- ‹ previous
- 613 of 1542
- next ›
12,000 Climate Activists Can't Be Wrong
Ah, the party planner's problem. You send out an invitation, and what happens if they all say yes?
I'm just back from today's magnificent civil disobedience outside the Capitol power plant. It began around 1 p.m., with the morning's snow still swirling—and out of the snow hundreds and then thousands of people arriving, signs in hand, many wearing green hardhats, all ready to go for a march. And what a march—down a few blocks off Capitol Hill into a strange semi-wasteland of overpasses, newly built luxury condos now unoccupied in the housing bust—and a big ugly power plant.
We marched a lap around the complex, dropping off color-coded contingents at each of the five gates—green flags with several hundred people at the first, red at the second. The mass of us gathered outside the main gate, before a small stage, and then listened to half the most important folk in the environmental movement, from Gus Speth to Wendell Berry to young indigenous activists to some guy named Jim Hansen. Cheering, singing, dancing, shivering.
The only problem was, too many people. We simply overwhelmed the police, who were prepared to arrest 500 but not ten times that many. And so they simply refused. Short of actually assaulting cops, which no one had the slightest interest in, it was simply impossible to get arrested. We were all risking it—we were standing where we weren't supposed to for hours on end. And we shut down the plant for the afternoon.
Not only that, of course, but since Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid had actually caved in last week, announcing they'd end 103 years of burning coal in the plant and convert it to natural gas, there was no obstacle to declaring victory, utter and complete.
I was the slightest bit disappointed, because I'd looked forward to eating out for a long time on the story of sharing a cell with Berry and Hansen and Terry Tempest Williams and Janisse Ray and Kathy Mattea and all the other good folks who were out there standing their ground. It would have been one hell of a stretch behind bars, and we could have written some kind of great letter from jail.
But much better to see the wide smiles on the faces of the thousands of college kids who made up much of the crowd. The kind of wide smiles that come with saying: 'so this is how it works.' It's not impossible. All it takes is a movement, which now we've got to build.
Congratulations Bill, Now For "350 Or Bust" Activism
"12,000 Climate Activists" WOW! That's quite a turnout, especially on such a freezing day in Washington, Congratulations!
Now, the next step is to get the scientific-academic establishment on all campuses throughout America to fast track a new Manhattan Project v.Global Warming to achieve your "350 Or Bust" goal.
Good Luck To Us (Homo Sapiens that is).
Don't hurt your arm patting your own back
Bill
You write well, but your penchant for exaggeration is consistent in your compositions. However, I understand your motivation. Without such propaganda, it is hard to generate and maintain some sort of following. I submit the following:
“12,000 Climate Activists Can't Be Wrong.” Perhaps you did not write the headline, but you quote the same number in another MJ article posted yesterday. According to two independent news sources, the number of people was 2000 to 2500, or less than 20% of the number you state.
Secondly, people milled about but no arrests occurred – but not because the police were overwhelmed. In fact, you state “We simply overwhelmed the police, who were prepared to arrest 500 but not ten times that many.” Ten times 500 would be 5000, twice the number of people that showed up. That would mean each person would have to be arrested twice.
Instead of all those people traveling from far-flung locations, burning fossil fuels to get there, and consuming petrol-based magic markers, encourage them to stay home, plant a tree, and wear a sweater.
I firmly believe one can, if the argument holds water, support his/her case without hyperbole and exaggeration. Such propaganda takes advantage of well meaning people and diverts their attention from real solutions.
I will continue to monitor and comment when I see untruths published in these pages.
No exaggeration
tagged as:- solution
Actually, Barry I was there with Bill, and Terry and Kathy and Jim and Jim and Daryl and John and around 2492 other people and I do not know all there names or where they came from. And when Bill wrote the article you take issue with, he had around 3 hours sleep for days on end.
The simple truth is although we did slightly increase our individual carbon footprints by attending this critical act of disobedience, staying home and planting trees will make little difference as long as we continue to burn fossil fuels - especially coal. Using fewer magic markers will, I am sorry to say, have very little impact. If you are going to accuse Bill McKibben of propaganda, you would do well to make relevant points yourself.
If you are interested in the science and why you saw the number 350 everywhere yesterday and heard it repeated throughout the march, google "James Hansen". He was right there in the front with us. It is the most important number on this planet and you would do well to memorize it. Maybe get a tattoo.
So by all means plant some trees and reduce your footprint and when you are done, or even better right now, do something really significant and help force a shift away from coal.
If not, this planet is going to become extremely inhospitable very soon.
