Monday, April 05, 2010

GreenPeace Emulates Marc Morano

Here's Marc on climate scientists:

"I seriously believe we should kick them while they're down," [Morano] said. "They deserve to be publicly flogged."

Here's "Gene" from Greenpeace India. As you can see, he's got a goatee and tatts and even now he's probably listening to that shitty rap metal music kids today are so into on his ipod. Anyway... His opinion?

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.

Now, what's the difference between these two people? Well, for one thing, Morano is deeply connected to the U.S. GOP establishment and commands an army of tea-bagging kooks with a potential for real violence through his website Climate Depot. And, indeed, in the aftermath of the CRU Hack , a number of climate scientists have been on the receiving end of some rather disturbing acts of vandalism. Gene is a nobody who probably needs help setting his player to"shuffle".

However, even as we speak the right-wing nut machine is doing all it can to elide these differences and push Gene's remarks to any MSM news outlet ready to repeat them and ascribe them to Greenpeace per se or, worse, to Environmentalists per se. Astonishingly, in the comments of the above post, Andrew (Greenpeace's web producer, for whom the term "hapless" appears to have been specially invented) is attempting carrying on effete philosophical discussions with faux outraged deniers sent over from CD rather than pulling down Gene's diatribe (update: or at least editing out that nutty conclusion) and saying, clearly and finally, that Greenpeace 1) does not have a file which includes the home addresses of its opponents, and 2) does not endorse violence.

Because, if you don't endorse violence, you don't post material that appears to endorse violence. Period.

30 comments:

Prairie Kid said...

"However, even as we speak the right-wing nut machine is doing all it can to elide these differences and push Gene's remarks to any MSM news outlet ready to repeat them and ascribe them to Greenpeace per se or, worse, to Environmentalists per se."

Kind of like the Liberals trying to tie Ann Coulters remarks to Conservatives.

elroy said...

As Lord Monckton has said, Greenpeace was taken over twenty years ago by radical Marxists following the collapse of Soviet communism. They new full well what they were doing in posting Gene's rant. I hope the appropriate law enforcement agencies have taken note.

ao said...

Disagree with the idea that anything "appearing" to promote violence is automatically out of bounds. Especially when that appearance was/is clarified to refer to civil disobedience by a link in the original: rider on horseback ---> http://blog.brian-fitzgerald.net/?p=741

"In both cases, prosecutors likened the activists, in words or deeds, to terrorists. Threats to democracy. Law breakers.

Law Breakers? We’ll take that. But terrorists they are not, and when it comes to Democracy, those who take up civil disobedience in the name of a cause are Democracy’s champions, not its enemies.

Rosa Parks was not a terrorist. Gandhi was not a terrorist. Law is made when law is broken, and truly big change seldom happens from within the system. Somebody has to throw the tea overboard to get things moving."

AndrewD said...

Did you see the note I posted at the top of the blog early yesterday?

I think it's pretty clear.

The reason I haven't pulled Gene's blog is that at the end of the day he said what he said. And if you read it carefully, he didn't say anything wrong.

He's calling for peaceful civil disobedience and the like. He's clearly NOT calling for or condoning violence.

-- Andrew, Hapless Greenpeace web producer

bigcitylib said...

Andrew,

Of course he wasn't; it was just unfortunate hyperbole. But it is all that anyone will pay attention to, and its already crawling its way around the blogosphere:

http://news.google.ca/news/more?rlz=1T4GGIH_enCA275CA275&q=greenpeace&um=1&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&ncl=dEYKSQI_oWkBWaMEjp6Cmkbn2-eRM&ei=qgO6S4jcEoT6lwer99mkAQ&sa=X&oi=news_result&ct=more-results&cd=1&resnum=3&ved=0CEsQqgIoADAC

...and might wind up somewhere more important. Morano's stuff often does (at least Fox news).

To point is not to get caught in the noise machine, and I think this post will, especially when there ARE worrisome trends towards people threatening climate scientists. This just lets the nuts scream EQUIVALENCE!

Ti-Guy said...

Disagree with the idea that anything "appearing" to promote violence is automatically out of bounds.

So do I. The absence of the appearance of menace is what has led to this state of "learned helplessness" of liberals/lefties/progressives, which is particularly pathetic when you take into account the Right's constant and relentless direct threats of vigilante justice and extra-judicial retribution, assassination and genocide, not to mention their very real support for illegal, immoral military actions that have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. And of course, the general hate speech that characterises, not the tone, but the content of Rightist discourse is obvious to everyone.

...oh, and let's not forget the proliferation of armed domestic terrorist hate-groups in the US, all of which, for the most part, represent the extreme end of the spectrum of conservative politics.

I'm not sure what BCL thinks he's accomplishing by highlighting such minor, isolated incidents of intemperate rhetoric, except perhaps to try and maintain the moral high ground, but in this propaganda war, at any rate, it's bordering on prissy mannerism. Not to mention that it appears a little inconsistent on a blog the subtitle of which is "tips on beating down the conservative menace."

That being said, violence is always a dead-end. But the power abusers need to know that if they ignore the moderates, they will eventually have to deal with the extremists.

bigcitylib said...

Only that this kind of tiny slip becomes a scandal de jour for the Fox News crowd. Assuming it makes it beyond the blogs, which it may or may not do. If so, thats much hassle for Green peace that could have been avoided with one editorial snip.

Ti-Guy said...

Only that this kind of tiny slip becomes a scandal de jour for the Fox News crowd.

What doesn't make the "scandal du jour" (de l'heure, more precisely) with the FoxNews crowd? If there's nothing remotely genuine, they'll just make one up anyway.

