 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
1061
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| thebaldfacts wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | OEP wrote: | Greenpeace does a lot of important, courageous and justified protests but unfortunately this isn't one of their finest moments.
Any small amount of research would have alerted then to the potential to cause significant or even permanent damage to this area. It was a poor decision to commit the act and not allowing the authorities access to those who planned and carried out the act is shows an reluctance to accept responsibility for their actions. |
Agree completely, with one caveat. Organisations generally don't do this kind of stuff, people do. The person who did this should face whatever the appropriate punishment is and the Organisation (Greenpeace) should not stand in the way of allowing that to happen or else they are condoning and supporting what the person did.
If, on the other hand, this was a deliberately endorsed act by a person acting under instructions with the support of the organisation, that's seriously showing they've got issues. |
Both excellent posts. You can support Greenpeace if you want, but they are not above the law. |
How do we apply this "not above the law" thinking when it comes to some of Greenpeace's efforts over the years. I'm sure Japan agrees with you. |
|
|
|
 |
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | thebaldfacts wrote: | David/WPT
Simple question for you both.
If the Peruvian Government wants the names of the relevant people who have perpetrated this crime, so that they can launch legal proceedings against these people, do you support Greenpeace supplying the names so that they can be tried before a court of law for their actions? |
I don't know. Maybe. Are they legally obliged to? I can certainly see why they'd want to cooperate from a PR perspective. But if they're worried about their members being made an example of with unduly harsh sentences, I could see why they might want to protect them. In any case, the response of Greenpeace US seems to suggest that they'll support the Peruvian authorities in pursuing these evildoers.
Now, is there any chance I can divert your attention from hummingbirds to a matter of slightly more global relevance?
http://abc.net.au/news/2014-12-14/lima-un-talks-agree-building-blocks-for-2015-climate-deal/5966370
| Quote: | About 190 nations have agreed on the building blocks of a new-style global deal due in 2015 to combat climate change amid warnings that far tougher action will be needed to limit rising world temperatures.
Under the Lima deal, governments will submit national plans for reining in greenhouse gas emissions by an informal deadline of March 31, 2015, to form the basis of a global agreement due at a summit in Paris in a year's time. |
|
Apparently not. |
|
|
|
|
thebaldfacts
Joined: 02 Aug 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | thebaldfacts wrote: | David/WPT
Simple question for you both.
If the Peruvian Government wants the names of the relevant people who have perpetrated this crime, so that they can launch legal proceedings against these people, do you support Greenpeace supplying the names so that they can be tried before a court of law for their actions? |
I don't know. Maybe. Are they legally obliged to? I can certainly see why they'd want to cooperate from a PR perspective. But if they're worried about their members being made an example of with unduly harsh sentences, I could see why they might want to protect them. In any case, the response of Greenpeace US seems to suggest that they'll support the Peruvian authorities in pursuing these evildoers.
Now, is there any chance I can divert your attention from hummingbirds to a matter of slightly more global relevance?
http://abc.net.au/news/2014-12-14/lima-un-talks-agree-building-blocks-for-2015-climate-deal/5966370
| Quote: | About 190 nations have agreed on the building blocks of a new-style global deal due in 2015 to combat climate change amid warnings that far tougher action will be needed to limit rising world temperatures.
Under the Lima deal, governments will submit national plans for reining in greenhouse gas emissions by an informal deadline of March 31, 2015, to form the basis of a global agreement due at a summit in Paris in a year's time. |
|
Guess acknowledging that these Greenpeace criminals are evil doers is an improvement on dumb and counter productive.
As for the monty python agreement on climate change best to leave the resident Fairfax warmist to put it in proper perspective for you:
"Climate change talks in Lima have pulled back from the brink of disaster but the prospect of a future global climate change deal in Paris next year is now under a cloud.
Late on Saturday night in Peru, negotiators agreed to a highly watered-down deal that stripped out a formal review process for the post-2020 commitments that countries will make before Paris next year. Difficult issues such as whether the Paris deal will be legally binding were also put off.
