Note: There’s a response and analysis to this post here.
NOTE: Predictably, Joe Romm has turned this post into a personal bashing of me over at his Climate Progress blog. For some eye opening viewpoints from his side of the argument, have a look at the 495 comments on his parent blog “Think Progress” here. UPDATE: many of those ugly and violent comments at TP have been “sanitized” since I drew embarrassing attention to them. The word “filthy” in my post below, is pointing to the multiple use of the word to describe humans in the manifesto of the gunman, also published below. I realize that may upset some people, and for that I apologize. However, it is instructive to read the manifesto to see how global warming hype drove this man to do what he did. From this MSNBC story:
Lee said he experienced an ‘‘awakening” when he watched former Vice President Al Gore’s environmental documentary ‘‘An Inconvenient Truth.”
UPDATE: It’s over, from MSNBC:
Police shot a gunman who held three hostages for several hours Wednesday at the Discovery Communications building in Silver Spring, Md., authorities said. They said the hostages were safe and the gunman was in custody. Police said the gunman’s condition was unknown. At least one explosive device went off when he was shot, and other explosive devices could still be in the building in Montgomery County in suburban Washington, D.C., they said.
UPDATE2: MSNBC is now reporting the gunman has been killed.
=======================================
Well, you filthy readers, see what happens when we don’t acquiesce? In case you haven’t heard by now, a gunman named James Lee, an Asian man with a years-long vendetta against the Discovery Channel cable network has entered the building and got an armed hostage taking situation going on right now.
Some news coverage here:
Armed Man Believed to Be Environmental Protester Takes Hostages in Discovery Channel Building
Among his demands from the manifesto on his website:
Find solutions so that people stop breeding as well as stopping using Oil in order to REVERSE Global warming and the destruction of the planet!
MSNBC reports:
Lee said he experienced an ‘‘awakening” when he watched former Vice President Al Gore’s environmental documentary ‘‘An Inconvenient Truth.”
Perhaps inspired by Gore, and Dr. James Hansen’s recent call for civil disobedience, we have today’s environmental public relations train wreck turned armed hostage situation.
THE MANIFESTO OF JAMES LEE:
(downloaded before traffic took it down):PDF here at TMZ
The Discovery Channel MUST broadcast to the world their commitment to save the planet and to do the following IMMEDIATELY:
1. The Discovery Channel and it’s affiliate channels MUST have daily television programs at prime time slots based on Daniel Quinn’s “My Ishmael” pages 207-212 where solutions to save the planet would be done in the same way as the Industrial Revolution was done, by people building on each other’s inventive ideas. Focus must be given on how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution. A game show format contest would be in order. Perhaps also forums of leading scientists who understand and agree with the Malthus-Darwin science and the problem of human overpopulation. Do both. Do all until something WORKS and the natural world starts improving and human civilization building STOPS and is reversed! MAKE IT INTERESTING SO PEOPLE WATCH AND APPLY SOLUTIONS!!!!
2. All programs on Discovery Health-TLC must stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants and the false heroics behind those actions. In those programs’ places, programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility must be pushed. All former pro-birth programs must now push in the direction of stopping human birth, not encouraging it.
3. All programs promoting War and the technology behind those must cease. There is no sense in advertising weapons of mass-destruction anymore. Instead, talk about ways to disassemble civilization and concentrate the message in finding SOLUTIONS to solving global military mechanized conflict. Again, solutions solutions instead of just repeating the same old wars with newer weapons. Also, keep out the fraudulent peace movements. They are liars and fakes and had no real intention of ending the wars. ALL OF THEM ARE FAKE! On one hand, they claim they want the wars to end, on the other, they are demanding the human population increase. World War II had 2 Billion humans and after that war, the people decided that tripling the population would assure peace. WTF??? STUPIDITY! MORE HUMANS EQUALS MORE WAR!
4. Civilization must be exposed for the filth it is. That, and all its disgusting religious-cultural roots and greed. Broadcast this message until the pollution in the planet is reversed and the human population goes down! This is your obligation. If you think it isn’t, then get hell off the planet! Breathe Oil! It is the moral obligation of everyone living otherwise what good are they??
