| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
thebaldfacts
Joined: 02 Aug 2007
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| Tannin wrote: | 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 |
Par for course here. Let's play the man and avoid the issue.
Those who are genuinely interested can check the links and draw their own conclusions.
As for Sourcewatch, an organisation that takes funds from left wing foundations, who claims to be progressive and avoids criticism of liberal organisations, what a surprise it criticises the most viewed site which criticises the lefts pet issue of global warming alarmism.
https://www.activistfacts.com/organizations/12-center-for-media-democracy/ |
|
|
|
 |
thebaldfacts
Joined: 02 Aug 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: |
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. |
Wokko the whole point of the thread was about Greenpeace's action. Wanted to see if The left who are so self righteous and believe so much inI the rightness of their causes would condemn such an action. They froth at the mouth over a wink by Abbott but find it hard to criticise such criminal actions from their side.
Some of the posters, to their credit, whilst praising Greenpeace for some of the actions in the past at least strongly criticised their actions. Others tried to down play the whole event.
For some on the left, it has nothing to with principle, it is about the side. |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ What a load of nonsense. My feelings toward Greenpeace are generally ambivalent—I'm pro-GMO, mostly pro-nuclear energy and don't lose much sleep over commercial whaling—although I have no doubt that most of their members are decent people trying to make the world a better place (can the same be said for their opponents?).
You can find any number of examples here of me criticising left-wing behaviour that I disagree with, whether it be dubious online social justice campaigns or certain aspects of identity politics. But I have little time for disingenuous point-scoring, and that's all this thread is.
Can you explain how you try to transcend this polarisation of political discourse that you claim to oppose? It seems to me that you're an active participant in it, perhaps more so than most on here.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
thebaldfacts
Joined: 02 Aug 2007
|
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I will be increasing my donations to Greenpeace substantially. They obviously need additional resources so that they can ensure that the actions taken in their name are appropriately supervised and managed. Otherwise, there is a risk that mischievous clowns may want to use these sorts of unauthorised actions as a basis for criticising the purpose and objects of the organisation. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Oops. Too much data. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | | I will be increasing my donations to Greenpeace substantially. They obviously need additional resources so that they can ensure that the actions taken in their name are appropriately supervised and managed. Otherwise, there is a risk that mischievous clowns may want to use these sorts of unauthorised actions as a basis for criticising the purpose and objects of the organisation. |
^ Applause. One of the great short posts.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
thebaldfacts
Joined: 02 Aug 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Whilst Greenpeace is being apologetic for the criminal actions conducted in their name, they still appear to want to protect those involved.
Hopefully Greenpeace will do the right thing and hand over the names of those involved so that justice can be done. Let the activists have their day in court.
Ignorance is no excuse.
Yes the diehards may say that they will increase their donations substantially, but such actions have further sullied Greenpeace's name and the failure to do what is right will only compound this further.
http://rt.com/news/216295-nazca-lines-damage-greenpeace/ |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | | I will be increasing my donations to Greenpeace substantially. They obviously need additional resources so that they can ensure that the actions taken in their name are appropriately supervised and managed. Otherwise, there is a risk that mischievous clowns may want to use these sorts of unauthorised actions as a basis for criticising the purpose and objects of the organisation. |
I am not a "diehard". I just don't want the planet destroyed by idiots with vested interests who continue to deny the obvious for their grubby personal gain. |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | | Pies4shaw wrote: | | I will be increasing my donations to Greenpeace substantially. They obviously need additional resources so that they can ensure that the actions taken in their name are appropriately supervised and managed. Otherwise, there is a risk that mischievous clowns may want to use these sorts of unauthorised actions as a basis for criticising the purpose and objects of the organisation. |
I am not a "diehard". I just don't want the planet destroyed by idiots with vested interests who continue to deny the obvious for their grubby personal gain. |
Why bother responding to the errant nonsense posted by those who demonstrate far right religious extremist views? May as well talk reason with ISIS.
It's only when the Mad Misogynist Miners Monk f*cks up, does the bullshit OP like this one get's a guernsey .
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough†Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
partypie
Joined: 01 Oct 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| At least the Greenpeace stunt got the Lima meeting into the Australian media. It got bugger all coverage here but was well reported overseas. |
|
|
|
|
thebaldfacts
Joined: 02 Aug 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | | Pies4shaw wrote: | | I will be increasing my donations to Greenpeace substantially. They obviously need additional resources so that they can ensure that the actions taken in their name are appropriately supervised and managed. Otherwise, there is a risk that mischievous clowns may want to use these sorts of unauthorised actions as a basis for criticising the purpose and objects of the organisation. |
I am not a "diehard". I just don't want the planet destroyed by idiots with vested interests who continue to deny the obvious for their grubby personal gain. |
I assume the idiots you refer to are those Greenpeace idiots who have done damage to the world heritage site. Then I am in agreement with you.
No matter what you believe about climate change or Greenpeace's activities,
You cannot defend the indefensible.
Hopefully they will reveal their names so that the proper legal process can take place and justice can take its course. |
|
|
|
|
thebaldfacts
Joined: 02 Aug 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| watt price tully wrote: |
Why bother responding to the errant nonsense posted by those who demonstrate far right religious extremist views? May as well talk reason with ISIS.
It's only when the Mad Misogynist Miners Monk f*cks up, does the bullshit OP like this one get's a guernsey . |
Now that you have finished your little rant, hope you feel better. Please read the thread carefully. You will notice it was not the " mad misogynist monk" that desecrated this world heritage site. In a matter of fact this thread has nothing to do with the " mad misogynist monk".
Unless of course, that you believe that the Greenpeace activists, the mad misogynist monk and myself are all in this together, to provide a clever diversion from homegrown issues:) |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| watt price tully wrote: | | Pies4shaw wrote: | | Pies4shaw wrote: | | I will be increasing my donations to Greenpeace substantially. They obviously need additional resources so that they can ensure that the actions taken in their name are appropriately supervised and managed. Otherwise, there is a risk that mischievous clowns may want to use these sorts of unauthorised actions as a basis for criticising the purpose and objects of the organisation. |
I am not a "diehard". I just don't want the planet destroyed by idiots with vested interests who continue to deny the obvious for their grubby personal gain. |
Why bother responding to the errant nonsense posted by those who demonstrate far right religious extremist views? May as well talk reason with ISIS.
It's only when the Mad Misogynist Miners Monk f*cks up, does the bullshit OP like this one get's a guernsey . |
That's probably right, wpt. |
|
|
|
|
thebaldfacts
Joined: 02 Aug 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
