| Non-motoring > Greenpeace pirates. | Miscellaneous |
| Thread Author: Old Navy | Replies: 28 |
|
New Sun 6 Oct 13 14:18
Greenpeace pirates. - Old Navy
|
| I liked the opinion in the media today that the Russians may have done Greenpeace a favour by locking them up before the French sink them (again). |
|
New Sun 6 Oct 13 14:44
Greenpeace pirates. - Zero
|
| Greenpeace are whining that the charge of Piracy is unjustified. So what do you call trying to board someone else's property at sea? |
|
New Sun 6 Oct 13 20:25
Greenpeace pirates. - Baz
|
| This is true, perhaps in their idealogical haste they have bitten off rather more than they can chew here. My understanding is this oil platform is operating legally. I used to have some sympathy for GreenPeace back in the Rainbow Warrior days but I was much more naive then, much as their members and management seems to be now. They did achieve some good, I remember the spectacular blocking of an overtly irresponsible waste pipe somewhere up in Lakeland, plus the reversal of ( I think) Shell's decision to sink an oil rig somewhere. But their absolute opposition to nuclear ( I am a nuclear fan and see it as our only interim solution) and their lack of any viable alternative solutions has turned me off them. Also, are we not all hypocrites unless we cycle everywhere and power our houses solely by wind, sun and human treadmill? I presume their new boat is pedal-powered? |
|
New Sun 6 Oct 13 21:20
Greenpeace pirates. - SteelSpark
|
|
>> Greenpeace are whining that the charge of Piracy is unjustified. So what do you call >> trying to board someone else's property at sea? So our resident legal expert is sure that the definition of piracy is "trying to board someone else's property at sea", as are the two people that gave him a thumbs up. Now, it seems that Northwestern law professor Eugene Kontorovich, would disagree and suggest that: "The Greenpeace activities are most certainly not piracy for several reasons. The modern definition of the offense can be found in Art. 101 U.N. Law of the the Sea Convention (UNCLOS III), Art. 101(a)(1). First, piracy requires an attack against a “ship.” The Greenpeace incident involved an oil rig, which is not a ship because it is not navigable. (The 1988 SUA Convention dealing with maritime violence beyond piracy required a separate protocol to apply to oil platforms). Second, piracy requires “acts of violence or detention.” Here the Greenpeace activist merely put a poster on the platform. This does not constitute violence. In the Ninth Circuit case, by contrast, the Sea Shepherd vessels allegedly attempted to ram Japanese whalers, hurled projectiles at them, and so forth. While the defendants argued this did not amount to violence, it is certainly more colorable than a poster. The Greenpeace activists certainly committed trespass, but not piracy. tinyurl.com/pvf9gxo But, of course, those are just the ramblings of a well informed expert, not the opinion of a bunch of people on a motoring forum. |
|
New Sun 6 Oct 13 21:29
Greenpeace pirates. - Old Navy
|
|
>> But, of course, those are just the ramblings of a well informed expert, not the >> opinion of a bunch of people on a motoring forum. >> Its not a well informed armchair expert or even us that the Green idiots need to worry about it is the Russians, they only abide by their own rules. If they get a few years in a Siberian prison and their ship confiscated maybe they will think before grandstanding in future. Last edited by: Old Navy on Sun 6 Oct 13 at 21:32
|
|
New Mon 7 Oct 13 07:54
Greenpeace pirates. - Fursty Ferret
|
|
Greenpeace just manage to wind me up, though not sure why. Sea Shepherd, on the other hand, picks a very justifiable target and doesn't mess around with the fact that they want to cause as much trouble as possible. If I were not working I'd be off like a shot to join in. |
|
New Mon 7 Oct 13 16:52
Greenpeace pirates. - Westpig
|
|
Interesting debate on the Jeremy Vine show today, re this. Very high number of people called, texted, tweeted etc to say the protesters have caused their own problems and the Russkies have the right to apply their own laws as they wish. Sort of covers my stance really. |
|
New Mon 7 Oct 13 17:36
Greenpeace pirates. - DP
|
|
Greenpeace supporters can be properly nasty pieces of work. I proffered what I thought was a well mannered and suitably referenced opinion in contradiction of one of their assertions on a well known social networking site recently, and received a torrent of personal abuse that went on for days. They don't do debate. They are right, and everyone who disagrees is stupid. |
|
New Mon 7 Oct 13 18:13
Greenpeace pirates. - Baz
|
|
Absolutely DP, that is their problem. The way forward in environmental/energy/conservation terms is inevitably going to be a compromise, all sensible folk can see that. We are reliant on fossil fuels for the foreseeable future, no amount of protesting can change that, it just isn't possible to power society any other way right now (apart from nuclear, which they are also opposed to)! As you say, it is difficult to have rational debate. |
|
New Mon 7 Oct 13 18:39
Greenpeace pirates. - No FM2R
|
|
>>Absolutely DP, that is their problem It is. But have you ever spoken to someone who absolutely refuses to accept that there are any environmental, energy or conservation issues? They're pretty much about as obnoxious, just less active. |
|
New Mon 7 Oct 13 18:54
Greenpeace pirates. - Roger.
