Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Breitbart.com)   The green movement has become a "combination of extreme political ideology and religious fundamentalism rolled into one." says Green Peace founder   (breitbart.com) divider line 86
    More: Obvious, carbon dioxide, Greenpeace, scientific evidence, climate change, political ideology  
•       •       •

2222 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jun 2014 at 5:33 PM (37 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



86 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-06-19 02:07:01 PM  
I think most activists could be described that way, but Greenpeace has always been that way.

I would agree with him if I didn't know that before he left Greenpeace it was more radical than it is now  and also if I didn't know he founded a PR company that basically works for the sleaziest most environmentally destructive companies out there.  He didn't leave Greenpeace because it became more radical, he just lost his idealism and gained a taste for making a lot of money.

Not very surprising when you remember that he co-founded Greenpeace when he was a graduate student.  It's pretty normal for people to be radical in college and then become money oriented later in life.  He will likely be riding a Hoveround waiving a Gadsden flag in another decade.

Of course, it's Breitbart, so TFA is written more for people who aren't quite bright enough to grasp the difference between a scientist and a Greenpeace member.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-06-19 02:17:19 PM  
I forgot to list his website.  This is the PR company he co-founded.
 
2014-06-19 02:30:42 PM  

vpb: Of course, it's Breitbart, so TFA is written more for people who aren't quite bright enough to grasp the difference between a scientist and a Greenpeace member.

their ass and a hole in the ground.
 
2014-06-19 03:20:13 PM  
We've got to start differentiating between ramming whaling boats and installing solar panels.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-06-19 03:26:17 PM  

James!: We've got to start differentiating between ramming whaling boats and installing solar panels.


That's the thing, he was in Greenpeace back in the ramming whaling boats days.  Greenpeace didn't become extreme, he created it that way.
 
2014-06-19 03:27:42 PM  

vpb: James!: We've got to start differentiating between ramming whaling boats and installing solar panels.

That's the thing, he was in Greenpeace back in the ramming whaling boats days.  Greenpeace didn't become extreme, he created it that way.


"Look at this problem I created, aren't they terrible?"
 
2014-06-19 05:37:38 PM  
This isn't news...oh, wait!

People who think they are saving the world will obviously adopt a "the ends justify the means" mentality. Self-defeating? Aye.
 
2014-06-19 05:38:14 PM  
these the same farkers that lost millions on a oil deal?
 
2014-06-19 05:38:28 PM  
So is the co founder of Greenpeace a farking tard or is Breitshart's spin making him out to be a tard?
 
2014-06-19 05:41:57 PM  
Breitbart link.

img.4plebs.org
 
2014-06-19 05:43:10 PM  
Wait....the Green movement is the Tea Party? Through the looking glass....
 
2014-06-19 05:45:01 PM  
Anybody want to comment on his scientific assertions, which are basically saying that global warming is actually a good thing because humans and the crops we eat do better in warmer climates?
 
2014-06-19 05:49:10 PM  

James!: We've got to start differentiating between ramming whaling boats and installing solar panels.


*sighs
You people just don't get it, do you?
 
2014-06-19 05:49:49 PM  
Hey Mommy, doesn't that dead possum in the road look a lot like that guy who invented the internet?
 
2014-06-19 05:50:08 PM  

Geotpf: Anybody want to comment on his scientific assertions, which are basically saying that global warming is actually a good thing because humans and the crops we eat do better in warmer climates?


Uh, yeah, um, well, ah, it's, not to put too fine a point on it, but it's a steaming pile of astroturfed bullshiat.

Truth be told, if we're going to get extra picky, ALL of the prognostications about global warming are just that--prognostications. NOBODY actually KNOWS what is going to happen or what the actual outcome ABSOLUTELY IS GOING TO BE. That being said, the models that have the weight of field consensus behind them beg to differ quite a great deal from what this fellow is claiming. Of course, we also have to admit that the best physics we currently have cannot conclusively PROVE that it's not all being done by invisible pixies...
 
