Some people just insist on believing the worst about everything, the world, the climate, other people…. and these sad sacks join Greenpiece and subscribe to the Graun.

  29. ‘We would actually solve a great deal of the world’s problems by chopping off everyone’s heads.’
    If that what was actually writ, in toto, then that is hilarious. ‘Everyone’ would include himself and all humanity.

  30. I keep asking those who believe that their use of fossil fuels is harming the planet, to stop using them. I don’t know why they refuse. If they stopped using they will die. Which is what they want.

  31. This just shows the facts and truth is winning and it scares them so much they are on a panic mode now.

  32. It is too easy to be a digital eco-rebel.
    Let’s meet in the real world and see how the discussion goes..
    The bullying will not stop until the perpetrators experience a cost for such.
    Bring your data and lets talk knowns and go from there.
    Confront or conform is the question.

  33. Many of the original red guards have 40 or more years invested in “the cause” together with these new hatchlings.
    The new ones are core of hate not about climate but revolution and anarchy . They have over run reason and now tilt at life itself.
    The new ones are even more out of bounds from reality than the first ones to fake tree ring data.

    • Anarchy: A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without implication of disorder).”

      Pompous Gits prefer liberty to slavery…

  34. I think Gary Evans is a fish.
    I think he is a Four Eyed Butterflyfish.
    A Four Eyed Butterflyfish (FEB) is a North West Atlantic coral reef dwelling fish. It is a flattened, somewhat arrow shaped creature, silvery, with a pronounced, brightly bordered black circle, one on either side, in the upper rear quadrant of its body, above and forward of its tail. The purpose of these large, flashy, black spots is not known. But, since they resemble eyes, it is thought that they are there to trick predators into mistaking the back end of the fish for its head. (See where I’m going with this?) Since these spots are also much larger than its real eyes they may also trick predators into thinking that the back end of this fish is not just its head but that the back end is the head of a much larger fish. (Again, see where I’m going with this?) If you tried to behead this fish you may find out that you actually bebutted it. Ick.
    However, a FEB is actually a rather attractive animal. So I’m wrong. Gary Evans is a toad.

    • Hasmi didn’t talk about beheading, only making threatening noises.
      Guardian guest author and Greenpeace employee Gary Bluecloud Evans talks about beheading.

  35. For every “we be many and you be few” nutters there’s someone who thinks “I may be few but I be enough”. Being such a nutter who says such ignorant things seems like a good way for them to get their arse kicked. I’ve long thought climate alarmism was never about science and it is people like this that have convinced me. People in the public eye should never, never make such threats or do anything that can trigger a disproportionate and very personal response. And it reflects poor parenting.

  36. All that anyone needs to understand about “the Left” is that Fascism, Nazism and Communism are all diseases of the political Left….and then reflect on the events of the last 80 years.

  37. When he says Mere calls for a beheading evolve such a strong response in you people. I think he means “induce.” Hateful and illiterate.

  38. Are there any books or other publications dissecting Greenpeace financially and politically?
    I could Google it , but I am busy taking advantage of this glorious global warming (and long may it continue- if it does exist) to prepare my early sowings of vegetables.
    This? It is coffee time.

  39. The climate faithful see the solution is for the skeptics to lose their heads.
    The climate skeptic sees the solution in faithful putting their heads back on and using them.

