Who is worse Al Queda or Greenpeace?

[GrapeJ713]

After seeing the lastest episode of Penn & Teller's ********! it made me so angry after I got through laughing. A 30 minute cable show isn't my only source of information on the topic, but Penn has a way of getting the point across well in a small amount of time. I think the enviro-whackos like greenpeace and others are more dangerous than murderous zealots. What could be worse than greenpeace convincing the dictator of Zimbabwe (who helped start the famine in the first place) not to feed starving people safely genetically modified food? Enviro-whacko policies kill people indirectly. So it isn't as brazen an act as a terrorits bomb, but I think they have a higher death toll. Few examples: USA federal CAFE standards for mpg that kill an extra 2700 people a year because smaller lighter cars don't protect as well as bigger cars that get less mpg. They whine every time a damn tree is cut down on federal land. So, the forest service can't build roads as firebreaks or get out underbrush and dead trees. Result is the western half of the USA becomes a raging inferno most summers.

[aerocontrols]

Interesting (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/13/1050172477555.html)

[Supercharts]

Ian Cohen sounds like a unique person.;)

[corplinx]

With a name like "greenpeace", how could they be bad? I remember when they protested Bush trashing the environment by taking a ton of children to the white house and having them hold signs. Of course, this was about a month into his administration and apparently in by then the environment was trashed due to him.

At least we know they arent just total anti-american since they didnt pull the same stunts on Clinton. They are simply a leftist activist group who believes the end justifies the means.

[Lisa]

*snip*
Originally posted by GrapeJ713
They whine every time a damn tree is cut down on federal land. So, the forest service can't build roads as firebreaks or get out underbrush and dead trees. Result is the western half of the USA becomes a raging inferno most summers.
No kidding Grape. I live in the Black Hills of South Dakota. I've talked to people who've lived here 30+ years. Used to be, the undergrowth was kept in check. Sure, fires happened, you can't stop lightening strikes. Of course the environmentalists whined. Now we're sitting in a fuel dump.
We have something out here called Pine Beetles. Don't know if you're familiar with them. There were folks protesting the cutting down of infected trees, because then the pine beetles wouldn't have anywhere to live. Never mind that these little suckers can kill an otherwise healthy tree in a matter of weeks. Never mind that we now have entire sides of mountains totally bare of any live growth. (Dead trees are also excellent fuel btw. I have several pieces merrily burning away in my wood stove right now.)
This area really is beautiful. Lots of opportunities for outdoor activities. When left to its own devices, the Forest Service does a good job. But with the policies being enacted from the radical environmentalists, I can see a day when this place will be Dust Bowl, part II.
There were several species that were over-hunted in the beginning of the century that are now coming back and thriving. Several species of birds were almost wiped out from the area due to some blizzards in the past couple of years. They're coming back too.
But last year we have a devistating fire season. We'd had a pretty wet spring, and the place looked like a rain forest. The forest service wanted to clear out some underbrush. Environmentalists: noooo! We'll sue! Unfortunately, the Forest Service backed down. Then summer hit, and the rain stopped. We ended up losing thousands of acres of forest and who knows how much wildlife due to fire.
I hope the radical enviro-weenies are happy. They managed to save some scrub brush for a while (til it burned), at the cost of trees that were over a hundred years old, and a lot of barbequed wildlife.

[jj]

Originally posted by corplinx
At least we know they arent just total anti-american since they didnt pull the same stunts on Clinton. They are simply a leftist activist group who believes the end justifies the means.

Err, they tried. Oh, and remember what Shrub did to Christie when she pointed out the methodical destruction of wildlands?

Oh, and no, I don't support GreenCreeps at all. They're liars, idiots, and most of their science quacks like a duck.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by corplinx
With a name like "greenpeace", how could they be bad? I remember when they protested Bush trashing the environment by taking a ton of children to the white house and having them hold signs. Of course, this was about a month into his administration and apparently in by then the environment was trashed due to him. I think there is a misunderstanding here - they weren't protesting Bush for previous trashing of the environment, but because he had declared that he would pull the US out of the Kyoto treaty.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Bjorn:
I think there is a misunderstanding here - they weren't protesting Bush for previous trashing of the environment, but because he had declared that he would pull the US out of the Kyoto treaty.

He had no other option. The senate had voted unanimously to reject the protocol while Clinton was president.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Originally posted by Bjorn:


He had no other option. The senate had voted unanimously to reject the protocol while Clinton was president. I know, and I did not post to support Greenpeace.

My issue, however, was that Greenpeace was booing him for someting he actually did, not for environmental damages from before his time.

[schplurg]

Greenpeace worse than Al Quaeda?
Actually I'd say EarthFirst! is more extreme. Check out their site for some real whackos. But...


Greenpeace:

From http://www.activistcash.com/ Good site with a lot of info on activist groups, their money, their methods.

