Blair gets a dressing-down from climate groups 14 November 05

A welcome move from Greenpeace and the WWF. Blair needs to respond with a convincing assurance that he understands the need for targets.

In the meantime keep an eye on London’s new Climate Change Agency led by Allan Jones of Woking fame.

Douglas Coker

We are talking about serious science, with serious people about serious issues. This prank today and others like it relegate us to the tabloid press, I can see the headlines tomorrow “the tree huggers are at it again!” The tide is finally changing, people on the whole are agreeing that climate change is an important issue and then certain groups go and let the cause down by scoring cheap points with pointless stunts.

This action today will be linked to the march in December, which will now be watered down because all of us will be thrown in with the Looney green brigade.

If you actually want to get people on your side, then persuade them with argument and thought. When you explain to someone how the world is changing, most people will start to change their attitude. They will now see the headlines tomorrow and laugh at Greenpeace.

Did Martin Luther King or Ghandi use stunts? Get serious, and people will take you seriously. Or keep selling the “tree hugger” image and see where it gets us…

Jake, I suggest you read How to Win Campaigns by Chris Rose. He has been instrumental in past Greenpeace campaigns includung the Brent Spar campaign. You might also visit his site at http://www.campaignstrategy.org/contact.html I learned something … !

Douglas Coker

Thank you for the site reference, I had a look at the site and it was very interesting.

I don’t think that campaigning is a waste of time; if I did I wouldn’t read this site. What I think is that pranks like today’s go against the overall objective. What was the purpose to today’s stunt? The result is that we look like a bunch of anti-modernists who want to join a long line of people having a dig at Tony Blair.

We are on a different level now. We don’t need to go on with this fringe protest movement. We are mainstream, Hollywood are making blockbusters about global warming, we have crossed over.

Our image has to change from hippy tree hugging greens to practical forward thinking strategic scientists, that don’t just have complaints but have answers.

People are listening; lets not put them off by showing them the wrong image. We may not like it, and I am sure that some of my comments are offending a lot of people that read this site, but we live in a media driven world, it’s time we started to act in a media savvy way.

Stunts and gimmicks don’t change minds. Actions like this (and worse) create animosity and hostility. Any message is lost… PETA, Greenpeace and other ecoterrorists like the ELF hold no credibility and are on the fringe.

SAVE the REEFS! GREENPEACE is COMING GREENPEACE is to be fined after its flagship Rainbow Warrior II damaged a coral reef in the central Philippines during a climate change awareness campaign.

The ship and its crew were assessed a 640,000-peso ($15,000) fine after the 55m motor-assisted schooner ran aground at the Tubbataha Reef Marine Park yesterday, park manager Angelique Songco said. The ship’s bow sliced through a reef formation measuring 160sq m, she said.

A Greenpeace official in the Philippines described the incident as accidental, and said it would comply with the marine park authorities’ ruling.

Rainbow Warrior II arrived in the reservation in the middle of the Sulu Sea, about 600km south of Manila, last weekend as part of a four-month Asia-Pacific campaign to promote earth-friendly energy sources, Greenpeace campaign manager Red Constantino said.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17104337-28793,00.html

ECOTERRORISTS COST MONEY AND next will be LIVES! (CBS) When they first emerged in the mid-1990s, the environmental extremists calling themselves the “Earth Liberation Front” announced they were “the burning rage of a dying planet.”

Ever since, the ELF, along with its sister group, the Animal Liberation Front, has been burning everything from SUV dealerships to research labs to housing developments.

In recent years, these so-called “eco-terrorists” have been responsible for more than a thousand crimes resulting in over $100 million in damage. And their tactics and rhetoric continue to escalate.

Things have gotten so bad, the FBI now considers them the country’s biggest domestic terrorist threat.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/10/60minutes/main1036067.shtml?CMP=ILC-SearchStories

I’m curious what you think is specifically wrong with these sorts of actions and how groups concerned about climate change could engage the media in other ways?

cheers

has figured out that President Bush has been correct all along; that Kyoto is not a practicable way to accomplish anything other than economic collapse.

It is clear that full compliance with Kyoto would have made no discernable difference in the computer projections. It is equally clear that China, India would never have played the game, and that the projected economic growth in the two countries that have about a third of the world’s population would have overwhelmed anything that the industrial democracies could have done. They recognize that curtailing their industrial growth is not in their best interest.

