Greenpeace

[dunder]

I may not agree completely with all of Greenpeace's tactics but they do carry a lot of weight in the world and have successfully stopped the exploitation of many species!!!! I think they played a bigger part then anyone in stopping the commercial exploitation of worlds whale populations!!! Unlike Peta and other tree hugger organizations they are more concerned with the commecial depletion of the worlds resources and the destruction of our world on a whole!!! There not out there harrassing the average fisher and hunter from enjoying there sport!! Unlike alquada greenpeace does not promote violence to get there message across, they will however use themselves as human shields to protect and protest the distruction of world species!!They do not condone ecoterrorism hence the name greenPEACE, at times

I will agree they may cross the fine line but I would never put Greenpeace in the category as a terrorist organization!!

just my 2 cents

Thank you for posting an intelligent, socially aware comment like the one above. It's a relief to see it after the other comments in the subject. I feel people are becoming more and more like puppets and parrots and think and say what the government and the corporations want them to do.(profits 1st... )These people don't realise the work they have done to improve this planet or stop it from getting worse and should be thanking them not slamming them

No one is perfect but to compare Greenpeace to terrorists...come on.

Your kid's ,kid's in the future won't appreciate these attitudes going around now as they cough and choke and burn in 135degree heat.

[Guest canadadude]

Thank you for posting an intelligent, socially aware comment like the one above. It's a relief to see it after the other comments in the subject. I feel people are becoming more and more like puppets and parrots and think and say what the government and the corporations want them to do.(profits 1st... )These people don't realise the work they have done to improve this planet or stop it from getting worse and should be thanking them not slamming them

No one is perfect but to compare Greenpeace to terrorists...come on.

Your kid's ,kid's in the future won't appreciate these attitudes going around now as they cough and choke and burn in 135degree heat.

Your Welcome my friend, I still think Greenpeace is an organisation this world needs in a BIG WAY!!!! ......It's a shame that organisations so comitted to the health of the planet get bad mouthed, intelligent populations won't ever learn untill death is at there doorstep........it really is a crying shame

[dunder]

Your Welcome my friend, I still think Greenpeace is an organisation this world needs in a BIG WAY!!!! ......It's a shame that organisations so comitted to the health of the planet get bad mouthed, intelligent populations won't ever learn untill death is at there doorstep........it really is a crying shame

[medlanch]

Terrorism is terrorism. Back in the 90's there was a group with affiliations to both PETA and Greanpeace that was responsible for bombing animal testing labs and a couple of Kfc's.

Disruption of livelihoods, economic terrorism also is harmful, just not as blatant. Ask any of the Byes from the Rock.

bigugli,

i just happened to be reading another post that had something to do with anthrax from last July and I came across a quote of yours;

"Sometimes extreme behaviour is the only path to take, because the other fella does not think he is doing anything wrong and nobody can tell him different!".

This sounds more like a person that would have a little more understanding of the good that has come out of some of Greenpeaces actions.

Go figure..

[bigugli]

bigugli,

i just happened to be reading another post that had something to do with anthrax from last July and I came across a quote of yours;

"Sometimes extreme behaviour is the only path to take, because the other fella does not think he is doing anything wrong and nobody can tell him different!".

This sounds more like a person that would have a little more understanding of the good that has come out of some of Greenpeaces actions.

Go figure..

I understand only too well the rationale that extremists use to justify their actions. It still does not make the act any less reprehensible or unlawful. 'The ends justifies the means' argument has never been an acceptable defence of a lawless act.

Sometimes I wish our govt could just round up all the mobsters and Bernardo types and kill them without waiting for due process. It would solve problems quite easily, and to the benefit of the many. To do so violates the most fundamental principles of our society and is, therefore, wrong.

Extreme action can take the form of protest, demonstration and boycott. If extreme action includes harm then the label of criminal is deserved.

If you are gonna quote me, at least keep it in context next time. The National Enquirer method just does not wash.

