Twitter feed:

Feed / Bookmark

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Subscribe

More feeds:
  Political updates only

Add to your page:
Click to get widget. Full feed
Click to get widget. Political updates only

Technorati & Stuff

« Will the real ClimateGate please stand up? (part 1) | Main | Quit Coal: clean renewable fuels NOW! »

Will the real ClimateGate please stand up? (part 2)

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

Want a good deal for the climate? Sign up as a climate activist!
Email: Country:

Comments

I'm with you!
I don't know if we'll win the battle. However, I'm absolutely sure that those who deserve it will get their trial. The problem is, they can hardly be troubled by a trial that may lay 50 years in the future. The slowness of their crime provides them with a legal delay that surpasses any timescale of relevance to a human life. They can easily commit their crimes and hope they will only be convicted long after they die.
The climate crisis is an unprecedented case and no law in the world was designed to deal with this kind of international and intergenerational injustice.
The law is nothing more than a pragmatical creation of the human mind to deal with human-induced injustice. It is therefore imperfect and by no means equal to justice, ethics or truth. We therefore have the right to break the law in the name of morality, love and life.
The danger of revolution is that it may start with ideology and end up with brutality. So we need to emphasize nonviolence more than ever. That is why I'm a member of Greenpeace: because nonviolent civil disobedience is the only viable way out of the upcoming catastrophe.

Juliette, this is a very threatening post. You will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and litigated into the stone age.

I have copied this blog and forwarded it to the appropriate officials.

Juliette here: To be clear: There is nothing illegal about using to tools that democracy enables us to use to protect our planet - our wallets and our votes, protest and free speech.
On the other hand, non-violent direct action may sometimes be illegal, but as its name states, it's non-violent.

"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."

Is this now the way that Greenpeace now wins an argument? By ending an article with thinly cloaked threats of violence? This is the tactic of those who know they have lost. And how did Greenpeace lose? Greenpeace has lost by taking the easy out… by supporting those who have manipulated data and exaggerated their claims.

"Hide the decline", "Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035", "Polar Bears going extinct", omitting weather reporting stations in the wilderness of Canada, China, and Siberia and dozens of other shocking manipulation of data and outlandish lies. These are not the actions of people interested in scientific truth. And now threats. Greenpeace, how low can you go? It is no wonder your organization is losing credibility with the public.

Earth to Greenpeace....no one cares . I didn't even read the article. Its over for you guys and your AGW ideology/scam . It just isn't true, and all the spokes fell out of the wheel overnight.
Perosnally I never for a second fell for it. You guys rely on the sheeple out there, not the intellectuals . Good luck with your next fast one.

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

"

Sounds like a threat, mafia-style. Doesn't buy you any sympathy here.
"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."

Oh thanks, i'm german and i'm already paying a shitload. I'm still not impressed.

Now listen you people: Go ahead, become outlaws. Join the prison population and see how its like. You have my full support.

"And we be many, but you be few.

"

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Go ahead, break the law, get arrested. I'll applaud.

First of all the idea that human CO2 has any significant impact on climate is totally and forever DEBUNKED. If CO2 had a big impact then that impact would have certainly become evident by now. But NOOOO! Arctic Sea Ice, a trusted indicator of the direction of global temperature has GROWN BACK in only 3 year's time to be right at a 30 year average level. Even your hero Phil Jones now admits that there's now been no significant warming since 1995. In other words, WE ARE NOW COOLING. What part of 'cooling' is it that you do not understand?

If you think you are fighting 'big money' you are 180 degrees wrong. The BIG money is on YOUR side, like 30 BILLION dollars of tax payer money WASTED on 'studying' a problem that does not exist, (instead of putting it to good use to fight REAL poisons in the water and air).

CO2 is the primary gas of LIFE on this planet and here are you trying to stop more it from being around. More CO2 is GOOD for LIFE! I thought Greenpeace was is favor of living things like plants and animals like I am? Apparently not.. you have allowed yourselves to become stooges of the political left parroting their false claims that millions, (yes, I said millions..), of engineers and scientists like me know are are BUNK!

There are a LOT more of us than there are of you, your gravy train chasing government scientests and your idiot politicians like Henry Waxman who co-sponsered your 'climate legislation' but doesn't even know that there's water under the north pole, (yeah, the idiot really thinks that there's land under there!)

May I suggest that you clean your own house, kick out the progressives who co-opted your organization for their lame political agenda and get back to protecting earth and living creatures from REAL threats, (like wind turbines that kill 100,000's of birds each year all over the world or biofuel mandates that will eventually starve the third world.)

I'm not bankrolling or 'cattle prodding' anyone and nobody is paying me - and it is only me, I know the TRUTH, and know there are LOT more just like me. You are NOT going to shut all of us up with your stinking commie/facist THREATS either.

To think that I actually used to like Greenpeace for some of good things you tried to do...

Wallets !! I didn't know you hippies had wallets.

Congratulations.

You just crossed the line into being a terrorist organization.

You are a total fucking idiot.

Hey, I'm one of those who spent my life undermining the "consensus". We don't see eye-to-eye on matters scientific. I wrote the first FOI to CRU requesting Phil Jones' DATA, and guess what?

After lying to me repeatedly and illegally fobbing off my requests, he finally had to admit he'd lost the data ... and you call that "science"? The only reason the police didn't indict him is the statute of limitations had run out.

For Greenpeace publicly to threaten me and my family ("we know where you live") because I don't agree with your beliefs is despicable. You guys have lost the plot entirely when you take to threatening people with whom you disagree.

You do see the "peace" up in your name there? How about living up to it? Call off your dogs, they will only bite you in the end.

Dear GreenPeace,

The true sign of a failed belief system is when its adherents, having failed to persuade the populace by reasoned debate, resort instead to violence. It matters not if we are speaking of the millions who died under Communism’s jackboot while their economy disintegrated, or of those murdered by Fascists determined to establish order through racial superiority, or of the brutal repression of the Dark Ages or of Islamic extremists raising their children to become suicide bombers.

What matters is that we understand that these belief systems failed because they were founded upon a false premise. They failed because force of arms and the death of millions can obligate the populace to conform to the belief system, but no amount of brutality and extermination will make the falsehoods into something they are not. The facts will endure no matter how many people are tortured into false confessions, or how many are executed to silence those who would speak the truth. Burning books does not erase the facts within them, only the record of them.

No one let’s go of a long held belief system easily. But those who firmly believe in themselves and their facts will redouble their efforts to convince others by means of persuasion. Those who instead resort to violence to impose their beliefs on others are, by doing so, admitting that they have no other means by which to persuade. Their arguments and evidence having failed, they turn instead to coercion.

GreenPeace would do well to expunge from their midst those who imply that violence may be justified to win the global warming debate. If the facts and evidence are indeed with you, then redouble your efforts to research, document and persuade. But if you allow to exist amongst you those who would choose a path of violence, then you have abandoned reason and fact. You may wrap yourself in a cloak of morality, but the blood stains upon your hands will still be yours. Perhaps instead you should pause and ask why it is that you have set one toe on the same path followed before you by those who had naught but violence to suppress the falsity of their beliefs, and that this perhaps has more to do with your failure than you had supposed.

Putting a gun to my head is not an argument. It is a descent into madness. It is an attempt to repeat history, the lessons of which you clearly have not learned.

Lol.. what a crazy

I won't be holding my CO2 breath.

Come and get me, GreenVIOLENCE. Even your name is a lie, just like your global warming propaganda has been.

Feel free to come to Wyoming and find me, Gene from India. Bring friends. Make it a party.

You won't last three seconds.

NASA (GISS), Hadley, and more have all been shown to be spewing b.s. as "data" and your organization is showing itself to be less and less relevant as the billions wasted on "proving" AGW have failed to do so.

So come and get me, jackass. Show me that the "peace" in Greenpeace is as false as the rest of the organization has proven to be.

You sure as hell won't be getting MY support with your
bully-boy threats. As for calling CO2 'pollution' you really have taken a leaf from Goebbels propaganda book haven't you

Green "peace"...

If you don't do what we want, "we know where you live"...

"... our alternative vision of a world that runs on clean energy isn’t just a prototype, it’s already in production."

Sounds like a real nice place to live, as long as you do what we tell you to do.

I am appalled at this article. It sounds suspiciously like you are making death threats. I have supported Greenpeace in the past, but no more.

Talk about conspiracy theories! I am one of the millions of people who are unimpressed with the current state of climate science, and have been for some time (well before the "Climategate" emails). I think for myself - is that so impossible for you to accept?

I overlooked the observation that I presume that if one does not say what you want to hear, then comments will be rejected?

Juliette here: It's Easter week-end. I was away from my computer for over 20 hours. Sorry for the delay in approving the comments.
Have a happy Easter :)

This whole article is violent and essentially fascist in nature. Greenpeace should be ashamed of allowing it to be posted under its banner.

"We know where you live" - the cry of the bully everywhere.

"We know who you are, where you live"?

Lookout, loonies about.

I agree completely. We should hunt them down and bombard them with malodorous pineapples. That will teach them to be sceptical. 'Cause scepticism is evil. They're all evil capitalist bastards. I AHTE THEM! KILL THEM ALL! THE BASTARDS!!1 BLARAHEGRHAEGRERERWER!!11

Charming. Reminiscent of the Nazis approach to dealing with those who disagree with them.

I shall be reporting this to the Charity Commissioner later today.

I was a supporter of you Greenpeace, but this article is simply outraceous.

I know where YOU green people live in Holland.

You should not have made me angry.. the FIGHT is on then..

Better warn you're lazy green bitches... I fuck all of you.

Call me naive, but I was shocked by the Greenpeace article.

I remember the days when I admired Greenpeace for saving whales, and other laudable causes. I have donated money to them on a number of occasions (though not recently since I became an AGW sceptic). I even visited Rainbow Warrior when I had the opportunity a few years ago, although it was a disappointing experience – the Greenpeacers who were on board at the time were very unfriendly and seemed quite arrogant, as activists often do.

Nevertheless I have always had a bit of a soft spot for Greenpeace, and I am truly shocked that they could publish this nasty, hate-filled article on their official website. I also thoroughly resent the implication that I am unable to think for myself. They won’t be getting any more money from me. I have posted a comment (with my real name) on their website but I very much doubt it will be published.

These threats are certainly illegal in the USA.

Please remove from your website.!

Bring it on.

give me your address and I'll show you threats.

Cowards!

WAR you want.. it is WAR you get.

You damn nazi's

What a filthy article.

Evryone, please witdraw all donations to these extremists

You are a bit mad, are you not?
"We know where you live!" ? Nice.
On that basis I shall punch the next Greenpeace "chugger" who approaches me rather than just politely refusing.

Looks like you have lost the infowars and now your only option is to promote suicide for greenpeace. good luck with that nutball!.

Hey lazy bastards without a job,

the article is still here.. please remove.. or else !

Suggest One death greeny for every hours it stays on. Deal ?

Juliette here: no deal. At no point does Gene threaten anyone with physical violence. Greenpeace believes in non-violent direct action. If you believe the blog above is illegal, then your comment also definitively is.
Have a nice Easter :)

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

Thank you to confirm that blatantly that Greepeace is a terrorist group.

You need to take a chill pill man

re: "We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work."

Please do get in touch.

Sir,

You do not have the guts to carry out your piss-weak threats.

Geoff

haha so adorable

fight! :)

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

Intimidation has no place in this or any debate. I will not be giving to Greenpeace again.

I oppose your ridiculous stance. Do you know where I live you Eco-loons? Of course not. Twats.

O Rly?

We've always known you're genocidal fascists - this just another case in point. You're Pol Pot year zero will not happen - in thanks, in part to amature unfunded so called 'skeptics'! Your losing the argument despite your massive funding from shell and other oil companies etc! Bring it on, impotence!

Disgusting. You can't get your way so you threaten those who don't share your point of view.

So this is what it comes down to? Threats of mob violence? I don't want to fight, but obviously if anyone is hunting me mob-style at home and at work I'm going to retaliate. And most people I know will as well. That may end up being quite a challenge for you guys.

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

And we be many, but you be few."

Isn't this language more appropriate for the Shining path, Red Brigades, or others? Language like this never accimplishes its goal, unless that goal is the writer trying to sound self-righteous.

Come and get it then you fascist bastards.

"We know where you live"...Fuck you, you wouldn't last 30 seconds.

I take your threats of violence seriously and will now treat ALL Greenpeace people as potential terrorists who are out to do violence to me and mine.

You have sown the wind....

Thanks to Jihad Gene --Greenpeace has officially crossed the line into an eco-terrorists organization.

Anyone sending any monies in support of Greenpeace will be viewed as a terrorist supporter and be treated in accordance with laws of the US, Canada, and Europe.

Should the "Site owner" chose NOT to publish this comment - I will ensure its published on my blog, and goes viral via twitter & facebook.

And trust me, once an organization becomes part of a countries terrorist watchlist, it will be easy to find out who has donated to Greenpeace..albeit it is already easy to do so.

Dear Juliana,
At no point in this entry did Gene threaten to do anything more than civil disobedience and non-violent direct action - neither of which involve any kind of violence.
Peace,

Juliette

Please continue calling for violence, making up fantasy conspiracies, and other excuses to blame the problems with AGW on those pointing out the problems of AGW.
Asserting that the climate can be controlled by controlling CO2 is one of the worst of many poor ideas the environmental movement has ever latched on to.
The only thing worse is to use CO2 obsession as an excuse to commit violence and terrorism.
The strategies and hatred now advocated by Greenpeace, Hansen, and other AGW promoters are the acts of losers, not winners.

My goodness, this is a way too much. You stop and you listen to yourselves - you terorists!
I surely hope someone will challenge your actions in a court, you lazy parasites!
You can just dream about getting any more of my money. You should issue one very quick, and a VERY BIG PUBLIC APOLOGY!
Shame on you!

Bring it on you bitch!

And forget the "we are many" part. Polls in most countries say you are the few because they don't believe your "let US save the earth" bullcrap. And I will be suprised if this comment airs.

BTW. this comment is from Norway. I think I'll have whale steak for dinner today. You know, they are easy to find in the store. Where they belong, right next to the fishsticks. I'm not lying, that is actually true.

"Dear Juliana,
At no point in this entry did Gene threaten to do anything more than civil disobedience and non-violent direct action - neither of which involve any kind of violence.
Peace,

Juliette"

I call bullshit on you and add hypocrisy to the list of your crimes. This article will be forwarded to the appropriate authorities. Trying to weasel out of what are clearly direct threats of violence will not work.

Dear g1lgam3sh (I hope for you that's not your real name ;) )
Maybe this is just cultural differences after all. Gene comes from India, a country that was freed from imperialism by non-violent direct action qnd civil disobedience. Using the same radical methods (and I understand that they make some people uncomfortable) to face the most dangerous threat our planet's climate has ever faced doesn't seem to be bullshit to me.
Gene is a good friend of mine, and I know him for being a peaceful person, albeit sometimes quite controversial. Don't assume violence if it's not there.
Juliette

By constantly focusing on AGW Greenpeace is being distracted from real, demonstrable environemntal problems (deforestation, air pollution etc). And this most recent tack into promoting violence has turned you from a well-meaning if delusion bunch of hippies into a gang of thugs.

Hi,
See the answer to previous comments regarding the violence part.
On climate change: we know that Climate Chnage is real, it's happening now, and it's costing lives already. To do nothing in the face of this would be disowning everything we are.
Regarding pollution, deforestation and many other issues: fear not, we're still working on them. I hope you'll join us in taking non-violent direct action to tackle these very important issues.
Juliette

Another stupid screed by an intellectually and morally bankrupt organization. Your numbers decrease as your followers get dumber and dumber with every generation. Funny how you use the internet and computers (they are created by chemicals and energy far greater than your feeble minds can comprehend), but that is OK by your hypocritical standards as you are using your “enemy’s” methods of communication, to beat him at his own game.

Here is the reality: it is the sun. Unfortunately, your lack of any openness to real science and the gullibility of the masses to follow fear-based tactics (yours is the new religion) based on “models” and “data” that are violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Now I really never cared for your ilk, as usually people tend to grow up, get a job, pay taxes, and vote. However, after reading this screed, I am beginning to think that you are preaching for violence. Sure, I see your sudden responses to comments stating there is “no threats of physical violence”, and you are right: you and your pathetic vegan minions have not a clue to cause violence.

What it will probably be is a bunch of namby-pambies with rocks, faces covered in hankerchiefs or masks (as your cockroach like cowardly actions deem), causing minor damages to small business owners.

You are all weaklings. If you ever tried to march lock step to “overthrow” the rest of us tax paying, business owning voters, we would react with a backlash you and your foolish vegans would never imagine. And it will be with serious jail time. I will gladly pay extra taxes to see you removed from society to break rocks for the balance of your pathetic lives. Enjoy the shower time with your new companion(s).

Besides, you progressives are a complete joke! None of you can fall upon a single, simple agreement.

Yours Truly,
The Silent Majority

Dear Von,
Unfortunately, it's not the sun, it's us. And the threat we are posing to our planet's climate is such that many people - voters, small business owners, employees, young and old, rich and poor, parents, children - worldwide, are standing up and participating in civil disobedience.
Juliette

What a horribly threatening tone...absolutely disgusting. Healthy Skepticism is met with personal threats (we know where you live/work/etc.). All of James Cameron's CO2 spewing billion$ won't help you now - IT. IS. ON.

I am eco-fascist, hear me roar!

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

And we be many, but you be few.

First of all, I think you'll find you're the ones in the minority.

Second, you want to come after me because I refuse to drink the AGW koolaid?

Go ahead. Make my day.

If you know where I live, you should also know how well armed I am. Don't bring a baby seal to a gunfight, hippie.

Dear policraticus,
I don't believe anyone had mentionned a gun fight so far. I'm sorry to say we won't be joining you in it - this is not what civil disobedience and non-violent direct action is about.
Juliette

Yawn. As many others have noted, the rest of us are much better armed than you fascist hippies. You won't like what you'll get if you bring your crap to our doors.

War of the Worlds- watermelons

All you brainwashed climate terrorists should be rounded up and sent to Iran, Saudi Arabia or maybe China and then you can see how wonderful the countries are, you are helping to wage economic war against us.

CO2 is plant food!!!

Juliette, you are playing with fire.Your semantic defense of the article is feeble at best.

The basic jist of the piece was that AGW proponents have lost the battle for the hearts, minds and wallets of the people by playing nice.It is time to not play nice by going to direct action.

As we have seen with the ARA morons, that road usually leads to incredibly mean spirited (to coin a phrase you like) violence, which is unacceptable.

The post called for violence in an indirect fashion.Don't take us all for fools, you will reap what you sow.

As one blogger in Canada said about your post (and I paraphrase)..they may know where we live, but we have more bullets.

Hi Kursk,
I'm sorry that you don't seem to know the difference between non-violent direct action and violence. For us, the difference is quite clear, and Gene even gave examples in his blog:
"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."
I don't think we need violence to be a force for positive change - and neither does Gene.
Peace,
Juliette

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

Bring it, you trustafarian assholes. PLEASE bring it.

"And we be many, but you be few."

Don't bet on it. The world has one hell of a lot more ordinary working stiffs than it has of dreadlocked white kids who majored in "environmental consciousness studies" at Cannabis State U.

Oooohhhhh, *I* get it, "Juliette."

Make it *sound* reeeeeeeeaaaalllllly threatening,
"as if" you would encourage and condone violence -
WHICH YOU DO, whether you intended to or not (not gonna hold my breath for an explicit "correction" on the page) -
and then back off of the "battle cry" ("wet diaper cry" is more like it) in the most cowardly manner.

You bring it on to me or anyone, anywhere near where I live and you may not live to regret it.../s
SEE?! I'M NOT SUGGESTING VIOLENCE EITHER (you might get hit by a car or suffer a heart attack)!

You are such a pack of LOSERS, each and every one of you. Go hug a polar bear...and remember to bring enough orange rope to spell out:
"H-E-L-P C-O-L-D!"
Hi,
I'm sorry to see we don't have the same definition of non-violent direct action, though I hope that we can come to a compromise and say that "the power of our votes, our taxes, our wallets", as Gene put it in the blog above, applies under that definition.
Peace,
Juliette

Collectively, you've spent decades mis-educating the world about the Earth Sciences in order to push your simple-minded and utterly discredited economic/social philosophies.
Keep up your ignorance, your hatred of Western Civilization and your pathetic attention-seeking stunts for as long as you want. Even call it a "war" on those of us who know the truth, if that makes you feel a little tougher.
But you know and I know that history will expose your movement for what it is. Doesn't matter how long you fake it, the truth will win, humanity will win, and Greenpeace will join the long roster of absurdist political organizations that briefly achieves relevance before being exposed for what it is.

Reminds me of a joke by the irish comedian Dave Allen, when told by someone that if everyone in China passed his door the line would never end... to which Allen responded "How would they know where I live?

I suppose he could ask Greenpeace, they know where we ALL live. Apparently

I have one answer for your
"Green" "Peace" ass

7.62

And you WILL get it if you try to take over MY democracy by violence/force/rebellion.

As one other person has already posted earlier. Only a failed religion would resort to violence in it's death thrones.

GREENPEACE KISS MY ASS! YOU BUNCH OF WATERMELONS!

Hi,
I'm sorry to see we don't have the same definition of non-violent direct action, though I hope that we can come to a compromise and say that "the power of our votes, our taxes, our wallets", as Gene put it in the blog above, applies under that definition.
Peace,
Juliette

Anytime you want to try it, greenball, you can open that door.
Try not to snivel when something comes out at you, though.

I come from France and I want to say something :

I love Nestlé. I love my car and I don't like you.

Hello Hello,
Je suis aussi Française, et désolée de voir quevous n'aimez pas Greenpeace. Je suis vraiment curieuse de connaitre vos raisons pour cela. La balle est dans votre camp pour commencer une discussion constructive.
Joyeuses Pâques,
Juliette

I wish I could say we know where YOU live, but your van keeps moving around.

Ye Gods Gene, if brains was gunpowder, there wouldn't be enough to blow your hat off.

Think a moment of the ludicrous nature of the risible statements you have made,and the criminal incitements you have made which breach many laws. mamany countries

Make your move you Green Nazi Ecotards. We await with pleasure.

I personally look forward to your next face to face solicitation drive.

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

Likewise.

Despite Greenpeace's desperate attempts to hide their internal structure, the identity of their directing minds and even their street addresses, it's all there, if you look hard enough in various government registries, many of which are on-line. Right now.

Hmmm.... "Gene Hashmi" "Greenpeace India" Bangalore... Bet I have his home or office address or general whereabouts in under two hours. Is that a threat? Juliette says no, but she's such an obvious liar.

Juliette, Your defense of veiled violent threats are pretty lame. If you want to see what real non-violent civil protest looks like go to a Tea Party event. They are protesting by rallying people to their cause and running people for office.As for Gene, if you know where i live then you also know that I keep a 357 next to my bed and as a man who protected you panty waist butt used to say, "bring it on".

Dear Bob,
The methods of the tea party movement aren't actually that different from the civil disobedience Greenpeace believes in - expect we don't bring guns to rallies, don't have the same goals, and Greenpeace, as a non-profit organisation, cannot run anyone for office. We protest, we use non-violence principles promoted by Gandhi, and as Gene put it, we use "the power of our votes, our taxes, our wallets" - and other creative non-violent direct action listed above.
If you think that's "lame", then maybe we're not as violent as you originally thought? ;)
Peace,
Juliette

All I can say is "bring it"! Vague childish threats of violence don't impress me. You're theories are demented farces and you're posturings are laughable.

Your bs theories and manipulated data have probably doomed hundreds of thousands to death or misery. The best example of your ilk was the video of your brethren signing petitions against "dihydrodgen oxide" (that one was hilarious when I viewed it).

You want to throw down for real then you are welcome to come to me anytime, I need the practice.

JD - I've got a feeling we're going to have to agree to disagree on the state of climate science.

I want to clear one thing up though: No one has threatened you with violence. We're a peaceful bunch.

Yes, we're going to expose the money trail behind the climate change denial machine. Yes, we're going to protest, march and maybe even boycott.

But we've been a peaceful organization for the past 39 years, and we're staying that way.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

Dear Juliana,
At no point in this entry did Gene threaten to do anything more than civil disobedience and non-violent direct action - neither of which involve any kind of violence."

Actually, he quite specifically advocates "more"...

"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."

I'm guessing if a Tea Partier had used similar language, you'd be calling for his trial at the Hague.

Hi Lincoln,
I would say the "more" mentioned refered to what came after that sentence: using legal means like buying a piece of land, taking non-violent direct action, civil disobedience. I find this actually quite clear in context - but if you didn't, I hope this clears it up for you.
Peace,
Juliette

Bring it you progressive fascists . . . we kicked the shit out of Adolf so you weenies should be no challenge.

A disgusting de-evolution of a good organization going so fast downhill that it no longer matters.

No more funds, time for criminal investigations.

Or in plain simple English, Greenpeace and Greenpeacers suck.

Really, really suck.


Lee - Got to say I like your spirit. Really appreciate that you don't mince words.

I'll be plain with you in return - We're a peaceful organization. That goes for me, Gene and anyone else acting under the Greenpeace banner.

We've been around for almost 40 years, and we've always stuck to the principle of peaceful civil disobedience.

You can see some examples here...

http://www.greenpeace.org/me2

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

Juliette:
To me it sound like a threat and violence.
this:

"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."

and this:

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."

in the uk we have had animal right extremists, commit acts defined as terrorism and even diging up corpses of scientists relatives.. And these guys were only saving animals...

Imagine, how I feel thatthere are extremists out there, that are convince the ends justifes the means, because they are saving the planet...

It is time to make a stand for sanity. those people that have been too polite to stand up to ths sort of behaviour, must now say stop no more, PROVE IT

I even hasd second thoughts about using my name, and letting you have my email address...

You will look after it won't you?

You won't pass it on to any friends like these, will you?

Hi Barry,
Thanks for a constructive comment. Your email certainly is safe with me :)
Do you really believe that being an outlaw immediately makes you a terrorist? What about Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Nelson Mandela? They were definitively outlaws, not for being violent, but for breakig the law for higher good. This is the kind of "outlaw" Gene means.
Defending democracy from people trying to hijack it by paying politicians to do their dirty work, that's something we can agree on, isn't it?
Juliette

Hey asshole, I turned on my gas fireplace just now and I'm not even cold. Come get me.

Hi Paulie,
I am quite baffled as to why you would do such a thing to spite me - I'm not the one paying for your gas bill.
Peace,
Juliette

this is what happens when 'progressives' don't get their way- they resort to violence.

BRING IT, TREEHUGGERS

News Flash: "Greenpeace Hippies Raise Tiny-and-Impotent Fists of Fury against World, Reality".

Hi Anna,
That made me smile. How about this headline? :)
Happy Easter,
Juliette

You're drinking your own bathwater.
First you lie about AGW, then you use those lies as justification for more lies, now you use those lies as justification for illegal acts.

You are insane.

If AGW is so evident, why must the so called scientists lie to prove it?
It's a circle of logic.


Hi Stan,
Actually, it has been established by a bi-partisan group of parliamentaries in the UK that none of that alleged "lies" actually happened.
Climate Change is real, it's happening now and it's going to be incredibly destructive. This is why people everywhere are taking the kind of non-violent direct action Gene talks about above.
Peace,
Juliette

I agree with your comment on coal and oil. Down with China! Down with OPEC. I no longer heat with Arab oil or any oil at all. I burn renewable energy only in my woodstove. And Solar porch. Down with those who still burn oil!

Best regards, Saipan

PS: Freedom for all! Long live Free CBC Forum!

How about getting the "deniers" down by using scientific arguments?

Oh, you tried that, and for some reason it doesnt work using science?

Well, then of course one must leave normal sound scientific arguments and try something else.

Hi Frank,
Actually, a lot of people are doing that, and finding no problems backing the science. You can find a good resource of arguments here.
Happy Easter,
Juliette

Hi all,

I had a chat with Juliette and we decided to re-open the comments (they were closed for about an hour).

She was understandably freaked out by the violent tone of some of the people posting.

While we encourage and appreciate discussion in the comments, do stay polite and don't incite violence. (Not towards our staff, not towards people we disagree with, not towards anyone. Please be nice people. Thanks.)

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

Anyone still believing in AGW is suffering from True Believer Syndrome.
AGW is no longer about climate science. It is about a social movement seeking to impose its demands on the world. The evidence is that AGW promoters have used false data, corrupt means and political push to to advance the demands of groups like Greenpeace is obvious.
To continue to grant the AGW movement credibility takes a deliberate act of evasion on the part of the true believers. Part of that evasion is to distract people with increasingly shrill demands for violence against those perceived as enemies.

This is my tipping point!

Gene wrote: "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...."

Like so many True Believers, it seems that Gene has more than a few issues with the practice of democracy and legal forms of seeking redress - at least when those who use such forms don't agree with him.

Take care, Gene, lest your righteousness incites actions you'll have trouble defending.

And before you say it, Juliette, the confrontational tone Gene uses might be intended as non-violent, but even non-violent actions can be illegal and will be viewed by opponents as threatening their legal rights, if not their persons.

Hi Mike,
I agree that non-violence is sometimes illegal, and Greenpeace activists have stood proud in court in the past, not cowaring away from the consequences of their actions - though in some cases, the damage they prevented has been established to be enough to justify their actions and find them non-guilty.
Happy Easter,
Juliette

If Greenpeace truly does not support the positions and ideas asserted in the above article, I suggest you print a rebuttal making clear the organization's position vis-a-vis this particular member's.

And internal debate open for all to see on the matter would be good for everyone.

The question is, do you have the organizational courage to do so?

Time will tell. Because we all know that the blogger in question is not alone in his beliefs, nor does he hold the most radical views.

Rather, he is the tip of an iceberg in a sea full of icebergs...

Dear Dr. Deano,
As stated in the introduction of this blog, Gene is not known to be a diplomat in the Greenpeace world and his ideas and ways of writing can be controversial.
However, what Gene talks about above is civil disobedience and non-violent direct action - two tactics that Greenpeace has been using for a very long time.
Peace,
Juliette

Phil Jones himself admitted there's been no statistically significant warming in fifteen years. AGW theory is in the toilet now.

But do continue with your embarrassing spasms of twee rage. Do continue to threaten violence with your laughable "We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work." It's an enjoyable spectacle.

Let me remind you again of what you've said on the Web, which is now permanent:

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

That will be around 25 years from now to embarrass you. You should apologize right away for this little spasm of hatred and threat of violence.

Hi Jim,
On your first point: you're selectively quoting.
On your second point: you're also selectively quoting, ignoring the entire blog post before that led up to that.
Wishing you a happy Easter,
Juliette.

She was understandably freaked out by the violent tone of some of the people posting.

But she wasn't freaked out by her own threats of violence at our homes and our workplaces? You have got to be kidding.

This blog is a joke.

Hi again Jim,
Considering quite a few of the comments consisted in death and rape threats - and not matter how many times I read the blog above, I couldn't find similar threats - I felt, as Andew put it "freaked out".
Peace,
Juliette

GreenPeace has outed itself as a radical, violent, anti-science group with this article. Man made global warming is falling apart because the science does not confirm it. In fact, science, real science, continues to expose it as a sham. Resorting to violent taunts is the last act of a deperate, defeated, shameful organization. GreenPeace deserves to be relegated to the ash heap of history just like other thug ideologies like communism.

Hilarious.

Juliette was freaked out by the responses to a post that contained threats.

The original post incites violence far more than any of the comments I've read.

What's that old saying about throwing stones from glass houses?

Considering quite a few of the comments consisted in death and rape threats - and not matter how many times I read the blog above, I couldn't find similar threats - I felt, as Andew put it, "freaked out".
Peace,
Juliette

Neo-luddites unite!

If you all can't see that your own post is what has incited these "violent" responses then your heads are further up your asses then I thought.

You reap what you sow. Urging the breaking of laws and using veiled, empty threats against those you disagree with seem like fighting words to me.

" hear this:
We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work."
Gee, would you be allowed to speak at Ottawa U saying such things? Sounds like what some people call Hate Speech to me.

And we be armed.

(Sorry, Andrew, I'm not buying it. "We know who you are, we know where you live, and we are tired of failing with legal means, so we're taking direct action," is a direct threat. If that's not what Greenpeace means, then you should delete the post and renounce the threat.)

Hi Charlie,
Re-posting a comment from above:
I'm sorry that you don't seem to know the difference between non-violent direct action and violence. For us, the difference is quite clear, and Gene even gave examples in his blog:
"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."
I don't think we need violence to be a force for positive change - and neither does Gene.
Peace,
Juliette

The closing part of the article definitely comes across as a not-so-veiled threat (in more than just the civil disobedience sense).

If you want to marginalize your organization, this is the way to go about it. To me this is not in the spirit of Greenpeace - c'mon clean up your act guys! (Sounds like the buck stops with Andrew)

Hi Oliver,
I'm sorry you take it that way, but as Andrew has explained, this is not what is meant by Gene, or by anyone in Greenpeace.
Non-violent direct action is, well, non-violent. Violence is indeed not the spirit of Greenpeace, and never will be. If anyone is aking the closure of this blog as a threat of violence, then they can feel re-assured that this is not the case.
Peace,
Juliette

When did ELF and GreenPeace finally merge?

We're the one's who believe in junk science? Ha-ha...

Okay, environmental "outlaws".. (LOL).. here I am. You have my IP address. Come and get me, badboy..

You green pissers are too funny.. :)

Andrew and Juliette:

You are two disingenuous cowards.

You post a threat to the world and expect the world to hug you?!

You compare your missive to the approaches of Ghandi or Martin Luther King? Really? Where are there published manifestos of incitement to law breaking, and threats of violence. And save me the rubbish of how no threat of violence is implied.

Wrong. We don't have to be nice. Not anymore.

Hi Moray,
I don't expect the world to hug me - and neither am I a coward. If you choose to believe a threat of violence appears in the blog entry above, I don't think there will be much I can do to change your mind.
Peace, always,
Juliette

Gene's comments are not a surprise given that most greens are rooted in the ideology of progressive eugenics. You hate humanity and human achievement and every now and again the mask of reasonableness slips....

Great. Juliette aka "Outlaw Cozy Whales" is "freaked out" by the comments, but not the threatening post?
Grow up.

The next Greenpeace person who accosts me on the street or shows up at my door asking for money...'cause they DON'T know where I live, ya see...is going to get an earful. We all outlaws now. Me and Ghandi and Gene.

Andrew, you'd better "have a chat" or perhaps a series of "chats" with Gene and thank him for pissing off your former donors. Namely, me.

Nice tone. Good Luck with that strategy.

Green"peace" is beginning to sound like the Japanese Red Army, the Baader Meinhof Gang, and the Symbionese Liberation Army and other self-deluded radical groups of the 1970s.

