PDA

View Full Version : Greenland contains enough melt water to eventually raise sea level by about 23 feet


Glare
15-11-2004, 03:01 AM
This is kind of scary stuff, florida and the other low lying areas of the world are going to be under water by 2100.


The newly released Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report predicts major Arctic snow and ice melting over the next 100 years.

WASHINGTON—The Arctic is warming much more rapidly than previously known, at nearly twice the rate of the rest of the globe, and increasing greenhouse gases from human activities are projected to make it warmer still, according to an unprecedented four-year scientific study of the region conducted by an international team of 300 scientists.

At least half of the summer sea ice in the Arctic is projected to melt by the end of this century, along with a significant portion of the Greenland Ice Sheet, as the region is projected to warm an additional 7 to 13°F (4-7°C) by 2100. These changes will have major global impacts, such as contributing to global sea-level rise and intensifying global warming, according to the final report of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA).

The assessment was commissioned by the Arctic Council (a ministerial intergovernmental forum comprised of eight nations, including the United States, and six Indigenous Peoples organizations) and the International Arctic Science Committee (an international scientific organization appointed by 18 national academies of science).

• In Alaska, Western Canada, and Eastern Russia average winter temperatures have increased as much as 4 to 7°F (3-4°C) in the past 50 years, and are projected to rise 7-13°F (4-7°C) over the next 100 years.

• Arctic sea ice during the summer is projected to decline by at least 50 percent by the end of this century with some models showing near-complete disappearance of summer sea ice. This is very likely to have devastating consequences for some arctic animal species such as ice-living seals and for local people for whom these animals are a primary food source. At the same time, reduced sea ice extent is likely to increase marine access to some of the region’s resources.

• Warming over Greenland will lead to substantial melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, contributing to global sea-level rise at increasing rates. Over the long term, Greenland contains enough melt water to eventually raise sea level by about 23 feet (about 7 meters).

• In the United States, low-lying coastal states like Florida and Louisiana are particularly susceptible to rising sea levels.

• Should the Arctic Ocean become ice-free in summer, it is likely that polar bears and some seal species would be driven toward extinction.

Jacoby
15-11-2004, 03:06 AM
Drink more water!

Jasper
15-11-2004, 03:08 AM
Warming over Greenland will lead to substantial melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, contributing to global sea-level rise at increasing rates. Over the long term, Greenland contains enough melt water to eventually raise sea level by about 23 feet (about 7 meters).

23 Feet by 2100!?!?!?!? May the lord help us all.

Glare
15-11-2004, 03:10 AM
good, i always wanted to move closer to the beach :)

Narg
15-11-2004, 03:58 AM
ill be dead by then, so i dont care, bl 2 any1 still alive.

Liam
15-11-2004, 04:34 AM
There is no such thing as global warming. Its a load of bullshit made up by environmentalists who want to frighten us into recycling.

I read that the earth goes through warmer spells every couple of hundred years. We are currently in one.

IBO
15-11-2004, 04:37 AM
ill be dead by then, so i dont care, bl 2 any1 still alive.

And what about your kids? If you even plan to have any. Don't you care for them at least?
________
Xl185 (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Honda_XL185)

Renegade
15-11-2004, 05:21 AM
Global warming is interesting. Some pyscho teacher at my school said all of Antarctica's ice would melt within the next 10 years. This thread might prove him right.

deviljet88
15-11-2004, 06:32 AM
Adopting Narg's ignorant attiture, since there is no mention of Australia, I don't give a rat's arse either.

Narg
15-11-2004, 06:34 AM
And what about your kids? If you even plan to have any. Don't you care for them at least?
No, no i don't.

Glare
15-11-2004, 06:56 AM
well 23 feet in 100 years means it should rise about a foot every 3 or so years, I dont think I can see this happening, but i'm the believer of the whole day after tomorrow thing, where it will suddenly come to a halt and we will all be doomed.

Leonie
15-11-2004, 08:27 AM
Ever heard of ice ages? Ever heard of how the earth gets a bit warmer before one? Now think. There ya go.

If the sea level rises so much as 18 feet then half of my country is sea again. Can't say I mind. My home town is high and dry :D

Timmy
15-11-2004, 11:27 AM
meh i have mixed feelings on this one

hasselbrad
15-11-2004, 11:41 AM
http://www.reason.com/rb/rb111004.shtml

Cycles. Cycles that we have little or no control over.
The only thing worth saving in Florida is Walt Disney World, Busch Gardens and Sea World. Um...scratch that, Florida will become Sea World.

Flightfreak
15-11-2004, 12:38 PM
People are changing the climate that made life on earth possible and the results are disastrous - extreme weather events, such as droughts and floods, disruption of water supplies, melting Polar regions, rising sea levels, loss of coral reefs and much more. Scientists and governments worldwide agree on the latest and starkest evidence of human-induced climate change, its impacts and the predictions of what is to come.

It is not too late to slow global warming and avoid the climate catastrophe that scientists predict. The solutions already exist. Renewable energy sources such as wind and solar offer abundant clean energy that is safe for the environment and good for the economy.

Other green technologies, such as the refrigeration technology Greenfreeze, offer viable alternatives to climate-changing chemicals.

Corporations, governments and individuals must begin now to phase in clean, sustainable energy solutions and phase out fossil fuels. Major investments must be made in renewable energy, particularly in developing economies, replacing current large scale fossil fuel developments.

At the same time, immediate international action must be taken to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases (the gases that cause global warming), or the world may soon face irreversible global climate damage.

Ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, the climate treaty finally agreed at Marrakech in November 2001, is a crucial first step in this process. However, the greenhouse gas reduction targets agreed at Marrakech are only a fraction of what is needed to stop dangerous climate change and the Kyoto Protocol is under fierce attack.

