A message to the environmental movement

[autorank]

Run time: 09:12 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEggt0ldQUI   Posted on YouTube: November 25, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: November 26, 2009 By DU Member: autorank Views on DU: 1072

 
Somebody has some questions to answer.

[Ernest Partridge]

1. Who is this guy?

DU, are we to understand that you endorse this paranoid BS?

[RKP5637]

2. Same thoughts here. n/t

[autorank]

7. Happy thanks giving to you

Ii don't endorse this guy, I say consider the points. They're worthy of consideration in view of the leak of tons of memos the East Anglia climate change program in Great Britain due to a hack of . The entire file is here http://www.filedropper.com/foi2009

His comments are highly pertinent on two fronts. First, the sloppy science found through the hack is relevant to the entire process of understanding what's going on and what to do. The process was bad enough for the Union of Concerned Scientists, AAAS to consider the matter. The head of the program resigned in disgrace after the documents became public Climate change debunkers like this guy are taking advantage of the sloppy science.

The best point made, however, concerns the focus on climate change recently to the expense of the pollution in the environment. Toxic waste dumping, the presence of antiandrogens in the water system, the relationship between pollution and cancer are all issues that need immediate attention, in addition to a focus on climate change. It's all one issue, yet it gets parsed and weighted in a way that excuses the polluters.

The one thing in this that is provocative is the reference to the Club of Rome report about 'the real enemy' being 'humanity itself.' That's a convenient distortion that is used to perpetuate misguided thinking and deflect responsibility for pollution and the impact on the environment, climate, human, etc.

"Humanity" is not the enemy. The enemy is a elitist system of financial and political control that ravages the earth and creates and maintains human suffering. The goal is to maintain control and gather wealth. By making us the cause of the problem rather than "them," we're avoiding the real culprits -- those who perpetuate the myth that we're all causing this; those who knowingly pollute systems that make people sick, kill them, and trash the environment are the guilty parties. Cap-and-trade is a ridiculous, half assed solution to the problem that focuses on a specific "solution" that's no solution at all.

If lousy research and a useless program are all the elite can generate to address the very serious problems we face, then the field is open for the very worst interpretation of their actions. They should be ashamed but they have no shame.

[notesdev]

3. Sober message everyone should take seriously

Ignore those who reflexively unrecommend anything that doesn't cater to their expectations. This man has a serious, sober message and the content thereof is something that deserves a fair listen.

[Me.]

4. Can You Imagine If You Posted A Thread

That said aliens are here?

[Sanity Claws]

5. But they are here.

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/boy_finds_own_real_life_e_t

[autorank]

6. I can and I could but it's all yours;)

Aliens 'already exist on earth,' Bulgarian scientist says .. UK, Telegraph, Nov 26

[Ghost Dog]

8. What is said here is sensible, except where the core body of climate science

is called into question.

There is certainly a need to examine the 'public policy' process that has been based on climate science, and in particular global warming, although, given the way the capitalist world works, it is difficult to see how much mitigation and intelligent adaptation could be achieved without taking economics (as well as politics - and, yes, including that shadowy 'elite') into account (as well as, of course, demographics and birth control). And there are certainly many other areas of environmental contamination and its consequences which also need to be seriously and urgently addressed. But, even if it were to be conclusively shown that some 'rogue scientists' have not been as objective as they should (something I am not yet convinced of), to throw out the core body of climate research (and I include in this the work of scientists who may not agree with some of the IPCC's conclusions, such as Richard S. Lindzen, who hypothesises negative feedback which would counter the effects of CO2 warming (while nevertheless involving other processes of climate change influenced by human industrial activity)) would be irrational.

Unfortunately, though, the current 'scandal' is providing much fuel for the nutjobs, as you can see, well, all over the net, eg. (if DU will permit such a link in this context) in the comments to this transcript of this Corbett Report here.

[Mark D.]

9. Climate Change Is Real

Much of it is areas getting warmer, new weather patterns and storms. I simply don't believe it's all or even primarily man made. History shows a continuous cycle of warm and cool periods in different areas. Most, and the strongest, long before man could effect the climate. Air pollution peaked in the 1970s and declined ever since. Now decades later, with less of it than back then, we have man-made warming as a result of it, when we didn't back then?

This video makes the point I've made. Gore was a champion complete environmentalism. From depleted uranium to solar power. He recently got on the CO2 train, as others have, who were environmentalists, but made this their focus. Kerry and others. We need instead to focus on how we'll deal with what results from these changing weather and temperature patterns we can do NOTHING to change or cause in a major way. That's just how it's going to be.

Get environmentalism back to a broad based effort. YES! Getting off fossil fuel will clean the air. But clean it of ALL the junk, not just the CO2. Coal is the world's top source of Arsenic and Mercury, 2nd highest source of radioactive material besides depleted uranium. The 2nd largest waste stream in America besides sewage, but it is totally unregulated. We've got coal ash basins that could rupture like the one in Tennessee did all over America, right now.

Yes, 'conspiracy theorists' go off on tangents. I've talked to many, just because some of their views are out there, it doesn't mean they all are. We loose potential allies on the right when we just grandstand on CO2. Let them know when toxic waste goes in the river they fish in and their kids swim in, it affects them. 'Unborn babies' they rave about can be affected by these toxins. They (usually only) care if you raise their self-interest. So use that tool.

[Ghost Dog]

13. Of course there are natural processes in climate variability.

As I understand it, much of climate science is involved in trying to identify, quantify and 'filter out' natural processes, so that what is left can be attributed to human activity. From what I an see, it is this 'filtering' process that the more ignorant, or interested, 'skeptics' refer to as 'manipulation' of the data. Well, 'duh'.

We can seek to adapt to all climate change, including what is only natural (which can also be extreme - see eg. volcanic and solar activity). In the case of climate change caused by unwise human activity, we can also seek 'mitigation' - ie. behavior change.

I must say, it has always appeared to me that a decision to focus on climate change was taken (at a 'high' level) as a way to focus public opinion (and that of industrialists and financiers) in order to achieve effective mitigation almost as a 'proxy' for the whole range of noxious effects of our current dependence on a 'fossil fuel economy'.

For sure, more openness at this stage in the public debate may benefit sensible decision-making, or at least it would in real, effective democracies. Perhaps, even, the current 'scandal' may turn out to be a good thing, helping to concentrate more minds on these (and other) issues of vital importance to us all.

[CLANG]

10. This guy is full of shit

Al Gore wouldn't lie!

[zeemike]

11. This is a clever propaganda piece.

Much of what he says may well be true, but his obvious motive is to put doubt in the mind about AGW, and the target audience is you.

It is the tactics they have used for years to divide the left and it usually works.

[Bluesbreaker]

12. Misrepresentations give away who's behind this production

The use of rhetorical devices, such as false dichotomies, belie the motives of this production. For example, "You knew Al Gore is not a scientist." Ergo nothing he says about climate change can be true. If this were valid logic, no one could read anything outside of their particular area of expertise and report their findings. This is essentially what every journalist does (i.e., review and compile data and synthesize it into a report). Al Gore just reported it as a PowerPoint presentation. Notice, no one ever attacks the data supporting his conclusions.

The Club of Rome report, produced by a group of imminent scholars from MIT, was immediately attacked by the diverse religious and corporate interests that it threatened. And they are still attacking it, as this video shows. Why? Because it threatened their power to dominate policy making in industrialized countries, like the U.S.

Few people will go to the trouble to dig into the fallacies in the many erroneous statements contained in this video, but I believe most people on DU instinctively know that an anti-environmental message like this would only come from those who benefit from environmental degradation and resource depletion.