____

"Hi all,
I had a chat with Juliette and we decided to re-open the comments (they were closed for about an hour).

She was understandably freaked out by the violent tone of some of the people posting.

While we encourage and appreciate discussion in the comments, do stay polite and don't incite violence. (Not towards our staff, not towards people we disagree with, not towards anyone. Please be nice people. Thanks.)"

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

What self-righteous, self-serving tripe given that it is Green"peace" that is threatening people:

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

who disagree with their fanatical eco-religious beliefs.


I have forwarded this article to the Department of Homeland Security. I do not believe terrorist organizations are eligible for tax exemptions or corporate existence in the United States. Go ahead, threaten me all you want. You have neither the courage nor the ability to carry out your threats.

Juliette was freaked out by some of the people posting? I'm freaked out by this article!

You have got to be kidding me. You cut off comments because you are worried about the tone of comments in response to a blog that states all too clearly:

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

If you are going to hurl incendiary rhetoric on your blog, expect it in kind. You're assuming that your opponents don't know where you live and work as well. When you threaten to punch, don't be surprised when those who disagree with you threaten to punch right back.

This threatens to backfire on you badly - even if Gene did not explicitly threaten violence, can you not sense how this comes across? "We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few." This is extremist-talk. This evokes memories of the sort of nastiness animal rights organisation SHAC was up to in the UK before several activists-turned-outlaws were arrested and imprisoned in 2008. At their trial, Justice Butterfield said: "You are not going to prison for your beliefs, you are not going to prison for expressing your beliefs, you are going to prison because each of you has committed a very serious criminal offence." If Greenpeace actually does go down this road, it will be making a very serious error of judgement.

I'm impartial and I clearly hear threats of violence in Gene's post. Only someone wearing blinders would say otherwise. Greenpeace has now become an eco-terrorist group and it will lose many supporters as a result. I stopped donating decades ago, when Greenpeace moved beyond saving whales (an effort I supported). You lie down with dogs, Greenpeace, you wake up with fleas. Remember that.

I don't know why anyone is surprised by this outburst. Greenpeace and other progressive/socialisit organization on premised on the idea of imposing their will on others by threats of violence.

The thinking of a member of Greenpeace goes like this:

(1) My understanding of the causes and solutions of problem X are absolutely correct and those who disagree with me are absolutely wrong.

(2) This understanding that it gives me the moral right and even obligation to impose my solution on other people by any means necessary.

(3) My preferred means of imposing my will on other people is to use the violence based coercive power of the state. I will force the state to pass laws that conform to my will and if other people disagree, the state will hurt or kill them unless they conform to my will.

(4) However, since I am absolutely right, if the state will not enforce my will on other, I have the moral right and obligation to do so directly.

Greenpeace is just a branch on the tree of absolute righteousness that in the 20th century became the secular form of religious zealotry. Only instead of faith in the absolute correctness of their deity, they have faith in the absolute correctness and infallibility of their own intellects.

People in Greenpeace have an intellectual immune system that keeps them from considering contrary ideas. If you disagree with them, well you're just corrupt. Only people in Greenpeace are wise, thoughtful and acting from the purest motives. Everyone else is just scum.

But of course, that is the ultimate emotional appeal of Greenpeace isn't it? You get to be a shining knight riding in and "saving the world". And if the world doesn't need saving? Well, you create a narrative wherein it is in danger and smear anyone who disagrees.

In the end though, they will never be able to admit they were wrong. They can't. It's part of their entire concept of their own self-worth.

This why the author of the parent is driven to such extremes. His inability to impose his will on everyone else produce great emotional anguish. His entire world view and sense of self-worth is threatened by his impotence.

This will not end well.

What a transparent dodge. Go ahead and cloak yourselves in borrowed raiment, but it won't do any good - a child can see that the emperor has no clothes. You folks sure ain't no Martin Luther Kings. I don't recall King ever saying anything like "we know where you live." I suspect he'd have been disgusted by the implications. That's why he was a great man, and why you aren't. And for chrissakes don't pretend to be shocked by the "violent tone" of the responses. You started it; the "violent tonists" are just declaring their intent to defend themselves from assault by people like you.

Meanwhile, take some advice from an old man - be careful when you fiddle with your medications. You're not as young as you were in the '60s.

Gosh;
Threats now.
We are shaking in our socks.

You're way out of line.

Greenpeace behaved in a shameful way during the great international affair between Argentina and Uruguay, about the Finnish pulp mill installed on the Uruguay River in 2005: they presented the people in the Argentinean side with false claims of future pollution that instilled in their minds a tremendous psychosis against the pulp mill.

Greenpeace even brought mercenaries from Europe to perform commando attacks and attempted an invasion on the construction site; tried to hang banners and flags on the cranks and the harbor structures –invading private property, a crime all over the world. They later stopped truck traffic crossing the bridge between Argentina and Uruguay, inciting a closure of the bridge by picketers –closure that has remained until today, for three years without end, a crime against any laws and national constitutions.

Much later, when the matter worsened and some people got killed by the picketer’s actions, Greenpeace retreated in its posture because was losing the people’s support in Argentina. They promoted the whole thing and afterwards said they don’t condone violence –a violence they started in the first place!

http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Polit/Normandia-papeleras.html

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

I know a woman who has posted -- unpaid, and unsolicited -- comments on her web site critical of AGW. She's also a known feminist and a survivor of domestic violence, who has received death threats in the past. I'm quite sure that she would regard "we know where you live" as a direct threat. What would you think if a masculinist group issued such a statement to her?

It's clear to me that you have lost all claim to being progressive, or peaceful. Spare me the excuse that Gene didn't threaten anything more than civil disobedience. For civil disobedience you don't need to know where I live. You are issuing threats against people's homes and workplaces, and unless you remove those threats completely, and censure the man who made them, I can only conclude that Greenpeace endorses those threats.

"we be many, you be few" Arrrr, it's the greenie pirates! Avast with the SUV, matey, shiver me timbers!
Personally, I'd love to sentence all Luddite greenies to spend winters in the middle of a field not "impacting the enviroment". IE, no heat, no shelter, no food that they couldn't find in nature. It would teach them a lesson in reality and thin them out at the same time.

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

And we be many, but you be few.

We use non-violent confrontation to raise the level and quality of public debate.

Hmmm, the tem "hypocrisy" comes to mind when reading those two statements.

thanks for the laugh. if you all really think you can make a measurable difference beyond making yourselves feel better about you lives, then go nuts.

personally, i think you all are pathetic.

Juliette was freaked out by the 'violent tone' of the comments?

Did she not read the article itself - threatening anyone who does not drink the global warming kool-aid?

You guys are *desperate*. It is easy to see why: belief that global warming is a real problem is dropping like a rock in the polls.

Don't take my word for it:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/energy_update

Your fascist Green Shirt thuggery is an absolute disgrace.

Now that the comments are open, how about posting ALL the comments before they where closed.

I demand an unequivocal withdrawal of the threats made by Gene, there is no misunderstanding what was said. The police would interpret these in the same way and bu endorsing these statements you risk losing you charitable status and open up yourselves to a lot of back taxes. Gene has crossed a line and we all want an apology.

In the words of our Glorious Leader, Barack HUSSEIN Obama, may his name never be spoken, if they bring a knife, we will bring a gun,etc etc etc. We will argue and get in their face, and if they want this fight, its a fight we are glad to have. I'm sure theres more, but frankly I tune the First Elucidator out after about 24 seconds

Gene is calling for PEACEFUL civil disobedience (protests). Hear him talk for himself... http://bit.ly/dsaLZ5

Dear Gene Hashmi, the communication director of Greenpeace India, Juliette, and Andrew,

thank you for re-opening the discussion and thanks to Gene for his kind words to us, the deniers. We're eagerly waiting for your friendly visit that will try to reduce our number (currently around 4 billion). Some of us have peacefully prepared friendly firearms to celebrate your arrival to our homes and workplaces.

May I ask you for a favor? You know where I live so I don't have to give you my address. Could you please send me an official explanation that Greenpeace has become a criminal and terrorist organization, an army of outlaws?

It could be helpful to officially confirm your new bold status here in the Czech Republic. Here, we have laws that similar organizations are illegal. A nationalist xenophobic worker's party was just officially banned. So I think you would enjoy the same award. Right now, you look like just another boring average legal NGO and it must surely be irritating to you.

I am not sure about Mr Jan Rovenský, my childhood's 2-week friend from a camp in a Russian twin city of ours, who is the Czech Greenpeace director for climate and energy campaigns.

He may prefer his current convenient job - in which he sends plans of our biggest power plants to bashi-bazooks in Micronesia, with the explanation that their island will be sunk by the CO2 emissions from our plant, and who sometimes climbs a tree, chimney, or sleeps in front of a power plant.

However, I am not sure whether he's good enough at shooting. :-)

Congratulations to Greenpeace India for having such a great communication director, Gene Hashmi, who can reveal the truly friendly and peaceful face of Greenpeace to everyone, even those who have had some doubts that environmentalism and its most radical form, the anthropogenic global warming alarmism, has replaced communism and Nazism as the greatest ideological threat to freedom and democracy in the world.

BTW in order to make the threads more comprehensible and readable, could dear Juliette please change her name to Eva Braun? People could get a faster understanding for her night rhythms etc. and they wouldn't confuse her with other ladies who contribute here. Thanks!

Best wishes from your denier

Lubos Motl, you know where I live

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

And we be many, but you be few."

Bring it on. I'll be waiting for you. And I'll be fully prepared.

Nonsense, Andrew. "We know where you live" is not an encouragement to "non-violent" action. It is a threat of violence. The author needs to understand that such rhetoric rebounds on her.

Those who do not share her opinion are not going to appreciate it.

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


I sincerely hope you knock on my door and introduce yourself some day...

"I had a chat with Juliette and we decided to re-open the comments (they were closed for about an hour).

She was understandably freaked out by the violent tone of some of the people posting."

Are you for real? You post an article that threatens violence on anyone who disagrees with your AGW scam and then claim to be freaked out by the violent tone! I almost feel sorry for you little pantywaist pinkos.

What possible higher good are you serving?

MLK, Parks, Mandela, Ghandi...these people fought peacefully for the /freedom/ of their peers, for the right to /rule themselves/, to be responsible for their own destiny.

There are people who don't have food, or water, or the weapons to fight disease, who are going blind because they still have to use campfires for light, in this world. Thousands, and millions of them.

And what does GP stand for? You are going to fight /corporations/? The evils of commerce and technology?

The problem with political corruption is not that politicians /can be bribed/, it is that politicians have enough power over the daily lives of good and well-meaning people that someone can wield that power by bribing them!

You think the solution to the wrongs of society is to pool and then somehow dominate the basis of power; what you apparently do not see through the annals and the chronicles of history, time and again, over and OVER AND OVER, is that when anyone collects power over the masses, that power becomes /destructive/.

In order to get people to do what you want, you are going to have to /break them/. How many is GP going to beat, to ruin, to kill, so that you can have the control you want? How many? Because before you have that control, you are going to have to do all of those things.

And now, having made a post of an unveiled and threatening nature, you return talking of how you are offended by the tone of the comments?

How /dare/ you? These are /responses/ to a purposeful and clear set of threats, and you imagine to occupy the moral high ground by dropping the names of some actual peaceful people?

No, Miss. Badly done.

Your blatant dishonesty and, further, your attempt to sidestep your personal responsibility for every ounce of vitriol present in these comments brings shame to your organization and discredit to your movement.

Shame, Miss.

'She was understandably freaked out by the violent tone of some of the people posting.'

When you threaten violence (and then have the GALL to claim you are speaking of 'non-violent' actions), you shouldn't be surprised to be called on your own frigging Stupidity.

And now Greenpeace confirms themselves to be the terrorist organization we have known them to be all along. You know where I live? Bring it. I dare you.

Gandhi promoted peaceful civil disobedience against a British colonial government whose head was the wife of Prince Philip, founder of WWF and now behind the scene Greenpeace’s controller. And Gandhi’s people was machine-gunned mercilessly by those who now promote Global Warming. How can we have any confidence that we’re not going to receive the same treatment? Your word, or theirs? May I doubt it?

Juliette:

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

And we be many, but you be few."

May I direct you to the phrase finder:

We know where you live

As noted, this is a well-known thuggish threat of violence, likely for millenia.

If you did not know this, maybe it's because you are peaceable and have lived a sheltered life. Perhaps you don't understand all the dimensions of your associates.

But if, after reviewing the information I have just provided, you continue to maintain the the post contains no violent theats, then either you are disingenuous or lacking in basic intelligence.

I haven't had so much fun reading this tripe since my 12 yr. olddaughter threatened to call Child Protective services because I wouldn't let her go on a sleepover.
For the love of God Greenies, please grow up- NOW!

Well, since you know where I live, feel free to stop on by. I'm not scared a bit. You'll be met by the second amendment.

"Peace."

Wowa! To take one line of a blog-post utterly out of context and use it as a starting point for childish verbal abuse. Now that's one interesting way to spend Easter for a kid on a Pokemon forum, but adults on an serious topic? Just weird.. :-/


@Juliana Leblanc: "And trust me, once an organization becomes part of a countries terrorist watchlist, it will be easy to find out who has donated to Greenpeace..albeit it is already easy to do so."
Here’s an easy one: I'm on that donor list, and so are millions of individuals with me. Should I be afraid that the secret police is going to grab me from my bed at night, for donating to an organisation with a proven track record in improving the very world you and I live in? Apparently you think I should. Now that's depressing.


Many of the things we take for granted in our lives have come through the actions of but a few activist who went the extra bit with non-violent civil disobedience to create awareness, awesomeness and momentum. Greenpeace is one of the groups performing this role in the climate change issue.


I donate to Greenpeace because in 2035 I do not want to explain to my kids that even though we at least had the chance to solve some known problems we simply couldn't be arsed due to the opposition of some disgruntled old politicians, baby boomer and naysayers who happened to be in power in 2010 (and were sure to be dead before the nastiness kicked in). I’ll do what I can myself, but it helps that an organisation with a proven track-record in changing the world for the better works on it as well. So;


Keep fighting this upcoming catastrophe Greenpeace. Please do!

You're wrong about the many/few part, and even if you hadn't been, you forgot that most of the alleged "few" are armed and will protect themselves.

Simply shouting the same discredited tripe, thinking you can cow the people whose wallets you want to empty and whose lives you want to run, isn't a viable option for you any longer.

Deal with it. And be careful - we're tired as hell of your propaganda and won't be fooled.

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

Then you must know I'm well armed and trained. Come.

If you are shocked at "violent threats", you shouldn't have used one of the most cheesy classical Maffia-style threats.
"We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.

And we be many, but you be few."
Cool. Classic.. The only things missing are "We know where your kids go to school. And you don't want anything... untoward... happen, do you? Things can break, for example..."

Simply put, making thinly-veiled threats calls for appropriate response.

Oh and btw may I ask, why temperature data from Czech Republic for AGW "proofs" are taken only from the warmest spots?

Marek

"We know where you live" and "we be many"

What "Direct Action" do you plan on bringing to the families of these "few" people you've decided need to have outlaws let loose upon them?

I think you need to worry about your extremist, eliminationist rhetoric as it will lead to violence and you will be morally culpable. Threatening families is not something you should be doing, encouraging or allowing.

You damage your cause with statements like this, "We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.
And we be many, but you be few."
You end up sounding like every other wacko terrorist org. out there.
It is unfortunate that Greenpeace has become a socio-political tool pushing far left ideology instead of fighting for and achieving realistic goals for our planet and not just the manufacture of video clips for their donors.

Juliette: If some right-wing activist posted something on his blog directed at environmentalists that said "we know where you live," I would expect you to feel threatened. If Gene's intentions are truly non-violent, why is he interested in where his adversaries live? Is he going to their houses? I think you need to take a step back and realize that the tone of this post feels threatening to people. I certainly does to me! The phrases "we know where you live," and "by any means necessary" are associated with violent political movements. Seriously. Say I oppose your policies. Are you going to come to my house? What are you going to do when you get here? Will you use "any means" to change my opinion? Juliette, no matter how many times you write "peaceful" and "happy easter," this post really does feel like a threat of violence. It just does.

Hi Lasorda,
I understand that what Gene wrote might feel threatening to some. however, Andrew and I have been trying to re-assure everyone that no, Gene isn't threatening anyone with violence - he is a nice man, a peaceful person - and he's not coming to your house.
I won't use "any means" to change your opinion. I will engage in discussion with you.
If, however, corporate lobbies are endangering our planet's climate and people's lives for profit, it would be shameful of us not to do anything. This is why we take non-violent direct action.
Peace (yes, I mean it),
Juliette

Gosh. Who would have thought it would come to this. Here I am cowering under me wool blankie, typing this message by the light of an incandescent bulb...when will they come for me??? Who will turn me in??? Will they find my and publish my diary in the dawning of this brave new world????

Actually nice to get a comment from someone who has a sense of humor. Thanks for keeping it light.

Just so you know, Gene is a peaceful guy, as are all of us.

We're going to hold the big money that's skewing the climate debate to account. Here's an example of what Gene's talking about.

And we're going to do it while staying true to our principle of peaceful direct action.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

Chère Juliette,

Au vu des commentaires, il parait évident que la conclusion de l'article (nous savons où vous vivez etc..), quelle que soit son intention, sonne aux oreilles de tout le monde comme une menace infantile au mieux, un menace intolérable au pire.

Cette conclusion entraine tout l'article, qui est autrement intéressant, avec lui dans la catégorie des crises de rages à ne pas prendre au sérieux, ce qui est regrettable - car agir à la manière de Gandhi est peut-être une solution pour rendre le monde attentif à un problème, qui sait?

Je ne juge pas le fond et ne partage pas forcément vos opinions, mais si vous voulez arrêter ce débat stérile, pourquoi ne pas simplement accepter que c'était une erreur et éliminer cette conclusion?

Bonnes salutations,

Laurent

Cher Laurent,
Merci pour votre commentaire constructif et courtois.
Je suis d'accord avec vous qu'il serait dommage que l'article entier ne se résume à sa dernière ligne.
A mon sincère avis, ce n'est pas le cas. Je réalise parfaitement que tout le monde ne l'entend pas de cette façon, et c'est la raison pour laquelle Andrew et moi avons répondu à de nombreux commentaires - et ajouté une explication en introduction - pour affirmer que ce n'est pas le cas.
Si les dernières phrases du blog font perdre à vos yeux la valeur du reste, je trouve cela très dommage, mais je n'y peux rien.
Sincèrement,
Juliette

Happy Easter Juliette.

Fair is fair.
Please post where you, Gene and Andrew live, precisely.

Peace & Gandhi.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And this from a person who didn't even leave a real email address. Glad you're into peace and Gandhi - at least we have that in common.

A lot of folks posting here and on other blogs embrace violence as a solution (often violence using guns).

By contrast, Greenpeace as an organization, has a long record of peaceful protest.

But more to your point - No one has asked for your address, and I doubt anyone would want to come to your house. (No offense intended, I'm sure it's very nice.)

We're talking about exposing the role of the big money players, like Koch, in creating an artificial climate of doubt about global warming.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Juliette and Andrew, please print your full names so I can be as passionate as Gene and know who you are, too.

Then post your home addresses, so I, too, can know where YOU live. I swear I'll disobey civilly when you call the cops on me for trespassing. 'Cause me and Gene are "outlaws", man.

Also, please tell me where you work (and, btw, the sidewalk where you beg for money in front of the building where I actually do WORK does not count) so I can disobey civilly there, too. I promise. Gene said it was cool.

Let's see how many you are and how few we are. Post a list of all Greenpeace people's addresses and phone numbers, I'll need to verify your count. The challenge was made - by Gene - and you keep defending him. Let's play out Gene's fantasy all the way, shall we?

Again, I need: your full names, addresses, work place address and phine numbers of fellow Greenpeace folks. You're OK with that, right? It's not threatening at all when I say it, is it?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I work at the Greenpeace office in Amsterdam. The address is on our website.

As for the rest of your comment, please see my reply to "not Juliette".

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Go ahead. Squirm around. Tell yourself this is not a threat of violence:

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

No reasonable person could see it as anything but a threat.

Apologize now. It's not too late. You screwed up. Take the road of responsibility, not self-deception.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I've been thinking about this, and here is what I think: If you are the kind of person who thinks violence is the only real tool for solving problems, then you'd take that as a threat.

(Which is why I posted a note at the top of the blog, just to make things clear for those people.)

If you're the kind of person (like Gene) who thinks peaceful tactics (like civil disobedience) are right way to go about things, then you don't see it as a threat.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Juliette said:
"What about Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Nelson Mandela? They were definitively outlaws"

Shame on you:
Greenpeace/Juliette

Can anyone imagine any of these outstanding people saying:

'we know where you live'

I consider that, as many other people would, an out an out threat personally, to me and my family..

Why say it?

Are they going to come and knockon my door and have a friendly chat over a cup of tea...

That was a threat...
The law says people can 'perceive a threat'

I am shocked to see that this was from a communications director for Greenpeace, I had thought that it was just some words of some randon activists...

Can you not see that this could incite 'some' people (ie they 'misinterprete Gene - to be generous - to be 'climate outlaws' - does that include violence/sounds at least like violent acts) to acts of personal intimidation and violence...

Please publically apologise, and make a statement, to prevent any lunatic bringing Greenpeace into further disrepute. I am worried for my personal safety and my families, as I do not agree with catastrophic unprecedented man made global warming, it is an example of a popular delusion and the madness of crowds.


-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Let's get real. Gene was not talking about you.

Gene was talking about exposing the big money players funding the climate denial machine. It's no coincidence that his blog was posted two days after we published this report.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Andrew - your ending comments about being peaceful and nice kind of contrast with the ending comments of the blog post. I assume either you agree with it or didn't bother to read it.

In either case you just pushed me as an undecided into being a full blown skeptic.

Well done. Result.

As for greanpeace, you can forget any charity money from my family ever.

Once again, Greenpeace kooks reveal themselves to be little immature, self-centered brats that are sorely in need of discipline.

Climate change whackjobs!

LMFAO!!

Have fun in jail, idiots!

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

I recognize the voice. I benn there before.

You know who we are? You know where we live? Seriously? How exactly is that peaceful rather than threatening? Tell you what, asshole. You know where I live, come on by.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Please see my note above. Gene is a peaceful kind of guy, Greenpeace has a long track record as a peaceful organization.

But thanks for the invite. I'd like to think if I did we could have a beer, and a relaxed chat.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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

And we be many, but you be few."

Wow, that sounds like an implied threat right there and to go on and put the cherry on top, we have somebody else advocating the breaking of the law.

I really encourage you folks to pursue these avenues, the more of you communists hiding behind the green banner that are in prison, the better.

Juliette...you ignorant nut. Greenpeace has a long and storied history of civil disobedience. Why do you think that playing that card now is going to mitigate the blatant threats your organization made?

Greenpeace today is just an eco-terrorist, neo-fascist, thug organization in the model of ELF.

Many of the older members, including those who were there from the beginning, like Patrick Moore, have turned away because what Greenpeace has become.

You have enough info from this comment to figure out who I am and where I live. Come and get it, you freak bitch. You may be many...but I have a shitload of ammo to defend myself.

Hi:

I’m pretty sure y'all will do whatever it takes to do whatever it takes to meet whatever agenda y'all have, calling me some sort of hater and planet-killer all the way to the bakery........ I'm used to it.

I have to say even though we're probably on polar opposites of the issues, I appreciate the author's frankness and writing style - reminds me of me.

But I'm just curious to find out why someone with 'peace' in the name of their organization would offer up threatening language like ‘we know who you are, where you live’…… that sort of thing and not expect to be challenged even slightly.

Civil disobedience is one thing, but to say 'we know who you are and we know where you live' in many minds, legal and civilian, is an implied threat of more than simple dissent.

Even in context, it's as if the author wants to incite something, which I sincerely 'hope' doesn't happen on any level by any side, because the 'change' people would experience might not be the change you can believe in.

And as to who I am and where I live...... Well, here in South Florida we have a Castle Doctrine.

Cheers !

Kenny Solomon
Typical bitter Jewish God-clinging gun owner and barking-mad insane NASCAR fan.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Thanks for the straight talk.

I'll give it to you straight in return...

Greenpeace is 100% peaceful, so is Gene. We don't condone violence. (Protest, yes. Violence, no.)

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Greenpeace advocating thinly-veiled violence against anyone who doesn't believe their dogma.

Come and get me, you lentil-knitting fuckwits.

"Gene is calling for PEACEFUL civil disobedience (protests). Hear him talk for himself... http://bit.ly/dsaLZ5"

I have no doubt that he has called for peaceful civil disobedience in the past. But his post here speaks of a need for "course-correction" and to "shift targets." So his purported sentiments of the past really don't bear upon his stated sentiments today.

You speak of yourselves in the same vein as King and Gandhi. With that statement, you disgust me. I doubt very much that either man said "we know where you live" to an opponent. I dare say that King may have RECEIVED such a statement...and what would you suppose it meant then?

You do yourself no favors with the "just kidding" excuses and evasions. There are no excuses for what was said. If you wish us to believe your claims of non-violence, you need to formally retract that statement, and publicly reprimand Gene for making it....not tell us what a swell guy Gene really is.

If I were the Japanese, the next time you rammed one of my fishing vessels with the S.S. Stinky Hippy, I would sink your asses.

Be the first bath you guys have had in years no doubt.

So next time one of your lot come begging for money at my door shall I follow them home?

That way I will We know who you are. I will know where you live.

You are nothing but terrorists and have lost my support and all credibility

Hello Juliette,

When did Ghandi ever say "We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work."?

Ghandi did say - "Faith... must be enforced by reason... when faith becomes blind it dies."

Greenpeace may have the faith but the reason is loooong gone.

Have you read this recent item?

http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2257

Remember when it used to be called "Manmade Global Warming"?, the science doesn't support that so now it's "Climate Change" which is cute since the climate is always changing.

A request Juliette, please contact Anthony Watts, who runs the very popular blog, wattsupwiththat.com - I would be interested in seeing you write a guest essay presenting your "evidence" for "manmade global climate change"

Can you handle the debate? Especially when you're shown to be wrong?

To quote John Maynard Keynes - "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Juliette?"

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Well, I wouldn't say Gene is the next Gandhi. Gene is a bit more rough around the edges, so to speak.

But Gene does share a commitment to change through peaceful activism.

As for the link - the article's thesis is absurd. Climate change is a very tough concept to get across, much less get people excited about enough to act.

Give this a read to see what I mean...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/magazine/19Science-t.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&ref=magazine

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hello Juliette,

Again, all of the CO2 believers are completely devoid of scientific knowledge. The models require modification of actual data and a terrible lot of statistics. Read Rutherford when, and if you are able to digest physics (which I really doubt you are able to).

What we are living in right now is the equivalent of the Catholic church attacking Galileo. You evnironMENTALISTs are the equivalent of the Catholic church, maintaining their "truth" that Man is the central figure in the "science" of global warming. The rest of us logical lot are Galileo; realizing that we are an insignificant dot in the universe and that the Sun has a lot more pull.

Enjoy your temporary legitimacy, which by now is already past. Your efforts to control the masses is over.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On climate models...

http://www.grist.org/article/climate-models-are-unproven/

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Don't know that I'd call the post as wicked as some have, but I am astonished to hear that people believe man made global warming is real and has killed people already.
Just a little study of the facts leads to the opposite conclusion. With an open mind much can be achieved.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Thanks for keeping an open mind.

Unfortunately, climate change is real, and here now.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Well, now we 'the few' know who Gene, Andrew and Juliette are, where you live and where you work (your IP addresses speaks volumes...). It wasn't hard to find and it should be enough...

"...They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue...", Jim Malone, The Untouchables.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If I pull a flower, will you send me chocolates?

Seriously - I've made my position, and Greenpeace's very clear. We're against violence. We are committed to peaceful activism.

Can I get the same commitment from you?

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


We have supported Greenpeace with a monthly donation for nearly 20 years now. That stops now.

Fools.

Gene has apparently inhaled, not too much CO2 per se, but too much of Paul Ehrlich's flatulence.

Or to take a more modern approach than Ehrlich's dated stuff . . .

Gene suffers from a bad diet--

Junk philosophy . . .
Junk science . . .
Junk politics.

Deadly combination. Makes one appear delusional.

:-)

What does "knowing where you live" have to do with "civil disobedience"?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

We're exposing the hidden money behind climate skeptics. Who they work for, who they pay, etc. Like Koch industries, for example.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sounds like poor little Gene must have lost his trust fund trading carbon credits. He should have shorted them like I did right after the climate gate and copenhagen fiasco's. I was able to buy a new Hemi SUV with the profits!

He needs to go up the Arctic where the sea ice has returned to normal and cool off.

Juliette - Do you not understand that the Greenpeace blog (it may have been written by an individual, but as a member of your organization he speaks for all of you) uses the language of hate? That's nice that you justify these actions by lawyering your way around the issue, but an unintentional call to violence still has the same end effect as an intentional one.

Others, who may not be as well educated as you, will be able to make the fine distinction in tone and substance that you apparently are able to articulate. In the schoolyard as a kid we all learned what "we know where you live" means. There is no mistaking this message.

You cannot have it both ways. Either preach hate and be honest about it, or be careful with what you say so as not to antagonize those, who don’t need a lot of prodding in the first place, to do harm to others.

If you truly believe what you are saying in these posts, you will speak out against these unnecessarily hateful remarks. If not, well…you’re not a very good person, are you?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Actually no. For one thing - Gene speaks for Gene. That's why his name is on it. Sure, he works for Greenpeace, but he's a person not a puppet.

I don't think he uses "language of violence". Passion, yes. But I like to think I live in a world where passion is OK.

I have posted my own note above - just to make absolutely sure no one is confused.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Juliette

You write:

At no point in this entry did Gene threaten to do anything more than civil disobedience and non-violent direct action - neither of which involve any kind of violence

There are two problems with your stance on the topic.

First of all, even if the text ends mentioning "mass civil disobedience", it also includes "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".

I have taken the liberty to emphasize the bits that may suggest violence is in the works.

Secondly, since the writer has described a progression from lawful interventions to unlawful ones because "pressuring politicians on climate change is not working", what is there to stop the same writer from advocating violent means in the future, if "mass civil disobedience" doesn't come up with the hoped-for results?

Words have meaning. Please let's all try not to be disingenuous.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hey Maurizio,

I think Juliette has turned in for the night.

To your point - This is going to sound a little hippie la la but... It's possible the violence is in your mind.

Gene comes from India, where they have a big tradition of change through civil disobedience.

It's pretty reasonable that when he says, "through the power of our votes, our taxes, our wallets, and more" he means things like sit ins and other creative protests.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Mass civil disobedience" sounds like some Weather Underground bullshit. Good thing they killed themselves more than innocent victims. If Greenpeace is advocating violence, then I look forward to spitting on the next geek with a clipboard who asks me to give him a moment. It will be a moment he will likely never forget.

Gene is a peaceful guy, and Greenpeace is 100% dedicated to peaceful direct action. We are against violence.

Civil disobedience is a positive part of our society. It helped bring about the women's right to vote, and was essential to the civil rights movement.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

Well,I'm not really worried about a small handfull of climate nazis...they've all been too busy giving anAL GOREtentive ideological blow jobs lately to be any real threat

Because of this post I turned on all my lights, turned on the air conditioner and opened all the doors. I will burn, burn, burn more and more fuel, create as big a footprint as possible. And just try to stop me.

Now I am going to eat some meat for dinner.

And another thing while I am here. Whenever one of your activists knocks at my door, I ask them three questions.

1. What, in your opinion, are the five most serious environmental threats facing the planet?

Never have I received a coherent answer.

2. What, in your opinion, are the five most serious threats facing out country?

Never have I received a coherent answer.

3. Can you provide annual accounts that show where the money you receive through donations is expended?

They have never provided this information.

3. If I were to give $100, how much of that do you get to keep?

They tell me that they get paid 30% of what they collect.

These 'responses' tp my questions tell me a story. We have maintained our support nonetheless since we appreciate the clean air and clean water that has resulted from the actions of concerned conservationists.

That is over now.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I used to go door to door myself, way long ago. So I know tough it is.

Here are my (personal) answers...

1. Climate change, deforestation, over fishing, toxic pollution and nuclear power/weapons.

2. Well, that's up for discussion. I'd say: Climate change and an erosion of freedom - including the right to protest and engage in civil disobedience.

3. You can look up our annual reports on your local Greenpeace website to see how your donations have been spent.

3. Don't know the deal now since I work in the office these days. Back when I did the job, it was a good day when I could afford a jar of spaghetti sauce to go with my noodles.

I'm not complaining mind you. We liked it like that. Made us really appreciate the sauce when you got it.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I can't wait to get all civilly disobedient on every car I see with a "Greenpeace" bumpersticker. Goes around/comes around ... you know the drill.

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

While Juliette is doing her level best to sugar-coat the inflammatory rhetoric, this is clearly a call to action--"direct action" is a well- and widely-known "code phrase" for violence. It's the label that the animal rights extremists (who specifically target opponents homes, families, children, and their friends--and have gone so far as to kill people) use to describe their tactics. Don't buy it? Google "direct action" and start reading.

Juliette takes great pains to emphasize words like "PEACEFUL"--well and good. But those are Juliette's words--they are clearly not Gene's. Gene is clearly, openly, publicly advocating "direct action" (wink, wink)--threatening those with whom he disagrees.

The way to deal with a bully--even a potentially violent one--is to call his bluff:

My name is John Murdoch, and I live in Wind Gap, Pennsylvania. Ring my bell.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi John,

Nice to meet you.

I've known Gene for years, and he is a genuinely chilled out dude who believes in the power of peaceful protest.

Any "wink wink" is your own addition.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Don't come to my house. I am a geoscientist and have no intention of joining a debate that chooses to attack 'the man' rather than discuss the science.

"Corporate lobbies are endangering our planet's climate and people's lives for profit" -Juliette

-You realize this is a double edged sword. Have a look at the billions of dollars that Al Gore's carbon trading CORPORATION have raked in at the taxpayer's expense.

Reading this again I can't wait till I meet one of you at my door or in the street. This has wound me up like you would not belive

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I'd like to think that's a good thing.

But just to be sure - we're a peaceful (though often plain spoken) bunch. If I met you walking down the street, I'd hope for the same straight forward, but peaceful, treatment.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

By all means, give Gene the benefit of the doubt for the intent behind his writing.

...if the same benefit of the doubt is shown those who disagree.

What a shameful, disgusting and illegal incitement to violence.
How dare an organisation supposedly standing for the good things in life descend to this level.
The only recourse here is for the perpetrator to be removed from the organisation. We do not need people like this in our organisation - we stand for peaceful and orderly protest - that's why people like Paul Watson for example does not have the blessing of Greenpeace.
Gene must be removed immediately. We do not need fascists and lawbreakers!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Gene is the farthest thing from a fascist I have ever met. He's a genuinely peaceful guy.

