From NetNewsledger.com
Has Climate Change had its “Ten Minutes of Fame”?
Written by James Murray
THUNDER BAY – Yesterday was the International Day of Action on Climate Change. In Ottawa, cold weather kept the crowd from hitting the 5,000 people that organizers hoped. About 500 people showed up. In Calgary, a snowstorm dumped wet heavy snow on the city.
On Google, unlike past climate change events, there was not a special logo created. On the front pages of major newspapers across Canada the major stories were not about the looming climate crisis.
In Winnipeg, about 200 people made it to a rally at the Manitoba Legislature. In Vancouver, a city steeped in protest, the crowd was estimated at 5000. Across Canada interest in the day of action appeared less than ever.
Could it be that the fire is smoldering out on the issue of climate change? Maybe in an era where ever shorter attention spans want to shift to other topics the climate issue has had its “ten minutes of fame”?
On the popular news site www.bourque.com the climate issue is not mentioned. This morning, on Google News, there isn’t a mention of the day of protest on the top stories either. The front page of the Toronto Star is void of climate change stories too.
Over on www.wattsupwiththat.com a website that over the past several years has dug into the issue, the comment is that global warming and climate change are “urban legends”. Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. writes, “I contend that the belief in human-caused global warming as a dangerous event, either now or in the future, has most of the characteristics of an urban legend. Like other urban legends, it is based upon an element of truth. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose concentration in the atmosphere is increasing, and since greenhouse gases warm the lower atmosphere, more CO2 can be expected, at least theoretically, to result in some level of warming”.
It is, perhaps causing some in the movement to ramp up their rhetoric to try to gain more attention. Elizabeth May and the Green Party recently took the approach that the only way to get the message out is to state, “Your Parents F*cked Up The Planet”. May’s justification is that “Our culture is steeped in the F-word”.
Read the complete article here: Has Climate Change had its “Ten Minutes of Fame”?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hell_Is_Like_Newark (03:52:45) :
“If the cold wave(s) continue, this crowd will move on to another bogeyman. The power you would have over the world by having the right to regulate CO2 is too great to give up. The next focus will be on ‘ocean acidification’ as the reason to control CO2 emissions.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
‘ocean acidification’ – another example of AGW NewSpeak. Since the oceans are in no danger of changing from alkaline to acid, it should be called ‘ocean dealkalination,’ on the premise that heavily alkaline is the most ecologically optimum condition for seawater. But since few people are likely to buy into that premise, ‘acidification’ is much more effective as scare propaganda. Expect backlash however from those who realize that it is double talk to refer to ‘less alkaline’ as ‘more acidic.’
Sorry, Carps, yes Booker is doing his best, has been for years, but once a week tucked away at the back of the Sunday Telegraph; haven’t you seen the unsubstantiated AGW ‘party line’, that spews from Geoffrey Lean two or three times a week in the Daily version?
From his last two:
“… the sea level rise expected to accompany global warming.”
“Carbon dioxide: we’re already over the safe limit.”
mrpkw (05:33:24) :
The reports of the death of AGW are going to be slightly exaggerated until we see what really happens at/after Copenhagen. I am hoping that there will be a very large snow storm. It’s a wonder that they aren’t holding this conference in the Brazilin rainforest for PR
mrpkw,
Well, what do we have now.
1. we have a pile of evidence that the IPCC data is crooked and out of date.
2. we have crooked surface station data, thanks to Anthony and his team.
3. we have what I call a “killer” scientific report from Prof. Richard Lindzen.
This report is based on factual “measurements” instead of wet finger work, wild guesses and as Moncton states, X-box climate model rubbish.
http://masterresource.org/?p=4307
4. Also based on data from Lindzen and Lord Moncton we now know how much CO2 we have to add to our atmosphere to raise the temperature by 0.5 degree Celsius/1 degree Fahrenheit.
In short:
The amount of CO2 is set at 1 TRILLION TONS.
We also know how much “Anthropogenic CO2 is released by our World Economy.
This amount is set at 30 BILLION TONS PER YEAR.
