Kyoto protest beaten back by inflamed petrol traders

[A_Wanderer]

"When 35 Greenpeace protesters stormed the International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) yesterday they had planned the operation in great detail. What they were not prepared for was the post-prandial aggression of oil traders who kicked and punched them back on to the pavement. "We bit off more than we could chew. They were just Cockney barrow boy spivs. Total thugs," one protester said, rubbing his bruised skull. "I've never seen anyone less amenable to listening to our point of view." Another said: "I took on a Texan Swat team at Esso last year and they were angels compared with this lot." Behind him, on the balcony of the pub opposite the IPE, a bleary-eyed trader, pint in hand, yelled: "Sod off, Swampy."

Greenpeace had hoped to paralyse oil trading at the exchange in the City near Tower Bridge on the day that the Kyoto Protocol came into force. "The Kyoto Protocol has modest aims to improve the climate and we need huge aims," a spokesman said. Protesters conceded that mounting the operation after lunch may not have been the best plan. "The violence was instant," Jon Beresford, 39, an electrical engineer from Nottingham, said. "They grabbed us and started kicking and punching. Then when we were on the floor they tried to push huge filing cabinets on top of us to crush us." When a trader left the building shortly before 2pm, using a security swipe card, a protester dropped some coins on the floor and, as he bent down to pick them up, put his boot in the door to keep it open.

Two minutes later, three Greenpeace vans pulled up and another 30 protesters leapt out and were let in by the others. They made their way to the trading floor, blowing whistles and sounding fog horns, encountering little resistance from security guards. Rape alarms were tied to helium balloons to float to the ceiling and create noise out of reach. The IPE conducts "open outcry" trading where deals are shouted across the pit. By making so much noise, the protesters hoped to paralyse trading. But they were set upon by traders, most of whom were under the age of 25. "They were kicking and punching men and women indiscriminately," a photographer said. "It was really ugly, but Greenpeace did not fight back." Mr Beresford said: "They followed the guys into the lobby and kept kicking and punching them there. They literally kicked them on to the pavement."

link

Oh this one is bloody brilliant, harrassment of innocent people and to breaking the law got the proper response - kicking their arses to the curb ~ proving once and for all that whistles, fog horns and rape alarms tied to baloons are not enough to cower your enemy into submission.

These eco-thugs finally got the response that they deserve when they storm into a place of business to start some shit. I raise my glass to the traders who who had the courage and decency to get rid of those thugs.

/I am against going out and beating up environmentalists ~ but I am very much for a proactive response to thugs who break into a place of business to harass workers.

 

[financeguy]

Eco-thugs? People who stand up for their point of view.

Wanderer, how much of a scientist are you exactly?

Do you know anything about global warming?

 

[BVS]

Eco-thugs? People who stand up for their point of view.

Wanderer, how much of a scientist are you exactly?

Do you know anything about global warming?

My sentiments exactly.

And I'm so glad that violence is being so celebrated these days.

 

[A_Wanderer]

How is this about global warming ~ for the record I am quite open to the concept of human contribution to climate change, although Kyoto will not adress it. ~ this is about this style of "protest" that is barging their way into a place of business to harass innocent people, prevent them from going about their jobs and often destroying private property without concequence.

There are many ways to get your message across but actions like these where "protestors" break into private property and begin abusing workers with the intention to shut down trading to cause financial loss are closer to those brutes than people standing up to present their point of view.

 

[nbcrusader]

It seems as if Greenpeace's violence is celebrated. They got a dose of what they dish out.

 

[BVS]

It seems as if Greenpeace's violence is celebrated. They got a dose of what they dish out.

Funny I didn't see where they hit someone first.

But I guess it was just a pre-emptive strike.

 

[financeguy]

Strange that self-proclaimed U2 fans use any opportunity to slag off Greenpeace. Seems they don't know much about U2, considering that U2 have repeatedly expressed support for Greenpeace.

I guess some people are selective "fans".

 

[nbcrusader]

Funny I didn't see where they hit someone first.

But I guess it was just a pre-emptive strike.

Maybe this part will help:

35 Greenpeace protesters stormed

 

[nbcrusader]

Strange that self-proclaimed U2 fans use any opportunity to slag off Greenpeace. Seems they don't know much about U2, considering that U2 have repeatedly expressed support for Greenpeace.

I guess some people are selective "fans".

Sorry, but U2 fans can think for themselves.



And still be fans.

 

[BVS]

Maybe this part will help:

35 Greenpeace protesters stormed

Stormed = hit?

 

[financeguy]

How is this about global warming ~ for the record I am quite open to the concept of human contribution to climate change, although Kyoto will not adress it. ~ this is about this style of "protest" that is barging their way into a place of business to harass innocent people, prevent them from going about their jobs and often destroying private property without concequence.

