Slashdot Mirror

>I was wondering if you care to support your outlandish claims that we support ecoterrorism?

Oh, please, don't make it so easy!

Tree spiking murders innocent workers.

A quote from Mr. Paul Watson (as a Greenpeace member, I'm certian you know of him, as he is a principal founder of your organization)

"I was the person who first thought up the tactic of tree-spiking and as such I feel obligated to defend this child of my imagination." (Link)

Care to make me find more examples?

>We do not and will not tolerate ecoterrorism.

That's why the principal founders of your organization devise murderous tactics, right?

It doesn't sound like a sane organization when it's founded by people like Paul Watson.

>Greenpeace is a very upright environmental organization.

Excellent. Tell me what happened to your boats in British Columbia on July 3, 1997. Find me a link to the info on the greenpeace website, if you're so upright.

Of course, we won't find one, because on that day the people of Victoria, BC fought back and blockaded YOUR boats.

>We have many worthwhile causes.

Many? Care to name 3 that aren't runing people's lives?

>You might not agree with protesting, but it's hardly any type of terrorism.

Hey, I agree with protesting. But protesting doesn't include blockades and property invasion. That crosses the line of protesting (which is marches in the streets, passing leaflets, general education of the public) and becomes sets of criminal acts, even in countries with the most liberal of free speech laws, such as the US. Criminals don't deserve to benefit from their work.

>or the illegal logging in the Amazon

Which you defend through such extreme violations of the law you become pirates yourselves, charged under laws intended for true pirates (such as yourselves -- it's shameful to take over other people's private property like that -- all the more reason the world will have to continue to arm itself against radicals such as yourselves). For some reason it's wrong to pirate logs, but just fine to pirate ships.

You can't be serious.

>I don't know of many other organizations that stand up for the thousands killed in Bophal

You have to go back 2 decades to find something decent Greenpeace did?

That's sad. But, sadder still, is the proof that your protesting really was worth nothing:

"Meanwhile, very little of the money from the settlement reached with Union Carbide went to the survivors, and people in the area feel betrayed not only by Union Carbide (and chairman Warren Anderson,) but also by their own politicians. On the anniversary of the tragedy, effigies of Anderson and politicians are burnt."

At least the US Government managed to squeeze some money out for them. I wonder, how much did Greenpeace give?

Now, for my final point, care to respond to this?

"IT'S OFFICIAL: GREENPEACE SERVES NO PUBLIC PURPOSE"

Revenue Canada, the tax-collecting arm of the government, has refused to recognize the new Greenpeace Environmental Foundation as a charity, saying its activities have "no public benefit" and that lobbying to shut down industries could send people "into poverty."

"But according to court records made public in June by John Duncan, the Reform MP from British Columbia, the federal charities division found the group's activities "have not complied with the law" on charitable organizations."

"The recent Greenpeace campaigns against PVC plasticisers and

But some claim the radioactivity is carried around on ocean currents to end up in our fish and on our beaches.

Harrisburg/US, 28 March 1979
A combination of technical failures and human error leads to a partial-meltdown in the core of Unit 2 reactor of the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant. Radioactive gases are released, some 3,500 children and pregnant women are evacuated.

IFA/AFR reactors.

In the course of nuclear power in the US, raw fuel has only used approximately 2% of the fissible energy potential. Much of this material can be taken out of the current storage pools and put to good use in newer reactors and without the previous longstanding concerns of weapons proliferation.

Since IFRs take so long to burn through the fuel, it will take quite some time to go through the waste and weapons material (which can also be used as a fuel source). By the time you get back to actually mining uranium for power again, let alone going to the oceans, a great deal will have passed.

Burying spent fuel is not the answer. There are better solutions like IFRs. With IFRs, you actually get rid of most of the actinides, you can use spent fuel from light water reactors, you can use reprocessed nuclear warheads, and you get a huge amount of electrical power from the exchange. From a nuclear waste disposal standpoint alone, IFRs are worth it.

By the way, don't listen to Fox News; It'll rot your brain.

Or maybe he recognizes most of the rhetoric against nuclear to be utter nonsense. Ralph Nader declared plutonium to be the most toxic substance known to man. It isn't. Not even close. Others suggested that the use of nuclear power would boil our rivers and oceans away. It doesn't. Not even close. It's repeated over and over that there are no ways to dispose of transuranic spent fuel. There is.

