So the assholes are ones who want to do something to save whales? Right!!!!! These guys aren't from Greenpeace, anyway. It's a different organisation: Sea Shephard Conservation Society. IMHO if you get your opinions via Penn and Teller you've bought into the biggest slice of ignorance this side of the boondocks.

Schtinkbommen, eh?
Oh the Cetaceanity!!
Fight if you will, the shit will go on until there are no greenbacks to be made or all whales are dead or seriously compromised....no amount of hippies in boats will stop it-
An end to a cash-based economy will slow it substantially ....other wise, activists are ego-tripping ineffectuals, who glory in their minor victories over Starbucks and imported foods, and swallow a bitter little pill that eats at them like cancer their entire incarnation....the little bit of good karma they accumulate by saving a whale, amounts to dick compared to the suffering they cause by pissing everyone around that does not think obsessively according to their reality tunnel, OFF!

Morons throw acid, then present a letter....fucking Greenpeace, die a thousand deaths!!!!

How bout start with a symbolic blow to the machine. Kill yer television, and stop looking at Walmarts, much less shopping at them. Use their death as a pulpit to launch economic attacks at other death-dealing corporations, work your way up from Walton's crew, to Archer Daniels Midland, and take a fucking farm back for Christmas.....next, embrace your mortality, and go for the jugular, the medical industrial complex, the insurance industrial complex, etc.......driving a hybrid car is fine and all, but you have to at the same time, suffer the masters of oil, no more.....why I say, we will never see free energy, until those that keep it locked away, are annihilated.

So Greenpeace??? Next time you plan an ineffectual protest, destroy a supertanker instead of bouncing off it in a raft......and do it in dry dock, ya goddamn hippies, so you won't have to bath seagulls all summer...

I could do without the "if this were Nazi Germany" comments but in principle they are right and have good cause for complaint. People don't understand the anger, we've got to control that best we can and talk to them in terms they'll understand. We've got so much to work with, they've surveilled groups ranging from the Amish to Greenpeace to church groups for daring to exercise freedom of speech and have at times been caught posing as protesters while trying to provoke illegal actions to give the cops something to respond to.

All we have to do is put the facts in front of people in a way that doesn't offer them the excuse to look away, the anger and the choice of language such as Nazi I'm afraid often does offer them that excuse.

can't we petition that it be allowed on our roads? i mean jeeze, greenpeace and PETA people get their way all the damn time by being annoying, i'm sure either of them would love to get a hold of this...

The government does stuff that can be considered unethical. I mean, I was part of the Navy, and we were given orders to throw garbage over the side of the ship. Now, it's okay to jettison garbage after 50 miles from the coast, but we'd certainly do it closer in. Also, you're not supposed to throw the plastic garbage bags, but we'd do it anyway. What's worse, we were given orders to throw five gallon buckets of paint over the side of the ship and told to keep an eye out for Greenpeace.

What does that have to do with 911? Nothing. I just wanted everyone to know about my experiences with gross governmental negligence. So, yeah... anyway...

I think people tend to consider the government to be this well oiled machine. It's a morass. It's a bureaucracy. To think the government could pull off a multi-faceted operation on our own soil with operatives who were cameramen and reporters is ludicrous. Though, there's good reason to believe there are other reasons for the explanations given for 911. And, when you hear the personal accounts of people in the building speaking about the security lapse days before the attacks, maybe you'll consider this whole attack thing in a different light. It's important to consider them instead of ignoring them.

^hehe. Global Warming bashing is Choggies version of Qruels religion bashing :-) voices in the wilderness the two of us ;-)

why does the nebulous "they" need to put so much bullshit and spin out there that it "isn't real" ?

http://science.videosift.com/talk/Congress-Releases-Report-on-White-House-Science-Manipulation

http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20071210101633.pdf

http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/exxonsecrets/2007/12/11/dana_perino_takes_it_personally_when_peo

since when is polluting less ever a bad thing ?

The thing that pisses me off about Greenpeace (and all these other self-styled protectors of the planet/animals) is that they love issuing blanket proclmations that are nothing more than headline grabbers. These proclamations are typically backed by poor, or non-existent, research. In this case, Ars-Technica has an article dinging GP's position.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071127-greenpeaces-green-electronics-guide-undermined-by-minimal-research-effort.html

So Mario gets a big fat zero, just because GP's research is based around two paragraphs on Nintendo's website? Was there even dialog initiated with the company in the first place?

Greenpeace seems like it is run by 14 year olds. They seem very seem unprofessional and inflammatory. How is a video like this productive? You've offended and patronized these three companies in a video that could only appeal to the 5th to 7th grade demographic. They've offered no concrete alternatives. Why can't they just act like grownups, state their argument clearly and in a way that won't offend anyone.

