Bishop Hill More Greenpeace death threats
Who can forget the infamous threat from Greenpeace's Gene Hasmi?
We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.
And we be many, but you be few.
But was this a one-off? The evidence is suggesting otherwise. In the comments thread to a particularly sick Guardian post, which was adorned with a photo of a severed head, and which I will not therefore dignify with a link, comes this from commenter Bluecloud:
Should that not be [Matt] Ridley's severed head in the photo?
and this from the same source:
We would actually solve a great deal of the world's problems by chopping off everyone's heads.
Why are you deniers so touchy? Mere calls for a beheading evolve such a strong response in you people.
Ask yourself a simple question: Would the world be a better place without Matt Ridley?
Need I answer that question?
Bluecloud turns out to be another Guardian author, Gary Evans, whose day job is as a boat-driver and translator for Greenpeace.
The Guardian and Greenpeace: sick, sick people.
Bishop Hill
I gather that a comment outing Bluecloud as a Guardian author has been removed from the thread. The death threat remains in place.
Reader Comments (97)
This idiot BlueCloud has finally a name! He has been insulting everyone sceptical of catastrophic AGW for many years on CiF. I remember reading his Guardian profile where he described himself as a some "sustainability coach from Germany".
Disgraceful, but they really couldn't have proven Ridley's point any better!
The person probably responsible for allowing the comment is Alan Rusbridger's daughter Bella Mackie
Quite why the Guardian allow Dana Nucittelli to personally attack people, pursuing the Skeptical Science agenda is beyond me...
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jan/21/matt-ridley-wants-to-gamble-earths-future-because-wont-learn-from-past
just spin, one commenter points out the problems with Dana' 'journalism'
http://discussion.theguardian.com/comment-permalink/46499183
"Dana, I have clicked through all your links again to see what authorities you are using to support your claims and statements: (For readers who do not know, Dana is a frequent contributor to Skeptical Science)
- Skeptical Science
- Skeptical Science
- you in the Guardian
- Skeptical Science
- Skeptical Science
- NOAA - terrific, a genuine authority
- a blog post by Chris Colose, a PhD student
- you in the Guardian
- a blog by Greg Laden, an anthropologist
- IPCC AR5 WG2 home page (not sure why that is useful)
- Skeptical Science
- The Wikipedia page for Northern Rock
- Skeptical Science on Northern Rock
- The Guardian's George Monbiot, a zoologist and journalist
Leaving aside the IPCC home page, that's one useful authoritative link - NOAA - out of fourteen."
Perhaps Bluecloud, who has threatened me in the past, should be prosecuted under the Hate Speech legislation?
The
propagandamarketing techniques of Greenp*$$ and FOE, et al should be studied closely; how can they be so vile, yet still be viewed as “Good” by so many. I, too, was suckered into their propaganda many years ago, and was fully supportive (luckily, only in ethos, not financially or practically). It did take a long time, but I am now a lot more cognizant of their dreadfulness. I fear that there is more to be revealed, and wonder how much has to be exposed for many to see their true colours.I think Gary Evans is projecting a confession.
Convenient that Bluecloud's CiF profile does not link to his real name, but Gary Evan's CiF profile does mention that he comments under Bluecloud name. It is only seeing the "CONTRIBUTOR" label with Bluecloud posts that gives a clue to the passing reader. Only the in-crowd know.
Barry Woods
Some (here and here) would say NOAA isn't whiter than white with regard to climate data.
I understand the temptation but, any commenting at the nutti show merely feeds the seemingly endless queue of trolls residing under that particular gnarly old bridge. The hopelessly helpless and fearfully ignorant being sustained by virulent self hatred and righteous self delusion.
If mumbling delusional invective amongst themselves was all they achieved I would just ignore them, but they warp policy and are impoverishing ALL of us. That is inexcusable.
Did you take a screen image Bish?
Surprising they allow such comments with the Charlie Hebdo killings in recent memory..
Bluecloud has got more vindictive and spiteful these past 2 or 3 years on CiF. One could be forgiven for wondering if the complete failure of all-things climate catastrophe is finally getting to the poor chap.
I would be the last to call in plod on someone's online witterings. That would only make us as bad as the lefties who would happily forbid everything they disagree with. However informing his greener than green employer of his hate speech is quite ok I think!
Apparently Police Scotland monitors social media & investigate offensive comments:-
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4Ww9rOa8cGQ/VKQRa4cWHGI/AAAAAAAAl4w/xtM3N1z9eYc/s1600/scotlandfash.PNG
"...And we be many, but you be few."