Well intentioned, just a little mis-guided
tagged as:- solution
Jerry
“If you are going to accuse Bill McKibben of propaganda, you would do well to make relevant points yourself.”
I made several relevant points regarding poor and inaccurate reporting. Your excuses for him hold no water. If Bill wants to take on the responsibility of publishing material for public consumption, he needs to either report factually or suffer rebuke.
Regarding your suggestion to “google” Hansen, I offer the following for your review:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjQ2YTllODZiOTA0N2E2MTIzODQwNjUzMjQwYjI2MDI=&w=MA==
Mr. Hansen has a mixed reputation. You might do well to balance your research on this man and others. Realize that we can find as many scientists touting global warming as fact as those that say fable. Here is an excerpt from a recent report published in the UK’s Telegraph in December 2008 after finding that the world’s oceans are cooling:
“Scientists are now saying that Global Warming is going to stop in the near future if not already. What's more, these seem to be the same scientists that have predicting the doom gloom forecast of melting ice caps and lowland flooding. You know the same ones that Al Gore was citing in his dire forecast of the future.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/charlesclover/3341068/Global-warming-may-%27stop%27%2C-scientists-predict.html
Another credible source is the founder of the The Weather Channel who has described the concept of global warming as 'the greatest scam in history' and accused global media of colluding with 'environmental extremists' to alarm the public.
The fact is global warming and cooling occur in natural cycles impacted by solar storms, volcanic eruptions, axis tilt, and even collisions with asteroids. If you do your research on GHGs, you will find that water vapor makes up 90 to 95% of the atmosphere’s GHG concentration. CO2 is a very very small component and small changes in C02, whether man-made or from wild fires and volcanos have far less impact than a change in atmospheric water content.
All that said, the world, not just Washington DC and the US, need to shift their electrical production away from fossil fuels. While we argue what impact, if any, man has on climate change, there is scientifc proof regarding coal fired power plants and the amount of heavy metals, sulfur, and nitrous chemicals they produce leading to acid rain and human respiratory issues…which was the headline issue for those of us promoting environmental issues in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
If you wish to demostrate against coal fired plants, do so peacefully, not disobediantly. Further, support and demonstrate for a replacement power source that is the only current viable alternative – nuclear power.
who has the correct data?
tagged as:- result
In looking at just the first of your posted urls, I see several inaccuracies, one; the writer states, "Every climate scientist knows there’s been no — zero — net change in surface temperatures " and that's just plain false. It's up 2 degrees a/o last summer, not a lot, but up. Check any scientific resource, not some propagandist's blather. Again, "Unless you throw in a volcano (there hasn’t been a decent one in the last decade" - I counted no less than 13 volcanic aviation warnings for the past week, "indecent" at the level enough to provoke warnings; http://www.volcano.si.edu/reports/usgs/ So, before you continue your blather, why don't you do some simple fact checking? Personally, I've put you on my ignore list.
Pogo is still right "We Have Met The Enemy and He Is Us"
Barry, you do a very good job of pointing out one of the saddest truths about the "350 Or Bust" campaign, the fact that America's scientific-academic community has no credibility because our universities have failed to do their job for far too long.
Recent events such as a war due to lies of mass destruction, economic meltdowns because of destructive avarice, continuous republican and democratic congressional failures to serve We The People who elected them, threats to the U.S. Constitution by the White House, overthrowing of Rule of Law by our courts, never-ending religious battles between different religions because of hate, betrayals of our military heroes by Washington politicians and bureaucrats all prove that America’s education system has been destroyed by the very institutions that were supposed protect it.
So the consequences and threats to safety, health and wealth of citizens like those of us in California who are at continuously increasing risk from firestorm deaths and property destruction because our politicians serve special interests instead of protecting their own constituents, reductions in clean water due to political corruption and environmental pollution, domination of our University scholars by Federal employment and the power of money, failures to support our police, fire and health systems, and crop failures are out of control.
Meanwhile, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere continue to rise exponentially while we argue with each other ad nauseam.
No wonder Washington is the greatest threat to American Democracy today.
Denialist bunk from Barry
Barry wrote: "Realize that we can find as many scientists touting global warming as fact as those that say fable."
I realize that that is a LIE.
I realize that the rest of your comment is nothing but rote regurgitation of the pseudo-scientific BS promulgated by ExxonMobil-funded propaganda mills masquerading as "conservative" think-tanks, all of which has been thoroughly debunked many times over.
Some climate change denialists are merely ignorant and have been duped by fossil fuel industry propaganda. Others are deliberately dishonest. Which one are you?
