United Nations Climate Change Copenhagen

[Solar Cycles]

Dev, maybe you should ask the former leader off greenpeace his views!

[Devonian]

Dev, maybe you should ask the former leader off greenpeace his views!

Apologise to any members of Greenpeace who might be here! I am not a terrorist I resent such steroetyping. Apologise!

Edited December 4, 2009 by Devonian

[jethro]

Come on folks, be nice.

I posted the Greenpeace stuff to demonstrate those "in the pockets of" stories can be cut both ways - not so folk can now start taking pot shots at one another.

Money has to come from somewhere, does it really matter where it comes from? Does it mean funding sets the agenda? I think not. I regularly donate to charity, choosing which ones depends entirely upon what their aims are. I fund charities who's aims and goals I support and believe in - isn't corporate charity done on the same basis?

[Devonian]

Come on folks, be nice.

I posted the Greenpeace stuff to demonstrate those "in the pockets of" stories can be cut both ways - not so folk can now start taking pot shots at one another.

Money has to come from somewhere, does it really matter where it comes from? Does it mean funding sets the agenda? I think not. I regularly donate to charity, choosing which ones depends entirely upon what their aims are. I fund charities who's aims and goals I support and believe in - isn't corporate charity done on the same basis?

You're not being labelled as a terrorist

Do you think I'm a terrorist? I AM NOT! Labelling Greenpeace as terrorists insults a lot of people...

We must be getting close to Copenhagen...

Edited December 4, 2009 by Devonian

[jethro]

You're not being labelled as a terrorist

Do you think I'm a terrorist? I AM NOT! Labelling Greenpeace as terrorists insults a lot of people...

We must be getting close to Copenhagen...

I'd suggest you stop taking it so personally, no one has labelled you a terrorist.

Despite Solar's rather confrontational approach (toning it down would aid your views getting a more sympathetic hearing Solar) he has a valid point. The founder of Greenpeace has distanced himself from the organisation saying he cannot support their increasing politicisation.

[noggin]

Apologise to any members of Greenpeace who might be here! I am not a terrorist I resent such steroetyping. Apologise!

Jonathon Porritt suggested abortion as a means to combat "global warming".

That is extreme.

It makes me feel physically sick.

It is an example of the extremeness that has taken over the issue of the climate.

I am not saying that all Greens agree with the idea.

There are no doubt many who are against the killing of babies in the womb.

But Porritt is one of their most vociferous spokesmen and as such, he has tainted the organisation for me.

It may not be terrorism, but it is hypocritical and immoral and borders on criminality in my view (to which I am entitled. For now.).

[noggin]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/gore-cancels-personal-appearance-copenhagen/

So, Al Gore won't be going to Copenhagen, then.

[Devonian]

I'd suggest you stop taking it so personally, no one has labelled you a terrorist.

Despite Solar's rather confrontational approach (toning it down would aid your views getting a more sympathetic hearing Solar) he has a valid point. The founder of Greenpeace has distanced himself from the organisation saying he cannot support their increasing politicisation.

"Greenpeace lost it's way many years ago, it's now nothing more than a eco-terrorist group." 'Greenpeace' - I'm a member of Greenpeace, I am not a terrorist. I suggest that if someone called the Woodland Trust (just as daftly) terrorists you'd be not entirely happy...It's all very well saying don't take think personally when you're not one the receiving end...

Like the scientists I'm sick of the insults

Jonathon Porritt suggested abortion as a means to combat "global warming".

That is extreme.

It makes me feel physically sick.

It is an example of the extremeness that has taken over the issue of the climate.

I am not saying that all Greens agree with the idea.

There are no doubt many who are against the killing of babies in the womb.

But Porritt is one of their most vociferous spokesmen and as such, he has tainted the organisation for me.

It may not be terrorism, but it is hypocritical and immoral and borders on criminality in my view (to which I am entitled. For now.).

This IS NOT about abortion.

So far I've not called anyone immoral or a terrorist - but presumably I also have that right? Would that be good for debate or are only some people allowed to such such words?

Edited December 4, 2009 by Devonian

[Solar Cycles]

I'd suggest you stop taking it so personally, no one has labelled you a terrorist.

Despite Solar's rather confrontational approach (toning it down would aid your views getting a more sympathetic hearing Solar) he has a valid point. The founder of Greenpeace has distanced himself from the organisation saying he cannot support their increasing politicisation.

Aye you could be right jethro, but sometimes you need a sledgehammer to open a door!

"Greenpeace lost it's way many years ago, it's now nothing more than a eco-terrorist group." 'Greenpeace' - I'm a member of Greenpeace, I am not a terrorist. I suggest that if someone called the Woodland Trust (just as daftly) terrorists you'd be not entirely happy...It's all very well saying don't take think personally when you're not one the receiving end...

Like the scientists I'm sick of the insults

This IS NOT about abortion.

So far I've not called anyone immoral or a terrorist - but presumably I also have that right? Would that be good for debate or are only some people allowed to such such words?

Dev I wasn't labelling you! You really need to take things less seriously, Jethro in her usual polite way, has made the point above!

[Devonian]

Aye you could be right jethro, but sometimes you need a sledgehammer to open a door!

Dev I wasn't labelling you! You really need to take things less seriously, Jethro in her usual polite way, has made the point above!

I'm a member of Greenpeace. You called Greenpeace 'eco-terrorists' - that's all of us, all members - we are Greenpeace. What else could you have meant? I support Greenpeace, that means you think I support terrorists. I DO NOT!!!