The US refuses to sign the climate treaty and take action to reduce emissions. With less than 5 percent of the world's population, the US is the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases and is responsible for 25 percent of global emissions. Also, governments continue to subsidise the fossil fuel industries, keeping dirty energy cheap while clean energy solutions remain under-funded.

Greenpeace is campaigning globally on a variety of fronts to stop climate change - from the campaign to pressure the ExxonMobil and George W Bush to work with the rest of the world to halt climate change, to researching and promoting clean energy solutions.

Find out what you can do by looking at our suggestions for Individual Action.


Greenpeace is an independent organisation, who stands for the protection of our natural environment.
If you can’t agree with the fact that we, as a people have a bad influence on our own planet, look around and tell me what you see? Cancer, aids, extreme weather changes, etc.
It’s true that we have a natural evolution, but we are speeding it up and nature tries everything she cans to bring it back in balance, if we don’t change our way of living on earth than we won’t survive.

Balance is the essence of our life/world, the more we push our planet out of balance the more nature will try to bring it back in balance.
Compare it with your own body, with your own live. To less is bad, to much is bad
think about it!!!

Narg
15-11-2004, 01:06 PM
Greenpeace is for faggot hippies with no jobs.

Flightfreak
15-11-2004, 01:18 PM
Greenpeace is for faggot hippies with no jobs.
Nope, Greenpeace is an organisation based on Volunteers, people who have a job, but who want to spent there free time to fight for our environment.
Anyway, that’s not the point, is it?

Leonie
15-11-2004, 02:19 PM
Nope, Greenpeace is an organisation based on Volunteers, people who have a job, but who want to spent there free time to fight for our environment.
Anyway, that’s not the point, is it?

That does not make them independent as you said in your first post. Nor objective. They want to 'save' the environment, so rather than being wrong and letting the world selfdestruct, they'd support a theory that isn't necessarily true. Better safe than sorry eh?

Still think we have an ice age coming on. Not anytime soon. And there's nothing we can do about it anyway.

duckula
15-11-2004, 02:25 PM
Ok, global temperature changes are cyclical. But, if you add a factor which didn't previously occur (see pollution) you are likely to alter the circle. It is like the Earth's orbit, it is a big ellipse and this causes all the seasony goodness. But by adding a slight thrust you would change the orbit slightly and thus change how the seasons progress.

The second issue is that global warming might be a divergent phenomena (small input leads to chain of effects resulting in a large change).

What we know - We are doing something that hasn't been done before.
- This might result in effects that range from the disconcerting to the downright disasterous.

Suffice to say, it might be a good idea to take a look at the way we exploit (word used in the classical sense) our planets natural resources and produce energy.

Flightfreak
15-11-2004, 02:47 PM
That does not make them independent as you said in your first post. Nor objective. They want to 'save' the environment, so rather than being wrong and letting the world selfdestruct, they'd support a theory that isn't necessarily true. Better safe than sorry eh?

Still think we have an ice age coming on. Not anytime soon. And there's nothing we can do about it anyway.

With independent i meant, that they pay there actions with gifts from individuals, they don’t accept in anyway financial support from companies, governments, etc
So they could keep there independence, Greenpeace is based on volunteers who support the idea where Greenpeace stands for. So I don’t see your point.

Well, i think there are theories enough that prove that we affect the global warming with our aggressive way of exploiting our planet.
I rather believe, them and try to do something about it now, than to say in 50years: "shit they where correct"
The alternatives are better anyway why don’t we use them, instead of going on like a bunch of fools!!!

Kriv
15-11-2004, 03:15 PM
Everyone! Stop peeing! For the good of man kind hold it in!
Won't someone please think of the children!

hasselbrad
15-11-2004, 03:17 PM
Greenpeace is an extremist organization bent on crippling the industrialized nations with their chicken-little scare tactics.
I'm not for burning tires in your front lawn. I'd like to see us use fuels that burn clean and not pollute every waterway in the world, but I don't want to see the world economy grind to a halt because some enviro-whack-jobs think we should all ride bikes to jobs where we weave hemp rope and sing songs about mother earth.
You want to know how to solve the major pollution problems? Convince people in third world countries to wrap that rascal, or, to just stop screwing all together. Getting a hold on the population explosion in areas that are ill-equipped to handle the current population is a big step in reducing humankind's effect on the planet.

Flightfreak
15-11-2004, 03:41 PM
Greenpeace is an extremist organization bent on crippling the industrialized nations with their chicken-little scare tactics.

Greenpeace is a fair organisation based on respect! is there something wrong with respect? i don’t think so! you apparently don’t know much about the organisation don’t judge them, on what you see on commercial media stations!


I'm not for burning tires in your front lawn. I'd like to see us use fuels that burn clean and not pollute every waterway in the world, but I don't want to see the world economy grind to a halt because some enviro-whack-jobs think we should all ride bikes to jobs where we weave hemp rope and sing songs about mother earth.


do you think they are stupid? Of course you can't change our way of living on one day, it takes years, and we will need fuel and bad stuff, to come to a better way of exploiting the planet. But when are you planning to change? When it is too late?


You want to know how to solve the major pollution problems? Convince people in third world countries to wrap that rascal, or, to just stop screwing all together. Getting a hold on the population explosion in areas that are ill-equipped to handle the current population is a big step in reducing humankind's effect on the planet.