2014-06-19 05:50:46 PM  
Ooh, I sense a change in this thread's climate.
i.chzbgr.com
 
2014-06-19 05:50:54 PM  
Call me back when green peacers shoot up a walmart or attempt to assassinate a politician.
 
2014-06-19 05:51:17 PM  
You know, I was just thinking, "I'd like to know more about the environmental movement. I wonder what a good source of information about about the environmental movement is."

And then I found this awesome Brietfart link.
 
2014-06-19 05:52:52 PM  

charlesmartel11235: Call me back when green peacers shoot up a walmart or attempt to assassinate a politician.


subtle.
solid 8/10
 
2014-06-19 05:53:56 PM  
Greenpeace is and has always been a scam. "Here's a picture of a baby seal. Send us your money." They have no credibility and nothing they say is worth listening to. Nothing but a bunch of con artists. Fark Greenpeace and their crazy sidekick Sea Shepard.

/norwegian here
//old enough to remember their anti-whaling bullshiat
///i560.photobucket.com  em all
 
2014-06-19 05:54:03 PM  

Geotpf: Anybody want to comment on his scientific assertions, which are basically saying that global warming is actually a good thing because humans and the crops we eat do better in warmer climates?



The basic science is this:  Plants "inhale" CO2 and "exhale"  oxygen, so if it is hotter, more plants will grow.

In addition, there are 7 billion people in the world and many are quite hungry, so if the growing season is extended and more farmland is available, so much the better.

More heat evaporates more ocean water so there would be more rain, not less.
 
2014-06-19 05:58:15 PM  
So crazy nutbars type 1 + crazy nutbars type 2 = extra double bonus nutbars.
Seems legit.
 
2014-06-19 05:58:42 PM  

Uncle Tractor: Greenpeace is and has always been a scam. "Here's a picture of a baby seal. Send us your money." They have no credibility and nothing they say is worth listening to. Nothing but a bunch of con artists. Fark Greenpeace and their crazy sidekick Sea Shepard.

/norwegian here
//old enough to remember their anti-whaling bullshiat
///[i560.photobucket.com image 44x12]  em all


Fark Norway. Leave the farking whales alone, you assholes. You don't need them; they make dogfood out of the meat.
 
2014-06-19 05:59:26 PM  

Geotpf: Anybody want to comment on his scientific assertions, which are basically saying that global warming is actually a good thing because humans and the crops we eat do better in warmer climates?


If I was an industry and wanted to spin the PR in a way favorable to me, and I was money-hungry, devoid of ethics, and kind of dim, that's exactly what I'd say.
 
2014-06-19 06:01:43 PM  

olddinosaur: Geotpf: Anybody want to comment on his scientific assertions, which are basically saying that global warming is actually a good thing because humans and the crops we eat do better in warmer climates?


The basic science is this:  Plants "inhale" CO2 and "exhale"  oxygen, so if it is hotter, more plants will grow.

In addition, there are 7 billion people in the world and many are quite hungry, so if the growing season is extended and more farmland is available, so much the better.

More heat evaporates more ocean water so there would be more rain, not less.


Oh, and the part about it failing to meet the most basic principles of the scientific method is also correct, regardless of the outcome.
 
2014-06-19 06:02:21 PM  
Just remember kiddies, Greenpeace's revenues are around $500million a year.
 
2014-06-19 06:05:15 PM  

charlesmartel11235: Call me back when green peacers shoot up a walmart or attempt to assassinate a politician.


media0.giphy.com
 
2014-06-19 06:05:23 PM  
I still haven't come across an evangelized Christian earth stewardship sect that made as much noise as a single 911 Truther
 
2014-06-19 06:05:47 PM  
Heh, I wish the French would bomb one of their ships again.
 
2014-06-19 06:06:06 PM  

Shazam999: Just remember kiddies, Greenpeace's revenues are around $500million a year.