Greenpeace has 100% dedicated to peaceful direct action since our founding in 1971, and we're not going to change that ever.

We do not condone violence against anyone.

I can tell from your comment that you know that already, but it I want to say it for the record.

Gene is very specific about what he thinks people should do - civil disobedience, boycotts and other peaceful direct actions. Violence does not come into it.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Gene, please post your address and phone number so we can come pay you a peaceful visit (a photo would be nice too).

It will be a lot of fun!


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Drop a note here next time you're in Amsterdam. Maybe we'll go for a beer.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

By the way what has one to do to get on a "hit list"? Is public writing about Climategate, Glaciergate, Arcticgate, Declinegate etc. enough to get a "We know where you live" Maffia-style warning? Or do I have to actually also criticise hypocrisy of "green" power sources, cars etc.?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Gene is a peaceful guy, and Greenpeace is 100% dedicated to peaceful direct action. We are against violence. There is no hit list.

Yeah, I know you're joking, but just want to say it anyway.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

As the old joke goes:

Private: Sir! The hippies, they're revolting!

Captain: Phew! They certainly are!

'It's possible the violence is in your mind.'

Well, andi, that sure sounds like a good description of what gene wrote.

Keep repeating your lie. YOu might even belive it yourself, after a time.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What I was getting at is that a lot of people really know about civil disobedience or peaceful protest.

We live in a violent society - video games, movies, TV, not to mention the wars. So most folks think of things in terms of violence, just like they see on TV.

When the news covers protests, they usually emphasize the conflict. Guess that's more exciting, better TV.

End of the day, I somehow doubt you'll start agreeing with me, but at least we've had a chat.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Oh and about lame squirming like "Any "wink wink" is your own addition." - no, it's not his own addition, it's just a context in which such words are generally used - ie. as a threat of violence. Don't like the connotation? Want to do "peaceful actions"? Then watch your tongue.
How'd you react if someone started to call for "Final solution of the Greenpeace problem"?

Of the top 143 concerns in my life, Greenpeace's objectives rank about 2,143--just a few notches below "Do I believe the Bammster won't raise taxes."

There are two types of people in the world, in the end--

Those who produce . . .

And those who complain about those who produce.

If Gene were a "producer"--why, he would already have purchased, or leased, many thousands of acres of land for wind farms and the like--with arrangements for export of said energy to less intelligent countries.

"Talk is cheap," as my Dad used to say, "But it takes money to buy whiskey!"

Gene ought to concentrate his efforts on his own country, which has tranformed itself into an economic juggernaut via all the avenues Gene despises. They, with China, are among the worst of Al Gore's "polluters."

So Gene--sweep out your own glass house before you try breaking windows in anyone else's house, or, as I said on my site . . .

Go get a real job.

Houston Garden Center is hiring. You and Andrew and Juliette could get jobs there, watching plants and vegetables and all of that healthy stuff for your bodies grow on all that CO2 you hate.

Of course, you wouldn't get much funding.

Inconvenient, isn't it?

P.S.

You acknowledge consuming innocent tomatoes just to satisfy your own appetite?

Oh, My!

"We be many, you be few."

But I bet we have more ammo.

Oppose the fascists!

Unfortunately for Juliette, that means oppose her. And I and so many other voters will be doing exactly that - we will continue "undermining progressive climate legislation" that we consider ill-conceived and plain stupid. Come November, you'll see, and your fascist-like threats will gain you nothing.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now your just being mean with the name calling.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Andrew, give it up. Like Juliette before you, you're outgunned, outreasoned and plainly manhandled with the tsunami of comments against this ill-advised post.

This psycho is indefensible. He screwed up big, and Greenpeace screwed up even bigger by posting his tirade.

Is it so hard to say, sorry, this gentleman does not represent what we believe in? No words from you or Greenpeace advocating non-violence, or trying to explain "what he actually wanted to say" will correct the wrong you have done by giving this insane soul a "resonance box", except a clear, decisive and honest position statement disavowing his clear threats.

Is Greenpeace going to stake 40 years of work because of this?

It's already viral and you can't stop it unless you guys act NOW.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hey Gordon,

Just listen to your own language. I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion, and to you it's about who has the most "firepower". (Not literally, of course, rhetorically - though some of the other posters do seem to be talking literally.)

I'd agree with you if Gene had said anything wrong, but he didn't. He's calling for mass civil disobedience.

And civil disobedience is a positive part of our society. It helped bring about the women's right to vote, and was essential to the civil rights movement.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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,
I used to believe in Man-Made Climate Change - until I was told "The science is settled" and suchlike nonsense.

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.

Sorry. This is a threat and my reaction is the opposite of what you would probably like it to be.

Now go away and get knotted, Greenpeace.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It is not any kind of physical threat. Of protest, yes. Of exposing the big money behind the climate denial machine, yes. Of violence - no.

I don't know how you read it, but I hope you also read my note. (At the top, highlighted in blue.) That should put your mind at ease.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I am sending this link to every right wing/libertarian blogger I can think of. Seriously, I might be inclined to believe that this is not intended as a threat of violence if you had simply had the author re-word it, with or without an apology- but since you have chosen to to stand by these words KNOWING THAT THEY ARE BEING INTERPRETED AS THREATENING, then I can only conclude that you truly mean them in that context. Your protests to the contrary ring as hollow as a Muslim terrorist insisting that Islam is a religion of peace, just before he sets off the explosives...


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I've been very clear. Greenpeace is 100% peaceful, so is Gene. We don't condone violence. (Protest, yes. Violence, no.)

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Green peace plays the role of Iago, and plays shocked when violence ensues.

You keep saying 'We're peaceful' and such, but I've got news for you: ending this article with
"We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.

And we be many, but you be few."
IS threatening. And you damned well know it. Pretending to be surprised that people take it as threatening is- well, stupid.

More drivel from the brainwashed Ecoloons.

Climate Rescue? My arse.

"We know who you are, where you live"?

The next time Greenpeace comes knocking at my door I will assume that as a denier you are here to take some form of action against me and I will respond in kind. Ihope your collectors are ready.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I've been very clear. Greenpeace is 100% peaceful, so is Gene.

We don't condone violence. (Protest, yes. Violence, no.)

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Gene comes from India, where they have a big tradition of change through civil disobedience.

It's pretty reasonable that when he says, "through the power of our votes, our taxes, our wallets, and more" he means things like sit ins and other creative protests.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

They also have Maoist Guerillas brandishing AK 47's. So it's possible that he thought of commandos slitting throats of climate sceptics.

Only joking ;-)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Thanks for trying but... Not really funny.

Check out the video. It's about making a difference with peaceful civil disobedience, and accepting the legal consequences.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So c'mon over to my house and threaten me. I'll kick your stupid ass off this fuckin planet.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I've been very clear. Greenpeace is 100% peaceful, so is Gene. We don't condone violence. (Protest, yes. Violence, no.)

Not at your house, not anywhere.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The next time one of your minions shows up on my doorstep asking for money, I'll be more than happy to explain what "by any means necessary" means. Or what the "nonviolent shut down of the WTO meeting in Seattle" was, since you're linking to it. That would be the one where peaceful, nonviolent, plainspoken shitballs like yourselves destroyed $20 million of property, mostly belonging to a bunch of small business people who could ill afford it.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Greenpeace is 100% peaceful, so is Gene. We don't condone violence. (Protest, yes. Violence, no.)

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

p.s. I'm pretty sure Gene was not in Seattle, and I know that wasn't a Greenpeace gig.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If you guys had half a clue, like your former prominent member, Patrick Moore, you would be supporting nuclear energy if you truly believe CO2 is the root of all climate ills.

But then science and rational thought never interefere with your political agenda, do they?

I shall make a point of showing this article to professed GreenGullible folks at my workplace so that they rethink their continued support of your organisation.

Most of them are young but bright enough that they will probably see the error of their ways.

PS> Andrew - your damage control do not detract from the venom in the original post, it actually complements it starkly. Thanks for highlighting this malevolent manifesto.

Greenpeace opposes fossil fuels and nuclear energy. You do realize that we'll be without adequate energy. Seems that your goal is to tear down the human progress that we've seen over the past 100 years. You don't seem to acknowledge the substantial progress that has been made in cleaning the environment. Coal power is far, far cleaner than it was 50 years ago. And nuclear energy is the most safe and reliable energy source. I'm going to make an assumption that Greenpeace does support wind and solar energy, yet these are unsustainable.

Solar - the amount of land space required to replace fossil fuel energy would create significant impact on nature. In the northwest, large swathes of trees would need to be removed to make way for all the solar panels to power, say, Portland. How is that a better alternative?

Wind - unreliable and not economical. Believe it or not, the wind stops blowing once in a while. And when it does blow, what about the poor birds that get killed by the churning blades? And the great irony of the liberal lion, the late Ted Kennedy, standing in the way of windmill construction off the east coast so as to not obstruct his view of the open ocean.

I'm all for clean air, but Gene's message of radical disobedience, and the "in your face" approach is only going to drive people away and marginalize Greenpeace. It's debatable as to his intent of violence or not, but the fact is that most reasonable people support moderate conservation efforts and recognize the progress that has been made. The problem with people like Gene is it's never enough. They get a little progress, and they want more. They get a little control, and they want more. There's a difference between freedom and tyranny, and when Gene and Greenpeace seek to force their will on others, well, that isn't freedom. So it must be the other.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Highlighting solutions are as important as highlighting problems. Glad you brought this up.

The thing is, we need to act fast. That's what the best science tells us. Here's our plan...

http://www.greenpeace.org/energyrevolution

Note that energy efficiency is key - work smarter, not harder - that kind of thinking.

Gene's impatient because the best science tells us we're nearing a tipping point - and after which the climate shift might accelerate out of our control.

He also knows that the acting sooner rather than later reduces the overall cost.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Your message is sounding more and more desperate and frustrated. Remember the Rote Armee Fraktion started became violent when they got frustrated. The line between violence and non-violence is very thin. Maybe not for you but it might be for others. Be very, very careful with playing with fire and manipulating the minds of people who think they fight for the good case, no matter what the consequences are.
Be very, very careful to say : "We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.

And we be many, but you be few."

This sounds awfully like a violent threat, no matter what your intentions are.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I've been very clear, but you're right to point out it is important, so I'll say it again...

Greenpeace is 100% peaceful, so is Gene. We don't condone violence.

Gene's point is that the politicians and corporations that run our world aren't solving the climate crisis for us. We're going to need to protest, bring solutions, expose the money trail... and it's going to take a lot of us.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

LMFAO!

You will get your salad munching asses destroyed.

thank you Andrew for your response.

Rather than trying to continue to guess what Gene meant with his words, it might be useful were he to explain himself in a new post on this site, for example by embracing in full the practice of nonviolence and denouncing any violent means now and in the future as fruitless if not dis-useful.

I just cannot see his ambiguous statements sit comfortably alongside the practice of Satyagraha.

Is there something wrong with my previous comment, a reason that it hasn't been approved? Reposted below, just in case it was lost, and also mirrored on WUWT, where inconvenient comments aren't filtered out:

“Hello Gene, Andrew and Juliette

I have a simple request. Can you please review the following 5 Arctic Sea Ice Area and Extent charts from the most reputable sources of sea ice data;
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

and explain to us how these facts are supportive of the claimed catastrophic decline in Arctic Sea Ice?

We have reason to be skeptical, it is because the empirical facts do not support the claims of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Narrative. The proverbial canary in a coal mine for global warming is arctic sea ice extent and it’s currently about average. Threatening skeptics is not going to make the sea ice melt. You should be challenging the facts not the messengers.”

Is Greenpeace afraid of the facts?

Exposed as the adolescent revolutionaries they always were, Che tee shirt and all.Totally bogus as is their sister poseurs org'
Amnesty. Intellectual rigour nowhere to be found.

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

If this is supposed to be about peaceful protest then this guy needs an editor, desperately.

This crap should be pulled and apologized for before it does more damage to Greenpeace and others who support Greenpeace's efforts.

This is the single most despicable article I've read on climate. Climategate emails were found at my blog as you may be aware.

I consider this to be a direct threat to me and my family. If one of your leftist nutjobs shows up on my porch, after dealing with him/her appropriately (and legally), I will personally sue you for inciting the violence.

You have created a legal liability my friend and I will use it. Unlike many of your readers, I do have the means.

Close the post, apologize or face the eventual consequences of your stupidity.

Jackasses.

"I've been very clear. Greenpeace is 100% peaceful, so is Gene."

Please explain the words "veiled threat" and "connotation" to your peaceful pal Gene, then. He might want to clarify his statements.

If not, here's my 100% peaceful response: Bring it, Gene. I fully believe in the 2nd amendment, in theory and in practice.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Gene's not around at the moment, so I jumped in.

Please check out the note I posted at the top.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I demand a retraction and an apology.

This is a rather silly article, probably born of frustration, and the overwhelming majority of the comments rightly excoriate it.

Excuses for the author's violent rhetoric ring hollow in the absence of the withdrawal of these extravagant statements.

But what the author and many commenters overlook is the irrefutable fact that there is no connection between human emissions of greenhouse gases and the global climate.

If you disagree, please state the evidence.

We do some harm to our surroundings, which should stop, but our emissions don't warm the planet.

If you disagree, please state the evidence.

Cheers,
Richard Treadgold,
Convenor,
Climate Conversation Group.

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

I thought Greenpeace stood for some decent thing.

you and people like you are setting our movement BACK with this insane crap. threats to government, business and people? are you kidding? youre giving them GREAT ammo to be used against us.

peace should be the most important part of green peace. that said, please kill yourself and prevent your future co2 emissions.

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

So from this statement can we now presume that GreenPeace is building up dosiers on people who disagree with them? Sounds like green peace has implemented their own secret police setup. It use to be we were told beware, big brother is watching, it now appears it should be beware big green peace is watching and if you disagree with them they will come knocking.

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.

This along with the threat of knowing who and where we are sounds like a call for direct attack

I'm sorry that you don't seem to know the difference between non-violent direct action and violence. For us, the difference is quite clear, and Gene even gave examples in his blog:

Juliette, Andrew, I do know the difference. You're young and unsophisticated, I'm old and have been around the block a couple of times, and when you're saying "take direct action" you're pretty well guaranteeing the "and more" will include violence. Actually, make that "more violence" since, of course, green terrorists like ELF have already resorted to violence.

We learned this back in the 60's. You should have learned it with the anti-G8 direct action in the last few years.

Don't imagine you can avoid culpability by saying "oh, horrors, I didn't mean that!"

"Gene's impatient because the best science tells us we're nearing a tipping point - and after which the climate shift might accelerate out of our control.

He also knows that the acting sooner rather than later reduces the overall cost. "

That's BS and you know it - you are just back-pedalling as fast as your little mind can take you because you now realise you have blown it in a major way!

I thought only right wingers made threats? Just what we need left wing green terrorist wannabes. Losers.

I love it when the mask slips and greenies reveal themselves as violent fascists. It was all an excuse to establish your own private tyranny all along, wasn't it?

Looks like you folks at Greenpeace are getting some unfavorable opinions today. It is difficult to find support in any of the posts. What does that tell you?

Hubris has convinced you that human activity can influence the climate of this planet directly. You think you are educated folks and in a position to forecast the future with cooked science, computer models using preposterous code held together with patches and fudge factors based on incomplete and cherry picked data, now lost to the ages. Hubris.

I think I can see the end of your public support coming quicker than a melting Himalayan glacier.

I imagine Gene of India has been somewhat distraught since the Eco-porn writer and snake oil salesman, Dr. Patchouli, is on shaky ground and Genes probably promised Eco-Imamship of some part of India may not unfold like the Lotus that was promised.

What are the alternatives when politicians and populaces fail you? What are non violent direct actions? What would these be? Cutting lines, setting things on fire, blowing things up? Of course without meaning injury if that accidentally occurs. It can't mean plain old protests that have proven useless up til now can it?

No, I think your message is pretty clear. Perhaps Mr. Begg of Cageprisoners and Amnesty International can instruct you on Eco-Jihad as self defense of the planet.

"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.

(emphasis added)

It is without question a threat.

So you know where we live? You say you know where we work? You know who I am eh?

Well, just come on over sissy eco bitch. I'll be waiting for you.

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

Next step is perhaps;

"We know where your children go to school"?

I will do my best to protect my family if you show up.

aha!

Does greenpeace really hold data of home addresses of individuals working in the climate legislation field?

What purpose does greenpeace hold these details for? I cant see how such information would have any relationship to civil disobedience.

Greenpeace applauds Robert Mugabe as the "Futurist of the Year" for using violence to reduce CO2 emissions and increase human suffering.

Greenpeace has been using peaceful protest to defend the planet and hold polluters accountable for almost 40 years now, and nothing in Gene's post says we will ever compromise that ideal.

But rest assured we will use every non-violent means we can find to make sure companies like Koch Industries, which has taken over from Exxon as the chief investor in the climate denial industry, are held responsible for the role they play in polluting our planet and delaying action to stop climate change.
- Mike G. (Greenpeace webbie)

I never met an eco-loon that could kick MY ass.

More nonsense from the green lefties. It is the responsibility of the communicator to be understood. The people posting here understand correctly. Coming out after the fact and saying it doesn't mean what it clearly implies is a time-honored dodge of the left. This excuse convinces nobody except the hopelessly addled, namely other leftists. You morons wouldn't last ten seconds threatening anyone north of a second-grader.

If you think you are many, then I suggest that you look at the number of supporters in some of your local groups; even in cities with large student populations. They are laughably small. In fact, I would venture to suggest that you are outnumbered by the WI as a political organisation.

If ever, for any reason, someone made this same exact statement TO YOU-in person or via the web- are you seriously saying that your first thought would be: "Oh good, this bloke is saying he's going to come over for a cup of tea!"?

When you say "we know where you live," the implication is "and we will harm your family, if necessary."

You are far too intelligent to pretend that you don't understand that.

DGF

envirofags listen good.

You are powerless, your movement is without support in the adult world. you need to move out of your mom's basement and get jobs. It wouldn't hurt if you animals bathed every now and then as well.

I would love a war with your greenies. Your hoax has been exposed as have your terrorist tatics. Bring it on.

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

As a rebuttal:

We are Anonymous. We are legion. We do not forgive, and we do not forget.

You pissants are threatening real humans? REALLY?!

Two notes:

1. Bring some friends. Bring a lot friends. You'll need them.

2. Pack a lunch. You won't get to eat it, but the survivors of your little temper tantrum might be hungry. Leave off the mayo. I hate that shit.

The reason that Gandhi was so successful was that he had the backing of his entire population. It was universally agreed upon that the British were a major pain in the ass.

In order for a mass revolution to succeed, the "mass" part must be present. Otherwise, Greenpeace will always be the crazy loons that people walk past on the street and say "Who are those loons?"

Looks like you folks at Greenpeace are getting some unfavorable opinions today. It is difficult to find support in any of the posts. What does that tell you?

That this blog post hit the right wing echo chamber. Echo ... echo ... echo ...

Gee, Greenpeace bullying. Imagine that. The employees of Koch Industries are morally culpable, right? "We know where they live." It is pathetic what the spoiled rich kids have to descend to this to try to create meaning their sorry lives.

Even I think you've gone a bit far.

Seek help.

You have passed beyond the edge.

I own an H3 Hummer, a Dodge Ram 1500 with a 5.7l engine, and a BWM 750, along with a Cessna 182; that's something like 1500HP amongst the four conveyances. My home is a modest 3800 sq. ft. ranch, though I keep it at 66 in the summer, 72 during the winter. Why? Because I can afford these things, and I recognize my place in the food chain. I'd love for any of you douchebags to show up; I refer you to the above comment regarding the food chain.

Something for greenpeace to remember from http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/tom-metzger . If someone from their group or has followed their group engages in certain activities, this is greenpeace’s potential outcome.

Three weeks after Mazella’s arrival in Portland, ESWP skinhead Ken Mieske and two others beat to death an Ethiopian graduate student named Mulugeta Seraw in a street confrontation. The killers, Metzger said later, had done their “civic duty.” After Mieske and two other ESWP skins pleaded guilty to murder, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League sued the Metzgers and WAR on behalf of the victim’s family. Using the doctrine of vicarious liability, plaintiffs’ attorneys argued that the Metzgers should be found liable for intentionally inciting the skinheads to engage in violent confrontations with minorities. A jury agreed, returning a record $12.5 million verdict against the Metzgers and WAR. Tom Metzger was personally responsible for $5.5 million of that sum.

One does not need the personal information to conduct non-violent civil disobedience. As many have pointed out ""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"" combined with the recitation of personel information can be taken for a call to violence. Though you claim that you would not call for violence, that defense was tried by the Klan and failed. Whether you have crossed that line is what in question. May I point out that it may not be up to you to render that judgement, but rather a court of law. The use of courts to take property of the leaders of the KKK after violence of those who claimed to be following what the Klan stated led to organizational and personal bankruptcy. I would point out there is a problem with your polemics to date, ""any"" is one of those absolute words. It cannot be marginialized. Combined with "where it hurts" and the word "more", any means necessary is in fact a call to do anything and everything. Violence is included in such absolute wording. This is true because violence has been a means to hit and to hurt, and the argument made was stated as "any means." What is necessary is in the eye of the beholder; or in this case, that potential person out there who would read this and claim that whatever violence that they commited was sanctioned by you and your group. In fact, I consider the violent responses of some of the posters as proof of my contentions. It also does not help that the author proposed illegal activities. "Any means" and illegal activity means murder. Further ""This is what you do: you reclaim the language of democracy from the twisted bunch that have hijacked, cannibalized and subverted it."" is a statement demonizing your opponents and as such has been the start of violent actions against many peoples. By itself it would be ignorable, but with proposing illegal activity of any means necessary for those who have been painted as deserving of mob justice, for that is what demonizing does. It paints the picture as to allow the unthinkable to become the thinkable and the means necessary. combined with this quote ""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"" cannot be taken out of context when one uses the word "any." THis may not be what is believed, but it is what was written.

If Rush Limbaugh said this he would be driven off the air.
Please stop pretending that this is OK.
AGW is to climate science what eugenics was to biology:
A perversion and a disaster.

Mike G.
You have no right to tell people they cannot put their money or their speech where they want.
I think it would be most interesting to deconstruct the back office of the Greenpeace empire and find out who is giving and how much. Since you seem to think that your misleading and false claims about Koch and Exxon somehow give you the right to attempt to suppress them, I am sure you will be happy to open your worldwide books to outside review.

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

I recognize the voice. I been there before.

The closing part of the article definitely comes across as a not-so-veiled threat (in more than just the civil disobedience sense).

If you want to marginalize your organization, this is the way to go about it. To me this is not in the spirit of Greenpeace - c'mon clean up your act guys! (Sounds like the buck stops with Andrew)

Hi Oliver,
I'm sorry you take it that way, but as Andrew has explained, this is not what is meant by Gene, or by anyone in Greenpeace.
Non-violent direct action is, well, non-violent. Violence is indeed not the spirit of Greenpeace, and never will be. If anyone is aking the closure of this blog as a threat of violence, then they can feel re-assured that this is not the case.
Peace,
Juliette

------------------------------------

Hi Juliette -

I respectfully suggest you show the original post to some friends whose opinion you respect (and don't also work for Greenpeace), and get their take on how the message comes across to them.

In my estimation, the only fix is to issue a correction taking back the "We know where you live" portion of the statement. That single sentence is the crux of problem - the rest can be read as passionate advocacy, which is your stated intent.

Until the language in the post itself is clearly corrected, this issue will persist - to think otherwise is simply naive.

Cheers,

-Oliver


"How can I help if I think you're funny when you're mad?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC_q9KPczAg

"Actually, it has been established by a bi-partisan group of parliamentaries in the UK that none of that alleged "lies" actually happened.
Climate Change is real, it's happening now and it's going to be incredibly destructive. This is why people everywhere are taking the kind of non-violent direct action Gene talks about above.
Peace,
Juliette"

You mean the whitewashing? Look, no one expects any of the investigations to show anything new, both the CRU and the IPCC ones, because they are "independent" like in very,very biased.

And secondly. The parlimentary hearings was about misconduct in handling FOI requests. There will still be an investigation about the science and that result we will see in the future. So we havent seen any result of any the investigations that looks into the science.

Thirdly. I am amazed at you greenies. How you can come out and defend a standpoint when the investigations haven't even started. If that doesn't scream agenda I don't know what does.

Fourtly. I know AGW is bullcrap and I have all along, but many fell for the lies, foremost the media. Even when this house of cards collapses there are millions of people that have invested their personal intellect and integrity into this issue that are going to fight tooth and nail to not be called names. I can understand that. And you mark my words. This article is just the beginning of the incredible moves and statements we are going to see the next years. Nations have alot too loose in admitting mistakes but induviduals must carry the cross. I thought for a while I was going to enjoy witnessing this, but I don't. I am actually genuinly sad.

I'm afraid that the time for you to correct this awful post has passed- it has truly gone viral in the blogs, including some regional newspaper blogs.

It will be fun watching you backpedal, deny, obfuscate, etc., all to no avail. All because your pride made you too bull headed to back down when the damage could have been corrected with minimal trouble. If you were MY employees, I would fire you!

Rather than quoting the parts of Gene's statement that are about taxes, etc. Juliette, and ignoring the inflammatory closing, please answer the following question with some specifics:

What non-violent form of protest requires knowing who I am and where I live?

"Gene's impatient because the best science tells us we're nearing a tipping point - and after which the climate shift might accelerate out of our control.

He also knows that the acting sooner rather than later reduces the overall cost. "
April 5, 2010 12:32 AM
----------------

I guess this all depends on what you consider 'best science'... It's either science or just a grant generating mechanism based on the word of a few 'pal reviewers'...

What troubles me isn't that The Religion of Greenpieces believes 'man' can control the climate... It's that you don't realize how much of a Fascist Hate Machine your Religion has become...

It must be hard to back someone up who has probably lost touch with what is real on the ground...

I wonder what The Religion of Greenpieces will say when donations drop precipitously in the wake of this 'clear' manifesto?

This is to Gene,
Good job getting rid of the Imperialists that brought India Democracy, Rule of Law, a common language (English)...

When some whack job does take this message of action to heart with a violent bent and acts out in The Religion of Greenpieces name, will this post still stay up?

All it takes in one person to be riled up and make a bad choice... Then this blog post becomes 'incitement to violence'...

I hope for decent folks sake this doesn't happen, as much as some might hope for The Religion of Greenpiece's demise, to lose one human life is too high a cost just to bring disrepute to The Religion of Greenpiece's door...

Greenpeace is just a bunch of jug heads. Stupid to the core.

Greenpeace is not, and has never been an environmental organization. It is a publicity organization, whose entire purpose is to acquire funding from a gullible public by making as much noise as possible.

The choice of wording is so interesting:

"And we be many, but you be few"

It kind of riffs with:

"We must be lucky once. You must be lucky always"

Getting your inspiration from the Provisional Irish Republican Army?

Take your pathetic attempt at imtimidation and shove it up your arse.

Hammer it in with your bullshit fake apologetics about how that wasn't an attempt at intimidation.

Little fascist wannabes.

WARNING

Global Warming on the horizon!

This has been the preachings of every active environmentalist for over 20 years. Eminent doom for everyone of us for the exploitation of the use of fossil fuels. That's been pretty much the mantra for a quarter century.

Big business is bad.

Coal Companies, bad.

Oil Industries, bad.

Gov't control is good.

EPA, good.

Greenpeace, good.

Lets get real for a moment.

What organization has been one of the strongest lobbyist of the modern era ? Greenpeace.

What organization has ran unopposed from media scrutiny ? Greenpeace.

What organization feels the grip over the people loosening ? Greenpeace.
This so called, 'call to arms', is a failed attempt to gather support from the people. The same people who no longer have faith in some belief that Greenpeace is guilty of fabricating.

Global Warming is Dead.

The Oil industry has been a slave to environmental controls that is much to blame for the toxic waste created to protect us from CO2, which by the way is harmless.

The Coal industry has been manipulated to the point that it can no longer supply energy at a profit, due to mandates imposed on it by the efforts of Greenpeace.

All in the name if protecting us from CO2.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.N.'s version of the strong arm of the N.W.O. , is but a puppet for Greenpeace.

Greenpeace is nothing more than a highly sophisticated media thug. Full of lies, deceit and avarice.

And you know what. The American people are finding this out and Greenpeace can't stop it.

American people do not like to be fooled.

The American People are waking up and learning they have been betrayed by lies and deceit fed to them by organizations such as Greenpeace.

Shame on those for trying to fool the American People.

So, lets not be confused about this. Big business does not control me. I am led by scientific fact. I am lead to tell the truth. I refuse to be told lies about climate change, or global warming or any other endeavor that threatens our way of life. And the environmentalists have gone too far this time.

Its Greenpeace that has been threatening us. Not the oil industry. Its been Greenpeace that lies about climate change. Not the coal industry. Its been Greenpeace that has used strong armed tactics to keep the lie alive, and thats the truth.

Time to wake the hell up people!




The best way for humans to stop the human CO2 supply chain is to stop breathing (since humans exhale so much CO2). That would seem a surefire way to reduce the human carbon footprint. Perhaps the members of the Green-not-so-peace-ful movement should do the Earth (I mean Gaia) a favor and all stop breathing?

If I were the Japanese, the next time you rammed one of my fishing vessels with the S.S. Stinky Hippy, I would sink your asses.

Be the first bath you guys have had in years no doubt.

Try that shit with the Chinese, Norks or Russians, I dare you.

@hunter: i never suggested Koch Industries and Exxon should have their rights taken away. i'm just exercising my right to tell the truth about the oil billionaires who are funding the "experts" peddling climate denial in the media to ensure that the world remains hooked on fossil fuels so the billionaires at Koch Industries and Exxon can keep making the big bucks.

Trust me on this one Gene/Andrew/Juliette. You have made sure a whole bunch of people will not be putting and money in your collection tins ever again.

"Pressuring politicians on climate change is not working"

Now I find the above line interesting. I have was brought up and have lived in a democratic country all my life and change politicians with the majority of my country men by voting. What gives any of you the right to interfere with hat process? What gives Green"PEACE" the right to submit non peer reviewed stuff to the IPCC (along with the WWF etc!
I find it sad to see that Greenpeace (who at one time had my financial support)has become purely anarchist.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Pete,
Engagement with the political process isn't interfering. It's participating. And democracy provides many more ways than elections to engage with shaping the leadership we need.

If you look at our history, we're actually responsible for making a great deal of law, even though we're famous for breaking laws. The fact that nuclear waste is not dumped in the North Sea today, that Titanium Dioxide is not dumped into European rivers, and that toxic waste can't legally be traded with poor countries are all results of Greenpeace "interference" with the political system.

Our governments are supposed to protect the common good and the common future of humanity -- not special interests. When they fail to live up to that mission, they must be called to task.

That's what we do. Today, politicians are too focussed on the next election rather than the next generation. Collectively, unless we fix that, we'll continue to see shiny new bricks of good intentions paving a road toward disaster.

--Brian
(Head of Digital Communications)

LOL at Greenpeace. I'm scared.

LOL No threat there, eh? Congrats, Gene, for offering proof positive that "environmentalists" are control freaks donning flimsy fig leaves.

All I can say is, bring it on Gene! This little girl will tear you apart if you even LOOK like you're going to lay a finger on my family, and that's before my husband gets ahold of you.

My dad belonged to this "organization" in the late 70s and left in the 80s when the idiots in the inflatable boats started crying about being run over after parking the oversize raft in front of a warship.

I'm sending him a link to this tirade so he may see for himself the absolute proof that he was correct: Greenpeace is anything but green or peaceful.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hi Visceral,

I guess I'm an alternative story to your Dad's. I've worked for Greenpeace since 1982, and I've grown prouder and prouder of the organisation's acievements and the activists who people our ranks. I was one of the folks who, like your father, got in front of those warships, and one of the people who stood at ground zero to stop a nuclear weapons test. We were part of the reason that the nuclear arms race did not escalate unchecked. We were part of the reason nuclear weapons tests were driven underground, and eventually stopped. We're part of the reason the world is a safer place today.

The fact that Greenpeace was raising the alarm in the 70s and 80s about nuclear fallout is one of the reasons that you and my own children don't today face the spectre of radioactivity falling from the sky. Yet, in the day, our "lunatic alarmism" was challenged, undermined, and attacked, just as our position on Climate Change is today.

The science bears us out now as it did then: our concerns are valid, and addressing them will do a world of good. Your Dad may want to reconsider:

http:/www.greenpeace.org/me2

--Brian
(Greenpeace Head of Digital Communications)

Juliette,
You can repeat that "Gene was talking about non-violence" line from now until doomsday and it won't change the obvious meaning of what he plainly wrote.

Try something, you little environmentalist pansies. Let's get this thing started. I'm ready.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dear William, try this:

http://www.greenpeace.org/me2

This fragile Earth deserves a voice. It deserves change, it deserves action. If that's what you're ready for, we're ready to get started too.

--Brian (Greenpeace Head of Digital Communications)

Given that there is a stated (non-violent) attack threat to the 'Denial Machine', could you please give a definition of this 'Denial Machine' that 'Deniers' such as myself (labelled as such, I disagree with the term utterly) will recognise?

Nobody is funding me, nor any of those I have heard 'Deny' the existence of any potential threat from CO2 using actual science and actual facts.

As such, I am confused about the term itself. We hear it a lot, and I was just wondering if it has any meaning beyond empty rhetoric or some tenuous paranoia. If not, kindly put it away and start confronting the arguments we (presumably the 'Deniers') put forward.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hi Jerome,
There are of course people who, I'll take your word for it, have formed an opinion from what you've read and been told, independent of funding.

But there is very much a denial machine, and it's funded by those with a financial interest in ensuring that no action is taken to reduce carbon emissions. You can see it exposed here:

http://www.exxonsecrets.org

And you can see a good example here:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/05/myron-ebell-climate-change-new-york-times-hansen/

Plug the name of the author, Myron Ebell, into the ExxonSecrets site and see what comes up. Did Fox declare that Mr. Ebell has any financial interest in undermining climate science? Nope. They credit hims as the head of an organisation dedicated to "putting freedom on the offensive."

Personally, I find it offensive what Mr. Ebell calls freedom: shilling for Exxon to stop action against an environmental catastrophe in the name of more profits for the richest company in the world. More on Myron here:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/investigation-of-exxon-front-g

It's a simple matter of following the money.

--Brian (Greenpeace Head of Digital Communicaions)

"I'm sorry that you don't seem to know the difference between non-violent direct action and violence. For us, the difference is quite clear, and Gene even gave examples in his blog:
"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."