I'm not sure that those sceptical of climate alarmism are a minority nowadays. As the doomsday prophesies continue to fail there will surely be more of us. In addition to that, wanting to kill people who disagree with you pretty much proves that you have no case.
You've got to wonder where the Guardian's moral compass is pointing that they leave those comments and delete something from Richard Tol that was probably at least on topic. The guy who set up the Guardian's trust must be turning in his grave.
I notice from the Guardian page that IPPC lead author Richard Tol's comment "was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards." Yet Bluecloud's nasty and offensive attack on Ridley is not censured? Who owns the Guardian nowadays? Do they have no shame that the newspaper has degenerated into such an offensive propaganda sheet for the Branch Carbonians like Dana and Gary Evans?
Bluecloud reveals his personal philosophy here. He is a dope head with a polytechnic degree in environmental science which would qualify him to clear rubbish from river banks if there was a shortage of volunteers.
"I could write books about the advantages of cannabis, whereas the evidence for harm has not yet been found! Cannabis was made illegal in the sixties/seventies because of a draconian US drugs policy. Why? The war on drugs? Maybe, but it was about money and control.
Dope is hard to tax if everyone is growing their own, so the revenue does not fill the taxman's pockets like alcohol or tobacco. And all those stoned hippies are useless when it comes to working as a slave to the system. Smokers tend to be alternative types, thinkers; that's dangerous to those in power."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/6630791
Do these comments not amount to cyber-terrorism..?
esmiff - having read that, it is all becoming clear - Evans probably wrote the Green Party manifesto!
Drugs, brothels, al-Qaeda and the Beyonce tax: the Green Party plan for Britain
Greenpeace are terrorists and the Guardian are their main media outlet.
When ISIS threaten to cut the heads off journalists unless a ransom is paid, they are terrorists
When the Saudi's threaten to publicly cut heads off they are inhuman.
Greenpeace are state funded terrorists allowed to promote their evil as it benefits European governance.
If you want to do something about that then your chance arrives in May.
But what about the precautionary principle!!! Surely the precautionary principle dictates it should be banned until you can prove it does no harm.
Bluecloud again. This is the idiot calling for jail sentences for anyone leaving their television on standby. He drives - a lot.
"As for Germany, I drive regularly along such Autobahns where business executives drive at full pelt (over 200 kmh) simply because it's a company car and the fuel is invariably paid by the firm. Merkel is fully in the grip of the car industry and opposed the EU's proposed policy of reducing CO2 in cars".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/16/car-makers-credit-crunch?commentpage=1
I began reading the grenada in the early 80's and although it's possible I've just made the vaunted "shift to conservatism" as I've aged, in my most objective frame of mind I distinctly remember it being a liberal journal in the classic sense of genuinely allowing a free debate. Even one it's own editorial line disagreed with.
However, it is entirely possible that I lacked the self-awareness to read between the lines back then and the facility of the "awkward question".
It's become an outrageous rag of a publication in recent years though. Without a doubt.
Any views please?
P.S. I was banned around Aug last year (for being a pain I suspect). When I wrote in for a reason why I got the usual guff about "policy" etc.....When I asked a couple of times why multiple comments were completely disappeared/stalinised with no evidence they existed in the first place I never got a reply. Comment Macht Frei indeed.
There is one on CIF who even Bluecloud is not fit to tie his shoelaces. Graham Wayne. An outrageously stupid eco nazi who revealed in other areas of the Groaniad that he has a 40" Sony telly and - wait for it - a Mercedes.
"I think Kingsnorth has it right, as does this movement. If you consider consumerism/capitalism as a mechanism, it is flaky, temperamental, capricious, iniquitous and unreliable. Further attempts to make it work, especially in light of the burgeoning population, climate change and peak oil, are actually pointless. It isn't that environmentalism hasn't succeeded; the empire of consumerism is falling, as all empires must.
I liken the current civilisation to a car that has been patched up so many times, had so many panels welded on, so much filler in the bodywork, it is no longer worth trying to keep it going. It seems evident that we are going to experience the full effects of climate change, whatever they are, since nobody's really doing much about it except bicker. Peak oil will be on us sooner rather than later by the look of it, and we won't be ready - except perhaps those who are being pragmatic, like the DMP.
This society cannot be fixed. It is a world run on profit, and is necessarily corrupt in every strata because that's how the profit motive is best served. If someone can come up with a better idea, I'm all for it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/29/environmentalism-dark-mountain-project?showallcomments=true#CommentKey:bbd9721b-4bc3-4057-bc0c-6dad8cbfb980
This is his comment page
https://id.theguardian.com/profile/gpwayne/public
you are aware that Graham Wayne is a Skeptical Science insider?!
http://www.skepticalscience.com/posts.php?u=571
he wrote a blog post about me once (on his own blog), had a discussion in the comments there, then he deleted the whole blog post.....