THE USA IS THE BIGGEST POLLUTER OF THE WORLD!!!
Start to clean your own country before you, comment on others.
You guys just need to put a coffee filter on your fabrics and you get the Kyoto norm

Africa is over populated, is that there fault? You know how much a pack of condom’s costs in Burkina Faso 10dollar; do you know how much they earn in a month? 5dollar...

hasselbrad
15-11-2004, 03:59 PM
Ahh yes, Kyoto...yet another attempt to cripple the economies of industrialized nations.

http://www.unchs.org/Istanbul+5/68.pdf

And, would you look at that...the industrialized nations have the lowest levels of airborne pollutants. In addition, you'll find very few areas in the United States where human waste is allowed to run into the water supply.

So condoms cost more than two months salary? Fine...masturbate!
If you can't afford a pack of condoms, you surely can't afford another mouth to feed.

Flightfreak
15-11-2004, 04:17 PM
Ahh yes, Kyoto...yet another attempt to cripple the economies of industrialized nations.

http://www.unchs.org/Istanbul+5/68.pdf

And, would you look at that...the industrialized nations have the lowest levels of airborne pollutants. In addition, you'll find very few areas in the United States where human waste is allowed to run into the water supply.

http://www.unchs.org/Istanbul+5/68.pdf ---> Source: World Resources Institute, 1990-1995 (based on a sample of 79 cities)

i think there are more up to date publications than that one ;)

Did you know that the most fabrics, who work now in third world countries worked once in industrialised countries, they just moved them because of the higher norms in the industrialised countries.
did you know that the most industries in third world countries are in hands of western multinationals!!!


So condoms cost more than two months salary? Fine...masturbate!
If you can't afford a pack of condoms, you surely can't afford another mouth to feed.

This is the most stupid comment i have heard ever, go and look in the histories of Africa, and look who is responsible for the way Africa now is! And come than back with a descent comment!

hasselbrad
15-11-2004, 06:30 PM
Oh my God...you're right, how silly of me to assume that being able to afford to feed, clothe and generally provide for the welfare of a child should have any bearing on one's personal behavior.
And I didn't bring Africa into the argument, you did.

Flightfreak
15-11-2004, 06:56 PM
Oh my God...you're right, how silly of me to assume that being able to afford to feed, clothe and generally provide for the welfare of a child should have any bearing on one's personal behaviour.
And I didn't bring Africa into the argument, you did.

you need to understand the African culture to understand it, why do you think i say to you that you need to look in the African history.

anyway, i did bring Africa up because you said this:
Convince people in third world countries to wrap that rascal, or, to just stop screwing all together. Getting a hold on the population explosion in areas that are ill-equipped

anyway, to stay a bit on topic, you cant hold third world countries responsible for the global warming of the world.

hasselbrad
15-11-2004, 08:37 PM
Oh...so you just assumed that I was making a racial remark about Africans? As if I needed that to know how you think I think.
Catholicism is the main stumbling block in this crusade since it's the church's position that wrapping up means going to hell. My point was, that in many areas of the world, the population far exceeds the infrastructure's capability to deal with it.
My problem with the environmentalist movement, is that, for the most part, it is financed and supported through socialist organizations. These organizations are the same ones who actively work against the United States on all fronts. It makes me suspicious of their motives. And, U.S. owned companies aren't the only ones manufacturing products in third world countries.
And, I'm suspicious of global warming science altogether, as was illustrated by the article I posted originally. A lot of the data seems to be from a very narrow sample of years.

Narg
15-11-2004, 11:19 PM
fuck, chill, take on the general aussie attitude of "fuck it", we are all going to be dead before the serious shit hits the fan, so who the fuck cares.

Liam
16-11-2004, 05:11 AM
Give that man a New.

ryan
16-11-2004, 06:08 AM
Africa is over populated, is that there fault? You know how much a pack of condom’s costs in Burkina Faso 10dollar; do you know how much they earn in a month? 5dollar...


Do you know how much it costs to not have sex in the first place if you don't want to get the woman pregnant?

IT'S FREE. OMG~

You can't bitch about overpopulation being a huge problem in a place when the people can't do the easy and free thing and just not have sex like wild rabbits. Keep your dick in your pants more often and you won't get litters of babies. Simple as that.

ryan
16-11-2004, 06:08 AM
fuck, chill, take on the general aussie attitude of "fuck it", we are all going to be dead before the serious shit hits the fan, so who the fuck cares.

you crazy ass aussies.


speaking of which, i may be vacationing there within a year. it's either there, somewhere in asia, or italy.

Glare
16-11-2004, 06:12 AM
Give that man a New.

I got it, did you?

deviljet88
16-11-2004, 07:22 AM
Aussies aren't crazy, we just don't give a rat's arse about something so far away. Plus we can always be ignorant and blame it on a heating period. There'll be an Ice Age another few thousand years or something, so meh.

Flightfreak
16-11-2004, 02:54 PM
Oh...so you just assumed that I was making a racial remark about Africans? As if I needed that to know how you think I think.
Catholicism is the main stumbling block in this crusade since it's the church's position that wrapping up means going to hell.

One: I did not think that you where making a racial remark about Africans, your remark, on how to stop overpopulation in Africa was just ridicules.
The church is just one of the problems in Africa, but this thread isn’t about the problems in Africa. The only way to help third world countries is by educating there population.
Anyway, like I said this thread is about global warming and not about third world countries.

Two: You just can’t put a finger to third world countries, if your own country is one of the biggest polluters of the planet!

Do you know what western countries do with there old, high polluted ships?

http://www.greenpeace.org/multimedia/download/1/43589/2/37072.7932.v201p.jpg

http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/news/details?item%5fid=634119

This is one of the many examples i can give you!
So don’t come, and tell me that third world countries are responsible for a global warming of the earth, they have there part in it, but the change needs to start with us "high developed western countrys"!