In their minds, the current US administration has already constructed a network of FEMA concentration camps anyway, so really, what is the point of worrying about how these people will react?

andrewo said...

Ti-Guy - we obviously have different views. I see no value in making threats, but I also see the possibility of massive harm being done if forceful words are ever excluded from the category of protected free speech.

Also, this gives me the feeling of watching The Machine at work.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries

andrewo said...

BTW, here's a link to the first place I saw this type of mis-read of the Greenpeace blog entry: http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2010/04/open-thread-43-3/#comment-750846

Can someone help me locate any/all earlier references than that? Can we figure out what caused this explosion?

bigcitylib said...

Andrew, just taking a quick look: Motls at the reference frame got it on the 3rd, Bishop Hill and others yesterday (which is where I noticed it). All these guys link to one another and through the CD agregator.

andrewo said...

thanks for taking a look - if you happen to see an earlier one, please drop a note on my blog - andrewottoson.com - thanks!

Ti-Guy said...

we obviously have different views. I see no value in making threats...

Well, history, even recent history, is filled with examples that demonstrate that powerful elites don't really take popular opinion seriously unless it threatens to overwhelm them, or even more likely, just after their indifference has managed to occasion a crisis of some kind.

I don't believe in issuing threats of violence of course (I'm not a conservative, after all), but I do believe in appearing menacing, especially after it's been demonstrated that logic reason, compelling evidence and every other more sophisticated means of persuasion have absolutely no effect.

Above all though, I think liberals/lefties/progressives need to stop worrying about how the Right will mischaracterise what they say (these people lie like the rest of us breathe, after all) and be prepared to stand by what they say.

Apparently, practically nothing is truly actionable anymore, so really, why worry?

elroy said...

"He's calling for peaceful civil disobedience"- Greenpeace thug

"We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.
And we be many, but you be few."- Gene,

I doubt a statement like that directed at Greenpeace members, or another group in civil society, would be dismissed as 'peaceful civil disobedience'. In this country that could get you called before one of our infamous Human Rights Commissions. You dead beat marxists have lost it. Your pet cause has been exposed as a scam and is as dead as 'dictatorship of the proletariat'.

andrewo said...

haha, elroy...perfect name for a space cadet. remind me, what planet are you from?

in all seriousness, can you provide documentation of a violent act committed by Greenpeace? all i'm asking for is a link....

elroy said...

Andrew, I don't know where you are from. But in this country, Canada, you don't need to 'commit a violent act' to be held to account. The mere threat, or less, will do.

denis said...

The science will out, sooner or later!

http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddrj9jjs_0fsv8n9gw

denis said...

The science will out, sooner or later

http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddrj9jjs_0fsv8n9gw

denis said...

The science will overwhelm the political b.s. sooner or later.

grimes_mm said...

Ti-Guy, I have some issues with your post. Apparently all conservatives are violent people who lie like you peach loving progressives breathe, but in the same post you applaude the action of "appearing menacing", whatever that means. But, only resorting to such action when logic reason (.0385% of the atmosphere running the entire show; this is comparable to saying that hot dog vendors are controlling what happens at a baseball game). Also, what is the compelling evidence? Computer models? I haven't seen the evidence thus far. When you make rediculous remarks such as those above, I automatically disregard any of your thoughts on the subject.

Ti-Guy said...

In this country that could get you called before one of our infamous Human Rights Commissions.

No it doesn't, dumbo. If anything is perceived as a real threat of violence, it's a police matter first.

Jesus, wingnuts sure are ignorant when it comes to all of that law and order stuff they can't shut up about.

Ti-Guy said...

I have some issues with your post. Apparently all conservatives are violent people who lie like you peach loving progressives breathe, but in the same post you applaude the action of "appearing menacing", whatever that means. But, only resorting to such action when logic reason (.0385% of the atmosphere running the entire show; this is comparable to saying that hot dog vendors are controlling what happens at a baseball game). Also, what is the compelling evidence? Computer models? I haven't seen the evidence thus far. When you make rediculous remarks such as those above, I automatically disregard any of your thoughts on the subject.

I don't think this pre-literate piece of drivel could have been crafted to sound any stupider if its author had been to paid to make it so. It's so breathtakingly, multi-dimensionally dumb: reason, logic, fact and the rudiments of language all get their fair share of attention.

Nicely done! You're my new favourite online commenting nobody.

grimes_mm said...

Right on que, Ti-Guy. Since your science won't stand up to scrutiny, you resort to ad hominem attacks.

Ti-Guy said...

That's "cue."

I can't help you with logic, reason or the basics of the hard sciences (I'm sure abler, more devoted people have tried and have, quite obviously, failed), but I can help with the spelling.

You're welcome.

grimes_mm said...

Excellent, Ti-Guy, thank you for proving my point. Honestly, I don't believe I need any of your help with logic, reason, or science. Spelling? Yes. I am honored that the Captain of the grammar police will oblige! I honestly do appreciate that.

Ti-Guy said...

Excellent, Ti-Guy, thank you for proving my point.

I didn't even know you had one.

juandos said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
elroy said...

Arctic Ice at High Point, or, more bad news for warmers:

"The Arctic ocean has more ice today that it did last year at this time, more than it had the previous year at this time or the year before that or the year before that. More ice, in fact that at any time since the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, using a sensor launched on a NASA satellite in mid 2002, began tracking the extent of Arctic ice." L Solomon, NP, 6 April

Holly Stick said...

elroy, even Solomon notes that this has little significance to climate change, or didn't you read that far?

andrewo said...

re science/sea ice:
http://chartsgraphs.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/visualizing-arctic-sea-ice-extent-trends/