Environmentalists (myself included) need to get over this and move on. More people have died from the coal cycle each year than have ever died from nuclear accidents -- including Chernobyl. Renewable alternatives may potentially solve energy problems someday. Nuclear solves them today. It's not politics. It's just running the numbers.

> Greenhouse gases are far easier to deal with than radioactive waste. Gases like carbon dioxide can be offset by things like trees. Nothing can offset radioactivity, you are stuck with it for millennia.

I actually wasn't thinking about greenhouse gases at all, but now that you mention it, that's another environmental hazard that you don't have to worry about with nuclear power. I was actually thinking about the radioactive isotypes which occur naturally in coal and get released into the atmosphere when it's burned. The radiation released by coal power tends to be a good bit more than that released by nuclear power.

> Nuclear security is not as strong as you might think.

Read my sentence carefully: "Nuclear power makes a tempting terrorist target: blowing up a power station or waste transportation vehicle can easily irradiate millions of people."

Here's a nice piece, which discusses the exaggerated danger of an attack on a nuclear power plant; it's by a conservative think tank (eww!), but the logic is sound. Even if an attack were successful, it wouldn't do all that much damage. It sounds grim, but from a terrorist's perspective there are far easier ways of killing large numbers of people.

When waste is being transported, the radioactive material is already in a fairly stabilized/contained state, and an attack really wouldn't do too much to disperse it.

For ever argument, there's a counter-argument. A consensus consisting of such climate experts physiologists and economists doesn't convince me. If it convinces you, okey dokey.

It's no suprise that michael is posting this. Michael is to technoblogging what Jerry Springer is to reality. As other posters have pointed out, UCS is not a scientific group - they're a political activist group. This piece by the Centers for Policy Analysis (a group which is unabashed about its political aims) gives some examples of how UCS promotes junk science when necessary to promote idealogical ends.

No, I don't expect michael to know what he's talking about. He's not a nerd, he's just a political hack. I just wish Slashdot's Commanders in Cheif would fire his ass so we can get news that isn't tainted by his petty wingnut politics.

The site also includes some reports of cases where the result of a case is quite reasonable despite initial outrageous claims.

If you want an example of outrageous legal claims, look into the asbestos law suits.

Why not use integral fast reactors to reduce nuclear waste?

If we burn the long half-life isotopes as nuclear fuel, and leave short half-life isotopes that decay quickly, we can seriously reduce

the amount of nuclear waste

the time that waste needs to be stored.

the tonnes of nuclear waste produced for which the only solution seems to be

"stick it in a fast reactor and use it again".

except that made the know-nothings even more scared of their own shadows, so politics and fear-mongering killed that too.

Or perhaps my irrationality extends to thinking that when the pigeons around the UK's nuclear waste processing plants are so radioactive they would be classed as nuclear waste themselves

if you think that proves anything about nuclear waste reprocessing as such, then you would indeed be thinking irrationally. if, however, you get a sneaking suspicion that the simple explanation - namely, that whoever operated that particular plant were a bunch of goofball morons who shouldn't have been trusted to operate a toaster - might after all be more likely, then perhaps there is still hope for your rationality and sense.

The problem with nuclear power is that it is made by humans and they have a habit of fucking up on a grand scale.

how, exactly, is that a problem with nuclear power?

that is a problem with people. don't blame nuclear power for your belonging to a race of goofball morons. if you let humanity's inherent flawedness scare you away from doing anything at all remotely dangerous - because, ohmygoddess, we might fuck it up somehow, because we are so goddamn motherfucking stupid, we can't trust ourselves with pointy sticks even, we might poke our eyes out, won't somebody think of the children - then nothing will ever get done. at all. by anybody.

yes, nuclear power carries some risks. so does every other damn thing you will ever think of. as a general rule of thumb, the more worthwhile and useful things you can think of will be proportionally more dangerous. that's life - deal with it.

The problem is, 30 years ago we were told we had 30 years of oil reserves left--now, we have >50 years of reserves, and yet we use much more oil now than then.

Certainly oil will run out eventually, but at it gets more scarce, prices will rise, and demand will fall, mostly due to alternative sources of energy being used. Let the market work.