[medlanch]

I understand only too well the rationale that extremists use to justify their actions. It still does not make the act any less reprehensible or unlawful. 'The ends justifies the means' argument has never been an acceptable defence of a lawless act.

Sometimes I wish our govt could just round up all the mobsters and Bernardo types and kill them without waiting for due process. It would solve problems quite easily, and to the benefit of the many. To do so violates the most fundamental principles of our society and is, therefore, wrong.

Extreme action can take the form of protest, demonstration and boycott. If extreme action includes harm then the label of criminal is deserved.

If you are gonna quote me, at least keep it in context next time. The National Enquirer method just does not wash.

I don't think any member of greenpeace would mind the moniker of criminal, if it meant shedding some light on the larger issue.

Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is right. If one of the fundamental principals of our society was to respect the planet as opposed to exploit it, than there would be no such organization as greenpeace. For that matter there most likely wouldn't be an Al Quada either.

[Guest canadadude]

I don't think any member of greenpeace would mind the moniker of criminal, if it meant shedding some light on the larger issue.

Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is right. If one of the fundamental principals of our society was to respect the planet as opposed to exploit it, than there would be no such organization as greenpeace. For that matter there most likely wouldn't be an Al Quada either.

I agree with you medlanch well said ........greenpeace may go off the wall, but there here to protect our planet and life in general what I find crimminal is the odasity some people have to degrade this organisation !!!! These dudes are putting there lives on the line for our planet, they do not seek finacial gane or anything close there here to preserve a planet for your children so what is it you dudes don't get

[bigugli]

I agree with you medlanch well said ........greenpeace may go off the wall, but there here to protect our planet and life in general what I find crimminal is the odasity some people have to degrade this organisation !!!! These dudes are putting there lives on the line for our planet, they do not seek finacial gane or anything close there here to preserve a planet for your children so what is it you dudes don't get

In order to truly give this planet a fighting chance it might be necessary to stop mass industry and wipe out half of the world's population. Forget about hugging cute little seals and running around the globe in a pimped out tug.

The Reverend Malthus may have been right after all.

[knightfisher]

Greenpeace and organizations like it are needed in this world.

Take a look at what’s happening around the world, people.

The powers that be, insure that Greenpeace is infiltrated from time to time

to give it the aspect of extremists.

Most people that belong to this organization do so because they want the world to see how a few corporations mindlessly destroy various life on this planet to get their product whether it be tuna, wood, oil, whatever.

If enough of the brain dead consumer sheeple actually took a look at what’s happening to them,

their cities and countries and the planet, they might get involved.

But the powers that be, succeeded over the years to slowly and insidiously turn most people into

selfish, uncaring mindless sheeple. Convincing them, they have to buy and have all the latest toys, and material things, and that important things like family and children are unimportant. So much so

that children are now raised by strangers. Put into day care. Starting school at ages 3-4.

Then the sheeple complain that kids are unruly, so they are put on Ritalin and various other drugs, and the parents can’t handle the kids so they take anti-depressants. Sixty percent of the ‘’free world ???’‘ are on or have taken anti-depressants. This huge majority of people can’t face what life has

become, so they escape reality by legally getting drugged.

It’s a disgusting shame that most people can’t step back out of the box and take a good look how

they are being lied to, mislead, and totally controlled.

Welcome to George Orwell’s 1984.

Read the book and take a look what’s really happening on this planet, if you dare.

Evil is a hard thing to confront.

There is more than enough technology on this planet to feed every single person and supply them

with fresh drinking water. But the powers that be wouldn’t make money salvaging the planet and

it’s inhabitants.

So when an organization like Greenpeace comes along, it should at the least be observed and

studied to see what principles it’s trying to convey to the rest of the world, instead of mindlessly

being attacked.

At least Greenpeace and most of it’s members have the ‘’balls’‘ to try to do something to make

aware what’s really going on, on this planet, that is ruled by a select few.

