Greenpeacve protests about Danish oil driling in the Arctic
-
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/05/24-6[^] Of course the usual terms are rolled out "pristine environment". Its only 'pristine' because is sodding cold and frozen! The usual objections are raised: "Fears that an Arctic spill would be difficult if not impossible to clean up were confirmed in an email exchange between the British Foreign Office and the energy secretary, Chris Huhne, that was obtained by Greenpeace under freedom of information legislation. Officials briefed Huhne, saying: "It is difficult to get assistance in case of pollution problems in such areas, and near impossible to make good damage caused."" Of course that is in fact completely irrelevant: Over ten times as much oil gets into the oceans through natural seepage than that spilt by man. http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/oilspills.htm[^] An inconvienient truth overlooked by envormentalists that utterly destroys their objections.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
I was thrown out of a Greenpeace meeting when I was 17. Odd experience being ejected from somewhere by two middle aged men with long beards, bad jumpers and sandals.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
-
ChrisElston wrote:
I was thrown out of a Greenpeace meeting when I was 17.
Come on. Spill the story.
Nothing interesting, my girlfriend at the time was a member, I was sitting at it's periphery waiting for it to finish, I took issue (politely) with some of the stuff they were saying. Turns out they only wanted people who were prepared to agree with everything they said and I certainly wasn't. I just asked for justification on some points and challenged others. It didn't take long before I was asked to leave, the host coming over to escort me out and another standing up and following, presumably to add some muscle should I have caused any trouble. Although how much muscle his tofu hippy diet would have provided him with I am not sure.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
-
Nothing interesting, my girlfriend at the time was a member, I was sitting at it's periphery waiting for it to finish, I took issue (politely) with some of the stuff they were saying. Turns out they only wanted people who were prepared to agree with everything they said and I certainly wasn't. I just asked for justification on some points and challenged others. It didn't take long before I was asked to leave, the host coming over to escort me out and another standing up and following, presumably to add some muscle should I have caused any trouble. Although how much muscle his tofu hippy diet would have provided him with I am not sure.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
Wrong story. Was your GF hot? :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra] posting about Crystal Reports here is like discussing gay marriage on a catholic church’s website.[Nishant Sivakumar]
-
Wrong story. Was your GF hot? :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra] posting about Crystal Reports here is like discussing gay marriage on a catholic church’s website.[Nishant Sivakumar]
-
Chris Meech wrote:
Was your GF hot?
Inquiring minds want to know
In real engineering, you do what works in practice, even if the theory says it fails. In social engineering, you do what theory says works, even if it fails in practice.
We, the assholes, also want to know. :-D
There is only one Ashley Judd and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
We, the assholes, also want to know. :-D
There is only one Ashley Judd and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
So do we the pervs.
Programming is a race between programmers trying to build bigger and better idiot proof programs, and the universe trying to build bigger and better idiots, so far... the universe is winning.
-
Wrong story. Was your GF hot? :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra] posting about Crystal Reports here is like discussing gay marriage on a catholic church’s website.[Nishant Sivakumar]
-
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/05/24-6[^] Of course the usual terms are rolled out "pristine environment". Its only 'pristine' because is sodding cold and frozen! The usual objections are raised: "Fears that an Arctic spill would be difficult if not impossible to clean up were confirmed in an email exchange between the British Foreign Office and the energy secretary, Chris Huhne, that was obtained by Greenpeace under freedom of information legislation. Officials briefed Huhne, saying: "It is difficult to get assistance in case of pollution problems in such areas, and near impossible to make good damage caused."" Of course that is in fact completely irrelevant: Over ten times as much oil gets into the oceans through natural seepage than that spilt by man. http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/oilspills.htm[^] An inconvienient truth overlooked by envormentalists that utterly destroys their objections.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
fat_boy wrote:
Of course that is in fact completely irrelevant: Over ten times as much oil gets into the oceans through natural seepage than that spilt by man. http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/oilspills.htm[^]
That would be interesting if it was in fact relevant. Localized large volume accidents are not equivalent in terms of damage when compared to incremental ongoing wide spread out flows. The analogy would be similar to claiming that that wild fires are equivalent to home heating.