5. Immigration: Programs must be developed to find solutions to stopping ALL immigration pollution and the anchor baby filth that follows that. Find solutions to stopping it. Call for people in the world to develop solutions to stop it completely and permanently. Find solutions FOR these countries so they stop sending their breeding populations to the US and the world to seek jobs and therefore breed more unwanted pollution babies. FIND SOLUTIONS FOR THEM TO STOP THEIR HUMAN GROWTH AND THE EXPORTATION OF THAT DISGUSTING FILTH! (The first world is feeding the population growth of the Third World and those human families are going to where the food is! They must stop procreating new humans looking for nonexistant jobs!)
6. Find solutions for Global Warming, Automotive pollution, International Trade, factory pollution, and the whole blasted human economy. Find ways so that people don’t build more housing pollution which destroys the environment to make way for more human filth! Find solutions so that people stop breeding as well as stopping using Oil in order to REVERSE Global warming and the destruction of the planet!
7. Develop shows that mention the Malthusian sciences about how food production leads to the overpopulation of the Human race. Talk about Evolution. Talk about Malthus and Darwin until it sinks into the stupid people’s brains until they get it!!
8. Saving the Planet means saving what’s left of the non-human Wildlife by decreasing the Human population. That means stopping the human race from breeding any more disgusting human babies! You’re the media, you can reach enough people. It’s your resposibility because you reach so many minds!!!
9. Develop shows that will correct and dismantle the dangerous US world economy. Find solutions for their disasterous Ponzi-Casino economy before they take the world to another nuclear war.
10. Stop all shows glorifying human birthing on all your channels and on TLC. Stop Future Weapons shows or replace the dialogue condemning the people behind these developments so that the shows become exposes rather than advertisements of Arms sales and development!
11. You’re also going to find solutions for unemployment and housing. All these unemployed people makes me think the US is headed toward more war.
Humans are the most destructive, filthy, pollutive creatures around and are wrecking what’s left of the planet with their false morals and breeding culture.
For every human born, ACRES of wildlife forests must be turned into farmland in order to feed that new addition over the course of 60 to 100 YEARS of that new human’s lifespan! THIS IS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE FOREST CREATURES!!!! All human procreation and farming must cease!
It is the responsiblity of everyone to preserve the planet they live on by not breeding any more children who will continue their filthy practices. Children represent FUTURE catastrophic pollution whereas their parents are current pollution. NO MORE BABIES! Population growth is a real crisis. Even one child born in the US will use 30 to a thousand times more resources than a Third World child. It’s like a couple are having 30 babies even though it’s just one! If the US goes in this direction maybe other countries will too!
Also, war must be halted. Not because it’s morally wrong, but because of the catastrophic environmental damage modern weapons cause to other creatures. FIND SOLUTIONS JUST LIKE THE BOOK SAYS! Humans are supposed to be inventive. INVENT, DAMN YOU!!
The world needs TV shows that DEVELOP solutions to the problems that humans are causing, not stupify the people into destroying the world. Not encouraging them to breed more environmentally harmful humans.
Saving the environment and the remaning species diversity of the planet is now your mindset. Nothing is more important than saving them. The Lions, Tigers, Giraffes, Elephants, Froggies, Turtles, Apes, Raccoons, Beetles, Ants, Sharks, Bears, and, of course, the Squirrels.
The humans? The planet does not need humans.
You MUST KNOW the human population is behind all the pollution and problems in the world, and YET you encourage the exact opposite instead of discouraging human growth and procreation. Surely you MUST ALREADY KNOW this!
I want Discovery Communications to broadcast on their channels to the world their new program lineup and I want proof they are doing so. I want the new shows started by asking the public for inventive solution ideas to save the planet and the remaining wildlife on it.
These are the demands and sayings of Lee.
==============================
h/t to the Seattle Weekly blogs and WUWT DocattheAutopsy
Sponsored IT training links:
We provide up to date 350-030 questions and 70-649 answers for practice so you will pass 220-701 certification exam easily and fast.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Rob Honeycutt says:
September 2, 2010 at 6:59 pm
“Gail Combs… Anyone who holds James Lee up as a positive example is misguided in the extreme.
But I stand by my previous statements that climate scientists do not use rhetoric that promotes or in any way incites anyone to this kind of action.”
