I am actually doing just fine simply completely ignoring her hysteria. First time I listened to her is this video.
What is her impact in China? Russia? India? Brazil? Indonesia? On people who make decisions?
Perhaps in the USofA hysteria can have an impact on future elections (I am actually doing just fine simply completely ignoring the current administration) but will global ecology really be a big (or medium..) election theme in the USofA in the near future, like 20 years?

Im washing out those plastic bottles and sorting trash and keep my car serviced properly and fly rarely. But if this type of hysteria is randomly aimed against nuclear power, attempts to talk to women in the workplace, and eating meat regularly on other days, could we please not go that way... too late.

What can be done to move the 6 countries mentioned at least slightly in the direction of Europe on pollution? To stop China building coal power stations all over Africa? Brasil and Indonesia deforesting? What has (or can) Grrreta really do to help there? This is like trying to shame Saddam Hussein to give up those WOMD he hid so well. How dare you Saddam? Bad boy!

Also how dare three quarters of us not just lie down and die without children to save the planet? Or are we evil and not mature enough to forego making money to buy food for our families? Which in most places on the Earth means polluting like hell. Vicious cycle. Maybe people should be more modest, maybe rich white kids should not be the ones saying that.

Grreta so reminds me of west european academic communism in the 60s. CND in the 70s. Greenpeace. And so on. Should find out more about people, now that she has read all those encyclopediae. Everyone has to eat and f*@k or we die out in one generation.

Well if Ryan is a member of Greenpeace or something she might be onto something....
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/aug/10/are-loom-bands-next-environmental-disaster

SZ, NDR and WDR got access to 240 pages of TTIP material, provided by Greenpeace. They started publishing articles on it two hours ago, big stories are announced for tomorrow. However, the few articles I've skimmed through don't seem to offer anything beyond what had already been known.

Not much of a scoop so far, maybe tomorrow will be more enlightening...

Fun fact: the Dr. in question, now representing Monsanto, was a prominent member of Greenpeace and still referred to as an "environmentalist".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_%28environmentalist%29

People in the other thread were making notes about how we got to this place without having the eggs to begin with.

I figured it might be Jupiter or Saturn, but then I thought about it. They don't say the eggs are the ONLY source of the exotic matter, just that they are apparently an easier-to-harvest, plentiful source of the exotic matter. Humanity could have gotten out there with a truly massively expensive source, only to find the Space Whales(tm) and hey, it's only been 100 years, it's doubtful Greenpeace has made much headway on Beta Gamma Epsilon Major OU812...

Lego is just another corporation making money. Why is a relationship with Shell any different than their other corporate relationships? (The Simpsons, Ghostbusters, Star Wars, The Hobbit, DC Comics, Disney, Marvel, Indiana Jones etc). Because it's good publicity... people don't like "dirty" energy. Shell may be a bunch of assholes, but if you're going to slam the industry Greenpeace, make sure you don't drive a car to work, and you might want to reassess how far you look down your nose at companies like Shell when you send a pollution spewing, fuel sucking Sea Shepherd out to make a TV show, surrounded all day long by polymer materials made mostly from the gas and oil that make your life easier and less costly. Hypocritical bunch of bullying asshats that will fuck anyone over for some publicity.

This is not Lego taking a shot at shell as your comment may be insinuating or maybe i'm reading to much into your comment and you're just pointing out a fact. If that's the case just ignore me This is from Greenpeace and is more of a plea for Lego to disassociate itself from Shell. Lego has teamed with Shell to put out Lego/shell sets at Shell stations. Seems they are more allied then anything. Then again maybe you all already knew that.

http://greenpeaceblogs.org/2014/07/01/time-lego-block-shell/

http://greenpeaceblogs.org/2014/07/07/lego-responds-greenpeaces-campaign-drop-shell/

So, I take it that you didn't click the link in my comment. If you had, you'd have seen the graph that shows an increase in the ice caps from May to October. (Psst: That's not wintertime, last I checked.)

Quoting: "“This modeled Antarctic sea ice decrease in the last three decades is at odds with observations, which show a small yet statistically significant increase in sea ice extent,” says the study, led by Colorado State University atmospheric scientist Elizabeth Barnes."

It measured an overall increase in the size of the icecaps over the last three decades. So while there may have been a decrease in the computer models, the ice caps have actually increased in size in reality.