My point was, that in many areas of the world, the population far exceeds the infrastructure's capability to deal with it. .

I agree with that.


My problem with the environmentalist movement, is that, for the most part, it is financed and supported through socialist organizations. These organizations are the same ones who actively work against the United States on all fronts. It makes me suspicious of their motives. And, U.S. owned companies aren't the only ones manufacturing products in third world countries.
And, I'm suspicious of global warming science altogether, as was illustrated by the article I posted originally. A lot of the data seems to be from a very narrow sample of years.

Greenpeace is not supported by any company, organisation, or government.
If you would know there program, and the ideas they stand for than you would not react like this.

I don’t think that you want your child get leukaemia because of an atomic power plant, which dumps his dirt water, on the beach, where, the local schools go swimming.
The radioactive air around La Hague was higher than in Chernobyl!!! And this was discovered by Greenpeace in 1998 in FRANCE.

http://archive.greenpeace.org/majordomo/index-press-releases/1997/msg00193.html

So don’t come and tell me that there motives would be suspicious!!!

By the way Greenpeace is founded by a few Americans, who sailed to Amchitka Island in the Aleutians to try to stop a nuclear weapons test with their presence.

Conclusion: the earth is warming up, there is evidence that proves that we speed it up by our aggressive way of exploiting the planet.
Solution: change our way of living.
Even if you don’t believe in the fact that we are speeding up the process than you can still see the affects of, air pollution, water pollution,… on our own health/Live
We need to change our way of living anyway, so why should we wait? For a fake and hypocrite economy?

You better all should read first the program and the things where Greenpeace stands for, before you come and tell me that it are a bunch of "hippies"
Don’t judge them before you know where they stand for!

aspro
17-11-2004, 11:54 AM
Well duckulas post is the only sane one on here ( and narg's :)), but alot of people will think anything that means they can keep travelling the path of least resistance, Ie. why support kyoto? Ill have to stop enjoying super cheap whatevers, let everyone else worry about it.

Flightfreak
19-11-2004, 09:25 AM
Well duckulas post is the only sane one on here ( and narg's :)), but alot of people will think anything that means they can keep travelling the path of least resistance, Ie. why support kyoto? Ill have to stop enjoying super cheap whatevers, let everyone else worry about it.

Aspro the great has spoken! :icon_err:

Anyway, he has a point on the Kyoto thingy,
But he doesn’t have the right reason not to support it!
Even if we follow the Kyoto norm, even than it will only slow down the process in 10 years, on a 100 year base. The costs are way too high against the profit in years we win with it.

So we better invest that money, in projects to make green energy, to make a good alternative for fossils fuels,
We need to change anyway; we can’t keep using fossil fuels, because they will be gone in 40years.!!

*hint support Greenpeace* they are the one who are putting pressure on the industries and governments to change! ;)

deviljet88
19-11-2004, 09:44 AM
Ahhh noble thoughts, but so unrealistic. Do you see the Arabic oil magnates shivering in their boots? No? Why not? Because they have money, and sadly, they'll have lots more money to come. Do you see the whole world embracing electronic cars? I'm pretty sure Toyota's Prius hasn't been doing much in Australia even with some vigorous campaigning. Only way I believe you can make these CEO's and government leaders see the truth is to threaten them all with a nuclear warhead capable of wiping out the world.

Flightfreak
19-11-2004, 10:47 AM
Ahhh noble thoughts, but so unrealistic. Do you see the Arabic oil magnates shivering in their boots? No? Why not? Because they have money, and sadly, they'll have lots more money to come. Do you see the whole world embracing electronic cars? I'm pretty sure Toyota's Prius hasn't been doing much in Australia even with some vigorous campaigning. Only way I believe you can make these CEO's and government leaders see the truth is to threaten them all with a nuclear warhead capable of wiping out the world.

Jet, go to the Greenpeace sites, and look what they already have achieved, i can’t sum them up, because its to many,
You underestimate the strength of the media, (that’s how Greenpeace works btw.)
Greenpeace has only 2.8 million members what is not much on a world population of 6 milliard and look what they already have achieved!

You are the one who is naïve, you are the one who is scared to say no, when the whole group says yes!

I can tell you a little anecdote about the strength Greenpeace has:

In 1985, shocked the world Greenpeace lost its Pacific Ocean campaign vessel, "the Rainbow Warrior", in Auckland, New Zealand.
The French secret service had placed explosives at the fuselage,
the whole crew was on board when the bombs, exploded one of them died (Fernando Pereira) during, the explosion.
Anyway, the French state has found guilty, and needed to pay a huge amount of money to Greenpeace,
The French defence minister was forced to resign, the United Nations was called in to mediate a settlement between France and New Zealand, and Greenpeace continued the campaign which had provoked such a violent reaction - to stop French nuclear testing at Moruroa atoll in the South Pacific.
That was 20 years ago, Greenpeace is a lot bigger now, and has a lot more strength than then!

Media is a very handful and dangers weapon!
http://www.greenpeace.org/multimedia/download/1/567577/0/AnnualReport_VF_Quicktime_v.mov
The more members, Greenpeace has the more strength, they have to change things!

So jet, my dear don’t come and tell me I am unrealistic,

deviljet88
19-11-2004, 10:52 AM
1. Since when did the world only have 6 million people in it?
2. Wow the French Government really seems to support Greenpeace don't they? I mean who sets up laws and taxes in countries? Oh wait, the government.
3. Did they stop nuclear testing? At last count there's over... I don't know, 10 countries that have nuclear warheads?

