Comments for http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/06/greenpeace_spoof.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/06/greenpeace_spoof.html en-gb 30 Tue 16 Sep 2014 20:53:27 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/06/greenpeace_spoof.html dennisjunior1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/06/greenpeace_spoof.html?page=92#comment12 Mark:But was it really necessary for this environmental organisation to send me 44 copies? NO....But, excellent remarks regarding GREENPEACE...-Dennis Junior- Sun 02 Aug 2009 02:40:39 GMT+1 maryliz60 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/06/greenpeace_spoof.html?page=84#comment11 Answering Marcus, Greenpeace and 'the rest of us' have been fighting for a cleaner and healthier planet since the mid 60's. Its just 'the rest of you' that don't care enough to help. Fri 31 Jul 2009 22:04:16 GMT+1 DeaconNell http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/06/greenpeace_spoof.html?page=76#comment10 All Anglo-Saxons are sinister. Wed 15 Jul 2009 17:27:54 GMT+1 easyflightportal http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/06/greenpeace_spoof.html?page=69#comment9 Humans produce little effect on Climate change.All the greenpeace idiots cannot prove at all that humans have done so.Cows, on the other hand, produce tons of methane per week, which is depleting the ozone layer.But, cows are useful. We eat them (yummy) and McDonalds would be out of business if cows were banned (and the Indian population who worship cows would not like it either)So, what do we do ?Let's build many more nuclear power stations, we could ask IRAN and North Korea for assistance, they seem to be producing lots of Uranium at the moment. Hmmm. Nice warm test sites,Let's use the nuclear testing sites of IRAN and North Korea as themal pools, fill them with water, and pump it to the north and south poles.Sure the Penguins and Polar bears would appreciate the global tempratures rising by at least 20' C (i.e. upto -20'c)(note to editor / moderator)Keep up the good work, glad to see my (non payment of) licence fees are keeping you all in a job, as I relax here in Malaga, Spain. Fri 19 Jun 2009 09:46:28 GMT+1 easyflightportal http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/06/greenpeace_spoof.html?page=61#comment8 Humans produce little effect on Climate change.All the greenpeace idiots cannot prove at all that humans have done so.Cows, on the other hand, produce tons of methane per week, which is depleting the ozone layer.But, cows are useful. We eat them (yummy) and McDonalds would be out of business if cows were banned (and the Indian population who worship cows would not like it either)So, what do we do ?Let's build many more nuclear power stations, we could ask IRAN and North Korea for assistance, they seem to be producing lots of Uranium at the moment. Hmmm. Nice warm test sites,Let's use the nuclear testing sites of IRAN and North Korea as themal pools, fill them with water, and pump it to the north and south poles.Sure the Penguins and Polar bears would appreciate the global tempratures rising by at least 20' C (i.e. upto -20'c)(note to editor / moderator)Keep up the good work, glad to see my (non payment of) licence fees are keeping you all in a job, as I relax here in Malaga, Spain. Fri 19 Jun 2009 09:46:04 GMT+1 MarcusAureliusII http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/06/greenpeace_spoof.html?page=53#comment7 WebAlice;"But Mavrelius, is it the "overpopulation", those naked human bodies, really driving the planet to the corner, not industrial activity?"Every naked human body wants clothing, food, a home, heat in the winter, air conditioning in the summer, travel, cars, and TV sets, DVDs, Nintendo games, computers. All of them drive industrial production because they are the demand in the supply demand equation of world markets. People all over the world know that not everyone starves, can't find clean water, lives in the oold and the dark, swelters all summer, has to ride a bicycle or take a bus. Poor people in poor countries want the same comforts of life as those in developed countries have. To provide it, our technology has to burn coal, oil, gas for electrical energy and to move vehicles, all of which creates CO2. By the way, when the permafrost in Siberia melts, it will release vast amounts of methane, a gas that is 20 times as effective per unit volume at trapping radiant heat as CO2 is. The earth's surface temperature and climate are in a delicate balance between the heat reaching the surface from within (the earth is like an egg. The crust we live on is like the shell of an egg 70 miles thick. Below that, the rest of this 8000 mile diameter ball is molten rock. That heat is in balance with heat from the sun radiated reaching the surface of the earth and heat radiated back into space. As CO2 in the atmosphere increases from burning coal, gas, and oil, radiant heat that would be re-radiated into space is trapped causing the surface to get warmer. Also as the ice in the polar ice caps melts revealing the dark sea, the earth absorbs more heat from the sun because darker materials absorb more heat than light materials. Only a few degrees change on average will make an enormous difference in conditions on the surface including sea level, rainfall patterns, storm patterns. This will affect what areas become deserts, what coastal areas are flooded, what areas are hit with powerful storms. This will affect farming, where people can and can't live, where animals including insects that carry tropical diseases live. There's also a chance that the sudden warming will trigger a return to ice age conditions around most of the world. We are technically in a pleistocene ice age that has lasted for 28 million years. Currently we are in a warming trend which could end suddenly in a period of only 10 years. Nobody really knows. "So where would those extra 13-7(6) bln go to, I am at a loss."Join the crowd. When you