Gene's examples are open-ended, not limited. *BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY* will be seen by anybody who thinks logically as a statement that could reasonably be construed as incitement to violence. It is NOT a peaceful statement. It is a statement that the ends justifies the means, and the means are by any means an environmentalist activist views necessary, and Gene offers no limitations in that 'clear' statement about what he means by 'any means necessary.'

Telling somebody you know who they are and where they live is ALWAYS going to be perceived as threatening- indeed, that is why he used that phraseology.

And in what way, precisely, is the very open ended, "And more" conclusion to Gene's threat a clear example of his devotion to peace?

"Gene is calling for PEACEFUL civil disobedience (protests). Hear him talk for himself... http://bit.ly/dsaLZ5"

I have no doubt that he has called for peaceful civil disobedience in the past. But his post here speaks of a need for "course-correction" and to "shift targets." So his purported sentiments of the past really don't bear upon his stated sentiments today.

You speak of yourselves in the same vein as King and Gandhi. With that statement, you disgust me. I doubt very much that either man said "we know where you live" to an opponent. I dare say that King may have RECEIVED such a statement...and what would you suppose it meant then?

You do yourself no favors with the "just kidding" excuses and evasions. There are no excuses for what was said. If you wish us to believe your claims of non-violence, you need to formally retract that statement, and publicly reprimand Gene for making it....not tell us what a swell guy Gene really is.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hi Brad,

We're clarifying the statement. We can't retract Gene's words -- he made them, not us. If you look at the disclaimer at the bottom of this page, you'll see that opinions expressed here are those of the individuals posting them -- it's a blog, not the institutional voice of Greenpeace.

At the same time, I do think you need to consider context. You need to consider source. You need to consider the framework in which we operate, which finds violence of any kind abhorrent. Gene was letting people who rely on secrecy that they've been unmasked, and that the funding that Koch industries and Exxon have been pouring into climate denial has been traced back to its source. He was undiplomatic in his choice of words. That doesn't make him guilty of threatening violence -- he wasn't.

All the best,

Brian
(Greenpeace Head of Digital Communications)


Your whole shtick is both laughable and borderline-psychotic:

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

And we know who you are - and where you live - and where you "work" - so?

"And we be many..."

Not as "many" as you used to be, I'd wager, after this stupid scurf - and not nearly "many" enough.

"..., but you be few."

Not nearly so "few" as you'd like to think - and we are both well-armed and well-practiced, with plenty of ammunition.

Bring.It.On...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dear J.S.,

Put down the gun. It won't solve anything. Never does.

All the best,

Brian
(Greenpeace Head of Digital Communications)

I understand that what Gene wrote might feel threatening to some. however, Andrew and I have been trying to re-assure everyone that no, Gene isn't threatening anyone with violence - he is a nice man, a peaceful person - and he's not coming to your house.

Then why does he feel it is so important to tell everybody who disagrees with him that he knows where they live? You don't need people's home addresses for legitimate, peaceful civil disobedience. You talk about people's homes in that threatening way "We know where you live" when you want them to feel threatened. I think you know this.

Gene comes from India, where they have a big tradition of change through civil disobedience.

It's pretty reasonable that when he says, "through the power of our votes, our taxes, our wallets, and more" he means things like sit ins and other creative protests.

Unfortunately, Gene is not communicating only with fellow citizens of India who share his supposed cultural background, values, and assumptions, is he?

He is using what is widely recognized as a threat to personal violence and he is using it irresponsibly. Gene does not get to redefine a well known threat of violence just because he's from India, where, like, Ghandi was born and stuff.

Neither do you get to redefine it just because you don't like the implications and so wish to reject them.

Gene's words are what they are- a widely recognized thuggish threat of personal violence.

Once more- where a person lives should have NOTHING to do so called peaceful protests and civil disobedience. *Whatever means necessary* - those are NOT the words of measured, peaceful nonviolence.

REfusing to own those words and their implications makes you seem dishonest and disingenuous, and it is not convincing anybody that your assurances are reliable or sincere.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi DHM,

There's an important piece of context here. Gene wrote this piece following the publication of an exposé that unmasked millions of dollars in funding to undermine climate science, as reported in this piece in the Huffington Post.

The nature of paying to undermine science requires a certain secrecy, and for years we've exposed efforts by Exxon and others to question the science of climate change. The tactics they've used have been the same as those the tobacco industry used to fund efforts to undermine the science of the health dangers in smoking. It's essential in such efforts that the profit motive and self-interest of the arguments be masked.

We took off one of those masks with the report to which Gene's blog refers.

Perhaps it would have been better said, "your secret is out. You've been exposed. The public sees through your attempts to hide your agenda."

But Gene has the right to express his opinion, as do you, and he chose a provocative means to do so. At the bottom of every crime, there's a personal choice. I think he was attempting to reach out to those who have made the personal choice to knowingly erode cautionary science for wreckless profit, and let them know that they can't hide in anonymity. The presumption that violence was his intent is, at the end of the day, a presumption, and one which in the context of Gene's personal history and the history of this organisation, is simply mistaken.

--Brian
(Greenpeace Head of Digital Communications)

I can't believe anyone would be surprised by this. Greenpeace are a (eco-)facist organisation. Are there still people alive today who aren't cogniscant of this fact?

Wake up and smell the coffee people, these people aren't out to save the planet, they're out to impose their world view on the rest of us - and for those of use who don't want to play they have now told us they are keeping a list (much beloved of dictatorships) of where you and your family live and work.

Link to this blog everywhere you can.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
John,
Sorry you feel this way, but what we at Greenpeace stand for is not an imposed world view, it's simply a world with the things that make life possible: clean water, clean air, food without destruction, peace.

We've had a 40 year history of victories toward that goal and are supported by millions of people who fund us to do what we do, without money from governments or corporations.

Fascism is as despicable to us as it is to you, and unwarrented as a description of a charity which exists only because people believe in and continue to donate and contribute to our work.

http://www.greenpeace.org/me2

--Brian
(Greenepace Head of Digital Communications)

I’m a warmer, and I find the anti-democratic sentiments and implied threats of violence in this article very disturbing.

If action against climate change involves mob rule and vigilante action, count me out.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hi Brendan,
Action against climate change involves mass mobilization and non-violent action. The distincition is essential. Can we count you in?

http://www.greenpeace.org/me2

--Brian
(Greenpeace Head of Digital Communications)

Juliette as you replied to me directly, please give the courtesy of a write to reply: (I will post this at watts up as well, the first time iposted it, it did not appear.)

Juliette:
"What about Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Nelson Mandela? They were definitively outlaws"

Shame on you:
Greenpeace/Juliette

can anyone imagine any of these outstanding people saying:

'we know where you live'

Especially Rosa Parks

I consider that, as many other people would, an out an out threat personally, to me and my family..

Why say it?

Are they going to come and knock on my door and have a friendly chat over a cup of tea...

That was a threat...
The law says people can 'perceive a threat'

I am shocked to see that this was from a communications director for Greenpeace, I had thought that it was just some words of some randon activists...

Can you not see that this could incite 'some' people (ie they 'misinterpret Gene - to be generous - to be 'climate outlaws' - does that include violence - sounds at least like violent acts) to acts of personal intimidation and violence...

Please publically apologise, and make a statement, to prevent any lunatic bringing Greenpeace into further disrepute. I am worried for my personal safety and my families, as I do not agree with catastrophic unprecedented man made global warming, it is an example of a popular delusion and the madness of crowds.

Anyone dumb enough to use the Huffington Post as a source should give up trying to save the planet and put their analyst on danger pay.

why all the the discontent?

freedom of speech is all importand.

lastly,it,s better to do something that you believe in,than doing nothing at all.

good on yer gene!

So let me get this straight - you do a blog posting that explicitly asks for violence against people who philosophically oppose you, and now you're trying to weasel out of it and say you didn't really mean it? That doesn't cut it. Can you say 'criminal conspiracy'? I thought you could.

And by the way, if you're going to do this I'd suggest staying out of everything but the coastal enclaves - everyone else is better armed and would basically like to see you go away.

You're all upset because the Copenhagen treaty got deep sixed, huh?
Why?
If you actually thought about it you would understand that it would have resulted in an increase in pollution, not a reduction.
Think about it, it would have increased the costs to the already cleaner industry in the west but not to the much more polluting industry in China.
So the dirtier Chinese industry would have an even larger competitive advantage over the cleaner industy here.
So more production would move to the much more polluting factories in China, so more pollution, not less.
We would shut down clean factories here and open more dirty factories in unregulated China.
And on top of that it would result in more raw materials being shipped to China and the finished products shipped back here, so even more pollution from transportation.
So why were you all in favour of a treaty that would increase pollution?
Don't you guys ever think for yourselves or are you just mindless puppets dancing as the major polluters pull your strings?
Why would you support a treaty that increases pollution?
Are you insane?

Oh, and spare me the explanation that includes how we would increase the costs to industry here, then some kind of bizarre economic miracle would occur, and then we'd all be farting through silk.
It didn't happen after the Kyoto treaty was implemented in Europe so there is no reason to think it would happen after the much stricter proposals of the Copenhagen treaty.

So if you actually thought it through you would be happy the Copenhagen treaty got the chop.
Same with the CRU emails, you should be dancing in the streets because it turns out AGW is just a big lie and all the birds aren't going to die by next thursday if I idle my SUV for one more minute.
It's like the doctor telling you the lab made a mistake and that thing growing on your ass isn't cancer, it's just a boil.
Go buy some cheap champagne and shut the hell up for once.

Since Brian seems to be such a helpful person and willing to respond to most posts, I wonder if he might do the same with me. I respectfully have some questions for him:

Are your responses to comments on this blog damage control on your part, or were you ordered to do so by someone else higher in the organization?

Is top leadership at Greenpeace aware of this situation? If they are, what is their official response or when do you expect to have one to be ready?

Does Greenpeace have rules against the use of threatening or what can easily be perceived to be threatening language by an employee?

Will Greenpeace initiate an official investigation into whether Gene broke any company rules or international laws when he publicly used inflammatory language like “we know where you live” and “by any means” in his blog?

Has Greenpeace consulted with legal representation regarding the possible legal consequences from the use of threatening language in such a public manner by a Director level employee?

When can we expect a statement from Gene regarding the public outcry to his blog?

Since we seem to be moving up the food chain at Greenpeace starting with Juliette, and then to Andrew the Web Producer, and now Brian the Head of Digital Communications...who is slated next to personally respond to the public’s concerns regarding this situation?

I look forward to seeing your answers to my questions.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi Fred,

Sure, we have rules against violence and threats of violence. Non-violence is part of our core values, it's part of our rules governing staff behaviour, and we've exited people from the organisation in the past for not living those values.

But as Andrew and Juliette and myself and others have made clear here, taking Gene's words as a threat of violence is simply wrong, and I personally don't see any call or an offical investigation. Hhe was telling those who we recently unmasked as pumping millions of dollars into attempts to undermine climate science that their cover is blown, and our Koch report has removed the anonymity upon which such strategies rely. I have no reason to doubt Gene's committment to non-violence, and if you knew him you wouldn't either.

Your perception that responses are moving up the food chain is flattering, but I'm afraid what you're seeing is simply the tag-team efforts of people covering for each other over a long holiday weekend. I'm a frequent contributor to this blog under the name Brianfit.

All the best,

Brian

"And we be many, but you be few." you say.

So where are the many you speak of coming to your defence? Personally I don't take offence at you thinly vailed threats (though even non-violence can easily be percieved as terrorism when taken you the extremes you advocate), but I find it endlessly interesting that there are vanishingly few comments in support of your position, much less your tactics.

Based on this anecdotal evidence (aka. not evidence) I think it is the rational sceptics who are many to you few rabid activits who would know science if it slapped you in the face (in a non-violent sort of way)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi Chris,
We've not put out a call to our supporters to flock to this blog entry. We're busy sending them here:

http://www.greenpeace.org/kitkat

and here:

http://www.greenpeace.org/coalfacebook

To DO SOMETHING about climate change rather than debate whether it's happening or not. There are very few, if any, in this thread that I recognise as regular visitors or supporters, and while it's important to clear up the misunderstanding of Gene's words with you, I don't think there's so much of an issue for people who are familiar with our work and our 40 year commitment to non-violence.

All the best,

Brian
(Greenpeace Head of Digital Communications)

@Brian and Juliette

What is Gene's last name? I can't seem to find it. Usually it's listed on top of blog, op-eds and articles instead of "this nice guy I know".

Could you please help me locate the though guy's name?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As credited here:
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/climate/2008/11/roadkill_and_breathtaking_idio.html
Gene's last name is Hashimi.

--Brian

With all the violent rhetoric started by Gene Hashmi that our other side - the sensible people - returned, I actually do believe that most of their "action" would be non-violent.

I have met many Greenpeace members. They usually don't eat meat so they're kind of weak and most of the men are impotent. It may be relaxing to talk to them, no hassle, even if everyone realizes that they're on the very opposite side.

So he could have proposed attempts for Greenpeace to stop the business in inconvenient companies, pressure to make the work of individuals at their workplaces impossible, campaigns to fire the inconvenient people from the workplaces, annoying occupation of your house by Greenpeace, and so on.

Well, if it is so, it would be non-violent in some sense. But it is still heavily illegal, inconvenient for the attacked people and companies, and if it crossed some line of convenience and/or the law enforcement authorities wouldn't be able to solve the situation, and the very functioning of companies or viable life of the individuals would be endangered, it would still be sensible for the attacked people to use firearms even if the Greenpeace people didn't use them. Shooting a couple of Greenpeace activists wouldn't be the legally cleanest way to solve the dispute - but it would still be a kind of defense.

Violence is one aspect of these things but it is already the point when organizations resort to any illegal behavior when the real conflict begins.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi Lubos,

An action can be non-violent and illegal.
An action can be non-violent and confrontational.

It's important not to confuse these things. More evil has been caused in the world by obedience than by disobedience, and when governments are so busy looking out for the next election that they forget we elect them to look out for the next generation, something has to change.

Change is not always brought about by violence, and there are plenty of good examples of non-violent revolutions (political and social) that have been achieved through people taking illegal, confrontational acts of civil disobedience and turning them into law and the social norms by which we govern ourselves.

All the best,

Brian
(Greenpeace Head of Digital Communications)

finn braaksma:

Do you comprehend the difference between free speech and veiled threats of violence? Let alone inciting others to violence?

There is absolutely, unequivocably no excuse for this language in any civilised society. But apparently this is permissable in India and encouraged by Greenpeace cohorts.

Ask yourself this... If this language had been coming from fossil fuel company reps or a major sceptic organisation... how you would have reacted in the press.

The fact is, reputable organisations do not talk like this or, more importantly, allow themselves to be represented like this, assuming this is a lone voice. The fact that there are no reprimands appearing here makes it clear that Greenpeace as an organisation condones this stance.

Let's see how this washes down in other countries eh?

I was down at the mall and ran into a bunch of Greenpeacers running a campaign drive. I went over and talked to them and asked them some questions about climate change--none of them could answer. The leader of the group admitted he got his info on climate change from Discovery Channel--wow, I was impressed. They kept referring me their head office to get the answers to my questions. They all reminded me of a bunch of cult followers all brainwashed and propagandized. They all just wanted to protest--they couldn't articulate any substantive reasons why, they just wanted to protest. So it won't surprise me if the ignorant followers of this eco-cult begin committing acts of violence. They've already believed a lie so why shouldn't they harm in the name of that lie?

Well, greenpeace is a professional begging organisation - the only multinational corporate beggars I can think of at the moment; but for all those who've succumbed to their street beggars & given their name, address & bank account or credit card - yes, they truly do know where you live!

Greenpeace's spin doctors are lying like an Iman & have got to be seriously bent if they think anyone outside of their ideological clutches is going to believe they can preface "civil disobedience" or whatever with "peaceful" & get away with the dog whistle.

It seems that, as I don’t agree that further human CO2 emissions will cause catastrophic or unprecedented climate change, Greenpeace believes I (once a supporter) and my family should be threatened by people who, to use your unpleasant phrase, know where I live. That a Greenpeace communications director has given this impression is bad enough. That you, instead of apologising and withdrawing the threat, seem determined to defend it, is wholly deplorable.

I find it quite tragic that Greenpeace is now little more that a political advocacy group. Regardless of your protestations many people, including myself, view your article as inflammatory and on that promotes violence. Stop the protestations and print a full retraction anything less is unacceptable.

Well that's torn it, you've crossed the line from activists to terrorists. All I can say is bring it on, if you threaten people don't be surprised if you find you and your members getting their dues, violence can be countered by violence and there are huge numbers of people in the UK who are against your organisation.

I, too, won't be bothered to read the original post. I was directed here by a report of the threat made by one of your supporters. If you think your tree hugging views are the majority view then you are very seriously deluded. You seem incapable of differentiating between false science that suits your end and fraud.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hi Jerome,
There are of course people who, I'll take your word for it, have formed an opinion from what you've read and been told, independent of funding.

But there is very much a denial machine, and it's funded by those with a financial interest in ensuring that no action is taken to reduce carbon emissions. You can see it exposed here:

http://www.exxonsecrets.org

And you can see a good example here:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/05/myron-ebell-climate-change-new-york-times-hansen/

Plug the name of the author, Myron Ebell, into the ExxonSecrets site and see what comes up. Did Fox declare that Mr. Ebell has any financial interest in undermining climate science? Nope. They credit hims as the head of an organisation dedicated to "putting freedom on the offensive."

Personally, I find it offensive what Mr. Ebell calls freedom: shilling for Exxon to stop action against an environmental catastrophe in the name of more profits for the richest company in the world. More on Myron here:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/investigation-of-exxon-front-g

It's a simple matter of following the money.

--Brian (Greenpeace Head of Digital Communicaions)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Thanks for the reply, Brian. I also appreciate the attempts to answer comments rather than merely delete them as may AGW promoting sites do.

But as to the "good example", I am at a loss. All I see there is some opinions on the state of affairs regarding the Climategate issue. The opinions are not wild or rabid, and the author describes themselves as "not an unbiased, objective Times reporter", which seems fair.

I have no knowledge of the author, and I do not feel that a disclosure of their possible financial interest is required.

I assume you do. If that is so, would you agree that Al Gore should be forced to declare all his financial interests before any 'lecture', film or interview? That would be revealing!

Can we also have some information on how much funding Greenpeace gets from any organisation involved with mining or selling fossil fuels? I have read some alarming figures that put any claims to a well-funded 'denial machine' entirely in the shade!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hi Jerome,
Thanks for raising the level of the discussion. As to funding for Greenpeace from organisations mining or selling fossil fuels, be interested to see documentation of any of these accusations. We don't take *any* corporate or government funding -- screen and send back checks, in fact, to ensure we are never in a situation where we're afraid to bite a hand that feeds us. Indepedence -- political and financial -- are essential to the way we work.

All the best,

Brian

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

And we be many, but you be few."

I'm just an ordinary german citizen. But I'll assure you, Gene, we who don't believe in your new world dictatorship are many.

Come on over, greenfags. Looks like I'm about to... git'er done!

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

I'm a 6'3", 230lb carnivore. Bring it on, you skinny vegans...

What strikes me as very puzzling is how so many intelligent people at Greenpeace could not see how provocative such comments are.

You cannot defend them.

You cannot spin them.

This was not someone mis-speaking.

This was a direct threat of violence posted by Greenpeace for all the world to see.

We now see that Greenpeace and the Cathlolic church have much in common. Their attempts at defending the indefensible, by trying to silence those they have abused thru threats, are risible.

This is Greenpeace's tipping point. There is no way back from this.

You are not so 'many', you are an intemperate hooligan minority. Like the WWF, your beliefs and actions contradict your name.

Dear Brian,

I appreciate your getting involved in what could develop into a productive discussion.

You say that taking the words “we know where you live” as a threat of violence is “simply wrong”. Maybe – but it doesn’t sound like it and it’s evident from the response here that that’s not how many people see it. I suggest that you might defuse the situation – unquestionably harming to Greenpeace’s reputation – by issuing, first, an apology to anyone who has felt threatened by this, second, an acknowledgement that publishing this article was an error and, third, a statement that Greenpeace is truly inclusive and tolerant of views that are at odds with its own.

The root of your problem, I believe, is that you have seriously misunderstood recent developments re climate science. Many thinking and informed people, such as myself, by reading widely and by using the Internet to exchange opinion and to consider and develop their views, have come to the view that the dangerous man-made global warming hypothesis is no more than an interesting but unverified hypothesis. We have therefore concluded that, taking action that is almost certainly unnecessary but will serve to undermine our already damaged Western economies as well (and in particular) as bringing further misery to some of the world’s poorest people, is a bad mistake. It’s a view reinforced by recent revelations about the unprofessional behaviour of scientists active in the field. This widespread and growing development has nothing at all to do with the alleged machinations of and funding provided by organisations such as Koch and Exxon. We are true individuals who have formed our own opinions. We have no need of “financial oxygen”; there is no money to “follow”. Nor are we part of a “denial machine”.

You are, I suggest, addressing completely the wrong target.

Best wishes

Robin

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hi Jerome,
Thanks for raising the level of the discussion. As to funding for Greenpeace from organisations mining or selling fossil fuels, be interested to see documentation of any of these accusations. We don't take *any* corporate or government funding -- screen and send back checks, in fact, to ensure we are never in a situation where we're afraid to bite a hand that feeds us. Indepedence -- political and financial -- are essential to the way we work.

All the best,

Brian
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Fair enough! I think there are other eco organisations that cannot truthfully say the same.

I do feel that the majority of skeptics (to use a non-inflammatory term) on the Internet are so because of the science they have read, not the media. There may well be biased and funded misinformation in the media, but there is a whole lot more biased and funded misinformation in the media promoting the catastrophic AGW position.

Would you accept a similar post and viewpoint from someone who put forward the view that the people behind these biased media pronouncements should be hounded in some way?

Bear in mind that I am not claiming truth or falsity, merely bias.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I'm in favor of peaceful civil disobedience and protest across the board. I tend to think it's ok anywhere and any time.

For the record, all the major scientific institutions say the science is quite clear on climate change. The UK Royal Society has been calling for "prompt action" for almost a decade, for example.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Has Greenpeace compiled or has been compiling lists of names, addresses and workplaces of skeptics?

There is now strong prima-facie from this article that Greenpeace as an organisation has.

I would reccommend that Greenpeace make an immediate statement on this matter before people who feel they have been directly threatened by the tone and direction of this article start taking FOIA or legal action.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

We've been naming names for years - it's all in out in the public. Check out our Exxon Secrets website for example.

Gene wrote his blog right we were exposing Koch industries.

That's the kind of thing he means when he talks about holding people accountable.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

LMFAO!

Will you be conducting this non-violent civil disobedience in China, Iran and North Korea?

Under the law of many countries it is a reasonable argument that an article that "incites riot" shares the responsibility not only of the author but also of publisher.

Do as I do and follow the path of peace.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

We have an office in China, but not Iran or Korea.

We do walk the path of peace. Gene doesn't call for violence, and I posted a note making sure people understand that.

Thank you for saying you share our peaceful ethics. It would be nice to hear that from more people.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I actually found the article quite good. And the fact that everybody chooses to make the same misunderstanding of what is said (especially in an article that references non-violent direct action), and fails to mention that the "threat" is directed at those who fund misinformation makes me think this is a campaign by the same people.

You're the ones who have been had. You go on about the fact that "it's all a lie" because you found a couple of errors with no bearing on the main thrust of the argument. Yet last decade was still the warmest on record, last year was the second warmest on record, and this year looks set to be even hotter. The majority of people who have any expertise in this field still say that you are wrong. I actually really want you to be right, sadly I don't think you are.

See what you started, Greenpeace has lost my faith and many others, in those who felt they 'understood' the planet. They do not listen anymore, just spout rhetoric, no, you are now just a big snivelling business, pawing at the politicians. Shame on you all.

Looks like the Koch brothers knew who you were, knew where you lived and pershaps knew how to keep you up all night working.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

LOL, yeah, I suppose anything is possible.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Julliette,

Surely if Gene's words are percieved to be threatening by the average person then they must be threatening?

Can you still stand there and defend the intentions of his words despite the majority of comments saying they understand them to be threatening?

And no where do you say you have spoken with Gene about his specific blog in question. Rather, all you say is that from what you know of him you are sure he never meant it to be a call for violence. How can you know this without talking to him about it directly?

I can see the implication behind his words, why do you insist on defending him in the face of overwhelming comments telling you they see his words as inciting people to violence?

This stance does not make you sound like the noble defender of an underdog in the face of bullies and ignorants but rather as someone who is so arrogant that they cannot admit they got something wrong.

Arrogance is very unattractive and to carry on defending him just makes you of the same mindset as the 'deniers'.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Please check out the update I've just posted above.

I don't think I can be responsible for what other people choose to believe. I can only make the facts clear. (As I do in my note at the top of this blog.)

In the same way that some people choose not to think the climate crisis is real, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence, they will choose to miss-understand Gene or me or anyone.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This article has caused a huge amount of offence and outrage. We are told that this is unintentional, and that the article has been misunderstood. If this is the case, why not simply apologise for any offence which has been taken, and amend the article to prevent further misunderstandings? How hard would that be?

Greenpeace has scored a spectacular own goal with this article, by publishing it in the first place and by trying to justify it in its present form.

Oh dear!you have opened a can of worms,good luck.

The accusations against oil companies are pathetic lies. All major corporations support AGW.

Enron created carbon trading when the had Gore insert it into article 16 of the Kyoto Protocol.

The biggest lobbying group at Copenhagen was the International Emissions Trading Association which was created to promote carbon trading more than ten years ago.

Its members include :-

BP, Conoco Philips, Shell, E.ON AG (coal power stations owner, EDF (one of the largest participants in the global coal market), Gazprom (Russian oil and gas), Goldman Sachs, Barclays, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley..

http://www.ieta.org/ieta/www/pages/index.php?IdSiteTree=1249


Carbon trading links


http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sealed/gw/business.htm

What if you threw a giant pity party and everyone showed up just to mock, laugh and make fun of you.

This is what this thread pretty much reminds me of.

I will now cancel my monthly direct debit to Greenpeace.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Well, that's up to you, but of course kind of a shame. I hope you take the time to at least read the post in full, and consider what Gene is saying in context.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Besides being really not clever (menacing individuals is way beyond your protest rights) you are a bit dumb.

Who the hell is Barosso? Can you spell his CORRECT name?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Thanks! Spelling fixed.

And no one is being menaced. Please see my other comments.

Cheers,

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I used to be an enthusiastic and supportive member of Greenpeace (and FotE, WWF, RSPCA, etc), until I realised it had been infiltrated and taken over by stark staring crazy FASCISTS!
Thank you for confirming in black and white everything I have been telling people ever since I left the organisation.
Unfortunately, the other organisations I mentioned have been just as infiltrated too.
It's people like YOU, that decent, ordinary people, now somehow have to get rid of.

If you're one of those who have spent their lives encouraging relentless climate legislation, colluding in junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and encouraging democratically-elected governments to further tax their long suffering citizens, then hear this:

Why can't Greenpeace be a bit more rational and try to build a consencus rather than trying to get your own way by shouting the loudest and bullying those who question your credibility

I came upon this funny little website by a political blogger link and I have never laughed so much in my life. Gene is obviously a fascist eco loon and Juliette appears to be barking mad and has to much time on her hands judging by the number of posts, peace.

i am shocked by the threatening and sinister nature of the "we know who you are, we know where you live etc" message. Such talk is hugely damaging to your cause.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There is no physical threat here. It's being (deliberately?) miss-interpreted.

Gene is a peaceful guy, and Greenpeace is 100% dedicated to peaceful direct action. We are all against violence.

Civil disobedience is a positive part of our society. It helped bring about the women's right to vote, and was essential to the civil rights movement.

-- Andrew, Greenpeace web producer

"We must break the law to make the laws we need"

WTF? So what's to stop organisations, companies and corps taking the same approach? We spend a vast amount of effort, time and money trying to make sure laws are enforced against eco-criminals and in one sentence you undermine the whole effort. Thanks a bunch. Are you sure you're not a plant for Shell or Esso FFS?

It is a measure of civilisation that you stick to your principles not only when it is easy to do so but when those principles are difficult to cling to. Your willingness to abandon the rule of law when it's inconvenient is reprehensible. What's the point creating laws if we say don't bother with them when they're a hinderance to your objectives.

The ends do not justify the means.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Civil disobedience is a positive part of our society. It helped bring about the women's right to vote, and was essential to the civil rights movement.

Can't you think of any time a law was un-just?

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

>>>"To DO SOMETHING about climate change rather than debate whether it's happening or not. . . .

All the best,

Brian
(Greenpeace Head of Digital Communications)"

The ONLY 'solution' criminals like you are interested in, is that 'final solution' embraced by your fellow travellers, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.

Until you can achieve that, you will invent problem after problem after problem.

I have seen your real face, and it is the same face that weilded machetes with such glee in Rwanda.

I am now far from alone in having seen that face too.

Glimpsing that face, is why one of Greenpeace's FOUNDERS even gave up on you!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It seems this discussion has reached Godwin's law.

I suppose it was only a matter of time.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

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

And we be many, but you be few."


This is a direct threat of terrorist action.

However, it's from the usual sort of latte-sipping, mincing, posturing narcissist who is notmally unable to tie their shoelaces without a government grant.

Amusingly, we sceptics outnumber you, and many, like myself, are privately or publicly armed or work in law enforcement or military.

Often combinations of all of the above.

So, try your 'eco-terrorism', you pitiful creampuff.

And we will see what occurs when you do.

MB


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It's not a physical threat. Just read it in context.

Gene is very specific about what he thinks people should do - civil disobedience.

Greenpeace is opposed to violence, and Gene is a genuinely peaceful guy.

-- Andrew Davies, Greenpeace web producer

I assume "junk science" is any science that gives results which disagree with your simplistic and idealized rose-tinted view of how things should be?

Greenpeace has no support for the corporate global warming scam. Despite a constant avalanche of government and corporate propaganda, only 26% of people in the Uk believe in AGW, according to the BBC.


It's a oil/banking carbon trading scam, and we know it.

Bring it on hoodies. Let's rumble! I'll kick your tofu-ass anytime.

Brian, above said
"Dear J.S.,

Put down the gun. It won't solve anything. Never does.

All the best,

Brian
(Greenpeace Head of Digital Communications)"

Utter Bollocks

"Those who cling to the untrue doctrine that violence never settles anything would be advised to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Nations and peoples who forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms." Robert A. Heinlein

@Brian (Greenpeace Head of Digital Communications)

"Personally, I find it offensive what Mr. Ebell calls freedom: shilling for Exxon to stop action against an environmental catastrophe in the name of more profits for the richest company in the world."

I think you have the wrong company in your sights. State owned oil is the TRUE "Big Oil" on the planet.

http://www.petrostrategies.org/Links/Worlds_Largest_Oil_and_Gas_Companies_Sites.htm

This list throws into question your "follow the corrupt money" drum beating, because you only seem to beat up Private oil companies, because if you look at the list, the Saudi oil company moves at least 22 or 23 times as much oil as Exxon.

From various GreenPeace moderators on this thread:

"Yes, we're going to expose the money trail behind the climate change denial machine."

"But there is very much a denial machine, and it's funded by those with a financial interest in ensuring that no action is taken to reduce carbon emissions."

May I make a simple observation? If money is the corrupting factor, then which side is the dirtiest? The oil companies who have Billions on the line, or governments on the other side of the issue with Trillions on the line?

My hat is truly off to policy makers here. If only the Catholic Church had thought of paying scientists to "see things their way", then maybe they could have extended the dark ages a couple more centuries.

Are we entering a new age of intellectual darkness when policy makers have given scientists a financial incentive for the "science" to favor a pre-determined conclusion?

Where are the 'Direction Générale de la Sécurité Extérieure (DGSE)' when you need them?

@Posted by: Mike M | April 4, 2010 2:21 AM

"Wallets !! I didn't know you hippies had wallets!"

they dont need wallets, they have yours (and mine)!

I don't care who you are, I don't care where you live, I don't care where you work. I am one and take no threats from a loser like you. Have a nice day.

Look,fighting for a better invironment ia a good thing. I always respect people who are willing to fight for their ideals. But with fight i mean,fight with respect and without violence. I know fighting for your ideals may sometimes be harsh,but choosing the path of violence and threats is always the wrong path. If you want some respect for your fight,do not use violence. Why not go in to politics? Maybe thats the way to fight. With words.....

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I absolutely agree, and I know Gene does as well. (I've known him for years.)

Politics is one route. Peaceful protest and civil disobedience is another. I think it's best to do both.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)


Do you folks at GreenPeace not understand that the real trouble for the environment lies in the actual toxins like mercury, lead, and Sulfur Dioxide that our energy production makes, NOT CO2?

Some thoughts about CO2:

Proposition: Algore led us to believe that CO2 was leading to exponential increases in heat trapping of the atmosphere, resulting in the now infamous and debunked "hockey stick" on his temperature graphic.

Reality: CO2's heat trapping capacity instead DROPS EXPONENTIALLY with increases in atmospheric concentrations. It simply does not have the characteristics to cause a thermal runaway condition. Satellite measurements now directly confirm that more heat is escaping into space than computer models had predicted would happen at the current levels of increase in CO2.

Proposition: CO2 increases are dangerous and the EPA should regulate it as a toxin.

Reality: CO2 is currently at 380ppm in the atmosphere. Photosynthesis comes to a complete halt at 250ppm.

Greenhouse experiments show that the "sweet spot" for plant growth is in the 600ppm to 1000ppm range.

Further, CO2 is only an irritant to animal life at 8000ppm, not a toxin.

Proposition: CO2 increases will lead to chaotic thermal runaway of the greenhouse effect.

Reality:In the family of greenhouse gases, CO2 has a tiny role. You probably already know which gas is responsible for more than 90% of the greenhouse effect, but for those who don’t (like me a few years ago) it comes as a surprise to learn that it is simple water vapor that shoulders the overwhelming burden of producing the greenhouse effect.

Without this blanket of water vapor acting as a shock absorber between the swings in temps of night and day, the earth would be practically uninhabitable, with blazing hot day time temps, and precipitous drops to below freezing at night.

GreenPeace, hear me now! Your noble intentions would serve humanity better if you would return to putting real energy into tackling real problems of human suffering and tragedy, such as the Russians drying up the world’s fourth largest lake over the space of the last 30 years, killing all of the fish in it and ruining the ecology in the area with high concentrations of salt, and toxic accumulations of fertilizers and pesticides.

Why is it that we have not heard you guys making giant waves about this environmental catastrophe? I can find mentions of it where you have made some statements, but I have not seen where you have blared the sirens from the firehouse on this one. You can do better!

