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 29
    More: Obvious, carbon dioxide, Greenpeace, scientific evidence, climate change, political ideology  
•       •       •

2193 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jun 2014 at 5:33 PM (13 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

vpb [TotalFark]
2014-06-19 02:07:01 PM
9 votes:
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.
2014-06-19 05:50:08 PM
5 votes:

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 05:41:57 PM
5 votes:
Breitbart link.

img.4plebs.org
2014-06-19 06:12:01 PM
3 votes:

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 05:53:56 PM
3 votes:
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
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-06-19 03:26:17 PM
3 votes:

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 02:30:42 PM
3 votes:

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 08:00:41 PM
2 votes:

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 07:09:49 PM
2 votes:
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 05:51:17 PM
2 votes:
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 03:27:42 PM
2 votes:

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 03:20:13 PM
2 votes:
We've got to start differentiating between ramming whaling boats and installing solar panels.
2014-06-20 10:38:09 AM
1 votes:

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
2014-06-20 03:28:51 AM
1 votes:
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.
2014-06-19 08:25:20 PM
1 votes:
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 06:52:14 PM
1 votes:

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 06:35:19 PM
1 votes:
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 06:31:05 PM
1 votes:

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 06:26:22 PM
1 votes:

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 06:14:57 PM
1 votes:
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 06:05:47 PM
1 votes:
Heh, I wish the French would bomb one of their ships again.
2014-06-19 06:05:15 PM
1 votes:

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


media0.giphy.com
2014-06-19 06:02:21 PM
1 votes:
Just remember kiddies, Greenpeace's revenues are around $500million a year.
2014-06-19 05:54:03 PM
1 votes:

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 05:50:54 PM
1 votes:
Call me back when green peacers shoot up a walmart or attempt to assassinate a politician.
2014-06-19 05:45:01 PM
1 votes:
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 05:38:28 PM
1 votes:
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 05:37:38 PM
1 votes:
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.
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-06-19 02:17:19 PM
1 votes:
I forgot to list his website.  This is the PR company he co-founded.
 
Displayed 29 of 29 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report