figure it out, tell the United Nations. Perhaps you'll win a Nobel Prize. How about on the moon or Mars? Underground? Fri 19 Jun 2009 01:45:01 GMT+1 WebAliceinwonderland http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/06/greenpeace_spoof.html?page=46#comment6 Correction. Freezer is - 18C. Permafrost areas are minus 30-58C. :o)) Thu 18 Jun 2009 22:56:56 GMT+1 WebAliceinwonderland http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/06/greenpeace_spoof.html?page=38#comment5 I was looking up "overpopulation numbers", after someone? I think mentioned we are nearly 7 bln in the other thread, was impressed. But Mavrelius, is it the "overpopulation", those naked human bodies, really driving the planet to the corner, not industrial activity?By the looks this world is growing, in Europe and Russia it looks human. Year 1800 statistics, population per country, nearly exactly doubles for year 1900; then again, doubled by 2005. Double population growth per century looks alright, more or less. Provided it's not more than double. I thought "Africa is poor but has lots of people". Little did I know. Asia is leading, in absoloute fugures, and in multi-times growth. With all respect, 7 bln looks bad. Suppose 1 bln runs away eventually to empty Russia, still 6 bln is left. And 6 bln won't be "left", it won't stay, by various scientists' charts it's planned to be 13 bln by 2050. Though the UN quotes much softer amounts, "would grow by 2.5-3 bln extra, by 2050".More than 1 bln even Russia won't squeese in, 30 per cent of our land is North perma-frost, not live-able. It's a closet with stocks, but only us are able to live there a bit. Many world folks would rather die than live in a freezer of - 50, minus 60. Besides, now perma-frost areas are OK, LOL, (by crazy Russian standards, there are towns built upon, in the zone) but the damn thing has began to melt. And melting perma-frost is definitely no-go. All houses and roads built on it shift, travel and slide right under your feet, literally. So if it melts entirely we'd have less place, not more, LOL! So where would those extra 13-7(6) bln go to, I am at a loss. However in the scientific predictions and models, the amount quoted for 2050 is very bad (13 bln), but it's the end, that is, I mean, the slide down, the absolute max. We live (accord. to the "theory") in the population curve, sharp shift, 1960-2050. Year 2005 was predicted by that curve (back in 1930; the in 1945, it's an old "population theory"/French and American scientists) to be the max upward stream, all grows, grows, reaches 13 bln by 2050 and then we all begin to dicrease. Like, more than 13 bln there will never be.Still 6 bln extra still has to add up on, in the near time. Before the growth stops. ???There is a lot of space but it doesn't mean all the space is live-able, and that this amount is feed-able, with the shrink of agriculture-fit land. Thu 18 Jun 2009 22:53:38 GMT+1 threnodio http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/06/greenpeace_spoof.html?page=30#comment4 It's a very bad spoof."Heads of state agree historic climate-saving deal". Really? Not heads of government? If they are going to save the planet, they better try figure out how it works first. Thu 18 Jun 2009 22:16:58 GMT+1 MarcusAureliusII http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/06/greenpeace_spoof.html?page=23#comment3 If Greenpeace and others who said they were concerned about climate change had made the issue one of serious scientific concern twenty years ago instead of a political football trying to bash the US forcing it to either destroy its economy to bring it down to the EU's level or look like "the bad guy" then we might have actually made changes that mattered. Now it is too late.Greenpeace as far as I can tell never demonstrated concern about gross overpopulation of the earth which is at the root cause of climate change, never insisted that the EU expend its scientific resources on new technologies for producing energy in the kind of quantities we need to sustain our level of comfort instead of wasting it on redundant jumbo airplanes and space programs, and never bashed the EU for not living up to any of its commitments under Kyoto. It has all but ignored China, the world's largest producer of GHGs. All these words ring hollow now since we must surely be past the tipping point as the polar ice caps and the glaciers melt. It's almost certain to be too late but if it isn't, these people are still barking up the wrong tree.If the carbon cap and trade energy tax ever becomes law in the US, expect massive worldwide famine as an unintended consequence. (Zimbabweans didn't think they'd face famine either when they wrecked their agricultural economy.) Then it will be too late to avert that disaster too. Thu 18 Jun 2009 15:51:10 GMT+1 greyhereward http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/06/greenpeace_spoof.html?page=15#comment2 The Brits would be crazy to allow the ECB to effectively control the City. The UK is not even in the Euro.Brussels sees the crisis as an opportunity to emasculate the City and take business away from it. The liberalleft elite who, despite Barrosso,dominate the Commission hate the Anglo-Saxon economic model see this as revenge time.Anyway the problem was not regulatory in the banking crisis, the FSA had the powers, but the people in charge and the political culture meant they were not used.Finally it must be more than obvious by the UKIP vote that the British people do not want more bureaucratic controls from Brussels.Or do they not count? Thu 18 Jun 2009 15:50:55 GMT+1 karolina001 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/06/greenpeace_spoof.html?page=7#comment1 if you accept climate change, you accept greenpeace and the the elites orders of science.. Thu 18 Jun 2009 15:10:13 GMT+1 karolina001 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/06/greenpeace_spoof.html?page=0#comment0 greenpeace is the elites, the cup game Thu 18 Jun 2009 15:09:11 GMT+1