The UN calls it the drying up of the Aral Sea, “one of the planet's most shocking environmental disasters.”


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100404/ap_on_re_as/as_un_central_asia_15

Funny, a guy from India calls for mass disobedience and recalls Ghandi. No, just wow.

India 2010 is an open sewer. Slavery exists, witch hunts and torture exist, the caste system still exists even. India is poor, needed money for decades. In my youth in the 70s and 80s we were bombarded with pictures of children looking like skeletons, covered with flies. We sent money and toys. Finally India entered the space age and atomic age with nuclear weapons and moon satellites. Great, but the pollution of its industry is beyond anything imaginable. CO2 is not even the major concern.

How dare you talking about CO2 elsewhere? What exactly has been established by Ghandi? Independence? A lot of states got rid of 'their' overseas territories in the WW2 aftermath. And what has been done lately? Rich people get richer, unimaginable astronomical rich even, and poor people get poorer. Still.

If I were from India I most probably wouldn't spend time making blog posts declaring some kind of guerrilla war on about everybody and calling people to break laws. In most countries we do have political, democratic systems that work pretty well and you can change things by voting if you wish. Not by bribing or obstruction, damaging economy and society. Yes, economy and society are bad, but living in a chaotic anarchist jungle crowded with primitive hungry Homo Sapiens is far worse. Believe me. There is no alternative.

If I were you I would start to clean up the corrupt bureaucracy mess in your government. In non-violent democratic ways. I would try to establish a descent infrastructure throughout the whole country, waste disposal, mandatory schooling for every minor, a ban on child labor, access to doctors and hospitals for everone, prosecution of discriminative people, severe penalties for torture, slavery, destruction of nature and wildlife and reduction of environment poisoning industrial processes. Including that damn CO2 of yours.

Within ten years nanotechnology is capable of filtering CO2 out from the atmosphere on a large scale. That is, with proper funding and if we haven't blown ourselves up already over some alleged invisible wizard blokes from the stone age, some oil fields or a totally collapsed world economy because everybody with an opinion decided to disobey law to make a point.

Take your energy elsewhere and use it in a humble, constructive way. That works. Declaring some kind of a war not. See what the war on drugs and war on terrorists brought us.

Brian: “Action against climate change involves mass mobilization and non-violent action. The distincition is essential. Can we count you in?”

Thanks Brian, but not too keen on being part of a mass. Even if I were, the sentiments expressed in the article are beyond the pale for me.

Much more disturbing to me than Genes threats of violence is Juliettes revelation of her unbelievably naive faith in the fairytale of AGW, as showed up in her answers (quotes):
"the most dangerous threat our planet's climate has ever faced"
"On climate change: we know that Climate Chnage is real, it's happening now, and it's costing lives already"

How naive one has to be to believe crap like this? Pure AGW-propaganda without any proof.

I can't get it. Decades ago greenpeacers had some small portion of knowledge, at least. Seems all gone. Only dumb-minded believers left over.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The danger of climate change is well recognized by major scientific institutions. The UK Royal Society has been calling for "prompt action" for almost a decade, for example.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

I will be forwarding a link to this article to the authorities as it is quite obviously a threat of violence.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

No it's not. Please see my note at the top if you have even the slightest doubt.
-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

Despite all of your caveats and backtracking above, this is clearly and unambiguously an incitement to violence, and you should be reported to the FBI.

Perhaps you already have been. Yes?

Hello,
I posted a comment but it was nothing like the following which has appeared under my name. Please either remove the posting or correct the name.

Thank you,
Martin A

Posted by: Martin A | April 4, 2010 11:56 PM

I am sending this link to every right wing/libertarian blogger I can think of. Seriously, I might be inclined to believe that this is not intended as a threat of violence if you had simply had the author re-word it, with or without an apology- but since you have chosen to to stand by these words KNOWING THAT THEY ARE BEING INTERPRETED AS THREATENING, then I can only conclude that you truly mean them in that context. Your protests to the contrary ring as hollow as a Muslim terrorist insisting that Islam is a religion of peace, just before he sets off the explosives...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hmm... Maybe there is more than one Martin A?

I'm publishing almost every comment. Everything except really offensive (foul language, etc), and things that are off topic are going up.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

Thanks for showing us your true colors! No more funding for you!

Andrew, Juliette, and all at GP, ...I'm so sorry you have to put up with all of this. My heart goes out to you giving it your all to help this earth and those that are so cruel to you for trying. It seems no matter how many times you write the word non-violent, it is twisted, just as the deniers of climate change use imagined climatology to further their abuse of our resources.
For me, I'll stick with the data from Stephen Hawking, David Suzuki, NASA, NOAA, and all the top scientists in the world, ...including those at Greenpeace who have no agenda other than making this a better and safer world for you and I.
And you know who I am, and where I live. When it comes time to knock on the doors of, and expose those masters of abuse and greed and for civil disobedience, count me in. I'm yours heart and soul. Thanks ever so much dear friends, ...you are the Love and Light of the world.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Thanks! Very nice to hear a kind word.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

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

And we be many, but you be few."

Interesting. Why do you think you should be able to make such a statement? Would you accept Lord Lawson making such a remark about you? Thought not...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Does he have 39 years of dedication to peaceful change? (As Greenpeace does.)

Then fine. It wouldn't bother me.

Please also check out my update. Maybe that helps clear things up.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

You know where I live? Bring it on, eco-facists. Now we know how peacefull Greenpeace is. I say, we have to unite against them! Bring this eco-terrosism down!

Thanks. I have been a passive supporter of Greenpeace for many years but with this single post you have undone a lot of the good work that that organisation has performed over the years and lost a huge amount of goodwill that has built up. You have opened yourselves to attacks - and frankly a lot of them are justified - and that the damage done (this has indeed gone viral with influential blogs like Guido Fawkes in the UK picking it up) will take some time to disappear. Brilliant. You have handed a gift on a plate to the sceptics. Thanks again.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Well, when you speak up sometimes people get mad at you. Other times, they want to make you look bad by misconstruing what you've said.

That's life on the internet. I'd rather speak my mind and take things as they come than remain silent.

Please also check out my update. Hopefully that helps clear things up.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

The climate of doubt about Global Warming was created by the damaging e-mails sent by the CRU, and the lies and inaccuracies in the AR4 report. There was no conspiracy required, they self destructed.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Actually, that whole faff has itself been discredited. Read about it here... "No scandal behind these gates"

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

Once upon a time, organizations like WWF and Greenpeace could be admired for their idealist activism. But something happened, left wing ideologues infiltrated these organizations and are now more or less in control of them.

WWF and Greenpeace now advocate mass left wing policies (wealth redistribution) on a global scale to avert a non-existent threat.

Climate change is and always has been a natural phenomenon. It has been hotter than it is today. The north pole has been ice free before. Once there were vinyards on Britain and large scale agriculture on Greenland. Ice ages came and went. All of this without any 'human interference'. What we see today has nothing to do with CO2 levels. Even the correlation CO2/temperature is not at all proven, scientifically.

Oh, CO2 happens to be the oxygen for plants, and also it is rather a marginal % of our total athmospheric gasses e.a. And certainly, the vast majority of CO2 is naturally produced. In other words, mankind has no discernible influence on the climate.

So what are left wingers in control of WWF and Greenpeace to do? Scaremongering of course. Try to portray 'big bad business' as a threat so people will in the end accept left wing social engineering to 'correct' this non-existent problem.

A couple of inconvenient truths, Al Gore would be an instant billionaire if there ever would be a global CO2/carbon market, carbon trading is the biggest nonsense ever thought of on this planet, consensus isn't science, climate change is a natural phenomenon and scientists who do not agree are not 'paid by Exxon ea'.

When did 'sceptic' become a dirty word in science.

And as for your 'democratic means', good luck with that. You folks are a tiny minority. The only way you can get your left wing social engineering/wealth redistribution plans through are by bypassing democratic institutions.

Stop the press! Funding worldwide is down as a result of Climategate.

The great recession is not helping the cause either!

We must at all costs maintain the machine!

We have gotten to big to fast, and skepticism is one big monkey wrench that could bring the machine to a halt.

We must resort to violent tactics, hurt the opposition financially. We here at GreenPeace are now in a struggle for survival!

We must "teach" the non believers! It's good for them, but more important, good for our bottom line.

We must gain a position in the "control" market if we are to secure our institution for the next generation.

We must persuade the nonbelievers by lobbying for new laws and taxes that will force them at gunpoint to support our cause.

To hell with these worthless eaters. It's time to get dirty, and at the same time save our planet!

Green peace... Come to my home and intimidate/threaten me! I have some nice "green tea" and some environmentally friendly "lead" free bullets that I would be more then happy to share with you...

Shame on you.

Brian, c/o Gene.

really? You know where we live?

Come on over. Practice your civil disobedience on my property. I hear digging a 6ft hole is good exercise.

Dear Brian, the Greenpeace digital boss,

you wrote that it's important not to confuse violence and illegality. I agree with that but I disagree that illegality itself is not a problem. Illegality is a problem and in many cases, it's just a first step to the violence.

You also wrote that "more evil has been caused in the world by obedience than by disobedience". Maybe. However, unfortunately, Gene has made it clear that Greenpeace wants 3,000 times more obedience than disobedience in the world.

In particular, he only wants the 3 million Greenpeace members to enjoy their disobedience while the very goal of the new policy is to intimidate the remaining 6.8 billion people into obedience. You don't want the 6.8 billion people to be even allowed to state the obvious, namely that the dangerous man-made global warming is complete bogus. Don't expect the billions of people to donate you their basic human rights for free.

You have also mentioned the next elections. In the Czech Republic, we have had the Green Party in the Parliament for several years - arguably the only non-leftwing Green Party in the world which makes it more appealing but it was still green enough for it to suck.

It's a pleasure to inform you that the Greens' chances to remain in the Parliament are close to zero. This garbage simply doesn't have room in the Czech politics and I am grateful to the people that it is so. So something will change but it fortunately seems that it will change in the opposite direction than you want.

All the best, Lubos, you know where I live

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hey Lubos,

Brian's out playing with his kids right now. It's actually a day off for him.

So I'll jump in an point out where we agree: People should take responsibility for their actions. And Greenpeace activists do that. Being willing to stand up in front of a judge is part of the deal.

Where we disagree is about climate change. I'm sticking with the mainstream science on that one.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

ps. I have no idea where you live.

"we know where you live".. now how is that not a threat?
how would any of you 'greens' feel if i stated i know where you live (and it wouldn't be hard to find believe me).

you do some good work and i am all against pollution of any kind but calling CO2 a poison WTF are you completely against life on this planet?

Bwhahahaha, come and try it.

Pathetic blowhards threaten.

Greenpeace will be synonymous with the Uranium Industry and a force that brought us a nuclear future. You dupes.

"And we need to inspire, engage and empower everyone..." Over the last year or so there have been a number of polls in the UK which indicate that AGW scepticism is on the rise, despite decades of climate activism, despite multi-million pound "Act on CO2" ad campaigns and despite the fact that the UK government, the EU and the environmental groups have been singing heartily from the same hymn sheet for years. I suspect that most people in the UK do not frequently visit AGW-sceptic blogs or web sites, however, and that the majority do not know much about ClimateGate, or care much about it either way even if they did know.

Could this be the unpalatable truth, for Greenpeace? That the upsurge in scepticism is not due to some shadowy, Exxon-funded "denier" campaign, but is because most people are becoming weary of being told repeatedly that dangerous climate change is on the horizon (especially while they are experiencing an unusually cold winter or a washout of a summer) and are increasingly putting a higher priority on issues that affect them in the here and now (the economy, unemployment, immigration, food prices, petrol prices, violent crime) than on issues such as whether the Greenland icecap will have melted (or not have melted, depending) by the end of the millennium?

"We be many and you be few." Actually, if the polls are accurate, "we" (the sceptics and the unconvinced) are increasing in number. They include those such as Robin Guenier (above) and myself, who are not on the payroll of Big Oil but consider ourselves rational people who are capable of making up our own minds on the subject of climate change. And if I am right, the majority are not about to be won over, any time soon, by sinister rhetoric of the sort used by Gene on this blog. Far from being a call to action, it sounds desperate and repellent, the sort of threat shouted by someone who has already lost the argument.

for goodness sake stop spouting that it is the warmest on record etc etc etc.. no one is arguing about that.. we are arguing about the cause. give it a rest please!

I was a long-time contributor to Greenpeace until last year when I stopped the standing order. Why did I continue so long? Inertia. Thank goodness I saw the light before this piece of garbage was published.

Greenpeace does not need my money and I do not need its deluded climatechange propaganda. Neither do I feel any solidarity with the mindset that produces it.


Where do you live Brian?

p.s. Let me see if I can figure this out now.
Usually this blog that talks about climate change and peaceful non-violent civil disobedience has about 0-5 comments. And now for this article there are 294. This smacks of the days of the southern ocean where you know who was sending in all the assasins of Greenpeace. I don't believe for one moment that all these crude and vulgar remarks emanate from real people. It seems you must have struck a nerve for the powers that be. Good for you, ...and let's act on that. I'd Love to see some of the ip addresses of the posters here.

As far as the sea ice melting, tell that to the deniers of the hundreds of thousands of seals being aborted between Canada and Greenland this year, ...the first time in recorded history there has been no ice there. This from the United States/Canada Humane Society - http://www.hsicanada.ca/wildlife/seals/seal_hunt_2010/melting_ice_031010.html

Also from NASA, 2009 ending as the second warmest year on record, ...the warmest decade ever, and 2009 the warmest year ever in the southern hemisphere.
Greenpeace rules...

Here's the NASA link stating global warming a very real reality and "continuing unabated" -http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/temp-analysis-2009.html

I've been thinking about this, and here is what I think: If you are the kind of person who thinks violence is the only real tool for solving problems, then you'd take that as a threat.

Please don't try to pin the blame for being threatened on someone who you have threatened. It makes you look like a weasel, as well as a bully.

"We know where you live" This hardly suggests you intend to use the information simply to send a Christmas card.

Any normal person, without any disposition towards violence, will take this as a threat that you would like to do something nasty to them.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Actually, it's the presumption of violence that makes people feel threatened.

When Gene is specifically talking about civil disobedience, why assume something else?

Just to avoid confusion - I posted a note at the top to make it absolutely clear that Gene was talking about peaceful tactics.

Why are so many of the people posting here presuming violence? I don't know. Maybe it's what they see on the TV, maybe it's because that's how our government behaves.

Maybe it's the culture of fear that's so common these days.

Thanks for reading my update anyway. Even if we continue to disagree.

I dare say this won't get through but as someone who was a 'believer' and now a 'sceptic' why was my earlier comment with a link to Professor Zubovs work on melting arctic ice sheets not allowed through?. What possible threat could a fairly rigorous body of work from 1943 pose?. Unless you feel of course that nothing can differ from current ideology and that it might serve to 'cloud the issue'(as you say the science is 'clear'). If so, then say so (you're not shy of stating other attitudes candidly).

For the record I feel that the tactics of obfuscation that censorship entails puts you in the same category as any other authoritarian institution. Just with a different agenda.

The implicit threat in this post cannot be interpreted as anything other than just that.

So please, show your bravery in other ways than just cutting across whaling ships (which I think are an obscenity by the way but we're talking about AGW here)or threatening a knock on the door at 3am.

A failure to have this comment allowed here will only serve to reinforce the view that something stinks with AGW.


Whether the post promotes violence or not, it will clearly be taken that way by many. For that reason alone the peaceful resolution would be to not make these sorts of inflammatory comments. They cheapen the debate and make it harder for people to communicate productively and cooperatively.

Progress begins with the choices embedded in our language.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I feel it would be wrong to take the post down. Gene said what he said. And if you read it carefully, he didn't say anything wrong.

True, some people are taking it the wrong way. This is not good. So I posted a note at the top making things perfectly clear.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

Wow, this is a scary blog-entry. Does it really show the intention of Greenpeace? Put arguments aside and threatening opponents? Wow!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Did you read the note at the top?

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

Of course you know where we live. Just pick any house and you're likely to find at least one climate change 'skeptic'!

This was the final straw.

Am now an EX member of Greenpeace.

For the record, all the major scientific institutions say the science is quite clear on climate change. The UK Royal Society has been calling for "prompt action" for almost a decade, for example.

Andrew, the problem is that we now realize that these doomsday scenarios were based on flawed data, temperatures that were not actual temperature measurements, but massaged and homogenized data. Those who did the cooking now say they no longer have the original data and they cannot explain their methodology for homogenizing the data. That is bad science, really bad science.
They have illegally refused to comply with legitimate FOIA requests (even the recent Parliamentary whitewash, which Juliette laughably cited as authoritative, acknowledged that FOIA requests have been handled improperly). Scientists who are confidant of their work do not have to ignore the law in order to keep their data hidden.

Therefore, reasonable people have reached the conclusion that doomsday warnings based on data we now know is untestable, not replicable, and which its producers have gone to illegal lengths to keep from the public isn't really reliable.

We don't deserve to be told "we know where you live" and we will stop dissent "by any means necessary" for that.
Get out of the echo chamber, kids, and start reading more on *both* sides. Stop demonizing people who disagree with you.
Your funding claims are laughable- really. But given the way you dig in your heels to defend an indefensibly irresponsible threat, I have no real reason to believe facts matter to you. Would be nice to be shown to be wrong about that.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Actually, the evidence on climate change just keeps adding up.

You don't have to believe me on that. Check out what the experts are saying. Here's a link to the Met Office.

Life is never 100% certain, but the facts about climate change are largely settled.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

Why are you people so angry, so desperate to prove that the planet is overheating and dying?

Why can't you be positive and celebrate the fact that the Earth isn't warming, although having said that, it might be better if it was.

So, if you don't think you're threatening violence, what are you threatening?

Interfering in my life or that of my family and preventing us going about our lawful business would be an infringement of our rights and hence violence against us. Any such violence would be resisted with sufficient force to put a stop to it. I'm a non-violent person but I will not stand by and let my rights be infringed.

If you think you have a valid argument, put it before the electorate at an election, if you lose, take it like grown adults rather than the petulant, puerile ecofascists you appear to be.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Gene is very specific. He calls for, mass civil disobedience, and outing the big money players fueling a false debate on climate change.

It's no coincidence that Gene's blog post came out just two days after we published a report about how one giant corporation, Koch Industries, is secretly funding the climate denial machine.

In that report, we name names (specifically David and Charles Koch). We're going to hold powerful people like them accountable for their actions - through protest, civil disobedience and other forms of peaceful direct action.

That's all Gene is saying we should do.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

I would like to add to this that the frase "We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work." Reminds me of something that ocurs here in Argentina: a great amount of criminals form the dictatorship are protected either for laws (that are coming down) or lack of willingness from the justice.

But people knows who they are (we are talking about assasins, torturers, and kid robbers). So one of the mottos of the H.I.J.O.S (sons of disapeared and killed people) is "Si no hay justicia, hay escrache." That can be translated as "If there is no justice, there is public expousure." This is the same. You can't expect not to be made accountable from your actions. At least morally you will.

There is not a single threat to their security, not from Greenpeace, not ever. But we all get to know who you are, and what you did, and you can't hide. That is it. At least morally, you will be made accountable from your actions.

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

This is beyond appalling. If you think threats and violence will get you anywhere you are terribly wrong.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Did you read the note at the top?

Gene is a peaceful guy, and Greenpeace is 100% dedicated to peaceful direct action. We are all against violence.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

After having read all of the comments so far I note that the Greenpeace activists have so far singularly failed to respond to the many well argued posts pointing out the extremely serious problems in the alarmist global warming theories and scenarios.

Instead, all I am seeing is the continual repetition of the same 'we know climate change is happening and it is very serious' etc.

Why are you incapable of answering the sceptics?

The closest you have got to responding so far is making a couple of links to the "skepticalscience" website - a misnomer of a name if there ever was one. The site is a thinly veiled alarmist masterpiece.

Lubos Motl (who has already posted responses on here) has written an excellent debunking of most of the "skepticalscience" talking points:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I recommend Grist's guide on how to talk to climate skeptics. I think it's all generally covered there. What I've seen so far are just variations on old discredited themes.

For the basics, you can go to the BBC, National Geographic, NASA, the UK Royal Society or any number of respected folks.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

Greenpeace, please resort back to the real environmental issues which your organisation was built upon. We are having a hard enough time being bullied by our governments, big corporations and powerful quangos on this issue, as it is?

Andrew. Ed Miliband called for suffragette like civil disobedience against the British government he is a minister of.

There was no reaction because people just aren't that stupid. Every government and every corporation on earth supports AGW because carbon trading will make them fortunes at the expense of the poorest in the world.

Andrew: "There is no physical threat here. It's being (deliberately?) miss-interpreted."

Do you think we who respond here are idiots? The threat couldn't be more obvious.

The author certainly didn't have "civil disobedience" in mind when he wrote "We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work."

You *DON'T* need to know "who we are, where we live and where we work" for civil disobedience, so your defense is absurd!

The blogpost is an obvious call to arms. It's purpose is to incite eco-loons to attack skeptical scientists and activists in their homes and their workplaces Scott Roeder style.

If you really believe everyone is "miss-interpreting" Gene you are well advised to get him here to clarify his stance because as it is it is clearly inciting people to violence and terror, a blatant example of a hate crime which should and will be prosecuted.

Imagine for example that some loon kills a skeptical scientist citing this post.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

To be fair - He ended the previous paragraph with, "Let's talk about what that mass civil disobedience is going to look like."

So I think it is safe to say that, yes, he was talking about civil disobedience.

I posted a crystal clear note at the top of the blog to make sure people understand this, and have been making it clear in these comments that we (me, Gene, Greenpeace) are against violence.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

dear oh dear, what has become of you greanpeace? I think this article by Gene is seriously undermining your credibility. Any serious organisation would now move to distance themselves from this author as quickly as possible.

That line "we know where you live" is not going down well all over the internet. It smells of anarchy, its gestapo-esque.

I think greanpeace need to switch away from AGW and just focus on the damaging effects of things like world-wide pollution - too which the majority of people will respond positively towards.

I am a "denier" and you "know who I am and where I live".....so what? What are a bunch whiny green vegan fascists going to do? I know a lot greenpeace type guys and none of them scare me they're all effeminate sissies :)

Andrew.

The Royal Society is funded by the UK government, the biggest supporter of global warming in the world.

From the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8359397.stm

London's financial centre is the main home to the incipient global carbon market.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And NASA, and the BBC, and National Geographic and PEW, and the Royal Society of Canada, etc, etc, etc?

A conspiracy of that size simply isn't possible. The simpler explanation is that there is a genuine scientific consensus.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

Dearest Greenpeace;

It is actually a great credit to your organization that you are allowing dissent on this comment thread, and that you've made it a point in this weblog that, in spite of what might be inferred from the actual comment 'we know where you live', you are here denouncing violence.

I would only ask that you take into consideration the idea that some partisans might interpret such a missive as license to do violence, and may never see this website where you denounce such acts.

As I said; I am willing to give credit where due, and I was not expecting this site to allow dissent or dissuade the use of violence so clearly. My assumptions were wrong.

Also; you might want to investigate the CO2 thing a bit more closely. Turns out the hijacking of science is not entirely funded by the big oil cabal.

This article is beyond the limit as far as I am concerned. If you are the "many" why can't you win your arguments in the democratic way like everyone else? Breaking the law is breaking the law and making the distinction between violent and non violent law breaking is spurious. Ghandi was fighting for human rights and democracy, you are fighting for the failed hypothesis that CO2 causes catastrophic global warming. If you are seriously suggesting that Greenpeace steps outside the democratic process you really must be losing the argument.
However you are at least to be congratulated for allowing debate on your blog, which many in the climate alarmist camp do not.

Thank you for confirming Zubov's work as being a most inconvenient truth. It certainly isn't 'off topic' anyway.

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

And we be many, but you be few.

OK, I'm waiting. Give it your best shot. I'll be the one with the big bad SUV in the drive way and wearing the sealskin coat.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Once again...

Greenpeace is 100% peaceful, so is Gene. We don't condone violence. (Protest, yes. Violence, no.)

And you really should ditch the SUV. They're way overpriced, and hard to find parking for - not to mention the ridiculous amount of gas guzzling.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

I'm about as worried or scared about a bunch of green frtuiloops knowing where I live as I am about a lettuce knowing where I live. Ie. Not Very.

"Thanks! Very nice to hear a kind word."

There are plenty of fools who will still support you. greempeace has shown a complete lack of shame for this ignorant man's post. This is typical of the extreme leftist progressive movement. You have no line of reason. You don't care what means it takes to enact your tyrannical government policies.

How many murderers neighbors said, gee I didn't think he would ever do that. Gee, he was the nicest man. I'm afraid saying Gene is nice, does not excuse the words of his post.

Calls for illegal actions against skeptics homes and work, followed by gee I think Gene is a nice guy are not enough. Imagine how you would react if Fox news came out with an opinion that we needed to close Greenpeace by any means necessary, asking for an army of lawbreakers to go after your homes and workplace. Think what you wrote fools.

It's immoral and it's time you did something right for a change. Many of us are offended by your arrogance and your threats. We are offended by your attempts to threaten our families and suppress our views. I am offended with your foolish small minded views of politics but you are wrong about the solutions to so many things. The difference is that we tolerate you, you MUST do the same.

Admit error, apologize and take down this post.

Pretending this is not a threat because Gene is a nice guy is not an acceptable response. When your foolish followers act violently against those you disagree with, will you just put your hands up and say, I said non-violent so I have no responsibility?

You do, and it's time to live up to a reasonable standard of decency.

It's like talking to children.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

No need to be condescending.

I posted a note at the top of this blog early yesterday.

And I've been repeating it in the comments...

This blog entry is about encouraging civil disobedience and non-violent direct action - the kind of peaceful methods that liberated Gene's country (India) from imperialism.

I don't support violence, Gene doesn't support violence, Greenpeace doesn't support violence.

There's no shame in speaking plainly, bluntly and openly.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

"And we need to inspire, engage and empower everyone..." Over the last year or so there have been a number of polls in the UK which indicate that AGW scepticism is on the rise, despite decades of climate activism, despite multi-million pound "Act on CO2" ad campaigns and despite the fact that the UK government, the EU and the environmental groups have been singing heartily from the same hymn sheet for years. I suspect that most people in the UK do not frequently visit AGW-sceptic blogs or web sites, however, and that the majority do not know much about ClimateGate, or care much about it either way even if they did know.

Could this be the unpalatable truth, for Greenpeace? That the upsurge in scepticism is not due to some shadowy, Exxon-funded "denier" campaign, but is because most people are becoming weary of being told repeatedly that dangerous climate change is on the horizon (especially while they are experiencing an unusually cold winter or a washout of a summer) and are increasingly putting a higher priority on issues that affect them in the here and now (the economy, unemployment, immigration, food prices, petrol prices, violent crime) than on issues such as whether the Greenland icecap will have melted (or not have melted, depending) by the end of the millennium?

"We be many and you be few." Actually, if the polls are accurate, "we" (the sceptics and the unconvinced) are increasing in number. There are those such as Robin Guenier (above) and myself, who are not on the payroll of Big Oil but consider ourselves rational people who are capable of making up our own minds on the subject of climate change. And if I am right, the majority are not about to be won over, any time soon, by sinister rhetoric of the sort used by Gene on this blog. Far from being a call to action, it sounds desperate and repellent, the sort of threat shouted by someone who has already lost the argument.

In my youth I was a member of Greenpeace. But I grew up.

"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."

I don't think that's taken out of context, do you?

"This blog entry is about encouraging civil disobedience and non-violent direct action..."

Yeah, right! You don't even realize you're advocating fascism. That's just sad.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The sentence before the quote you are using is...

"Let's talk about what that mass civil disobedience is going to look like."

That's what I mean by out of context.

Civil disobedience is a positive part of our society. It is the opposite of fascism. It helped bring about the women's right to vote, and was essential to the civil rights movement.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

Every time I smell patchouli, and a lack of soap, I automatically enter a state of fearfulness for the well being of myself and my family. Luckily I'm armed and well trained. Until recently the only thing keeping a violent episode on my property or in my home at bay, was the fact that these foul smelling individuals did not know where I lived or worked. Sounds like that just changed. See you soon?

NASA admits its climate are flawed:
“By its own admission, NASA’s temperature records are in even worse shape than the besmirched Climate-gate data. E-mail messages obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that NASA concluded that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) — the scandalized source of the leaked Climate-gate e-mails — and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center.”
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/30/nasa-data-worse-than-climategate-data/


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I see your Fox News and raise you a Daily Show


-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

The negative and angry comments above undermine their own credibility. Likewise this Gene character writes in a manner which is clearly going to undermine Greenpeace in the minds of many readers.
Andrew the G-P web man asks for simple guidelines to be followed. Everyone would do well to step back and consider what they submit.
Thanks for the blog.
Dart.

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.

This is not only directed at Koch. It is clearly directed at all who disagree with Greenpeace.

Including individuals like myself.

As this long thread progresses, it's become apparent that the thuggish bravado of the Greenpeace Communications Director in India, which has been affirmed by the Greenpeace Digital Communications Director as not requiring any apology, fairly represents Greenpeace's position.

Greenpeace could easily have removed the offending words without affecting the article. Since they have not, and will not even apologise, we must assume that the threat stands.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There is no physical threat. Not against you, not against Koch, not against anyone.

Peaceful protest, yes. Violence no.

And if you read the whole thing, it's clear he's talking about exposing the hidden money. Like we've done with Koch industries, like we've did with Exxon

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer).

Yo, Gene! Bring it! Threatening me and my family with thinly veiled violence is a loser's bet.

Your web producer, Andrew, thinks parsing your words and telling us that we're supposed to read your diatribe in context makes your threats OK. They don't.

They mark you and your arguments as weak and without merit. Get a clue and work with logic and rational arguments. You still won't win, since your global warming evidence is rife with errors and poor analysis, but at least you will have tried the adult way of solving problems rather than the child's way of striking out when things don't go their way.

Or, if you still want violence, I bet you won't actually do it. Instead, you'll convince some gullible young college student to go out and break windows and get arrested for your cause. In the meantime, you'll sit at your computer and hypocritcally whine about global warming and CO2 while you use the very tools that you accuse of causing it.

You're a small man, Gene. A bigger man wouldn't stoop to thinly veiled threats.

Oh, and if you know where I live, fine, come for a visit. Bring strong friends who can carry you away afterwards.

I'm most definetly a real person..

don't believe your own pr, there is no big oil denial machine,,

'big' oil turned into 'big energy' 15 years ago, all you eco-activists are going to make them a fortune....

plus the bankers/hedegfunds, etc are getting excited over a 45 trillion predicted carbon economy..

watts up, jo nova, bishop hill climate audit, were all started by individuals...

Individuals that have receieved a tonne of abuse over the years..

it is all a delusion

Quote, Gene Hashmi, 2003, "Democracy is not putting a cross on a piece of paper every four years like a programmed monkey. This is democracy (India). Let's show the bastards."

It would appear that the Communications Director for Greenpeace in India has a history of making inflammatory anti-democracy comments.

No matter how you cover this climate hoax turd, it's not gonna smell any better at the end of the day. The gig is up, f******. We know it's all about having an excuse for co2 taxation. So, now you're threatening our lives? Hey, you want to go to jail for the interest of the richest few, go right ahead. But nothing you do now will stop the exposure, even if in the scheme of things you're just a bunch of toolbags of the global establishment, paid or unpaid.

Quote, Gene Hashmi, 2003, "Democracy is not putting a cross on a piece of paper every four years like a programmed monkey. This is democracy (India). Let's show the bastards.

It appears that the Communications Director for Greenpeace in India has a history of making inflammatory anti-democracy comments.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Source?

And anyway, that sounds like a pro-democracy quote to me.

I bet a lot of people posting here would agree that it is not enough to vote once every four years and hope the government does the right thing.

You've got to stay involved.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

Dear Brian, Andrew and Juliette,

First, congratulations on having the courage to publish these comments.

What I find interesting about this is how it demonstrates how completely GP and other such large, well-funded and ponderous organisations misunderstand what brought about recent changes in the public’s perception of climate science. It was achieved by the interaction – largely via the Internet – of many thousands of sensible, intelligent and rational sceptics from different backgrounds throughout the Western world. As I said above, we are individuals who, by considering the facts, have formed our own opinions. We are motivated by a shared desire to see our world ruled by reason, not dogma. We have no need of “financial oxygen”; there is no money to “follow”. Nor are we part of an organised “denial machine”. We cannot be intimidated by implied threat.

The world has changed irrevocably. Try to understand that. It is we who are the many and you the few.

Best wishes

Robin

Making threats now? Very nice, greenpeace.

Your organization needs to be shut down.

Julliette, Andrew,

You seem to be both hung up on proving to everyone that Gene did not mean to threaten those that disagree with him violence. Whether the threat was a threat of violence or not is irrelevant, it is a threat nontheless. If you feel you have to threaten people to make your point your have already lost your argument and the moral high ground.

Gene might have been saying 'we know where you live, and if you continue to prevent us achieving our objectives we will protest outside your house for weeks on end' It may not be violent but it is still a direct infringement of someone's personal and family life. shame on you.

I have cancelled my subs to Greenpeace this afternoon, after 8 years.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Please check out my update. Hopefully that helps clear things up, and you'll stick around.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

Dear Brian, Andrew and Juliette,

First, congratulations on having the courage to publish these comments.

What I find interesting about this is how it demonstrates how completely GP and other such large, well-funded and ponderous organisations misunderstand what brought about recent changes in the public’s perception of climate science. It was achieved by the interaction – largely via the Internet – of many thousands of sensible, intelligent and rational sceptics from different backgrounds throughout the Western world. As I said above, we are individuals who, by considering the facts, have formed our own opinions. We are motivated by a shared desire to see our world ruled by reason, not dogma. We have no need of “financial oxygen”; there is no money to “follow”. Nor are we part of an organised “denial machine”. We cannot be intimidated by implied threat.

The world has changed irrevocably. Try to understand that. It is we who are the many and you the few.

Best wishes

Robin

Typical article by the left wing fascists who wants to force their CO2 lies on the others.

@ Response from Brian to Post by: Fred | April 5, 2010 8:30 AM
"
We've not put out a call to our supporters to flock to this blog entry. We're busy sending them here:...To DO SOMETHING about climate change rather than debate whether it's happening or not.
"
Sigh! You are as naive as I thought. What a shame. Lets do something about something rather than debate if it even exists, consequences be dammed. R u hearing yourself???
Hey, lets do something about plant suffering instead of debating wether or not it exists, just to be sure!

It's the Comunazi's!!! Run everyone, they know where we live!!! AH-AH-AH

Heil Greenpeace!

