Greenpeace Fireman Ad

[Clarkey]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gna5hncoBmc

Have any of you seen this Greenpeace Global Warming ad with the Californian fireman in it? For some reason this commercial really agitates me.

"As a firefighter I'm a student of the weather, and I've noticed that there's a change that's occurred in the last several years, these patterns are not what I've grown up with, they're also not what I've seen in the historical records."

This is a useless point, everyone's favorite trusted public servant's anedotal account of the weather in his area over a few years. This isn't climate it's weather. It would be like jumping to the conclusion that we are going to see a global ice age because there's been a few cold winters in Calgary. And what does it mean to be a student of the weather, because he's a fireman it is somehow less ridiculous of a statement? He's examining the dirt and looking up at the sky like he's some kind of native american rain man, how contrived and hilarious.

"Sometimes 1,000's of fires in a 24 hour period."

So what, this doesn't tell me anything. Are there more fires now than there were 100 years ago? How do I know there weren't twice as many fires 50 years ago. I'm sure 500 years ago there were 1,000's or even 10,000 or 100,000 fires burning at the same time. There's no comparison to tell the viewer whether this is an issue or not, I assume because the data isn't favourable, but it sounds scary! Even if we were in the onset of a global ice age you could have one particularly dry year of weather that could result in forest fires.

"If the climate changes and we don't have the water we need.... we could see all of society start to move out of certain areas."

It's called human ingenuity, we adjust to changing situations and adapt. If water becomes an issue humans will find a way to deal with it, whether it's by piping it in or finding better ways to store it. If sea levels rise we will build dykes or move inland, if water dries up humans can move to other areas with more precipitation.

"California could dry up and blow away."

Operative word, "could'. California could turn into a rainforest, California could be covered in tundra. Would this be such a bad thing anyway? This is such a blatant attempt to induce fear on the sheeple based on no facts.

So what is the moral of this story? Climate change will force humans to change some of our living locations? Is this really catastrophic? It will not happen overnight, people have many years to respond. Why are people frightened by these suggestions of change? Give me a better reason to be concerned. Ads like this only make me more cynical about the global warming movement, don't try to tug on my heart strings, give me some facts!

[Nage Waza]

The reason there are so many forest fires now is most often caused by not letting naturally occurring fires burn. There is so much dead dry wood they are a disaster waiting to happen.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Clarkey

Ads like this only make me more cynical about the global warming movement, don't try to tug on my heart strings, give me some facts!

If I do a post search, will I see that in the past you have historically been on the side of proactive movement against global warming and you are now more cynical?

I used to lead environmental and social justice groups and we would have conferences and share ideas. I remember one workshop I was in where we went around the room asking people what got them out involved in the issues; what moved them to praxis. Invariably, it was an emotional response to seeing or hearing of the issues. It was never the cold hard facts. Now, knowing the facts is important. Nothing makes me shudder like watching "Penn and Teller" show how little the average 1st year university hippie chick/earth dude knows about the issues. I think it is important to do your own research and learn as much as you can about the issues that you are standing for. However, you don't bring life and energy to a movement with statistics and figures. You can't keep people awake with statistical analysis. We're not going to move the powers that be to act without the public being moved to do something.

So basically what you are asking from the environmental movement is to deploy tactics that will fail.

As for your "human ingenuity" of desalination, dykes, population redistribution.... those things will cost several trillions of dollars. Can you imagine what it would cost just to keep Manhattan dry? Or were you thinking of moving all of New York inland? That's your cost-effective solution? I know I should just avoid these threads because they make my head explode.

[CaptainCrunch]

Which is it, California will dry up and blow away (kinda like that skinny kid in the comic book ads for Welder)

Or a earthquake will hit it causing it to break off and slide into the ocean (hopefully taking Vancouver with it)

Whichever it is, the West Coast is screwed. I even heard a rumor that Arnold governs from a bunker on the moon to protect himself from the end.

[hockeycop]

Greenpeace is completely irrelevant. They are an extremist organization. They represent the proactive global warming movement no more than Al Qaeda represents the Muslim population.

[Devils'Advocate]

I don't agree. Greenpeace used to be the extremists. When I became an environmentalist my parents said "well, just don't become one of them Greenpeace crazies". But they have become more mainstream and toned down. There are far more radical factions of the environmental movement that make me cringe.

[tkflames]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I don't agree. Greenpeace used to be the extremists. When I became an environmentalist my parents said "well, just don't become one of them Greenpeace crazies". But they have become more mainstream and toned down. There are far more radical factions of the environmental movement that make me cringe.

In other words you have become everything your parents warned you about and haven't even realized it.

[Hevishot]

Messages from Greenpeace and other extremist liberal organizations like PETA should be ridiculed and or ignored.

[Devils'Advocate]

Similarly, conservative organizations should be ridiculed and/or ignored.

I don't see how anything that Greenpeace stands for is 'extreme'.

Catalysing an energy revolution to address the number one threat facing our planet: climate change.

Defending our oceans by challenging wasteful and destructive fishing, and creating a global network of marine reserves.

Protecting the world’s ancient forests and the animals, plants and people that depend on them.

Working for disarmament and peace by tackling the causes of conflict and calling for the elimination of all nuclear weapons.

Creating a toxic free future with safer alternatives to hazardous chemicals in today's products and manufacturing.

Campaigning for sustainable agriculture by rejecting genetically engineered organisms, protecting biodiversity and encouraging socially responsible farming.

[Stormy Lancer]

Don't they routinely break the law to get their points across? Isn't that extremist?

