Greenpeace video game campaign video (LOL)

[Thrik]

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/clashoftheconsoles/

[DanJW]

Come back when you are prepared to not patronise me, Greenpeace.

[Nachimir]

Oh my god. I've not seen anything that bad since the 80s.

[elmuerte]

And making that movie is also bad for the environment or whatever. I might listen to what greenpeace has to say if they were's such hypocrites.

[Wrestlevania]

Did they use just one person for all the voiceovers, simply adjusting the tightness of the elastic band around his scrotum to compensate?

Awful -- they've no idea who their audience is.

EDIT: And did Mario really just fart out a mushroom whilst appearing to have some kind of stress-related seizure?! Okay, they've caught my attention again.

[Marek]

And making that movie is also bad for the environment or whatever. I might listen to what greenpeace has to say if they were's such hypocrites.

Wait, what? I'm sorry but whatever you think of GreenPeace or any other environmental group, that's just bullshit and I'm sick of people saying it. Sorry. Are environmentalists only allowed to speak up when they live in a shed in the woods and wipe their ass with tree leaves? Come on, you can't change anything in the system without being part of the system. Similarly when the most common criticism of Al Gore is "well, he uses airplanes a lot and has a large Apple cinema display so he's a hypocrite!!!!!!" then it's clear how much the world misses the point.

Oh, and I don't know what to think of that movie yet as I don't have audio on this computer at the moment...

[Roderick]

The movie is horrible, it's trash and badly written. So let's forget that. I also dislike people's sanctimonious attitude towards hypocricy. Blaming someone of hypocricy is a product of binary thinking; trying to fit people into extremes. At least, in these cases. That's not to say a person can't or shouldn't live up to his own ideals and views [of how others should be], but in the end we're all human. And if the ideal is good, then it's good, right?

[Ginger]

It's bad, but we all watched it and are now talking about it, and I was not aware that the production of consoles was so environmentally unfriendly and now I am. Next time i buy a console how green it is will be factor in which one I purchase.

[Thrik]

Will it balls.

[elmuerte]

Are environmentalists only allowed to speak up when they live in a shed in the woods and wipe their ass with tree leaves?

Absolutely not, a shed is not environment friendly, they would probably use wood as fuel for fire to prepare their dinner and as heating. Burning wood produces a shit load of CO2, also it's very inefficient.

Similarly when the most common criticism of Al Gore is "well, he uses airplanes a lot and has a large Apple cinema display so he's a hypocrite!!!!!!"

Nah, not just that... Al Core also tells a lot of lies and half-truths.

People that violate the same principles they preach are hypocrites. Simple definition.

If you complain about certain electronics being environment unfriendly (not that "environment friendly" even exists, but that's not the point), then you should not use said electronics in the first place.

GreenPeace complained about the bad environment policies at Apple, yet they used Apple computers during their press conferences. Also the promotional stuff they handed out during their campaigns at Apple conferences was full color printed stuff on glossy coated paper, which is quite environment unfriendly (and difficult to recycle).

Also this greener electronics campaign contains quite some lies. Nintendo's hardware is environment unfriendly because they didn't provide all the information Greenpeace wanted.

[Nappi]

So by that definition, if all the manufacturers unnecessarily used harmful substances in producing a certain part of a computer, lets say the motherboard, Greenpeace or any other environmental organization couldn't, at all, use computers as a means of fighting or raising awareness of this? No matter how easily the problem could be solved if they did that?

Also, I think you are a hypocrite for calling other people hypocrites. See how it works?

[Ginger]

So the people who are providing suggestions for the future aren't practicing 100% of what they preach, so what? It would be foolish to dismiss their arguments for that reason alone.

Big wow u can out argue them on technicalities, so what then? I get that it is propaganda and when propaganda is thrown at me my usual reaction is to find flaws (which will nearly always exist) and dismiss it, but that is just as foolish as blindly accepting it.

Their proposals my not be entirely effective in achieving what they set out to, even an 80% cut in 1997 levels of emission is unlikely to prevent catastrophic consequences, but trying all we can to make improvements will reduce the extent of the problems and give future solutions a better platform from which to launch. So until I hear a better plan I try to follow those that exist, reduce my carbon emissions and encourage others to do the same. Just because the plan or the preachers are not perfect is no reason to stick your head in the sand. If u want to show everyone how clever u are come up with some better ideas rather than bitching about other peoples.

[DanJW]

Egad, Ginger talking sense!

[elmuerte]

There are usually alternatives that are less bad, and if there are no alternatives you simply can't use that technology if you want to. And there are pretty much always viable alternatives. Ok, there is no proper alternative to traveling very long distances besides an airplane. But why is there a need to travel in the first place. There is no need for Al Gore to travel the world to promote his movie.

Propaganda/information leaflets could also be printed in just black ink using recycled unbleached paper.

Also, I think you are a hypocrite for calling other people hypocrites. See how it works?

Actually, I don't see how that works. I'm not saying it's bad to call people hypocrites.

Also, there's a big difference between hypocritical people and hypocritical organizations. The latter is much worse, the former becomes worse when the person is thickheaded. It's the whole principle of "two know more than one".

Also, I don't believe we can save the environment or climate. There is nothing to save. We could try to preserve the current state of it, but that's just unnatural. Environment and/or climate are not a constant thing, they are dynamic and they will always change, if we like it or not. And besides that, there is still a lot of stuff unknown or uncertain (like human CO2 production having an influence, or even CO2 being a greenhouse gas).