"I had no idea that after I left in 1986 they would evolve into a band of scientific illiterates…. Clearly, my former Greenpeace colleagues are either not reading the morning paper or simply don't care about the truth."
— Patrick Moore, Greenpeace co-founder, writing in Canada’s National Post (October, 2001)

Referring to Greenpeace’s “eco-extremism” in March 2000, he described the group in Oregon Wheat magazine as “Anti-human”; “antitechnology and anti-science”; “Anti-organization” and “pro-anarchy”; “anti-trade”; “anti-free-enterprise”; “anti-democratic”; and “basically anti-civilization.”
- Patrick Moore, Greenpeace co-founder
***
Arlington, VA·The International Coalition of Fisheries Associations(ICFA) today strongly condemned Greenpeace terrorists for sabotaging the Japanese whaling ships Nisshin Maru and Kyo Maru in Noumea Port in New Caledonia.

"Acts of Violence at sea endanger fishermen and others who depend on the oceans for their livelifood," said Richard E.Gutting Jr.,Executive Secretariat for ICFA. "Rather than resorting to piracy and vandalism, Greenpeace should act within the framework of international law and seek peaceful solutions through the International Whaling Commission. To endanger the lives of fishermen through reckless sabotage is reprehensible and should be condemned.
***
It was Greenpeace activists who conspired with other tax-exempt groups (like Friends of the Earth and the Organic Consumers Association) to “expose” the supposed dangers of StarLink corn. Among Greenpeace’s recent innovations has been the creation of a “citizen’s labeling brigade” -- basically a group of hooligans who take the law into their own hands by forcibly adding home-made, propaganda-laden “warning labels” (some complete with skull-and-crossbones artwork) to consumer food products on grocery store shelves.
***
In Africa, environmental groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have lobbied the governments of drought-stricken countries not to distribute American corn donated as food aid to their millions of starving people because it might contain genetically modified kernels.

The membership of Greenpeace and Friends say starving Africans should forgo it so Western greens can make an obscure political point. The president of Zambia says the activists told him the corn is "poison." This is the same pest-resistant corn approved for safety by three different U.S. government agencies and eaten daily since 1995 by millions of Americans in such forms as corn flakes, corn flour and, through livestock feed, hamburgers and ice cream.

CNN:
Police have detained up to a dozen Greenpeace environmental protesters who tried to scale a South African nuclear power plant two days before the start of the Earth Summit.
*********
LORIENT, France -- France's America's Cup team has launched legal proceedings against Greenpeace after its yacht was damaged during a protest against its nuclear sponsor.

At the time they were 30 metres from Areva. Suddenly, after a tight fast turn, the Greenpeace boat escaped the marshalls and headed at full speed directly to the Areva yacht, hitting her bow-on.
- French photojournalist Christian Fevrier
******
Environmental activist group Greenpeace set up the blockade of 11 boats to protest the shipment of plutonium fuel from Japan to the United Kingdom.

The protesters threw themselves only 400 meters in front of one of the ships carrying the fuel, forcing the skipper to take evasive action, BNFL spokesman Mark Scott said in a statement released in New Zealand.

"To throw themselves into the water in front of the vessel is the height of maritime lunacy and does Greenpeace no credit whatsoever," New Zealand Press Association reported Scott as saying.
******
LONDON, England - Environmental activists have invaded a British defence site to protest against the U.S. plan to develop an anti-missile defence system.

The group of 100 British, Danish and American activists broke into the Menwith Hill base, near Harrogate in northern England, and occupied three areas, Greenpeace told Reuters.
*****
LE HAVRE, France -- Environmental group Greenpeace has blocked access to Exxon Mobil Corp's largest oil refinery in France, accusing the firm of sabotaging efforts to prevent global warming.

Lorries with flattened tyres were parked outside three of the four gates leading to the Port Jerome refinery and petrochemical plant near Le Havre in northern France, while Greenpeace's flagship, Rainbow Warrior, prevented river access.
*****
ANKARA, Turkey -- Two Greenpeace activists have ended a protest in which they climbed down the chimney of a Turkish waste incinerator.

The activists, who had spent almost two days down the chimney of the incinerator near the northwestern city of Izmit, were arrested immediately after ending the protest.
***
LONDON, England -- Greenpeace has forced 100 Esso petrol stations to close in what the environmental group called a protest against the company's support for war.

Up to 1,000 staff at the headquarters of Esso's British headquarters were also told to stay at home on Monday after protesters climbed onto a glass roof and posed a safety problem, said a spokesman for the UK subsidiary of Texas-based ExxonMobil.
***
INVERNESS, Scotland -- Nine environmental activists are still occupying an U.S.-owned oil rig off the Scottish coast in a protest against global warming.
***

Greenpeace helicopter harasses a japanese whaling ship during a 1995 Southern Ocean excursion.
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/science/9811/10/japan.whaling.yoto/copter_whale.jpg

***
Sea Shepherd (a radical split-off from GREENPEACE) blew up a pirate whaling vessel in the harbour of Oporto, Portugal, to prevent its further activity.
***
Sea Shepherd rams and destroys with theit boat those parts of drift-net fishing boats in the Pacific, which are most expensive: radar equipment for instance.
***
Other Groups:
In August, the Earth Liberation Front torched a U.S. Forest Service research laboratory in Pennsylvania. The lab was researching sustainable forestry. The group said it was protesting "proposed timber sales, oil drilling and greed-driven manipulation of nature."