Not bad for a bunch of commies.  I'm sure they'll redistribute their wealth to the poor
 
2014-06-19 06:07:00 PM  

mbillips: Fark Norway. Leave the farking whales alone, you assholes. You don't need them; they make dogfood out of the meat.


i560.photobucket.com
 
2014-06-19 06:07:08 PM  

charlesmartel11235: Call me back when green peacers shoot up a walmart or attempt to assassinate a
politician.


http://abcnews.go.com/US/gunman-enters-discovery-channel-headquarter s- employees-evacuated/story?id=11535128
 
2014-06-19 06:10:22 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: Shazam999: Just remember kiddies, Greenpeace's revenues are around $500million a year.

Not bad for a bunch of commies.  I'm sure they'll redistribute their wealth to the poor


The trickle down effect you are feeling is in fact whale piss.
 
2014-06-19 06:12:01 PM  

olddinosaur: Geotpf: Anybody want to comment on his scientific assertions, which are basically saying that global warming is actually a good thing because humans and the crops we eat do better in warmer climates?


The basic science is this:  Plants "inhale" CO2 and "exhale"  oxygen, so if it is hotter, more plants will grow.

In addition, there are 7 billion people in the world and many are quite hungry, so if the growing season is extended and more farmland is available, so much the better.

More heat evaporates more ocean water so there would be more rain, not less.


That 8-year-old-level of scientific understanding would be swell if the planet were a uniform mass. Unfortunately, we currently grow just barely enough food on the arable land (and catch a decreasing amount of fish) to support 7 billion people. A hotter climate shifts the rainfall to different places, so some (possibly much) of that arable land will no longer be able to grow as much food, and other areas that get the right amount of rain and sunshine after the climate change are less fertile, have the wrong topography, are inaccessible, etc.

Worst-case end result is less food than mouths, widescale starvation, war, economic collapse. It's happened any number of times in the past, just not yet on a global scale.
 
2014-06-19 06:13:13 PM  

olddinosaur: The basic science is this:  Plants "inhale" CO2 and "exhale"  oxygen, so if it is hotter, more plants will grow.


Well, at least you're not denying it. But saying it's a good thing is insane.
 
2014-06-19 06:13:26 PM  

charlesmartel11235: Call me back when green peacers shoot up a walmart or attempt to assassinate a politician.


No one is going to call you.  Ever.
 
2014-06-19 06:14:57 PM  
There's plenty to argue with scientifically in what he's said.
1) Life? Sure, because archaea have been present since ~3.8bn years ago, and oceans and other sinks only saturated with oxygen starting ~0.85bn years ago. Furthermore, solar output was lower then (the faint young sun paradox); recent research has shown that historical *temperatures* were fairly well controlled (Hospitable Archean Climates Simulated by a General Circulation Model; Wolf et al, 2013).
2) Yes, climate in the past has been different, and occasionally warmer. However, in those times, the biosphere was also much, much different and based on the records we do have, the changes that happened (other than at mass extinction events) happened relatively slowly, versus the sudden step change (in geological terms) we are about to induce.
3) See 1.
4) We depend on a biosphere which is mostly not composed of tropical animals.
5) Plants are limited by available nutrients and water in most conditions, and photosynthesis in C3 plants (~95% of the biosphere) can't take place in high temperatures. The result of this is that extra CO2 doesn't help outside of a greenhouse where those needs are explicitly met.
6) See 5.
7) Sure, it may be possible. However, the soils in boreal forests tend to be quite acidic, which most plants aren't too keen on. Some soils are amenable to agriculture; others require a lot of work.
8) See 5.
9) Recent research on that shows that much of the warming has been happening in the Arctic, and observation has been hampered by sparse station networks. If I recall correctly, most of the additional heat content has been going into the deep ocean.
 
2014-06-19 06:15:40 PM  

Shazam999: Just remember kiddies, Greenpeace's revenues are around $500million a year.


citationneeded.jpg
 
2014-06-19 06:16:30 PM  

LazyMedia: and other areas that get the right amount of rain and sunshine after the climate change are less fertile, have the wrong topography, are inaccessible


Citation needed!
You alarmist types just make shiat up
 
2014-06-19 06:19:34 PM  

LazyMedia: It's happened any number of times in the past, just not yet on a global scale.