There are many ways to get your message across but actions like these where "protestors" break into private property and begin abusing workers with the intention to shut down trading to cause financial loss are closer to those brutes than people standing up to present their point of view.

Ok so how much do you know about global warming? My dad was a meteorologist, and he knew something about it, and he was worried, big time.

I worry about the future, I really do.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I am not against Greenpeace per se but the actions of trespassing and harassing people in their place of business who are just earning a living are wrong and I am very much against it.

The horns and rape alarms make a lot of nosie which disrupts the trading floor ~ that could make traders understandably irate considering that large sums of money are on the line.

I am not an expert about global warming and I do not claim to be - I am a second year uni student studying science, I understand that by burning fossil fuels we are taking CO2 out of the carbon sinks like coal deposits and it is going into the atmosphere, that the ammount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased significantly over the last hundred years and that carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas will trap more heat thus altering global weather patterns creating climate change that will have both negative and positive concequences. I also know that throughout the history of the planet that there has been more CO2 in the atmosphere, that there were significant climate changes throughout the earths history right up till the little ice age. There are many areas where more study needs to be done ~ those billions of dollars that could go into Kyoto would be much better spent solving issues of poverty and disease.

I also say that Kyoto will not solve the problems because it still allows nations to increase their quota of CO2, that the entire idea of carbon trading seems like an artificial market that may not operate the way that it should in theory and that in the long term the only solution will be even harsher treaties with strong penalties for abusing nations.

And all of this overlooks the more obvious source of energy that doesn't produce any CO2 ~ nuclear power. Use nuclear power for energy to produce hydrogen for fuel ~ the waste products are just water vapour and radioactive waste which can be buried out in the middle of Central Australia which is both isolated and geologically stable.

 

[BVS]

I am not against Greenpeace per se but the actions of trespassing and harassing people in their place of business ...

So be it. If it's truly trespassing then call the police, don't beat them up. What is this high school?

 

[financeguy]

Oh, boo hoo hoo. Poor little traders, I guess they should go home to their mommies and daddies.

 

[financeguy]

Wanderer, what is your specific branch of science, and to what extent have you studied the issue of global warming?

I think it's important you clarify, in order that the rest of us can make a fair and balanced judgement.

 

[nbcrusader]

Oh, boo hoo hoo. Poor little traders, I guess they should go home to their mommies and daddies.

Wasn't it the greenpeace member boo hoo-ing?

 

[financeguy]

Wasn't it the greenpeace member boo hoo-ing?

Well, I admit there's dogma on both sides, I won't attempt to deny that. If they stopped some people from doing their day to day business, that's wrong. The traders were wrong to use violence as well though.

 

[financeguy]

Look I hope these Greenpeace people are wrong, I really do. It's just the problem is, we have a problem. By which I mean, the consensus seems to be, global warming is happening, and probably man made fuels are contributing. And that's a worry.

If we have a rise in sea levels of 10m as predicted, then the future is going to be horrible. It could be, in 200 years time, these Greenpeace people could be venerated as heroes.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I am not saying that global warming doesn't exist! I am not putting my level of knowledge above anybody else because it is not ~ there are millions of people better informed than I! I read the papers, a few magazines such as New Scientist and Scientific American, I read State of Fear by Michael Crichton and I thought that it raised some good points on the vested interests of parties when it comes to climate change but it does not convince me that there isn't cause to be cautious. From quite a few of the pieces that I have read the point that Kyoto will not solve the problem and that most developed nations will be pulling out in 2012 comes across a bit. The planet is not static, it never has been ~ we must determine what is changing, why it is changing and can we do anything about it. We need to investigate exactly what is going on before taking half hearted and costly measures that don't do squat (such as Kyoto).

 

[U2democrat]

This violence is wrong no matter who is involved. I fault both parties.

 

[financeguy]

Right, so you're pretty much admitting you don't know squat about global warming. And there's nothing wrong with that, you're a physicist so you can't be expected to.

When I want an opinion on something, I go ask the experts in that particular area. If I want an opinion on cosmology, I'll ask a cosmologist. If I want an opinion on evolution, I'll ask a biologist. If I want my hair done, I'll visit a barber.

As I said, my dad was a meteorologist, and he was worried. And that makes me worried too. That's all.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I am not a physicist I am a student going for a double major in zoology and geology, the issue at stake is not global warming it is these eco-thugs ~ their tactics are those of intimidation, property damage and sometimes violence so regardless of how right what they stand for is their manner and conduct are very wrong and it is good to see that some regular citizens didn't stand around and take that abuse.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

I applaud the traders for taking action against these Greenpeace storm troopers who decided to disrupt a place of business.

I believe fists were an adequate response to the pyschological terror brought about the by the eco-terrorists as well as the potential damage to these innocent traders' eardrums from the whistles and foghorns.

