Greenland contains enough melt water to eventually raise sea level by about 23 feet

[Flightfreak]

Originally Posted by deviljet88

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]

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]

Originally Posted by deviljet88

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!

Originally Posted by deviljet88

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]

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]

Originally Posted by deviljet88

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.

Originally Posted by deviljet88

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]

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]

Originally Posted by deviljet88

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.

Originally Posted by deviljet88

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]

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]

Originally Posted by deviljet88

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,



www.greenpeace.com

Originally Posted by deviljet88

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]

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]

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

[Flightfreak]

Originally Posted by deviljet88

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.

Originally Posted by deviljet88

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.

Originally Posted by PAROX

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by AureaMediocritas

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"

Originally Posted by AureaMediocritas

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

Originally Posted by AureaMediocritas

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

Originally Posted by Bellum_851

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]

*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]

Originally Posted by flightfreak

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]

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