So, local climates experience changes? Thanks, Einstein.
 
2014-06-19 06:20:03 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Shazam999: Just remember kiddies, Greenpeace's revenues are around $500million a year.

citationneeded.jpg


Type "Greenpeace annual report" into Google.  Just remember, the numbers are in EUROs.
 
2014-06-19 06:20:14 PM  

mbillips: Breitbart link.


Words hurt your brain? Or are your beliefs so weak they crumble from differing views?
 
2014-06-19 06:21:33 PM  
The lefties on Fark will disagree and call you a racist.
 
2014-06-19 06:21:57 PM  

bronaugh: However, the soils in boreal forests tend to be quite acidic, which most plants aren't too keen on. Some soils are amenable to agriculture; others require a lot of work.


Nah.  Soil acidity is almost totally dependent on the underlying substrate.  Alberta, for instance, even though it has a lot of boreal forest, has a lot of alkaline soil areas.  No, falling evergreen needles don't change soil acidity, despite what anyone tells you.
 
2014-06-19 06:26:22 PM  

Uncle Tractor: Greenpeace is and has always been a scam. "Here's a picture of a baby seal. Send us your money." They have no credibility and nothing they say is worth listening to. Nothing but a bunch of con artists. Fark Greenpeace and their crazy sidekick Sea Shepard.

/norwegian here
//old enough to remember their anti-whaling bullshiat
///[i560.photobucket.com image 44x12]  em all


Leaving Greenpeace aside, whaling is asinine. What do you need to kill peaceful intelligent animals for that are just roaming the sea?

and so what if it's a cultural thing ... slavery used to be a cultural thing and so did women as chattel, fark all that shyte.

\Greenpeace seems like a bunch of bombastic turds but at least they disrupt whale hunts
 
2014-06-19 06:31:05 PM  

Uncle Tractor: Greenpeace is and has always been a scam. "Here's a picture of a baby seal. Send us your money." They have no credibility and nothing they say is worth listening to. Nothing but a bunch of con artists. Fark Greenpeace and their crazy sidekick Sea Shepard.


I get more concerned at their opposition to GM vitamin A-enhanced foods

Killing millions of babies for the sake of (unproven) dogma
 
2014-06-19 06:31:08 PM  

Egalitarian: Uncle Tractor: Greenpeace is and has always been a scam. "Here's a picture of a baby seal. Send us your money." They have no credibility and nothing they say is worth listening to. Nothing but a bunch of con artists. Fark Greenpeace and their crazy sidekick Sea Shepard.

/norwegian here
//old enough to remember their anti-whaling bullshiat
///[i560.photobucket.com image 44x12]  em all

Leaving Greenpeace aside, whaling is asinine. What do you need to kill peaceful intelligent animals for that are just roaming the sea?

and so what if it's a cultural thing ... slavery used to be a cultural thing and so did women as chattel, fark all that shyte.

\Greenpeace seems like a bunch of bombastic turds but at least they disrupt whale hunts


But they're so delicious!

/ The whales.
/ I'm sure some of the Greenpeace members taste delicious too.
 
2014-06-19 06:35:19 PM  
25.media.tumblr.com

"The man you trusted isn't Wavy Gravy at all. And all this time, I've been smoking harmless tobacco."
 
2014-06-19 06:47:23 PM  

MyRandomName: mbillips: Breitbart link.

Words hurt your brain? Or are your beliefs so weak they crumble from differing views?


He's scared of differing views.
 
2014-06-19 06:47:58 PM  
Well Greepeace seems extreme from the start but a lot of groups will go nutty after a while when they need to find ways to stay relevant see MADD.
 
2014-06-19 06:48:41 PM  

LazyMedia: Unfortunately, we currently grow just barely enough food on the arable land (and catch a decreasing amount of fish) to support 7 billion people.


Complete rubbish. Even the most pessimistic projections are for 10 to 12 billion. So the idea that there's anything close to '"just barely enough" at 7 billion is absurd.
 
2014-06-19 06:52:14 PM  

LazyMedia: Unfortunately, we currently grow just barely enough food on the arable land (and catch a decreasing amount of fish) to support 7 billion people.