By the way, did you answer any of my questions? Are the oil magnates scared? Do they worry over what will happen when they lose their oil? Does the world care so much they actually bother buying an electrical car than a fossil fuel car? No and no.

Flightfreak
19-11-2004, 10:56 AM
1. Since when did the world only have 6 million people in it?
2. Wow the French Government really seems to support Greenpeace don't they? I mean who sets up laws and taxes in countries? Oh wait, the government.
3. Did they stop nuclear testing? At last count there's over... I don't know, 10 countries that have nuclear warheads?

By the way, did you answer any of my questions? Are the oil magnates scared? Do they worry over what will happen when they lose their oil? Does the world care so much they actually bother buying an electrical car than a fossil fuel car? No and no.

Jet my dear read again and again and maybe if you are smart enough, than you will see the answers!!!
Btw, do you know the difference between 6million and 6 milliard

deviljet88
19-11-2004, 10:59 AM
I beg your pardon, sorry I did not know people used the term milliard. Rather I'm more used to the term billion. However, onto more important points, no I didn't connect the dots, rather you'll have to explain yourself and answer the questions instead of pretending the media is Greenpeace's pet dog, because it isn't.

Flightfreak
19-11-2004, 11:10 AM
I beg your pardon, sorry I did not know people used the term milliard. Rather I'm more used to the term billion. However, onto more important points, no I didn't connect the dots, rather you'll have to explain yourself and answer the questions instead of pretending the media is Greenpeace's pet dog, because it isn't.
grgrgr, Greenpeace uses the media, to put pressure on governments and industries, that’s the way they work!

Only way I believe you can make these CEO's and government leaders see the truth is to threaten them all with a nuclear warhead capable of wiping out the world.
if you want to use arms, than you are a hypocrite
because you would be doing the same as them,

deviljet88
19-11-2004, 11:42 AM
1. Actually haven't read or seen Greenpeace in the media for years. Last time was a few years ago when they demonstrated against whaling. Sadly, yet obviously, Japan continues to kill whales off. I think they managed to put a restriction on certain areas, but the practice continues.

2. A hypocrite? I'm just pointing out what arms mean in this world. Why did the countries even have arms in the first place?

Flightfreak
19-11-2004, 12:01 PM
1. Actually haven't read or seen Greenpeace in the media for years. Last time was a few years ago when they demonstrated against whaling. Sadly, yet obviously, Japan continues to kill whales off. I think they managed to put a restriction on certain areas, but the practice continues.


Well, its quiet easy why they don’t come in the news a lot,
Ask your self one question --> who owns the media
- 1: the government
- 2: multinationals
Multinationals and governments only think of one thing when they hear the word Greenpeace --> problems

Why problems?
- governments --> shit, now i need to attack again a factory, again less profit for the state,...
- Multinationals --> shit, now we need to invest again a lot of money, to filter our bad air,...

Everything in our economies is about profit, the more the better, what do those multinationals cares about health,

That’s why i support Greenpeace, to give a signal to governments and multinationals, that i don’t agree with the way things are going.
Now you probably think--> why they should care what people think,
Well they are nothing with out us: example
They can’t make profit if we refuse to buy things that are genetically manipulated.


2. A hypocrite? I'm just pointing out what arms mean in this world. Why did the countries even have arms in the first place?

Good question, war is something that has always exist, and it will always, keep exciting,
But that’s no reason to agree with it,

deviljet88
19-11-2004, 12:06 PM
1. So how does Greenpeace use the media if, as you said, are owned by multi-nationals and the government? I'm talking broadscale here, not just their website or whatever pamphet they feel like handing out. On buying genetically modified food, its not as if they care about a select few who don't eat it, but the rest of the population does. A bad analogy, but just because vegetarians don't eat meat, doesn't mean the butchers have to close down shop, since there's plenty of other consumers. As I said, bad comparison, but you get my point?

2. I didn't say war is agreeable, I just meant that countries developed arms to defend themselves and thwart any threats. I don't even want to argue on nuclear arms since its something that won't be eradicated. If one country has the nuclear edge, others will have the same feeling.

Flightfreak
19-11-2004, 12:50 PM
1. So how does Greenpeace use the media if, as you said, are owned by multi-nationals and the government? I'm talking broadscale here, not just their website or whatever pamphet they feel like handing out. On buying genetically modified food, its not as if they care about a select few who don't eat it, but the rest of the population does. A bad analogy, but just because vegetarians don't eat meat, doesn't mean the butchers have to close down shop, since there's plenty of other consumers. As I said, bad comparison, but you get my point?

Well, like you said, they come rarely on the national TV stations, but they come on the local TV stations now and than,
they jump of buildings, they hook there self on trains, boats,…
They even don’t need to come in the news to change things, the threat of coming in the news, is most of the times already enough to put pressure on the government, and the industries.


2. I didn't say war is agreeable, I just meant that countries developed arms to defend themselves and thwart any threats. I don't even want to argue on nuclear arms since its something that won't be eradicated. If one country has the nuclear edge, others will have the same feeling.

I can’t really say something about that,
I am against every type of arm, but it would be naïve to think that we will have a world with out weapons and conflicts,
I believe in the theory that we need bad to know what good is

Countries would better invest there money in core fusion as alternative, for nuclear reaction power plants instead of developing atomic bombs and weapens of mass destruction!

deviljet88
19-11-2004, 12:58 PM
1. Except if the media is owned by multi-national and government moguls they wouldn't need to be afraid of a media threat since they can censor it. Btw, no I don't know that some Greenpeace members chained themselves onto ships. I just found out because for once in my life I decided to visit the website. Pity nearly nobody else does, therefore, no coverage or pressure.