      • This is it.
        Here, and elsewhere, there are many answers and guesses as to why people hold on to this CAGW belief system so doggedly, and won’t entertain debate.
        My view is that this is a cult process. These people are enjoying membership in a Virtue-Cult.
        This is hard for us, and them, to see since it is not obviously organized around a prophet of God, or a special supernatural revelation. We are more able to perceive those God-Cults.
        I encourage WUWT readers to seriously consider how a cult appeals to any person, gets the person involved, then committed, and then how a cult works to sustain its illogical, faulted belief system.
        Like a bad dream, the grasp of a cult begins to lose its hold as you wake up and realize the appeal was based on nothing, on a house of cards. Cults know this, and so cults guide members in how to think when faced with reality.
        There are simple, identifiable cognitive tricks. The leading trick is to stick a negative label on anyone criticising the “virtuous” beliefs, rather than critically evaluating the criticism.
        This accounts for the vitriol against those who do not believe in the CAGW belief system – their “Savior Complex.” Their world view is simple: us/them; black/white.
        As a democrat, I know I am not an uncaring, stingey, hypocritical, stupid, knuckle-dragging, misogynist conservative – so, when that caricature is thrown at me, it does not stick.
        They believe that is who you are, if you doubt them.
        Furthermore, their level of commitment is so strong, so cult-strong, that they throw you off balance and get you defensing yourself – you cite how you drive a modest-mileage car, support environmental or conservation causes, etc.
        When you jump in their game, they have won. That is how they defend against the truth you bring:
        where has the warming gone? Where are those killer hurricanes?
        Just like Doomsday Cults: oh, that will be next year – we had our Apocalypse date wrong. No worries – we are still quite on track for the Apocalypse.
        Please, people – look into the way that cults work. On normal people. This puts a lot of things into focus beyond the environment. The hate of Jews, the desire to control population levels, the hate of free enterprise, and so on.
        Lea Remini left Scientology. How? She asked the leader why she had not seen his wife in quite a while.
        Like a house of cards, the charade all crumbled from that one question.
        You best weapon against CAGW arguments is common sense.

  40. Pressuring politicians on climate change is not working. We saw that in Copenhagen. Three months later, we also know why. Which is why the global climate movement now must do course-correction. We need to shift targets and go after the real termites that hollowed out and imploded Copenhagen.
    Not Barosso, Obama or Wen Jiabao, but the real obstacles to the climate deal this planet deserves and demands. The oil and gas mafia running loose in New Delhi. The coal magnates that have Canberra by the short and curlies. The petrochemical giants that have placed a firm jackboot on the EU’s throat. The fossil fools and nuclear lobbyists that have Washington DC on speed-dial.
    We need to hit them where it hurts most, by any means necessary: through the power of our votes, our taxes, our wallets, and more.
    We need to be inclusive. We need to join forces with those within the climate movement that are taking direct action to disrupt the CO2 supply chain. We need to embrace the conservatives too, the ones that choose scientific rigour and court injunctions as their weapons.
    And we need to inspire, engage and empower everyone in between… from the AirPlotters stopping the expansion of Heathrow by purchasing bits of the proposed runway to the volunteer activists that have been making life hell for fossil fuel lobbyists in the US.
    Finally, we need to prove repeatedly, consistently, doggedly, that our alternative vision of a world that runs on clean energy isn’t just a prototype, it’s already in production.
    Emerging battle-bruised from the disaster zone of Copenhagen, but ever-hopeful, a rider on horseback brought news of darkness and light: “The politicians have failed. Now it’s up to us. We must break the law to make the laws we need: laws that are supposed to protect society, and protect our future. Until our laws do that, screw being climate lobbyists. Screw being climate activists. It’s not working. We need an army of climate outlaws.”
    The proper channels have failed. It’s time for mass civil disobedience to cut off the financial oxygen from denial and skepticism.
    If you’re one of those who believe that this is not just necessary but also possible, speak to us. 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.

    Now removed from the greenpeace website for some strange reason but still available here.
    http://www.webcitation.org/5oj86Zw5q

    • “Finally, we need to prove repeatedly, consistently, doggedly, that our alternative vision of a world that runs on clean energy isn’t just a prototype, it’s already in production.”
      Or a product of their imagination

    • “Finally, we need to prove repeatedly, consistently, doggedly, that our alternative vision of a world that runs on clean energy isn’t just a prototype, it’s already in production.”

      Well it was nice that the statement included comedic material.
      This is a good one too:

      “And we be many, but you be few.”

      Tell that to the people with 218 million views.
      It must suck to live in deluded hatred.

  41. When they are right they are right. I suggest that they set an example and be the first in line to lose their head. /scr

  42. It’s basically a climate jihad we are up against. In their hearts lurks violence against any who dare question the orthodoxy.

  43. I find “Blue Cloud Chinchilla powder” on Amazon, name coming from the Blue Cloud Mine in California. So Gary “BlueCloud” Evans might derive his name from there.

  44. In my less kind and gentler days I have suggested people remove their heads from their arse, or conversely place their heads in their arse because that’s where it belongs. I have also recommended to individual commentators to keep hitting their head with a wooden spoon until they get some sense.
    I have never in even my most vitriolic posts suggested assaulting, executing, murdering or otherwise ending someones life.
    It is interesting the post of the violent threat remains while the post outing the commentator as a Guardian poster was removed. This unfortunately says a lot about what the Guardian has become. Character and principles have gone down the toilet, or more specifically only selectively applied.