Gene is a up there with Pol Pot -"we know where you live".
The man is a freaking terrorist.
Send him of to work with Al Queda- he's fit right in.
I always though that Greenpeace had lost its way, now I know

You know who I am, where I live, and where I work?

Fine, saves time. Bring it on asshole, bring it on.

I'm waiting for you. Me and my German Shepherd Wolfgang. So you can rest assured, when the ER is stitching up your ass, it was caused by a 100% natural, earth friendly canine.

Juliette, Andrew, Brian & other Greenpeaceniks:

Since you all still pretend that you don’t get it, here is another way to describe your problem:

If a man says “Enough talk, I know where your children go to school”, every normal mother or father will understand it as a threat to their family. They will call the cops. They will also get screaming mad when the man’s cohorts arrive to swear solemnly that he did not threaten anyone because he likes children and animals, and that he was talking about influencing the children’s education through peaceful and democratic curriculum change. They will see it as the filthy mafia threat it was. Those who already loathed the man will laugh cynically.

Do you see any similarities to the comments in this thread?

“We know where you live”?

Do you really not get it? I know you do. You just decided to play dumb and ride it out.

Who am I to stop you? Go ahead. Circle the wagons, fools, and keep shooting at your own feet. Your enemies love it.

Greenpeace becomes an oxymoron - shame on you!

Full marks, though, for allowing dissent (lots of it!) on these comments. Time to reconsider your position, perhaps?

You're all reading out of context. You know 'hide the decline' it's not that they're hiding the decline.
"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."

I don't think that's taken out of context, do you?

"This blog entry is about encouraging civil disobedience and non-violent direct action..."

They're really showing us their love for all mankind

I am truly disgusted by this article and it's mafia style threats.

Greenpeace is supposed to be a caring and concerned charity not a political/religious terrorist organisation.

Delete my membership instantly

I posted a note at the top of this blog early yesterday.

And I've been repeating it in the comments...

------

And as I pointed out above, your note to explain away your threats is not sufficient justification for this man's immoral threats of illegal acts against my and others skeptics homes and jobs.

You are in the wrong, and as the reasonable comments here have told you repeating your opinion that Gene is a nice guy is not sufficient. Tolerance is required if you wish to maintain credibility on the world stage.

Apologize and retract is the only correct response of an adult mind. We are thoroughly offended.


You know where I live? Well come and get me. You will do so much for your movement just like the Islamic extremists who seem to think that people will turn to Islam if you kill enough of them. Threats of violence do not frighten people. It just makes them more determined to oppose totalitarian organisations like yours.

LOL. Do you greenpeace freaks really think anyone is taking you seriously? What a bunch of losers!

Andrew, thank you for adding a comment to my original post but my concerns remain. Didn't anyone at Greenpeace read the contents of the blog and consider how it might be interpreted? Your problem right now is that influential sceptics such as James Delingpole over at the Telegraph have latched on to this post and are rubbing Greenpeace's nose in the shit. The original post was crass, stupid but a huge amount of blame resides with those who didn't consider how it might be read. If I had read that post out of context I would have said it was Orwellian in the extreme and someone at Greenpeace should have spotted how it might be used by Greenpeace's opponents and stopped its publication.

Greenpeace statement:
"We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few."

This is the language of fascism. It is clearly an implied threat of violence by a large gang against the small family (wife, husband and even children) of the organisation's intended victim.

Andrew's pitiful attempts to qualify the statement (rather than condemn it) is also the language of fascism. Before Kristallnacht, the Nazis were also busy insisting their previous 'visits' to Jewish families were non-violent. And if Hitler's thugs had their own version of 'Godwin's Law' to divert attention from their incitement to hate and violence we can be sure they'd have been quoting it as furiously as Andrew and Greenpeace now are.

I have long suspected Greenpeace of being a proto-fascist organisation. The language used in this dark article (and the subsequent excuses) proves the case for me.

My favourite "skeptical" climate web-sites are funded by readers' contributions. I have been a modest contributor and intend to continute that activity. The only way to cut off that "financial oxygen" is to interfere illegally with my person, my finances or my computer. What happened to "peace"?

What? So veiled threats of harm, both physically and financially are your 'new' tool? I thought your phony carbon tax was the card you planned to play on the folks who are skeptical to your agenda. Yes, I am in the US and we here have the freedom to thought and speech - at least until you 'terrorists' find a way to steal that from us too. Get real, 'Gene', its easy to be tough and spout your rhetoric of veiled threats when you don't even give us your real name OR location. Step out, tough guy, and spout your nonsense WITH your real name. Dare you. Til then, sit there propped behind your computer and hide out, getting off on using big tough words. In the meantime, you should get some sound science, ditch Al Gore and his hockey stick hoax, and give us something meaningful. There are many of us, not on board with you, who are skeptical of your true intentions. If you pulled your head out of your rump, you might realize you are being played by a cabal of corrupt bankers who have no regard for you, for the climate, or for the world WE ALL inhabit. Vent your anger at the real threat - the global banking elite.

I take this post by Gene as a threat, and I don't like it one bit.

Peaceful protest is ok, illegal activity is not ok.

Threats are illegal in most democratic countries.

I will not be donating to any enviromental group again. All of you have lost touch with ordinary people.

I supported Greenpeace financially for many years until I became aware of their role in this massive fraud of man made global warming. It's more than fraud in my opinion, it's a crime against humanity because the bogus science that it is based on, & it's ludicrous 'solution' of a carbon ponzi scheme only serves to starve the very poorest people on our planet, while creating carbon billionaires out of such men as Al Gore.
This is not about whether or not you care about our planet. This movement has been cynically gatecrashed by corporate, political & eugenicist agendas.
Inform yourself about how this environmental 'false flag' was created & advanced.
Then turn your anger towards the real enemy or you will continue to be used as a modern day 'hitler youth' by fascist agendas.
Greenpeace leadership sold out a long time ago. Get with the program people.
Sceptics are not your enemy Gene, unless you prefer ignorance & violence to our people & our planet.
We are one. Do not allow fascists to divide & conquer us.
I grew up believing in man made global warming. I now know it is a lie. The emperor has no clothes. It's over. Now learn your lessons & let's take the power back to the criminals we have allowed to manipulate us.
Our fight is the same fight but truth & love are our most powerful weapons.

That's right, I remember when Ghandi said "we know where you live"

I'll be writing my Canadian government officials to voice my opinion that Greenpeace should be declared a terrorist organization.

Gene is making Terrorist Threats - plain and simple! And should be treated as such. You don't change minds with threats you will only alienate people. This is a huge bloody nose for Greenpeace.....

Give it up, the game is over. You will not bully us into accepting your agenda. As for the threats, woe betide any stupid leftiod that comes round my manor getting heavy. Some serious attitude adjustment awaits them.

Fabio Escobar wants "people to communicate productively and cooperatively."

Sorry ... it's way too late for that. I've been watching this issue unfold for decades, and it seems quite clear that the well of public debate was poisoned long ago by greed.

On one side is an incredibly entrenched capitalist ideology that absolutely refuses (like a narcissistic two-year-old) to acknowledge natural limits on human activity. On the other side are those who recognize that the stakes for humanity are so high that compromising the health and happiness of future generations is an incredibly unethical proposition.

So there will be no nurturing dialogue, no "listening" to the other side, no Pollyanna "win-win."

Instead, this is heading toward violence. The vicious rhetoric is just a prelude. Ecological advocates would do well to understand the fallacy of nonviolence in such situations. Otherwise, they will lose their cause and perhaps their lives.

I am sorry if some of you have devoted your careers to global warming only to find out International Banks and not real scientists have been pushing the cause. There is real pollution in the world (depleted uranium in Iraq, fluoride in water), no one is arguing that, but carbon is part of the life cycle and not part of the problem. If you know where I live, come and find me. Cowards just talk...

I see this story is running and running here but hasn't been reported in the MSM.

The reality is that more people have been killed by people who mean well than the fascists.

"We know where" you live has no connotation whatsoever of peaceful protest, it is clearly aimed at frightening people. Well we're not frightened that's a charactersitic of the greens, we're not frightened by global warming, we're not frightened by threats, we're not frightened by anything, so pop around to my pad.

But Andrew the thought that "civil disobedience" need tha privat addresses of citizens is risible.

You should try and get him therapy.

You guys keep pointing to the update - the problem for you is that it simply isn't believable. Everyone knows that the eco-terrorist groups run from a spectrum of Greenpeace, to ELF, to lone nutcases like the Unabomber. So when the inevitable violence happens, it won't be someone waving a Greenpeace banner, he'll have swapped it out for one of the others, but the connection (and culpability) will still be there. And you guys will feign horror while (not so) secretly approving.

You also keep pointing to the Koch report as somehow justifying these threats. I read it and what do I find out? That a right-wing billionaire gives a few million dollars a year to conservative and libertarian think tanks. And that's somehow supposed to be a justification? Even if this wasn't a threat of violence (which doesn't pass the smell test) it still wouldn't be justified.

How much did George Soros spend funding the pro-warming organizations in the same period? Remember, he's got a history of profiting from trading schemes, you think he might be planning on making a few billion from carbon trading?

Why are you so desperate for AGW to be real??

PS, anybody who thinks that post was a genuine threat should forget Hollywood movies and consider at least an IQ of 20 with the writer. It is very obvious that this 'we know' list was not intended as a primitive declaration of war. However, a key figure for communications should know what he is writing. I do not like that guy for several reasons, not only based on this post, and I stick to my earlier reply. Go DO something instead of whining.

You hippies wont be happy until youve taxed, bullied and threatened us back into the stone age,where we will be sat naked and shivering in a cold dark cave eating cold thin vegetable soup.All because of some made up statistics.How about gettin a life - taking up gardening ,maybe. Cleaning up this litter strewn island?

Dear Green Peace,

Save Face! There is real pollution in the world... I have never heard a Green Peace worker talk about depleted uranium or fluoride. Pick a real issue, and stop with the carbon dioxide makes global warming crap, everyone knows Al-Gore is an elitist gangster and trees breathe carbon to make oxygen and carbon taxes are to be paid to central banks that have nothing to do with the earth except trying to destroy it. Your organization still has time to save face, but currently you are riding the deck of the Titanic, and most of the boat is already under. And don't threaten us, you should have fired that writer already and if a Green Peace worker ever lays a hand on me god help them... don't act like children!

This blog has been infected by denier trolls – anonymously scurrying all over the page like cockroaches.

Where's the insecticide when you need it?

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.

Thank you for this informative article. You have confirmed everything that I suspected about your organisation. You are neither green nor peaceful.
Please be assured that you will never have my support, whether financial or otherwise, and I will do everything in my power to oppose your folly.

Save the planet, kill Greenpeace

Lie all you want, post hoc, about how this wasn't a threatening post.

Be sure you keep editing in your post-furor comments, mid-blog-post, to that effect. "[Editor's comment: When the blogger says, 'Now that doing things LEGALLY didn't go our way, we're gonna do things differently by coming after you where you live, and we'll have you outnumbered too' doesn't, like, threaten anything illegal! Heavens to Betsy, no! The blogger loves everyone!]"

Hey, AI: U2 and Martin Luther King, Jr. just called. They say you have to stop using "Pride (In The Name Of Love)" in your promos.

I'd say you were violent jerks, but you might know where I live.

So Andrew how much are you poised to make off faulty CO2 credits? Get out of here with this nonsense about global warming, that issue was debunked last year. The public was blatantly lied to for years all for the cause of the rich getting richer and the average man's freedom being stripped. The leaked e-mails were enough to sink this scam, and then the scientists say they can't find any of the data at question? Get real. As for the threat towards me, You know where I live? Well this is not a threat, but a promise..... Let one Greenpeace member step foot near my property and they will be dropped dead where they stand.

How many CO2 credits you want to bet on that?

Never mind the threat of violence.

FAR MORE SERIOUSLY you can't spell !!! What the f--k is 'skepticism' and 'fueling' for goodness sake ??

If you can't spell, how on earth do you expect to be able to communicate ??

Ah, yes, that's it - flaming pitchforks and the throwing of bricks.

Now that IS progress !!

@Andrew

Actually, the evidence on climate change just keeps adding up.

You don't have to believe me on that. Check out what the experts are saying. Here's a link to the Met Office.

Life is never 100% certain, but the facts about climate change are largely settled.

The Met Office pdf entitiled "Warming" is indeed impressive. If I came to this subject cold, I'd be swayed by the production values and authority of that document.

The brocure shows what you can do with enough funds and official support. I'll draw your attention to the Links page near the end, which details the government funding and imprimatur.

It seems that Greenpeace is closely aligned with the government and big energy. Ironic, I thought you guys were against globalism. AGW is being used as an excuse for a massive increase in globalism, and Greenpeace is helping. Brings to mind the term "useful idiot".

The Metlab report is clearly based on the IPCC reports. The science behind the latter is remarkably thin, if you care to take the time to dig it out. It turns out that once you eliminate those parts sourced from WWF, etc., there are only around a dozen scientists involved. They are are a tightly knit group, which, since the leaking of the CRU emails, code, and data, have found themselves under official investigation. That would not be the case if there were only a few allegations by bloggers.

The IPCC science is based on computer modelling of the effect of CO2. However, they had to assume a positive feedback, since the primary effect is too small to be noticeable. And the IPCC has never identified the mechanism behind the purported feedback.

Climate always changes. We recently came out of an ice age, and we are still warming. The oceans are expanding 3 mm per year due to that warming. That's about a foot per century. Here on the coast, the tide goes up and down nine feet twice a day, and no one has a problem.

The land-based temperature data set is a mess, both at CRU and NASA. The historical dataset, taken from tree ring proxies, is not believable.

Climate science doesn't know what triggers ice ages, and it doesn't know what causes the earth to come out of them, either. There is currently an experiment at CERN to study the effect of the solar wind cloud density. This may turn out to be a dominating effect.

We do know that when ice melts in Greenland, we find Nordic farmsteads. Same for the Alpine glaciers. It was clearly warmer in the past, but our 'science' has a problem admitting that, because it has become politicized.

We had better hope we don't head back into the next ice age soon. Eventually, in just a couple of thousand years, we will. Maybe, by then we will understand the climate
mechanisms and be able to compensate.

The only believable data is the satellite record, thirty years only. And that shows no warming in the past decade.

The point I'm trying to make is that climate science is still in its infancy. Any attempt to change the world order based on its predictions is IMHO misguided.

I've read your document. Please read mine:

HARRY.README

One excerpt: I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history of this is so complex that I can't get far enough
into it before by head hurts and I have to stop. Each parameter has a tortuous history of manual and
semi-automated interventions that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog.
I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections - to lat/lons, to WMOs (yes!), and more.

So what the hell can I do about all these duplicate stations? Well, how about fixdupes.for? That would
be perfect - except that I never finished it, I was diverted off to fight some other fire. Aarrgghhh.

This just about sums up why I stop donating to Greenpeace, and WWF, several years ago.

I always said that Greenpeace are just terrorists. This threatening post makes them just as respectable as Al-Qaeda, perhaps less so. At least Al-Qaeda stated what they are. Greenpeace claim to be a legit organisation.

Andrew, one cannot say, "we know where you live ..." without threatening the people who live there. Coupled with the call to break laws, this is clearly a way to tacitly encourage those who would take extreme action (i.e., violence) to accomplish the group's objectives.

Couple this with the claim that skeptics and "deniers" are funded by big oil and coal--a ridiculous claim, since skeptic bloggers have to support their efforts out of their own pockets--and you're guaranteed to frustrate some of your supporters to the point where they might consider "extreme action" to advance your cause.

The balance of mindshare has changed, as Robin (http://weblog.greenpeace.org/climate/2010/04/will_the_real_climategate_plea_1.html#comment-640556) stated above. Those who consider catastrophic anthopogenic global warming to be overblown are growing in number worldwide.

My advice? Stop pretending that CAGW is science. Go back to helping us protect seals and whales and to preventing oil spills. Let the electorate think for themselves.

Hasn't anyone considered that if CAGW is ever disproven, your advocacy will condemn anti-pollution efforts to rollbacks? Focus on saving threatened species and preventing pollution, so that these proven and important causes are not hostages to the fate of CAGW doctrine.

I can't wait until I see the next Greenpeace stand, because the commie anals will get more than a peace of my mouth. To think I gave money to these scumbags in the past, but that was before the fall of the Berlin wall after which the Commies took it over! So be warned Greenpeace, violence is a two way thing let's hope I see one of your stands in some shopping mall very soon.

"Civil."

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

(People who truly have no physical, frankly violent, confrontation in mind would not need to point out that they know where their opponents live and work -- and that the opponents will be outnumbered. Such are the words of thugs like those in the Mafia.)

This posting marks a black day for GreenWar. Andrew's hilarious, nigh-Orwellian efforts to say that Gene didn't mean what Gene quite obviously DID mean are even more sinister.

Greenpeace?

This = more like a greenWAR!

Go and fuck yourselves with this greenshit!

The climategate = a hoax!

It might be more appropriate if Gene were to explain his words..

I feel threatened by:

'We know where you live'

Please ask gene to explain what he meant by that himself..

At the very least ask him to clarify it, so as not to encourage some extreme (very small minority) of green minded activists, to take direct action against individuals.

As we know where YOU live directly would seem to encourage that...

Just a chance for Gene to put the record straight..

ROTHSCHILDS ARSE RAGS YOU'LL GO DOWN WITH THAT FAMILY! CANNOT BELIEVE YOU SUPPORT THESE MURDERERS WHO OWN 80% OF THE WORLDS WEALTH AND THEREFORE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE POLLUTION. YOUR RIGHT, THIS IS WAR AND YOU ARE FAR FEWER IN NUMBERS BECAUSE THE PEOPLE ARE WAKING UP. COME AND KNOCK ON MY DOOR AND KISS MY BULLETS SCUMBAGS !

Juliette is a bad liar.

Thank's for the threat. In case you don't know yet where I live, don hesitate to ask.

If the AGW science is so strong, why did those closest to it feel they had to lie and cheat to prove it?

"They" steal elections. "They" lie to keep us from getting healthcare. "They" are even destroying the entire biosphere, in a mad attempt to kill all life on Earth. Jews, blacks, Roma - none of these oppressed groups were even accused of crimes a tenth as terrible as this. Is this blog a call to violence? Yes, I think so. But even if it isn't, the continuing level of hate rhetoric will eventually make violence inevitable.


Hmm... Maybe there is more than one Martin A?

That's not beyond the bounds of possibility, though I have not come across any postings by another Martin A.

It's a fact that I did post a comment at about April 4, 2010 11:56 PM which has not appeared.

And the comment that I did not post appears under "Martin A" with that timestamp.

There's an old joke: when one person tells you you're drunk, ignore him and keep drinking; when three people tell you you're drunk, fall down, 'cuz you're drunk.

When this many people perceive a threat, it's a threat. Intended or not (and we have yet to hear from Gene what his actual intentions were), it's a threat. You keep trying to explain it away, when what is needed is an apology and a flat-out denial from Gene.

How glad I am I quit Greenpeace.

Why haven't we heard from Gene directly?

Juliette and any other apologists:

You say that this is not a threat. If it isn't, then by all means keep this post on the internet. I have a PDA phone, I visit universities often. I will make a point of going up to every greenpeace organization table I see, popping out my PDA-phone and displaying your arrogant pseudo-threats to anyone wishing to support you. I will demonstrate your chosen language to people coming up to your tables. You may know where I live, but I know and exist where you find you support.

And yes, that is a threat.

It is disingenous in the extreme to continue defending the words "by any means necessary" as not including violence. THEY DO. period. One goofball outburst by one activist does not a self-immolation make, but multiple members of the organization defending it DO.

So much for the peace in Greenpeace. I will make it a point to stop contributing to all conservation groups, lest you do learn where I live.

I will make sure I mention this article in my request to delete me from their mailing lists.

Do not worry too much. It was only 3 groups and the annual amount was less than $10k. So I am sure Gene can make it up.

Ummmm Juliette, the idea that just because someone lives in a country where people used a non-violent methodology to throw off British imperialism necessarily means that every person from there is non-violent - can only be categorized as a very lame one. Last time I checked India has its share of murderers, rapists, terrorists, thugs, etc.

Ever hear of the expression, "Trying to put lipstick on a pig."? That's what you're doing.

He made a veiled threat. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck......

BTW, to "W^L+" above -> 100% concur!

To "substanti8" above -> You mean 'cockroaches' the same way as the Tutsi in Rwanda? I hope you don't own any radio stations...

So where is Gene?

If his words inciting to violence aimed at climate skeptics and their families is just a misunderstanding then he would obviously want to set the record straight, no?

Too bad he is nowhere to be seen and instead we get dishonest attempts at damage control by Juliette and Andrew - Gene couldn't possibly mean violence because they know him as a nice and peaceful guy, it's all the fault of Gene's terrible communication skills which make him use common mafia-style threats when he means peaceful civil disobedience.

There is just one problem with this excuse - Gene is a Communication Director of Greenpeace India.

I personally think most of the Green agenda is, at best, a front for a gigantic global carbon derivatives scam and at worst, a cover for a global eugenics program. I know - I know... let the memes fly!! What can I say Lord Monckton is my guru:-)
That said I love green technology. I love solar especially and even toy with building my own solar panels. Because quite frankly, it's just cool and it makes sense from a purely micro economic perspective. The problem is that a GREEN company sold me solar cells advertised as having a 3 AMP output but in reality had a .03AMP output. Go figure. So...I was wondering if I stick to a purely political debate and make enough noise while framing my argument as a purely Left v.s. Right issue; could I get Greenpeace to protest me and install solar panels on my house? Green tech is awesome if it becomes cost effective. Make it so and you'll surely accomplish your environmental agenda and be loved by all for your contributions to mankind. If on the other hand the real agenda is political, I would call your attention to the American Revolution and Gandhi's revolution the success of which was determined not so much by the people's skill at and or their willingness to commit violence but by their willingness to die for what they believed.
Economically we the majority are for you. Politically we are READY FOR you. That said I wouldn't worry too much about passive aggressive guys like "gene". Men who talk loud and tough usually cower when held accountable, by a tougher woman, for the threats they have made.

Quote: "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"...

Well, the "bankrolling junk science, fuelling spurious debates about false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission" bit sounds like a pretty fair description of the MMGW supporters to me.

And if "undermining progressive climate legislation" is Greenpeace-speak for "objecting to being taxed to death on entirely spurious grounds" then pass me the pick and shovel.

The public are waking up to the fact that the whole MMGW kerfuffle is nothing but a con promulgated by a bunch of data-fakers supported by tax-greedy governments, and about time too. Now we see that those still misguided enough to support it are resorting to internet keyboard warrior threats of the most laughable kind. It is good to watch their attempts at brainwashing us collapsing in this sort of desperation.

Greenpeace should expel this nutter for his 'you know where you live' comments - that's if it wants to preserve its reputation as a bunch of harmless cranks with a normal 'liberal' tendency to intellectual snobbishness and authoritarianism.

Gene is an extremely youb fellow that has yet to grow up. If he gains experience and wisdom perhaps he will become a second Patrick Moore...

I really hope so for the benefit of mankind and his fellow Indian countrymen. I hope he will join the rest of rational thinking men.

wahoo! I cant wait until you bunch of drooling communist morons turn up at my house, I'll have a celebratory burning of petrol in your honour. Please threaten me some more you morons, its about time the french commandos sank a few more of your boats.

If Gene knows as much about non-violent direction action as he claims, then he also knows what helped push the British out of India ... World War II. His direct action wouldn't have worked without some very real violence committed against the British.

Oh and to Juliette, fair play to you for not suppressing these comments.

And to anyone who knows where I live... Bring beer.

I'm sorry, ...this just defies logic, and makes no sense. People who normally read this blog are avid Greenpeace supporters. Now we have an unprecedented number of comments, and 99% of the comments are 'violently' attacking them for what they've stood for all along. No matter what good answers are given, they are ignored, and the same repetitive accusations lashed out.
It is obvious that 'we know where you live', etc, is intended to be a promise to those hiding behind the scenes and sacrificing our earths resources for their personal greed, will be exposed and have no place to hide.
But you continue to twist that, though the words are spoken to you, and the logic be known. All this is more than enough proof it is attack by design and intent by those who would profit from discrediting Greenpeace.
Good job Greenpeace, you must really have them worried to mount this world's first internet tea party against you. Congratulations, ...usually they reserve that 'special treatment' for 'off-color' presidents they arrogantly and with malicious humor attempt to criticize and destroy.
Andrew, Brian, Juliette, and all, ...it is all too easy for me to see, that in their troubled hearts, they never get to see and feel the real Love and it's magic that touches you every day, ...so sad, ...so very sad.
Your responses to those that attack you have been gracious and perfect. Please continue to have mercy and hold the Light for those who cannot, ...or for even those, that will not see.
Someday they may find themselves weeping for a Love so strong as yours. God bless you all...

Greenpeace is a Joke I have known some who work with Greenpeace and they care more about drugs and money then the environment. Why do you think the creator of green peace let after just a few years. Climate change or global warming is a big fat lie. Send Al to prison. We wont pay no stinking tax to save the environment. Oh and Al why didnt you do something about the climate when you were vice president?

I do not agree with law breaking. Civil disobedience on a mass scale [b]may[/b] be intended to be non-violent.
To expect it to be so is an urealistic aspiration.
And I don't condone violence.

Mac

When read in context, Gene's post is clearly calling for peaceful protest, which Greenpeace has used for nearly 40 years to achieve protections for the environment and expose polluters like Koch Industries. Nothing will ever cause Greenpeace to abandon its core value of using peaceful protest to protect the planet.

There's no doubt Gene's words were chosen poorly. If anyone actually read the whole post and took offense or felt threatened, we certainly apologize. That was most definitely not Gene's intent. We are and always will remain committed to non-violence.

- Mike G. (Greenpeace webbie)

Instead of laughably comparing to yourselves to Ghandi, you should more accuratley compare yourselves to Cindy Sheehan. Shrill, hysterical and delusioned.

Your climate hoax is unsustainable and its on its way out. Enjoy the reality.

Gene from India - this is the kind of tactics that reflect very poorly on Greenpeace and, politically, makes it much harder for you to carry out your activism. Also, isn't the entire man made global warming issue yesterday's news, anyway? It's been thoroughly debunked and discredited.

Mike, G, you are a lying Fuck.

Please Gene keep blogging.

50% of Americans are already skeptical about Global Warming, and your blogs could get us to 60% very quickly.

I can't wait to read your next blog. Hopefully, it will be as good as this one, and continue to help us expose Greenpeace as the human hating-Earth worshiping cult that it is. That's using brainwashed, tax loving crazies like you to help the U.N. take over the world by de-industrializing the first world, coupled with a global carbon tax.

Thanks Gene

Not one single apology--not one single "Gee, Gene really screwed the pooch on this one."

Of course not, GP and like radicals never come clean on a true apology because that would be tantamount to admitting they were wrong, which they never are. They might mis-speak, but they are never wrong.

Having Grateful Child flutter above it all like some sort of spiritual TinkerBell . . . that part of this all has been priceless.

But truly--I want Green Peace to remain in their usual business and form--because, when my grand-children get old enough--

I can point out to them a dinosaur that escaped the meteor.

Gene, when you get your foot out of your mouth, maybe YOU could defend yourself.

;-)

It's over. It's been over for a while. Only the scientifically illiterate or those with a financial agenda (greenpeace qualify on both counts), propogate the myth that CAGW is a realistic possibility. I must confess that having been right all along, I'm enjoying watching this despicable house of cards come down, day by day. What's most important is that the resulting prosecutions are public, so the next generation can learn to identify and nulify corrupt, fascist threats earlier, in the future.

Thanks guys. This is just what I need to make my sane greenpeace supporting freinds ex-greenpeace supporting friends. Any rational person can see that ignorant words like these only hurt progress.

"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 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."

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

And we be many, but you be few."

All the whitewash on the planet wont masked the thinly veiled threats and lawlessness being called for in this dim witted screed.

What a joke. Global warming is a confirmed scam. You greenies need to wake up. How many politicians does it take to screw you over before you see the light?

Sad to see that Greenpeace fully endorses violence and/or threats of violence. Hate speech is not acceptable, ever. I see Mike G desperately trying to "explain what was really meant"... that isn't the point Gene, it is how anyone reading this understands it to be. I understand it to be hate speech, a full endorsement of violence by Greenpeace, and a threat to my children, myself and my country. You've crossed the line, there's no execuses and going back - you've let the world know what you are all about. This blog should be taken down immediately. Sick, very very sick.

@Jim T: Greenpeace has been committed to non-violence for almost 40 years. Unfortunately vague wording in a post calling for peaceful protest does not in any way invalidate that commitment.
- Mike G. (Greenpeace webbie)

It's pretty unfortunate that this expression was used at the end of what was otherwise a great blog.

I doubt that anyone commenting here genuinely believes that Greenpeace is advocating violence, which goes directly against the values the organisation has held for decades... but you have to admit this was a bit of a "kick me" post-it-note on the arse.

Choice of words aside, I absolutely agree with the sentiments behind the blog - people are responsible for what is happening to our oceans, the earth's climate, our forest and wildlife - there are people who are killing this planet for a quick buck, whether it be hunting whales, wiping out the last of the bluefin tuna, massacring the land to extract fuel from tar sands, polluting the air we breathe or changing the climate. I admire anyone who will stand up to this destruction and do the right thing for the planet. In a non violent way.

Wow, if Sarah Palin said anything like this. The Left would be over the top. You have committed to use "any means necessary" to stop those who you disagree with. You mention legal actions and then say "and more"!. You say you know where people live.

This is a clear incitement to violence and there is no way of portraying it as anything else. Obviously, you understand that the factual basis for your positions are weak -- as you admit you have not been able to convince others to agree with you. So you now you are calling on people to do whatever it takes to intimidate others into submitting to your views.
Really, maybe you should consider that people have reasonable reasons to reject your extremism. I know it is easy to blame corporations, lobbyists etc. But maybe you should consider that others have different values and viewpoints. And maybe you should consider that you do not have the right to force them to change their views. Their has always been a strong totalitarian streak to the environmental movement, but rarely has it been shown so openly.

Mike G.,

Sorry, that's a double failure as an apology. There are two principles that PR professionals advise when it comes to apologies:

1. A contingent apology ("IF you were offended, THEN we apologize") is not really an apology at all. It's an attempt to shift blame to the one who was offended, camouflaged as an apology. It lacks sincerity, and amounts to, "I'm sorry you're hypersensitive." It's adding insult to insult.

2. You can't effectively apologize for someone else. Well, you can, but only drastically: you can apologize by dismissing them. Otherwise, you again lack sincerity: it looks more like damage control than an actual apology. A sincere apology needs to come from the one who made the offense.

"Rwanda ... radio stations"

I think we're headed for something like that. The stakes are very high for human society, and there is no middle ground. That's a recipe for violence.

Regardless of whether the capitalists and their lackeys "win", their economic system will still collapse, because nature always bats last.

What is it with the green-left and violence?

It doesn't matter what you think of your buddy Gene, what we have to go on is the words he wrote to us. And the words are a violent threat. I don't view the world through a lens that sees violence as justified, unless it is in defense of life and limb.
If one of my friends, who was always "peaceful" said these words, I'd be keeping a close eye on him. Those words are out of character for a peaceful person. You can say what you want - Gene's words are violent. It doesn't matter whether an organization or person has not committed violent acts before. The words speak for themselves. Let Gene speak for himself instead of trying to soft-pedal his words. We don't know Gene; so your defense based on his personality is not relevant. What we know is what he said. And he had every opportunity before he posted to clarify his words.

Greenpeace is history.

@MikeG: Time to stop spinning. Even you must realize by now that no amount of spin can change what has been said. Allow me to refresh your memory. Gene wrote, "We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few."

That is a threat, regardless of context, and regardless of how you all your other flacks try to spin it.

However, it is you who are few and we who are many. Sorry about that. And if you know where I live, that's fine. Come on over. My friends and I have lots of experience dealing with terrorist cowards.

Ah, Andrew, that must be peaceful, non-violent Gene Hashmi, employed as Greenpeace's Communications Director, who threatens violence to people's families and keeps a Twitter page where he writes such peaceful tidbits as:

"Why are all 32 of you mofos [motherf*ckers] following me? Just so you know, I'm carrying a knife".

and

"someone just said they're following me for the drugs. Sorry, but you gotta score your fucking own".

http://twitter.com/genehashmi

I think we all get the Greenpeace message.

As Grateful Child notes - this blog did make it into skeptical blogs. www.noconsensus.wordpress.com says (in part) that Gene is calling for violence and "Be sure to leave a comment at their blog to let them know what you think, sometimes legal disobedience is required. Leave a copy here too so it doesn’t get deleted."

-thus the strong negative slant of the commentators. I am a Greenpeace kindred spirit and I did find it easy to jump to the idea that this was a call for violence - but not in so many words. I think you have avoided impropriety, but not the appearance of impropriety (where impropriety = a call to violence).

Tom

2nd try

I posted a note at the top of this blog early yesterday.

And I’ve been repeating it in the comments…

——

And as I pointed out above, your note to explain away your threats is not sufficient justification for this man’s immoral threats of illegal acts against my and others skeptics homes and jobs.

You are in the wrong, and as the reasonable comments here have told you repeating your opinion that Gene is a nice guy is not sufficient. Tolerance is required if you wish to maintain credibility on the world stage.

Apologize and retract is the only correct response of an adult mind. We are thoroughly offended.

A SUGGESTION TO GREEN
(and *boy*, are you fascist morons ever "green")
"PEACE"
(I suppose you mean that *today* in the 1933 National Socialist sense of "BOOT ON THE NECK PEACE")...

You folks insist upon supporting and defending the words of "Gene."

That's your free choice in today's free society.

Consider that your "cause" will be among the first to be crushed out of existence in the totalitarian realm which you assist in promoting.

Your "peace" facade has worn off.

I THANK YOU FOR THAT.

WE CHOOSE TO REMAIN FREE.

Gene is coming to our homes and kingfish1982 wants to kill us...MMMM notice a pattern?


kingfish1982 is one of yours.

"It is obvious that 'we know where you live', etc, is intended to be a promise to those hiding behind the scenes and sacrificing our earths resources for their personal greed, will be exposed and have no place to hide." - : Grateful Child

OK and then what are you going to do? Give us a good talking to? LOL

Well, this little thought experiment didn't work out so well. Next time you try this, you should remember:

Veiled or ambiguous threats will be exaggerated by your opponents.

Demonising the opposition leaves you no-one to negotiate with.

Equating Bjorn Lomborg's appearance at the Manhattan Institute with a 'climate denial machine' just makes you look foolish, and robs your report of all credibility.

Trashing the Kochs is all good fun, I'm sure, but they were contributing to the Cato Institute back in the days before climate change was ever discussed. Remember this when your opponents come after your supporters.