This means it will take us 33 years (1 trillion divided by 33 billion) to raise the Earth’s temperature by 1 degree Fahrenheit.
1 year of Anthropogenic Emissions represents a temperature increase of 1/33 degree Fahrenheit.
This means that it makes no sense to regulate CO2 and it also means that humanity is not responsible, let alone influence our climate in any significant way.
End of scare, end of Copenhagen, end of ….. and now comes the fire cracker!!!!!
5. World Government:
With the publication of a concept Copenhagen Climate Agreement and the coincidence of Lord Moncton reading it, we have caught the UN IPCC with their hand in the cookie jar. Now it has become clear (in writing) that the Global Warming scare has nothing to do with Climate. It’s about power and World Government on a non democratic basis, In concept a communist coup (fascist or Green is also aloud), taking grip over our entire economy. Obligating the US and Europe to pay for damages caused by CO2 emissions from the past until today, overruling sovereignty and a controlling body to do inspections and enforcement of rule.
These payments will land in the pockets of African dictators who will put it in Swiss Banks.
Anyhow, this is such a bad plan that I believe Americans and the US Senate, already made nervous by Obama and his Mao loving Czars will go through the roof and reject the entire scam with force.
The fact that they (UN IPCC) has put the idea of a World Government in the concept climate treaty will be the nail in the coffin of the Climate Change Doctrine.
The youtube movie of the World Government Speech made by Lord Moncton scored 1 million hits within a few days and people were calling Congress and the Hill en mass.
Friday Moncton will be on Fox for one hour together with Bolton who hates the UN.
This will have a devastating effect on Copenhagen because Moncton’s approach tears the entire scam apart in a way people understand.
My assessment is that the impact will be so big that the American People and the Senate will block any participation. This will kill Copenhagen, no treaty, end of consensus and of scam. The cold winter that is on it’s way and the shift in the state of mind of the public will bury it.
The US at this moment is the only democracy with the power and the resources to undo this “Marxist” coup attempt. (The UN calls it the First Global Revolution, see http://green-agenda.com)
Europe is entirely lost and will sign the agreement and what the rest of the world will decide, I don’t know.
Anyhow, after any coup attempt of a Democratic Country, jeopardizing it’s sovereignty there will be an inquiry (Probably by Congress).
One of the first things they will find is that the UN is no longer the neutral body representing the United Nations but a power hungry Marxist Institution involved in a World Coup.
So, the UN IPCC does not only lack the science that justifies the shut down of our economies but on a political level they are losing their authority as an independent
and neutral Government Body.
This conclusion will also hit the individual politicians that support the Copenhagen Climate Treaty and they will look like conspirators of this planned coup.
As I said before, the US People hate Communists and traitors.
This was a bad week for the UN IPCC
Over at dotearth there is a piece on this ‘350’ effort. One poster who was deeply involved was so proud of one of the projects and told us it laid out the numbers “350” with condoms!
I laughed so hard I couldn’t even respond and went off elsewhere.
Oh, and I don’t think the Weather Channel thinks much of the ‘350’ project. It did a piece on the International Day of Action but not once in the report did it even mention ‘350’.
We are near The Day After Copenhagen …
What will you do after?
OT possibly. The Associated Press has not given up yet.
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20091026/D9BIUBO00.html
Don S.
“OT possibly. The Associated Press has not given up yet.
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20091026/D9BIUBO00.html”
Not OT, just the last third of Warhol’s 15 minutes of fame.
Should mention that, per Borenstein, “the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.”
Now, it may be the media is also getting into the act of cherry-picking data. I am further inclined to give some credence to Marano about Borenstein’s history at:
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2546/Climate-Depot-Serving-as-the-Medias-Ombudsman-Long-sad-history-of-AP-reporter-Seth-Borensteins-woeful-global-warming-reporting.
Kath, you’re disappointed in the CBC for being gullible?
That’s like being disappointed in the communists for supporting socialism… it’s like being disappointed in your cat for being a carnivore, it’s also like being disappointed in an oil company for drilling holes in the ground.