Maybe it escaped your attention that Dr. James Hansen endorses a book by a Mr. Farnish that calls for the wholesale dismantling of technological civilization. Mr. Farnish is of the opinion that … well, these are his own words:
“I am not going to dwell on the numerous methods of sabotage open to those who have the motivation and the means to carry them out – those people (of which you may be one of) are almost certainly far better equipped than me, and also know how to do it far more effectively and secretively than I could outline in a book of this nature – but I will reiterate what I think are the four key rules of sabotage, should you chose to take that path alongside the other things I have suggested in this chapter:
1. Carefully weigh up all the pros and cons, and then ask yourself, “Is it worth it?”
2. Plan ahead, and plan well, accounting for every possible eventuality.
3. Even if you understand the worth of your action, don’t get caught.
4. Make the Tools of Disconnection your priority; anything else is a waste of time and effort.
”
Here are some links:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100102162045AAGltdl
The online version of Mr. Farnish’s book:
http://www.farnish.plus.com/amatterofscale/index.htm
The stuff i quoted comes from this chapter:
http://www.farnish.plus.com/amatterofscale/chapter16.htm
So, yes, some climate scientists do endorse violence.
@Rob Honeycutt :
I should add that Mr. Farnish explicitly includes the possibility of “removing” dams in his sabotage recommendations:
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/hanson-barracking-for-lawless-destruction-and-the-end-of-civilization/
“For instance, if all the evidence you have to hand suggests that removing a sea wall or a dam will have a net beneficial effect on the natural environment then, however you go about it – explosives, technical sabotage or manual destruction – the removal would be a constructive action. If this action was fuelled by anger then your use of explosives involved Constructive Anger.”
“
Chris Winter says:
“On the subject of whether or not CO2 is involved, the evidence I see tells me it is.”
What “evidence”?? Recall that I asked: Please cite your evidence. But no evidence has been forthcoming, only vague hand-waving toward climate pal review and un-named journals. Neither is evidence.
You say: “Well, you show me three JPEGs and a PNG. They’re real purty, but are they valid evidence? I have no idea, since I don’t know their provenance.”
All you had to do was look. One of the sources was from TonyB. The others, if you had bothered to look at the charts or the address bar, were from the IPCC, from Data Analytics, from Icecap, and from arch-alarmist Phil Jones, whose name is right there in the graph. But your mind is made up, and you can not tolerate viewing contrary facts.
You can’t look at evidence that debunks CAGW, even from Phil Jones. Your mind is made up, and objective facts do not matter. We see that type of cognitive dissonance expressed here all the time by CAGW believers. It is the same cognitive dissonance that makes alarmist blogs into echo chambers, with no uncomfortable facts allowed.
I’m still waiting for that “evidence” you claim to have. Vague referrals to the climate pal review system, and hand-waving toward un-named journals doesn’t pass muster here. Empirical facts are what matter. Everything else is just conjecture based on belief.
Chris Winter;
“So then, you believe CO2 emissions have nothing to do with climate change? I think that’s incorrect.”
Even allowing the IPCC climate sensitivities, short of closing down the global economies, tweaking CO2 emissions won’t change the climatic outcome at all. That is my point.
However, I do believe that CO2 sensitivities have been over hyped, while the hype over the consequences are off the scale.
Unlike yourself, who have yet to provide any reasons for believing in CAGW, here are a brief list of my reasons for being sceptical.
1) Hansen et al have predicted an Ocean Heat anomaly which has not yet been found. According to Trenbeth, half the expected heat cannot be found. Yet how can this be consistent with the premise of a radiative imalance of nearly 1 watt per square meter?
2) The coupled climate models predict a hotspt in the tropical mid troposphere that so far has also eluded discovery.
3) There has been no statistically significant warming since 1995.
4) IPCC predicted outcomes are based on positive feedbacks being programmed into the models for which there is no real world evidence.
5) The reason for believing that CO2 is the major climate forcer is because without the CO2 forcings (and the attendant feedbacks), the models cannot hindcast the twentieth century warming. This is an argumentum ad ignorantium, especially since many of the forcings are have a low level of scientific understanding (IPCC AR4).