Al Quaeda has done some bad things too.


Edited for spelling

As a retired Navy man, I don't have any warm feelings for Greenpeace.

I heard this story second hand, so take it for what it is worth. Anyway, a shipmate once told me that on his previous ship, a Greenpeace activist had attached himself somehow to the ship's anchor chain in an attempt to keep it from being hauled up so the ship could get underway. This did not deter the Captain. He order the chain hauled part way up and then dropped repeatedly. This cause the activist to be dunked rather harshly, over and over. He eventually gave up and released himself from the chain.

[Gem]

Is there a word in the English dictionary for this:
Good intentions can actually hurt people.
I'm begining to understand JK's view. I don't agree with him, but I understand it a little more.

The environment is a thing that should be protected. But I have to agree that those radical are going too far.

As for the question, I think Al Queda is worse. They sabotage AND give no a damn to the environment.

[muckraker]

They whine every time a damn tree is cut down on federal land. So, the forest service can't build roads as firebreaks or get out underbrush and dead trees. Result is the western half of the USA becomes a raging inferno most summers.
But last year we have a devistating fire season. We'd had a pretty wet spring, and the place looked like a rain forest. The forest service wanted to clear out some underbrush. Environmentalists: noooo! We'll sue! Unfortunately, the Forest Service backed down. Then summer hit, and the rain stopped. We ended up losing thousands of acres of forest and who knows how much wildlife due to fire.
I hope the radical enviro-weenies are happy. They managed to save some scrub brush for a while (til it burned), at the cost of trees that were over a hundred years old, and a lot of barbequed wildlife.

Sorry guys, but I'm with the "radical enviro-weenies" on this particular point.

Fire is a normal part of forest ecosystems, especially out west. The seeds of some plants can't even germinate until they've been scorched by fire.

It's the "put out every fire" policy of the forest service that has lead to the big catastrophic fires we've seen over the past few years. Suppressing natural fires allows brush and other fuel to build up, so when a fire finally does get started, it's a big one.

Logging also contributes to this problem. The "slash" (worthless branches and such) left behind make great tinder.

Of course, in certain instances (like to protect lives and homes) fire suppresion is certainly justified. But forests and wildlife somehow managed to survive (and thrive) for millions of years before the forest service got involved.

[GrapeJ713]

It's the "put out every fire" policy of the forest service that has lead to the big catastrophic fires we've seen over the past few years. Suppressing natural fires allows brush and other fuel to build up, so when a fire finally does get started, it's a big one. muckraker

I was referring to the whining that goes on when the forest service wanted to cut down trees for roads on federal land that could provide a natural fire break so smaller fires could be contained. Let the fire burn out a smaller area insted of almost 4 states. Also let loggers use eco-friendly methods of removing dead, dying or diseased trees.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Gem
Is there a word in the English dictionary for this:
Good intentions can actually hurt people.


The case for doing nothing (http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg081301b.shtml).

At the beginning of the column, he has some unrelated stuff, so skip to:

No, I want to talk to you about the importance of doing nothing as a nation, as a people.

and go from there.

MattJ

[Gem]

VERY interesting...
except that Calvin Coolidge did NOTHING about the great depression. He argued that capitalist would solve itself. Maybe he was right, but it cost him reelection to FDR, who did something.

"Doing nothing" could be a good thing in certain cases. But would "doing nothing" have helped for world war 2? Or better still, would Isreal still exist if it had "done nothing" in 1967?

Child labor in other countries is horrible, it's abusive. What to do? Let it solve itself and let many children die in factories? Of malnutrituin?

I have to agree that sometimes it's best not to do anything. But I think he meant it has to apply to the government, because capitalist is all about "initiative."

I'm sure that racism would have solved itself also.:rolleyes:

Gem

[muckraker]

I was referring to the whining that goes on when the forest service wanted to cut down trees for roads on federal land that could provide a natural fire break so smaller fires could be contained. Let the fire burn out a smaller area insted of almost 4 states. Also let loggers use eco-friendly methods of removing dead, dying or diseased trees.

Grape-
In a natural forest (and presumbly, the forest is in a pretty natural state if there are no roads through it) suppressing natural fires (whether by fire breaks or active firefighting) will only lead to bigger fires later on.

Dead, dying and diseased trees don't need to be removed. They are part of the normal ecosystem, and removing them will not help the "health" of the forest.

Natural forests have survived for millions of years without our help. They do not need to be managed.

Please note- in forests that are used for timber production, some management is justified. But not the extreme fire suppresion as practiced by the forest service. (Actually, I should say "fomerly practiced by the fire service" because the forest service is moving to a more "let it burn" type of policy).

