A Pretty Naked Threat From Greenpeace

From the Greenpeace website, via Tom Nelson:

Climate Rescue Weblog: Will the real ClimateGate please stand up? (part 2)

Emerging battle-bruised from the disaster zone of Copenhagen, but ever-hopeful, a rider on horseback brought news of darkness and light: “The politicians have failed. Now it’s up to us. We must break the law to make the laws we need: laws that are supposed to protect society, and protect our future. Until our laws do that, screw being climate lobbyists. Screw being climate activists. It’s not working. We need an army of climate outlaws.”

The proper channels have failed. It’s time for mass civil disobedience to cut off the financial oxygen from denial and skepticism.

If you’re one of those who believe that this is not just necessary but also possible, speak to us. Let’s talk about what that mass civil disobedience is going to look like.

If you’re one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this:

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

And we be many, but you be few.

So one side of the climate catastrophism argument abhors open debate, refuses to allow scientific work to be shared or replicated, and openly threatens violence, and it is those of us on the other side who are anti-science?

Update: In an interesting use of words, Greenpeace has removed and hidden the original post “in the interest of transparancey” and replaced it with a fairly lame message that says that obviously I and other misunderstood words like “army,”  “break the law,” and “We know where you live” as threatening.  Um, OK.  Any, Anthony was links to the original archived here.

Update #2: This is pretty good overheated stuff, along roughly the same lines.   Because there is no better way to promote open scientific debate than threatening to jail one side:

The criteria was “The scientific and medical community’s knowledge of the relationship of smoking and disease evolved through the 1950s and achieved consensus in 1964. However, even after 1964, Defendants continued to deny both the existence of such consensus and the overwhelming evidence on which it was based.”

So they ARE criminally liable if they continue to knowingly spread misinformation after the scientific community has achieved consensus. There is scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change and there has been for 15 to 20 years.

Insomuch as the corporate Deniers claim that they have investigated the climate science thoroughly and that there is no significant evidence it seems to me they have lied themselves into a corner. Either they are lying about having examined the science or they are lying about what the science says, but either way they are lying. This makes them liable to legal action.

We don’t have half a century to waste tolerating these disinformation campaigns. This is not a question of upholding freedom of speech, it is a matter of corporate and individual criminality. The value of these reports is not in casting doubt on the Denier arguments; those have been known all along to be nonsense. The value is that the reports present an opportunity to hold the guilty parties responsible for their crimes, and to end the disinformation campaigns with legal penalties appropriate to the magnitude of those crimes.

Next up, Fremch 19th century chemists are retroactively sued for challenging the nearly century-old consensus on the phlogistan theory of combustion.

  • Jack Swan

    I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry.

  • C

    It was written on April 1…

  • Metro Gnome

    C:

    Written on April 1. Yes, fitting.

  • Stonyground

    If this is genuine, it kind of proves that they’re losing the argument doesn’t it.

  • hunter

    It appears to be simply another in a growing list of escalations from AGW promoters and profiteers.
    Hansen is well documented in his defense of eco-crimes, and support of calls for global violence in support of his beliefs.
    Gore has called for civil disobedience to push his agenda.
    Suzuki in Canada, Kennedy Hansen and others want to criminalize those who dissent with their beliefs in CO2.
    Greenpeace is simply falling in line to protect what has turned out to be a very lucrative position.
    The use of fantasy conspiracies, the veiled and plain threats of violence, circular definitions designed to dehumanize those who are deemed ‘enemy’ are will work tactics by extremist political movements in history. AGW is no different. Skeptics threaten a huge flow of money and power to the AGW community. The AGW movement cannot win on facts or reality. AGW true believers must, as long as they are perceived perceived as apopular movement, inevitably resort to more and more naked threats of force.

  • I think it’s safe to conclude this is not an April Fool’s joke. It’s the 2nd of two parts, the first having been posted the previous day.

  • Fred

    The desperate desperation of the utterly desperate.

    Their carefully constructed world of self righteous superiority is crashing down around them, their artificial political, moral and economic constructs are failing and they have nothing left to Believe in.

    What next . . . giving up tofu and soy milk lattes?

  • pft

    This is a crime in most countries. Posting it on April 1 (March 31 was April 1 in Asia BTW) may be to provide a reasonable defense, just in case. Of course, the people behind the AGW fraud are very powerful, and likely can prevent anything bad from happening. Hansen never lost his government job for inciting people to commit a crime.

    Meanwhile, millions of kids are still being brainwashed. All they have to do is wait for the older folks who were taught to question everything to kick off, and the fraud will become the new unquestioned paradigm. They are patient, they know there is no hurry.