For far too long, canada has been chipped away and damaged by the left. From what I can see, a good chunk of that came from draft dodgers in the 60s, but hey, that’s just personal experience. The CBC has been completely infiltrated since at least Trudeau’s day.
It will never get better.
Mitchel44: the most effective way to breed apathy into young people is to get them to invest themselves emotionally in an issue that later proves to be false. I suspect Obama has just done that in the States, and has created another generation of non-voters (I already see an attitude of ‘been-there-done-that-it doesn’t work-screw it’). Congratulate Liz for helping produce another generation of people who are becoming apathetic as a result of being played for suckers by AGW.
I know a ‘we have to save the polar bear’ soccer mom who now realizes that the bears are not at risk. She’s so embarrassed she doesn’t want to talk about it or anything else related to climate.
I spoke too soon – or perhaps I was right about the kids being too quiet:
Turn Vegan to save the planet (Stern)
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26265639-601,00.html
Rising oceans threaten billions in Aussie properties
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/2bn-threat-from-rising-oceans-20091026-hgqv.html?autostart=1
Perhaps building the Gold Coast is irresponsible
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26265342-11949,00.html
It must be time to regulate where we can build in accordance the Canute-like advance of the oceans…
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26265701-11949,00.html
We should be careful not to take too much comfort in the low turnout at the 350 demonstrations.
In most countries discussed in the reports the 350ppm campaign is aligned with the current direction of government policy. Historically, demonstrations tend to be large when there is a groundswell frontally AGAINST a government action – like their waging of war.
Demonstration sizes also swell when there is a perception that the views of (potential) participants are not being heard. The saturation propaganda for the invasion of Iraq compares well with the saturation propaganda for AGW. Consider how the vilification of those sceptical of the AGW panic as ‘deniers,’ (akin to Holocaust deniers) is accepted without a breath of protest from any but its victims.
No, we should be looking for the size of the groundswell against AGW – not in support of it.
In assessing street demonstration, it also helps to consider whether the (potential) protester will directly benefit from the success of their opposition – e.g., the benefit for young men in opposing conscription to war in Vietnam. In most of the 350ppm protest countries, the governments are proposing a new taxation and the prospect of higher energy costs.
Again, if we are looking for signs of a the groundswell against AGW – not in support.
But the politics of Alarmism is unlikely to turn in this way – with street protests. It will follow the pattern of millenarian movements of the ages past, where there is a crisis of confidence among the adherents, a sense of being cheated by the leaders, and then a collapse.
If it turns on the science then it will be in the most basic way. If the current decade-long pause in warming continues while the demands on the people (taxes, lifestyle changes etc) increase, then this pattern is more likely, and likely soon.
If such a collapse does happen soon it will be monumental, and it will give tremendous momentum to the US right. But it will be a great set-back to the credibility to the scientifically-grounded environmentalism that requires international co-operation (eg rainforest preservation in 3rd world countries) – which is already loosing now in the AGW obsession with carbon pollution.
People may have cooled on Anthropogenic Global Warming, but Governments are drooling over the tax revenue and political power that taxing CO2 and Fossil fuels will generate….. I think Government and their corporate complexes have become so powerful, that they no longer need the okay of the people they are supposed to serve anymore…. It is going to be an interesting couple of years to see who wins…..
Historians in the future are gonna have a field day with this period of idiocy….. But that is assuming we, the people, win. For the victor writes the history.
There is a lot of confusion in this matter. First, “climate change” doesn’t equal “global warming”. Some parts of this planet will become colder. Second, pollution causes warming as much as it causes “dimming” – it helps the formation of clouds. The situation need profound studying by scientists and not agitation spurred by any populist movement.
I wonder how many hundreds (if not thousands) of tonnes of Co2 the delegates to Copenhagen generated in flying there in their official or private jets? Not to mention all the hot (Co2 laden) air that will be expelled at this talkfest…
Here in little ‘ol New Zealand the government is beavering away at an Emissions Trading Scheme, to mitigate our impact on Global Warming. Most of the country doesn’t want it – it will increase the price of everything, and where will all the money end up? No surprises there…
Funny that all the talking heads are screaming about reducing carbon footprints, emissions, et al, but none are talking up stopping deforestation, or for that matter, promoting reforestation. I wonder if there’s a correlation between the increase in atmospheric Co2 and the rate of deforestation? Anyone done any good research on that?