[Checkmite]

Due to expansion and human settling, fires cannot be allowed to simply "burn" they way they have for millions of years - peoples' lives are in danger. The Forest Service is able to compensate for the lack of burning by manually clearing out heavy underbrush, which can in turn be used in other ways. It's an effective method that has worked, and prevented the sorts of major fires that have gripped the west lately.

The point is...the system worked, until the environmentalist extremists lobbied against cutting the underbrush. Then, the fires started, and the evironmentalists in turn blamed it on the Forest Service for the "put out every fire" policy. If the Forest Service had been allowed to clear underbrush as usual, there would've been absolutely no problem...and hundreds of humans and thousands of animals wouldn't have been left homeless.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Gem
VERY interesting...
except that Calvin Coolidge did NOTHING about the great depression. He argued that capitalist would solve itself. Maybe he was right, but it cost him reelection to FDR, who did something.

"Doing nothing" could be a good thing in certain cases. But would "doing nothing" have helped for world war 2? Or better still, would Isreal still exist if it had "done nothing" in 1967?

Child labor in other countries is horrible, it's abusive. What to do? Let it solve itself and let many children die in factories? Of malnutrituin?

I have to agree that sometimes it's best not to do anything. But I think he meant it has to apply to the government, because capitalist is all about "initiative."

I'm sure that racism would have solved itself also.:rolleyes:

Gem

You seemed interested in the concept. I thought the article would be informative, and it certainly didn't argue against any action, ever:

Now, I am not here to tell you the government should never ever do anything, ever. What I am here to say is that good intentions aren't good enough.

*shrugs*

Perhaps you should recheck your presidential/Depression era history, also.

MattJ

[fishbob]

The Greenpeace whackos do serve a useful function. They act somewhat as a counterweight to the "pave the forest, nuke the whales" developer types in informing the voting public. Neither group is right, and if either were ever completely successful, America's wild lands would be toast.

The public gets to see both sides of the issues, and we wind up somewhere in the middle. Not a bad place to be, in this case.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by fishbob:
They act somewhat as a counterweight to the "pave the forest, nuke the whales" developer types in informing the voting public.

Can you please demonstrate that anyone ever proposed launching nuclear strikes on whales or paving forests to make a buck?

[jj]

Originally posted by muckraker


Fire is a normal part of forest ecosystems, especially out west. The seeds of some plants can't even germinate until they've been scorched by fire.



Yes, only the probem is that we've put them out for about 100 years, and now there is enough fuel to destroy everything and sterilize the earth to about 6' depth, which is NOT what you want when you want new plants to germinate.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Shane Costello

Can you please demonstrate that anyone ever proposed launching nuclear strikes on whales or paving forests to make a buck?
Yeah, that's almost as silly as suggesting that Greenpeace is the same as a group that uses suicide attacks to kill as many Americans as possible.:rolleyes:

Your word of the day is "hyperbole"

[GrapeJ713]

Tricky: Yeah, that's almost as silly as suggesting that Greenpeace is the same as a group that uses suicide attacks to kill as many Americans as possible.

My point is that Greenpeace is the smiley face on enviroterrorists groups like Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front. And all the lobbying and lawsuits brought on by these parasites kill more Americans directly than islmast terrorists have.

One small example CAFE (corporate average fuel economy)

In 1999, USA Today reported that CAFE had killed a total of 46,000 since the law was passed. That's equal, the story noted, to "roughly 7,700 deaths for every mile per gallon gained."

http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/envirowrapper.jsp?PID=1051-450&CID=1051-021203B

Al Queda has caused deaths of 3000 pluse people in on September 11, 2001. And if you add up all the combat deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq plus the previous attacks on the USS Cole and other targets it might almost reach 4000. Governmet Regulations brought on by envirowackosocialists have caused over ten times as many than armed terrorists have.
How is that hyperbole?

[Denise]

Originally posted by LukeT
As a retired Navy man, I don't have any warm feelings for Greenpeace.

I heard this story second hand, so take it for what it is worth. Anyway, a shipmate once told me that on his previous ship, a Greenpeace activist had attached himself somehow to the ship's anchor chain in an attempt to keep it from being hauled up so the ship could get underway. This did not deter the Captain. He order the chain hauled part way up and then dropped repeatedly. This cause the activist to be dunked rather harshly, over and over. He eventually gave up and released himself from the chain.

OMG! That's hilarious! Where's a video camera when you need one?

[muckraker]

Due to expansion and human settling, fires cannot be allowed to simply "burn" they way they have for millions of years - peoples' lives are in danger.

I addressed this in my first post.

The Forest Service is able to compensate for the lack of burning by manually clearing out heavy underbrush, which can in turn be used in other ways. It's an effective method that has worked, and prevented the sorts of major fires that have gripped the west lately.


There are millions of acres of national forest; it is impossible for the forest service to "clear underbrush" from anything but a tiny fraction of that. I think that what you are referring to as "clearing underbrush" is actually the common practice of letting timber companies harvest dead and downed trees (both of which have their place in a healthy forest ecosystem).