Now that you've shot yourselves in the foot, apologise and start to fix it.

Bring friends, your gonna need them...

You want war, so be it.
===============================================
John Q. We don't. Here's a comment from the RedState blog, where many of these comments are linking from, which I think sounds a good note of caution:

Whoa, easy there...
Sunday, April 4th at 4:14PM EDT (link)
I guess I comprehended it differently. As the entire post is about civil disobedience and achieving goals through non-violent means, it seems logical that those sentiments apply to the last couple of lines as well. Meaning, they will show up at their homes and places of business and protest civilly.

In any event, it’s a lot less inflammatory than some of the other stuff making headlines lately. Like rocks through windows and threatening emails to Mr. Erickson. This Greenpeace thing just looks like grasping at something that isn’t there.

--Brian (Greenpeace Head of Digital Communications

Law of holes.

When you are in a deep hole, stop digging.

LOL, this is so funny

Guys, you're in a bit of a hole right now. So first, stop digging. Put a post at the top of this that says something like, "Wow. This went viral big time. We are going to make a statement when we've had a chance to think about it. While we're scratching our heads, let's be clear about a couple of things: First, we apologise to everyone for the language that was used by our friend Greg. We not only don't know where you live or work, we don't want to know. We don't want to confront any of you--friend or foe--and we now recognise that his language on our behalf is offensive. Second, we truly believe that the language used on our behalf, which we are ultimately responsible for, was figurative, not literal. Greenpeace is willing to confront those in a position of power about actions that they or their organisations may take which are damaging to the environment. But not the general public, and even with those in power, not violently.

So, until our media types actually hammer out a real statement that includes an apology, please let us use this as a first attempt to defuse this situation.

To our friends, we're sorry for actions that make you less than proud of us. To our opponents, we may never convince you that we are right or that you are wrong, but we can show you by words and actions that we do in fact play fairly, and will do so in the future."

Couldn't hurt...

You have stated that we need to align ourselves with "the ones that choose scientific rigour." Let the climategate speak for itself. Tampering with empirical evidence to claim empirical fact and blackballing peer review journals that publish an opposing veiwpoint does not constitute "scientific rigor." Period. Who's really operating the fog machine to create such smoke and mirrors. The American public has spoken. We say "NO!" to a one world constitution, no matter what mask of objectivity it chooses to don.

If your buddy Gene said this to my face instead of on an internet posting, I would perceive it as a threat and deal with it as such.
You have two choices here. Either apologize and put your buddy Gene off the reservation, or continue to defend him and mark down April 2, 2010 as the day that Greenpeace jumped the shark.

"And in the general hardening of outlook that set in ... practices which had been long abandoned ... imprisonment without trial, the use of war prisoners as slaves, public executions, torture to extract confessions, the use of hostages and the deportation of whole populations -- not only became common again, but were tolerated and even defended by people who considered themselves enlightened and progressive."

Climate skeptics such as myself may be wrong. But if it is the climate change believers that are wrong then it is you that need to hide in the biggest hole you can find. As for Gene, shut up you curry munching turd...

To Juliette, Andrew, Brian, Grateful Child, Mike G and all the rest of the good folk at Greenpeace . . . .

Guys, please stop wasting your much-valued time and effort debating with all these redneck flat-earth deniers who insist on trying to discredit you and the organisation’s fantastic efforts. They are just jealous because you guys won, and they lost, and now there’s stuff-all they can do about it. I mean, let’s consider the score board:

1. Despite tens of thousands of years of climate following a natural, repeating cycle of 25 – 30 years alternate warming and cooling, you managed to convince people that just this once, the last warming cycle would continue upwards “forever” unless drastic changes were made.

2. Despite the entire record of human history being one of growth, posterity and plenty in the “warm” periods, and famine, starvation and suffering in the “cool” periods, you managed to convince people that, just this once, “warm” is bad, and “cold” is good.

3. Through your demonizing of fossil fuels and all realistic viable energy alternatives for the past twenty years, you have managed to ensure the western world is going into this next cool period with a dramatic energy deficiency.

4. As a spin-off of that campaign you have managed to ensure that 30% (so far) of the world’s previously surplus agricultural productivity has now been diverted to biofuel production.

5. Meanwhile your colleagues over at Goldman Sachs and elsewhere have managed to collapse the entire financial structure of the western world.

So, the world is going to get cold, crops are going to fail, people are going to freeze and starve, and there’s no energy, no surplus food, and no finance to do anything about it. Meaning about two billion people are now facing slow, miserable deaths over the next decade, with nobody actually able to be held accountable. Least of all you guys.

Which is what it was really all about right from the start, wasn’t it? The greatest genocide in history with total plausible deniability for all you perpetrators.

So, stop wasting time debating with these losers. Get out and celebrate, before the food and energy riots start.

Peter Sawyer – author – The GreenHoax Effect © 1990

You know where I am and I work from home

Just look at the comments here GP. You need to do serious housecleaning. Throw out all the leftists who have hijacked the organization and restore it to something useful, like saving the whales. AGW is a scam, you know it, we know it. So give it up already. Oh, and get rid of the lie website ExxonSecrets while you are at it. And how is that lawsuit going in Spain, you know the one where you claimed sea level was going so swallow up plush sea side real estate that sent prices falling?

Juliette, Andrew, and Brian,
You all should be ashamed of yourselves! However "peaceful" Gene may be, it is obvious that the 1000 or so readers who have commented since yesterday did not take his post to be peaceful! Why continue to defend him? I'm sure there were many people who would have defended Stalin, Mussolini, or Pinochet by lamenting how cool they really were. Also, Andrew, very cute to say that this chat has desended into "Goodins Law" or whatever it was. You sent us to WIKIPEDIA to get this information. We all know that WIKIPEDIA is not academically sound, and an organization like Greenpeace, should make every effort to be accurate and sound. Is this where you get your climate info? Let me guess, you've added to the site? You should issue a public apology and Gene Hashimi should step down from being Communications Director. Communications Director no less!!! What a Joke!!!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hi,
I don't believe quoting Wikipedia to explain Godwin's law is inaccurate, bu if you prefer, here is the explanation by the man who came up with it.
And yes, you do fall under its definition, as comparing us with Hitler, Stalin, and other kinds of horrible people doesn't exactly advance your argument.

Juliette
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Andrew and Juliette

From all your comments it shows you fully support Gene, your only defense is to say he is a genuinely peaceful guy, it appears you have passed the point of no return for any retraction.

In the future please don’t blame big business for any drop in support of your organization.

Like the CRU and the IPCC, you are self destructing.

Bob from Washington

What are you talking about? Now I am being accused of threats, did you even read my posts? I don't belong to any group, I am my own person... what a concept huh?

I don't know what all of the fuss is about. Government is force. When organizations like Greenpeace call for governments to act they are by definition calling for violence to be done to their neighbors. This is the basis of all leftism. So for Gene to realize this and be honest about it is a step forward in my eyes. If a man is to cause violence to be done he shouldn't hire the task out to others.

And, if someone REALLY believes the doomsday AGW scenarios then it is the only rational course of action once all other means have failed.

Of course Gene could save himself the trouble by taking a course in basic thermodynamics where he could see the futility of trying to solve for the temperature of an open system... let alone one as complex as a planetary climate.

But hey, it's a lot more fun to run around and pretend to be the messiah. They won't let you play the bongos in an engineering class.

You people have lost your minds. Has it occurred to you that your obsessive adherence to unsubstantiated beliefs constitutes a cult-like mentality?

Climate Change? Climate Stability? Best have a look at what happened in Australia when the Brits first got there, and brought a couple of hares with them..

The worst aspect of all this is that it is NONSENSE. You'll be messing around trying to change everything, when there will be no coherent way to say what it was, nor what you have turned the world into. You'll make a mess of it all, and say you 'saved' us.

Fossil fuels have given us everything we hold dear today - when you talk about 'Solar' and 'Wind' as some glorious saviour technologies, you forget that what you are trying to save is an unprecedented lifestyle given to us by 'evil' fossil fuels.

NONE OF YOU WOULD HAVE THE LIFE YOU NOW HAVE WITHOUT FOSSIL FUELS.

So wake up, research the business dealings of Al Gore and David Blood (Blood and Gore? Are you kidding me?!?!), look into the work of Willie Soon, and finally take a good hard look at the east bloc commies who now control Greenpeace, and the violent actions and even suspension of Democracy that they support and in fact are attempting to INCITE through their access to the media.

So you 'know where we live', huh? Well, ditto, fool - and insist on threatening people's homes and families, best bring a protest sign made out of Kevlar.

Civil disobedience in a democracy is not a positive thing, it is a means by which a group who cannot win the democratic argument seek to have a disproportionate influence by bullying and vandalising.

Violence isn't just smacking someone over the head with a baseball bat, intimidation and terrorism are forms of violence as well. What will your peaceful activists do when those whose property you vandalise or whose livelihoods you threaten or whose families you intimidate fight back? Presumably you'll demand protection and accuse them of breaking the law when it is your initial law breaking that provoked them.

By the way, installing solar panels on someone's house without their permission is vandalism and shows a lack of respect for individual liberty. But then that is what Greenpeace is all about, for you seek to ride roughshod over those (apparently the majority) who do not want your climate laws and policies.

Sanctimony only pays the bills for a very small number of people, the rest of us have to be productive.

No wonder one of Greenpeace's founders left the organization. Greenpeace has become a group of global warming cultists willing to harm others and their property in the name of their religion. I find it distasteful. You greenies hate people who don't buy into your religion at the end of the day. You sicken me.

You all push "eco=friendly" products, but you don't care if the production of those things does more harm than good, because the threat posed is to humans. Your CFL bulbs leech mercury, a cancer causing agent, into ground water. Your solar panels use rare earth elements that during mining and production use caustic chemicals that pollute the earth, water, and air. Your wind generators during production do the same, and after production when in use can produce electrical radiation that causes cancer. You people are sick.

When confronted with facts and reality you all spit venom and threaten violence. You people put the MENTAL back into environMENTAList.

Is "Gene" the guy in the video who starts talking about climbing? For starters, I don't think spoilt dandies should go about making threats to people (although he does describe himself as a "Ninja" on his Twitter bio). Nor should high-caste Indians, who live it up while treating their lower-caste brethren like shit (I've seen it), be lecturing from on high.

Any organisation that has a character like "Gene" as a national Head of Communications is simply a sick joke. A spectacular own-goal, here, Greenpeace.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Gene's testimony starts at 4:00 in the video. He doesn't treat "lower-caste brethren like shit", in fact, he'd be one of the least likely people in the world to care about anyone's origin. But I doubt you'll care much about that anyway.
Juliette

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore calls Greenpeace "a band of scientific illiterates who use Gestapo tactics to silence people who wish to express their views in a civilized forum.". Sounds about right.

It is way past time for GreenPeace to reject the thuggish comments that precipitated this fiasco. If there are any adults in GreenPeace, they need to step forward and manage this public relations nightmare before further damage is done. MikeG and Juliette are not doing GreenPeace any favors.

we know where you live...we know who you are when you open your stupid mouths, your fraud will fail, the sentient humans of the world have no choice but to stand up, so please, come to my house, I will recycle you thoughtfully.

This organisation has been hijacked many years ago.

You seriously think it's only the "we know where you live" that triggered outrage here? seriously? Did anybody in the grenpeace staff actually read this article and saw nothing wrong with him declaring to do "any means nessasary" because the "proper channels" have not worked?

It sounds to me that you're asking your cronies to rally and commit acts of terrorism. I just may report this post to the united states government and have the ones living under the US charged with inciting and supporting terrorism.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And of course, you conveniently leave the context out:
"by any means necessary: through the power of our votes, our taxes, our wallets, and more." "More" is also explained by the context on the next line "direct action", "scientific rigour and court injunctions as their weapons", "purchasing bits of the proposed runway", and more other examples.
Juliete

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Question for Greenpeace: Can one of you tell me in easily understandable language what scientific data exists that proves carbon dioxide (CO2) is responsible for global warming?

I have yet to find a single global warming alarmist that can answer that very simple question.

You all say things like: "the science is settled" and "I'm no expert".

Well, if none of you have a clue as to what scientific data proves CO2 is a global warming gas, then how would you know?

I've seen explanations of the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Electrodynamics that a layman can understand, but I have yet to see an explanation that shows how a very small molecule like CO2, which is present only in trace amounts in our atmosphere, could possibly be responsible for warming an entire planet.

You defend a theory that you haven’t the slightest clue about. Doesn’t that concern you?

Do you know why no easily understandable explanation that proves CO2 is a global warming gas? Because it doesn’t exist. The only evidence the alarmists have is based on computer models first developed in the early 1990’s, which in the context of 2010, was back in the dark ages of computer modeling. That’s like designing a car with the help of a Stone Age wheel.

Modern climate models which incorporate far more powerful climate drivers like solar and ocean cycles show that manmade CO2 has very little effect on global temperatures.

Alarmist language isn't proof. And since you don’t have any proof, you move on to veiled threats and defense of the indefensible.

Can you not see the error of your ways?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hi Fred,
no problem. This might cut a few corners (like the theory of relativity might be explained in a few sentences only by cutting corners too):
Several gases, like CO2 or methane, are known to be greenhouse gases - their presence in the atmosphere traps heat and keeps our planet warm. An increase in the presence of these gases is followed by an increase in temperature.
Lest you think this is recent knowldge, here are two other major details: The greenhouse effect itself was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The greenhouse gas properties of CO2 were discovered in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius.
If you want to go deeper into climate science, I recommend reading the blog RealClimate.
Juliette

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This post is outrageous!

"by any means necessary" means what it says.

adding "we know where you live" makes this a sinister and threatening contribution to the methods and motives of your multinational company.

There is no use poclaing this is all innocent. The reaction here say it all.

Disgusting. Greenpeace has seen tha last of my money.

"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."

I worked for Greenpeace for nearly 12 and I feel ashamed to even admit it now. You guys have totally lost the plot. I am entitled to my opinions the same as you but I don't advocate fascism or violence nor am I funded by the oil industry. Your climate campaign will be your nemesis. You mark my words .
Yours in utter disgust
Lena Sierakowska

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Lena,
I am sorry if you think this blog advocates violence. I can guarantee you that it doesn't, that Greenpeace will not ever use violence - and we have 40 years of non-violent protest behind us to prove it.
Juliette

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Nice try Juliette, but you still don't answer the question: What scientific data exists that proves carbon dioxide (CO2) is responsible for global warming?

You are correct in that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, though not nearly as powerful as methane or water vapor. That is after all why we don't live on a frozen planet.

But your explanation still doesn't say anything on how manmade CO2 itself, not methane, not other molecules, not solar cycles, not ocean cycles, but increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration alone is responsible for global warming.

The examples you give do not in any way address this question.

Please try again.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++,/b>
Fred,
I'm afraid you're not asking for a simple explanation anymore then - you're asking for a university course - if you want to involve the years of data included in the original research, that is. I cannot pretend to sum up years of data in a few sentences like you ask me to - whatever I could come up with would be dishonest.
I can't help you there, if you honestly want an answer, you should contact a nearby university to have a course in climatology.
Juliette

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++,/b>

"we know where you live".

Please, try. Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.

CO2 may be a "greenhouse gas", but at what concentration? Certainly NOT at 0.038%. For example, the amount of CO2 Germany produces and blows into the atmosphere is 0.0047% of the entire atmosphere.

You're telling me that this small amount we produce is doing anything?

Are you lot crazy?

The climate has changed in the past. It will change in the future. There's nothing we can do about that.

Science is settled? Really? Like when Monckton slapped down one of your activists with facts and she couldn't cite a single actual fact herself?

BTW, the "hole" in the ozone layer still exists as well, and actual research shows that it is massively connected to the activity of the sun. Strange.

But yeah, who's surprised. Greenpeace has lost any credibility a long time ago. I remember the last campaign you folk did in my country. No facts at all, just fearmongering.

BTW... you do realize that insects produce a lot more CO2 than we simply with breathing, right? Mankind produces ~1% of the CO2 coming from insects. That is, if we assume that every insect on the planet has the size of a drosophila (which they clearly don't have.)

Don't believe it? We know how much CO2 a drosophila produces. We know how many insects there are. It's a simple calculation based on facts. But I forgot. Facts are irrelevant for you. Fearmongering is more important.

How many people commenting here even know what a drosophila is?

Also, here's an interesting fact:

Venus: more than 95% CO2 and hot as hell.

Mars: more than 95% CO2 and a fridge.

Mercury: no CO2 at all and a hellhole worse than Venus.

Why?

Because of... the sun. Oh dear.

"We know where you live"?

Sorry, I don't care if you think that was meant in a non-threatening way, the inescapable fact is that it comes across as distinctly threatening.

I have always been sympathetic to the aims of Greenpeace in the past and have occasionally donated, but this latest campaigning tactic is completely unacceptable. I won't be supporting you any more if you are going to go around making this kind of outrageous statement.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We realise it might have sounded threatening to some. this is why we have explained over and over that it is NOT a threat of violence, that Greenpeace doesn't endorse violence, it is not a campaign tactic and never will be.
Juliette

The hate from anonymous right-wing thugs on this page is amazing.

Violent words are a prelude to actual physical violence. I have been observing violent hatred from climate-change deniers for several years. So with regard to all the current complaints against Greenpeace, it seems apt to paraphrase Shakespeare:

The lackey doth protest too much, methinks!

... because the years of violent rhetoric from opponents of climate science tell me that they have been already preparing to commit violent acts themselves.

As I wrote earlier, I think this is all headed toward a civil war.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi,
I disagree. You can't have a civil war if no one fight - and as far as we are concerned, Greenpeace is not interested in picking up weapons against anyone - though we will protest, use civil disobedience and non-violent direst action to protect our fragile environment.
Juliette

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Juliette:

Re your answer to Fred. No informed person (unlike Fred it seems) doubts that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that it therefore warms the atmosphere. But so do many other factors. So you must identify empirical evidence (a) that the (albeit tiny) 0.7C warming since the early C19th was mainly due to man and (b) that, if it continues, it will be catastrophic.

Cheers - Robin

PS: also I suggest you apologise for Gene's misjudgement and move on. Digging in deeper doesn't help.

Juliette,

What you are saying is, in effect, that you personally have no idea how or why CO2 is responsible for global warming.

As I said in my previous post, none of you do.

Good luck with defending a theory you do not understand and have no way of articulating.

Since scientific proof won't work for you, it would appear that the only option you have left to further your cause is the use of veiled threats and warnings that "we know where you live".

We know who you are, we know where you live...

why are most of you scared with that line? are you doing anything that you are scared and ashamed of? are you scared that you might me confronted of your wrong doings? well when we know who you are and where you live we do what we do best " Bear witness" take non violent direct action, inspire civil disobedience, hang a banner, block your gates, refuse to budge till policies change.

http://snardfarker.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-tilting-of-the-earth

Greenpeace faces a great job of convincing the Inuits that the earthaxis has not tilted as they say.
The Inuits must have become nuts to think that on their travels on the iceplains, the stars have changed their positions. They must be crazy to see that the sun stands higher and longer in the sky, and that the autumnfrost sets in later.
Of course they are lunies, because they are no members of Greenpeace, haven´t published in peer reviewed magazines as Science or Nature, and they can barely speak english.
And because they don´t want the overturn of our energy hungry world society, they don´t have to be taken seriously..

But they are happily really very peaceful..

re: Jack:
Greenpeace, how low can you go? It is no wonder your organization is losing credibility with the public.
----
That does say it all.

Brikesh,

I'm not in the least ashamed of what I do, but sanctimonious greenies will consider that what I do, albeit perfectly legal, is a crime against the planet. I disagree. What you are saying is that you will take it upon yourself to disrupt the lives of people who are behaving within the law, and their families, becasue you can't win your argument at the ballot box but you think your influence should be greater than one person one vote.

We find the "We know who you are, we know where you live..." disturbing because it is a threat to harrass people because you disagree with their lifestyle, whatever gloss may be put on it, intimidation is violence and has no place in a democracy.

This article in The Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7088297.ece), about pressure on the Government to block an aid project that would benefit millions of South Africans, illustrates how Greenpeace, while threatening its opponents, is prepared to sacrifice some of the poorest people in the world - their education, healthcare, clean water and the opportunity for their children to grow up in an expanding economy - on the sacred altar of an unverified hypothesis. It's shameful that a once-honourable organisation should lend its support to a campaign that could lead directly to children's deaths.

There has been a lot of reaction recently about this two-part article. I have taken a deeper look into this and conclude that Andrew, recognising the bad press that was bound to follow the article, is simply trying to divert attention from those final paragraph’s. If it wasn’t for that starting quote about “an army of climate outlaws” then the closing “We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few.” It would not be so ominous. (Although “a rider on horseback” provides a link in to Greenpeace International’s Brian Fitzgerald, I cannot find anything to confirm that Fitzgerald made that comment - can anyone help on that?).

My initial read of Gene’s article led me to believe that too much was being read into it and Gene was simply a misguided but peaceful environmentalist who has convinced himself that humans are causing significant global climate change through using fossil fuels. He is so convinced of this that he was prepared to go to jail for his cause. OK, he may have broken some Indian law when climbing a 260ft chimney at a coal-fired power station but I don’t recognise this as a serious terrorist threat. Looking more closely into it, I have changed my mind and recognise Gene’s comments as being a genuine threat of violence. It may well be a threat that he would not actually act upon but it is a clear threat and an encouragement to others to act, which Greenpeace should not be defending but should instead be rejecting out-of hand.

In the video there are comments by Gene and five other Indians who did the same 260ft tower climbing stunt.. It is noticeable that all of them are relative youngsters who can have no real personal experience of climate change. They may well have experienced changing weather conditions year-on-year but no more than that. None of them claim to be scientists, so can only have arrived at their opinions on claimed human-made climate change because they have accepted what they have been told by other environmental activists. This doesn’t make them bad people, only misguided. It would be wrong to brand them as being vicious law-breakers for that action.

The actions of these six environmentalist was trivial and endangered only themselves. Other actions by Greenpeace are far more sinister, one of which is their attempt to whitewash Gene’s article and another is their policy of refusing to debate the scientific uncertainties which form the fragile foundation of their faith.

Best regards, Pete Ridley

Not too far in the future there will be classes about how GreenPeace destroyed their franchise by allowing what can be interpreted as unthinkingly blindly violent posts to characterise them.

The credibility of 'climate scientists' has been brought into disrepute, and Greenpeace now decisively joins them.

Not on guys. No more funding from us.

IF YOU PISS ME OFF YOU'LL BE SORRY. (this is not a violent threat, blahblahblah,etc)

There was nothing to take out of context in the threat that was made. We got the full context and dished it right back at you. Greenpeace is a shameful organization that once had peaceful intentions for achieving solutions to environmental concerns. But today's Greenpeace has been hijacked by a bunch of fascistic eco-terrorists who promote illegal activities and violent actions. The entire Greenpeace group has lost all credibility.

Greenpeace should start with its own members. Its know where they live form the membership records.

Has anyone else noticed that people who profess to be green are usually middle class, suburban and seem to live quite comfortable lives - lovely food and wines, cars for the teenage kids as well as mum and dad, gap years in far flung places too, larger than average houses and no shortage of foreign travel and weekends in Scotland, Wales or even 'cultural' destinations like Prague and Barcelona. Energy frugality is something they preach rather than practice.

Greens are among the highest energy users in the UK. Recycling a few plastic bags isn't enough you know!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hi Simon,
I know a few people with a cosy sounding life like this. If you asked another person, they'd say that all greenies are unwashed, long-haired hippies. Others would tell you they're mainly millionaires with nothing to worry about. The truth is, it's a movement of people from all origins, ages, wealth or lack thereof.
Juliette

Greenpeacers, forget about reacting to the right wing crazies. Considering you've got 500+ comments on a blog that doesn't seem to make it to the 3 digit figure ever, you've obviously got a case of skeptics!

Solution - prod them a bit more until they blow an artery!

Brikesh @ 11:02AM.

So you're saying that if you disagree with me over "climate change", it's OK for you to physically block my access to and from my own home? Please define what else you mean by "non-violent direct action" and "civil disobedience".

It's good to see you have distanced yourself from that posting in the end as it is an unmistakable call to violence.

Not before time, Aranth. But, as it seems you consider me part of "the anti-science brigade", no doubt you will have no difficulty in identifying (see my comment to Juliette at 10:04 this morning) empirical (real world) evidence (a) that the (albeit tiny) 0.7C warming since the early C19th was mainly due to man and (b) that, if it continues, it will be catastrophic. Thanks.

Robin

What Juliette is desperately trying to defend here is the Greenpeace idea that as long as its members don't physically assault anyone the organisation can stalk people with the intent of causing psychological and emotional harm to them. Including - as Gene incites - going to their homes and terrifying their spouses and children.

Brainwashed Juliette (who can't even explain how CO2 causes AGW, much less address the serious corruption Climategate has thrown up) appears to insist the type of violence Gene and his Greenpeace apologists are calling for is 'OK' because its victims don't actually get physically assaulted (...yet).

The sickening 'double-speak' of Greenpeace RELIES on using the language of fascism, and then claiming 'innocence' because their words stop just short of crossing the line into inciting actual bodily violence.

I've always been very much for nature conservation, but it's time the members of this increasingly sinister organisation woke up to the path its leaders are leading them down, step by step - and with evermore desperation since the collapse of the AGW house-of-cards it relied upon.

""Actually, that whole faff has itself been discredited. Read about it here... "No scandal behind these gates"

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)""

The ICO said “ It is hard to imagine more cogent prima facie evidence The fact that the elements of a section 77 offence may have been found here, but cannot be acted on because of the elapsed time, is a very serious matter. “

The UEA continued the deceit and misled parliament about ICO’s findings.

The alarmists’ continue their support for scientific misconduct and step up the attack on skeptics to divert attention from this serious matter.


"If you want to go deeper into climate science, I recommend reading the blog RealClimate.
Juliette"


If anyone is unfamiliar with realclimate.org, they have a robust history of censoring posts with opposing views.

"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."

Gene said it, Greenpeace defended it, you own it!
If you where trying for an apology Ananth, that's not how it's done.

Regards
Sandy

Apologies accepted. And thank you that you keep the comments online.

I notice that an adult has stepped in and admitted that GreenPeace got it wrong on this one. Good for GreenPeace, everybody makes a mistake now and then. Best just to admit it, apologize and move on.

Personally, when it comes to saving whales, dolphins, water quality, air quality, I'm on the side of GreenPeace. This AGW issue is much more complex and is definitely not a settled issue. Much better to have an informed, polite discussion than to shout slogans (or even worse, to attempt to stifle debate).

"If you want to go deeper into climate science, I recommend reading the blog RealClimate.
Juliette"

What a joke!!! RC is owned and funded by the radical leftist political lobby organisation Environmental Media Services. RC gets grants and donations from the Goricle. Hardley objective. Besides, AGW as you note it was falisfied:
http://www.met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

Get over it, the planet is not heating up at all (the increase in average temps is due to a narrowing of the yearly range, summers are cooling while winters not as cold), sea level has not accelerated, and the Arctic ice is back to "normal" Bottom line is there is nothing happening in the climate or weather today that is beyond normal variation. Nothing, no increase in storms, nor rain or show, nor extreme weather events. Nothing that hasn't happened before.

If you really wanted people to be more energy efficient and generate electricity from the sun you would fund the engineering research to make it cost effective. If it were cost effective people would go for it like a shot. You wouldn't need government to coerce people.

Instead, you go for the drama and the chance to hobnob with the rich and powerful.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Guess what: we've done just that: read the Energy [R]evolution here.
Juliette

So, at last Ananth The Superior applies some commonsense to this threatening message and calls it for what it always was; a threat. It begs the question, what do Greenpeace do with senior people like Julliette, Andrew, et al who couldn't see anything wrong with Gene's post.

I think you have lost a little perspective internally there guys.

I think a lot of damage has been done to the brand.

I did advise earlier to follow my lead of peace in word and deed.

Gandi

This is exactly why Patrick More left your organization.
Nothing to do with the original goals of greenpeace.
Since the original goals were achieved mid 80's you are left with political activists:

Question answered by patrick Moore;

How has the environmental movement got it so wrong?

The environmental movement abandoned science and logic somewhere in the mid-1980s, just as mainstream society was adopting all the more reasonable items on the environmental agenda. This was because many environmentalists couldn't make the transition from confrontation to consensus, and could not get out of adversarial politics. This particularly applies to political activists who were using environmental rhetoric to cover up agendas that had more to do with class warfare and anti-corporatism than they did with the actual science of the environment. To stay in an adversarial role, those people had to adopt ever more extreme positions because all the reasonable ones were being accepted.

@Juliette

Schroedinger once said that, if you can't explain what you are doing to a child, you don't understand what you're doing.

Suggesting that someone needs to attend university in order to bring their knowledge up to a point where they can have a meaningful discussion is a transparent ploy commonly used to avoid displaying ignorance.

While you were reading the Wikipedia CO2 page, you might have noticed that its infrared absorption is logarithmic. As you increase the concentration, the additional effect is diminished. As I said previously, the modellers had to assume a positive feedback to get the impact they wanted, and the mechanism for that feedback hasn't been identified.

Feynman said that if you build a theory that makes predictions, and subsequent data don't confirm those predictions, then your theory is wrong, and it doesn't matter who you are or how much authority you think you have.

The IPCC has predicted future temperature trends based on the models of a small group of climate scientists. As time passed, the actual temperatures came in below their lowest predictions. CO2 levels are steadily increasing, but the global temperature is not.

Their theory is wrong.

And we be many, but you be few. WTF. What is that supposed to mean? "But you be few", that doesn't contradict the "And we be many" part. "But" is a really poor choice of words there, shouldn't you have said, We are many AND you are few. I don't want to nitpick, but it just underscores your lack of intelligence, I mean you are a PR organization right? What you do is communicate with people, right? You seem awfully poor at it. I mean look at the comments the whole post is completely misconstrued (according to you anyway) and you end it with complete gibberish. Is this really Greenpeace? I have my doubts, I thought you guys were educated.

Gene claims that democracy has failed, sounding somewhat like a petulant child denied candy in the check-out line. Has it ever occurred to any of you that democracy got this one right? Maybe the inmates should not be allowed to run the asylum.

As Dr. Phil Jones at ECU-CRU recently admitted under oath, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. Don't you even wonder why?

So go ahead and load up your SUV's and minivans, and caravan to your next protest rally, or jet-set to the next global conference with Al Gore, where limousines liberals meet and greet with campaign and clavier.

Greenpeace. Yeah...right.

Hi Greenpeace.

In 1990 I made a short video especially for you out of my own pocket about the work of a Mexican engineer, Aureliano Horta Zanabria. He discovered a way to transform the mass of an electronic circuit into energy, so that the circuit slowly consumes itself until it stops to function, but in the mean time having delivered a lot of energy.

In the video the secretary of audiences to the then president affirms that the 3 devices on display in the National Palace next to the official room of the president have been running non-stop for 2 months already. Afterwards -after PEMEX ,the national oil company, found out- my friend was told to stop developing his self-feeding system -the first images in the video- or something might happen to his family...
So now he is developing a circuit that saves electricity up to 75% instead, hoping he can get away with that.

Greenpeace in Amsterdam was not interested in even looking at it in 1990, and even got angry when I insisted. Finally their "video man" (as they called him) watched it for a few minutes but then said he had to go not to miss his train home.
I honestly got the sad impression that Greenpeace was only interested in the problems, not the solutions.

Here is that video called "The Unlimited Clean Energy Project":
http://www.lodewijk-langeweg.com/

Greenpeace are either very delusional or dreadful liars!

They say that the Big corporations are against this AGW scam. What??

The banks are behind it, the major corporations are behind it, all the major governments are behind it, George Soros is behind it, Al Gore is behind it, even the bloody Rothschilds are BEHIND it!

"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."

What anti-science ? I thought it is proven that your science lobby's were dead wrong !

"suggest it means something wholly different from the practice of peaceful civil disobedience, which is what the post was about"

You are such a liar. The full post has been copied elsewhere.

Here is some of the rest: "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."

And you are such a liar to suggest the post was about peaceful disobedience.

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)

To find the "anti-science" brigade, you need to 1st realize just who that really is. Countering arguments with personal attacks rather than using scientific fact is in truth Anti-Science. That would follow with the "big oil", warming denier's (insinuating holocast) and other nonsense.

But then again what should we expect from the people pushing Big Solar, Big Wind & the Big Lie of AGW. See we CAN lower ourselves to your level, but don't take it personally we actually prefer using fact over fiction (ie. IPCC reports).

Anti-science ?

Skeptics are anti-scientific misconduct.

Alarmists are pro- scientific misconduct.

The CRU e-mails, the IPCC lies and errors.

Alarmists are the real deniers...

You de-population freaks should practice what you preach.

Juliet, regarding your 'faith' that CO2 drives climate, you are correct to state that government funded computer models predict human contribution of CO2's greenhouse gas effect, amplified by a positive feedback from water vapor, (which appears to be the fatal flaw in these models), will cause significant and rapid global warming, (Gore's 'tipping point' argument). Then, those who generated the warming predictions began associating dire consequences with the warming such as rapid sea level rise, the melting of polar ice, disease, drought, increased storm severity, etc. (“Oh my! This is a big problem so you had better increase this department’s funding so we can keep studying it.” Like you could find one middle manager in corporate America who doesn’t know that tactic….)

For one thing there is the temperature record which does NOT show any significant acceleration of warming, (we’ve been slowy warming for ~8000 years since the last ice age but you already knew that right?). In ~25 years since this idea began, (though is WAS an interesting theory back then I will admit), the data since then is clearly not following the computer predictions. Take Arctic Ice Extent for example which is nearly back to its 30 year average extent, (based on satellite measurements since 1979). Additional anecdotal evidence ranges from stories of the Northwest Passage being open centuries ago to photos of the nuclear sub USS Skate surfacing at the north pole back in the 1950’s.

Sea level rise is another example where hard data is not supporting the rhetoric such as in Bangladesh where their coastal area is actually increasing despite the rise in sea level, (sediment accumulation is outpacing sea level rise). Plus, if the threat was credible then beachfront property would have been a real steal by now – it ain’t.

So the polar bears are doing just fine, people are not hysterically running from the water's edge, the Sahara Desert has been shrinking, (and now being farmed in some places I heard?), etc. Where’s the problem?

Another thing is the alleged 'harm' of warming (if in fact we had continued to get warmer per the models). The huge majority of such allegations were outright frivolous and unsupported by historical fact such as storm instensity and frequency or disease. Yes there was a Medieval Warming Period and, no matter whether you believe it to be global, (as I do), or just a Eurocentric phenomenon, the documented evidence of it being a 'GOOD THING' in Europe back then cannot be dismissed, (primarily more food and more free time to be 'civilized'). Another example is geologic record that shows the planet was much warmer for some periods going back 10,000's of years but polar bears, humans and many many other species obviously lived through them just fine.