Quoting again: "Sea ice in the Arctic Ocean underwent a sharp recovery this year from the record-low levels of 2012, with 50 percent more ice surviving the summer melt season, scientists said Friday. It is the largest one-year increase in Arctic ice since satellite tracking began in 1978."

I personally don't know if it is increasing or decreasing. But, suffice it to say, the science suggests that this is certainly not "obvious BS" as you seem to think it is...

But regardless, I needn't have to say it again: The folks at Bilderberg (or anywhere else) will do nothing to "stop" "climate change" one way or another. (And neither will you... And neither will the politicians.) For some, this "debate" is just a convenient way to justify the state's control over its citizens. Mr. Samsom was an employee of Greenpeace. Later, the CEO of a "green energy" company. Given his background and corporate connections, it is in his best interests (both politically and financially) to align himself within the "OMG! Climate Changed the weather!" camp. He probably ran for office on that platform, highlighting his "environmentalist" credentials. But he's a politician. Only politicians and videosifters seem to know what's "really going on." If there is any climate consensus at all, it is that most climate scientists have no opinion about it.

In fact, no more than 4% have come out with an opinion about what causes "global warming" or whether it is a "problem or not." And even this 4% has not been calling skepticism "BS" with the certainty that the online "pundits/scientists" like you seem to muster.

But I realize that this isn't really about "climate change." It's not even about Bilderberg. It's about "validation". Nothing more, nothing less. And so, for that, I wish you the best of luck in your attempts to "correct" those politicians (and/or "educating" those who "believe" or "pretend to believe" whatever you disagree with). Such is the condition of living in a "democracy" so you're going to need all the luck you can get!

Everything you've written is wrong.
What happened to the last ice age
The effect of the sun

And you're damn right consensus is not science. So when you and your idiot denier mates all gang together to see who can shout the loudest, it doesn't make a goddamn gram of difference to the science.

Meanwhile, science is peer review. Note that word "peer". That means that the science is reviewed by other experts in the field. Not by you, me, fox news, greenpeace or the koch brothers. And the people who understand the science? They all agree with it.

I think that you will find enriched uranium is not plutonium. Also, depleted uranium can't be used to make nuclear weapons explode, so I don't know exactly why you bring it up. To be clear, all nuclear nations main weapons plutonium has been made in a very specific way, a way that is inconstant with power generation. It is exactly because power generation reactor are so costly that they are relatively poor weapons materials creators, the method in which uranium needs to be removed from the neutron flux requires you to shut it down often. It is better to get a small, non-power generation reactor and crank out the plutonium. This is what India did with a small test heavy water reactor (CIRUS reactor). You need a reactor you can quickly turn on and off (and uranium extracted), then chemically reprocess the uranium, let it cool down, then put it back into the reactor. This laborious method is why power generation reactors are poor candidates for weapons material generation and why the current generation of weapons have not been made this way.

IAEA safeguards are important to make sure enrichment centers aren't diverting enriched uranium, sure. Plutonium should also have some safeguards as well, so don't take my words for a lack of concern or action on a world stage, I just believe for most, their concerns are blown way out of proportion to the actual risk.

But to reiterate, the relatively complex process to make weapons ready plutonium is why powered reactors aren't used in for weapons material for any of the worlds nuclear weapons nations, nor have any of the non-nuclear nations which have nuclear power and participate in NPT and IAEA systems been implicated in such actions. If Amory Lovins is the one forming your opinion on this, I would suggest a different source. It is like asking the CATO institute their opinion on climate change. I would consult the IAEA or some respectable international organization known for objective science rather than an anti-nuclear advocate. I, actually, fell for the same supposed expert (Amory Lovins) and was fairly anti-nuclear myself as a result. While there surely is some overlap between weapons technology and reactors, they are separate enough that safeguards can be highly effective. The existence of many nuclear powered states without nuclear weapons gives credence to their abilities. Only those countries who decide not to participate in NPT and IAEA systems have been the players known to developing weapons, most notably North Korea.

IAEA Safeguards: Stemming the Spread of Nuclear Weapons

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Factsheets/English/S1_Safeguards.pdf

I think he is pessimistic is because energy use is also in growth, usually from coal. When you similarly look at CO2 emissions over the past decade, they aren't going down...every year is a new record. Even in IEA's 450 Scenario, "oil, coal and natural gas — remain the dominant energy sources in 2035"...this is a problem.