The deal known as the "Lima call for climate action" came after a day of deep divisions between developed countries and India, China and African countries over fundamental issues."
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/lima-climate-conference-tensions-may-bring-storm-clouds-to-paris-20141214-126x9m.html
As I said in the opening post, China, the second biggest emitter will do nothing until 2030 other than continue to increase their emissions each year by the equivalent of Australia's total annual emissions. India the 3 rd biggest emitter is correctly more interested in alleviating poverty than climate change.
As for the US, thankfully CSG and fracking have enabled the US to reduce their emissions but the republican controlled congress will need a lot of persuasion to take on more action.
These talk fests won't achieve anything of substance other than building the frequent flyer points for the attendees. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| thebaldfacts wrote: | | As I said in the opening post, China, the second biggest emitter will do nothing until 2030 other than continue to increase their emissions each year by the equivalent of Australia's total annual emissions. |
It would be nice to see TBF take a break from repeating tired, second-hand lies, but alas it seems unlikely.
FactCheck: does the new climate deal let China do nothing for 16 years?
"Far from doing nothing, China will be building the worlds largest renewable energy system over the next 16 years. This is something that China has already started doing so the targets agreed upon are feasible, if arduous. ..... China is transforming its economy and energy system so that water, wind and solar power will be its driving forces. "
Fact Check Verdict: FALSE.
Read more here: http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/factcheck-new-climate-deal-let-china-nothing-16-years-29744
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | thebaldfacts wrote: | | As I said in the opening post, China, the second biggest emitter will do nothing until 2030 other than continue to increase their emissions each year by the equivalent of Australia's total annual emissions. |
It would be nice to see TBF take a break from repeating tired, second-hand lies, but alas it seems unlikely.
FactCheck: does the new climate deal let China do nothing for 16 years?
"Far from doing nothing, China will be building the worlds largest renewable energy system over the next 16 years. This is something that China has already started doing so the targets agreed upon are feasible, if arduous. ..... China is transforming its economy and energy system so that water, wind and solar power will be its driving forces. "
Fact Check Verdict: FALSE.
Read more here: http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/factcheck-new-climate-deal-let-china-nothing-16-years-29744 |
You're making the same mistake as David.
You're trying to be rational with a person who espouses irrational ideas. Why waste you're time?
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
It wasn't really for his benefit, WPT. TBF is beyond hope or reason. Or evidence for that matter. But I don't like to see a thread filled with silly lies which are so easy to refute; someone else might read it one day. Not very bright to feed the troll, I know. Sorry.
Still, at least I know how to use an aposrophe apowstrfe aposthofe upside-down commary thing.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Still how long? Carefully. |
|
|
|
|
thebaldfacts
Joined: 02 Aug 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | thebaldfacts wrote: | | As I said in the opening post, China, the second biggest emitter will do nothing until 2030 other than continue to increase their emissions each year by the equivalent of Australia's total annual emissions. |
It would be nice to see TBF take a break from repeating tired, second-hand lies, but alas it seems unlikely.
FactCheck: does the new climate deal let China do nothing for 16 years?
"Far from doing nothing, China will be building the worlds largest renewable energy system over the next 16 years. This is something that China has already started doing so the targets agreed upon are feasible, if arduous. ..... China is transforming its economy and energy system so that water, wind and solar power will be its driving forces. "
Fact Check Verdict: FALSE.
Read more here: http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/factcheck-new-climate-deal-let-china-nothing-16-years-29744 |
Gee Tannin, I can do that too. Rather than pointing to a pro global warming site, try this site, the most viewed site on global warming.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/12/us-china-climate-statement-is-no-breakthrough/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/08/surprise-surprise-china-rejects-emissions-pledge-review/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/chinas-new-energy-plan-forecasts-big-rise-in-co2-emissions/ |
|
|
|
|
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
My take on Greenpeace over the years is both good and bad. The good, obviously, is they have saved a hell of a lot of whales, but yeah, sometimes they go too far, and risk the lives of innocents. maybe believing their own press a little
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| thebaldfacts wrote: | | Tannin wrote: | | thebaldfacts wrote: | | As I said in the opening post, China, the second biggest emitter will do nothing until 2030 other than continue to increase their emissions each year by the equivalent of Australia's total annual emissions. |
It would be nice to see TBF take a break from repeating tired, second-hand lies, but alas it seems unlikely.
