Eco-Fascism? Warmists: “Why Aren’t Greens Kicking The S**t Out of Corporate America?”

In a post typical of the “violent rhetoric” of the global warming debate, an alarmist website has called for the movement to ditch legislative changes in favour of a far more violent approach.

The website, It’s Getting Hot in Here, is aimed at children and youngsters, and is staffed and written by activists who come from Greenpeace,, The Breakthrough Institute, and the WWF.

In its latest outburst it said that it was pointless to expect any action from “corporate shills like Barak Obama” and said that Greens should be looking towards an armed insurrection on the lines of the Cuban Marxist revolution:

With this quagmire of conflicted interests governing the White House, K Street Lobbying Firms and the boards of large environmental groups, how are we ever going to see real change come out of Washington D.C.?

To say, “we need to fight back” is the understatement of understatements. I think last time we needed to be fighting back this hard, John Brown led an armed raid on Harper’s Ferry. Instead of looking for leadership from corporate shills like Barak Obama and the Democratic Party, environmental and climate movements should be kicking the SHIT out of Corporate America with the uncompromising guerilla fervor of a Che Guevara or a Geronimo.

It’s Getting Hot in Here. Why Aren’t the Greens Kicking the Sh*t Out of Corporate America?

The article concluded that “Challenging the root causes of climate change should be the role of our movement, and that root cause is corporate power”.

It is still unclear at this stage how many global warmists are up for the “armed raid” to “kick the sh*t” out of the “corporate shills” in Washington, as called for in the article.

Leo Hickman and Damian Carrington of The Guardian have not yet denounced this latest example of violent rhetoric. But given their awareness of the “terrifying atmosphere” that can generated by such rhetoric, I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before they do so, in unequivocal terms.

For the record, this blog denounces ALL violent rhetoric, on all sides of the ongoing debate over global warming.

23 responses to “Eco-Fascism? Warmists: “Why Aren’t Greens Kicking The S**t Out of Corporate America?”

  1. The consensusualists do they support this “green-violence”?
    If they don’t will they denounce the radical-extremists within or will they continue to say “the enemy of my enemy, is my friend”
    Choose one or t’other otherwise history may make the decision for you! And you may be less than happy about the bedfellows you were credited with agreeing with.
    Just a thought.

  2. PS- the majority of “sceptics” agree that “real” environmental issues are of the utmost importance to the quality of our lives.
    (Q) without severely becoming apoplectic and shortening your current incarnation discuss why the author utilised quotation marks.
    Hint, keep your answers short and to the point. Points will be deducted if
    (a) the precautionary principle is invoked
    (b) Nineteenth Century Marxism is applied or
    (c) Humans are compared to a disease that threatens the very existence of Mankind.
    Points will be awarded if the student shows that they have grasped the basics of pre-normal science.
    Don’t forget to write your name clearly at the top of your answer!

  3. No doubt there are “true” Warmists who tend to be a little extreme in certain venues, the same can be said of the other side of the Bell Curve, the “true” Deniers. But, the Great Climate Debate is a golden opportunity for radicals and anarchists to make their mark on the world too. It may at first seem difficult to distinguish between the the extreme believers and the extreme opportunists but it is actually rather easy, the line in the sand is the call for violence. “It’s Getting Hot in Here” is calling for violence and they are in the anarchist camp; using an opportunity handed to them on a silver platter to incite murder and mayhem in what would have otherwise been a tepid walk down a country lane.

  4. Anarchist of the world unite!

  5. These kinds of responses are an inevitable product of extreme discomfort at a cherished belief system beginning to weaken. Expect more.

    The transition to rationality does not, by any means, have to be peaceful.

    Very sad, very predictable and very very human…..

  6. Of course, the irony is that the entire scam is actually being driven by the corporate interests of giants like Siemens, GE and all those seeking to extract gold from sunbeams – sorry, I meant trading in ‘carbon permits’.

  7. RoyFOMR says “PS- the majority of “sceptics” agree that “real” environmental issues are of the utmost importance to the quality of our lives.”

    I couldn’t agree more, this message NEVER gets a mention. But can you imagine trying to have a reasoned debate with these Eco Lunatics? I had a quick background read of those behind “It’s Getting Hot In Here” and several of these kids were waxing lyrical about walking in the wilderness with their dogs etc. Now suppose you gave them an ultimatum: This is the ONLY lifestyle you will be allowed if you want to “Save the planet”, OR carry on substantially as now if you want to continue using the internet, smart phones, and the network of roads and cycle ways paid for by “dirty” fuels that allow you to orchestrate your battles? That might get some interesting answers…..

  8. Meh, they’re just jealous that Jeff Immelt, and scores of other Unicorn-fart Energy salesmen took all the “green” money…I mean all the money that wasn’t already stolen from the EUrotard Carbon Come exchange.

  9. “With this quagmire of conflicted interests governing the White House, K Street Lobbying Firms and the boards of large environmental groups, how are we ever going to see real change come out of Washington D.C.?”

    They want the world to look like they think it should. The conflicted interests ensures less volatility. Compromise, that quality much lacking in AGW discourse, is a necessity in such circumstances. It results in baby steps rather than giant leaps. It has served us well enough for a hundred years or more.

    Note also that ‘change’ as they see it *must* come from Washington DC. That isn’t so but politicians have successfully convinced the public that they are the only available conduit for change. If you rely on change being imposed by authority there is no guarantee against the State wiping away your brand of change for another at a later date.

  10. Damian was giving some climate scientists some advice today…..
    At a seminar at Reading University, Walker Institute.

