tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12339127.post261709412008028692..comments2024-01-13T01:17:55.325-06:00Comments on Tom Nelson: How much fossil fuel does the Greenpeace fleet burn every year?Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08119241500221931600noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12339127.post-19543498150535670772019-08-20T10:56:59.132-05:002019-08-20T10:56:59.132-05:00Dirk, as I see from your answer, seems like Tom as...Dirk, as I see from your answer, seems like Tom asked exactly the right question... Think about it. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12339127.post-87248189790351794162016-06-25T13:15:26.909-05:002016-06-25T13:15:26.909-05:00Wow, looks like you hit a sore point, Tom!
While ...Wow, looks like you hit a sore point, Tom!<br /><br />While everyone - even Greenpeace - needs to operate within available technology, there must be some rationale to determine what efforts to protect the environment are worth the environmental destruction associated with each operation. Burning many tons of the dirtiest fuel available to take an old ship somewhere for a photo opportunity certainly seems questionable. Does Greenpeace even own a sailing vessel?<br /><br />Was it really worthwhile to sail the MV Arctic Sunrise into the ice at Svalbard to put a piano on a barge (built for the purpose to look like floating ice and no doubt discarded afterward) so an Italian pianist could play some new music? He could have played in front a screen showing the same melting glacier, with the same effect and without hauling the production on a diesel-burning ship.<br /><br />This isn't just an issue with Greenpeace. The Sea Shepherds are a well-intentioned floating environmental disaster, too. It seems very popular among environmentalists to travel to gather for conferences, getting there by jet aircraft and cars... ever heard of teleconferencing?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12339127.post-32237612881917310832016-02-26T00:16:45.000-06:002016-02-26T00:16:45.000-06:00Your answer, pathetic little Dirk, is indicative o...Your answer, pathetic little Dirk, is indicative of a typical reactionary- arrogant, self-absorbed and derivative. Hoping that their officious outburst will intimidate the true progressives who see the innate anti-human, irrational parasitic soulless interior that is your reality. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12339127.post-27119780121862297212016-02-15T09:38:37.547-06:002016-02-15T09:38:37.547-06:00This question is a shining example of mediocre thi...This question is a shining example of mediocre thinking by mediocre people. It is a typical non-question by people that hate greenism and reverse-engineer this hate to find suitable arguments, i.e. arguments that suit them. You are stupid. And simple! Your intense wish is that Greenpeace people wear bear skin and swing wooden bars above their heads an scream and growl. And if they don't do that, they are not consequent, weak, not-plausible and jokers after all. Well, dear 'thinker' in a modern society you have to use modern means to accomplish something. The last man that will ever fly in the last week of kerosene availability (which is soon), will be a Greenpeace eco warrior. And there is nothing to put up against it, apart from the crappy statements of angry, big children like you! You are nothing! Now don't get mad, but take advantage of this new insight.Dirk Hörtnoreply@blogger.com