The only way to slow the growth of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is to increase the efficiency of the energy-producing equipment that emits the gas. Acceptance of modern energy conversion technology will be in the best interest of the developing countries and their use of it will slow the rate of carbon dioxide growth.

If you also realize that the most probable of the GCM projections is that the temperature will increase by a couple of degrees and that even that is doubtful since the models over estimate the sensitivity of the climate system to the concentration of carbon dioxide, then you realize that increased energy efficiency is sufficient to prevent unbridled temperature increases.

The point I think is that pranks like yesterdays engage the media in the wrong way. The Media is fully engaged, pick up any newspaper on a daily basis and you will find a climate change story.

What we need now is not pranks, but solutions, give the papers something to write about which isn’t just protest and we might get somewhere. We have won the protest vote already, its time to be the practical ones.

and I need not add to your words. Just to state my support of them will be sufficient enough.

Best Wishes,

Dan

The old conventional wisdom was to ignore these contrarians because part of their purpose is to waste everyone’s valuable time. By wasting our time, then they “win”.

The contrarians also engage in debate to discourage others. They can even make us angry since strong emotions can be a distracting influence. It is hard to concentrate if someone’s words can make you feel uneasy or angry. But since their rhetoric can influence the unenlightened, the new conventional wisdom is that they can never go unchallenged.

The good part is that these folks are outnumbered Almuth. I, Dano, others, and now you have assumed the responsibility to keep these contrarians in check when needed. This is required from time to time because people like Norb can be cleverly articulate in misleading others or simply copy the writing of another person’s poor judgment. They can manage to confuse others and confusion leads to indecision and apathy.

Norbert does do us a service. He is the devil’s advocate. What the devil represents to me is anything that misleads others through lies. If evil exists and the devil exists, then it is logical that the “devil” would want us to fail and to believe in the absolute lie that we do not have the ability to solve the “real” problems which we face.

The most incredible lie of all is to suggest that we do not have any major problems to deal with regarding the course of future events. Katrina may suggest otherwise as to what happens when known problems to protective systems are ignored.

As a regular on this blog, I also serve to expose Norbert. Even Norbert’s portrayal of human characteristics tends to be all the “negative” ones. Norbert promotes the idea that humans are lazy and that they only promote their own self interest. Altruism does not exist in Norbert’s value system or is even a part of human nature in his flawed one-dimensional thinking!

The truth is that altruism is actually part of our DNA. Not only are we programmed for individual survival but we are also programmed for the survival of those related to us. When we care about the survival of near relatives (for example a brother or a sister), we pass down similar genes which then have a greater chance to replicate. If my relatives survive to reproduce, then they also pass down my DNA and that human predisposition to altruistic behavior would also be passed down. With the scientific explanation stated, we now can expand the concept with our intellect to include all of humanity. In order to truly “win”, then “all of us must be allowed to win”.

Interesting is that those who embrace nature have expanded this strong innate altruistic desire of humans to include much of the animal world and in particular other mammals. We perceive other creatures that exhibit the ability of awareness, emotion, and reasoning similar to our own to be of higher value. We are more inclined to care about a creature’s survival when they demonstrate human characteristics. Elephants, primates, and dolphins elicit special interest. Our pets tend to be mostly intelligent mammals easily domesticated such as cats and dogs. Again, this is a natural part of our human DNA.

So we are not the selfish aberration Norbert professes. Norbert has been misguided in my opinion to embrace an obsolete ideology and value system based on his strong ego to maintain a status he imagines is important. I think Norbert is unaware of his strong bias against common logic about the future and that his brand of ideology is insufficient to meet these future challenges. Denial is strong for Norbert because if he actually embraced the truth then he would come to the awareness of his own lies and there is much guilt in that awareness which even contrarians would not handle very well.

Guilt is also part of our DNA and it was designed to impart a sense of responsibility. Shame, guilt, and responsibility are related. The emotion of guilt serves a purpose in helping us to be more responsible in how we relate to others. In fact, the idea of forgiveness is enhanced if one expresses shame for an irresponsible act. In our justice systems, showing sincere remorse is an important variable.

In this light, there is still hope for Norbert!

All the best,

Dan

I’m surprised at your reaction to the Greenpeace “prank”, “stunt” or whatever you want to call it. There was a very civilised discussion between Steven Tindale, the Director of Greenpeace UK, and Jonathan Porritt, who works with the Government on the Sustainable Development Commission this morning on the Radio 4 Today programme. You can “listen again” here http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/index.shtml Go to the bottom of the list of items and click on … Government’s environmental record.