That's just about the dumbest thing I've read on Fark, and there's a Politics tab.
 
2014-06-19 06:55:57 PM  
Conserving resources is unpatriotic, or something. So I'm going to leave my V8 pickup truck idling all day and night just to teach a lesson to some people I will never meet and who will never care about my opinion of them.

Sure, it's costing me a fortune in gas, but it's worth it to stick it to those libs.
 
2014-06-19 06:58:49 PM  
It's extreme to separate paper from plastics and dump 'em in recycling barrels?
 
2014-06-19 06:59:23 PM  
I love nature. So I joined an environmental group at college. I left after two meetings. They were super pro vegetarian and crazy about always being green. I am all for protecting wildlife and recycling, but these guys were crazy about it.
 
2014-06-19 07:02:31 PM  
bronaugh:

That all looks pretty believable to my semi-educated eyes. How is this Patrick Moore guy this scientifically illiterate if he used to be a crazy eco-terrorist anyway? Oh wait...
 
2014-06-19 07:07:54 PM  

stirfrybry: charlesmartel11235: Call me back when green peacers shoot up a walmart or attempt to assassinate a
politician.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/gunman-enters-discovery-channel-headquarter s- employees-evacuated/story?id=11535128


He wanted to suicide bomb Discovery Channel. He called people "disgusting human babies" and "parasitic infants."

Was this guy me? Did they shoot me and I came back without my memory?

Do I need to hunt down the cast of Fat 'n' Furious r.ddmcdn.com and kill them so I can remember through the loops?

Tell me now. I've got a human race to save, people.
 
2014-06-19 07:09:49 PM  
Pretty much all political movements are a mixture of extreme ideology and religious-like fundamentalism.  No matter what political comment you'll make on the Internet, for example, an aggressive American will shortly be along to stereotype you, call you an idiot and smugly explain why only their political beliefs are the correct ones.  Black and white viewpoints combined with arrogant proselytizing characterize far too many politically active people.  I think most of them are missing the point.
 
2014-06-19 07:10:08 PM  

vpb: James!: We've got to start differentiating between ramming whaling boats and installing solar panels.

That's the thing, he was in Greenpeace back in the ramming whaling boats days.  Greenpeace didn't become extreme, he created it that way.


How's this different from L Ron admitting Scientologists are full of it?
 
2014-06-19 07:16:22 PM  
 
2014-06-19 07:16:38 PM  

Uncle Tractor: Greenpeace is and has always been a scam. "Here's a picture of a baby seal. Send us your money." They have no credibility and nothing they say is worth listening to. Nothing but a bunch of con artists. Fark Greenpeace and their crazy sidekick Sea Shepard.

/norwegian here
//old enough to remember their anti-whaling bullshiat
///[i560.photobucket.com image 44x12]  em all


Fark You Norway
 
2014-06-19 07:20:53 PM  

Huck And Molly Ziegler: It's extreme to separate paper from plastics and dump 'em in recycling barrels?


It's unpatriotic, real 'Mericans don't even recognize the word compost
 
2014-06-19 07:27:06 PM  

MyRandomName: mbillips: Breitbart link.

Words hurt your brain? Or are your beliefs so weak they crumble from differing views?


It's Fark, I don't even know what my beliefs are until someone with a TotalFark tag all caps, bold, and centers a statement.
 
2014-06-19 08:00:41 PM  

letrole: LazyMedia: Unfortunately, we currently grow just barely enough food on the arable land (and catch a decreasing amount of fish) to support 7 billion people.

Complete rubbish. Even the most pessimistic projections are for 10 to 12 billion. So the idea that there's anything close to '"just barely enough" at 7 billion is absurd.


Those are simply demographics projections. They don't take into account the basic fact that we have less cropland per person every year, because of overexploitation and degradation of cropland as well as population growth. From 1954 to 1994, 40 percent of the arable cropland was lost worldwide. What land we have is being treated as a fossil resource (topsoil depth in the Midwest has decreased from more than 10 feet to less than a foot in places), and its fertility is decreasing. Also, much food is produced through the use of fossil aquifers that are not being replenished, and those are running out.