The point is...the system worked, until the environmentalist extremists lobbied against cutting the underbrush.

Actually, no, it didn't work. Big fires are really nothing new (although drought and suburbanization have made them bigger and more newsworthy in the last decade).

The problem with the intensive fire suppression (i.e. putting out every fire) that used to be practiced by the fire service is that it allows fuel to build up.
There is simply no way to "clear brush" or do selective timbering in all the millions of acres of national forest. Eventually, a fire will start. Then instead of small, normal, "healthy" fires, we get the big catastrophic ones.

Please note- I'm not against logging in general, or forest management to control fires near homes. And in areas where fire suppression has been practiced for a long time it may be necessary to do some things (like controlled burns) to bring the system back into balance.

But in the long run, intensive fire suppresion will just lead to more and bigger fires.

[fishbob]

GrapeJ713 sez: Governmet Regulations brought on by envirowackosocialists have caused over ten times as many than armed terrorists have.
How is that hyperbole?From the link you provide, down in the fine print:
ww.techcentralstation.com/1051/envirowrapper.jsp?PID=1051-450&CID=1051-021203B (http://)

USA Today and stats

Message: -I'm sure that USA Today uses impeccable standards for the statistical data.... or not. The argument that CAFE alone is responsible for 2600 deaths in 1993 is ridiculous. There are far too many variables in a car accident to blame it merely on the car's size. (eg. Was the driver intoxicated?) Is it a certainty that the passenger would've survived had the car been less fuel efficient? far USA today to take that questionable data and then make an extimate of dead/gallon is even worse. I would omit that argument in any future essays. You gotta read the fine print.
Just couldn't let this one slide. It is hyperbole because the facts don't support your statement. It is hyperbole because it makes a black and white argument about an issue with lots of gray in it.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by muckraker



There are millions of acres of national forest; it is impossible for the forest service to "clear underbrush" from anything but a tiny fraction of that. I think that what you are referring to as "clearing underbrush" is actually the common practice of letting timber companies harvest dead and downed trees (both of which have their place in a healthy forest ecosystem).




They were able to clear enough to protect suburban settlements. The "large catastrophic" fires were kept from getting close to the majority of peoples' houses. Firebreaks also helped contain those fires as well.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by GrapeJ713



Al Queda has caused deaths of 3000 pluse people in on September 11, 2001. And if you add up all the combat deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq plus the previous attacks on the USS Cole and other targets it might almost reach 4000. Governmet Regulations brought on by envirowackosocialists have caused over ten times as many than armed terrorists have.
How is that hyperbole?
As Fisbob pointed out, it is hyperbole because it is claiming a whole bunch of deaths which can scarcely attributed to fuel economy standards. If the numbers of traffic deaths have increased (and I say "if" because there is no link to their statistics) it is ludicrous to attribute them to a single reason. Increased speed limits, lax laws enforcement due to local budget cutbacks, a higher number of SUVs and trucks on the road could all be contributing factors.

To accept that number would be like counting every single smoker that died as a "smoking death".

And take a look at the other stuff on that site. Do you think they have an agenda too? Nahhhhh.

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by GrapeJ713
USA federal CAFE standards for mpg that kill an extra 2700 people a year because smaller lighter cars don't protect as well as bigger cars that get less mpg.

No, smaller lighter cars protect just as well or better than larger vehicles, the difference is that smaller cars are designed to destroy themselves to absorb impact energy (that's what crumple zones are). Big cars, especially the older ones, will stand up well to impacts, unfortunately they also transmit impact energy to the occupants very well so that the passengers come out worse for wear.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by tricky:
Yeah, that's almost as silly as suggesting that Greenpeace is the same as a group that uses suicide attacks to kill as many Americans as possible.

Your word of the day is "hyperbole"

While Greenpeace haven't used suicide attacks as a tool of environmental activism (yet), some of their actions neatly demonstrate the law of unintended (but probably predictable) consequences, such as their anti-chlorine campaign. (http://free-eco.org/pub/Crisis.ST1996.html)

"But hysterical environmentalism ultimately backfires. Greenpeace International's mission against chlorine is an excellent example. Their anti-chlorine campaign led to Peru reducing the chlorine it added to its water supply. The result? A cholera epidemic swept through insufficiently chlorinated water supplies, taking far more lives than the chlorine ban could possibly have saved."


More here (http://www.library.tuiasi.ro/ipm/vol11no34/environmental.html)

"Another case study is presented in the second chapter, Dirty water - Cholera in Peru. The anti-chlorine campaign, investigated by Greenpeace and other environmental groups, spread to Peru and other countries. This campaign contributed to the failure to adequately disinfect water supplies, and residual chlorine levels were far below the WHO minimum standard (0,2 to 0,3 mg/L instead of 0,8 to 1,0 mg/L prescribed by WHO) when cholera struck in 1991. An epidemic raged for five years, spreading to surrounding countries. In Peru alone, it killed more than 6000 people and put 625 000 into hospital."