  • Stonyground

    It is Stonyground Junior’s 13th Birthday today. As you do I was thinking back to the time when she was born, and I recall the the weather was hot and sunny. Today it is cold and wet.

    Nothing really significant in that really, just the impression that the weather, and possibly the climate too, is just going along on its merry, unpredictable way and ignoring all those apocalyptic predictions. A bit like when the weather ignored the guy who said in 1998 that snow would soon be a thing of the past by snowing rather a lot.

    I wonder how long the climate will have to go on not really changing before the warmists lose all credibility? Of course if it does start to get hotter again I am quite ready to revise my opinion without feeling the need to resort to violence.

  • Richard A.

    I doubt I’m the only one who caught this, but has the severe misuse of the term “civil disobedience” made anyone else laugh as hard as me? Civil disobedience is the refusal to follow government laws through non violent means. I’m wondering how the application of such a strategy will play out, with most every government on the planet being squarely behind climate legislation and the trillions of dollars and mass control over economies it will give them. I mean, what do these greenies intend to do? According to them all skeptic funding comes from Big! Oil!, an ephemeral group of tyranical and horrible companies from whom the greenies are now and always have been free to withhold money by various means.

    In point of fact, if they’re right about the funding, the only way to enact a strategy of civil disobedience is for them to disengage from modern society, refuse to use any and all forms of fossil fuel derrived energy and products, and essentially to move to a far away place and live at subsistence off the land and by their own labor. So imagine a future where every dellusional green clown decided to rob us of our ExxonMobile funded dreams of world dominance by moving to the Rockies or to a Pacific island and tilling the soils and growing crops…

    Sounds good, actually.

  • Ben

    I think it is funny that the people most vocal about global warming alarmism are also against industrialization…and they would be the first people to die without an industrialized society to support them. They have no common sense to survive without our modern society to provide them food, electricity, and the internet for their alarmism.

    They think they are on a holy crusade and that the rules do not apply to them. But I can assure them that they do, the more you blow hot air like threaten people, the worse it will come out.

    I find it curious that the media didn’t make this front page headlines in the US. I also find it curious that people who advocate eco-terrorism are not being investigated by our government. I thought terrorists were treated to a visit from homeland security, the FBI, or some other federal agency.

    Or is it that you can threaten anyone you want as long as the government approves of going against those people? Very scary thought indeed.

  • Jim Turner

    More than a little ironic:”We must break the law to make the laws…”; laws that they presumably expect everyone else not to break?
    This is all good stuff – any normal person reading it could only conclude that they are dangerous nutters.
    The more publicity this delusional ranting gets, the better.

  • Barbara

    Life imitates art – these are Larry Niven’s FROMATES (Oath of Fealty, 1982).

  • Waldo

    Greenpeace is a cultural relic and actually causes far more damage to the environmental cause than four-dozen Warren Meyers.

    I’m just glad that climate deniers always behave with decorum and respect for people with differing opinions, and I’m glad climate deniers always think things through before posting their ideas on the Internet.

  • KuhnKat

    He’s wrong about one thing, they no longer have the numbers on their side and any violence will leave them isolated and miniscule in number!!!

  • Peter Sawyer

    Comment posted on Greenpeace

    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

  • hunter

    @Peter,
    Thanks for a clear summation. Swift could have done no better.

  • Jeff Id

    Well thanks to your efforts and our readers efforts, they have taken down their blog post and apologized. I never thought they would move but they have seen the light.

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/greenpeace-got-it-right/

  • MikeC

    Too bad they took down their threats. I was kinda hoping they know where I live and would show up at my door.

  • hunter

    MikeC,
    patience.

  • Geoff

    Unfortunately these kinds of threats are becoming commonplace, whether veiled, outright or cloaked in humour, as this one at Desmogblog is: http://desmogblog.com/how-strangle-climate-skeptic
    Desmog has even gone to the point of pretty well censoring any comments that don’t toe the party line.
    Also, last year, the University of West England put on a “Climate Change Denial” conference that, among other things was to “…examine denial from a variety of different perspectives – as the product of addiction to consumption, as the outcome of diffusion of responsibility and the idea that someone else will sort it out and as the consequence of living in a perverse culture which encourages collusion, complacency, irresponsibility.” http://info.uwe.ac.uk/news/UWENews/article.asp?item=1438
    After contacting the chair of the committee and stating my displeasure at being labelled and categorized, he expressed sheer disbelief that his conference could evoke such a response.
    The over-riding issue here, of course, isn’t really about “climate change” or “global warming.” It is about the freedom to oppose, contradict, question and propose alternative theories without fear of recrimination. It is about the apparent abandonment of the scientific method which requires data collection, experimentation, observation and repeatability … it also involves full disclosure of all data collected in order for other scientists to test the theory. Are they listening at UEA?