Isn't it so lucky that the Grauniad is held from going bust by a Private Trust Fund? Presumably the Trustees have had the common sense to avoid investing in some of the Green Wonderfuel investment schemes, so highly praised by the Grauniad, which have gone bust.
It is of concern (but not surprising) that Grauniad readers, can absorb so much hypocracy, bloodlust, and double standards, simply by reading the contributions from Grauniad staff. No doubt the editorial team would be quick to plead the "Nuremburg Defence" (I was only doing what I was told) if held to account.
Presumably Dana Nuccitelli with help from Skeptical Science, would be able to produce a survey, showing that 97% of Grauniad readers are in the top 97% of the most intelligent people. Personally, I think 97% of Grauniad readers would be dumb enough to be impressed by that.
FarleyR says 'I would be the last to call in plod on someone's online witterings. '. I wouldn't. This is a war, and large parts of it are being fought in the media. If an organised campaign - possibly directed at the Scott Trust, pointing out how these writers regularly breach the Trust's founding principles - could deny Bluecloud, Wayne and even Dana their most effective bully pulpit, that's got to be a victory for those on the side of the angels, er, sorry, common humanity and natural justice.
Martin A makes the same point as I was going to make. Je suis Charlie was about the inalenable to say what you want within legal limits. The Green movement at the extremesis as intolerant as any terrorist group. I suggest this guy, now exosed is reported to the police.
Perhaps letters to Guardian advertisers are in order.
Acording to Alexa, of those who read the Guardian - 28.9% are from the Netherlands, 26.9 from the US and only 8.8% are Brits (rank 8005). It's ranked globally at.25436.
The Telegraph - 27.9% fron the US and 24.5% (rank 21) UK. Global rank 267.
The Mail - 34.7% from the US and 18.5% (rank 13) UK. Global rank 101.
Even the Times does better. If sceptics stopped visiting the Guardian, it might vanish...
I had many an exchange of views with Blueclod ( as I used to address him) and often wondered why he never got banned from commenting , such was the virulence of some of his comments.
However, as it turned out, it was I who eventually got my self barred. Doh!
"...you are aware that Graham Wayne is a Skeptical Science insider?!"
Indeed that's news to me, must be all the more galling for ATTP (Ken Rice?) who would give anything to get into the gang hut to see GPW there.
I've stopped reading the Guardian now for about 3 years. It has nothing to say, and periodically put's articles by George Monbiot filled with juvenile drivel. And don't get me started on Polly Toynbee!
I think a letter to the press regulator might be more effective.
Scratch that, I missed 'The' of the front
US 33.8%, UK, 19% (rank 16), global rank 166.
Pity, still one can hope.
This is the reason the Guardian has been so keen to use [snip] Bluecloud to drive decent people away. Massive sponsorship from oil companies Shell and (money launderers) HSBC. In other words, carbon trading.
Climategate: George Monbiot, the Guardian and Big Oil - James Delingpole.
But who is it that sponsors the Guardian?s Environment pages and eco conferences? Why, only that famous non-fossil-fuel company Shell. (Though I notice their logo no longer appears on top of the Guardian?s eco pages: has the Guardian decided the relationship was just too embarrassing to be, er, sustainable?)
And which company has one of the largest carbon trading desks in London, cashing in on industry currently worth around $120 billion ? an industry which could not possibly exist without pan-global governmental CO2 emissions laws ? BP (which stands for British Petroleum)
And how much has Indian steel king Lakshmi Mittal made from carbon credits thanks to Europe?s Emissions Trading Scheme? £1 billion.
And which companies were the CRU scientists revealed cosying up to as early as 2000 in the Climategate emails? There?s a clue in this line here: ?Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday.?
And how much was Phil Jones, director of the discredited CRU, found to have collected in grants since 1990? £13.7 million ($22.7 million)
And why does this Executive Vice-Chairman of Rothschild?s bank sound so enthusiastic in this (frankly terrifying) letter about the prospects of the ?new world order? (his phrase not mine) which result from globally regulated carbon trading?
Or why not try this blog, in which a German Green party MP is revealed being given hefty donations by a solar power company?
Or how about this tiny $70 million donation to the climate change industry from the Rockefeller Foundation?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100019523/climategate-george-monbiot-is-in-the-pay-of-big-oil/
Greenpeace are terrorists, fact.
