Finrod said:

By persisting in their steadfast, irrational opposition to the one source of enegy (nuclear) capable of addressing the environmental issues they ‘raise awareness’ of, they have demonstrated that they care not one wit about these issues in reality, and have long since turned into shills of the very industries they purport to oppose. They are hindering the implementation of solutions by promoting non-solutions such as useless wind and solar tech as a fig leaf for continuing to burn fossil fuels. They promote primitive low-yield agriculture and oppose high-tech intensive food production. So where, when and in what manner is Greenpeace supposed to have made the world a better place?

More than that. Add to that their opposition to chlorine usage (as in safe drinking water that does not result in mass deaths from waterborn illness) and their opposition to genetic engineering, including the kind that can result in new life-saving antibiotics or other pharmasuiticals produced by genetic engineering. Their support of more energy intensive and less economical manufacturing practices. Their damn near piracy tactics in attacking fishing vessels and others they don’t agree with.

They are all about image and self-serving methods not results or even the good of the enviornment

Beats the hell out of me. Maybe it’s just that they oppose all that is considered important to traditional economics, whether or not it is harmful?

Are there any of Greenpeace’s methods which could be used to promote a less ignoble cause?

        icarus said:

Come on now, most of the arguments put so far are based on semantics that just go round and round and round never arriving at a resolution.

Garbage. Show an example of what you are describing or withdraw that slander.

By persisting in their steadfast, irrational opposition to the one source of enegy (nuclear) capable of addressing the environmental issues they ‘raise awareness’ of, they have demonstrated that they care not one wit about these issues in reality, and have long since turned into shills of the very industries they purport to oppose. They are hindering the implementation of solutions by promoting non-solutions such as useless wind and solar tech as a fig leaf for continuing to burn fossil fuels. They promote primitive low-yield agriculture and oppose high-tech intensive food production. So where, when and in what manner is Greenpeace supposed to have made the world a better place?

You are perfectly entitled and should continue to criticise anyone’s viewpoint but Greenpeace and other organisations are making the world a better place despite all their innate contradictions.

In the real world there is no such thing as the perfect pure argument, I certainly have not met one.

I agree with you that environmental policies the world over are certainly confused, inconsistent and offer no reassurance for those people trying to make sensible informed decisions. Hopefully in time that will change.

But at least Greenpeace has brought forward into everyone’s minds one of the most pressing issues of our age, our planet.

IMHO you need move the argument onto a new level and don’t forget to have a great day

        drbuzz0 said:

Greenpeace is not an American organization either. It was founded in Canada and now is headquartered in Amsterdam….

…as Revenue Canada has several outstanding questions for them that Greenpeace would rather not answer.

        icarus said:

Your arguments are still stuck in the denial of the Bush era, now the whole environment scene has changed with the Obama administration starting to take on environmental responsibility as one of its kingpins of policy.

There is so much wrong with that above comment and so much denial of the facts of what helps and what doesn’t. However I’ll stick to this part: I (the author of this article and of this page) am not a general supporter of the Bush administration policies nor am I a registered Republican. Many visitors here are not American and the US is not the only country that matters.

Obama’s policies when it comes to the enviornment are based on politics and not science or an objective evaluation of what does and doesn’t work.

Greenpeace is not an American organization either. It was founded in Canada and now is headquartered in Amsterdam.

By the way: There are countries which took on a very aggressive “green” policy as far back as the early 1990’s and did the kind of things Greenpeace advocates and the current US political climate has been favoring. These include Spain, Germany, Austria and The Netherlands. Without exception their energy situation and emissions have gotten signifficantly worse even as the continue to pour money into “renewables”

Your arguments are still stuck in the denial of the Bush era, now the whole environment scene has changed with the Obama administration starting to take on environmental responsibility as one of its kingpins of policy.

Come on guys move on, accept the world is changing and has to whether you want it to or not.

        Joel P said:

Climate change is natural & cyclical and is not man-made. If you believe otherwise, you are a lemming *look it up* and blindly follow the mainstream media and Al Gore (the biggest hypocrit in the world). Have a nice day.

exactly! you know your stuff!