Greenpeace – If It Isn’t Peace, Will It Still Be Green?
(comments are closed at Greenpeace’s incredibly stupid “Will the real ClimateGate please stand up? (part 2)” blog. This is what I have tried to post over there)
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.
The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMATE CHANGE 
The Guardian’s “Comment is Free” blog has a thread on this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/apr/06/greenpeace-gene-hashmi-climate-sceptics?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments
Please note that the author is Indian, so, though his English is excellent, he may not have been aware of the emotional content of his words.
This may be symptomatic of a weakness I’ve often noticed in the warmist camp – a desire to disguise the essentially white Anglo-Saxon nature of the movement by giving prominence at every opportunity to third world participants – marketing environmentalism like Coca Cola, as a muti-ethnic international movement. The most obvious example of this is the appointment of an Indian railway engineer as the (unpaid) head of the IPCC.
“I spoke to this professor at Berkeley and he told me that a lot of Utopian groups finish up by substituting control-systems for consensus because their leaders aren’t really into agreement and compromise, but have this blueprint which they insist will only work if it’s followed exactly, and they somehow manage to impose it on the group, then enforce it with rewards and punishments.”
from the novel “Stormchild” by Bernard Cornwell, published by Michael Joseph 1991 (and Penguin Books, 1992)
QUOTING greenpeace:
“We need to hit them…”
__________________
Commenting:
I would point out that “hit” is a very well known euphemism for “murder”, in US colloquial English. Perhaps a retraction is in order?
I’ve been able to post several responses there since comments came back up. Infuriating how they feel the need to lie even to themselves about what gene said.
Apparently the comments are back up again, and I’ve just left mine. Here it is, just in case it doesn’t get though:
“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.”
But this is the way for the AGW proponents.
Read their blogs and feel the hate.
They are irrational and desperate. The thought of discussion or debate is an anathema to them because they have no real argument to put forward. Only threats and intimidation are available, so that is what they must rely upon.
Fortunately time is running out and soon these extremists will be the ones looking over their shoulders.
The French debate in the Autumn will be a turning point in this situation, when arguments on both sides will be made and judged in public.
There is no evidence in support of catastrophic climate change and this will become obvious to all in the course of the next few months.
What’s the French debate in the autumn? I live in France but don’t follow politics here as closely as I should. The big turning point in France will come at the presidential election, when either the socialists win with Green Party support, or their alliance breaks down, letting Sarkozy back in. In either case, the public will be exposed as never before to the anti-democratic anti-industrial Green agenda.