-
Wrong story. Was your GF hot? :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra] posting about Crystal Reports here is like discussing gay marriage on a catholic church’s website.[Nishant Sivakumar]
-
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/05/24-6[^] Of course the usual terms are rolled out "pristine environment". Its only 'pristine' because is sodding cold and frozen! The usual objections are raised: "Fears that an Arctic spill would be difficult if not impossible to clean up were confirmed in an email exchange between the British Foreign Office and the energy secretary, Chris Huhne, that was obtained by Greenpeace under freedom of information legislation. Officials briefed Huhne, saying: "It is difficult to get assistance in case of pollution problems in such areas, and near impossible to make good damage caused."" Of course that is in fact completely irrelevant: Over ten times as much oil gets into the oceans through natural seepage than that spilt by man. http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/oilspills.htm[^] An inconvienient truth overlooked by envormentalists that utterly destroys their objections.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
Statistics and numbers are there to be manipulated in any fashion desired by the person trying to present their side of the case. Either one is irrelevant at best. My question and problem with Greenpeace however has and always will be.... " How much FUEL do you burn boating around and driving around to protest this thing and the other?????" Until they walk to their meetings and ride horses to get across country and use rowboats to go out to oil rigs.. They are no more than hypocrites not worthy of my admittedly short attention span.
Programming is a race between programmers trying to build bigger and better idiot proof programs, and the universe trying to build bigger and better idiots, so far... the universe is winning.
-
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/05/24-6[^] Of course the usual terms are rolled out "pristine environment". Its only 'pristine' because is sodding cold and frozen! The usual objections are raised: "Fears that an Arctic spill would be difficult if not impossible to clean up were confirmed in an email exchange between the British Foreign Office and the energy secretary, Chris Huhne, that was obtained by Greenpeace under freedom of information legislation. Officials briefed Huhne, saying: "It is difficult to get assistance in case of pollution problems in such areas, and near impossible to make good damage caused."" Of course that is in fact completely irrelevant: Over ten times as much oil gets into the oceans through natural seepage than that spilt by man. http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/oilspills.htm[^] An inconvienient truth overlooked by envormentalists that utterly destroys their objections.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
fat_boy wrote:
Of course that is in fact completely irrelevant: Over ten times as much oil gets into the oceans through natural seepage than that spilt by man. http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/oilspills.htm[^]
That would be interesting if it was in fact relevant. Localized large volume accidents are not equivalent in terms of damage when compared to incremental ongoing wide spread out flows. The analogy would be similar to claiming that that wild fires are equivalent to home heating.
jschell wrote:
That would be interesting if it was in fact relevant.
That figure I quoted is an average. One can easilly imagine that on occasion the amount of oil released naturally by one fissure alone could easilly exceed the average. Especially the one just offshore of Californian that on average releases 3,000 gallons a day. Whats it going to do i n an earth quake?
jschell wrote:
The analogy would be similar to claiming that that wild fires are equivalent to home heating.
Entirely spurious and in fact many plants only reproduce due to wild fires which are themselves another totally natural phenomena. As for damage done by oil seepage and mans spils. What sort of damage are we talkign about? Clearly the oil eating bacteria have a field day even if some sea bird perish. Are you saying a sea bird is more important than a bacteris?
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
Statistics and numbers are there to be manipulated in any fashion desired by the person trying to present their side of the case. Either one is irrelevant at best. My question and problem with Greenpeace however has and always will be.... " How much FUEL do you burn boating around and driving around to protest this thing and the other?????" Until they walk to their meetings and ride horses to get across country and use rowboats to go out to oil rigs.. They are no more than hypocrites not worthy of my admittedly short attention span.
Programming is a race between programmers trying to build bigger and better idiot proof programs, and the universe trying to build bigger and better idiots, so far... the universe is winning.
Quite. The amount of CO2 produced by people whose aim is to protect the environment is incredible. I saw a nature program last night that set out to protect deer in the New Forest (on previous programs they had mentioned GW). They spent: 1) a week driving up and down at night filming deer, 2) A week clearing back 10 meters of foliage over a length of a mile with chainsaws and shredded the resulting moutain of wood. 3) Digging treestumps out of a field with a massive JCB. 4) Recovering an underpass with gravel using dumper trucks and so on. Deer deaths dropped by 2 over a spave of 4 months. My quesiton to them would be that given the supposed impact of CO2 on the world is it better to let two deer die and save all avoid that production of CO2? Whether I agree with AGW or not, clearly these people are utterly stupid.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
fat_boy wrote:
Of course that is in fact completely irrelevant: Over ten times as much oil gets into the oceans through natural seepage than that spilt by man. http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/oilspills.htm[^]
That would be interesting if it was in fact relevant. Localized large volume accidents are not equivalent in terms of damage when compared to incremental ongoing wide spread out flows. The analogy would be similar to claiming that that wild fires are equivalent to home heating.
jschell wrote:
The analogy would be similar to claiming that that wild fires are equivalent to home heating.