 

[financeguy]

So please elucidate, what studies have you done on global warming precisely? You seem to be pretty confident, I'm just wondering. I think it's important you elaborate on your reasoning, surely if global warming is real, and is produced by humans, one must allow for the possibility that these protestors are in fact visionaries?

Alternatively, if you have evidence that global warming is false, or even if it is real, is not human produced, then you are undoubtedly correct, however you ought to produce the relevant studies to support your thesis?

I'd just like to hear on what basis you would invite us to condemn these protestors, that's all.

 

[Teta040]

Well, this is a this and that type of question, isn't it?

Most of the late 60's/early 70's campus protests in the US were EXTREMELY violent, and they most surely did "prevent business from conducting on a day to day level." It was a sordid business for those involved.

But thanks to those disruptions, students now have office hours with htier professors (beofre they were Gods in the Ivory Tower), and most of the progressive laws that cameinot being since then were the result of wanves of soecital violence.

Does this justify it? Tolkine would say no, and I don't.

And before you contrast this with what Bono is doing, let me say this: business and coroporate figures NEVER deal with the ordinary folk. They opened up to Bono in the late 90's becuase of his stellar rep and thet hoped to get some media glamor. Bono used the unique opportunity resented to him by the courting of his sainly rep and media power to "embed" himself in these peoples' backrooms and executive suites. I am sure they wouldn;'t give Edge the time of day, because he has a divorce under his belt and had 2 kids out of wedlock (never mind he;s married the mother now of course.)

There is simply NO WAY for the nameless person to get an audience with these faceless people. Has it ever happned? Has any head of stste come out and sdaid, "Listen, guys, I'd love to know what the protest is aobut. Maybe it would be better if we sat down and talked, that way we could avoid unplesant incident." Thats what they seek--a response. You can'r make peace with brick walls.

I am not justifying violence..however, I can understand frustration.In the past, groups got a respnse, if even a agitated one. Now, the Powers That Be are collectively barricading themselves from us and tightening the slave labor shackles.

 

[Teta040]

PS. Gandhi's whole philosophy was built around the disrupting of business. If everybody;'s day is going fine, how can you gewt resukts?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Are these the words of a confident man?

I am not saying that global warming doesn't exist! I am not putting my level of knowledge above anybody else because it is not ~ there are millions of people better informed than I

I invite you to condemn these protestors because they act in a thuggish manner with malicious intent.

This is not an issue about global warming it is about these thugs breaking into a place of business and being intimidating bastards to people who are just trying to do their job.

Heres a question, are out current levels of CO2 really that high?

This chart shows the ammounts of CO2 in the atmosphere as well as average global tempreture going back 600 million years to the Cambrian. The ammount of CO2 we have today is minute because so much has been locked up in carbon sinks ~ but also consider the average global tempreture was no warmer during the Ordovician period than today but the ammounts of atmospheric CO2 was 12 times as much (4400 ppm compared to 370ppm today). Then you have peaks of CO2 concentrations throughout the early Mesozoic period and then a decline during the cretaceous that extends to the cainozoic. In comparison to other points in the earths history we have very low levels of CO2 (it makes up between 0.2% and 0.3% of our atmosphere). Surely we must be open to the idea that global climate is a very complex issue, there is probably not one cause rather a whole variety of causes and feedback mechanisms that operate under the influence of broader effects like ice ages and solar activity.

This site about global ice ages is interesting and puts forth a different cause for global climate change. It is important to be skeptical about all claims both for and against ~ I find it amusing when skeptic becomes a bad thing when describing scientists who do not agree with the environmentalist movement ~ likewise the overwhelming majority of scientists in the field are not slaves to the enviormentalist movement like some have claimed.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

Another decent article on the politics of global warming here
http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/0000000CA8CF.htm

A peer reviewed paper analysing the "hockey stick" temperature reconstruction
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004GL021750.shtml

that paper has resulted in a defence by Dr. Mann
http://www.realclimate.org/

and another site on the tempreture reconstruction here
http://www.climateaudit.org/

There is a lot of solid debate going on over the matter and it is very political with vested interests behind both sides ~ perhaps the best option is one that is suggested often, having unbiased funding where the researchers don't know where the funding comes from thus avoiding accusations of having such an agenda.

 

[financeguy]

To summarise, what is majority opinion on climate change?

 

[A_Wanderer]

I think that Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT said that there is a consensus among scientists that:

1. While there are inconsistencies in the temperature data, it is very likely that the world has got a bit warmer over the past 100 years - 0.6 degrees Celsius, on average, give or take 0.2 degrees either way.

2. That carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. The more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the warmer the world will tend to get.

3. That human activity has led to a significant increase in carbon dioxide levels, from 280 parts per million in the centuries before 1750, to 380 parts per million now.

4. Economic trends will tend to further increase carbon dioxide levels - so it is very plausible that the world will get warmer in the coming decades, all other things being equal.

 

[financeguy]

Ok, thanks. So on that basis surely the Greenpeace people are correct?