2. As you said on MSN, a profit would not be gained for at least 100 years. And currently money means everything. Why spend so much cash when you've still got such a reliable fuel source (rhetorical question referring to MSN convo and previous posts)? However, on the other hand, atomic bombs have the capability to stop wars, eg bombing of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War 2. Seems a better investment arms than nuclear generated energy. I like the idea of solar though. If I did have the power to invest in one fuel source, that would probably be it.

Flightfreak
19-11-2004, 02:04 PM
1. Except if the media is owned by multi-national and government moguls they wouldn't need to be afraid of a media threat since they can censor it. Btw, no I don't know that some Greenpeace members chained themselves onto ships. I just found out because for once in my life I decided to visit the website. Pity nearly nobody else does, therefore, no coverage or pressure.

Well like i said they come on tv now and than, if its exciting enough to entertain people.
Anyway, it works, look at the things they have already achieved
They do more than chaining them themselves on to ships, :p

http://www.greenpeace.org/multimedia/download/1/507334/2/smokebanner.jpg

www.greenpeace.com


2. As you said on MSN, a profit would not be gained for at least 100 years. And currently money means everything. Why spend so much cash when you've still got such a reliable fuel source (rhetorical question referring to MSN convo and previous posts)? However, on the other hand, atomic bombs have the capability to stop wars, eg bombing of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War 2. Seems a better investment arms than nuclear generated energy. I like the idea of solar though. If I did have the power to invest in one fuel source, that would probably be it.

Why use core fusion? Because its perfectly clean, and it gives a lot a lot a lot of energy, much more than any other energy source.
Solar energy is indeed also a good alternative for fossil fuels, the best is even a combination of wind, and sun I believe they had a big project in Australia like that.

Why are nuclear power plants bad? Because they don’t know what to do with the high high radioactive dirt, they useto throw it in the sea, but Greenpeace could luckily stop that,
Now they store it in big rise spaces, but they cant ceep storing it, and who wants such a rice space in his city? No body.
Nuclear power plants, are bad, and very dangers, there are better alternatives why don’t we use them!

I rather not use a atom bomb to end a war, I don’t know if you know what the impact is from a atomic bomb, its not just the explosion and done,
The radioactivity stays active for years and years and years, people get cancer of it, people get birth problems of it, people get handicapped children of it, so i rather not see Hiroshima as a good thing!

deviljet88
19-11-2004, 08:43 PM
If you know the atrocities Japan commited in Asia during World War 2, you'd think otherwise. I also don't understand your last post about nuclear power, since you were the one that raised the issue, and as I said, I prefer solar if you're going to go into green energy sources. By the way, raising that banner on that plant didn't do much if they're still using nuclear power and don't plan to stop using it heh? :P

AureaMediocritas
19-11-2004, 10:29 PM
Both Greenpeace extremists and fanatic anti-ecologists (like Narg :) ) suck ; as
in many cases , moderation seems most appropiate.

Flightfreak
20-11-2004, 11:45 AM
If you know the atrocities Japan commited in Asia during World War 2, you'd think otherwise.

I don’t really know what happened there during WW2, but I don’t think it was worth using an atom bomb.
Do you have any idea how many people were assassinated that day? (I’m using the world assassinated because the people that got killed were civilians.)
In the first three months, 130.000 people died.
70.000 more died from then on till 1970 due to the side effects of the bomb.
survivors suffered from terrible nausea, diarrhoea and blood illnesses.
The chance people would get cancer increased with 30 – 40 %

So really, I’d rather they’d come up with another solution than an atom bomb on Hiroshima.

Did you know there remain almost 36,000 nuclear weapons in the world today?
Thousands are on hair-trigger alert, with more than a third of them ready to launch on a moment's notice, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
The chance of miscalculation or accidental launch is ever present.
Now, under the Bush administration, major international arms control treaties are in jeopardy,
and the Star Wars programme threatens twenty years of progress in disarmament and arms control.

I also don't understand your last post about nuclear power, since you were the one that raised the issue, and as I said, I prefer solar if you're going to go into green energy sources. By the way, raising that banner on that plant didn't do much if they're still using nuclear power and don't plan to stop using it heh? :P

Core fusion and nuclear reaction is not the same, the problem with nuclear reaction is that you get highly radioactive waste,
and we don’t know what to do with it, it takes 1000 and 1000 of years before the radioactivity starts to drop.
Core fusion is one of the best alternatives for nuclear reaction because you have as good as no waste,
but there are still a few problems they need to solve before they can actually use that technology.
But solar could be a perfectly alternative in the main while.
They are planning to stop it, Belgium ended his contracts, just like many other countries.

Both Greenpeace extremists and fanatic anti-ecologists (like Narg:)) suck; as in many cases, moderation seems most appropriate.

Since when are organisations extremistic when they fight for basic rights?
Since when is protesting against nuclear power plants,
extremistic, if you know what the side effects, on humans and environment are, knowing there are alternatives?
Since when is protesting against pcb’s in plastics toys for children extreme?
If you know they get cancer of it, …
Since when is protesting against air pollution extreme?
If you know the rate of asthma and other respiratory diseases has never been this high…
Since when is protesting against the eradication of our wildlife extreme?
Did you know they shot the last bear in France?
And suddenly the whole of France says it is outrageous, but when Greenpeace says something about it than they are extremists.

Explain that to me Parox? Tell me, because perhaps I am wrong, in what way are they extreme? I don’t see it? Care to help me?

deviljet88
20-11-2004, 12:12 PM
After doing a fart (just to show mother nature I really don't care), I've decided to reply on these points

1. You do know how many people died in World War 2 right?

2. Even with core fusion comes the possibility of radiation correct? Until you bother finding me information on the harmful substances used when making solar cells, I still think solar is the way of the future. Seems much more safer.

