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.
Looks like someone finally realized that while Mr. Greenwar was busy talking out his ass, we spurious debate fuelers actually do believe in owning ammo.
Update: Too late. The Guardian picks up where the blogosphere left off…
This isn’t that surprising as “Gene from Greenpeace India” turns out to be Gene Hashmi, the communications director at Greenpeace India. A visit to his Twitter page reveals that he is someone who likes to play it fast and loose with his phrasings – not always an admirable trait for a communications director.
For example, here’s a tweet he posted on 9 March after a period of inactivity on his Twitter account:“I haven’t said anything in 7 months, so why are all 32 of you mofos following me? Just so you know, I’m carrying a knife.”
Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet!
They are sorry or they realize they threatened real people who know how to use appropriate defensive skills, as required.
The only thing they’re really sorry for, is having their hidden agenda revealed.
What Greenpeace is failing to acknowledge that if they have not been able to persuade people by virtue of their argument, then quite possibly their argument – not the listeners – is at fault.
Quite possibly, their argument’s data and logic is at fault and is thus incapable of persuading a listener to agree.
What Greenpeace fails to acknowledge is that their belief might, just might, be wrong. And our beliefs might, just might, be correct.
“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. ”
Hmm. That is not quite what I remember reading yesterday. What I do recall is an explicit call to violence.
Why do these chicken littles threaten us “sceptics”,then run and cower behind the same people and their ability to fight back? They better don’t come to my door,or they will learn the real meaning of “hurt”. And isn’t it time we threw Suzkookie in jail?
What Greenpeace fails to acknowledge is that their belief might, just might, be wrong. And our beliefs might, just might, be correct.
Posted by: ET at April 6, 2010 1:55 PM
I was coming here to post pretty much the same thing. In the mea culpa, the writer states, “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.”
There continues to be no acknowledgment that there is a legitimate debate involved over AGW.
Whereas, I am perfectly willing to be convinced AGW is an occurring phenomenon. To date, however, the data are not convincing. And, there is more than sufficient evidence of scientific skulduggery at play to make one disgusted by the whole scientific-political complex that has grown to promote the current dogma.
And, therein lies the difference between those with an agenda promoting dogma, such as Greenpeace, and many folks like myself, many regulars here at SDA, Watts Up With That, and other reason-based blogs. We seek verifiable evidence, falsifiable theories, and logically-reasoned arguments. The entire establishment science around AGW has failed, and failed miserably, on all these fronts.
“Sorry, he didn’t really mean what he said he meant.” Or some such…not a very adroit denial and evasion of responsibility, IMO.
Davers6, the problem is when these eco-wackos do use violence, it’s sneaky, cowardly and not straight up and defendable-against. For example, when I lived in California years ago, there was an eco-wacko group who’s members sneaked around in forest areas about to be harvested, driving nails and spikes into the trees. When lumberjacks later went to work on these trees, sometimes power tool blades would hit these nails or spikes and shatter spectacularly, sending sharp bits of steel flying around like shrapnel.
There were quite a few lumberjacks injured, some very badly, by these cowardly spikings.
Of course, the eco-wackos would only go into the woods on weekends to do this, to avoid running into any of those lumberjacks.
Just a damn shame that none of the eco-wackos, at least no cases I can recall reading about, were ever caught in the act by some of those lumberjacks…
If any of those eco-wackos WERE caught by lumberjacks (with powerful chainsaws and usually some kind of bulldozer) do you think you’d hear about it? (giggle)
Wups, I was responding to Fred’s 1:37 PM remark above, not Davers6 at 1:36PM.
In all the criticisms of the original Green Peace blog, I was surprised that nobody took issue with Gene’s referencing the “rider on horseback” in the preceding paragraphs.
This is a historical reference to Paul Revere at the start of the American Revolution; which certainly that wasn’t a “peaceful action” of “civil disobedience.”
I guess we’ll have to wait till we see the whites of their eyes when Green Peace launches their next offensive offensive.
(Double usage of the word offensive intentional.)
No, Fred, they’re not sorry. They revealed what they really think.
And that set off alarm bells. Can’t let their enablers in government realize how militant they are, or at the very least let it be seen openly by the public. After all, it just wouldn’t do to have anyone start a real public investigation, would it? No telling what skeletons might come tumbling out of that closet.