This is all Paul Erlich vs. Julian Simon-type stuff (from nationalcenter.org):

Perhaps Ehrlich's best known blunder is a 1980 bet he made with University of Maryland economist Julian Simon. Dr. Simon, who believes that human ingenuity holds the answers to population growth problems, asserted that if Ehrlich were correct and the world truly was heading toward an era of scarcity, then the price of various commodities would rise over time. Simon predicted that prices would fall instead and challenged Ehrlich to pick any commodity and any future date to illustrate his point. Ehrlich accepted the challenge: In October 1980, he purchased $1,000 worth of five metals ($200 each) -- tin, tungsten, copper, nickel and chrome. Ehrlich bet that if the combined value of all five metals he purchased was higher in 1990, Simon would have to pay him the difference. If the prices turned out to be lower, Ehrlich would pay Simon the difference. Ten years later, Ehrlich sent Simon a check for $576 -- all five metals had fallen in price.

The scientific consensus is strong. Perfect, no, but outside of right-wing talk show hosts and oil company shills, there is no real doubt that human activity is altering the climate.

Well, actually, while there is no debate that human activity alters the climate, there is a lot of debate on how much. (after all, Chaos Theory would say that butterfly activity has a huge effect on global climate too). This image shows a good graph on world temperatures based on boreholes. We also have learned in the last few years (after Global Warming because a huge issue) that one of the big assumptions made by many global warming people is that the sun is a constant brightness and it's not.

No, I believe that we should do our best to reduce green house gasses. I'm a very strong environmentalist. But, I think we should be scientifically honest in doing so.

So you should never question the law, never disobey it. If your kind of mentality prevailed, we would still have segregation. Don't like sitting at the back of the bus? Just leave the country, darky!

I didn't say that you shouldn't question the law. I said you should abide by it. There are ways of getting things changed without breaking the law. Copyright laws are hardly on par with segregation, which, when challenged, was eventually overturned. See Brown v. Board of Ed. and related cases, turns out that the "separate but equal" doctrine wasn't constitutional. The law itself was illegal -- Intellectual Property is actually in the constitution.

How does the copyright term stifle innovation? Easy, it allows a company and individuals to sit and make money on a copyright forever, without creating something new and it breaks the oldest artistic convention, which is derivative work

A company has to increase its profits over time, there is no incentive to just sit back and collect. You have to create new reasons for people to buy.

Besides, the constitution says that IP laws have to have a limited period of viability.

From Constitution: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Nobody can, therefore collect forever.

Get the facts before you indulge in the usual childish knee-jerk Slashbotliberal head-in-the-sand retreat from reality. The liberals are liquidating the working poor of the United States by forcing affordable cars to be horrifically unsafe. Your average affluent white liberal elitist can afford a good, safe SUV to keep his children alive, but not the poor family across town. No, that poor family can't afford anything but an "economy car" -- death on wheels! That poor family has a three times greater chance of having their children exterminated in a collision with that fat, elite, liberal SUV when that drunken tenured professor of multicultural folkdancing comes driving home from a faculty cocktail party full of good liquor paid for with your tax dollars!

Yet again, the liberals show their true, cannibalistic colors.

You haven't debunked anything. You said he was wrong, called him names, and made a statement wihtout providing any references or supporting arguments.

'Debunking' usually involves proving, to some degree, that the data and premises the theory is based on are incomplete or inadequate, the logic combining the data and premises is flawed, or that there are other (possibly more likely) conclusions that can be drawn from the same data.

You haven't done any of that!

In leu of this, I see nothing wrong with the theory. Earth warms, icecaps melt, ocean salts get diluted, transport of heat stops, earth cools, ice forms, ocean salts become concentrated, transportation of heat resumes. Lather, rinse, repeat.

If you're going to cling to the current "global warming" theory, that CO2 production and other man-made gasses are causing the earth to trap more heat, then I'd like to know how the whole Medieval Warm Period came about... I don't think it was because of all those Knights and Kings driving their Cadillac SUVs.

That article also discusses history of global climate in general. It's a good read, especially since it indicates that maybe mankind hasn't managed to make THAT big a dent in the environment... yet...

=Smidge=

Didn't you hear? Separate-but-equal was ruled unacceptable.

do not learn how to 'socialize' (read: screw) properly when attending them.