It's not a question of whether we'll run out of sufficient food and clean water to sustain our current population. It's just a question of when, unless we radically change the way we use and preserve agricultural resources.

agoodhuman.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-06-19 08:09:18 PM  

Fark like a Barsoomian: bronaugh:

That all looks pretty believable to my semi-educated eyes. How is this Patrick Moore guy this scientifically illiterate if he used to be a crazy eco-terrorist anyway? Oh wait...


It's hard to get a man to understand something when his living depends on not understanding it:  http://www.monbiot.com/2010/12/02/the-great-ventriloquist/
 
2014-06-19 08:25:20 PM  
This douche canoe has said all this crap before. He's nothing more than a paid shill.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/moore -2012.html

/he is somewhat correct about environmentalism being hijacked by crazies, yet he uses this as an excuse to discount any environmentalism.
 
2014-06-19 09:02:31 PM  
Well that explains why Gore acts like Jimmy Swaggert and still has his fans.
 
2014-06-19 09:05:48 PM  

LazyMedia: [agoodhuman.files.wordpress.com image 493x374]


Where is all this land in Oceania?
 
2014-06-19 09:05:49 PM  

LazyMedia: It's not a question of whether we'll run out of sufficient food and clean water to sustain our current population. It's just a question of when, unless we radically change the way we use and preserve agricultural resources.


Or we unless we stop acting like we can't replenish them. There's a lot of ways we can game the water cycle and can artificially build up topsoil and nutrify it. But when we talk about doing that some folks flip out.Afraid that their dystopian human-free future may be averted.
 
2014-06-19 09:13:59 PM  

Fark like a Barsoomian: LazyMedia: [agoodhuman.files.wordpress.com image 493x374]

Where is all this land in Oceania?



The graph portrays arable land per person, not the amount of arable land in an absolute sense.
 
2014-06-19 09:18:56 PM  

Fark like a Barsoomian: LazyMedia: [agoodhuman.files.wordpress.com image 493x374]

Where is all this land in Oceania?


Per person. Low population = more land.
 
2014-06-19 09:19:16 PM  

Mrbogey: LazyMedia: It's not a question of whether we'll run out of sufficient food and clean water to sustain our current population. It's just a question of when, unless we radically change the way we use and preserve agricultural resources.

Or we unless we stop acting like we can't replenish them. There's a lot of ways we can game the water cycle and can artificially build up topsoil and nutrify it.


Don't forget that there's also consideration of whether such ways are sustainable in the long term, feasible given limited resources, or simply the easiest or most effective way to tackle the problem.


Mrbogey: But when we talk about doing that some folks flip out.Afraid that their dystopian human-free future may be averted.


Be careful you're not arguing against a straw-man here. You'll find that the number people advocating for the extinction of the human race is very, very limited, and are in no way in the mainstream.
 
2014-06-19 09:34:24 PM  

vpb: James!: We've got to start differentiating between ramming whaling boats and installing solar panels.

That's the thing, he was in Greenpeace back in the ramming whaling boats days.  Greenpeace didn't become extreme, he created it that way.


Paul Watson did, others had reservations.
 
2014-06-19 09:34:55 PM  

4seasons85!: I love nature. So I joined an environmental group at college. I left after two meetings. They were super pro vegetarian and crazy about always being green. I am all for protecting wildlife and recycling, but these guys were crazy about it.


Any of those people who stay in environmental groups have to be pretty nutty, because we are LOSING. Anyone with half a brain knows that saving a field or one species in a state or something is nothing compared to what we're farking up. So you have to talk a big talk to act like the bore-banded warbler is the most important thing on earth and you have to save it and it's a big deal. When in fact, all we're saving is fragments of anything that's really important.
 
2014-06-19 09:59:59 PM  

4seasons85!: I love nature. So I joined an environmental group at college. I left after two meetings. They were super pro vegetarian and crazy about always being green. I am all for protecting wildlife and recycling, but these guys were crazy about it.