  45. I posted an item at the Guardian to the effect:

    I’m surprised to see an IPCC Lead Author is consistently censored in the replies. Surely reasoned debate is preferable to beheading comments.

    My comment was there for an hour or so, then it was gone. Removed without even an acknowledgement that it had been removed for violating community standards. In other words, I was beheaded!!

    • Stalinised is the usual term…….
      As in the man nominated the Times Man of the Year………….twice……

    • Yes the infamous ‘disappearing’ of post , that to this day CIF claims it does not do . The irony is one of the best ways to get your post ‘disappeared’ to to mention they do this .

  46. OK, I’ve tried again. Will the Guardian remove this comment:

    I’m surprised to see an IPCC Lead Author and world renowned professor of economics has had every comment in this article removed for violating community standards. I find this disconcerting and unbelievable.

  47. 2003
    GREENPEACE’S SILENT “CHARITY” TAX SCANDAL
    A scandal involving a major international organization, millions of dollars, and alleged tax evasion would receive similar treatment. But if that major international organization is Greenpeace, the media goes mute.
    Nonprofit watchdog Public Interest Watch (PIW) filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service alleging that Greenpeace has engaged in massive transfers of money between its many subgroups in order to skirt US tax laws. PIW simultaneously issued a companion report, called Green Peace, Dirty Money: Tax Violations in the World of Non-Profits which details how the environmental group transferred $24 million in tax-exempt contributions over a three-year period to fund its non-tax-exempt activities.
    Much like Enron’s dizzying array of shell organizations and dummy corporations, Greenpeace has a multitude of entities established throughout the world—all unified by Greenpeace International, which in 2000 had an operating budget of $134 million.
    In the US, there are two primary groups: Greenpeace Inc. and Greenpeace Fund Inc. Neither has to pay US taxes, but there is one key difference between them: donations to the latter entity are tax-deductible, whereas contributions to the former are not. In IRS-speak, it means that money given to Greenpeace Fund Inc., known as a 501(c)(3) organization (named for the corresponding provision in tax law), can reduce the amount one pays in taxes, whereas funds given to Greenpeace Inc, known as a 501(c)(4) entity, cannot.
    Just as common sense would dictate, it is much harder to raise money for a 501(c)(4) group, because donors cannot deduct the contributions from their taxable income. Which is why the IRS has very strict rules about how tax-exempt donations to a 501(c)(3) entity can be used. 501(c)(3) groups are essentially limited to religious, charitable, or educational activities. Such groups can transfer funds to 501(c)(4) entities, but money from those grants are bound by the same restrictions 501(c)(3) organizations face on all their activities.
    This is where things get sticky with Greenpeace’s green: almost all the tax-exempt money the environmental group raises is transferred to its sister organization, a 501(c)(4) group that cannot itself solicit tax-exempt contributions. It is the sister organization that does all those splashy—and typically illegal—media-driven stunts such as trespassing and destruction of property, activities which would seem to be neither charitable nor educational.
    According to the 1999 tax returns for both Greenpeace Inc. and Greenpeace Fund Inc., over $4 million changed hands between the groups. The 501(c)(3) Greenpeace Fund Inc. — which obviously had an easier time raising funds because its donors get tax write-offs — gave its 501(c)(4) Greenpeace Inc. sister organization $4.25 million, which constituted roughly 30% of the latter group’s 1999 budget.
    Based on the data Public Interest Watch collected from various Greenpeace tax and disclosure forms from 1998-2000, the 501(c)(3) arm, Greenpeace Fund Inc., transferred a total of $24 million to other Greenpeace subgroups that cannot solicit tax-exempt contributions. PIW’s Chairman Mike Hardiman has a simple description of Greenpeace’s accounting gimmicks: “It’s a form of money laundering, plain and simple.”
