Greenpeace's Custom Underwater Giant-Squid-Cam

Seagull76 writes "Check out this 1 minute video with Greenpeace's underwater photo/videographer and deep sea toy specialist, Gavin Newman, aboard the Esperanza. After months of confronting whalers and pirates, some might envy the crew aboard the next leg of Defending Our Oceans who are heading to the beautiful Azores in the mid-Atlantic. For this leg of the expedition, the Esperanza has been equipped with state of the art monitoring equipment, including a remote operating vehicle (ROV) which can shoot video down to a depth of 300m, and a drop camera capable of reaching depths of 1,000 metres - giant squid territory! The ship will become part of the ongoing University of the Azores research program intended to establish greater scientific knowledge of the importance of deep-sea habitats and marine life. "

Whoops..

[Jugalator]

Misread the title as "Greenpeace's Custom Underwater Giant-Squid-Scam".

Then I saw things about a toy specialist and it really got me wondering.

Bah, as so often with misreads, the real story was boring in comparison. ;-)

I want Greenpeace squid scam conspiracies with toy specialists! :-p

Me too!

[amightywind]

The ship will become part of the ongoing University of the Azores research program intended to establish greater scientific knowledge of the importance of deep-sea habitats and marine life.

Giant squid have already been photographed [nationalgeographic.com] in their natural habitat by Japanese scientists. Greenpeace is a radical political organisation with little scientific credibility. Marine science is already in more capable hands. One can only wonder about their real motivations.

After months of confronting whalers and pirates...

It takes one to know one.

GreenHypocrisy

[onyxruby]

When will greenpeace end their days of hypocrisy and start sailing the seas in these nifty windpowered devices they call sailing ships? They use renewable energy, don't use polluting engines (much as greenpeaces current fleet does) and are arguably just about histories most proven technology.

Of course then they would limited to actual research instead of political stunts. Almost all of histories most famous research ships were wooden sailing ships and greenpeace spits on the legacy.

They need exposed as the frauds they are and for people to stop accepting the lie that they are an environmental group. They are a political group that has done more to harm environmental progress (look at their record on nuclear energy for a prime example) than anybody short of big industry.

This coming from someone /has/ worked in the recycling industry, doesn't drive a big car gives to environmental causes and so on. Give money to legitimate environmental groups, live responsibly and let this political whore / quasi terrorist organization die.

Pay attention group

[GuloGulo]

What you just read was the Common Karma Whore.

Its behaviors include off-topic comments about the US government, which it uses as a method of attracting less intelligent moderators.

As you can see, this Karma Whore's trap worked perfectly, fooling a particularly mindless moderator, and successfully gaining karma.

Many moderators are intelligent enough to see the Karma Whore's attempts for what they are. Sadly, in any population there will be those that aren't bright enough to sniff out the trap, despite its simplistic construction and lack of sophistication.

Karma Whores rely on such individuals, as they are also not very bright, and without other less intelligent prey, would not survive long in the wild.

Re:Crew envy

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Bzzzzt.

1) Being charged is not the same as being guilty.

2) EU anti-terrorism laws (like in the US) are overly broad & target non-terrorists (from your link: Hence, the EU definition of a 'terrorist act', on which EC Reg. 2580/2001 is based, results to be extremely wide and in many cases too blur and imprecise, leaving an open margin for interpretation to both national police forces, when prosecuting offences, and national judges, when requested to apply the norm

3) (Again from your link): This event, occurred without any damage to things and persons. Doesn't sound a helluva lot like terrorism to me.

Can anyone else respoding please try not to waste time with links like the above?

Propaganda

[hsoft]

I guess we are all victims of propaganda. Myself, being a victim of Greenpeace propaganda, and american people being victims of Fox News (a.k.a. Bush administration) propaganda, flagging everyone not sharing their views as terrorists, part of the evil axis.