Let's not forget the Greenpeace attitude to GM technology, a stance that's hard to reconcile with sanity let alone common sense.

Anti-biotech groups blamed for holding back African farmers (http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/gm/gm.jsp?id=22940700)

"Misleading propaganda about biotechnology from green organisations in Europe is obstructing Africa's attempts to combat hunger, claims a Kenyan academic.

"We don't get data, we get opinions," says Margaret Karembu of the Department of Environmental Sciences at Kenyatta University in Nairobi. She delivered a scathing attack on the greens at a conference in London last week."

"Greenpeace responded by saying biotech companies are as guilty as any green group of spreading value-laden propaganda. It says it opposes the release of any genetically modified organisms anywhere in the world, whatever the benefits." - my emphasis added.


In the final analysis, don't underestimate green fascism's contempt for people.

[Advocate]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
In the final analysis, don't underestimate green fascism's contempt for people. [/B]

Ever read anything about "Deep Ecology"? Talk about your radical ideology. Some of these people are as fanatical as any Islamist and are just as motivated and just as unconcerned with (human) casualties. In fact, I have heard several of them talk about how the death of a large portion of humanity would be beneficial. While I wouldn't say this movement has yet hit the level Al Queda did on 9/11, they definitely have the potential to do so. IMHO it is only a matter of time before one of the more radical environmentalist groups stage an attack against a city.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Agammamon


No, smaller lighter cars protect just as well or better than larger vehicles, the difference is that smaller cars are designed to destroy themselves to absorb impact energy (that's what crumple zones are). Big cars, especially the older ones, will stand up well to impacts, unfortunately they also transmit impact energy to the occupants very well so that the passengers come out worse for wear.
Of course, lives would also be saved if people actually followed the speed limits, rather than driving 10 or 15 miles per hour over. (Your chance of surviving an accident decreases with an increase in speed.)

[ssibal]

What about the environmentalist nuts who spike trees or firebomb factories. People are injured as a result of their actions. They may not be at the level of al Qaeda (yet) but they are getting close.

[GrapeJ713]

My point is the the enviro-whackos get policies change and ban safe and effective means of protecting people. And they use junk science to back up thier views. If the CAFE standards aren't the best way then mabye the ban on DDT would be a better one.

http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1904

Even with DDT’s clear value to humans, its ban is nowhere near being repealed. By conservative estimates, the enforcement of the worldwide DDT ban has caused the death of tens of millions of human beings by malaria and resulted in economic losses measured in the billions.


I don't think every terrorist act in the last 80 years by islmast whackos is even close to 1 million, much less the millions and millions of people that enviromental polocies of well meaning governments kill. The governments can't admit thier mistake and let people kill mosquitos effectively, because the greenies would whine, wail and protest then the politicians would not get re-elected and that is what is most important to most of them.

[iain]

I think there is a big difference between taking an action which is directly intended to kill people and taking one with good intentions which has an unintended side effect of killing people. Most terrorist acts fall into the first category, most of the eco-loony issues mentioned here fall into the second.

To give a counter example, the US decided not to get involved in the Second World War until 1941. Had they got involved in 1939 the war would probably have ended sooner and the lives of millions of Jews and others might have been saved. That doesn't make the US responsible for those lost lives.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by iain:
I think there is a big difference between taking an action which is directly intended to kill people and taking one with good intentions which has an unintended side effect of killing people. Most terrorist acts fall into the first category, most of the eco-loony issues mentioned here fall into the second.

IMO it's presumptious to say that Greenpeace's intentions are "good". I mean, they are on record as saying they oppose GM technology, regardless of it's benefits. I'm sure there existed a large amount of informed opinion that forecasted the dire results of their anti-chlorine campaign, opinion they doubtlessly ignored.

Originally posted by Advocate:
Ever read anything about "Deep Ecology"? Talk about your radical ideology. Some of these people are as fanatical as any Islamist and are just as motivated and just as unconcerned with (human) casualties. In fact, I have heard several of them talk about how the death of a large portion of humanity would be beneficial. While I wouldn't say this movement has yet hit the level Al Queda did on 9/11, they definitely have the potential to do so. IMHO it is only a matter of time before one of the more radical environmentalist groups stage an attack against a city.

I'd agree that the environmental movement is becoming radicalized, and is increasingly motivated by it's own dogma and not by a genuine desire to improve the living standards among their own species. There was a thread on PETA a while back with links to animal right's activists who claimed that the lives of their own children were not worth anything more than the lives of wild animals. While I don't think they will ever reach the levels of Islamofascism, you'd have to worry about the potential of a few lone nuts, and the failure of the wider movement to condemn and disassociate itself from it's more extreme elements.

[iain]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
IMO it's presumptious to say that Greenpeace's intentions are "good". I mean, they are on record as saying they oppose GM technology, regardless of it's benefits. I'm sure there existed a large amount of informed opinion that forecasted the dire results of their anti-chlorine campaign, opinion they doubtlessly ignored.You've got a point but I'm not convinced.

