Oof! Greenpeace Pwned

By
December 16, 2009

It seems some opponents of Greenpeace decided to get some mileage out of a dirty trick approach. When Greenpeace rolled out its well-known banners when shipping out, it seems the banners were shipped-out and replaced beforehand. heh!

Dude! Who took my banner? h/t Big J in email.

FeatureArctic%20Sunrise

Please consider supporting RiehlWorldView with a small donation
, by shopping at Amazon via our Associate link in the sidebar or by re-distributing our content across the Web with the options below. Thank you.


Comments:
  1. Al in St. Lou says:

    Now, that’s wonderful!

  2. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:

    They oughta sail up alongside and plaster the Greenpeace boats with big signs and stickers, with permanent adhesive.. Bwahahahaha well done!

  3. Randy Rager says:

    MUWAHAHAHAHAHA!
    Oh lord. I wish I’d been involved in that.

  4. frankg says:

    Monkton strikes back

  5. Calypso Jones says:

    WAY TO GO.

  6. vitamin k says:

    I agree with TransitionEggman. All the thoughts expressed in the article are nice, but they are all looking only at technology. We need a major institutional and cultural shift to less energy and resource use, not merely investing in green options. The financial crisis is an excellent time for change – people are buying fewer new cars, and in general less tat that they don’t need, all of which is good for the environment. We need to rebuild the economy so that it’s not dependent on people buying resource-rich luxury items. We need to take this opportunity to push for infrastructure and institutions which don’t require people to use cars at all – rather than push for ‘green cars’ (don’t believe there’s such a thing).

  7. Pete says:

    For once, Greenpeace tells the truth.

  8. Michael Smith says:

    “Ship of Lies” is both true and appropriate — but better still would have been “Ship of Hate”. The essence of the environmental movement is a hatred of mankind and of all that man’s survival requires.
    These haters don’t wish to “save the environment” — they merely wish to doom man to death and desolation. May they all rot in hell.

  9. seekeronos says:

    “saving the earth” = destruction of human civilisation
    “saving the souls of men (by preaching the Word of God and the Good News of Salvation through faith in Jesus Christ)” = eternal life and preservation of humankind
    - – - – - – -
    Vitaman K makes a good point, however. There are ways and standards of living that we could adopt that would result in the more *efficient* use of energy, such as building and living in “walkable cities”, or even re-inventing the many small town-Main Street USA where most everything was within a long walk or a bicycle ride, and the reliable local bus service would serve well to get you across town…
    Imagine (or remember, if you are old enough) when the food shopping was done once every other day by going to the neighbourhood grocery: they didn’t have everything under the sun, but for farm-fresh local food, you couldn’t go wrong.
    For bigger cities, there could be the option of building “sky farms”, that is, green houses on a skyscraper scale, with farmer’s markets in the first few stories of the building. Rain water collectors and solar concentrators could help provide a more ideal growing solution for growing non-local foods (such as bananas growing in a skyfarm in NYC) that would drastically reduce the main consumer of oil energy in America – transporting food from Timbuktu and warehousing it distribution centres.
    And many of these things need not be state-sponsored initiatives – let the market create the demand and foster it through competition!