There is a balance of energy, the harder you push the environment (in any direction) the harder it pushes back. It just takes a long time, the environment is slow.

[DanJW]

Actually, two know less of one. Since he's in the other thread, Pratchett's equation is thus: "the collective IQ of a crowd is the IQ of the least intelligent member divided by the number of members ".

[elmuerte]

interesting thought...

Anyway, I didn't really mean knowledge, or intelligence. It's just with more people you define a stricter set of principles. This is because you will pick the lowest common denominator of the principles of each member.

[Marek]

Also, I don't believe we can save the environment or climate. There is nothing to save. We could try to preserve the current state of it, but that's just unnatural. Environment and/or climate are not a constant thing, they are dynamic and they will always change, if we like it or not.

What? Have you actually thought this through or are you just crapping out some words here?

You're basically saying this: because the state of the environment is constantly changing anyway, it would be UNnatural for us to try and minimize the changes that WE have caused (changes that are much greater than what would happen under normal natural circumstances, not to mention changes that could be extremely harmful to us). WTF? That doesn't many any sense at all.

And besides that, there is still a lot of stuff unknown or uncertain (like human CO2 production having an influence, or even CO2 being a greenhouse gas).

Uhhh. Here's some news: the polar ice cap is melting and it's melting fast. If you have any idea as to why that's happening, let me know. I think there's already a few scientists on the case with some kind of "wild theory" but, hey, it could be due to anything right? Let's wait until "the facts are in", because surely we don't have any meaningful data on this one.

Please never write anything about this topic again.

[twmac]

I've never had a problem with the hypocracy more the sanctimonious manner in which so many people go about it.

There is no clear way to argue either case on whether Greenpeace are good/bad/wrong/right. Simply because most people will have staked out their position on this matter already and that isn't going change (for better or worse).

But as Bill Hicks once said 'we're missing the point here, a piece of shit is still a piece of shit; you're getting confused here, look at it: It's a piece of shit.'

[elmuerte]

You're basically saying this: because the state of the environment is constantly changing anyway, it would be UNnatural for us to try and minimize the changes that WE have caused (changes that are much greater than what would happen under normal natural circumstances, not to mention changes that could be extremely harmful to us). WTF? That doesn't many any sense at all.

I'm not saying that at all, logic doesn't work like that. You simply can't turn around an axiom and still expect it to be sound.

Environment is a very complex system, it's so complex you might as well consider it a black box. You put X in, and you observe Y (after a long while). However, you don't know if you get the same result the next time. Simple reason is that the state of the black box has changed, and there's no feedback on how X changed the state. Adding another X can have the same, the opposite or no effect. And this result can change the next time you do the same experiment. Messing with a black box when you can't restore a previous state is a dangerous thing.

The environment is constantly changing, is has been since the beginning of earth. Only recently this started to become a problem. Because the humans produced complete infrastructure and what now which is not very resistant to the changes that might occur, natural or not. And this is what "we" don't want, the current state of the environment must be kept for the infrastructure to survive. Saving the environment is nothing more that trying to steer the process into the requested direction. But every action takes years before the results are observable. And because you don't know where and how much force to apply, it's a dangerous thing.

Please never write anything about this topic again.

Why? Because I'm wrong, or because you don't agree?

[Wrestlevania]

There is a balance of energy, the harder you push the environment (in any direction) the harder it pushes back. It just takes a long time, the environment is slow.

And, by comparison, the human industrial revolution has progressed many orders of magnitude faster than the speed of light...

[n0wak]

Why? Because I'm wrong, or because you don't agree?

Because it's in the "Gaming" forum and has little to do with gaming?

[elmuerte]

Because it's in the "Gaming" forum and has little to do with gaming?

but ... but ... gaming is bad for the environment ...

ok... point taken.

[Marek]

And because you don't know where and how much force to apply, it's a dangerous thing.

Any more dangerous than pumping CO2 into the atmosphere for two centuries? While all that you say is technically true, it is extremely poor logic.

Who said anything about applying new 'force' to the environment? Cutting carbon emissions is taking force away, not adding new force. It's trying to undo a force we started applying around the industrial revolution. The fact that climate is complex or always changes somewhat anyway without human involvement are total non-arguments in this. They're technically true but they don't serve as arguments.

Why? Because I'm wrong, or because you don't agree?

Actually, because you are wrong. I'm not someone who often makes trollish statements like that but you really bring out the worst in me.

The idea that human CO2 emissions have an influence, and are causing a greenhouse effect, has been around since the 60ies. That means there's been almost 50 years to disprove the theory.

Claiming to know better than the world's experts is at this point merely arrogant and ignorant. Anyone who says the greenhouse effect is an uncertainty really has no business discussing the issue.

(You could point that certain people believe there to be no greenhouse effect -- there are a few -- therefore it's not a certainty. Sure, it's not a certainty in the way gravity is, which is clearly demonstrated in reality all the time, but it is a certainty in the way, say, evolution is... everyone with a right mind agrees it's how things have to be because the mountain of data supporting it is just too huge. That there's a few nutters who say they don't "believe" in evolution doesn't make it an uncertainty. Same for greenhouse effect. It's a certainty.)

If there's one topic that can get me really riled up it's this one.

[Spaff]

i don;t beleive that horseshit Marek, you're an idiot, i bet you think Hitler was a mass murderer too.

[Marek]

You dropped the hitler bomb!!

Can I close this thread now? I hate it. Even though I'm right and the other guy is completely wrong, I hate it with all my heart.