--True awareness is definitely only enjoyed by a few--

[Queen Froda]



So when an organization like Greenpeace comes along, it should at the least be observed and

studied to see what principles it’s trying to convey to the rest of the world, instead of mindlessly

being attacked.

At least Greenpeace and most of it’s members have the ‘’balls’‘ to try to do something to make

aware what’s really going on, on this planet, that is ruled by a select few.

From someone who looks beyond the pictures of cute seal pups and is VERY skeptical about Greenpeace and their motives:

Greenpeace is the largest environmental organization in the world, with an international membership of over 5 million and offices in over 20 countries. Forbes magazine once described it as “a skillfully managed business” with full command of “the tools of direct mail and image manipulation -- and tactics that would bring instant condemnation if practiced by a for-profit corporation.” But Greenpeace has escaped public censure by hiding behind the mask of its “non-profit” status and its U.S. tax exemption.

The “green” in Greenpeace, it turns out, stands more for money than for the environment. When its anti-biotech scaremongering drove consumers in Brazil away from genetically improved foods, Greenpeace swooped in with its own line of organic foods to fill the demand that its activists created. Greenpeace’s more recent reckless activism is a broader attempt to create the same sort of consumer shift here in the United States.

And why not? Greenpeace itself (as is the case with a variety of anti-biotech activist groups) is heavily invested in the organic foods industry. The International Foundation for the Conservation of Natural Resources noted in a November 2001 report that Lord Peter Melchett, the former leader of Greenpeace’s UK office “is one of the largest organic farmers in Europe.” So when Greenpeace campaigners send hundreds of threatening letters and e-mails, make phone calls by the thousands, and stage intimidating live protest “actions” against their corporate targets, their own bottom line (and that of their financial supporters) stands to benefit.

Google "anti Greenpeace" and other terms like I did. There's a lot to read on both sides of the coin. Look at both sides of the story before deciding who really has the best interests of mother earth as a priority.

[dunder]

In order to truly give this planet a fighting chance it might be necessary to stop mass industry and wipe out half of the world's population. Forget about hugging cute little seals and running around the globe in a pimped out tug.

The Reverend Malthus may have been right after all.

Hello

I agree to change things may need radical ways of change. That's why Greenpeace was created. They use intelligent, carefully planned and enviromentally aware tactics to achieve it. Don't you think for just a second that accountable and resposible industry is a better solution than "stopping mass industry" and to "wipe out half of the world's population" was what Hitler and the SS set out to achieve?

I think you would be crying 'foul' if you got "wiped out" in your solution to the worlds environmental issues?

Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water now!

Cheerz...Hairwig

[bigugli]

Hello

I agree to change things may need radical ways of change. That's why Greenpeace was created. They use intelligent, carefully planned and enviromentally aware tactics to achieve it. Don't you think for just a second that accountable and resposible industry is a better solution than "stopping mass industry" and to "wipe out half of the world's population" was what Hitler and the SS set out to achieve?

I think you would be crying 'foul' if you got "wiped out" in your solution to the worlds environmental issues?

Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water now!

Cheerz...Hairwig

I don't have to pick who lives or dies, nature will do it for us. Basic rule of ecological balance. When a species exceeds the limitations of the food chain, nature balances things out ruthlessly. We have used science and industry to dodge that bullet for decades now. There is no more water and air today, than when the planet was formed. They are a finite resource. We cannot create oxygen. We can only produce more H2O by further depleting an already limited supply of available oxygen to breathe. Mankind has violated the balance of nature for over 100 years.

As for idealistic industry, No one in the 2nd or 3rd world wants to hear it. They want the same affluence and wealth as the developed world, and they aren't interested in what the "white" world has to say. Just look at the blanket of smog covering southern China. The rainforests are clear cut out of greed, to supply the 1st world with luxury goods.

Idealism is nice, but I prefer workable solutions.

[Guest canadadude]

Greenpeace is OK .......Canadude says so all should follow ......now stop bickering

[nittro]

This thread has cetainly a long life.