[Devils'Advocate]

I suppose. If you consider Martin Luther King a criminal extremist. And Gandhi was a criminal extremist too. Asshats both of them.

[jar_e]

Maybe that firefighter should concentrate on saving more basements instead of making PSA's.

[Stormy Lancer]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I suppose. If you consider Martin Luther King a criminal extremist. And Gandhi was a criminal extremist too. Asshats both of them.

So...Greenpeace doesn't have to follow the rule of Law because you agree with them? I also wouldn't put Greenpeace on the same level as MLK and Ghandhi.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Stormy Lancer

So...Greenpeace doesn't have to follow the rule of Law because you agree with them? I also wouldn't put Greenpeace on the same level as MLK and Ghandhi.

Non-violent civil disobedience has long been used as a means of effective protest. MLK and Gandhi are just two that have used it as means of progressing a political ideal. Your last sentence would seem to suggest that you are okay with civil disobedience when you agree with an ideal and against when you disagree. Or maybe I am reading too much into it and you believe that both men were criminals that didn't have to follow the rule of Law and therefore evil?

[Stormy Lancer]

This is my whole problem with the ultra-environmental movement. Of course I don't think Ghandhi and MLK were wrong or evil. Yes certain causes (such as standing the Nazis in the 1930's) are worth breaking the law over.

To me Greenpeace is not even close to that moral standing and for the most part use faleshoods and inaccuracies to further their cause. I didn't see MLK or Ghandhi doing that...

[Stormy Lancer]

Oh...and you are doing the same thing in your post up above. Even the worst case models that Al Gore used in his propaghanda film said that Manhattan wouldn't be under water but there you are a few posts above doing the same thing! Al Gore neglected to tell veryone that no model being used today had New York under the ocean yet it didn't stop him from painting that picture for everyone.

This is Glen Beck stuff for the Left...

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Stormy Lancer

To me Greenpeace is not even close to that moral standing and for the most part use faleshoods and inaccuracies to further their cause.

See, and I disagree completely with your opinion. But now that you've put it in the realm of opinion instead of having a black or white answer of "break law" = "extremism" you have conceeded to my point. Thank you.

Next, here is what Columbia study has for 2080.
http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_15...loodplans.html

Should the entire ice caps melt:

[Stormy Lancer]

This is what I am talking about. Even the worst case scenarios do not have the entire polar ice caps melting by 2080. This is nothing more than scare tactics!

I stand corrected by the way. Greenpeace is a model organization which should be allowed to choose what laws they want to follow.

[Devils'Advocate]

I didn't say that the entire polar ice caps would melt by 2080. But if that is how you read every article on the topic, I can understand why you are so confused by the issue.

If you click the link by the 2080 you would see that the Columbia study suggested that all the docks, Battery Park, the WTC site, half of Wall street would be submerged during storms with high tides. But I guess you can read it whatever way you want since you are going to anyway.....

[Big Pom]

I think the problem with this add is way it's edited. The statements the fireman has are his own and he could have said whatever he felt like. Yes they have fires and mudslides and such. But the shaky camera, dramatic zooms and fades and wipes is too much. It's like they're trying too hard to be in your face with a guy who didn't seem, at least to me, to be in your face. He's a firefighter and he thinks it dry, there's more fires, and sees a weather change. But i wasn't impressed with the add overall.

In essence i'm pretty nutural on greenpeace and this add didn't sway me one way or the other.

Originally Posted by Clarkey

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gna5hncoBmc

Have any of you seen this Greenpeace Global Warming ad with the Californian fireman in it? For some reason this commercial really agitates me.

"As a firefighter I'm a student of the weather, and I've noticed that there's a change that's occurred in the last several years, these patterns are not what I've grown up with, they're also not what I've seen in the historical records."

This is a useless point, everyone's favorite trusted public servant's anedotal account of the weather in his area over a few years. This isn't climate it's weather. It would be like jumping to the conclusion that we are going to see a global ice age because there's been a few cold winters in Calgary. And what does it mean to be a student of the weather, because he's a fireman it is somehow less ridiculous of a statement? He's examining the dirt and looking up at the sky like he's some kind of native american rain man, how contrived and hilarious.

"Sometimes 1,000's of fires in a 24 hour period."

So what, this doesn't tell me anything. Are there more fires now than there were 100 years ago? How do I know there weren't twice as many fires 50 years ago. I'm sure 500 years ago there were 1,000's or even 10,000 or 100,000 fires burning at the same time. There's no comparison to tell the viewer whether this is an issue or not, I assume because the data isn't favourable, but it sounds scary! Even if we were in the onset of a global ice age you could have one particularly dry year of weather that could result in forest fires.

"If the climate changes and we don't have the water we need.... we could see all of society start to move out of certain areas."

It's called human ingenuity, we adjust to changing situations and adapt. If water becomes an issue humans will find a way to deal with it, whether it's by piping it in or finding better ways to store it. If sea levels rise we will build dykes or move inland, if water dries up humans can move to other areas with more precipitation.

"California could dry up and blow away."

Operative word, "could'. California could turn into a rainforest, California could be covered in tundra. Would this be such a bad thing anyway? This is such a blatant attempt to induce fear on the sheeple based on no facts.

So what is the moral of this story? Climate change will force humans to change some of our living locations? Is this really catastrophic? It will not happen overnight, people have many years to respond. Why are people frightened by these suggestions of change? Give me a better reason to be concerned. Ads like this only make me more cynical about the global warming movement, don't try to tug on my heart strings, give me some facts!