Heh. I did some canvassing for OSPIRG once. Once. The moment I knew I had to flee was when the organizer asked the newbies "So what's everybody's favorite Beatles song?"
 
2014-06-19 10:02:18 PM  

cryinoutloud: 4seasons85!: I love nature. So I joined an environmental group at college. I left after two meetings. They were super pro vegetarian and crazy about always being green. I am all for protecting wildlife and recycling, but these guys were crazy about it.

Any of those people who stay in environmental groups have to be pretty nutty, because we are LOSING. Anyone with half a brain knows that saving a field or one species in a state or something is nothing compared to what we're farking up. So you have to talk a big talk to act like the bore-banded warbler is the most important thing on earth and you have to save it and it's a big deal. When in fact, all we're saving is fragments of anything that's really important.



"One of the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds. Much of the damage inflicted on land is quite invisible to laymen. An ecologist must either harden his shell and make believe that the consequences of science are none of his business, or he must be the doctor who sees the marks of death in a community that believes itself well and does not want to be told otherwise."

- Aldo Leopold


So perhaps nutty, but the kind of nutty we need more of if we hope to save more than fragments.
 
2014-06-19 11:33:51 PM  

Mrbogey: LazyMedia: It's not a question of whether we'll run out of sufficient food and clean water to sustain our current population. It's just a question of when, unless we radically change the way we use and preserve agricultural resources.

Or we unless we stop acting like we can't replenish them. There's a lot of ways we can game the water cycle and can artificially build up topsoil and nutrify it. But when we talk about doing that some folks flip out.Afraid that their dystopian human-free future may be averted.


Yeah, that's science fictional BS. Topsoil is made by earthworms, at the rate of about a quarter-inch per century.  You can speed that up some through composting and intensive worm farming, but that's a labor-intensive method best suited to gardening hobbyists, utterly impractical for the factory farms that produce most of our staple food. Fossil aquifers are filled by glaciers melting, and will not replenish before the next ice age. We don't have anything like the knowledge or energy sources needed to do anything other than subsist off prehistoric resources that are finite and dwindling. Sure, we can use technology to make everything last longer, but not effectively for a population expanding toward 10 billion people, all of them wanting a better, more resource-use-intensive life.

We won't have a human-free future, I don't think. Just a low-tech one, with a fraction of the human population we have now. I don't know if that means 1800-style society, or caves and bearskins. I'll be long dead before it happens, knock on wood, but I doubt our society will last another 100 years.
 
2014-06-19 11:52:37 PM  
   Where is comment from Alex Jones?
Isn't he the new editor of Breitbart?
 
2014-06-20 12:06:10 AM  
Darn. I was hoping for someone to haul out "Gaia hypothesis". It's valid, but it also says "We're screwed."

Just for giggles, the Gaia hypothesis response to this is that there will probably still be a biosphere no matter what. However, that biosphere will be "adjusted" so that organisms that thrive in an environment unsuitable for humans will be what's left.
 
2014-06-20 12:48:56 AM  

vpb: James!: We've got to start differentiating between ramming whaling boats and installing solar panels.

That's the thing, he was in Greenpeace back in the ramming whaling boats days.  Greenpeace didn't become extreme, he created it that way.


I once met a guy who was invited to join Greenpeace in Africa. He went along on a poaching patrol with a number of armed Greenpeace members. He was told that if they spotted poachers, they'd shoot them on sight. He gave them a hearty "Fark You", and turned his energies elsewhere.
 
2014-06-20 03:28:51 AM  
Egalitarian: Leaving Greenpeace aside, whaling is asinine. What do you need to kill peaceful intelligent animals for that are just roaming the sea?

Whales are about as smart as cattle, pigs, maybe. This "intelligent being" thing is a myth started by some guy who took too much acid and communicated with a whale's eyeball or something (too lazy to look it up). They're oceangoing grazers with a few unique tricks, that's all. If they were half as smart as the whale-worshipers make them out to be, there would be no such thing as whaling.

and so what if it's a cultural thing ... slavery used to be a cultural thing and so did women as chattel, fark all that shyte.