One point that was made very clearly was that there are a range of actions we can take to pressurise the Government and raise public awareness. The “menu of options” phrase I used in another post comes to mind again.

Maybe our different reactions to the Greenpeace action is a reflection of our differing political perspectives and histories of political activity.

I’m sure of one thing. Governments often (always?) have to be pressured to change course. History provides numerous examples. I always think of Nelson Mandela in this sort of debate. And voters and the population in general will react to different arguments and campaigns differently.

I really do not understand why anyone who really “gets it” on GW/CC objects to Greenpeace type actions. Is it a right/left thing? Is it about market forces vs intervention? Is it to do with being deferential to those in authority? (I know I was last in the queue when deference was being handed out.) Again I’d strongly recommend you read some of Chris Rose’s wisdom (URL above).

See (some of you) on the streets of London on the 3rd of December. Statesiders please let us know if we get any US media coverage.

Douglas Coker

PS Almuth – well done – your latest post is a delight!

I visited the Cooler Heads Coalition website that you suggested. I cannot recall that I ever visited it before; it was not among my “favorites” but is now.

I do not believe that I read the Myron Ebell article that you referred to; what I wrote on the subject of the Kyoto Accord was spontaneous and taken from my memory of many things that I have read about the subject. Paraphrasing text from one article is plagiarism; paraphrasing text from many articles is research.

I have not ever and do not now receive any money from anyone for composing and posting my opinions. It is an interesting concept however. I believe that I’ll try to contact the Cooler Heads Coalition to see if they actually provide funding for such efforts. I’ll let you know what I find out.

I have no financial interest in the debate other than the huge expenditure of money that my government will require of me should the government decide to play in this game. I believe that compliance with Kyoto would cost me much money and cause a reduction in my standard of living. Moreover, as I said previously, I believe that full implementation of Kyoto would produce no benefit.

I think that I seldom agree with the points that most posters make on this site because there is such a wide gap between their beliefs on the subject and mine. I also admit to being a bit stubborn.

The issue is PR. When no one believed in global warming and ozone hole then it was clear that direct protest action was needed. We are past that now we are in a phase of action where the public on the whole want to hear solutions. Whether it is energy saving light bulbs or wind power farms, we must be the positive voice of a global problem.

As for politics, if we keep reducing this issue to a party political one then we are going to tread water for a long time. Blame Blair if you like, blame the conservatives, blame Bush, blame China, blame blame blame. When the blaming stops where do we begin.

What we need to concentrate on is the actual practical responses that we can have to the problem. It is the biggest problem that the modern world has ever faced; we will have to change the way we think to actually make a difference.

My central problem with pranks is that when we are facing the largest issue in the world and when you are trying to convince the public and the politicians to change the way they think, then sending them a comic message relegates the issue to just another dig at the government.

I am a devil who seeks to corrupt right thinking individuals with subterfuge, misleading arguments and outright lies. The truth of Dan’s opinion is unquestionable; therefore, any dissent is heresy. Keep the faith folks; deviation from the one true path leads only to perdition.

I articulated my belief that we humans should not expend resources fighting problems that we did not cause at the expense of solving problems that we did cause and can cure. I believe that I gave equitable distribution of health care as an example of the latter. AGW is an example of the former.

I would point out that we humans have always tended to overestimate the extent of our influence and that many of our solutions to problems that we did not create have often been inhumane. During the 14th century, monks, accompanied by enforcers, went into the villages to identify miscreants whose sins had brought the plague upon the village. The unfortunates went to their final reward on the spot. The irony is that the plague and other pestilences resulted from a cooling of the climate after the Medieval Climate Optimum. Growing seasons shortened, food became scarce, wars increased, immune systems weakened. Modern GCMs cannot explain either the Medieval Climate Optimum or the Little Ice Age that followed.

Other examples of extreme non-solutions to problems lacking human culpability include the burning of approximately 100,000 witches, Aztec and Inca human sacrifices, and rampant self-flagellation among primitive peoples when threatened by events beyond their control. Is the modern hypothesis of AGW that requires sacrifice and penitence another example of human sacrifice to the gods? I believe it likely.

I said that human’s natural laziness spurs innovation and Dan turns that around to mean that I am cruel to kittens. I did qualify the word lazy to mean looking for quicker, easier and less expensive ways to do things. It was clear that I did not mean indolent. Anyone who is willing to think about his personal approach to distasteful chores will have to admit that I am right; we all seek easier ways of doing almost everything that we do.

Stop the presses! One of the great debates in modern psychology, nature vs. nurture, is over. Dan has proclaimed that it is all in our genes. Somebody please publish an article in the NJEM. You folks who believe in nurture had best get your acts together before you too are found to be evil deniers and liars.

For the record: I never professed anyone a selfish aberration. I don’t even know what that means.

However, Dan ends on a hopeful note. If I will just embrace the truth and confess my sins, I can be saved. It all sounds very Catholic.

Deception is not so much a scientific concept as a religious one so I had to use those metaphors to express my opinion about your intentions.

Now let us talk about the “science”.

You are the one who said that Alaska is NOT warming and incorrectly used a graph by a climate scientist in Alaska to support your conclusion not even shared by the scientist herself who developed that graph from her own research.

You are the one who suggested that higher sea-surface temperatures are not a relevant variable with regard to hurricanes. Oh really!

You even suggested that the transient condition of increased snow accumulation in Greenland’s interior insures that the continued melting at the glacier edges need not concern us anymore. That statement alone shows a total lack of understanding about glacier physics. Sigh!

According to you, the more carbon in the atmosphere then the better for all of us and especially for plant life since it accelerates their growth. In fact, a doubling of carbon would not be harmful and may actually be good for us according to those video links you posted from the past. I saw them and wow! Simply Unbelievable!

You are the one who constantly skews data as Dano has caught you so many times in misinformation that I wonder why you even bother to post comments here.

Your mission to instill a belief that AGW is not to be a concern in others “at all costs” undermines any credibility you have especially when you go to extremes by making irrelevant analogies that have nothing to do with climate or energy issues or even add any relevant insight to those issues.

I call that deception in its highest form and I make no apologies for my tone which was relevant in my assessment of your character but it was never really required! Your reputation is secure!

In that light, I may have to reconsider our quarrel as being a waste of my valuable time since I do not think you have many followers anyway. I do not see people going out of their way to support many of your statements.

Maybe, posting on Mark’s blog is a waste of your time! Now that is an interesting thought!

Dan

While there is debate as to whether Global Warming is “man made” or not, scientific measurements clearly show that the Carbon Dioxide content of the atmosphere is increasing, and the Exeter [UK] Climate Change Conference reported that “acidification” of the Oceans had also been measured. Carbon Dioxide is an acid gas. THEREFORE presumably everything else in contact with the atmosphere is also being “acidified” ? Including all Virus. It is well known to medical science that most Virus flourish under more acid conditions, and are inhibited under more alkaline [less acid] ones. This is especially true of the ‘Flu virus, and forms part of the medical protection against such diseases, for instance in Amantadine. Which raises blood pH [makes it less acid] This subject should form part of the discussions at the forthcoming UN Conference in Montreal ??

Norb,

you are being disingenious. I have looked at your postings between 710.2004 and 13.10.2004, when criticised Mark’s grasp of the science in a lot of detail. You brought up issues including urban heat effect, ice cores, hurricanes, CO2 concentration rises, Kyoto, and the global climate having cooled for the past 5 years (!). Funny enough, exactly the same issues with links to more or less the same statistics and arguments can be read in the Cooler Heads Coalition archives – they came up with the 3-4 weeks prior to you posting them on this web blog. World Climate Report, Tech Central Station, or Still Waiting for the Greenhouse could have given you some of your sources – the Cooler Heads Coalition more or less all of them. Just a coincidence, like you almost paraphrasing Myron Ebell this month?

I don’t think so!

Funny also that last year you were arguing that the globe has been cooling for the past five years, that the troposphere is cooling, and that solar activity is declining at present. Much the opposite of what you are saying now.

Almuth

I was just thinking that one way to move Climate Change up the political agenda is to develop a petition (somewhat similar to the lobby system in the US) which says something like:

“We the undersigned, will allocate our votes according to which main political party makes the most positive commitment to dealing with Climate Change”

There might also be a discussion board on which party that might be. It could be similar to Mark’s petition below.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/760674840?ltl=1132250392

Any thoughts?

Peter

religious/ cult overtones. I thought the same thing… sounds almost like cult speak with some higher calling tone in it…

It seems that it’s the tyranny of numbers with this study countering that study and this person saying one thing and that person saying another…

As I said in earlier postings, it seems it’s who you choose to believe as the credible scientist… I found some studies which were done by pioneers in climatology who were apparently ignored because of what they are saying…

Some have even denied any climate cycles/ages….

Why are there Nevada salt flats?

How did the polar glaciers get there in the first place?

Did the ice age even exist without man’s contributions to climate?

I guess my point is there has been high sea levels and warm temps in the past and will likely be in the future and they even happened before man and his evil carbon producing machines…

Dan, your “followers” statement kind of has me a bit worried…. is this a climate cult? Do we exist for the climate or does the climate exist for us?

So if someone does not agree with you and is not going to change their mind (about climate change etiologies)... based on what insufficient data exists… then they are not worth talking to anymore? So proselytize those you can…. consideration of facts be damned….

Who is the rube?

Sociobiology is the science of the evolution of behaviors and altruism is a behavior. That is not a cult!

Your associations you made to my remarks shows me that you may not understand sociobiology concepts which I used to show that people have a predisposition to being altruistic as compared to merely focusing on their own survival and self interest.

Norbert tends to focuses on human behavior which lean mostly toward the idea that we are only motivated by our own self interests. I sought to counter that at some level.

Also, I believe that Norbert intentionally misleads others which was my main point. I think some climate concepts are so basic that they cannot be refuted. Maybe the use of religious metaphors was overdone but I do think that GW/CC is very serious and that people who argue aggressively against it are also causing much harm.

And yes, I do think we all have a higher calling to insure a better environment for future generations. If that bothers you then you are entitled to your opinion.

Dan

Thanks.

I read many things on many sites. I read sites supportive of the IPCC position and sites that do not. I form opinions based upon what I read. I do no original research so nothing that I write can have basis in new information. I have not claimed to be proposing new ideas. I purport only to add some thinking that is adverse to the groupthink that is occurring on this site.

I suppose that if you tried you could find a website somewhere that has an article about the same subjects that I discussed every time I wrote anything here. Because there are finite numbers of ways of saying anything clearly there will always be similarity between two texts on the same subject. Most of the times that I have incorporated ideas directly form another site I post a link to that site. Sometimes I might not.

The site that you named, the Cooler Heads Coalition site, was not on my list of favorites and I cannot remember having visited it before you brought it to my attention. It is possible that I did and have forgotten, but I doubt it.

I did not lie to you and do not understand why you would make that accusation.

By the way, you might like to visit the CO2 Science web site at http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/Index.jsp. It reviews current literature that provides information that IPCC appears to ignore.

Your last paragraph, “Funny also that last year you were arguing that the globe has been cooling for the past five years, that the troposphere is cooling, and that solar activity is declining at present. Much the opposite of what you are saying now” contains several inaccuracies and misinterpretations.

If you look at the global temperature data (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig_A.pdf), you can see that the temperature appears to have decreased since the 1998 peak. As I understand the solar cycle theory, we should be in a period of low irradiance. If both solar irradiance and temperature continue decreasing while carbon dioxide concentration continues to increase, we will have a reason to reconsider our models.

A year ago, the satellite data published by UAH (John Christy) indicated that the upper troposphere was cooling. Dr. Christy has since found an error in his calculation procedure and now reports a small warming in the upper troposphere. The rate of increase in the temperature of the upper troposphere is less than the rate of increase of the surface temperature, and still is not consistent with the GCM predictions.

I do not believe that there is any inconsistency between what I wrote a year ago and what I have written recently.

Most of the media coverage following the Greenpeace action has been positive. I think you need to look at what such actions aim to achieve, and in which context (remebering that they did this in a specific UK context).

I would presume that the aim of the Greenpeace stunt was not to convince people that global warming is real and demands action. Most people in the UK agree with that (although they are in denial of the magnitude of both the threat and the necessary response). The aim was to draw attention to the UK government undermining meaningful action on climate change, whilst pretending that they are following a plan which will lead us out of the climate crisis. The WWF might sound more measured in their response, but it was the Greenpecae stunt that got them, too, the press coverage.

I agree that we must all hear and speak the positive message of solutions. But reducing emissions is not only a nice, happy affair of pretty windmills and energy-saving light bulbs. It will also involve conflict, because it means stopping people from heating their gardens with patio heaters, from wasting petrol with SUVs, making air travel an expensive choice for the few again, and, in Tony Blair’s case, undermining his friendship with George Bush. I don’t mean aggressive or violent conflict – nor do Greenpeace, of course, being a pacifist organisation.

The previous reference to Gandhi is interesting. Because Gandhi very much used ‘publcity stunts’ to further his aims of a non-violent anti-colonial resistance movement. His stunts, or symbolic actions, appealed to a broad existing sentiment shared by millions of Indians. Perhaps the problem with climate change campaigners is that a similar broad sentiment and mass movement does not yet exist. Hence symbolic action will only appeal to the minority. Which may still be worth it in some cases.

Almuth Ernsting

Thanks for your comment, I had guessed long ago that the mystery man is doing paid work. I never read what people dare not put their real name to. So I just ignore the cut and paste artist.

I would be very careful about this theory. You are thinking of CO2 reaction with water to form carbonic acid. Does out Ph blood value change if we breathe in too much CO2 (other than with toxic levels where we suffocate)? I haven’t heard such a thing before and always thought that our body is very good at keeping Ph value stable. I’m not a medic, though. Remember that 55m years ago CO2 concentrations were far higher than they are now and primates were thriving (doesn’t mean that they will thrive with the predicted future rate of climate change, of course).

There is lots of research to show that different illnesses are likely to expand their range, and some are already doing so. And I imagine that animals under severe stress from climate change may be more suceptible to viruses, and as they shift their range they will be in contact with other animals carrying different viruses and this may cause mutations, which may jump the species barrier. That’s just my theory, though (like bird flu arising when millions of poultry are stressed for different reasons because they are being kept in unsuitable conditions and very close together).

Almuth

Douglas,

I am sorry for being late on this but your question on media coverage needs an answer.

I have seen zero coverage on our news so far. For us, it may warrant some coverage on the day of the event and maybe get a few minutes on our network news. That is my best guess.

BTW, I did try to find the source in your link but never could. I was interested in reading it.

Best wishes,

Dan

My link takes you to the BBC Radio 4 Today programme site. To get the specific item go to Audio Archive, choose 16th November and scroll to the bottom of the listing for that programme. The item is there.

I use this “listen again” facility regularly as the programme runs from 6.00am to 9.00am and I don’t always catch all of the pieces. They do cover GW/CC and, while they occasionally infuriate with having the likes of Myron Ebell on, the programme is worth listening to. It’s essential listening for opinion formers and helps set the political agenda here in the UK.

And one thing continues to puzzle me – you didn’t like or didn’t approve of the Greenpeace demo but did like the poem. I don’t get it!

All the best

Douglas

I think I can explain the differences in opinion Douglas.

First, every human being (in my opinion) has their own unique “value system” based on many factors including culture, preferences, and comfort zone. I think it is natural for all of us to have a wide spectrum of opinions but most importantly our values differ. Even in the same culture, country, and family, we all can form a different map of how we view our world. In addition, many of us look at problems differently and solve them differently even when the final outcome can still be successful.

With regard to the poem, I am not bothered by the Nazi analogies as much as others may be. I think it is relevant to point out that our most respected and articulate German on this blog, Almuth, has shared his views which I think are very enlightening with respect to his feelings about the poem which were mostly positive.

For me, I viewed the poem from the perspective of human suffering “only”. The Nazi associations are used by the poet to illustrate a similar “suffering” for future generations. When looked at in this light, no one would want to see this suffering for future generations. The imagery interpreted in that light is very effective in my opinion.

Maybe the aversion to Nazi Germany is partially cultural in nature. The USA mainland was not bombed by Germany but the UK was bombed and many Brits can have bad memories from close relatives and the intense pain they suffered. Since we (in America) were less affected “directly” in our cities not being bombed by Nazi Germany, I can see that the imagery would hit a “hot button” more with a Brit than with an American.

I have noticed the 2 relevant people on this blog who had a strong reaction live in the UK and not in the USA so my assessment may be correct.

With regards to protests, I will keep an open mind. I think protests must not inflict pain in a way in which the targeted person or group does not fully comprehend why this was being done to him. The intent of the message may be lost. This is why I tend to frown on them. That does not mean they cannot be effective. I am open learn more about the idea by asking how to access your link.

From my own experience, I will share an experience I had which may help. We have a local climate group and I went to a meeting. One day, I heard that one of the leaders went on a “hunger strike”. Oh no! I thought. And now, I distance myself from all those people because I do not want to be “tainted” as being crazy. A reputable solar company is in the group and I do not think this leader realized that the awareness is so small here (in the USA) that his hunger strike may serve to alienate people or cast those who belonged to the group as incredulous. So, I avoid them and even many members of other reputable environmental groups avoid them as well because of the tactics used.

So, I hope this helps explain why we may differ but on the side of protests, I am less rigid. I just do not want to see people get the wrong message. We will never differ with respect to the magnitude of the problem and that it needs to be solved.

Failure is not an option because failure can bring with it the suffering the poem suggests. If you can set aside this imagery and think of a better way to help people imagine a changed future, then this could be useful. Mark Lynas, our host, is writing a book based on his assessment of the future as we warm degree by degree. I think this effort must be a challenge for him. I think maybe his book can do for others what the poem cannot. It is needed. The poem worked for me and others so it is still useful.

Let me close our good dialogue with something much more useful. Let us talk about solar energy versus energy efficiency in the light of sound economic thinking. Many have romantic views about solar energy being the solution to all our ills. Being an objective engineer, I seek to quantify those comparisons for greater insight. So, I am intentionally changing the subject

At a recent Sierra Club meeting, there was a discussion concerning compact fluorescent bulbs and solar energy when our speaker mentioned 10 dollars a watt (peak watt) for solar panels. I quickly was able to access the simple math and I said that if I bought 450 dollars worth of solar panels to provide 45 watts, then for 2 dollars and 50 cents, I could accomplish the same thing by changing one incandescent 60 watt bulb to a 15 watt energy efficient bulb. Interestingly, this fact only impressed a few to my dismay. Later, I emailed a good friend in that group to share additional insight which I will share openly here.

Read what follows below and then I will say best wishes.

“ … the better use of $20,000 would be to buy compact fluorescent bulbs and go down the streets each night in nearby neighborhoods and ask the people if you could come in and exchange their bulbs for free! So, instead of having the moral high ground bragging about a new solar energy system, the altruistic act of giving away $20,000 of energy efficient bulbs to lower the total electric grid would be…..

$20,000 X 15 watt bulb/$2.50 X (60-15) watts reduced/15 watt bulb X 1 megawatt/1,000,000 watts = 5.4 megawatts of power

I think 5.4 megawatts saved is better than the solar benefit to one household! Now if each bulb was used an average of 4 hours per day, this would amount to 5.4 megawatts X 4 hours X 1000 kilowatts/1 megawatt = 21,699 kilowatt hours.

Using your electric bill, see how many kilowatt hours of energy you used in one year! Divide that into 21,699 and you get the number of households who would each have to spend $20,000 on renewable solar energy to equal the result by just giving away $20,000 worth of energy efficient bulbs!”

Douglas, I am constantly working it.

I also discovered that if I simply turned off the pilot light to my furnace last summer, I would have saved 13 dollars a month on natural gas. I discovered it in mid summer but only measured it recently and the result of that calculation enabled better insight for me.

Interestingly, the waste of that pilot light during the summer amounted to boiling water for tea 16 times each day but pouring it down the drain instead. My power with numbers to create the previous analogy can aid a better awareness. I think by knowing that fact, no one who has a furnace pilot light like mine would possibly leave it on during the summer.

In a collective sense, if a million people did this 3 minute investment each year of shutting the furnace pilot light off in the summer months (assuming folks with similar circumstances to my own), then this simple act would save 3 billion cubic feet of natural gas each year. Knowledge is power but only if it is used. Conveying the information to those who need it is another matter. Yet, I can work the numbers and find a way to best explain it.

So, I do not protest so much as work on the mathematical side of the solution focus. I hope it all proves more valuable at a later date. I am still more the student than the teacher at the moment.

Good luck with your coming December 3 event. I hope it gets some coverage here.

Best Wishes,

Dan

Hi Dan

For an intersting article on the changing role of NGOs see this http://society.guardian.co.uk/givinglist/story/0,10994,1652361,00.html

BTW Greenpeace have been in the news again today. I think they upset Tony Blair!!!

Douglas Coker

I read about this today …

http://www.qualityoflifechallenge.com/