With GM Technology, the informed scientific debate is far from being one-sided. I'm just a layman myself but reports I've read in New Scientist and other similar sources suggest that the case is far from closed. Personally I am pro-GM and think it is crazy for African nations to reject GM corn; but I don't think the evidence is there to say that anyone who is anti-GM actually has bad intentions.

I don't know anything about the chlorine issue so I can't really comment on that, but I do think that Greenpeace generally falls into the "good but misguided" rather than "bad" category.

[Victor Danilchenko]

About cars -- a little basic physics here, people!

Big cars can possibly protect better than small cars in one condition, and one condition only -- collision with a movable (and possibly moving) object; in that case, the weight of the car determines the deceleration the passenger is subjected to, because it determines the resulting speed of the objects combined. Since most movable objects cars collide with are other cars, big cars only help if they collide with small cars, because the resulting combined speed will still be above zero for the big car, thus subjecting its occupants to lower deceleration; however, in this case the improvement in safety from the big car is bought at the expence of the diminution of safety of the small car -- an arms race of a sort. In this regard, everyone is better off with all cars being smaller, as this doesn't decrease safety while also increasing fuel efficiency.

When you collide with an immobile object, like a tree or a streetpost, the change in speed will be the same regardless of whether you are in a big car or a small car -- your speed will go down to zero.

All of this of course assumes that the big cars we are talking about are modern big cars, with crumple zones and stuff. What crumple zones do is not so much absorb the impact, as spread its duration; so instead of the occupant's body going from 60 to 0 in, say, 0.02 seconds, it will go from 60 to 0 in .1 seconds for example, thus decreasing many-fold the deceleration the body is subject to. In this regard, old american cars are actually less safe, because they do nothing to mitigate an impact against a solid object. This fact also decreases their value in collision with a small car -- they may go from 60 to 20 instead of 60 to 0, thus decreasing the body's deceleration, but they will do it in much less time, thus also increasing it; which negates the naive clarity of the opinion that big cars are automatically better than small cars in a collision.

Which is to say, basic physics is your friend...

[aerocontrols]

Victor, there are a lot of interesting assumptions in your post.

I encourage you to do research into the percentage of head-on collisions vs. rear-end and side collisions. Also consider that trees are not necessarily immobile, especially if you have a big enough car. Ditto with lamp posts, especially modern ones. Ditto with parked cars, and buildings, and any number of other things one might run into.

You might also look into survivability during collisions with cargo trucks of various sizes and types, since we should consider that we're not going to put them on a separate system of roads, and they cannot be made significantly lighter.

Physics may be basic, but the wrong assumptions can change your conclusions drastically. The correct approach to this problem is look at what kind of accidents people actually get into, rather than assume that most accidents are the type where having a larger car will not increase safety.

MattJ

[Victor Danilchenko]

aerocontrols

Victor, there are a lot of interesting assumptions in your post.Not nearly as many as you think. I did note that most (rather than all) collisions with movable objects, are collisions with other cars. In the collisions with non-car movable objects, and almost only in those collisions, the mere size of the car is helpful.

Unless you have data showing that two big cars collding are safer than two small cars colliding, you have no point. Rear-end collisions don't usually result in fatalities due to impact -- other factors do matter, but those factors aren't the ones that render a two-big-car collision safer (i.e. big cars don't necessarily catch fire less frequentlty, and are actually more prone to roll-overs).

You might also look into survivability during collisions with cargo trucks of various sizes and types, since we should consider that we're not going to put them on a separate system of roads, and they cannot be made significantly lighter.This is one of the few points you made that might actually have merit, although frankly I doubt it -- as far as a car is concerned, a truck is pretty close to an immovable objects in terms of deceleration effect. Do you know of anything to indicate that a large car is safer than a small car in a collision with the truck?

Physics may be basic, but the wrong assumptions can change your conclusions drastically.Well, the wrong assumptions do change things, but back-of-the-envelope estimates are a time-honored method of attaining a very rough result. You may recall the little incident with paper shreds and the nuclear blast test...

Yes, I have made a few assumptions here; but I don't see any of the assumptions that I made as being significantly relevant to the conclusion (i.e. rear-end collisions don't specifically favor survivability when the colliding bodies are two large cars rather than two small cars).

The correct approach to this problem is look at what kind of accidents people actually get into, rather than assume that most accidents are the type where having a larger car will not increase safety.Well, that is a perfectly reasonable assumption IMO, because as far as I can tell, there are very few conditions where having a large car will increase safety (mostly collision with non-car movable object).

As far as movable objects go, modern street poles are usally designed to be movable enough, and will give under a small or a large car; and most trees will either give right away, or stop you dead on your tracks -- the range of tree thicknesses and kinds is much larger than the range of car weights, so the subset of the trees which will give to a large car but not a small car is actually a small subset of all trees you can collide with. The same is true for other immobile objects, such as walls and street signs and rock outcroppings -- the range of their mechanical characteristics is much wider than the range of car weights, and so a large car will protect you better than a small car only in a relatively small subset of collision with such almost-immobile objects. This small subset is framed on one side by the objects that won't give to a large car, and on the other side by the objects that will give to a small car.