It just seems such common sense that to deal with the increase in Co2 levels, one needs something to absorb Co2, and the most efficient way is to plant trees, and start reforestation projects on a massive scale. Why don’t governments put some of the money received from ETS schemes towards that? Suppose common sense is not that common anymore!
“Bulldust (01:34:49) :
I don’t trust ‘em … it’s like when the kids get too quiet… they must be up to something. I had expected a lot more CC exposure running into the Copenhagen love in, but it is eerily quiet. Maybe they think they have done enough already to coast it home?”
and a few similar comments: I’m still hearing plenty of doom and gloom announcements, but they are bouncing like dead cats. People aren’t particularly listening anymore. Its a problem with dire pronouncements: they wear a bit thin after a while when nothing keeps on happening.
Its been a second very cool October here in Sydney, where October is normally the most reliably warm/hot and fine weather month of the year (which is why our 2000 Olympics were held in October). Its also been a cold October in the northern hemisphere despite a warm start. Under such circumstances, its hard to keep the global-warming rage fired up.
I think one issue on the minds of the Copenhagen Conference organisers is that it’ll occur in the midst of some really bad (ie cold weather), and that could be a real deathnell to the Global Warming Scare Movement. I wonder if they’ll disinvite Al to try to avoid the Gore Effect!
Andy Warhol said that in the future, everyone would be famous for FIFTEEN minutes. C’mon, I think AGW got at least that much…
Mitchel44 (09:24:09) :
Thanks, very good.
“The AGW mindset is here to stay, even without AGW.”
How about this for a new mindset: CO2 is the basis of all life in the world. The more CO2 the more vigorous plants grow. In the past (ie. before that tiny sliver of time we call the quarternary), CO2 levels were higher than they are today. Further back, in the mesozoic, CO2 levels averaged 5 times the current values. The planet was warm, and teeming with plant and animal life. CO2 means more vegetation. CO2 is GREEN. Lack of CO2 and ice are anti-life, anti-green. Let us celebrate the planet’s life with more CO2.
This is not so ridiculous as it sounds, since every statement is true. All that is open to debate is whether it is “green” or not. It is certainly possible, to imagine turning the clock back, and postulating a global movement that celebrated CO2 as green. It was just an accident of history that it did not turn out that way. Just like it was an accident of history that the Wiemar republic did not execute Hitler for treason, or the Czar did not execute Lenin. In effect, we create our own realities and with have to live with the consequences.
How about this Elizabeth May
“My parents generation F*&ked up the economy (Massive debt and no one to pay for their increased health care costs as they age).”
Who is going to help rectify this problem. Not her Marxist party, that is for sure.
Not if the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has anything to say about it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704500604574485341504345488.html
“…just as God is indivisible, so too is our global environment… There can be no double vision, no dualistic worldview…”
The allusion to the Manichaean dualists is the age-old, Church-unifying, two-sided evocation: contempt for the heretic / fear of being accused.
If Bartholomew does, indeed, speak as “the spiritual leader of 300 million Orthodox Christians”, it would appear that Hansen’s evangelizing continues to bear fruit, and there there will be more global scaremongering in the months leading up to the U.N. Climate Change Conference in December.
“As I said before, the US People hate Communists and traitors.”
Perhaps “hate” is too strong a word for the communists. They have not matured enough to understand Aristotelian society. But politicians who sell out to interests that would cripple our citizens, and interests that are demonstrably misanthropic – will be hated. For good reason.
It is now being reported in The Australian that the Liberal (relatively right wing – opposition) party in Australia is reacting to a perceived reduced support for an ETS from the voting public:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26279367-11949,00.html
Bear in mind that the ruling Labor Party and Liberals are currently locking horns and negoiating changes to the ETS bill (CPRS in Australia) as we speak. It seems that the voter support may be dissoving from under the ETS proposal at the eleventh hour.