You are saying that some heat sources are more equal than others?
In real engineering, you do what works in practice, even if the theory says it fails. In social engineering, you do what theory says works, even if it fails in practice.
-
Quite. The amount of CO2 produced by people whose aim is to protect the environment is incredible. I saw a nature program last night that set out to protect deer in the New Forest (on previous programs they had mentioned GW). They spent: 1) a week driving up and down at night filming deer, 2) A week clearing back 10 meters of foliage over a length of a mile with chainsaws and shredded the resulting moutain of wood. 3) Digging treestumps out of a field with a massive JCB. 4) Recovering an underpass with gravel using dumper trucks and so on. Deer deaths dropped by 2 over a spave of 4 months. My quesiton to them would be that given the supposed impact of CO2 on the world is it better to let two deer die and save all avoid that production of CO2? Whether I agree with AGW or not, clearly these people are utterly stupid.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
fat_boy wrote:
Whether I agree with AGW or not, clearly these people are utterly stupid.
I disagree. How much of a grant did they get, and how much did they sell the program for?
In real engineering, you do what works in practice, even if the theory says it fails. In social engineering, you do what theory says works, even if it fails in practice.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Whether I agree with AGW or not, clearly these people are utterly stupid.
I disagree. How much of a grant did they get, and how much did they sell the program for?
In real engineering, you do what works in practice, even if the theory says it fails. In social engineering, you do what theory says works, even if it fails in practice.
OK, stupid or devious liars. :)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
fat_boy wrote:
Whether I agree with AGW or not, clearly these people are utterly stupid.
I disagree. How much of a grant did they get, and how much did they sell the program for?
In real engineering, you do what works in practice, even if the theory says it fails. In social engineering, you do what theory says works, even if it fails in practice.
Oakman wrote:
How much of a grant did they get, and how much did they sell the program for?
No worries. A risk-taking, entrepreneurial venture by RDF/Channel 4. No grants.
Everybody is elitist to a certain extent; except me - I'm better than that. Micah
-
Quite. The amount of CO2 produced by people whose aim is to protect the environment is incredible. I saw a nature program last night that set out to protect deer in the New Forest (on previous programs they had mentioned GW). They spent: 1) a week driving up and down at night filming deer, 2) A week clearing back 10 meters of foliage over a length of a mile with chainsaws and shredded the resulting moutain of wood. 3) Digging treestumps out of a field with a massive JCB. 4) Recovering an underpass with gravel using dumper trucks and so on. Deer deaths dropped by 2 over a spave of 4 months. My quesiton to them would be that given the supposed impact of CO2 on the world is it better to let two deer die and save all avoid that production of CO2? Whether I agree with AGW or not, clearly these people are utterly stupid.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
fat_boy wrote:
My quesiton to them would be that given the supposed impact of CO2 on the world is it better to let two deer die and save all avoid that production of CO2?
Only two deer? Are you saying that the foliage grew back and the underpass refilled in just 4 months? Wow! What a waste! My quesiton to you would be: Given the supposed impact of CO2 on the world, is it better to let motorists be injured or die by hitting deer, and avoid that production of CO2?
fat_boy wrote:
clearly these people are utterly stupid.
Only if they are campaigning against CO2 induced AGW. Are they? Bill Baily is a comic and musician, whose take on AGW I have not been able to find. Perhaps if I ploughed through You Tube, I might determine it. Dr Sara Norris is a conservationist, who nowhere mentions AGW in her profile[^]. Jem Stansfield is an engineer turned science presenter. As he has been on 'Scrapheap Challenge', he presumably does not worry too much about the pointless production of CO2. (Engineers are always 'deniers'.) Dusty Gedge sells 'living roofs'. Quote: In the UK context, it is predicted that we will have: • Increased summer temperatures • Increased likelihood of intense summer storms Green roofs are now widely recognised as helping cities to cool during heat excesses and also reduce the need for air conditioning in individual buildings. A good green roof can help reduce the amount of rainwater leaving roofs during excess summer storms. This reduces the load on the storm water system and reduces the likelihood of summer flash storms[floods?]. His business depends on the mitigation of AGW, so he ain't stoopid.
Everybody is elitist to a certain extent; except me - I'm better than that. Micah