You can't argue scientific logic with such purblind blowhards.
I've utilised the "report" function......for all the good it will do.
E. Smiff. Carbon Trading has to represent one of the worst examples/abuses of market forces ever known, apart from drug smuggling and arms dealing. Creating a tradable commodity out of air, is the sort of thing that demonstrates the worst excesses of capitalism, and would, in previous years, have given the Grauniad vast scope for justifiable outrage.
The Grauniad supports and profits nicely from carbon trading, and can't see anything wrong.
This is a bit of really good news, and should be encouraged as much as possible.
When you have your opponents making death threats you know that your arguments have hit home, and you are winning. This shows that the believers are retreating into their own little world and trying to close the door behind them
Once they are running entirely on their own, all sorts of stupid ideas will occur to them and there will be no one sensible to bring them back to reality. The famous 10:10 'No Pressure' video was a good example. We need them to make MORE mistakes of this kind, not less. So DON'T go complaining about this. Try to encourage it. And watch them fall apart...
The Guardian used to be owned by The Scott Trust Foundation (charity number 1027893).
However, in 2008/9 the foundation transferred everything into a company called The Scott Trust Limited (company number 06706464). This company is the ultimate parent of many subsidiaries, one of which is Guardian Media Group PLC (company number 00094531).
Guardian Media Group PLC has 900,000 shares, all owned by the Scott Trust Limited, but, by agreement, any dividend paid by GMG goes to The Scott Trust Foundation instead of The Scott Trust Limited. Last year GMG paid £200,000 in dividends.
The Scott Trust Limited has 1000 ordinary shares and each of the following people own 200 of them:
William Nicholas Hutton
Alan Charles Rusbridger
Anthony Michael Vaughan Salz
Jonathon Prestwich Scott
Heather Stewart
It is the above five people who ultimately own the Guardian.
The only assets remaining in The Scott Trust Foundation (the charity) is about £53k in cash in the bank.
I used to have many a run in with Bluecloud, but found myself banned with a couple of weeks of Drillbit Dana turning up. I remember calling out another sock puppet by the name of TBombadil when he started bullshitting about how he carried out tests on the grid too found out how it would cope with something like a 150MW item of plant tripping off.
How I used to enjoy making VenusianVan (?) look a chump. Other chumps that come to mind are (Arm)pitt the Elder, JBowers, semyorka, the snufkin etc. Oh, what happy days.
I had noticed that they became ever shriller and angrier during my time on there. Judging by this blog, they are plumbing new depths...if only that effing sea ice would hurry up and melt!
Someone should make a complaint to the Police.
These are threats.:
Should that not be [Matt] Ridley's severed head in the photo?
We would actually solve a great deal of the world's problems by chopping off everyone's heads.
Why are you deniers so touchy? Mere calls for a beheading evolve such a strong response in you people.
Ask yourself a simple question: Would the world be a better place without Matt Ridley?
Need I answer that question?
One for the Charity Commission I think. Is it NZ &/or Canada who have removed GP's charitable status. Would be good to effect that here.
@Jan 23, 2015 at 1:09 PM | jones
================================================================================
I hail from Manchester way, and my old man and grandpa both worked in the rag trade in M'cr way back. M'cr and that part of the North West was a solid Liberal bastion (old, real, free trade Liberals) and the Manchester Guardian reflected that. It was an old-fashioned Liberal newspaper with some magnificent journalists. Real journalists. Indeed, I learnt many words from the back pages of the Guardian, as the old man read it every morning at breakfast, and being then of course, a broadsheet, it was the paper I saw rather than the old man :-)
The move to London was the start of the rot, and rather like the Labour Party, it got invaded by North London intellectuals and that was the end of it. Wouldn't wipe my arse with it now.
Bish - do you have the link to this. No reason why it should not be reported to the rossers.... give them a taste of their own medicine.
The climate "science" community condemns such sick comments? ha ha
Of course not! It wozn't us guv!
Bish - looks like the comment has been deleted. Did you keep a screen shot?
Latest development:
The moderator removed Adamke's comment, which outed bluecloud as Gary Evans.
Bluecloud's comment, calling for Ridley's beheading, is still there.
Priorities, priorities.
Got it! Had to expand all the threads. Got a screenshot and have prepared a letter to the Charity Commission. Twunts
Re: jeremypoynton
See my earlier comment. The guardian is no longer owned by charity, it is owned by the 5 people I named.
Complaining to the charity commission is pointless.
Try IPSO (Independent Press Standards Organisation).