It’s no newsflash that the eco-whacks are losing the debate when it comes to global warming alarmism. Their lies have been exposed through ClimateGate, their massive government legislation is stalled indefinitely, and even Barack Obama just opened the American coast to additional oil exploration.

So what are eco-whacks to do now that they can’t achieve their goals peacefully? They’re not going to give up. Their goal isn’t protecting the planet but rather instituting statism across the globe. Just like socialists throughout world history, they’ll resort to any tactic to win.

Which means violence. This was actually posted by Greenpeace’s “Juliette” on the organization’s official blog:

Emerging battle-bruised from the disaster zone of Copenhagen, but ever-hopeful, a rider on horseback brought news of darkness and light: “The politicians have failed. Now it’s up to us. We must break the law to make the laws we need: laws that are supposed to protect society, and protect our future. Until our laws do that, screw being climate lobbyists. Screw being climate activists. It’s not working. We need an army of climate outlaws.”

The proper channels have failed. It’s time for mass civil disobedience to cut off the financial oxygen from denial and skepticism.

If you’re one of those who believe that this is not just necessary but also possible, speak to us. Let’s talk about what that mass civil disobedience is going to look like.

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.

Juliette insists that she’s talking simple, peaceful civil disobedience, but is that what this post above suggests? Really?

She’s talking about the “proper channels” having failed. Presumably “proper channels” would include protests and rallies, so those are apparently not radical enough anymore. The same goes for lobbying, commercials, office visits, and the rest. So what’s next in their pocket of supposedly peaceful tactics?

She then moves on to warn opponents of statism that “We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.” Again, protests and rallies seem to be out now, as are media campaigns and lobbying, so why is the location of statism opponents relevant if not for violent purposes?

I suppose this was inevitable, even from an organization as well-known as Greenpeace. As I said above, their real goal is statism and, just like their forefathers, they won’t stop until their agenda is enacted globally. That means resorting to threats and even acts of violence.