  10. Irrlicht says:

    “saving the souls of men (by preaching the Word of God and the Good News of Salvation through faith in Jesus Christ)” = eternal life and preservation of humankind
    Um… please, please, please do some reading besides the Bible. (or heck try to really really read the bible, not just the study guide highlighted sections)
    Which Word of god? Kill entire populations? Keep slaves? Condone rape? Smash infants head against stones? Don’t mix fabrics? Don’t pick up sticks on a Sunday? No graven images on pain of death (if so a lot of artists would be put to death)
    Salvation through faith in Jesus– If Jesus even existed, (debatable, there were lots of people running around at the time claiming to be christ but no documentation of one named Jesus of Nazareth until about 50 years later) why should we think that “salvation” would come through faith in him rather than one of the thousands of other holy rollers throughout history. Because the absurdly contradictory bible tells us so? By that logic, maybe the Heavens Gate people were right and the rest of us were wrong, maybe we should be having faith in extraterrestrials in comets. Or crystals. Or Zeus. What if Zeus is really the real god and he’s truly pissed now that he’s been ignored for thousands of years and that’s why we have earthquakes, wars, etc.
    “Eternal life and preservation of humankind.” First of all, it has always been in the power of the omnipotent god to give us all eternal life from the beginning, right? So doesn’t it seem cruel to (based on no evidence) ask us to believe in him/her/it based on “faith” and then condemn some of us to an eternal life of torment and the rest to an eternal life of delight. If he/she/it loves us so much (a la “Jesus loves me, this I know”) why not save us all? Instead millions of good Moslems, Jews, etc. get the fire and brimstone. That’s what the good old good book says even if the megachurches don’t preach it anymore. Of course as an atheist, I find heaven as ridiculous as hell but neither notion holds up to much ethical or scientific scrutiny. And while we’re at it, a “soul” is useful as an intellectual construct but the idea that we have some sort of extratemporal essence is simply magical thinking.
    And one more note as I’m on a bit of a roll. It makes me want to scream when people talk about Jesus being family friendly. This is the guy who told you to leave your family, give up your possessions (all of your possessions including the SUV) and follow him. How many “christians” are there who actually leave their families and give up their possessions? Judging by the number of cars I see in church parking lots with families jumping out, not many. Does this actually go through christians minds as they attach fish stickers to the family car?
    You seem to have a healthy skepticism. Please apply it to your religious beliefs and see what happens. If you can read Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Barker, Russell et. al and watch the full web series of Mr. Deity, and still have “faith” it will be impressive, but somehow I doubt anyone with a skeptical bent of mind and the intellectual acumen to honestly engage with well-argued atheism can do so and still continue to believe in the fairy tales. Best of luck to you.

  11. DaveP. says:

    …and thanks, Irrlicht, for that bit of ignoratnt religous biogotry.
    No more than what’s to be expected of your type… Fundamental Evangelical Athiest.

  12. Irrlicht says:

    Hi Dave P…
    Bigotry? I’m asking the person to use reason and apply it to his/her beliefs. I’m sure this person could be the nicest person in the world but postulating that a sky god will save us all is a bit out there, especially when backed with no proof. Also, all of the references to genocide, rape, infanticide, etc. are in the good book that many call inerrant.
    Fundamentalist… huh? So what is a non-fundamentalist atheist, someone who doesn’t believe in god only on Tuesdays and Thursdays? Not too clear what that means. Either you believe in supernatural creatures or you don’t. And remember, most of us are “atheist” about most gods. Unless you believe in Thor, you’re an atheist when it comes to Thor. Not only that, the way most of us live our lives is completely blasphemous to some religion.
    Show me some proof! Any proof whatsoever for this religious thinking and I’ll listen… nope, not much out there is there? Got to rely on “faith.” Any proof and I will gladly believe in any of these sky gods, (and would be foolish not to) till then I will remain an atheist. Or even (ooohhhh!) a fundamentalist atheist!
    Evangelical… huh? Sorry, guess I’ve got to catch up with the opposition research. Guess it seems funny to call atheists fundamentalists right? Nice bit of shut down irony. Whew! That was a rough one. So lets see, I saw a person combining religion mysticism with skepticism of environmental thinking and thought I’d jump in, ultimately if he/she chooses to stay blinkered, its a free country, but if he/she (or even you!) rises to the challenge, who knows? If not, no problem here. I’ll move on, no harm no foul. Not like I’m condemning him to hell or anything. (which yes, even if 2009 christians, moslems, etc. routinely say about atheists)
    And just a tip big guy, if you’re going to call someone ignorant… try spelling the word correctly.
    Off to fully live the only life I’ve got and jump off these intertubes!
    Peace (and reason while we’re at it)
    Irrlicht

  13. Irrlicht says:

    Should have read “guess it seems funny to call atheists evangelicals right?”
    Sigh… ok Dave P I have to officially let you off the hook for your spelling mistake.
    cheers,
    Irrlicht

  14. Mike2Cents says:

    I care little whether someone believes there is/isn’t(a) god.
    It matters more to me, pragmatically speaking, that Seekeronos is suggesting actual tangible solutions be considered. He is obviously free to, and likely does, ‘pray’ for solutions as well.
    And if that was his only approach, then I might take issue – but it obviously isn’t.
    I’m a heck of a lot more sympathetic to the atheist argument than most folks here, but I’m also frustrated by a large understanding in what ‘faith’ is when they argue against it (e.g. ‘show me some proof’).
    Having said that, I liked this:
    “Unless you believe in Thor, you’re an atheist when it comes to Thor.”
    Thinking that one through might make ‘believers’ more sympathetic to the atheists…

  15. Mike2Cents says:

    to coorect the above:
    ‘I’m a heck of a lot more sympathetic to the atheist argument than most folks here, but I’m also frustrated by a large MISunderstanding in what ‘faith’ is when they argue against it (e.g. ‘show me some proof’).’