    That $24 million diverted to non-tax-exempt purposes is of little interest to the media should be surprising. More surprising still, though, is that the media’s interest did not perk up given the list of big-name Greenpeace donors. Foundations established by such high-brow last names as Rockefeller, Merck, Mott, MacArthur, Packard, and Turner have all given large sums — tax-exempt — enabling Greenpeace to move its funds around more easily. Because those groups have a legal duty to make sure that tax-exempt funds are used appropriately, the amount of salivating copy this mess could generate is substantial, yet the media collectively yawns.
    A quick search of news archive Nexis revealed that only a dozen stories — in both print and television — covered PIW’s Greenpeace complaint. And the only thorough rendering was written by tireless columnist Deroy Murdock at National Review Online.
    It is possible, of course, that Greenpeace will be cleared of malfeasance. But maybe it will not. Old-fashioned investigative journalism would seem to dictate some digging take place. Too bad the media’s evident bias makes clear that will not happen.
    GREENPEACE IS NOT A CHARITY
    Why Donating to a Real Charity Makes More Sense than Donating to Greenpeace
    Charities help people. For this they get tax breaks from the government. People who donate to charities also get tax breaks. You cannot just sign up to be a charity, you have to meet certain criteria set out by the government designed to evaluate how much you really are helping its citizens.
    As a citizen, if you donate to a charity you get a tax break and know that the charity has met certain government controls. You can be fairly sure your money will be used for the cause they promote. If you donate to a company you have no idea what the money is being used for. You don’t get a tax break. They don’t have to answer to the government oversight, but they do have to pay tax on profits. This is like donating money to an Oil Company and saying “put this toward environmental cleanup.”
    Greenpeace in Canada: Not A charity
    Greenpeace lost it’s charity status in Canada in 1989. Greenpeace then found a tax loop hole which was closed in 1995. The hilarious statement on the Greenpeace website says: “In order to remain independent from governments and industry, Greenpeace cannot issue tax receipts.” Their statement used to be found here: http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/Donate/Monthly-giving/ but has been replaced with: “Support our work today! Greenpeace is an independent organization that does not take money from corporations or government. We rely on individual donations from people just like you to do the work we do.”
    Greenpeace New Zealand: Not A charity
    The NZ court ruled: Greenpeace too political to register as charity in 2010.
    Greenpeace in Germany: “Looks set to loose its Charity Status”
    A German Study in 2006 said lax Charity Rules “…had allowed special interest groups to avoid paying certain taxes and to win excessive public influence as a result. The advisory committee said there is an urgent need for a ‘clear restriction of the tax privileges presently associated with charitable status… [and] should not be aimed ‘primarily at political influence on public opinion’; instead the specific results of environmental activities should be closely evaluated and proven.”
    It was proposed by the German government to remove Greenpeace’s tax breaks. Greenpeace protested this study, protests which have to be funded by donations to Greenpeace. You can understand that the German government does not want to give tax breaks to a company that spends that money protesting against the political workings of that same government.
    Greenpeace in the USA: Yes (for now)
    Greenpeace has toned down protests directed at US Coal in favor of the less environmentally harmful Canadian oil sands. The question is, how long can they keep quiet from speaking out against American Industry? In the meantime, Greenpeace gets a free ride while American teachers are being laid off and public services are being cut.
    Greenpeace in different countries has to obey different tax laws. Greenpeace is one entity with the same operating practices and procedures everywhere. This is of significant interest because (a) Greenpeace makes profits (Not all money goes to environmental causes) and (b) Greenpeace does not actually evaluate environmental effects and consequences, it just exerts pressure based on opinion.
    Why not donate to a real charity so you know your money will be put to good use, plus you get a tax break?