Barry wrote: "I will continue to monitor and comment when I see untruths published in these pages."
You just "published" a bunch of blatant lies, yourself. So your pretentious pronouncement that you will "monitor these pages for untruths" is deserving of nothing but ridicule and contempt.
Secular: Can you back up what you write?
Secular
You said: “You just ‘published’ a bunch of blatant lies, yourself.” I challenge you to point out one lie, i.e., one untruth I personally made. I did list data from others and made the statement that basically both sides of the global warming issue can match PhDs tit for tat.
For a list of those questioning the inputs and/or conclusions of global warming and human influences see this list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
For a copy of a recent report describing over 650 scientists, many previous advocates of the global warming theories, see this site:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9
You said: “Some climate change denialists are merely ignorant and have been duped by fossil fuel industry propaganda. Others are deliberately dishonest.”
The scientists listed in the above references are not nut jobs (well, I do not know any of them personally so let’s just say they have some professional standing) and many are as passionate sounding as those like Dr. Hansen that stand on the opposite site of the argument. Their credentials suggest they are not ignorant. Regarding their funding or honesty, I cannot tell you. I can, however, point you to a resource that will tell you just how much money certain environmental activists are making as heads of their “non-profits” – the IRS Form 990s they must publish annually.
My point, Secular - if you look closely, was not to support either argument but to point out there are opposing opinions with similar credentials. My original post was in response to an eager and passionate devote' of Dr Hansen, encouraging him to seek balanced opinions on this and other topics. That said, rather than argue over the integrity of various climate prediction models or personal positions, why not just pursue viable alternatives to base-load coal-fired electricity?
Lastly, again, if you find what you believe to be a lie, let me know and I will happily explain any ambiguity or provide you a credible reference.
One thing I will guarantee is that if I attend a rally with fewer than 2500 people, I will not claim it to be 12,000.
Barry's comment
tagged as:- result
Sorry folks, but Barry is understating when said that about as many scientists argue that global warming is not occuring as there who argue affirmative. In fact more than 650 signed their name to the statement that Global Warming due to CO2 emission is not a significant contributor to Climate Change. In fact over 30,000 have signed their name and that is true. ExxonMobil is not behind these statements, it is just some folks who are doing their science. Name calling, denigrating people who don't share your beliefs in AGW is not a particluarly fair way to deal with disagreement.
Untruths, and truth
Barry wrote: "I challenge you to point out one lie, i.e., one untruth I personally made. I did list data from others and made the statement that basically both sides of the global warming issue can match PhDs tit for tat."
Your statement that "both sides of the global warming issue can match PhDs tit for tat" is a blatant falsehood, which simply restates your original falsehood.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not a deliberate liar, but merely misinformed and mislead by the lies of others. What you call "data from others" is deliberate disinformation promulgated by deceitful propagandists funded by the fossil fuel corporations. You would certainly not be the first person they have deceived.
The consensus of the overwhelming majority of the world's scientists -- including the hundreds of climate scientists who participate in the Nobel Prize winning IPCC, including every relevant scientific organization in the world, including the national scientific academies of every nation in the world, including the National Academy of Science of the USA -- is that anthropogenic global warming and consequent climate change is real, and that it is a grave danger.
On the other "side" is a tiny group of ill-informed cranks and fossil fuel industry-funded liars.
The so-called "report describing over 650 scientists" who reject the overwhelming scientific consensus is a fraud, compiled by the office of Senator James Inhofe, who is himself a bought-and-paid-for tool of the fossil fuel corporations and a blatant liar. There are few if any actual climate scientists on that list. Indeed, some actual climate scientists who were listed were horrified to find their names on the list, since they DO in fact support the consensus; they complained to Inhofe, and demanded to be removed from the list, but Inhofe refused to remove their names.
What is clear from your comments is that you don't know the first thing about climate science, that you base your ill-informed opinions on whether or not people are "passionate sounding", and that you are completely unable to distinguish actual science from bogus propaganda like Inhofe's dishonest, phony "list".
That's all on the assumption, of course, that you are ignorant because you have been mislead and misinformed, rather than being a deliberate liar yourself.
For a more reality-based discussion of the actual scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming, since you seem to like Wikipedia, I will refer you to the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
If you want to get a basic grounding in the actual science of anthropogenic global warming, I will refer you to Spencer Weart's excellent online book, "Discovery of Global Warming", on the American Institute of Physics website:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
And Wikipedia has a good introductory article as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
If you want to continue to remain ignorant, then you are certainly free to ignore reality and get your disinformation from the fake, phony, fraudulent, propagandistic sources that you have cited.
