Wednesday, April 07, 2010

When Green loons realise that they've made a mistake...

... they move their threatening articles off their websites and post, instead, a mealy-mouthed apology from someone called Ananth.
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.

Uh huh.

Of course, in the interests of transparency, Anthony Watts has archived the article in situ, so that you can constantly remind yourself of the kid of thing that Greenpeace "cannot support" but did anyway.
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.”

Oh, that's a bit harsh on Phil Jones and the Hockey Team—where's your tol... Oh, you mean us? You're talking about the sceptics and the way that we've "hijacked, cannibalized and subverted" the language with our demands for such "twisted" things as "evidence".

Well, fuck me sideways.
We need to reclaim the language of democracy and tolerance.

Well, you've done a bang-up job there, Ananth. I must say that it was definitely "the language of democracy and tolerance" that I saw in Gene's article.
A language that is clear and precise.

Oh, Gene's language was very clear and very 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.

Except, presumably, the "twisted bunch" that Gene is so angry at, eh?
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.

Um... Maybe that is what we "climate contrarians" exist to do—and thank you for eschewing the word "deniers", Ananth. Truly, you have avoided using the language of "anger".

Or maybe—just maybe—we try to look at the evidence and try to assess, rationally, whether the risk of anthropogenic climate change, and the consequences of it, are severe enough to warrant the millions of deaths that your advocated measures will entail.

Some of us even look to one of your own gods—the IPCC—and their SRES families and note that even that UN body does not believe that the measures that you want to embrace are the best outcome. Or not, at least, for humans.

And not really for the environment either, Ananth. Which country has the cleanest rivers—China or Britain? Which country has the healthiest, and growth of area of, woodlands—the USA or India? Concern for the environment is a rich people's game, Ananth, and thus you should support measures which ensure that everyone in the world gets as rich as possible as quickly as possible—and that means embracing the A1 family of SRE Scenarios, which is summarised as follows.
The A1 storyline is a case of rapid and successful economic development, in which regional average income per capita converge—current distinctions between "poor" and "rich" countries eventually dissolve. The primary dynamics are:
  • Strong commitment to market-based solutions.

  • High savings and commitment to education at the household level.

  • High rates of investment and innovation in education, technology, and institutions at the national and international levels.

  • International mobility of people, ideas, and technology.

So, will Greenpeace now endorse this model?

Will it fuck.

7 comments:

Dave said...

Totally agree. Greenpeace are neither green nor peaceful.

Cunts

SarahN said...

Greenpeace must have a huge database of people they con (oops, I mean, collect from) in the street, in the UK. What are they doing with that information, how do they manage it? Do they pass it up the line to Greenpeace central, so to speak?

Hmmm, I feel an email to the Information Commissioner coming on.

PJH said...

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.

Um... Maybe that is what we "climate contrarians" exist to do—and thank you for eschewing the word "deniers", Ananth. Truly, you have avoided using the language of "anger".


I do believe you missed a chance to comment the first slur there - "anti-science brigade." Makes `deniers` sound like rabid Intelligent Design believers.

Anonymous said...

"we know where you live". Yes, I can see where knowing where I live is a precursor to "peaceful" civil disobedience. "Peaceful" in the sense that the rock they throw through my window isn't actually designed to hit anybody perhaps?

What makes me laugh is the way Team AGW were claiming that they kept receiving threatening letters from "deniers" without producing any evidence of this whatsoever and then they just come out and broadcast an open threat themselves. Looks like the looniest part of the loony left have all washed up in one place. Sad bastards, barely a braincell between the lot fo them.

Anonymous said...

Why is anyone surprised Greenpeace ignores "unhelpful" facts when pursuing its agenda? Remember Brent Spar?

DerekP said...

Well, of course, the idea of destroying data rather than opening it up to scrutiny is anti-science (for example, FOI as implemented at UEA & CRU).

It's that well known tactic of the left, taking the bigotry in which the left revel and accusing those who won't join their bandwagon as having that bigotry.

Their CACC or AGW is faith based, so they can't bear scientific scrutiny, consequently they resort to calling sceptics flat-earthers.

The left imported millions of immigrants, precisely because they were of a different race or culture. When anyone scrutinises immigration policy and facts the left denounce them as racists.

In similar fashion Brown is always on about 'courage' - see his books - but from his actions he despises the British Armed Forces.

I think the left simply attracts those who are frustrated because they are so inadequate and useless.

Thatsnews said...

No more money to Green'peace' from me any more.