You seem to have a very distorted view of what goes on in schools.

Even if that is true, the 2000 climate scientists out of the 17,000 signatories is much better than the the greenies who had just 10% (260) of their signatories somewhat qualified to make qualified opinions, and only ONE climatologist.

The fact remains that most scientists do not believe in global warming as it is promoted by the greenies.

It is not very credible and it seems to me you are the one only listening to one side of the debate?

Au contraire, my good sir. I've visited sites on both sides of the debate. On balance the greenies lack evidence and really seem to have an agenda that benefits by global warming existing--further research grants, economic and political changes they favor, etc.

On the other hand, the 17,000+ scientists that have signed the forementioned petition have nothing to lose nor nothing to gain. They simply are fed up with what they correctly recognize to be a lot of hot air (pun intended).

I invite you to do some INDEPENDENT investigation. That means reading information from both sides of the issue, consider what each "side" has to gain or lose by their side being right or wrong, and use your own brain to come to a conclusion. Also, when reading BOTH sides, try to separate the facts from the opinions and/or vague statements.

I also applaud you for posting this. The pettition you refer to has not received enough attention (see also). But even more important is to look at the data.

-- MarkusQ

That wasn't really a cameo - it was arguably the lead role. And the title, if memory serves, was taken from the poem by Alfred, Lord Tennyson: The Charge of the Light Brigade. So it was probably "The Light Brigade." :)

Myth: 2,500 of the world's leading scientists agree that human-induced global warming is underway.

Fact: Contrary to numerous press reports, there has never been a group of 2,500 scientists claiming that human-induced global warming is underway. Several thousand people did endorse the findings of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 1995 report that found a "discernable" human influence on climate change. But most of these endorsers were not scientists, but social scientists, economists, public relations experts and government functionaries. In fact, no more than 100 climate scientists are listed among the IPCC report's signers. Even fewer climate scientists would have been listed as endorsers of the report, however, if they had known their views were going to be misrepresented. Significant changes were made to the report after these scientists endorsed it.

For real information from the Global Warming Earth Summit in Buenos Aires, look at the fact sheet and the rest of the info about the Kyoto treaty.

And for information about a petition signed by 19,000 scientists claiming that global warming is more based in scare tactics than reality, check this out.

Myth: 2,500 of the world's leading scientists agree that human-induced global warming is underway.

Fact: Contrary to numerous press reports, there has never been a group of 2,500 scientists claiming that human-induced global warming is underway. Several thousand people did endorse the findings of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 1995 report that found a "discernable" human influence on climate change. But most of these endorsers were not scientists, but social scientists, economists, public relations experts and government functionaries. In fact, no more than 100 climate scientists are listed among the IPCC report's signers. Even fewer climate scientists would have been listed as endorsers of the report, however, if they had known their views were going to be misrepresented. Significant changes were made to the report after these scientists endorsed it.

For real information from the Global Warming Earth Summit in Buenos Aires, look at the fact sheet and the rest of the info about the Kyoto treaty.

And for information about a petition signed by 19,000 scientists claiming that global warming is more based in scare tactics than reality, check this out.

September 11 1998

Trial Lawyers Swing for the Fences With Allegation that Baseball Cards are Dangerous to Kids

According to the August 11 San Diego Union Tribune, Los Angeles-based trial lawyer Henry Rossbacher has filed three class action lawsuits alleging that baseball card companies, by printing limited quantities of certain cards, are promoting gambling among children. Rossbacher says that by limiting the quantity of valuable "chase" cards, and by printing the odds of getting one of these cards on the outside of packs, card companies such as Upper Deck Co. and Pacific Trading Card Inc. have established the "functional equivalent of a lottery." His lawsuit seeks damage awards for all kids who have been lured into buying cards in the past four years.

"It's just like Joe Camel," says Rossbacher, "They're selling a dangerous product to kids."

If it weren't for the creationist bilge we've been getting in the recent evolution stories, I'd think this guy was a spoof.

Most of what's being said there is straight from R. J. Rushdoony (who really does exist, though he may have died by now), and/or Paul Weyrich. It's no joke. They're planning to take over. I doubt that they'll succeed, but they can do a lot of damage just by trying. Hell, look at Kansas.