Anti Barry comments
tagged as:- result
Folks, it is fascinating to read all the name calling and falsehood dumped on Barry. His points are correct. Over 3000 members of the American Physical Society have objected to the APS adopting the language endorsing AGW as source of Climate Change. The IPCC report is not scientifically accurate, it is one view, but there are others. I am a scientist and am reaonably familiar with the process used to develop scientific theories, models and testable hypothesis that can then be compared to experimental data. The IPCC study fails in the most important of these, none of its conclusions stand up to experimental data. Unfortunately the science process has broken down when it comes to such politically charged topics as climate change/AGW. There is no doubt the climate is changing, it has in the past and will in the future. Human contribution to the change is possible, but not proven. At this point the most probable contribution is less then 30%. The natural forces simply dominate the picture. The simple experimental test is that while for the past decade plus CO2 emission continued to climb, yet temperature has been at best flat and most probably declined a bit. Some recent scientific papers have claimed a 15 to 30 year cooling cycle forced by natural forces overcoming any AGW contribution. To get these papers published the authors had to insert statements to the effect that while we may see a 15 to 30 year delay AGW is coming! When one looks at the historical scientific data CO2 increase lags temperature rise by up to 800 years. If CO2 lags it can't be the driver. The major GHG is water vapor, and scientific data has made arguments that CO2 can force solar energy absorption to increase, but there are equally good arguments published that CO2 forcing will reduce solar energy absorption. In either case the effect is tiny, modeling nothwithstanding. And so on....the scientific argument is simply not settled, and in science it rarely is. New insight and understanding force new questions to the surface and the scientific process requires continual testing of all hypothesis. Some will fail, some will evolve and some will just die and disappear.
Denialists
Inhofe's list is -- let's say, not serious:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/how_many_inhofes_list_compared.php
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-scientists-46011008
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/environmentandenergy/archive/2008/12/15/inhofe-s-650-quot-dissenters-quot-make-that-649-648.aspx
From the last one:
"In January, Inhofe posted his initial list of more than 400 "prominent scientists" who, he claimed, disputed that man-made greenhouse gases were responsible for rising global temperatures. Trouble is, when people started sifting through the names, they found that many experts on the list were actually weathermen, economists, and people with no real background in climate science. Worse still, when Andrew Dessler started contacting some of the actual climate scientists listed, many of them expressed first shock, then horror, and then e-mailed Inhofe's staff and demanded to be taken off, since they didn't disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change at all."
George Monbiot makes excellent points here as well:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/feb/27/climate-change-deniers-sceptics
"I use the term deniers not because I am seeking to make a link with the Holocaust, but because I can't think what else to call them. They describe themselves as sceptics, but this is plainly wrong, as they will believe any old rubbish that suits their cause. They will argue, for example, that a single weather event in one part of the world is evidence of global cooling; that the earth is warming up because of cosmic rays and that the Antarctic is melting as a result of volcanoes under the ice. No explanation is too bonkers for them, as long as it delivers the goods."
"There is another class of people, whose materials these independent deniers often use: those who are paid by corporations to defend definite conclusions. I have documented this trade extensively (see also my book Heat). But many of these people still masquerade as free thinkers. Earlier this month, for example, the Guardian's Comment is Free site published an article by Patrick Michaels. The Guardian described him as "a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of Climate of Extremes". What it didn't say is that he has been paid extremely well in the recent past to promote the views he expressed here by interests which, as far as I can discover, he has never voluntarily disclosed."
There's more there. Personally, I think any intelligent, even-minded person who looks at the data and the participants in the debate ends up believing the vast bulk of the evidence we have at hand supports AGW.
Funny
Funny thing, isn't it, how the fellow who ostentatiously proclaims that "I will continue to monitor and comment when I see untruths published in these pages" disappears when the untruthfulness of his own denialist drivel is demonstrated.
Doug and Secular
Doug
Thanks for your measured reply and interest in education. I am reading some of your references now.
As I have stated several times, I am not siding with either camp on the AGW issue. For me, a lot more personal research is required, as there does seem to be conflicting data. Certainly many people have agendas and that must be part of one’s calculus.
My educational background includes BS and MS degrees in Earth Science and Geology (the Beaver logo is for my alma mater Oregon State). As such, I have a basic understanding of the science but in no way have I performed empirical research in this area – which I doubt many of the people reading MJ have either. As such, we must all trust/have faith in what others conclude. Before I drink the kool-aid, I want to swirl the glass a bit and smell the ingredients.