No ET, it’s not about rival belief systems. Theirs is indeed a belief system, but opposition to AGW is at least for me based purely on observable criteria. If the IPCC indeed had a scientific case, I would certainly be prepared to accept it. Thus far, it has signally failed to make such a case, and its lackeys have had to play some interesting games to make it look like they have such.
I suspect they had to remove it for legal reasons. If any vandalism or more serious crimes had been traced back to Gene and his recruits, Greenpeace would be spending a lot of time as defendants in court. They cut Gene loose to save themselves.
I second cgh’s post. The pro-AGW science has broken every rule of the scientific method. The skeptics, blindfolded and with one arm tied behind their back, have done an amazing job of picking apart the warmers pseudo-scientific arguments.
Don’t p*ss off the scary white people.
Well Done! Another warmist gets the Van Jones shuffle. Is that really his name? Gene Greenwar?
This “apology” is insincere, done only because the faithful will be able to say Greenpeace apologized.
Dave in Pa, an even greater danger is when the spiked trees make their way to a debarker or headsaw. The circular HS has huge teeth about 2 inches long,spins at about600-100 RPM and when it hits a spike anyone nearby is likely to be severely injured or killed.
I worked in the bush for about 14 years, never saw one of these enviro-loonies do anything positive to try to save the trees, like fight forest fires,or even plant more trees.
Nope,they just sit in the cities and “demonstrate”, and only venture out into the woods between welfare cheques.
And the #1 reason GreenPeace retracted the posting…
It had the potential to hurt donations.
I’m ranking Climate Science as Political Science only more damaging. In other words, it ain’t science buttercup.
LC Bennett:
Section 464 of the Canadian Criminal Code:
“every one who counsels another person to commit an indictable offence is, if the offence is not committed, guilty of an indictable offence and liable to the same punishment to which a person who attempts to commit that offence is liable”
I assume similar laws exist in other jurisdictions. In other words, “Gene” and GreenPeace were breaking the law simply by advising others to break the law, whether it involved violence or not.
Could you further explain that, rabbit. Does that mean that Greenpeace is legally responsible by allowing Gene’s rant or must Gene and followers first commit an indictable offense or is Gene the only one bearing responsibility.
Oh, one more thing, why can’t legal jargon be organized like a flow chart? Just asking.
Also, they’d get beaten like a rented mule.
I’ve never seen that many comments posted that quickly on any site. Managed to read about 50 or so (all negative…only the owner of the site was half-heartedly trying to defend the original poster), until I came to this beauty:
“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.”
…at which point I was laughing too hard to continue reading…:)
LC, it means that the ‘peas are guilty of an indictable offence if it can be shown that the web posting advocated a criminal act. No actual crime is necessary; the act of utterance itself was a crime.
Got it. Thanks, chg.
LC Bennett:
IANAL, but I would think that both Gene and those at GreenPeace who enabled his posting (with full knowledge of its contents) are in violation of the code.
One wonders if maybe GreenPeace retracted this posting after talking to a lawyer.
Charge them anyway. The damage is already done, even if they did retract. They got their “message” out, tested the waters so to speak, uttered their threats “oops, sorry didn’t mean it” and they get off?
If it was you or I, we’d be in the crowbar hotel, right now! This is a cheap Liberal trick, a drive-by smear in the most liberal of traditions.
They will also use the comments to denigrate and discredit the “deniers” – “see, they are so violent whereas we, Greenpeace recognized our error and appologised”.
They’ll still keep their “charitable” status, too.
Maybe Greenpeace realized that they have too many irrational sheeple following them and those kinds of words can easily cause a serious negative reaction.
On another note, a “right winger” speaks contradiction to said sheeple and the only negative reactions comes from those same said sheeple.
How exactly are we libertarians and conservatives dangerous???
‘The anti-science brigade’??
Those people know as much about science as the average PhD candidate in English, or womens studies major.
It seems that they can’t even apologize properly without slamming their opponents with an unfounded slur.
Nitwits!
By peacefull, does he mean washable spray paint for those who dare wear genuine fur?
Just once I’d like to be around when THAT type of protest occurs….
“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.”
Hey, it might be grammatically incorrect, it might be tortured syntax, but let’s face it folks: IT’S RECOGNITION!!!!!
clipper:
Anybody who’s been here for any length of time understands we support pure science, that is the pursuit of proveable physical truths.
Political science, such as the Greenwar crowd and the entire AGW tact, has been exposed for what it is … a control mechanism.