That Greenpeace are vested in organics seems that they practice what they preach, and generate funds for their organization. I don't see a negative here.

I haven't bought into everything they've done, but they are trying to promote change by action and are not tied to debate the issues on line. Maybe we should put some effort into action as an alternative. (Just stoking the coals)

[Queen Froda]

This quote by long-time British chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson , IMHO, sums up for me, Greenpeace, Al Gore, David Suzuki and all of the environmental groups today.......substitute Greenpeace, Al Gore, David Suzuki or any other group you like for "the current global warming orthodoxy."

The more one examines the current global warming orthodoxy, the more it resembles a Da Vinci code of environmentalism. It is a great story and a phenomenal bestseller. It contains a grain of truth and a mountain of nonsense. And that nonsense could be very damaging indeed.

We appear to have entered a new age of unreason, which threatens to be as economically harmful as it is profoundly disquieting.

Stoking the coals that Greenpeace protested against...the original topic of this thread.

[nittro]

With a vested interest in financial performance I'm skeptical as to Nigel's position. With focus on the dollar and not longterm quality of life for all, he can be a pretender to the cause and yet ahere to his agenda.

Good dialogue none-the-less.

Gee. No one commented on the pun "stoking the coals".

[bigugli]

With a vested interest in financial performance I'm skeptical as to Nigel's position. With focus on the dollar and not longterm quality of life for all, he can be a pretender to the cause and yet ahere to his agenda.

Good dialogue none-the-less.

Gee. No one commented on the pun "stoking the coals".

The only coals I'm stoking are the red hot coals heating the house at the moment.

[Queen Froda]

With a vested interest in financial performance I'm skeptical as to Nigel's position. With focus on the dollar and not longterm quality of life for all, he can be a pretender to the cause and yet ahere to his agenda.

Good dialogue none-the-less.

Mr. Lawson served under British PM Margaret Thatcher in the 70's & 80's. Maybe his agenda is to help people see another side to this debate.

Speaking of other sides, just got this in an email - remember the sad picture of the polar bear stuck on the ice floe? Seems there's more to it that what environmental groups would have you believe.

It turns out -- as NewBuster Jake Gontesky reported on March 20 -- the picture was taken in August, “when every year the fringes of the Arctic ice cap melt regardless of the wider effects of global warming.”

The photographer, Australian marine biology student Amanda Byrd, didn’t think the bears were in any jeopardy:

They did not appear to be in danger…I did not see the bears get on the ice, and I did not see them get off. I cannot say either way if they were stranded or not.

Denis Simard of Environment Canada agreed:

You have to keep in mind that the bears are not in danger at all. This is a perfect picture for climate change…you have the im pression they are in the middle of the ocean and they are going to die...But they were not that far from the coast, and it was possible for them to swim...They are still alive and having fun.

How delicious. Think this kind of broadcast would ever happen in America?

Those stranded polar bears on the shrinking Arctic ice - victims of global warming - certainly tugged at the heart-strings.

That photo was published not only in the Sunday Telegraph.

It made it onto the front page of the New York Times.

And the International Herald Tribune.

It also ran in London's Daily Mail, The Times of London and Canada's Ottawa Citizen - and that's just to name a few.

All used it as evidence of global warming and the imminent demise of the polar bear..

But the photo wasn't current. It was two and a half years old.

And it wasn't snapped by Canadian environmentalists.

It was taken by an Australian marine biology student on a field trip.

And in what month did she take it?

“The time of year was August, summer.”

Watch the report.

Gee. No one commented on the pun "stoking the coals".

I commented at the bottom of my post.

[Guest Rockfish]

Another issue is "global warming", although someone might like what Greenpeace does they may not believe in "global warming". One might think that all the pollution and burning of fossil fuels is doing something to the environment but the argument continues and I chose to not make an opinion.