|
|
I understand that the UK contributes around 2% of the CO2 output put forward as the cause of "man-made global warming". If we shut our country down and returned to living in caves it would make little difference to the overall picture (the developing world would take up our 2% "saving" in very short order). For this, we have spent millions of pounds in attempting to fulfil green energy targets, set by the EU bureaucrats and slavishly followed by our political masters, that it has raised our domestic and industrial power bills to levels which are damaging our lives and industries. |
|
New Mon 7 Oct 13 19:00
Greenpeace pirates. - Zero
|
|
>> I understand that the UK contributes around 2% of the CO2 output put forward as >> the cause of "man-made global warming". >> If we shut our country down and returned to living in caves it would make >> little difference to the overall picture (the developing world would take up our 2% "saving" >> in very short order). >> For this, we have spent millions of pounds in attempting to fulfil green energy targets, >> set by the EU bureaucrats and slavishly followed by our political masters, that it has >> raised our domestic and industrial power bills to levels which are damaging our lives and >> industries. And if we don't make an effort you cant really expect or ask anyone else to do so, can you. |
|
New Mon 7 Oct 13 19:04
Greenpeace pirates. - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> you cant really expect or ask anyone else to do so, can you. Geddit Rastaman? Noblesse oblige... it behoves the great to set a good example. |
|
New Mon 7 Oct 13 19:40
Greenpeace pirates. - PhilW
|
|
"it behoves the great to set a good example." Yep, and I wouldn't mind if the basic arguments had a sound basis. Apparently world average temp has risen by 0.8 deg since 1880. So how did they get that average temp? Had anyone got the exact temp at the North Pole? South Pole? (32 years later Scott might have said it was "too cold"!) Central Africa? Most of Russia and Asia, most of South America and much of North America?? I know there are "proxies" (one tree in Yamal!!) but that "average temp" for the world in 1880 is to an accuracy of + or- 2 deg so maybe the world has cooled by 1.2 deg since 1880? - we don't know. And now we hear that there has been an hiatus since 1998 - world temps have actually cooled since then (and don't mention the '60s and '70s when a "new ice age" was on the way). An hiatus totally unpredicted by the "climate scientists" models. But this hiatus, according to IPCC, is because most of the "global warming" is being hidden in the "deep oceans" but it is not measurable from the surface buoys or satellites. How does that work? How does heat descend to the depths? Doesn't heat rise rather than sink? And what about this 95% certainty/probability that global warming is taking place according to the latest IPCC report? Turns out it is not a statistical measure as I always thought 95% probability was, but that 95% of the warmists at the IPCC thought that man might be the main cause of warming. Well, what else do you expect them to say? Their research grants depend on them thinking that. Perhaps they should "hide the decline"???? Sorry for rant! |
|
New Mon 7 Oct 13 21:32
Greenpeace pirates. - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> "hide the decline"???? >>> Sorry for rant! Rant away... perhaps should have said, it behoves the great to set a good example and to try to make energy too expensive for poor countries. But the poor countries won't take any notice really. |
|
New Mon 7 Oct 13 22:13
Greenpeace pirates. - Manatee
|
|
>>Turns out it is not a statistical measure as I always thought 95% probability was, but that 95% of the warmists at the IPCC thought that man might be the main cause of warming. Not my understanding, but no matter. So, Phil, what would it take to convince you? This weekend's weather was fantastic. Temperatures were significantly higher than they were a couple of weeks ago. Does that mean that winter is just a nasty rumour, or something promulgated by scientists in the pay of winter tyre manufacturers? I have an opinion on most things, but I wouldn't know where to start on predicting or accounting for climate change. So I look for expert opinion. Turns out that the overwhelming majority of scientists looking at it agree that human action is a factor. It would be perverse for me to think otherwise. What do you expect, absolute certainty? The experiment would take rather a long time. Has it occurred to you that the 'deniers' such as you (and more than a few others here) have a vested interest too, in wanting climate change to be a big lie? Or to ask why the CO2 producers haven't managed to line up their own mercenary scientists in the same numbers? Rant over:) |
|
New Mon 7 Oct 13 22:35
Greenpeace pirates. - Roger.