FactCheck: does the new climate deal let China do nothing for 16 years?
"Far from doing nothing, China will be building the worlds largest renewable energy system over the next 16 years. This is something that China has already started doing so the targets agreed upon are feasible, if arduous. ..... China is transforming its economy and energy system so that water, wind and solar power will be its driving forces. "
Fact Check Verdict: FALSE.
Read more here: http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/factcheck-new-climate-deal-let-china-nothing-16-years-29744 |
Gee Tannin, I can do that too. Rather than pointing to a pro global warming site, try this site, the most viewed site on global warming.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/12/us-china-climate-statement-is-no-breakthrough/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/08/surprise-surprise-china-rejects-emissions-pledge-review/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/chinas-new-energy-plan-forecasts-big-rise-in-co2-emissions/ |
I was going to post much the same stuff, but do you really think you're going to cut through? All the lefties wanted their moment of "See, Abbott is a wrecker, even China is on board" when it was really just spin to make Obama look good.
I liked how Tannin's article used the strawman that anyone was saying China was doing "nothing". Disingenuous at best. Of course they're not doing 'nothing' but what they ARE doing is increasing emissions until 2030. |
|
|
|
|
Morrigu
Joined: 11 Aug 2001
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | | My take on Greenpeace over the years is both good and bad. The good, obviously, is they have saved a hell of a lot of whales, but yeah, sometimes they go too far, and risk the lives of innocents. maybe believing their own press a little |
No they haven't Jo they have become a corporation bogged down in red tape and politics and much of the money raised is spent on " glossy" brochures to advertise what they have done ( bugger all) and recruit new donors - Sea Shepherd under the control of Paul Watson ex Greenpeace for the stated reasons are the people who have saved whales - yes they have put themselves at risk - but they walk the talk and that is where I have diverted my dosh!
And whilst we are at I would encourage anyone who gives money to the WWF to rethink it! I have for years then discovered they don't have a blanket opposition to trophy hunting and some of the founding members are hunters 
_________________
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I provide a link to a fact-checked article by two eminent academics, further checked by a highly qualified independent scientist.
You provide a link to an opinion blog run by a professional climate denier in the pay of the notorious Heartland Institute, which is paid to deny not just climate science but, among other things, the link between smoking and cancer. Read all about this paid lackey of theirs here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Anthony_Watts
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Morrigu wrote: | | think positive wrote: | | My take on Greenpeace over the years is both good and bad. The good, obviously, is they have saved a hell of a lot of whales, but yeah, sometimes they go too far, and risk the lives of innocents. maybe believing their own press a little |
No they haven't Jo they have become a corporation bogged down in red tape and politics and much of the money raised is spent on " glossy" brochures to advertise what they have done ( bugger all) and recruit new donors - Sea Shepherd under the control of Paul Watson ex Greenpeace for the stated reasons are the people who have saved whales - yes they have put themselves at risk - but they walk the talk and that is where I have diverted my dosh!
And whilst we are at I would encourage anyone who gives money to the WWF to rethink it! I have for years then discovered they don't have a blanket opposition to trophy hunting and some of the founding members are hunters |
Ah, I didn't realize sea shepherd was a seperate entity, ta for that. And yes I gave up on WWF a few years ago when I saw a report on it. It's hard to know who to trust
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
Morrigu
Joined: 11 Aug 2001
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | | Ah, I didn't realize sea shepherd was a seperate entity, ta for that. And yes I gave up on WWF a few years ago when I saw a report on it. It's hard to know who to trust |
Yes it is but there are lots of good people doing genuine good work and many of them are Australians!
Two of the best!!!
Damien Mander IAPF
Jill Robinson Animals Asia
_________________
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Cheers, I've supported animals of Asia for a while, one day I'm gunna visit those moon bears xxx
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