I can't find a notable environmental group that endorsees nuclear at all. Like the public, most environmental NGOs don't really make a distinction in reactor types. Nuclear is nuclear is nuclear. From friends of the earth to greenpeace, they are all pretty proudly anti-nuclear, with only local chapters of FoE even remotely interested in revisiting their views.

At any rate, I hope you aren't finding me to be combative or argumentative, I am not the best communicator of controversial issues. But I think climate issues are forcing us into a pretty thick walled box which will be hard to breakout of even in the most optimistic technological factors, which is why even if every single concern people have about nuclear is completely justified, waste, weapons, ect, we would most likely still need to build lots and lots of nuclear to even hope to address climate issues...they are that challenging.

Greenpeace has its own problems.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Shell, seattle, arctic, greenpeace, viral, oil, spill' to 'Shell, seattle, arctic, greenpeace, viral, oil, spill, The Yes Men' - edited by Trancecoach

I'm still searching the Japanese news sites for the truth about what went down at this meeting, but according to some people on the Japanese YouTube version of this video, this may have been a setup. The reason for all the cameras and shouting was supposedly because the majority of the audience in attendance that day were members of "Green Action" and "Greenpeace" who weren't even residents of the affected area. They basically came to further their own anti-nuclear agenda and brought the urine with them knowing that it wasn't these guys jobs to test it. Again, I'm not sure of the truth of all that. If I find out more I'll post again.

EDIT: Did a bit more research and found children from the Fukushima area have had their urine tested back in June, but only trace amounts of Cesium were found--not at any levels that would affect health (0.41~1.13 becquerels per liter of urine).

EDIT2: Yeah, it was a total setup. The whole meeting was organized by an NGO called Friends of Earth Japan (FoE), who have a strong anti-nuclear agenda (the page I linked to is their public announcement of the meeting, including handouts that detailed their strategy for the meeting). They called out to other groups like No Nukes More Hearts who share similar goals. On the No Nukes More Hearts web page that I linked to they encourage all members of the group, whether they are residents or not, to attend the meeting. Other groups that seem to be involved were the Fukushima Protect Children from Radiation Association, Fukushima Fukuro Club (similar to Greenpeace) and Greenpeace Japan, further stacking the audience.

These groups apparently invited government representatives for "negotiations" about the rights of people living in the stricken areas. Realizing the groups were there to grandstand and not actually discuss anything, the government officials eventually withdrew from the meeting--after nearly 2.5 hours of patiently trying to answer questions! The NGO groups quickly edited down and translated the original video of the meeting to further their own purposes, deleting the two hours of the video in which the government members listen to speeches given by various group leaders and try to answer questions from the audience.

You can see the original unedited video of the meeting here. It looks like the attending government officials were only given copies of the questions they would be asked moments before the meeting started (although in fairness if they had gone to the websites I linked to above they would have known what they were walking in to). Before the meeting even begins, the Fukushima Protect Children from Radiation Association drops a petition demanding all children be evacuated from Fukushima. Throughout the meeting, as the government officials try to patiently answer questions from the audience they are routinely interrupted by others who stand up and give speeches (there's a lot of talk about "protecting the children" which always gets a lot of applause).

So yeah, these guys got ambushed. It was basically a successful troll for these NGO groups.

EDIT 3: In the link to the original (uncut) meeting video, you can go to 1:02:00 to see where this clip starts. Notice this clip has been heavily edited and the government officials actually stuck around for ANOTHER HOUR to answer questions before being accosted by the urine-wielding brigade.

Volkswagon opposes the requirement to install further CO2 reducing equipment on top of what is already required because it reduces gas mileage ergo putting more CO2 into the environment. They would much rather research alt fuel.

See you think you are rooting for Greenpeace but it turns out you're helping oil companies. Way to go!

Maybe if you put quote marks around the title? To show that this one little press release is being used as emotional propaganda against scads of hard data collected?

And now it turns out the Arctic ice is melting faster than even the scientists predicted. Greenpeace might, horrifyingly, turn out to be correct.



>> ^acidSpine:

Where would we be without our mother?
People need to aknowledge and respect the earth as the genesis and giver of life rather than some undeserving fictional bastard.
Big downvote to januari for their gleefully anti-greenpeace title