If you have data showing my assumptions wrong in a way that will materially affect my conclusion, feel free to reference it. Otherwise, stuff your patronizing "encouragements".

P.S. I couldn't locate the cited NRC report itself on-line to examine the statistical validity of their analysis.

[Victor Danilchenko]

belay that,. I found the report. I am reading it now, but one thing I noted right away is that their "lives saved" number is based purely on an estimate.

[Victor Danilchenko]

The reports are at http://search.nap.edu/nap-cgi/napsearch.cgi?term=cafe . The specific finding that was quoted can be read at http://books.nap.edu/books/0309076013/html/25.html#pagetop (see 'Impact on Safety' section). Note that even if we go along with their estimates (and it's only estimates, no real data behind them!), you get the same answer I gave -- that larger cars are safer than smaller cars only in a very small range of circumstances. Furthermore, the NRC report, while focusing only on those rare circumstances, neglects other cases where a large car is less safe -- a large car is more likely to break through the highway barrier and go off the road rather than stay on the shoulder, and many large cars, SUVs especially, are very prone to rollovers.

Note also that the table 2-1 on page 26 cites the effect of weight reduction acontextually -- that it, is cites the effect of car weight reduction with the assumption that average truck weight is unchanged. Unsurprisingly, reduction in truck weight actually decreased fatality rate in the said estimate. Furthermore, the cited numbers don't weight fatality rates according to the relative frequency of the types of accidents. Now only to find that data...

In short, the NRC report offers no solid useful conclusion.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by iain:
"With GM Technology, the informed scientific debate is far from being one-sided. I'm just a layman myself but reports I've read in New Scientist and other similar sources suggest that the case is far from closed."

In terms of the effect of GM foods on human health, there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that one exists. The question of whether GM crops have ecological effects is less clear cut. However, the weight of eviidence is begginng to suggest GM plants are more environmentally friendly than conventional breeds. Not that the green movement seems interested, given their fondness for sabotage.

Personally I am pro-GM and think it is crazy for African nations to reject GM corn; but I don't think the evidence is there to say that anyone who is anti-GM actually has bad intentions.

Then you haven't heard of the sabotaged field trials and trashed labs. There's plenty of evidence to suggest green fascists are more interested in dogma than gaining scientific evidence as to the efficacy or harmfulness of GM foods.

[iain]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
In terms of the effect of GM foods on human health, there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that one exists.I agree. No problem with this one.

The question of whether GM crops have ecological effects is less clear cut. However, the weight of eviidence is begginng to suggest GM plants are more environmentally friendly than conventional breeds.Yes, this is where I understand the debate to be.

Not that the green movement seems interested, given their fondness for sabotage.

Then you haven't heard of the sabotaged field trials and trashed labs. There's plenty of evidence to suggest green fascists are more interested in dogma than gaining scientific evidence as to the efficacy or harmfulness of GM foods. [/B]You've got a good point here. I agree that where green groups sabotage scientific experiments and ignore the findings of those which do complete, that does seem to be a wilful disregard for truth and evidence which suggests "bad" more than "misguided" (at least amongst those who should know better; the teenie greenies can probably be excused). I forget whether Greenpeace has been involved in that.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Potential dangers of GM foods notwithstanding, I think it's rather far-reaching to suppose that the said dangers outweight the tremendous benefits we already derive from them. Crop productivity without GM crops would drop drastically.

Originally posted by Gem
VERY interesting...
except that Calvin Coolidge did NOTHING about the great depression. He argued that capitalist would solve itself. Maybe he was right, but it cost him reelection to FDR, who did something.



Ai-yi-yi! :eek:

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted iain:
You've got a good point here. I agree that where green groups sabotage scientific experiments and ignore the findings of those which do complete, that does seem to be a wilful disregard for truth and evidence which suggests "bad" more than "misguided" (at least amongst those who should know better; the teenie greenies can probably be excused). I forget whether Greenpeace has been involved in that.

IIRC they haven't been directly involved. That being said, I haven't heard them condemn these kind of actions. Your point on the exuberance is a good one.

Originally posted by Victor Damilchenko:
Potential dangers of GM foods notwithstanding, I think it's rather far-reaching to suppose that the said dangers outweight the tremendous benefits we already derive from them. Crop productivity without GM crops would drop drastically.

The point here is that no one has demonstrated why GM crops should or could be anymore dangerous than they're conventional counterparts. Almost all conventional breeds and strains were themselves genetically modified by selective breeding of wild ancestors with favourable traits.

I wouldn't be so sure that crop productivity would fall drastically without GM technology. The "Green Revolution" that increased crop yields in the developing world had nothing to do with GM technology. Where GM technology can play an important role is in developing countries with poor soils or low rainfall.