Secular
I am not hiding from you are anyone else. I do have a job and responsibilities that prevent me from monitoring on a continual basis.
You seem an intelligent individual and you construct a sentence well. I also appreciate your willingness to provide references. I often use Wiki for a quick reference and noted it also has articles on climate change hoax. I did check out the AIP reference, which is more of a book review than a peer reviewed technical paper.
As stated earlier…plz review if you have forgotten… I am not arguing for or against the validity of AGW. What I said was there are many people on both sides of the issue. I see no change in that position. I will grant you that Inhofe and others have their agendas and I am too experienced to jump on the first bandwagon that rolls by.
skeptics try this
Barry and other denialists try this:
Look at the websites of The National Academy Of Sciences, The National Science Foundation, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), The US Department of Energy (DOE), The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), The Carnegie Institution for Science, Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory, Princeton, Columbia, Oxford, Cambridge, Science magazine, National Geographic, the Smithsonian Institution. This is but a tiny fraction of the hundreds of national and international organizations representing tens of thousands of scientists worldwide who understand and support the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.
Yes there are some individual scientists who are doubters. They and the 40 political groups supported by Exxon would like you to believe they are numerous. Exxon's support for these groups is documented in their own annual reports.
But try and find one single scientific organization, association, institute, congress, union, society, museum, magazine or foundation that denies the existence of global warming and mankind's role in it. Not political front groups or conservative ideological institutes like The Heartland Institute, but groups of scientists. There are none.
Best to read carefully before making rants
Jack, Secular, et al
I understand your passion for this topic. However, you are making unfounded personal accusations. Your personal positions seem to be clouding your objectivity and ability to read clearly.
1. My original point was the blog author overstated the number of people at a demonstration by a factor of five or six and made several other statements which fall into the category of untruth.
2. In my posts I have neither denied nor argued against AWG.
3. There are in fact scientists that are not 100% aligned with the fourth IPCC report. We can wonder if their integrity is compromised by where they find support, but that is no different for many of the AWG supporters, including James Hansen.
I have learned to listen to all sides, validate data, and make a reasoned decision that includes “what is this person’s agenda” questions before stating my position publically and with confidence. Just because I am not “there” yet regarding AWG does not make me a “denialist.” I prefer the term “realist” or perhaps “objective-ist.”
Some of my reserve on climate change comes from two semesters of metereology in which the professors were adamant regarding “climate” and “weather” – climate being long periods of time in human sense, on the order of 1000s of years vs. decades. The empirical data does show an overall rising temperature trend during our lifetime. In addition, GHGs have increased in concentration. Is there “cause and effect”? That is the $64,000 question.
Regardless, as I stated above, I am fully supportive of decommissioning coal-fired electric generating stations and have been so since before many of you were born. (did you read that part?)
12,000 Can't Be Wrong? Really?
tagged as:- result
I used the same logic with my dad one time... here was his reply...
"1 million flies eat sh_ _. Does that mean it's good?"
There are a couple of popular sports at which I do not do well. One is a favorite of those here at MJ and youger, well-meaning, liberals: “Jumping to Conclusions.”
A recent op-ed piece by a Boston Globe writer asks the following: How would he popular media report the following?
We had the warmest winter in years
All the Great Lakes were Ice Free
No Canadian provinces had snow on the ground Christmas Eve
Scientists underestimated the amount of Antarctic Ice Shelf melting
We know that all those Jumpers would be all over the above as further proof of man-caused global warming (AGW).
In fact, just the opposite of all the above occurred. See the article and references.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/08/wheres_global_warming/
The one on Antarctic Ice Shelf… turns out a satellite sensor lost its calibration and showed “bare water” where in fact there was ice… missing about 193,000 square miles of ice. Do you know how big that is? Bigger than the state of California! That’s embarrassing when you publish incorrect data upon which others are making, er, jumping to conclusions. From their website:
“As some of our readers have already noticed, there was a significant problem with the daily sea ice data images on February 16. The problem arose from a malfunction of the satellite sensor we use for our daily sea ice products. Upon further investigation, we discovered that starting around early January, an error known as sensor drift caused a slowly growing underestimation of Arctic sea ice extent. The underestimation reached approximately 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles) by mid-February.”
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/021809.html
The point is, one year or one decade does not a climate change make. Our lifetimes are so small compared to geologic time we should ensure we have solid scientific evidence before Jumping those kinds of Conclusions.
Coming back over the bar can be very embarrassing.