|
| www.ukip.org/issues/policy-pages/energy |
|
New Mon 7 Oct 13 22:37
Greenpeace pirates. - Lygonos
|
|
>>Or to ask why the CO2 producers haven't managed to line up their own mercenary scientists in the same numbers? And therein lies the crux - any other widespread political control measures, such as curbing advertising of tobacco, or minimum pricing of alcohol draws up legal challenge and a massive lobbying campaign. There is little solid science behind the 'deniers' and certainly not at the level that the bulk of the scientific community appear to agree. Whether anything can be done politically to curb/modify CO2 output greatly remains to be seen. We could of course still be pumping millions of tons of CFCs into the atmosphere annually but for geopolitical consensus. Personally I believe climate change and average global temperature rises are likely to be augmented by human activity on the planet, but I also believe that if humans cannot modify their activities, they will inevitably be able to adapt to any changes the world throw at them. Whether the world map looks the same in 50 years I very much doubt it. |
|
New Wed 9 Oct 13 22:05
Greenpeace pirates. - PhilW
|
|
"Has it occurred to you that the 'deniers' such as you (and more than a few others here) have a vested interest too, in wanting climate change to be a big lie? Or to ask why the CO2 producers haven't managed to line up their own mercenary scientists in the same numbers?" Manatee, I am not "a denier". I do not deny that climate change takes place as it has over millions of years. However, I am sceptical as to whether climate change is down to man's activities over the last hundred years or so and whether spending about £20 billion a year (ie adding it to UK tax payers and energy users bills) over the next 20 years will have any effect on world climate. I am also very sceptical as to whether the computer models of future climate change are any good. After all, they have been wrong about the last 20 years or so and don't "work backwards" ie, they purport to predict exactly what will happen to world climate in the future but can't explain the past. And why should our present climate be an optimum? Would an extra 2 degrees (and a bit more CO2?) be beneficial? Would reducing world temps be detrimental? Was Britain a better place to live during the Mediaeval or Roman warm periods or during the Little Ice Age? Geologists, by the way, reckon we are in a warm inter-glacial - there will one day be another glacial advance when much of Britain will be under half a mile of ice. Matt Ridley expresses it much better than me.www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/global-lukewarming-need-not-be-catastrophic.aspx Regards P |
|
New Wed 9 Oct 13 22:25
Greenpeace pirates. - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Manatee, >> I am not "a denier". >> I do not deny that climate change takes place as it has over millions of >> years. >> However, I am sceptical as to whether climate change is down to man's activities over >> the last hundred years or so and whether spending about £20 billion a year (ie >> adding it to UK tax payers and energy users bills) over the next 20 years >> will have any effect on world climate. I am also very sceptical as to whether >> the computer models of future climate change are any good. After all, they have been >> wrong about the last 20 years or so and don't "work backwards" ie, they purport >> to predict exactly what will happen to world climate in the future but can't explain >> the past. And why should our present climate be an optimum? Would an extra 2 >> degrees (and a bit more CO2?) be beneficial? Would reducing world temps be detrimental? Was >> Britain a better place to live during the Mediaeval or Roman warm periods or during >> the Little Ice Age? Geologists, by the way, reckon we are in a warm inter-glacial >> - there will one day be another glacial advance when much of Britain will be >> under half a mile of ice. >> Matt Ridley expresses it much better than me.www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/global-lukewarming-need-not-be-catastrophic.aspx >> Regards >> P Phil, I think you're mixing two issues. The first is whether we're experiencing man made climate change and the second is what, if anything, we can do about it. It's quite difficult to find a qualified and reputable scientist who will disprove theory of a link link between release of Co2 from fossil fuel burned since 1850 and rapid warming/change of climate. Whether taxes in west will improve matters, or whether reversal of change is possible at all are different questions. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 9 Oct 13 at 22:26
|
|
New Wed 9 Oct 13 22:48
Greenpeace pirates. - PhilW
|
|
"It's quite difficult to find a qualified and reputable scientist who will disprove theory of a link link between release of Co2 from fossil fuel burned since 1850 and rapid warming/change of climate" Sorry Brompt, but I could provide a load of links to "qualified and reputable scientists" who reckon that CO2 rises FOLLOW rises in temp over the last few million years. It was shown that Al Gore fixed the graph to show the opposite - yes that Al Gore who forecast catastrophic rises in sea level and then bought a mansion on Malibu Beach! On the other hand, are there any links to people who have a qualification in "Climate Change" ? I agree entirely with " Whether taxes in west will improve matters, or whether reversal of change is possible at all are different questions.", which is why I question whether spending £20billion a year is worthwhile especially when we are decommissioning coal fired power stations yet the Chinese and Indians are building several per day and Germany is closing down nuclear stations and building more lignite fuelled stations - and lignite is about the muckiest form of coal you could imagine!! I guess I just don't get it. PS, Nice of Ed Millibean to say he will freeze energy prices for 2 years - who was it who pushed through the Climate Change/Energy Bill which added so much (hidden away) to our energy bills? Yep, I definitely don't get it. But if I was Nick Clegg, whose wife works for a "Green Energy" company, or Cameron, whose father earns £1000 a day from wind turbines on his land then that may improve my understanding. :-) P |
|
New Mon 7 Oct 13 18:46
Greenpeace pirates. - Roger.