  16. Irrlicht says:

    OK.. couldn’t resist, had to check back (curse you addictive internet!)
    Agree Mike that Seekreonos had other solutions which is why I was even trying to engage in the debate. To me, skepticism is healthy and it puzzles me to see it used in one arena and ignored in another. And of course he/she is free to pray. Would rather see him/her actually do things but it is his/her right to pray or do anything else with his time that doesn’t harm others.
    In the same vein, I do understand what people mean when they talk about faith. The problem is, in pretty much no other human endeavor to we accept things without evidence. Tell the most faithful fundamentalist that their kid has had a drug overdose and to accept your saying so on faith without any proof he’ll first look at you like you’re nuts and then seek to confirm or deny the story. Yet somehow we suspend this very natural desire for proof in this one area. Proof would change a lot. Until then, there are literally thousands of religions out there, all preaching faith. Why choose one over another? For most people, they believe what their parents believed in part because the parents were educating them about god before they could even grasp concepts like democracy or the economy. As an atheist, I’m simply not impressed by faith and often find it to be a fall-back once rationalism fails to support the religion. Seldom do christians start the argument with faith… they first use rational and logical arguments…
    One more thing about faith… if faith is all that is needed, why are christians so excited when they think they see Mary in a piece of toast? Like the rest of us, deep down they want proof. Someone truly faithful would not want or need such proof.
    I’ve only met one person who I consider to be truly faithful. When my aunt’s husband and son died in the same year, she was really joyful that they were “with God.” She really believed it in a non-abstract way and talked about what they were doing up in heaven… but most people grieve deeply when someone dies because (I believe) they know deep down that death is the end…. which of course is what makes life all the more precious!

  17. Tom says:

    Funny how Atheists can write paragraphs of rambling diatribe espousing their “non-belief” as they brand the religious as proselytizers.
    Priceless

  18. Mike2Cents says:

    “…there are literally thousands of religions out there, all preaching faith. Why choose one over another?”
    Well, I’m pretty certain that had Seekeronos been born in Kandahar, he likely would have ‘chosen’ a different faith.
    And I agree that those who proclaim faith AND offer proof (Mary in toast, or Dinesh D’Souza’s “Life After Death: The Evidence) are just setting themselves up.
    But again, I feel both the benefits and detriments of religious faith are not really illuminated when arguing over ‘proof’. But ‘atheism’ is becoming (ironically) as dogmatic as much of what it argues against. I don’t call myself an atheist only because I feel like I’d just be joining some other ‘belief system’. And Richard Dawkins is a pompous ass. I prefer Sam Harris – though even he has a little bait&switch when he promotes spiritual meditation, etc.

  19. Irrlicht says:

    Touche Tom! As proselytizing is core to two of the three Abrahamic religions, I confess to a bit of counter-proselytizing… Shall we call it equal time?
    As to rambling diatribes… I’ll leave you (briefly, since paragraphs seem to be tough for you) with this thought, despite only eliciting a weak personal attack (casting me as a fundamentalist, evangelical atheist– love it!) and your own point (and why should atheists not defend and yes proselytize their points of view, as backed by logical arguments?) my “rambling” (I strive to be pithy but alas I write long reports for a living) “diatribes” (jeepers, got some touchy folks around here) maybe just maybe elicited a few thoughts out there in the ether which is good enough for me. Meanwhile, haven’t seen any actual counter-arguments so will be rolling on my merry way.
    live long and prosper,
    Irrlicht

  20. js says:

    And a ship of fools too.

  21. Patrick Chester says:

    Let me guess: Irrlicht is having problems comprehending the words “Old Testament” or is hoping no one will actually check since it kind of gets in the way of things. Oh, and he forgot to invoke the Invisible Pink Unicorn to “prove” how enlightened he is.
    “Fundamental Evangelical Atheist” does come close to defining you since your manner does make it seem you hold your non-belief as strongly as any religious fanatic holds his belief… and as unwilling to accept different views on what the true nature of the universe might be.
    Sounds like your lack of faith is… disturbed by contrary thoughts.
    Mike2Cents: Well, some atheists. Others aren’t as… insecure in their unbeliefs. Not sure about agnostics, but they are’t sure either so it’s a wash.