Funny thing about whaling ...Back in the 90s, it was on the way out. Whale meat was "poor man's beef", but when the whale-worshipers started their bullshiat, eating whale became an act of patriotism. The anti-whaling campaign was good for the whaling industry.

The moral is: If you want Norway to stop whaling, just ignore it and wait another generation. Meanwhile, we hunt minke, which is in no way endangered.

\Greenpeace seems like a bunch of bombastic turds but at least they disrupt whale hunts

Despite Greenpeace being bombastic turds, you seem to have swallowed their bullshiat whole.
 
2014-06-20 03:30:23 AM  

mjjt: I get more concerned at their opposition to GM vitamin A-enhanced foods

Killing millions of babies for the sake of (unproven) dogma


Any bandwagon will do, as long as they can make a boatload on it.
 
2014-06-20 03:36:04 AM  

LazyMedia: It's not a question of whether we'll run out of sufficient food and clean water to sustain our current population. It's just a question of when, unless we radically change the way we use and preserve agricultural resources.


IMO that ship has sailed. e're heading for a period where the weather is too unpredictable for outdoor food production. Vertical_farming  is the way to go.
 
2014-06-20 06:06:48 AM  

Mrbogey: Well that explains why Gore acts like Jimmy Swaggert and still has his fans.


Don't pay attention to me flying everywhere I can get more money.
 
2014-06-20 09:57:17 AM  

Uncle Tractor: Greenpeace is and has always been a scam. "Here's a picture of a baby seal. Send us your money." They have no credibility and nothing they say is worth listening to. Nothing but a bunch of con artists. Fark Greenpeace and their crazy sidekick Sea Shepard.

/norwegian here
//old enough to remember their anti-whaling bullshiat
///[i560.photobucket.com image 44x12]  em all


http://satwcomic.com/moby-is-a-dick

Fark Green Piss. The only thing that has had me saying "GO FARKING FROG COUNTRY" in the last 40 years was Mitterrand blowing up their little boat and making them cry. That and the Norwegian harponeers that tried to re-invent the ballista and skewer the Sea Shepherd @$$holes.

/Never ate whale.
//Will go to Iceland specifically to eat whale kebab.
///Mexican. I also eat insects. Come to think of it, I eat anything that isn't fast enough to run away.
 
2014-06-21 05:26:49 AM  

mizchief: Rueened: Conserving resources is unpatriotic, or something. So I'm going to leave my V8 pickup truck idling all day and night just to teach a lesson to some people I will never meet and who will never care about my opinion of them.

Sure, it's costing me a fortune in gas, but it's worth it to stick it to those libs.

That is the biggest problem. There are plenty of practical strategic and economic reasons to move away from fossil fuels that most people can agree with, but instead of focusing on those, the far-left wants to use the environmental impact as a weapon against capitalism.

When hybrid cars first came out the manufactures knew that the extra cost of the hybrid would not be recouped in gas mileage (which every practical car buyer knows) so they jumped on the "green" bandwagon to make sales. It was sold to those who were willing to spend more money up front and had a looming mid-life cost of replacing the battery (or most likely encourage the sale of a replacement car since it was about the same time frame most would have it paid off) just so they could feel self-righteous. Which then created a divide where normal people didn't want to be labeled as one of these doucebags and the technology never caught on outside that group where it could have been marketed as an performance enhancer for off-the-line power for sports cars and SUV's


Or hub motors (at least as close to the wheel as possible to minimize friction losses), or flywheels, or a ton of other alternatives that would be found out if you marketed electrics to the nerds as "100% efficient" and to the SEMA crowd as "yeeeeee-haw! 'Lectric poke to outrun the revenooers!". Like nitro without the frigging tanks. But no, they had to go to the cryptomarxists. Now, eminently cool things like a Harley electric that goes like stink and sounds like a little jet taking off is gonna be rejected automatically because it smells of hypocrisy and weird semi-toxic leaf vegetables.
 
Displayed 86 of 86 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report