|
|
>> Greenpeace supporters can be properly nasty pieces of work. I proffered what I thought was >> a well mannered and suitably referenced opinion in contradiction of one of their assertions on >> a well known social networking site recently, and received a torrent of personal abuse that >> went on for days. >> >> They don't do debate. They are right, and everyone who disagrees is stupid. >> Just like the Green Party who are militant left in a green flag! |
|
New Tue 8 Oct 13 17:20
Greenpeace pirates. - SteelSpark
|
|
>> Its not a well informed armchair expert or even us that the Green idiots need >> to worry about it is the Russians, they only abide by their own rules. If >> they get a few years in a Siberian prison and their ship confiscated maybe they >> will think before grandstanding in future. Yes ON, you're right, of course. The Russians will do what they wish. They'll twist the letter of the law to fit what they want, in the same way that we do, and every other country does. They might be a bit more free and easy, although we and the US are happy to bend, for example, terrorism laws until they break, if it fits the need. What I find a little sad, if not inevitable, is the glee from some to see the powers that be abusing the law to crush what some may consider grandstanding, and some may consider legitimate protest. Yes, they knew the risks, and they may have misguided ideas, but why the glee at the idea that they might spend years in a Siberian labour camp, for putting up a poster? Schadenfreude I suppose... |
|
New Tue 8 Oct 13 17:47
Greenpeace pirates. - No FM2R
|
|
Glee in the misfortune of others seems to be a feature of modern society, for some reason. I think its difficult to object to the aims of Greenpeace, but they do seem to have their fair of irritating eco-fascists. On the other hand, if they were not fanatical then I guess they wouldn't achieve as much. I didn't like the couple of members I met, and I don't really want to be associated with Greenpeace activities. But I'm quite glad they're in the world. |
|
New Tue 8 Oct 13 18:07
Greenpeace pirates. - Old Navy
|
|
>> Schadenfreude I suppose... >> No doubt, but I enjoy the discomfort of all extremists without favour or distinction. |
|
New Tue 8 Oct 13 19:10
Greenpeace pirates. - SteelSpark
|
|
>> >> Schadenfreude I suppose... >> >> No doubt, but I enjoy the discomfort of all extremists without favour or distinction. Ah yes, word games, great fun. If you can label somebody as an extremist, then they are fair game, and you can delight in any injustice that may befall them with a clean conscience. "Extremist" is a term usually used to refer to somebody who commits violent acts, such as, say, killing anti-vivisection workers, or blowing up abortion clinics. What a problem, because I dislike these people and I want to demonise them, and not look bad for doing so! Wait a minute! Hanging a poster on an oil rig is pretty "extreme", isn't it? So let's call them "extremists"! Problem solved. While we're at it, let's call hanging a poster on an oil rig "piracy", rather than "trespass". Right, so now we can lock up these people that we don't like, and I can hold my head up high because I only take joy from the suffering of extremists who commit piracy (not people I don't agree with who hang posters on oil rigs). Last edited by: SteelSpark on Tue 8 Oct 13 at 19:11
|
|
New Tue 8 Oct 13 18:15
Greenpeace pirates. - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> They might be a bit more free and easy, although we and the US are >> happy to bend, for example, terrorism laws until they break, if it fits the need. >> Which is why we need the ECHR and the Human Rights Act - effective challenge when government pushes beyond the envelope. |
|
New Tue 8 Oct 13 20:51
Greenpeace pirates. - Robin O'Reliant
|
| I wouldn't gloat over the fate of the protesters, but I have little sympathy for them. Trying to board a Russian oil rig is only ever going to end in tears, you'd have to be a bit simple not to realise that. The Ruskies are not known to be big on community service type punishments. |
|
New Wed 9 Oct 13 22:05
Greenpeace pirates. - Old Navy
|
| The Russians are now saying that the have found drugs on the Greenpeace ship and further charges will be brought. Greenpeace is claiming that it is medical morphine. A Russian diplomat has been roughed up by the police in Amsterdam, and Russia has summoned the Dutch ambassador to formally complain. Also they are querying the quality of Dutch cheese and may ban imports. (The Greenpeace ship is Dutch registered). Sounds like the Russians are not going to let this one go. |
Forum Version 3.0 - By Khoosys
Car4play Forum