    26th Jan
    Damian Carrington, Guardian and Observer
    Why scienitists must talk to the media!

    I only asked if I could attend very last minute, but it was full.

    the reply:

    “I think this seminar is going to be pretty packed with University folk
    and Damian is keen to focus on a discussion with the climate scientists

    Maybe there’s a need for a more public debate event – perhaps something
    for Climate Week (”

    I sent a couple of questions in anyway….as Damian perhaps is not the best person for them to listen to, in my opinion…

    “Thanks for the reply, as it turns out I have to look after my three year old
    today anyway. I am an interested party in this debate, perhaps you could ask a couple of
    questions on my behalf, and answer them with the Walker Institutes perspective as well.

    Maybe someone could ask him, why the media (Damian included) publishes the
    sensationalist statements they do without challanging them or checking with scientists (like those at the Walker Institute) for their accuracy.

    As an example, Damian was proud to scoop the 10:10 campaign ‘No Pressure’
    video in the Guardian. In that article the 10:10’s founder Franny Armstrong said that there were 300,000 climate change deaths a year..

    Franny Armstrong clearly means this to be 300,000 deaths directly attributed
    to man made global warming..

    I am not aware of that the Walker Institute would attribute ANY deaths to
    man made climate change yet. Additionally, I doubt if any deaths would even be attributed to any natural climate change yet…

    According to WHO these are largely extreme weather related deaths,
    (hurricanes, monsons floods) which of course largely occure in poor
    undeveloped countries, and are not unusual in themselves making these deaths a function of poverty in the face of naturally occuring weather events.

    Perhaps you could ask for me, why that 300,000 deaths due to climate change
    went unchallenged by Damian and the Guardian.

    What was the source and validation to make that statement?

    Could you also confirm the Walker Institutes position on this?

    Are any deaths attributable, now to man made climate change?
    Are any deaths due to natural climate change?

    I hope that bodies like the Walker Instritute would feel able to challenge
    and correct unscientifc claims by environmental lobby groups that are
    sometimes over emotional and are slow to check facts.

    I attended Professor Arnell’s lecture, where it was discussed that some
    alarmist statements were not helping (Greenpeace, Hansen was mentioned 20
    foot sea levels, etc) Yet I was surprised to hear that he did not feel able to correct this,
    without being accused of advocay.

    This is strange, correcting errors and stating the facts to the public and
    the government is not advocacy it is a scientific duty and a responsibilty
    to the public.

    Best Regards and Thanks

    No reply yet, I will follow up tommorrow.

    • Awesome. These so-called conferences are pretty much always more like echo-chambers for the true believers anyway. I’ve seen people ask perfectly valid questions before and it’s like they’ve run over the family cat. Pathetic.

  11. Dr. Killpatient

    That fellow seems to enjoy using his computer. Thank goodness for evil corporations who create those things….otherwise, he’s have no way to tell everyone just how evil the corporations really are.

  12. The article concluded that “Challenging the root causes of climate change should be the role of our movement, and that root cause is corporate power”.

    I love it when Watermelons reveal their true agenda. Too bad these dupes don’t realize that they are just ‘useful idiots’ working for another tangent of corporate power.

  13. And thanks for the link, HTL! A beautiful exposition of lunacy!

    “ is a project of the Sustainable Markets Foundation, a 501(c)(3) registered organization. ”

    There are indications that the Sustainable Markets Foundation is financed by the Rockefeller Family Foundation. Simply google
    sustainable markets foundation rockefeller

    Many pages seem to vanish right now… a cleansing seems to happen, but this one is still active:

    Also, here’s a blog post about the Rockefeller / link:

    • Hi Dirk,

      Yep. Strange that these left-wing environmental organizations are largely set up by plutocrats, isn’t it? Some of the people working at are distinctly . . . left-field, shall we say. People like Stephanie Mills, who believes that we must all accept that life must be short and filled with pain. “Lead the way” I say!

  14. Okay. Here goes. You go to the Rockefeller Family Foundation and enter “Sustainable Markets Foundation” in their search box. You get 126 nondescript hits; some of them just showing a postal address; others showing individual grants granted to the Sustainable Markets Foundation with designation of a purpose, like this one:
    New York, NY
    United States
    $100,000 for 1 year
    For its Project 350.”

    Good. From here we can stop using the rather slow search and directly change the URL, changing the number at the end, for instance to

    and so on and so on…

  15. So Rockefeller lets his sockpuppets urge an armed uprising against Corporate America.
    “and second by David Rockefeller in a statement to the United Nations Business Council in September 1994, […]:

    “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”[2]

    Now, the wikipedia lists this under conspiracy theories; but remember, a theory must be falsifiable; and when it’s not falsified, it can become our working basis. This particular theory has not been falsified by my searches.

  16. manicbeancounter

    Let us all take a deep breath and look at the issues in perspective.
    Start from the premise that if there is a problem, whether actual or predicted, action should be taken that is proportionate. That is, if painful action is necessary – that will cause some loss of life or just decreases in standards of living, then you need to demonstrate that the pain will (most probably) be worth it. That means understanding the issues, and the remedies. A major part of that understanding has come from comparing and contrasting the arguments. Another part is getting a sense of proportion.
    When opposing views are shut out, and extremist comments from the main opinion group are not opposed, then the sense of proportion will be completely lost. What is most worrying is that even if James Hansen’s predictions were coming true, we may be better off doing nothing than having the current policies. That is because they are both costly and ineffective.
    For Hansen’s predictions see

  17. Another thought.

    To get away with a call to violence on a website, you have to have the necessary funding.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s