"...the (Greenpeace) Web site that a colleague was making a joke in a draft that was then mistakenly released.

The final version did not mention Armageddon; instead it warned of plane crashes and reactor meltdowns."

Oh, and that's just soooooo much different from the joke itself.

WTF? LOL

I'd go so far as to classify that as (gasp!) fear-mongering.

I'd go so far as to classify that as (gasp!) fear-mongering.

Oh, you like that fear-mongering thing? 9-11! 9-11! 9-11! 9-11! 9-11! 9-11! 9-11! 9-11! 9-11!

Rather fight them there than here.

I remember the fear of nuclear power plants that existed in the past. Too bad Greenpeace is stuck in that mode. Nuclear power plant safety is definitely a real concern, but the time has come to reconsider the nuclear power option. Greenpeace isn't helping....

I quit even bothering to think what Greenpeace does when their very own founder said the organization has diverted from actually caring about the environment and was taken over by anti-capitalist communist. He's been appalled at the unbelieveable lies they've generated in the name of environmentalism that having to do with the environment and everything to do with wanting to establish an elitist ruling class.

See, astigafa, believe it or not, that 9-11 thing actually happened. More importantly, it's not fear-mongering to remember or be reminded of why we (not you, obviously) are fighting in the first place.

It also seems to me that people here who are exploiting the terrorist acts of 9-11 are the kind-hearted, fearless folks at Greenpeace. It's an entirely plausible scenario, of course, planes being flown into reactors by an enemy who has shown it is capable of and willing to commit any atrocity. But to propose this scenario is to employ the exact same type of "fear-mongering" that people like you accused (somewhat rightly, I might add) the Bush Administration of doing prior to the Iraq War--presenting scenarios of possible destruction by WMD on our streets. Neither the plane/reactor or WMD released in one of our cities scenarios is implausible in the least. The aim of both is to rally the masses behind a cause. Which scenario is more realistic? Apparently, Greenpeace thinks the plane/reactor threat is more real than the other. So either they believe there's an actual threat or they're just fear-mongering to further their cause. (I believe the former beacuse they've done nothing to support the latter.)

Ultimately, the big joke is that Greenpeace doesn't see what it is doing as fear-mongering. Which is mildy humorous and fabulously pathetic in the same breath.

I view Greenpeace and PETA to be on the same rung of the Psycho Ladder.

Years ago, I supported Greenpeace. Then, I found out how radicalized they had become, when they made a statement, in their literature. The article was talking about the people who were spiking trees, which put loggers in danger. Greenpeace stated that, while they would not do such a thing, they refused to condemn those who did. That was an eye-opener, and I never supported them again. Unfortunately, they've gotten even loonier in the meantime.

The, "joke," makes me wonder, though, if even they realize how loony they've become...

Contrast this episode with Reagan's "We start bombing in 5 minutes..."

Just a thought, unfortunately easily warped by any trolls that dare, but just think back to that episode and the reactions on both sides, as well as what it revealed about RR vs what this reveals about Creampiece.

Except Reagan's was obviously a joke from the get go.

The GreenPeace had to be explained away as a joke after the fact. Kind of a lame cover story, imho.

JannyMae said: Years ago, I supported Greenpeace. Then, I found out how radicalized they had become

Seems like the Sierra Club self-destructed in a similar fashion, but what appeared to happen there was that they became an institution in their own right, like professional fundraisers -- who lose focus on their cause, and just become really good at raising money, and spending it -- oh yeah, weren't we supposed to protect the planet or something also....???

Note: something seems to be wrong with the "The Corps Report- A Personal Note" story as it's not taking posts. This thread is not getting much use, so I'll drop it here until the other topic is fixed.
----------------------------------------------------
doctorj,

Mac, Prof. Dokka is the co-author of that article. (I had a link but the spam killer wouldn't let me post it.)

What am I missing? As you say, Prof. Dokka is the co-author of the research report published in the scientific journal Nature. I did a google search and found that Dr. Dokka is a highly regarded researcher and director of the Louisiana Spatial Center at Louisiana State University. He has been studying the subsidence of the Gulf Cost region for years using the newest space based technology. Normally you can follow the money to see if some one is biased on an issue, but I haven't found a link. I'm not sure who would benefit financially from falsely promoting the idea that the Gulf Cost region in general and New Orleans in particular are subsiding.

Lots of science is speculative, but as long as the speculation follows scientific methodologies, it's considered real science. That's not the case here. Researchers like Dr. Dock are making direct measurements using GPS and space based radar. The results of which have been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. That research show that from 10 to 20 percent of New Orleans is subsiding in the inch-a-year range, which is five times faster than previously thought. Here's an excerpt from that story.

The federal government, especially the Army Corps of Engineers, hasn't taken the dramatic sinking into account in rebuilding plans, said University of Berkeley engineering professor Bob Bea, part of an independent National Academy of Sciences-Berkeley team that analyzed the levee failures during Katrina.

Paul's theme in his many stories about the aftermath of Katrina has been that the Army Corps of Engineers knowingly ignored readily predictable failure modes in designing and building the levee non-system around New Orleans. Well, it looks like they are doing the same thing again. Rather than dismiss the subsidence research, I would think residents of New Orleans would be hammering the Corps over the head with it. Obviously, I missed something.

The, "joke," makes me wonder, though, if even they realize how loony they've become...

I have to agree. Clearly, someone at Greenpeace realizes how their ranting and raving sounds. Maybe he was trying to get others attention within the organization. Maybe he ws trying to show them how they look to the rest of the world.