    • would the government investigate an organization that is actively involved in questionable lawsuits that allow the administrative branch to create legal precedent and thereby bypass the constitution and the legislative branch? Who is responsible for investigating this situation, if not the administrative branch?

    • There is unfortunately no attempt at all in Germany to remove the tax free status of Greenpeace.
      It would have surprised me as it would have been the first thing the government does right.

      • Greenpeace had to change its status in Germany to a Charitable Trust so that it can continue with its political campaigns. In spite of this, it still manages to be (somehow) treated as if it is a charity. Court fines in Germany do not go to the government but are paid to charities, and Greenpeace is the recipient of an enormous amount of this cash.

  48. It is always important to differentiate the useful idiots from the sociopaths running the scam. The sociopaths KNOW they are lying — they just don’t care. The useful idiots actually believe that they are telling the truth. Why is it so common for the useful idiots to call for violence? Why do we see things like the 10:10 snuff films of child murder? Imagine (difficult as it is) what the world seems like to one who honestly, sincerely believe the CAGW hyperbole. To one of the useful idiots who has fallen so deep down the rabbit hole, they are not instigating violence; they are responding to violence that was already done to them by the “deniers.” They honestly believe that every time you drive your car, you are assaulting every living organism on Earth. They sincerely believe that when you exhale, you are blowing out a poison that will murder the biosphere. They are convinced that when you fail to support wind generators, you are wilfully arguing against saving the planet.
    Why would anyone embrace such a belief system? Sceptics have been showing for years that CAGW is certainly not based on data and evidence — why believe it? In my opinion, and based on many hours of discussion with the CAGW supporters, I think the reason is this. Many — if not all — of them are deeply upset about some other, more personal matter. Maybe they are in a bad marriage. Maybe they feel smothered because they need to live at home and help ill parents. Maybe they are unemployed and feel useless and worthless. There are a thousand reasons why any person today may be unhappy with their life. Embracing CAGW gives someone a reason — a good, ethical, self-complementing reason to be unhappy. The planet is being destroyed. The world’s wild life is being killed. The oceans are being poisoned. Of COURSE they are unhappy — and they do not need to look at their marriage, or their unemployment, or their personal life choices. Their unhappiness makes sense, and even their desire to hurt or kill can be made to sound reasonable.
    Of course, they are insane. They are infected with a meme complex that has literally made them unable to think rationally or to act constructively. Poor devils…

  49. Beheadings have been used throughout history as a successful alternative used in lieu of winning a debate, it’s just a little trickier to implement these days.

    • JJ,
      Don’t be confused, they just don’t like the comparison. Not that there’s anything wrong with it.
      They certainly act the same, don’t they?

      • dbstealey, The Pompous Git, I must humbly disagree with you. I think that the NAZIs would object more to the comparison. I doubt they would see much in common with these modern “greens” and would regard them as an abomination to be eliminated As a matter of fact I can hear distant sounds of metal clanging as the ghost of “Michael Wittman” reassembles his “Tiger” tank
        have a laugh
        michael

      • The Pompous Git, I did say “modern” greens. Their (the former) goal was the perfect environment for the perfect race. They were after all Social Darwinists. They built monuments to the master race, a glorification to their sick and twisted dreams for the future. Not man, nature or heaven itself was to be spared their manipulation. The two have nothing in common. What have the “Modern Greens” ever built? Show me their tributes to the human spirit, their glory to the greatness of the human race. There is no love of race, culture, nation or history to be found in them. Only self loathing, disdain and the mockery of all human achievement.
        Sorry I go on.. I have a very high view of the human race even in its darkest hours.
        michael

      • Dr. Clemens Heni, a leading German researcher on modern anti-Semitism, told The Jerusalem Post that Werner Vorgel, a former member of the Nazi Party and of its SA stormtroopers, “was among the first elected members of the Greens to the Bundestag in 1983.”

        1983 seems quite recent to me, but then I’m ancient in your eyes, I guess.

      • The Pompous Git … Me 1957, you? My Dad Pacific theater Feb. 1942 port moresby his brother wounded shortly after he landed June 7 1944.
        My major was military history. Minor political science. Not well loved on campus .

      • Me 1951 in Nuneaton, UKLand. Dad: guest in one of Mr Hitler’s “holiday camps” at age 14. Ended up in Jugoslavia at war’s end. Was alerted to his being up for the firing squad for “collaboration with Germans” during the war. WTF! Never completed a degree, but have studied chemistry, biology, physics, mathematics, geology, history, philosophy, print-making and engineering at tertiary level. Was offered the opportunity to undertake a PhD in sustainable agriculture, but declined.

      • Nearly forgot. Quite liked on campus by fellow students 2003 – 2006. They told me it was because I thought about their questions before answering. Lecturers were split. One history tutor gave me “the highest mark I ever gave an essay” because I gave my own thoughts. Tutor next semester gave me a bare pass for exactly the same reason. She told me I was there to echo the thoughts of my betters, not my own. That’s when I quit…

    • That was more an exclamation than a question, wasn’t it ?
      Why not just put it right out there ?
      It reads the same either way.
      Just need to define “wrong”.

  50. Just have to wonder about the laws in the UK right now – isn’t wanting someone beheaded due to their views
    actually “hate speech” and should be prosecuted as such?
    In times such as now, such comments are extremely disrespectful of those actually victims of such violence, and an insult to the rest of us…
    Having said that, I’m not surprised that the CAGW “team” has stooped so low. With “deniers” and
    “death trains” they’ve shown they have neither respect nor interest for people and history.