Ask yourself the simple question - WHERE on earth do the greatest number of species exist? In Alaska or in Costa Rica? Is it better for life if the polar regions grow larger or if the tropical regions grow larger?

Bottom line - the earth is warming very slowly as it has been for quite some time. It’s been cooling off a little bit recently with abject disregard of what models told us. Even if it had continued to get warmer it wouldn’t have been a bad thing anyway.

CAGW hysteria is hereby CANCELED.

Greatly disappointed in the original post (and the new one is inadequate damage control). You were my heroes growing up, I felt your passion but while I will always be an environmentalist, since I read AR4, studied the science and quizzed scientists I no longer believe in catastrophic man made global warming.

Please don't patronize me by referring me to the usual superficial debunk websites, I've read them all. I am commenting merely to inform you that my money will be supporting other environmental organisations from now on.

Why? Because I know of no other way, historically, that the phrase "we know where you live" etc is to be understood other than as a direct and personal threat. You might not feel threatened unless it is violent but when people who feel hostile towards you start targeting your home, it might start out non-violent but as passion runs high and tempers flare it can quickly turn violent. Just don't talk like that, ever.

Btw, British courts no longer care if you intended to incite violence with your words - if they can be misread as inciting violence you are now held accountable. Look up muslim clerics in UK trials for more information. Just to let you know.

Ananth: What makes you think that sceptics of the IPCC version of AGW are anti-science? In my experience, many are respected scientists. The only anti-science stance is anti-climate model stance of models that are simplistic, and the misuse and manipulation of climate data. The uncritical AGW promoters who say that there is consensus and that there is no debate, are simply liars with a twisted sense of how science operates.

I used to work as a volunteer for GP as a radio op for the original Rainbow Warrior before it was blown up by French DGSE, Terrorists, as described in GP's own article 'The Terrorist Attack (now also pulled) because it featured the concept of State-Sponsored Terrorism. But now, beyond denying there is such a thing as State-Sponsored terrorism GP is pushing it's New World Order Eugenics sympathy vote by openly publishing comments that advocate Terrorism, again certainly sponsored by subscribing members and States alike. But be warned, you are to be reported to the Serious Organised Crime Agency and others, only in passing of course since GP is immune to prosecution for supporting terrorism against Political Opponents of AGW/CC Mass Fraud. But come looking for me and you're in for a belting on the honker. Give up now, 'cos you're on a loosing foot.

Coal contains carbon. Coal used to be living plants. The plants collected that carbon by sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

There was a time before coal existed, since most of the coal was formed in the Carboniferous Period. Before the coal existed, all of the carbon that is now in the coal, used to be carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Why didn't the planet burn up when the atmosphere used to be up to 40% carbon dioxide? People are quibbling about a few ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Before the Carboniferous Period, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were over 20 times higher than they are today. How can carbon dioxide possibly be as dangerous as you say?

Yep, I am anon. Why would I provide any indentity details to you who threaten

Look, your problems are pretty basic. You see doom and gloom everywhere. You live in a constant negative state

You doom and gloom brings you to a state of high anxiety.

I would hate to live like you, that woudl be torture

The world is wonderful. People are very generally great. The earth is not being killed. No, it's a wonderful world

There are many things we can do better. If you open your minds you will see that humans have got better at almost everything

You need to drop the extremist negativity and start to engage in calm and easy discussion and learn to challenged yourself, you may be wrong.

Let me give you the best reason. Scaremongering will only turn people off. It is not sustainable

Oh yeah. I know where you live but I don't care

I'm not impressed with the lame explanation. Read the comment again. It doesn't sound like a plea for civil disobedience to me. It reads like something a psychopath or a stalker would write. It boils down to 'if we can't make you think the way we do by fair means and debate, we'll resort to nasty tricks instead to scare you into it'. I have supported Greenpeace in the past but now that this organization is hijacked by elements that amount to terrorism, I no longer have any respect for you at all.

The problem is not with the "non-violent direct action" you advocate (though some of that may be criminal as well).

No, the problem is with the violent indirect action your demands upon government produce - the armed robbery of billions of people just trying to live their lives. And for what, ultimately?

To enrich a few enterprising souls (who live at the very HEART of the "green" movement), to expand global government, and to, incidentally, reduce polluting emissions just a wee bit. Incidentally, CO2 is what those "rainforests" BREATHE.

I don't think I can be responsible for what other people choose to believe. I can only make the facts clear. (As I do in my note at the top of this blog.)

In the same way that some people choose not to think the climate crisis is real, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence, they will choose to miss-understand Gene or me or anyone.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

Ah, Andrew, but you are mistaken. You and your associates are indeed responsible for what other people choose to believe.

Precedent has been set throughout society. Perception is reality. If someone feels threatened, their perception trumps your claims to the contrary.

Consider a parallel situation: a person brings a sexual harassment complaint against a co-worker, because they feel threatened or offended by the co-worker's words or actions. Regardless the original intent, perception defines reality, and the burden of proof lies on the co-worker to prove that what they did or said was reasonable. "But that's not what I meant" is a woefully inadequate argument.

Unfortunately, "but that's not what Gene meant" is the only defense you have presented. Gene is responsible, and you, as the publisher, are by proxy responsible. Regardless how many times you remind everyone "that's not what we meant".

Gene's article broke the law. In most countries, you may not incite others to perform criminal acts -- violent or not -- even if such acts are never carried out.

By leaving the article up for six days, GP became culpable. Thus the ferocious back pedaling.

My question for GP. You've rejected violence. Great. But do you also reject non-violent criminal acts?

If not, then this entire morality play reeks of hypocrisy.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The danger of climate change is well recognized by major scientific institutions. The UK Royal Society has been calling for "prompt action" for almost a decade, for example.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

http://weblog.greenpeace.org/climate/2010/04/will_the_real_climategate_plea_1.html
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Andrew,

the Royal Society isn't a credible scientific authority anymore since it uncritically joined AGW-alarmism years ago.

The quotes:

"the most dangerous threat our planet's climate has ever faced"

Was Juliette there when mass-extinctions occurred in earths history? Well documented by fossil record. Was she there when temperature rose or fell about 10 degrees C +/-, in short time, documented by proxies? Did she really watch all the cataclysms raised by climate change in earths history? So come on Andrew and confess, her statement is nuts.

"On climate change: we know that Climate Chnage is real, it's happening now, and it's costing lives already"

Andrew, that's nonsense too, and you know it. Because climate change is a basic property of earth. It always happened, and it always will. So this statement of Juliette is just meaningless.

That's what we do. Today, politicians are too focussed on the next election rather than the next generation. Collectively, unless we fix that, we'll continue to see shiny new bricks of good intentions paving a road toward disaster.

--Brian
(Head of Digital Communications)

Hmm, My comment drags out the HDC!
Thanks for you reply Brian.
Congratulations on your successes.
The problem with your answer is that, as with Gene, Ananth and Juliette, is you and your organisation as always make out that the sceptics do not give a dam about mother earth. This is not about pollution of our rivers or dumping toxic waste in the sea (I note that you did not mention your total cock up over the Brent fiasco when you again got it wrong!).
I mentioned that I used to financially support Greenpeace but its not the same as it once was.

This is ALL about the defence of the AGW theory (because that is all it is). Sceptics do not deny Global warming but the simply rank bad science that purveys the so called AGW!

I am sad to see sceptics on here returning the threats made by Gene(were he in the UK, anyone could take out a private prosecution against him for his comments.(I have checked that out).
Then again, one only had to observe the lunatics you took to Copenhagen. Science is not achieved with threats! (Maybe Jones, Mann etc should remember that!)

I for one strongly object to Greenpeace with regard to AGW, having researched the issue over many years and Gene is wrong, we are not "the few".
2009 figures on your own site show what a minority group Greenpeace really is.

I am simply sad to see you all defending the twaddle Gene put up. Now lets drop these ridiculous threats and return to the science.


I think there is a reasonable solution to the Global Warming problem which I think will resolve the oftentimes fractious debate between Alarmists and whom they describe as Deniers.

1) Global Warming believers are simply good religious people exercising their faith.

2) Their faith has nothing to do with science. Science depends on proof and science doesn’t label holders of contradictory views as being “deniers”. That term falls entirely under a religious mindset next to religious terms like “heretic”.

3)Although Global Warming believers have a core set of legends or a catechism, they lack a spiritual repository for their beliefs. Like the ancient pagans who believed in magical trees or rocks, they think Global Warming is actually real. This state is unevolved and unsophisticated but the norm of a nascent religion.

4) The great religions place their beliefs in a spiritual realm which is separate from everyday reality. This a wonderful and practical adaptation to the needs of reality. In the spiritual realm good battles against the forces of evil. The perpetual battle gives helpful lessons to everyday people without harming them with the battle’s “collateral damage”. This is good for everyone.

The solution:

Declare Global Warming a religion and get sophisticated about it immediately. Have the Holy Gaia in spiritual battle against the devil CO2. Convert people. Pass on to people the teachable moments from this battle so they may learn. Erect environmental churches with solar roof panels and have a windmill where a cross should be. All good religions incorporate the deposed religion’s symbols. Paint them green.

Western society has discarded Christianity as a practical fact. That leaves Islam and it will suffer the same fate in 700 years only because it’s 700 years younger than Christianity.

This in no way gets around the basic human need for religion; something has to fill that void. The solution takes into account the danger of religions in the nascent stage, when the early adherents still think it’s real. Religion in this stage can do real damage; the Mayan civilization consumed its own and the Salem witch-trials came close to doing it here. Global Warming is in the same place now, it is poised to wreak destruction on a civilization.

To be successful, Global Warming must move quickly to become a mainstream religion where all the battles and battle damage are moved to the spiritual realm. Otherwise a religion that destroys civilization destroys itself. Kind of like cancer.

Tongue firmly placed in cheek.:-)

The good folks over at wattsupwiththat.com saved the original message here: http://www.webcitation.org/5oj86Zw5q just in case you didn't wanted to stand by your words anymore.

This is the stupidest fucking self destructing PR disaster I have ever seen. I hope Gene just cost you a lot of money.

I'd join in with the majority of the commentors, but it's not gentlemanly to kick a man when he's down.

Or to put it another way, this is a battle of wits, and I don't like fighting an unarmed man.

"And we be many, but you be few."

An appeal to Black English won't help either.

Indeed Graeme Stewart, and I bet with 40% more CO2 in the atmosphere the world was more healthier and vibrant and fertile than it is today?

Andrew, what I want to know is what exactly is it you have against CO2? It's a wonderful gas, one of the four essential resources of life!

I was very disappointed to read Gene's post, for all kinds of reasons.
I think it is a fair question to ask under the circumstances: what do you do with all the personal information you gather in the course of street collections in the UK?
What is your data managment policy, is there somewhere I can see it?
I have had made donations to Greenpeace in the past, but I am now very concerned that you have personal details of mine. Particularly since these threats have been made by one of your members against the public.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hi Sarah,
You can read Greenpeace's privacy policy here.
To be clear, here are two example of the kind of peaceful actions we did at people's homes: installing solar panels on a roof and calling for the arrest of a man responsible for 20,000 deaths.
Juliette

I can't believe that GreenPeace is against Nuclear Power! Weapons yes, but Power?

You guys are rapidly receding into irrelevance on this issue. There is a sea change happening in worldwide public opinion on this issue of nuclear power:

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1712863_1712864_1712893,00.html

Alternatives and Renewables cannot compete because they do not have a millionth of the energy density of Nuclear power. Nor can fossil fuels for that matter:
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=2469


Thorium holds out the promise of efficient small scale plants that can be used to burn toxic nuclear waste to generate electricity with a technology that is practically useless to proliferators who want easier access to weapons grade material.

Burn nuclear waste as fuel instead of storing it for hundreds of thousands of years, AND reduce use of fossil fuels? Win Win in my book!
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/

Even Bill Gates has seen the Nuclear powered light:
http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/blogs/bill-gates-billions-for-next-gen-nuclear#

And to throw some peer pressure back at you, let me quote two paragraphs from this Wired Magazine article showing what has dawned on some of your own colleagues:


“Some of the world's most thoughtful greens have discovered the logic of nuclear power, including Gaia theorist James Lovelock, Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore, and Britain's Bishop Hugh Montefiore, a longtime board member of Friends of the Earth (see "Green vs. Green," page 82). Western Europe is quietly backing away from planned nuclear phaseouts. Finland has ordered a big reactor specifically to meet the terms of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. China's new nuke plants - 26 by 2025 - are part of a desperate effort at smog control.”

“What is a rapidly carbonizing world to do? The high-minded answer, of course, is renewables. But the notion that wind, water, solar, or biomass will save the day is at least as fanciful as the once-popular idea that nuclear energy would be too cheap to meter. Jesse Ausubel, director of the human environment program at New York's Rockefeller University, calls renewable energy sources "false gods" - attractive but powerless. They're capital- and land-intensive, and solar is not yet remotely cost-competitive.”

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/nuclear.html

A lot is happening technologically in the Nuclear Field that is rendering obsolete the objections that were raised 30 years ago.

I invite you to consider updating your worldview with the latest information.

@PositiveThought, Greenpeace's views on nuclear energy are quite up to date. Have you seen today's news: "Rise in nuclear power threatens spread of atomic weapons". Please take a look at our blog all about the very latest news concerning the nuclear industry: http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclear-reaction/

The double standards exhibited by Greenpeace are staggering:

Most sceptics have not "hijacked, cannibalized and subverted" anything.

They simply disagree with what you are saying, and this is what makes you writhe.

"We know where you live"

Pah! Bring it on.

Dear Greenpeace, I was just wondering if the lady in this interview have checked out the facts of global warming as instructed in this video or is she only arrogant?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvufOvneJMk

Looking forward for an answer. Love Greenpeace

Even though I'm a ME you can count me out as a nuke fission power supporter. Fission is like starting a fire in the middle of your car's gas tank and employing a very complex technically sophisticated way of keeping it from exploding. I'm all for nuke fusion power though.

You ARE the anti-science brigade, promoting junk science and emotionalism and violating the protocols of democracy. Having said that, at least you are retracting the call-to-arms of being a VIOLENT brigade. This time.

Civil disobedience is a positive part of our society. It helped bring about the women's right to vote, and was essential to the civil rights movement.

Can't you think of any time a law was un-just?

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)
========================
There was a world of difference between peaceful protest and what was advocated. "we know where you live..." really subtle. You sure you can't do it in a Irish accent to make it more menacing. I've cancelled my standing order since this is what it is used to fund, don't worry it's been re-directed to green organisations that advocate peaceful protest and refuse to advocate violence or threats of violence.

I used to be a Greenpeace supporter - not any more.

How much money do Greenpeace ("Environmental" fascists) make

from the huge bird and bat killing machines? That's why they

support wind power - they've been bought, the greedy bastards.

Let the brainwashed bastards find me. I've spent a lot of my

own money - for no gain - fighting the relentless march of the

waving white things on big sticks desecrating our countryside.

They are totally bloody useless except for making money for

their developers & affiliates such as Green"peace".

I used to be so worried about the greenhouse effect, that at one point I preferred to turn off the ceiling fan in my hotel room in tropical Acapulco and sweat it out drenching my bedsheets for days.

But after finding out that nature itself produces 99.72% of all greenhouse gases and humans only 0.28%, things have changed for me:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
What really did it was seeing the documentary governor Jesse Ventura made about the real motive behind the climate alarm, and it's not the climate:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/conspiracy-theory-with-jesse-ventura-global-warming.html

Maybe GP -in good faith and without being aware of it- is being used by some very clever bankers who want to make even more money than they already do.

I'm one of those guys that doesn't believe what YOU believe.
Isn't it nice to see the TRUE face of climate change! "Believe how I believe or I'll come to your house or your job"...

and do WHAT exactly?? burn up my vehicle? destroy someone's property? Open your mouth and create more of that CO2 that you hate?

You can take it back all you like..you put it out there to begin with. I suggest that you people tone it down and get over the fact that folks don't believe what you do.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Elliot,
No violence is meant by any of us. Civil disobedience, non-violent direst action are not violent, and do not imply burning your vehicule or destroying your property.
Juliette

Dear Greenpeace,
Thank you for allowing me to speak. I'm not happy that some of those who share my position on anthroprogenic global climate change (AGCC) would result to name calling and poor language choices.

However, I will peacefully say that Mr. Hashmi is welcomed to find me. I am in opposition. Even if we might be few, we do not fear. Mr. Hashmi has drawn a line in the sand and we will cross over it.

For we endeavor to find truth in scientific significance. Notice I do not say fact for very few parts of science are fact or "Laws." There are strong indicators of what is true.

On the other hand, the consequenses of junk science through the actions of government officials who are poorly educated (and believe that islands float) is what is grievious. I still do not fear these legislative actions though I oppose them. And I will work within the system to stop their folly.

Yes I am in opposition. But as others have written, if there should be substantial evidence the supports AGCC or other similar theorems then I will change my mind and support. AGCC does not have the significance to be supported.

But I am a big supporter of Sir Francis Bacon who staunchly defends inductive reasoning and research and supportive evidence. Mr. Hashmi would do well to read Bacon's writings.

By all means, let your implied threats stand, stand by them, and continue to insist that they don't really mean to incite or imply violence or threats. It is most satisfying to watch a bunch of arrogant, self righteous trustifarians self-destruct their own credibility and organization. Your inflammatory post goes well into the realm of incitement and has established a huge potential legal liablity in the case of one of your loony deluded followers ever acts upon them.
You are deluded and obtuse almost beyond belief.
And I thought that nothing was denser than plutonium, until you knuckleheads displayed your non-existant grasp of reality.

Dear Juliette and Andrew.
There are two and only two possibilities concerning Gene's post with the clearly threatening language.

1. He is actually advocating violence.

2. He is an idiotic buffoon who does not understand the language he is supposed to be using as communications director.

In either case he is not an asset to a peaceful organization, such as you claim Greenpeace to be. Defending him instead of publicly distancing yourselves makes you appear complicit with those threats.
And yes climate change is very real, it's been happening for four and a half BILLION years, get used to it.

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

Look, you got caught with your pants down. It's understandable, people sometimes say things under your imprimatur that are way out of line.

But to pretend that the comment was "misconstrued" beggars belief. All of us know what "we know where you live" means. It is a threat, not only to me, but to my family. You guys threatened us. Big mistake. Claiming it was a misunderstanding ... sorry. We know a threat when we see one.

And claiming that you moved the post "in the interests of transparency" makes no sense at all. How does moving it increase "transparency"? You're just waving your hands, that's no explanation.

The original post was bad enough. But this clumsy attempt at damage control has merely made it worse. As a former supporter of Greenpeace, I had hoped that you would have had the nous to simply disavow the statements entirely. I am disappointed that you have not done so.

As Richard Nixon found out, the coverup is more damaging than the offence. You want to regain your lost ground? Man up and admit that one of your people blew it badly, apologize, and move on. Because what you are doing now is shooting yourselves in the foot.

Dear Juliette,

I can empathize with your position if you like Gene and if you still believe that AGW is not a hoax. However, I can’t support your position. Your repeated defense of Gene’s language, claiming it is not a threat of violence, simply does not hold water.

It amounts to saying there is no such thing as an inescapable logical implication. There is.

Gene chose to use language which is well known to have been used SOLELY as a threat of violence in other situations by violent people against their intended victims.

Face it, Juliette. Don’t persist in the same kind of rationalization and denial that enabled you and Gene to fall for a hoax and continue to believe in it when there is zero reason to believe it and a thousand reasons to know it’s a lie.

Suppose someone wrote you a letter, Juliette, and said

“Juliette, Let’s talk about what my next pleasant visit to into your home is going to look like. We’ve got a special version of very effective dialogue we’re going to use on you, and believe me, it’s proved very effective on a lot of our past trouble-makers like you.

“You have interfered with our ability to move forward on a project we passionately believe in. You are our antagonist in a crucial battle for the highest possible stakes, and you are everything I oppose. I hold you in the lowest contempt imaginable. I see you as evil. You are the lowest of the low, using reprehensible tactics to fight against the good fight, the most important good fight in the world today. We have to defend the world from people like you.

“I know you have friends, but we have more friends than you do, and we are stronger than you are. And you can’t keep all your friends at your house all the time, can you? Expect company, Juliette, expect it when you least expect it. Oh, don’t worry -- just a few uninvited guests, Juliette, coming to visit you to show you how we express our opinions against those who commit what we consider crimes against humanity.. We don’t expect an invitation, and we don’t need directions, cuz we have your address, and we’re coming over in numbers you won’t believe. So put on your flak jacket and expect a surprise visit one of these days – or nights. And we can promise you your surprise guests are going to have a VERY serious surprise for you, something that will, you know, kinda BLOW YOUR MIND. Or maybe something that will really KNOCK YOUR EYES OUT.

“Better keep a lookout for us, Juliette. No way around it. We’re coming.”

This paraphrasing of Gene’s style and content wouldn’t worry you at all, would it Juliette? No threat. Just someone coming over with a few friends to pay you a nice visit. They’re even planning to bring you some kind of surprise – it says so right in the letter, Juliette. It’s not a threat at all, is it?

Now, c’mon Juliette, you know damn well if you received a letter like the above the first thing you’d do is change your underwear, and the second would be to call the cops. It is obviously a threat even though no explicit threat is made. The threat is implicit, but intentional, and very, very obvious. Sometimes it’s questionable whether certain phraseology implies some particular meaning or not. Other times, the logical implications are inescapable. The above is of the latter type. So it Gene’s comment. If you can’t see that, you are definitely in denial.

Just read the posts. Virtually ALL the respondents who disagree with Gene’s language see it as a threat. Even some who support Gene see it as a clearly implied threat of violence, and second Gene’s motion. Only you are so blind you can’t see it. I think you do see it, and just find it hard to admit that THAT’s the meaning of what Gene said. Maybe Gene really is non-violent, and just used that statement in a moment of despair, expecting readers to know it was a threat of violence but knowing it was an empty threat comning from supposedly peace-loving Gene. Well, if so, why not explain that instead of going into obvious denial. Maybe Gene had a weak moment and let his heart rule his head, and actually slipped into a threat of the kind of violence he’s actually incapable of. Maybe. MAYBE. But maybe not. We’re not mind readers. Someone has to explain and provide evidence for this if it’s true. But c’mon, Juliette, everyone on both sides seems to understand Gene’s threat was a violent one, everyone but you.

Why don’t you just tell the truth Juliette, that you know it IS a threat, but Gene didn’t mean it the way it sounds, which is violent, ADMITTEDLY, but which was made in an unguarded, emotional moment? Why don’t you say this – IF it is the truth? Or else tell us what IS the actual truth if it’s something different?

You are only harming yourself by choosing to remain in a state of obvious denial. From the posts I’ve read, it looks like 99% agree it was a threat of violence, whether they agree with it or not. You even have some posts which themselves threaten violence – either alongside Gene’s, or in response to it.

I know it must feel terrible to have invested a long time and tons of passionate effort into something that has proven to be a Don Quixote crusade. But to go into denial and continue the crusade in face of PROOF that it is a hoax, and PROOF that it is false is not going to help anyone, least of all you or Gene. Did you know, Juliette, that experts -- and I mean Nobel quality scientists of the 1st water – estimate that if Cap & Trade is implemented along the lines the UN advocates, it will result in the deaths of approximately ½ billion human beings? That’s “billion” with a “b.” Yes, 500 million people or more. Mostly in the poverty and ill-health stricken 3rd world nations. The decline in food production and the increased UNaffordablity of heating during cold seasaons will do the trick. Starvation and the diseases that malnourished people succumb to because of compromised immune systems will kill off half a billion or more people, and starvation is a very agonizing death. The victims will be men women and children who are the most poverty stricken, oppressesd, and downtrodden of the human race. It will amount to a genocide FAR larger than the SUM TOTAL of all the genocides every in all of mankind’s history. Your denial is allowing you to maintain your role as accessory to those murders, if not “de jure,” you and Gene will be “de facto” accomplices in the murder of HUNDREDS of millions of innocents, untold millions of actual, living, real human beings who can feel and suffer the agony you will have helped inflict on them. How can you live with this? How can you permit yourself to indulge in denial at this price? One life would be too high a price to pay. How can you justify your willingness to let murder to proceed against these innocents just to save you from having to face facts and eat a little humble pie?

Why don’t you just do what’s right, Juliette? Admit the truth about the character of Gene’s statement, and EXPLAIN it away if you wish, but don’t RATIONALIZE that it is not what it so patently IS.

If you want to keep on crusading, you can redeem yourself by just being honest, listening to the facts with an open mind, LEARNING why you are wrong about man-caused global warming, and then come over to the right side. Saving many millions of lives from the consequences of bunch of conniving conspirators of hoax, is a noble act indeed. Why not “get religion” and help SAVE those intended victems? Now THERE is something actually WORTH crusading for. I think you would be relieved, happy with yourself, and you would in fact earn the respect of many people for admitting your error, and for the strength it took to do so, and for your willingness ot admit you are humana enough to make errors.

Yes, it’s sad and demoralizing to find out you’ve been on the wrong side, and denial or rationalization is a common reaction. It is normal to resist admitting one’s error even to himself at first. But the worst mistake is to allow that to persist, aand to just dig in your heels and cling to what is patently false. I am not religious – in fact I’m an atheist – but do agree with the Bible’s “and the truth shall set you free.”

Be a humane, humanitarian HUMAN being, Juliette. You have been duped. So have millions of others. Everyone makes mistakes. Don’t defend them, admit them and then fix them. You will be far more respected by people whose respect counts, than you will by going into denial to preserve a falsehood.

Morry Markovitz

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Dear Morry,
Gene explained clearly in the blog the kind of action that he means: non-violent direct action and civil disobedience, the kind that Greenpeace has been doing 40 years. The difference between that and the "letter" that you would send me is that this context would be lacking in your letter - both in the letter and in the history. Andrew and I gave examples of what Greenpeace does when they do come to the house of individuals - you said you read the comments, so I suggest you take a look at these examples. Were you to come to my house to install solar panels, I would not see that as a threat of violence. Neither would I see a threat of violence if you came to my door and delivered me a letter. THAT is what Greenpeace does.
I hope that clarifies things.
Juliette

Greenpeace, you lost my respect when I witnessed your true colours during the Brent Spar fiasco in Britain/Europe 20 years ago, (or whenever it was), with your anti-oil, anti-progress, anti-business-anti-human socialist garbage. Now you're becoming even more extreme like the eco-freaks of Earth First! which, in case you don't know = a philosophy of of death.

Classic Groupthink explains the agw delusions..

Recognises the symptoms/results in man made global warming theory below?

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.

Symptoms of groupthink

To make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms indicative of groupthink (1977).

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.In such real-world examples, a number of the above groupthink symptoms were displayed.


AGW theory, seems to HAVE ALL THE SYMPTOMS of groupthink.

Juliette you clearly haven't taken any notice of what Morry said.

So you're saying it's ok for someone to come round your home and construct a solar panel in your house even without your consent? You wouldn't mind that because you agree with it, right?

But what if the same people then went to your next door neighbour (who for argument sake, we'll say doesn't believe in AGW) and carry out the same thing on them, would they be happy?

What if someone came round without your consent and peacefully removed a solar panel from your house, would it be ok then in your view to just turn up without consent???

Juliette, you can't justpick and choose freedom to fit your own views and belief systems. To have true freedom you must accept the freedom of those you disagree with as well, or we can't have freedom at all!

Or to put it another way, I don't believe in AGW, and I think those who do are deluded and self defeating for humanity, but I respect your freedom to agree with it if you want, as long as you don't force your view on me.

Personally I haven't believed in AGW for at least a decade when I watched a factual documentary before the issue became politicized, where a group of investigators carried out tests on ice cores and proved that CO2 only increased after periods of warming, in other words proving CO2 is the 'effect' of global warming, not the 'cause' of Global Warming.

Hardly surprisingly, you never see documentaries on mainstream TV now, which disprove the AGW theory! That's censorship of freedom!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi Scott,

You might be interested in reading this article: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
Juliette

One thing I will say though, I take my hat off to greenpeace for sharing this debate with us on here (I'm not sure in light of the Gene comments they had much choice) but I like to be positive, and I think it's really good of them to post so many comments that are clearly in objection to their views.

So thanks for that!

Thanks for the link Juliette, I know there are plenty of science websites and newspaper reports, but I was actually referring to mainstream TV documentaries and news broadcasts, which are far more effective at brainwashing the average Jo who turns on the TV.

Personally I would be interested to know what your views are on other issues that we're hearing about and witnessing on a day to day basis, such as chemtrails and HAARP?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hi Scott,
The list of issues we work on is available here: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns
We can't work on all issues of concerns, unfortunately, as our capacities are limited.
Juliette

I have been a financial supporter of greenpeace for years, given you loads of my money every month.
NO MORE. YOU HAVE ALL CROSSED A LINE.
Your organisation has been compromised.
And you AGW fools who are too afraid to admit there is junk science on the both sides of the argument have set the real environmental movement back 20 years.
You should spend more time on GE crops and less time blathering on and on about CO2.

Some of the issues you work on are no doubt extremely worthy causes such as polluting rivers with chemical waste and I hope you stand firmly against GMO, but I also notice some glaring omissions, such as those I mentioned, maybe it's because they're deemed too controversial, I don't know, but they are issues which millions of people are now getting very concerned about, maybe in most part, from the secrecy surrounding them.

Juliette, the test is this: if the above article was delivered to my home, addressed to me, as a letter, I WOULD NOT HESITATE to call the police.

In no uncertain terms, it hints at violence towards me and my family. Its intent is to intimidate me by implying my family and home will suffer if I refuse to submit to his demands. I would think the threat is clear enough for the police to investigate and arrest the author of the letter (especially so as he makes ambiguous references to his knife carrying and drug taking elsewhere).

All your replies on this thread Juliette are identical to a subsequent plea to the police that: the author (who, it seems, has a criminal record) has never committed actual bodily harm before, therefore his threats are simply an 'innocent' pastime - despite the distress he intends to cause by purposefully using ambiguous language.

Further to this, you seem to be suggesting that in your opinion, the recipients of these threats (and their families) somehow deserve them and that you see yourself being above the law on the grounds that you (and your organisation) have no history of carrying out the threats of violence this letters so clearly contains.

Somehow, I don't think the police would buy it.

My own view is that because your politicised organisation is so deeply misanthropic you at a loss to see anything remotely 'wrong' in the type of infantile rants issued by accomplices like Gene. As this thread shows, I don't think the vast majority of the general public agrees with you.


You know, until recently I had for many years made monthly donations to GP. Then when climategate broke, I started to investigate AGW, and was astounded by what I discovered - a farrago of lies and pseudo-religious apocalypticism.

Any way, a few weeks ago, I stopped my monthly subscription, because I knew where you lived and rattled – in the bosom of Mammon. I think it’s the only kind of direct action that has any hope of making you stop,think, and mend your ways.

If you don’t, and it may already be too late, you should know that nothing can stand against the truth in the long run. AGW will be the death of GP if it doesn’t ditch it soon.

"And we be many, but you be few."

I don't think you want to know the reality behind this false assertion. How many people in the US list the environment as a top priority? How about Global Warming? They just don't rate because people are starting to see through all of the lies, propaganda and hypocrisy. That's what happens when your noble cause turns into a pseudo-religious cult.

"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."

There's the context. If you're on the wrong side of this debate we outnumber you and know where you live and how to find you.. and we''re mad.

No, that's not a threat at all.

And my explanation that if you decide I'm "thinking the wrong thoughts" and come in numbers to my house to sort me out; you'd better have your will up to date before you show up isn't a threat either... it's a clear statement of how the future will go.

So go ahead; start your "army of climate outlaws" willing to break the law, and who "know where I live" on their way. But don't expect them to come back from my house happy and healthy.

What an abhorrent article, I shall be complaining about the thinly laced threats to anyone who doesn't agree with your pseudoscience viewpoint contained in this piece of jounalistic drivel. MMGW or whatever it's been changed to now is a cult, nothing more.

Yes, the world is doooooomed. I understand. You told me this when I was 7, 10, 12, 16, 22, 30, 35, 40...

Now I'm going to do what I always do in the face of such horror--kill and eat a helpless animal, and burn a tire.

If you think CO2 is such a problem, may I suggest you stop exhaling it?

Are you lot insane? Are you actually trying to make environmental awareness a political and social outcast? You cruise about in ships that are hardly regulated with regard to emissions and that produce more pollutants than 50 passenger cars each, you incite violence, you use complete morons to do your work and you still expect the public to fund you silly escapades. I am disgusted and sincerely hope you lose all your funding. Go back to daddy and explain why you need him to pay your rent you fools.

The article you recommend reading that supposedly debunks the idea that since co2 levels rise after global temperature increase -- then co2 can't be responsible for global warming IS NOT SCIENCE. At best it is somebody's untestable hypothesis. Warming by the sun that pulls a planet out of an ice age is described as "insignificant". That is not reasonable. But if the author's demand is that co2 must always be responsible for global warning then it is a necessary assumption. All other factors must be minimized so that co2 rise can be made to appear to be of paramount importance.

That article is absolute junk. I feel sorry for you people at Greenpeace because you constantly get taken in by such unsupported speculations passing themselves off as science. That happens because you do not read critically anything that supports your established belief systems. There is no science in that article.


EWRG

Ananth's "anti-science brigade" comment raises some interesting comparisons, in my opinion.

You (Greenpeace) see big companies, such as Nestle and Koch, as belonging to a powerful and cosy network of corporations devoted to their own advancement at a cost to the environment and to Third World living standards, and who choose not to acknowledge that cost.

We (AGW sceptics) see a relatively small group of climate scientists, such as Phil Jones and Michael Mann, as belonging to a powerful and cosy network of scientists-turned-activists devoted to their own advancement at a cost to scientific honesty and ultimately to Third World living standards (as a result of CO2 reduction at the expense of infrastructure development) and who choose not to acknowledge that cost.

You are dismissed by the large corporations as irritants and troublemakers, out of touch with the realities of the business community and the world outlook of the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times.

We are dismissed by the scientists-turned-activists as irritants and troublemakers, out of touch of the realities of post-normal science and the world outlook of RealClimate.

Perhaps it would be accurate to state that, generally speaking:

You are not anti-business fifth-columnists seeking to establish a global eco-dictatorship.
We are not anti-scientific astroturfers in the pay of Big Oil or right-wing think tanks.

You want to see business conducted ethically. We want to see science conducted transparently.

Will you allow that there are parallels?

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

blablabla%20act%20now150.jpg
www.flickr.com
Greenpeace International's COP 15 photoset MoreCOP 15 photos