3. Organizations are extremists if they do extreme things, not on what they are fighting for. Scaling tall buildings could be a sign of extremism. Maybe its for a good cause, but it is still extremist (unless you believe people like to climb up Big Ben for fun).

Edit: After being harrassed on MSN by Flightfreak, I'll expand on number 3. Groups can be seen as extremists, either by their actions or thoughts. You can skew the meaning to whatever suits you.

aspro
21-11-2004, 01:10 PM
To clarify I am in support of kyoto.

I think that we should be trying to have the least impact on our world as possible, Who cares if the Ice age is coming anyway, do you really believe that having cheaper petrol (or whatever) now, is going to be more important than an extra couple of years of nice climate? I sure as hell believe that our descendants would be thankful for us leaving the world in as good shape as we can. Say if the world was going to freeze over tommorow(or heat up alot), but if some short sighted people a decade ago had just toned down there pollution levels 10% (or whatever) you could have another 5 years without the world being frozen(or hot) would you honestly think they made the right decision?

Surely the benefit of a few wealthier people does not rank itself higher than the benefit of the whole population in the future (which is likely to grow immensely).

Action, however small and fruitless is better than no action at all

AureaMediocritas
23-11-2004, 07:20 PM
Since when are organisations extremistic when they fight for basic rights?


Of course do I care to help you , or at least expose shortly (as I have got other things to do still ;) ) my point of view.
In my opinion , the organisation we are talking about , namely "Greenpeace",
is extremistic in the sense that the methods employed to achieve their
objectives are slightly insane at times; I will never forget the little speedboats
trying to stop those "evil whale-killing japanese monsters" from
doing their work. No offence here, and don´t get me wrong ;the aims of "Greenpeace" are honourable and just. Nevertheless , I perceive them as a bunch of 1968 Woodstock hippies, wrecked former rebels against the system,
desperately trying to attract attention by risky and exaggerated operations.
Funnily enough, in my case, it is counterproductive as I can only laugh at these clowns trying to "save the world" with their "pathetic idealism".
Sorry if my conformistic and insensitive behaviour shocks you but methinks we are all aware of the damage caused everyday to nature (and therefore,
to ourselves) ; all "Greenpeace" needs is a sensible "change of image": it
should become an organization most normally sane people can identify with.
Hope you still love me :) (+correct my superficial knowledge about their
methods though, I have got the feeling that they changed their strategy).
BOSHOER ;)

PhoeniX
24-11-2004, 04:50 PM
Just one thought, don't the countries who are chopping down all of the rainforsets know that soon, they'll all be jobless and evan poorer countries than they were before they started choppong them down.

Flightfreak
24-11-2004, 06:55 PM
Since when are organisations extremistic when they fight for basic rights?


Of course do I care to help you , or at least expose shortly (as I have got other things to do still ;) ) my point of view.
In my opinion , the organisation we are talking about , namely "Greenpeace",
is extremistic in the sense that the methods employed to achieve their
objectives are slightly insane at times; I will never forget the little speedboats
trying to stop those "evil whale-killing japanese monsters" from
doing their work. No offence here, and don´t get me wrong; the aims of "Greenpeace" are honourable and just.


They use indeed "extreme" tactics, against extreme disrespect for nature, and well been of every life on earth, what do you expect from them?
That they use weapens?
Blow up "evil whale-killing japanese monsters” the way they work is the only way they are abel to achieve what they want on a honest, and fair way without being hypocrite.
There aims are honourable, and there tactics to.
I think there are enough other organisations, like the “ALF” --> “animal liberation front” (the ones who blow up MacDonald’s and stuff) who uses extreme tactics.
Btw: There died 2 Greenpeace activists in the 25year they exist and use there so called “extreme” tactics.
one died a few weeks ago, and the first one died, when the france secret service blowed up the pride of there fleet "the rainbow warrior"


Nevertheless,
I perceive them as a bunch of 1968 Woodstock hippies, wrecked former rebels against the system,
Desperately trying to attract attention by risky and exaggerated operations.
Funnily enough, in my case, it is counterproductive as I can only laugh at these clowns trying to "save the world" with their "pathetic idealism".
Sorry if my conformistic and insensitive behaviour shocks you but methinks we are all aware of the damage caused everyday to nature (and therefore,
to ourselves) ; all "Greenpeace" needs is a sensible "change of image": it
should become an organization most normally sane people can identify with.

This only proves that you don’t know a shit about Greenpeace, and that you base your self on the few things you heard from some short minded people.
--> www.greenpeace.com


Hope you still love me :) (+correct my superficial knowledge about their
methods though, I have got the feeling that they changed their strategy).
BOSHOER ;)

Of course i still love you how can you doubt about that :icon_date


Just one thought, don't the countries who are chopping down all of the rainforsets know that soon, they'll all be jobless and evan poorer countries than they were before they started choppong them down.
Well, ask your self a few questions,
- Where are the rainforests?
In third world countries
The governments of third world countries are more than happy that western multinationals, bring some employment in there country,
But it’s a lot more complicated than that, ...
I am studying, “engineer wood technologies” and I can tell you that Europe is changing there point of view on
“chopping down the rainforest” they support company’s who buy, certificated wood…
So there is a change, thanks to organisations, like Greenpeace,
You can be sure when I graduate; that I will make sure that the companies i work in
will buy certificated wood ;)

deviljet88
25-11-2004, 04:35 AM
*laughs at Tasmania's old growth forests being lopped down since Australians voted in the party who don't give a shit about them* Europe might have more sense than Australia heh? :P

Liam
25-11-2004, 09:14 AM
I am studying, “engineer wood technologies” and I can tell you that Europe is changing there point of view on
“chopping down the rainforest” they support company’s who buy, certificated wood…
So there is a change, thanks to organisations, like Greenpeace,
You can be sure when I graduate; that I will make sure that the companies i work in
will buy certificated wood ;)

I doubt its because of greenpeace.