[Guest canadadude]

You can beleive in what you want like most when it comes to the enviroment and our world,,,,, I really feel sad for humanity because untill it's to late people just won't get it......keep on dumping crap in the enviroment untill we kill off our planet there will still be skeptics.......it really is a sad world we live in .....it's not sticks and stones!!!!!!!!! it's reality!!!!!

[Bucker]

Last year the Globe & Mail had a front page story on a small inuit community in the arctic. The picture was beatuiful, it looked like a perfect spring day in southern Ontario would, the sun refelcting off the arctic ocean, everyone in the picture were dressed in light clothes. The ground was wet ground from the snow melting.

At the time of the publication, that place above the arctic circle should have been coverd in snow and -30 degrees. They had lost 4 weeks of hunting because the Ice moved out that early.

A person full of education can come up with all kinds of scientfic reasons as to why they dont think the polar bears are in danger. They have to ask the people that depend on the Ice to hunt and feed their family's because the food that's flown in is too expensive for some to afford.

If you dont believe it's happening, I'd love to have coffee with you. We can sit down, and I'll burry you with facts, and you'll soon realize you *were* a part of the problem, and if you have any true love for the outdoors and the environment, you'll change.

Mm k?

[Queen Froda]

A person full of education can come up with all kinds of scientfic reasons as to why they dont think the polar bears are in danger. They have to ask the people that depend on the Ice to hunt and feed their family's because the food that's flown in is too expensive for some to afford.

If you dont believe it's happening, I'd love to have coffee with you. We can sit down, and I'll burry you with facts, and you'll soon realize you *were* a part of the problem, and if you have any true love for the outdoors and the environment, you'll change.

Mm k?

No, I won't change and I'm certainly not part of the problem. I happen to have have a differing opinion and I very much doubt I will "change" or love the outdoors and the "environment", whatever that is, after being "burry-ed" with facts.

I've looked at both sides of the coin - in fact, once upon a time, I only saw one side of the story until a friend send me a copy of "The Great Global Warming Swindle". After that, I began to look at things differently and do a lot of research and because of that, I think I'll opt for the opinion I formed, based on seeing both sides of the coin, not one based solely on fear that the world will end if we don't do something about the "environment."

[knightfisher]

No, I won't change and I'm certainly not part of the problem. I happen to have have a differing opinion and I very much doubt I will "change" or love the outdoors and the "environment", whatever that is, after being "burry-ed" with facts.

I've looked at both sides of the coin - in fact, once upon a time, I only saw one side of the story until a friend send me a copy of "The Great Global Warming Swindle". After that, I began to look at things differently and do a lot of research and because of that, I think I'll opt for the opinion I formed, based on seeing both sides of the coin, not one based solely on fear that the world will end if we don't do something about the "environment."

After reading much on global warming, pro and con, I don't believe we are impacting it much. We are sure

contributing to the situation, but not enough for all these ridiculous laws coming out. Corporations whether it

be coal fired mills, or hydro producing or jet planes taking off every minute of the day put more junk into the

atmosphere than entire populations of cities. Yet it is the average joe that has to cut back emissions and pay

for e-test and other laws that are in the works.

Wasn't it only 15 years ago scientists were warning us of the coming ice age.

We are in a controlled society, face it or not. The powers that be, their bottonm line is money

and power, and total control of us. What better way to coral us, then to present gloom and doom.

I know a few people have a button on me using the term ''sheeple'', but it appears so many

people don't think outside the box. They just accept what's presented to them.

As Queeny said, she looked at both sides and we all have to do that.

We are being mislead, and that's that.

I still think organizations like Greenpeace are needed. I am not saying they are without sin.

But we need organizations like them to bring to the attenion of the public when forest and lands

are being clear cut, and fish and such are being killed by the thousands for a few tuna or whatever.

It is hoped that with organizations like this out there, people would actually stand up and do something

about it. However it doesn't appear enough people care.

And when enough of our freedoms are usurped, it will be to late anyways.

Think out side of the box people. Look at both sides of the situation.

My ten cents worth.