From Bishop Hill, another ugly day in the climate wars. At least we have Josh.
Andrew 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.
Bishop Hill I gather that a comment outing Bluecloud as a Guardian author has been removed from the thread. The death threat remains in place.
Reblogged this on suyts space and commented:
This is the climate alarmists. It is who they are and what they believe.
Here’s a screenshot (hopefully) for anyone who wants to view the comment in a slightly wider context :
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2qKORan7fzBbi1pV2xoZHZmdWc/edit
Anything:
Thanks for posting that link.
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?”
That name sounds sort of ….. .Islamic. !
Is Hasmi Muslim? Beheading seems to go with the territory.
Hasmi didn’t talk about beheading, only making threatening noises.
Guardian guest author and Greenpeace employee Gary Bluecloud Evans talks about beheading.
“Intolerance Burns Inside the Left Like a Poison……”
Don’t forget the psychological phenomenon of Projection.
It’s everyone else who is intolerant, not the Progressive.
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.
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.
In view of Jihadi John’s beheading of western captives, Gary Evans call is particularly tasteless.
When he says Mere calls for a beheading evolve such a strong response in you people. I think he means “induce.” Hateful and illiterate.
“hateful and illiterate” two peas in a pod.
The second one begets the first.
I AM MATT RIDLEY
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.
Patrick Moore, a key insider, has plenty to say about them:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2794116/greenpeace-condemned-original-founder-evil-guilty-losing-humanitarian-roots.html
A staunch defender of Bjørn Lomborg’s right to defend himself against critics of The Skeptical Environmentalist. As was The Git back in the day…
Ah, now I remember. BLUECLOUD. Ehrlich’s prediction that in the year 1980 we would all turn into blue clouds, because of, I forget, pollution I think.
i can’t find it but I think this could be where the name Bluecloud comes from.
While searching I found this article about Julian Simon. Worth a read.
http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/5.02/ffsimon_pr.html
And there’s much more here: http://www.juliansimon.com/
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.
That’s right hunter. The faithful need an uplift from these self-induced, dark places.
http://www.bioapply.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/bondi-lead.jpg
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.
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
Well it was nice that the statement included comedic material.
This is a good one too:
Tell that to the people with 218 million views.
It must suck to live in deluded hatred.
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
Kind of ironic “GREEN” and “PEACE”
GREENPISS
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-norfolk-29552557
It’s basically a climate jihad we are up against. In their hearts lurks violence against any who dare question the orthodoxy.
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.
Do you mean I’ve been powdering my chinchilla all this time with the wrong stuff!?
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.
Guardian, like Spiegel and NYT, is a CIA outlet. See the synchronous Snowden worship in the 3 organs.
Off topic but also very funny. Jon Stewart skews skews the Davos world forum for flying in on 1,700 private jets to address climate change and income inequality. Yes that is accurate. 1,700 Private jets in the cause of CO2 reduction and economic equality.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/01/23/jon_stewart_1700_private_jets_in_davos_is_the_height_.html
Stewart for non-US viewers:
I posted an item at the Guardian to the effect:
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……
As was Hitler in 1938….but that’s not relevant to this discussion…
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 .
OK, I’ve tried again. Will the Guardian remove this comment:
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.
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…