Let's say I was really concerned with the chemicals in game consoles. I would explain the dangers of these chemicals (with references to solid, peer-reviewed research), I would back up claims that there's no way to safely dispose of or recycle these consoles, I would suggest alternative approaches and discuss the economics of alternatives, and I would point to ways that people can help by supporting research in more eco-friendly fabrication methods.

But no, Greenpeace wants to act like a petulant child.

PLEASE view this link
http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/exxonsecrets/2007/12/11/dana_perino_takes_it_personally_when_peo

it will supply the hyperlinks that are in the article below

White House Climate Science Censorship - Why Perino Takes It Personally
Posted by kert_davies on 12/11/2007 4:33 pm

Hmmm...wonder why Dana Perino reacted with such passion to a question yesterday about Rep. Waxman's (proposed) report on climate science censorship by the Bush White House?

Aside from her laughable and classic Bush-like response - dismissing the report then admitting that she hadn't even read it but had "seen reports about the report".... a flub up reported nicely here on DeSmogBlog.

Add this to Perino's mishandling of White House censorship of Center for Disease Control Director's Senate testimony in late October, covered well by ThinkProgress and RollingStone.

Here at ExxonSecrets, we know a little more about Ms. Perino from our 10+ years of research on global warming backlash. Her anti-environmental roots run deep.

Kyoto Bashing in 1997
First off, in our archives we have a press release she penned during her days on Capitol Hill in the late 1990s, when she was press officer for Representative Schaefer (R-CO). Her boss was admonishing the Clinton Administration in June 1997 to slow down the push toward Kyoto agreement in December 1997, saying there still were too many unanswered questions about the impact on the US economy and other common refrains of the day pushed by the Global Climate Coalition.

On the CEQ Denial Team
Perino came back to DC to work as Director of Public Affairs for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, where she was, in fact, running cover for climate criminals Jim Connaughton and Phil Cooney, the two main culprits in the Waxman report.

At CEQ, Perino was part of the global warming policy gatekeeper team, doing damage control and coordinating with other agencies on climate policy and communications. There are many memos to and from Perino to Cooney including this one in the midst of Cooney's EPA report editing meltdown. Here she forwards Phil a comforting article by Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center, another Exxon funded front group. Cooney responds hopefully, "do you know where this ran?"

Perino Hangs Out with Exxon's Main Front Group

Like Cooney, Perino also cozied up to Exxon's Denial Machine. Here is an email from Perino to the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Angela Logomasini asking for a lunch meeting and saying she had been reading the CEI's report The Environmental Source. The global warming chapter of this anti-enviro tome, penned by Myron Ebell, looks like it became a key page in the CEQ playbook. CEI at the time was the leading recipient of Exxon denial cash, but was dumped by the Exxon Foundation in 2006.

Here's another note from Perino to Cooney and Connaughton referencing a Myron Ebell piece in the Washington Times about a prank invitation to a CEQ reception for Lee Raymond.

Redacted Information
Most of these documents were delivered to Greenpeace after multiple Freedom of Information Act requests (see previous blog) and can now be found on the White House web page and our web site.

However, many of the documents we got back from our FOIA request looked like this one, from Cooney to the entire staff including Perino - mostly redacted text, leading Waxman's team to look for what was under the black marker lines... Read their report for all the details of the investigation

What Else Has Perino Seen Behind White House Doors?
One can only guess what else Dana Perino knows about the global warming Denial Machine within the White House. She has certainly had a front row seat. Maybe the press will ask her more questions about her experiences. Eventually they will all be held accountable...stay tuned.

Yeah Greenpeace and other anti-GMO organizations are just fearmongering. They don't seem to get that almost *all* of our food is "genetically engineered"in one way or another. It used to be known as selective breeding and cross-polination!

However, there's no inherent conflict between organic food and also engineering and improving our food, and organic practices don't inherently have lower output than non-organic as well. In fact, over the long term, sustainable practices like organic farming produce more output, while nonorganic practices require increasing fertilizer inputs.

We need to combine improved species (could be GMO, could be simple selecting breeding) *and* sustainable agriculture practices (including so-called "organic" farming).

Greenpeace has lost their way over the years.

heh heh, part of the program for opening your mind and letting your brains spill out on the floor, is defensive posturing and frustrated anger, as well as a bill for the therapist, and membership in organizations like WWF, Greenpeace, and subscription to the Utne Reader....

Tags changed from "greenpeace, oceans, activism" to "greenpeace, oceans, activism, ad" by gold star member silvercord.

And it would be greenpeace hijacking and crashing the planes just to make their point.

Since it's unlikely that energy consumption will curtail, Americans have to make some serious decisions to support those technologies that will free us from reliance on things like muzzie oil and give us total independence. It's been about twenty years since any nuclear plants have gone online until recently. Power companies are upgrading their old plants because it is cost effective and the equipment today far surpases whet was used twenty years ago. If we can build a fleet of nuclear ships, why can't we build and secure power plants?

I welcome this technology for the many benifits it will bring us.