Greenpeace

It’s true… I’m not a believer in the Greenpeace M.O., though I do believe that many of their goals are admirable. How can anyone not want to save the planet and the animals? I agree that global warming is occurring. I agree that there are many businesses reaping financial reward from harvesting earth’s bounty, and that some of them are not responsible stewards of our common resources. I also believe in freedom of speech and the rule of law. ----- ----- I started the “rational” blog as an attempt to satisfy my curiosity; I wasn’t interested in antagonizing supporters or generating dissent… I merely wanted to gauge the mindsets of those who frequent the Greenpeace world. I believe that my premise is sound: humankind does not cause global warming, and our efforts to manipulate the climate would be better spent on more solvable and urgent problems. Contrary to conventional dogma, the debate is NOT finished. This has been the crux of all of my posts. I am well aware that this position is considered by many of you to be out of touch with reality and radically misguided. The bulk of real-worldians say the same about you! This is the nature of politics. ----- ----- Recently, I posted a comment on John Hocevar’s post: “Massimo Cappitta is a thug.” My comment was deemed to be illegitimate and quickly deleted by the Greenpeace blogmaster, who had every right to do so. The purpose of this website is to inform supporters and to encourage involvement with Greenpeace campaigns. My comment was truthful and sincere, but contrary to the mission and justly deleted. I have no complaint. ----- ----- So, what have I learned about the mindset of the average visitor to the Greenpeace web world? Here are my personal thoughts and opinions: Most of you are sincerely concerned about our environment and want to participate in improving it. Many of you are guided more by emotion than reason, and can be blinded by that emotion, some to the point of denying reality. Some of you are ardent left-wing ideologues who wholeheartedly believe that the most effective way to save the planet is to stage outlandish events and publish sensational videos. There are some who are mindless alarmists; others of you are just good old fashioned dreamers. ----- ----- The good news is America is a great country, and there’s room for all of us! We allow and encourage diverse and lively dialog. Somehow, in spite of the throbbing extremists on opposing sides, goodness and reason seems to prevail. The American system works, and it’s ok to be proud of that fact…

There are so many urgent problems on our planet today… some that will reach their catastrophic result in minutes, and others that might reach it in decades. By nature, the certainty of distant catastrophes can not be as defined as those in progress right now. In view of the urgency of catastrophes occurring RIGHT NOW, versus the scientific uncertainty of distant catastrophes, we should be ashamed and embarrassed of our monumental waste of valuable resources spent on "fighting" global warming. I am embarrassed to be a part of it. You should be ashamed too. Please read this Michael Crichton speech with an open mind: (Don’t be put-off by the title.) http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html

Carbon dioxide does NOT cause global warming... it only contributes to it. Here's an article that explains it: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/ ----- ----- Humankind is adding measurable amounts of CO2 to the NATURALLY occurring emissions... we're amplifying, not causing global warming. ----- ----- This is an important detail in the fight against global warming.

Everybody knows that the rise in global temperature happens several hundred years BEFORE the rise in CO2. Therefore it's only logical to ask: "Why do we blame CO2 for global warming?" Well thanks to a helpful comment from a Greenpeace blog-master, I recently learned the answer... CO2 doesn't actually cause global warming; it only AMPLIFIES it after warming is already well under way. And another good fact is that anthropogenic CO2 (humanity-caused CO2) is only a part of the total CO2 emission. All the other bad CO2 comes from natural sources which are then spurred to generate more and more CO2 because of the raising temperature! You can read the scientific explaination here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/ ----- ----- This is great news! It's not all our fault! Not only that, there are many other contributors to global warming like the sun, variations in earth's tilt, natural emissions, and et cetera. So I'm thinking that this should relieve our guilt, and allow us to turn our attention to a more solvable problem, namely ADAPTATION TO THE PENDING CHANGES that will be resulting from the climate crisis. ----- ----- If we are really serious about the this crisis we'd GET READY for the new environment wouldn't we? We sure can't stop the other CO2 emissions or change the angle of earth's axis... ----- ----- What are some of your thoughts concerning the best way to prepare?

(TRY THIS MIND GAME) The earth is getting cooler. Science proves it. There’s a wealth of irrefutable data confirming that cooling is indeed in progress. The damages of global cooling have been listed and studied: The ice packs and glaciers are increasing in size, the polar bear population is booming, tropical insect populations and global crop production are declining, there’s less rain and the oceans are receding, etc. etc… What is it that makes global cooling good or bad? If shrinking ice caps are bad, then growing ice caps must be good, right? If fewer polar bears are bad, more bears are good, right? Who’s to say whether these things are good or bad? ----- ----- Pretty silly isn’t it? The reality of climate change is that it is inevitable. It happens with or without humankind. Our impact might be measurable, but our efforts to mitigate that impact are superfluous in context of the cosmic timescale. Take your pick: warming, or cooling… stagnation is not allowed in the cosmic equation. ----- ----- The TRULY scientific response to global warming is: “Nice fact.” The question isn’t whether or not global warming exists… The question is who should determine if the net effects of global warming are good or bad? Who do you believe, and why do you believe them? (This is beginning to sound an awful lot like religion…) ----- ----- Here are some other facts that require answers: 1) Water is wet. (Is this good or bad?); 2) The sun is very hot. (Is this good or bad?); 3) Insects inhabit the rainforest. (Is this good or bad?). Et cetera… ----- ----- I contend that the list of positive and negative attributes for the above facts, including global warming, is remarkably balanced. In other words, there is an impressive list of global warming benefits that is denied by “environmentalists.” Why do you think this is so?

Wow. You’d think with the planet falling apart and all, more people would be more interested in commenting. There are rarely more than a handful of comments on the staff blogs, and the measly Member Blogs never draw more than one or two responses. The Greenpeace Blogoshpere appears to be pretty darned weak! What do you say? Could it be that the green-bubble has burst? I know I’ll be shunned as a heretic for this, but here’s a well-written article that presents that possibility… Are we open minded enough to consider it? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/04/green_with_guilt_96828.html (If the link is censored, Google: George Will green with guilt)

Since we're so intent on changing global warming, why don't we also include other catastrophes like Tsunamis? They cause tremendous death and destruction all over the world! And while we’re at it we should tackle earthquakes, volcanoes, and those pesky sun cycles! Scientists agree that these catastrophic phenomenons kill more flora and fauna than global warming ever will. They also agree that the solution to these nasty events is exactly as obtainable as stopping global warming… Let’s unite!