  51. Message to Gene Hasmi – take your best shot you miserable little impudent [trimmed]
    [We have standards here. Please do not insult impudent worms. Nor seagulls. .mod]

  52. These creeps are just the tip of the iceberg. We should be thankful they slipped up as the beheading talk wakes up many. Further, industrialized nations are at zero population growth. The countries still exponentially increasing are the poorest. Modernization is the answer not beheading. The rss uah has wrecked their plans. Anyone with half a brain knows the alarmism is bs (bad science). It’s a political movement run it’s course. Talk about poor losers!

  53. Bishop Hill posted,
    “Bluecloud [who calls for beheading people he does not agree with; specifically people like Matt Ridley] turns out to be another Guardian author, Gary Evans, whose day job is as a boat-driver and translator for Greenpeace.”

    Bluecloud’s violence focused comments reveal his stark craziness; a craziness that offends independent thinkers in the climate dialog.
    By this recent association with Dana’s posts as a commenter, Gary (Bluecloud) Evans makes Dana at the Guardian look even kookier than before.
    John

  54. parody on/
    {apologies to the creators of the movie ‘The Matrix’}
    The Guardian environmental head of staff has a meeting with its authors Dana Nuccitelli and Gary (Bluecloud) Evans as a result of Dana’s Guardian post ‘Matt Ridley wants to gamble the Earth’s future because he won’t learn from the past’ and Gary’s (Bluecloud’s) violence inciting comments on that Dana post which advocate beheading people who he disagrees with (like suggesting beheading Matt Ridley).
    At the meeting the Guardian environmental head of staff offers each of them two pills; a red pill and a blue pill. He says to them, “This is your last chance Dana and Gary (Bluecloud). After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill – your silliness in front of skeptics ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill – you must participate in a real debate on climate with the skeptics and they will show you how deep the alarmist climate change rabbit-hole goes.”
    Dana responds, “I’ll take the blue pill. Everyone at Cook’s blog will want one too.”
    Gary (Bluecloud) responds, “I’ll swallow both pills at the same time so I can be even crazier than before in blog comments advocating violence against skeptics.”
    /parody off
    John

  55. This illegal threatening conduct is not new – it has been happening for more than a decade.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/12/charlie-hebdo-climate-skepticism-free-speech/#comment-1835330
    Recently sent to a friend who wrote an article critical of global warming alarmism:
    You will know you have truly “arrived” when you receive your first death threat from the enviro-nuts. Dr. Tim Ball has received several. I feel somewhat slighted because I only received rather lame one – more than a decade ago.
    Warmist violence has been minor – one scientist friend had the family dog killed, an oil industry colleague had his house fire-bombed – as was the Calgary Petroleum Club.
    I was concerned that violence would ramp up as the warmists became more desperate – fortunately this has not happened (yet).
    I did recommend many years ago that my friends take certain precautions – lock your office entrances, vary your routes home, etc. I still think this is prudent.
    Environmental extremism appeals to the uneducated and the feeble-minded – fortunately most of these people are too lazy to take serious action.
    Best regards, Allan
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/27/a-big-goose-step-backwards/#comment-1800850
    Here is a list of those forced from their institutions by global warming thugs:
    George Taylor – Oregon State Climatologist
    Sallie Baliunas – Harvard University
    Pat Michaels – University of Virginia
    Murry Salby – Macquarie University, Australia
    Caleb Rossiter – Institute for Policy Studies
    Nickolas Drapela, PhD – Oregon State University
    Henrik Møller – Aalborg University, Denmark

  56. The Guardian is not solvent financially but kept afloat by government subsidy. UKgov clearly feel the country needs a state funded mouthpiece of liberofascism.

  57. When the hell did science become about running off half cocked to become a global hero instead being about understanding the question in the first place?

  58. >>BCBill
    January 23, 2015 at 5:26 pm
    ATHeoK has it. Brilliant. Their rallying cry is “off with their heads”, ours is “on with their heads” (or brains at least.
    ladylifegrows
    January 23, 2015 at 6:43 pm
    On with their heads. I like that. That slogan might actually get somewhere by showing us as more rational and safer to have around..<<
    If you want to get ahead, get a head.

Comments are closed.