What makes greenpeace terrorists? Have they killed anybody? Did they kill these whalers? Are they placing bombs on the most polluting factories? Are they invading Irak to force them to be ecologists (Operation "Spreading eco-freedom"!)? THAT would be eco-terrorism.

Re:GreenHypocrisy

[Peyna]

I love how everyone is willing to cry "hypocrisy" the minute someone doesn't 100% practice what they preach. It's called practicality and the greater good. There are certain evils they are willing to accept in order to achieve their goals. Sure, they could completely abandon anything and everything which harms the environment, but then they'd be sitting in the woods alone all day and could not have any impact on society. Instead, they've decided that having one more diesel powered boat is a lot better than having billions of tons of trash and oil dumped into the ocean.

Re:Hahahah IT BROKE!

[j-turkey]

Ironically, they broke it yesterday by unexpectedly banging it against some coral.

...and damaging or destroying the coral. Nice going, guys.

Re:GreenHypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

Putting jacks in trees with the goal of injuring/killing loggers is a terrorist act. Ramming ships with the greenpeace huge ship of unknown environmental benefit with the goal of.. well i don't know what the goal was. also they were navy ships being rammed, so.. anti-war? anyway, terrorism. well terrorism unless part of a legitimate military action. But I don't think you'll ever hear greenpeace claim to have any military goals legitimate or otherwise.

Re:Perhaps

[Peyna]

My question was about the viability of bio-diesel in general. It appears that Greenpeace does use bio-diesel in a number of their other vehicles, but perhaps it is not a viable option for their ships. They're not exactly rolling in cash or anything. Either way, they are still doing SOMETHING, which is better than what 99% of the rest of the world is doing about the problem.

It's sad that we have apparently become an "all or nothing", "with us or against us" society. If someone says they're opposed to eating meat, but still eat shellfish, instead of commending them on making a worthwhile effort, we call them a hypocrite and discount them entirely. Picking out some minor "hypocrisy" to shoot down your opponent might be effective in politics when the average voter has no more than a high school education, but those of us that can actually think logically know better.

you can't edit posts on slashdot...

[YesIAmAScript]

As to your straw man stuff, you said they can't be environmentalists, because they burn diesel fuel in their ship. You said that, not me. You said that makes them hypocrites and thus blunts their position. I reject your argument.

As to baby seals. Um, I said baby seals. you said "people wearing fur". The only fur being worn here is baby seal fur, and it's being worn by baby seals! As I said, Greenpeace is really only involved in the baby seal hunting, not the people wearing fur end. You backed up my argument, not refuted it.

You are a terrible debater. You misrepresent your own positions while bolstering mine, and then you declare victory.

And you do realize you can't edit posts on slashdot, right?

Re:Greenpeace is irrelevant

[bill_mcgonigle]

Anyway, here's a link with some info for you: Waikiki presentation.

Which part of that article are you disagreeing with? That the timber industry replants its forests? That trees are renewable? That genetically modified crops are good for feeding the starving masses? Do you dislike the rice that has vitamin A to keep kids from going blind or the rice that can thrive in brackish water to alleviate starvation?

If you want info on the shill part, check his Wikipedia entry.

From what I can there see he believes fossil fuels are killing the ecosystem and thinks nuclear is a better solution. Those who agree with him are funding his 'crusade'. Greenpeace believes differently and those who agree with them are funding their crusade.

It's sad that CTW is considered an environmentalist, just as Moore is considered one -- neither of them is anything more than centrist on environmental issues.

I can't imagine Whittman thinking it's a good idea to live in a tree for two years to prevent it from being cut down. Moore has said he supported the gal who did that in a redwood a few years back since he felt it was a fine specimen of a tree.

Anyway, Greenpeace being refuted by a founding member is meaningless when that founding member has totally changed his perspective.

Moore is still fighting for what he believes are the most sound environmental policies. Greenpeace is still promoting fossil fuel consumption and protesting any use of the environment. It doesn't seem like Moore is the one who's changed.