Myself, I prefer to lop down a nice, 200 year old oak (an ideal vintage), get out the electric plane and bandsaw and slice that baby up into a nice table. I'll throw the leftovers in a chipper and mulch the garden.

Earth first, we can strip-mine the other planets later.

deviljet88
25-11-2004, 09:39 AM
Apparently we'll next strip the moon of all its cheese.

Liam
25-11-2004, 09:42 AM
We have to hit back at the aliens who stole our Argon.

Flightfreak
25-11-2004, 11:16 AM
I doubt its because of Greenpeace.

Myself, I prefer to lop down a nice, 200 year old oak (an ideal vintage), get out the electric plane and bandsaw and slice that baby up into a nice table. I'll throw the leftovers in a chipper and mulch the garden.

Earth first, we can strip-mine the other planets later.

Did you know that:
- Only 20% of the world’s ancient forests are left?
- An area of forest the size of a football field disappears every two seconds?
- Still 50% of the tropical wood sold in Europe is logged illegally?

Look, lets say I follow your theory,
if we go on like we are doing now, than the forest will be gone, long before we will be able to go to an other planet,

But I don’t believe in your theory,
“that we are destined to rule abuse the world till she is finished, and than go to the next planet” there is prove enough that we aren’t
The planet proves it every day.

--> http://archive.greenpeace.org/foresthouse/produktlijst.pdf

oak, is not such a big problem ;)


Apparently we'll next strip the moon of all its cheese.


Well, there are indeed plans, to exploit the moon for helium 3 isotopes which is used for core fusion.
If you know that the main substance of solar cells is actually sand (silisium) and that we just need to put one desert full of sollar pannels to supply the whole world from energy, than i seriously doubt about some peoples brains.
of course we cant make ourselves depent of one desert, but i just want to prove that we dont need to go to the moon to suplie our planet from energy there are enough alternatives to make clean energy.

We have to hit back at the aliens who stole our Argon.

yeah, and my neighbour is wolverine from X-men ;)

deviljet88
25-11-2004, 11:19 AM
Really? Ooo ask him when he sticks his claws out does it hurt. I want retractable knives in my hands.

Solar cell > *... amongst renewable energy sources. Until the sun gobbles us up and burns us to shrivels.

duckula
25-11-2004, 11:29 AM
Solar cells are difficult to make and therefore expensive. Its about using a combination of all the renewables. PS Tidal power = teh win.

deviljet88
25-11-2004, 11:34 AM
Tidal power is quite hard to harness. There's only around 20 sites so far found to be suitable for it. Also it works when the tides are in and out which is like 10-12 hours so you'll need other power stations to help supply the energy needed in the meantime. If companies really commit to solar cells, they will surely be able to mass produce them one day.

Flightfreak
25-11-2004, 12:38 PM
Solar cells are difficult to make and therefore expensive. Its about using a combination of all the renewables. PS Tidal power = teh win.

uni’s over the whole world are doing research and developing for better and cheaper ways to make “silicon” and solar panels.
I don’t think the cost of developing ways to make clean energy will cost as much than the problems we will need to salve if we go on using fossil fuels.


Tidal power is quite hard to harness. There's only around 20 sites so far found to be suitable for it. Also it works when the tides are in and out which is like 10-12 hours so you'll need other power stations to help supply the energy needed in the meantime. If companies really commit to solar cells, they will surely be able to mass produce them one day. .


We can’t use everywhere solar cells, or Tidal power, or wind mill’s…
Example, you cant use solar cells, in Norway, its 6months a year; dark over there, so you need to use other alternatives -> wind mill’s or tidal power,…

But we need to change more than just the way we make energy,
We need to use it on a more efficient way, example:
The Belgium state loses every year millions of euros because thy didn’t isolate state buildings,
That’s money they could spend on research for healthcare, developing new energy sources,…

Governments need to change there priorities, but they wont change as long as we don’t give a clear signal to the whole world, *hint* Greenpeace
The west should realise that third world NIC (new industrialised countries) countries as Japan, Taiwan,…, learn from the mistakes we made and still make, they are developing very fast and if we don’t change our way of living now, than they will grow over us,

What I try to explain here is that, if there are people who say “al that healthcare and care for the environment is bullshit”
Even than there are still reasons enough to change our way of living.

apoggy
25-11-2004, 02:13 PM
I think off-shore wind farms are the way to go, perhaps we could attach a turbine underwater to harness the prevailing tide as well. Every little helps.

Those people who complain that the windfarms destroy the landscapes visual stimuli should be safe in the knowledge that their thrice nightly cup of tea wont be harming the environment as directly as it was.

deviljet88
27-11-2004, 07:20 AM
Political parties sadly won't risk votes for those people though. I mean in Victoria there's the same bunch of annoying Gippslanders who say no turbine farms because it ruins the scenery. Problem is that region is held by an independent needed for power in the state government. Solar cells would cause much less problems than turbines. Plus there'll be the odd greenie that say the turbines disrupt bird patterns and whateverelse.

aspro
28-11-2004, 07:03 AM
We have wind power and hydroelectric stuff down here, I dont think we have any powerplants that arent ecofriendly*.

* Well it did flood a forest, and lots of birds run into the wind farms :)