Get our of our faces, control freaks!
I love how they are getting hammered by posters on THEIR OWN SITE. No echo chambers here. They must hate that. Real debate and disagreement terrifies them.
Good for SDA although “Surrenders” may be too optimistic. They have run off to lick their wounds but they’ll be back again.
We agree the language was potentially inflammatory, so you ignorant dunderheads who do not know that Greenpeace is all warm and fuzzy got it wrong and are simply spreading the hate because you are too stupid to know better.(Paraphrasing)
Right! from the Organization that makes up things about opponents and disrupt private businesses with illegal physical blockades and publicity stunts that risk rescue workers and takes them from real emergencies. Then they swamp our Government with frivolous lawsuits and delaying actions, rolling out billions of lobbyist dollars while maligning the Industries doing the exact same thing, so that costs and development time for needed infrastructure doubles or triples.
On Gene the blogger …”Anyone who knows _____ knows he’s an entirely peaceful guy.”… fill in the blank with your favorite mass murderer. Not indicting, just saying that such a statement is useless as a explanation or defense of the things contained in this Greenpeace sponsored blog.
Climate fascists for Marx.
Motto:
we never meet a human being that didn’t make good fertilizer!
JMO
PS Not anti-science which is a series of procedures leading to a hypotheses that we can sometimes use to make instruments or products based on observable Natural laws. I am though against the Religion of Pseudo-science. Which is belief, not repeatable. That takes your money & produces nothing.
JMO
Greenpeace surrendered, it was becomning a quagmire.
I think they’re just reloading….marxism with a smile, isn’t that what Glenn Beck says? They have to seem nice while they plan on oppressing us….
How come they spray-paint little ladies in furs but they never try it on my leather jacket?
Just askin’
Oops wrong eco-nazis thats People Eating Tasty Animals, isn’t it?
Meanwhile, over in Euroland, Greenpeace sets out to cause the deaths of thousands of South Africans who only want a light switch to work . . .
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/04/taking-on-greenies.html
But what’s a pile of dead South Africans compared to praying at the altar of Greenyism.
Just some bodies, just some AGW collateral damage.
Anti-science?
The WHOLE POINT of climate change skepticism is that we are very familiar with the scientific method, some of us are experts in fields directly or peripherally related to their research or methodology, and we find their adherence to scientific standards and academic integrity WOEFULLY INADEQUATE.
We are also acutely aware of their steep political slant and their ulterior motives for climate alarmism. We have not failed to notice the complete lack of any meaningful cost-benefit analysis to their climate prescriptions and we clearly see the redistributive consequences.
Indeed, it is Greenwar and the ideologues perpetrating the Greenhoax Effect who are anti-science.
“Green: It’s The New Red”
I found it comical that Gene was so brave that he could go out there and write those things, but when the heat came, he had to get his friends to defend him.
Gene will be the first one flat out on the ground in a fight.
They don’t quit. They just snipe away from cover.
Keep your guns loaded and your ammo handy.
If one accepts the claim that Greenpeace is only involved in peaceful action, then one must believe that militant Islam is actually a religion of peace. Either the person is lying or hardly out of diapers, as I have been around long enough to recall their actions being the opposite of peaceful.
“Oops, sorry didn’t mean it” and “We were only floating a trial balloon” and “It was only hyperbole designed to elicit some reaction” are common reactions from those who are caught. Gotta agree with po’ed in AB.
Posted by: po’ed in AB at April 6, 2010 4:44 PM:
Charge them anyway. The damage is already done, even if they did retract. They got their “message” out, tested the waters so to speak, uttered their threats “oops, sorry didn’t mean it” and they get off?
If most South Africans are black, and most euroweenie greenpeacers etc are white-ish, does it then not follow that the electricity-deniers(like that? smirk) are, ipso facto…racist!!
Tadah!! Baddabing baddaboom! Teeheehee
the Greens are Maroons.
I dunno, I’m kinda liking this “Gene” dude the more I get to know him. Can we at least get him on OUR side?
The weaker the argument, the bigger the threat,
eh?
Nah, we need to do a Helena Guergis on him. You kick this kind of man when he is down, OK? Without mercy.
These people wish to engineer the eventual demise of the human race, by any means necessary. Massive genocide is their aim. Your kid’s death is their dream. They just haven’t got the mojo to actually do it themselves, they get others to do the hit for them. That was the focus of their rant.