If I called the Conservative Party terrorists you think any members here would like that? or the Labour Party? Go figure.

Think about what you post!

[Methuselah]

Jonathon Porritt suggested abortion as a means to combat "global warming".

That is extreme.

It makes me feel physically sick.

It is an example of the extremeness that has taken over the issue of the climate.

I am not saying that all Greens agree with the idea.

There are no doubt many who are against the killing of babies in the womb.

But Porritt is one of their most vociferous spokesmen and as such, he has tainted the organisation for me.

It may not be terrorism, but it is hypocritical and immoral and borders on criminality in my view (to which I am entitled. For now.).

Irrespective of how sick 'it' makes us all feel...Is 'it' actually true???

http://www.jonathonporritt.com/pages/2009/01/dont_always_trust_the_guardian.html

As an aside, over the years I've 'mutated' from a dyed-in-wool anti-abortion person to an 'it's a woman's choice, as it's her body' person...

[Dartmoor_Matt]

But Greenpeace activists do attack Japanese whaling ships (for an example) my local Conservative group doesn't go around attacking people...

[Devonian]

But Greenpeace activists do attack Japanese whaling ships (for an example) my local Conservative group doesn't go around attacking people...

So, what's you defintion of terrorism and a terrorist?

[Dartmoor_Matt]

The calculated use of violence against others for political, religous or ideological purposes.

Edited December 4, 2009 by Dartmoor_Matt

[Devonian]

The calculated use of violence against others for political, religous or ideological purposes.

I think the wording 'bloody violence' or the word 'terror' instead is better myself because violence could mean something from a scuffle to mass murder.

Whatever, on your basis Greenpeace are activists not terrorists - they don't carry gun, or bombs. No, labelling them as terrorists is just a way of trying to damage their reputaion.

Btw, Greenpeace activists have been murdered in the past - I think we'd be better condemning that than trying to pin labels on the organisation.

Edit: and of course states could be terrorists by your defintion so I think it might need some more refining.

Edited December 4, 2009 by Devonian

[Methuselah]

Guys, we (mia culpa! :blush:) are wandering away from whatever the topic is, was, may be again???

Please keep it polite...If we need another thread in-which we can define terrorism???

[Dartmoor_Matt]

I think the wording 'bloody violence' is better myself because violence could mean something from a scuffle to mass murder.

Whatever, on your basis Greenpeace are activists not terrorists - they don't carry gun, or bombs. No, labelling them as terrorists is just a way of trying to damage their reputaion.

Btw, Greenpeace activists have been murdered in the past - I think we'd be better condemning that than trying to pin labeles on the organisation.

I think the word calculated is the key one, as well as the reasons behind the violence.

It also means that I don't paint the whole group with one brush.

What does guns and bombs have to do with terrorism? In much the same way that to be charged with assault, your victim only has to 'feel fear' not actually be hurt.

Edit: In response to yours... are you suggesting there is no state sponsored terrorism?

Edited December 4, 2009 by Dartmoor_Matt

[laserguy]

No time to post on here - I'm far too distracted and having way too much fun elsewhere,watching AGW (All Gone Wrong) implode to squabble about the definition of 'terrorist'.

[Devonian]

No time to post on here - I'm far too distracted and having way too much fun elsewhere,watching AGW (All Gone Wrong) implode to squabble about the definition of 'terrorist'.

You clearly do have time to post here...

You see you express a wish for a science to be wrong. But a science is either right or wrong, wishing it to be either wont change physical reality.

Anyway, please post any new science you have - it would make a change from mud slinging. Trouble is, there isn't any new science, just allegations (mud).

Edited December 4, 2009 by Devonian

[Solar Cycles]

I'm a member of Greenpeace. You called Greenpeace 'eco-terrorists' - that's all of us, all members - we are Greenpeace. What else could you have meant? I support Greenpeace, that means you think I support terrorists. I DO NOT!!!

If I called the Conservative Party terrorists you think any members here would like that? or the Labour Party? Go figure.

Think about what you post!

Maybe you need some happy pills Dev! Even you should be able to see through my sledgehammer wit, and make out I was having a dig at how greenpeace has lost it's way somewhat! :blush:

[Devonian]

I think the word calculated is the key one, as well as the reasons behind the violence.

It also means that I don't paint the whole group with one brush.

What does guns and bombs have to do with terrorism? In much the same way that to be charged with assault, your victim only has to 'feel fear' not actually be hurt.

We don't see many real world terrorists resort to cushions...

Edit: In response to yours... are you suggesting there is no state sponsored terrorism?

No.

Edited December 4, 2009 by Devonian

[Solar Cycles]

You clearly do have time to post here...

Anyway, you see you express a wish for a science to be wrong. But a science is either right or wrong, wishing it to be either wont change physical reality.

Anyway, please post any new science you have - it would make a change from mud slinging. Trouble is, there isn't any new science, just allegations (mud).

Is there any science at all, that shows conclusive proof, that one side is right or wrong?

It's all about speculation Dev, that's the best we have!

[Devonian]

Is there any science at all, that shows conclusive proof, that one side is right or wrong?

It's all about speculation Dev, that's the best we have!

No, it's (clearly) just about slinging allegations about in the run up to Copenhagen.

[Dartmoor_Matt]

We don't see many real world terrorists resort to cushions...

No.

True, but they don't all use guns and bombs, thats the defining point. One example - cyber terrorism.

[Solar Cycles]

No, it's (clearly) just about slinging allegations about in the run up to Copenhagen.

:blush: :blush: