The Capital Climate Action protest went on today in Washington DC with a march on the coal fired power plant. Amazingly, NASA’s Dr. James Hansen actually showed up and took the stage at the protest to complete his transformation from scientist to political activist. But, we”ll leave the issue of his appearance there for another discussion.
Here are some scenes from the live web feed today.
Dr. Jim Hansen gets ready to deliver his message at the protest
Here’s a chronological order of the protest in a series of screencaps from the video feed.
Arrival at the power plant.
So THAT’s what those stimulus checks are for.
The camera operator put the camera down on it’s side for about five minutes, giving us this picture. Must have needed to get a smoke.
Interesting things you can do with a scarf and coat hanger wire.
The Native Americans arrive to protest Black Mesa power plant.
The hemp hat trio sings for the crowd.
Bewildered or zoned? I can’t tell.
“Justicia Climatica”? I was confused as to the meaning of this, at first, but then I discovered it was Chilean
The camera operator has issues again…
Coal is dirty. Ok, but have you guys smelled yourselves lately?
Not only can we save the planet, we can show you how to make illegal copies of DVD’s!
Jimbo is warming up in the bullpen.
Closer.
Closer….
And Dr. Jim Hansen is on the air! He’s making a succinct point.
I’ll bet Jim had no idea he was being sponsored by Obama’s stimulus package….oh, wait.
After Dr. Hansen left the stage, a hip-hop group sang his praises. Time for the mute button.
A few observations:
- The snow didn’t seem to interfere with the determined masses walking through it.
- Rage boy wasn’t present, but maybe he missed his flight due to snow delays.
- Most of the speakers recycled everything we’ve already heard before, it was pretty boring.
- Lucia watched this simultaneously, she has some thoughts
- The one highlight was Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. saying that Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship “should be in jail… for all of eternity“. Oddly, Kennedy’s message seemed even a bit too extreme for some left leaning news outlets, such as AlterNet which didn’t mention it in this story on the protest though there were other quotes from Kennedy.
- The advertisements that kept popping up on the video certainly didn’t help the credibility.
- One of the chants was “No coal, no gas, no nukes, no kidding”. There was also “Nuclear Hell No”, “Biofuels hell no”. Apparently wind power and solar are the only options they endorse. Iwonder if Jim Hansen has figured this out yet, since he has advocated nuclear power.
- At no time did the simultaneous viewers counter ever reach 1000, the highest I saw was 970. Likewise the number of total viewers that were counted never exceeded 10,000, and the final I saw just before they went off air for the first live feed (with Hansen et al) was 9978. It appears that many people clicked to check it out, but few stayed for the long haul.
- There was lots of singing, chanting, and dancing. Drumsbeats and other percussive instruments filled the air. The native indians used to have rain dances to control the weather, these dances and chants seemed to be aimed at controlling the climate. How far we’ve come.
- They claimed victory and went home, nobody was arrested. Unfortunately I don’t think they realize that simply blocking the gates for a couple of hours is not quite the same as shutting down the boiler.
When it was all over this line from a famous sci-fi series came to mind. I think I’ll send it to Jimbo to hang on his wall:
“Thinking about what you can’t control only wastes energy, and creates its own enemy.“
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ben Lawson (12:52:57)
Let me rephrase my point. Why would a “science blog” be giving so much gleeful attention to a political protest? As you well know, Obama has not called for coal plants to be shut down. He did say that new coal plants shouldn’t be subsidized.
Because, as you well know, thanks to AGWers, the debate about AGW is just as much about politics as it is about science.
You are right, Obama hasn’t called for coal plants to be shut down. What he actually did say though was:
“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”
Which is a far cry from simply saying that “new coal plants shouldn’t be subsidized”, as you well know.
Furthermore, isn’t it logical to think that if new coal plants would be “charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas” that existing plants would be charged a huge fee as well? That could, in fact, have the effect of shutting existing coal plants down as well, as you well know. So, conveniently, he doesn’t have to say that that is the goal, but as both he and you well know, it will have that effect eventually.
Interestingly, there was only a single photo in the WaPo about it in the METRO section on page B4 (sorry, no link) with a caption starting :
Surprisingly, our AGW cousins have been conspicuously absent in decrying yet another example of WaPo inaccuracies.
I see a couple comments on Obama and coal.
There’s no need to wonder what he thinks about. Watch a video of him :
photo from Lubos Motl’s blog
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_4ruQ7t4zrFA/SarUZIsBVBI/AAAAAAAABus/mINCuq9RUWY/the-day-tomorrow-hansen.jpg
Bruce Cobb: As you well know your made-up what-if Obama scenarios are just hot air. “Thanks to AGWers” this is essentially a political debate? My point exactly – this is fundamentally a political blog, and this kind of post demonstrates that.
Just want truth…: Love it or hate it, the video of Obama answering a question about “dirty coal” (referenced here to damn him?) seems in line with conventional energy and climate thinking, not sneaky woo-woo commie talk as Bruce infers.
“Ben Lawson (21:32:43) : this is fundamentally a political blog,”
Some people see politics in everything. You may not be seeing the largest part of this blog–that would be science.
“…in line with conventional energy and climate thinking…”
You and I have a different segment of the population in mind when we use the word ‘conventional’.
Sometimes the way one thinks is the way that one thinks everyone is thinking.
Did you ever read the book “Bias” by Bernard Goldberg? I listened on audio. I recommend it highly–very highly–to everyone.
“Ben Lawson (21:32:43) : …Bruce infers.”
Bruce implies, not Bruce infers.
Blogger-review is pretty strict.
Back in the 1930’s people had wind power. A wind charger on a high spot near the house and a huge rack of big batteries in the basement. (The batteries might not have been too big, but I was small and they looked big to me) Anyway there was one light bulb in each room, but there also was a kerosene lamp for times the wind didn’t blow enough to charge the batteries. I see a great future!!!
One of the “rent-a-mob” protesters shouted “Australia is burning!”. That’s news to me, while there are bush fires in Victoria (And NSW) and it is sad at the loss of life and destruction, Australia isn’t burning (Although it is the “scorched land”).
But we had a program on TV last night that claims temperatures are rising. Temperatures don’t stop arsonists sadly (The CAUSE of much of the fires in several states including Western Australia recently. Fires start where there wer e none. Burning embers start other fires).
Ben Lawson (21:32:43) :
Bruce Cobb: As you well know your made-up what-if Obama scenarios are just hot air. “Thanks to AGWers” this is essentially a political debate? My point exactly – this is fundamentally a political blog, and this kind of post demonstrates that.
If by “hot air” you mean common sense (something AGWers posess very little of), then why yes, you are correct.
…”this is essentially” a blog about puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news? Why, yes, we agree on that as well.
Ben Lawson (21:32:43)
sneaky woo-woo commie talk as Bruce infers.
Do you always speak such childish nonsense?
Typical AGWer troll – you see only what you want to see, secure in your AGW pseudoscientific ideology.
Just want truth…: Are you referring to the same Bernard Goldberg who just wrote “A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media”? Bias indeed. Thanks for trotting out yours so neatly.
The science here generally serves a right wing/libertarian purpose, which is fine, but it’s important to recognize that.
Imply/infer – Actually pretty much interchangeable no matter how “strict” you consider yourself. I shudder to think of the intellectual ferocity you bring to bear on its vs it’s.
REPLY: Ben your statement “The science here generally serves a right wing/libertarian purpose, which is fine, but it’s important to recognize that.” is without merit, and I take personal offense to your labeling, don’t say it again. I could just as easily make the same sort of silly (and wrong) generalization about you because you use a Macintosh.
– Anthony Watts
Ben Lawson:
It is events such as the topic of this thread that is politicizing/polarizing the science. The head of NASA attended and spoke at a political rally that openly advocated anarchy. Doesn’t that concern you?
Imply/infer – Actually pretty much interchangeable no matter how “strict” you consider yourself.
Um, no, they are not interchangeable and mean completely different things. Standard English dictionaries are quite clear on this.
I shudder to think of the intellectual ferocity you bring to bear on its vs it’s.
It’s is a contraction for it is. Its is the possessive form of it. The two are completely different.
There is a reason language has rules, it is so people that understand language can communicate freely. You should learn to understand these rules, particularly if you are going to criticize the intellectual capability of others (by implying the thoughts here are merely ideology).
Mark
Ben Lawson (12:52:57) :
“Pragmatic: I gotta ask – who wrote “the order to withhold funding from scientists that question the AGW”? I want to kiss his pinkie ring so I can keep on his good side.”
Here’s a question put to a prominent climate scientist skeptical of AGW:
“Do you ever try to get your research published in Science and Nature?
Not anymore. Their editorial policy basically won’t permit stuff like this. If they don’t find an excuse to object outright, all it takes is them sending it to a reviewer like Kevin Trenberth who will say “This is garbage,” and come up with some obscure, non-reason why. And then they don’t have to deal with it. So I don’t deal with them any more.” Houston Chronical
Dr. Roy Spenser,PhD
Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, recipient NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for global temperature monitoring with satellites. Spencer is U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite.
Apparently, even a peck on the pinky does not propagate publishing!
3rd of march: min. temperature just 1° above minimum from 1925:
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KDCA/2009/3/3/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA
Mike Ryan (13:03:49) :
“Michael J. Bentley and Pragmatic
Interesting version of history you both come up with. Sounds like the history books you have been reading are about as useful as Dr Hansen’s books on climate change.”
Mike, as your comment is directed entirely to Michael Bentley and Reformation, I am curious at your including me. I am not particularly interested in the religious component of AGW (Gaia etc.) Only in the way in which historical “consensus” has been represented by Church and State. A far better thinker on the subject is Prof. William Happer of Princeton, who told the Congress recently:
“I believe that the increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind. I predict that future historians will look back on this period much as we now view the period just before the passage of the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution to prohibit “the manufacturing, sale or transportation of intoxicating liquors.” At the time, the 18th amendment seemed to be exactly the right thing to do – who wanted to be in league with demon rum? It was the 1917 version of saving the planet. More than half the states enacted prohibition laws before the 18th amendment was ratified. Only one state, Rhode Island, voted against the 18th amendment. Two states, Illinois and Indiana, never got around to voting and all the rest voted for it. There were many thoughtful people, including a majority of Rhode Islanders, who thought that prohibition might do more harm than good. But they were completely outmatched by the temperance movement, whose motives and methods had much in common with the movement to stop climate change. Deeply sincere people thought they were saving humanity from the evils of alcohol, just as many people now sincerely think they are saving humanity from the evils of CO2. Prohibition was a mistake, and our country has probably still not fully recovered from the damage it did. Institutions like organized crime got their start in that era. Drastic limitations on CO2 are likely to damage our country in analogous ways.”
February 28, 2009
His testimony to the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee utilizes many references to view AGW from an historical perspective.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5441
“Ben Lawson (08:34:42) :
The science here generally serves a right wing/libertarian purpose, which is fine, but it’s important to recognize that.”
Again, I have to say you see everything through political colored eyeglasses.
If you were unable to easily detect how the media was on Barak Obama’s side through the entire campaign then you are unable to think in an unbiased way.
Even Hillary Clinton talked about the bias toward Obama. Imagine that–Hillary Clinton pointing out the bias in the media! Bias in the media had been her ally for years. I don’t remember her pointing bias out when the media was her friend–it was don’t ask don’t tell then.
It is easy to detect something about you, that you are a animal of politics. Politics can be seen in the cruel-edge attack style in your writing. It can also be seen in the continual thread of leftist politics in your blog.
This stands to reason, that you are from the left of politics, since poll numbers show that the left of politics has the greatest percentage of adherents to global warming.
Ref.
http://people-press.org/report/417/a-deeper-partisan-divide-over-global-warming
I hate politics. I do not question global warming because of politics. I question global warming because the data does not support it, and because climate models are flawed.
Some friendly advice :
If you are going to make statements like this :
“The science here generally serves a right wing/libertarian purpose, which is fine, but it’s important to recognize that.”
you need to supply references to validate what you say. If you do not supply references then you are just giving hypothesis. Or, you are giving opinions without ever intending to have backing of it.
And you can’t do that here. Why? Because this is primarily a science blog. And science, real science, requires verification.
“Ben Lawson (08:34:42) : Just want truth…: Are you referring to the same Bernard Goldberg”
Bernard Goldberg is a touchy name with those on the left of politics because he used to be one of you. But he left you. Now he is exposing, and making fun of, all of you.
I wonder where the got those cool plastic green faux hard hats. I wonder how many ended up on the ground.
Ask George Soros, the puppet master. The puppets just assume they came from the globaloney fairy.
“Ben Lawson (08:34:42) : “A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media” ”
Ben,
Something you have to understand about Bernard Goldberg : this title comes from his sense of humor. He knew when he made this title how it would drive some people on the political left crazy. Your reaction is exactly what he knew would happen in some people. After all, isn’t it obvious the title is humor? That some people can’t see humor in it is his inspiration to make that the title.
But it’s just sense of humor.
How about this title :
“Crazies to the Left of Me Wimps to the Right : How One Side Lost Its Mind and the Other Lost Its Nerve”
Or this funny one :
“100 People Who Are Screwing Up America : (and Al Franken Is #37)”
It’s all just humor. Lighten up Ben. I say that as a friend.
=============
Anyway, back to the topic of this thread : I was wondering if in James Hansen’s quieter moments the small turnout has him thinking about things.
~snip~
Mark T: Regarding imply and infer you said “Um, no, they are not interchangeable and mean completely different things. Standard English dictionaries are quite clear on this.” The first Google hit for “imply” is Merriam-Webster 2: to involve or indicate by inference (etc. etc.) usage – see infer.
Pragmatic: Not sure what to make of Dr. Spenser’s opinion about his difficulties getting published in Science or Nature. Saying that they “come up with some obscure non-reason why” isn’t a particularly sturdy premise.
~snip~
O/T. ~dbstealey, mod.
~snip~ Entirely political. ~dbstealey, mod.
Notice there is not one picture where you can see snow! We had well over a half foot in the area. Bitter cold in the teens. The local news called it a protest against pollution and never mentioned that it was a CO2/AGW march.
Lucia posted some pictures from my backyard in N. VA just outside of DC taken Monday morning here