I accidently pressed enter before finishing my list:
6) The standard AGW model believes that CO2 induced warming leads to reduced cloud cover resulting in positive feedback, but Dr Spencer has written a paper based on the hypothesis that the IPCC have got it completely backwards. He believes that it is the reduced cloud cover that causes the warming.
7) Actual surface temperature records have suspect quality and do not adequately allow for local heating effects, as shown by Dr Pielke.
8) Natural climate change that has occurred for millenia adequately accounts for modern warming.
9) Lindzen and Choi have cast doubt on the assertion that the ERBE satellite data shows stratospheric cooling.
So, until I see some convincing evidence, I will remain a sceptic.
Chris Winter says……
“Experience tells me that requests like yours (Smokey’s) and James Sexton’s are made just to get me to shut up and go away.”
Come on Chris! Smokey gave you a very simple challenge. Stop being a coward, either you can back up your claims or you can’t. Which is it?
Pascvaks says:
September 2, 2010 at 8:01 am
…I have no doubt that one day soon some “science” person with a PhD in something is going to find a way, based on a computer model, to identify…
It will be a brave new world, for sure.
Djozar wrote: “Maybe. My problem with the concentration on the impact of CO2 is the degree of the said impact and ignoring other contributing factors to the climate.”
You’re right that CO2 is not the sole cause. Land use changes play a part; I’ve read that they may be 20 percent responsible. And carbon soot does a little. But I think CO2 is the major contributor right now.
Chris Winter says:
“I think CO2 is the major contributor right now.”
Facts, Chris. Give us empirical evidence to discuss! This isn’t Joe Romm’s blog. Unsupported conjecture isn’t worth spit.
Smokey wrote: “What “evidence”?? Recall that I asked: Please cite your evidence. But no evidence has been forthcoming, only vague hand-waving toward climate pal review and un-named journals. Neither is evidence.
You say: “Well, you show me three JPEGs and a PNG. They’re real purty, but are they valid evidence? I have no idea, since I don’t know their provenance.”
All you had to do was look. One of the sources was from TonyB. The others, if you had bothered to look at the charts or the address bar, were from the IPCC, from Data Analytics, from Icecap, and from arch-alarmist Phil Jones, whose name is right there in the graph. But your mind is made up, and you can not tolerate viewing contrary facts.
You can’t look at evidence that debunks CAGW, even from Phil Jones. Your mind is made up, and objective facts do not matter. We see that type of cognitive dissonance expressed here all the time by CAGW believers. It is the same cognitive dissonance that makes alarmist blogs into echo chambers, with no uncomfortable facts allowed.
I’m still waiting for that “evidence” you claim to have. Vague referrals to the climate pal review system, and hand-waving toward un-named journals doesn’t pass muster here. Empirical facts are what matter. Everything else is just conjecture based on belief.”
I don’t know who TonyB is, or Data Analytics (unless that’s Gene Zeien). Here’s what I learned from looking at those graphs a second time, and tracing their URLs (excuse the repetition):
One is from Joanne Nova’s site. When I typed in the Hadley URL at the bottom of the image, I got a notice saying I was about to download an application/octet stream. I canceled that, since I don’t know how to handle it.
Two displays no indication of where it came from. But backtracking the URL, I walked through the various pages of Gene Zeien’s “Justdata” site. He’s doing interesting work, but I can’t come to any conclusion about it without doing a lot more work than I have time for right now.
Third is a plot of USHCN (Historical Climate Network) versus CO2 concentration. Just eyeballing it, I see what looks like a slight but definite upward trend from 1895 through about 1970. After that there appears to be an inflection point, following which the upward trend becomes steeper. It’s interesting that CO2 increase becomes steeper after this inflection point, although the transition is not abrupt.
Fourth seems to have something do with temperature station siting error or UHI. Aside from that, I can’t decipher what it’s supposed to show.
To summarize, the only conclusion about climate change I derived from this lesson is that there’s an upward trend to temperature which increases about 1970.
About my evidence: I gather that if I don’t provide or cite any, I’m a blowhard without a case, and if I do point to Web sites or journals that support the mainstream view, those are inadmissible because they are mainstream. This makes it hard to know how to proceed.
Vince Causey wrote: “Even allowing the IPCC climate sensitivities, short of closing down the global economies, tweaking CO2 emissions won’t change the climatic outcome at all. That is my point.”
From this I infer that you see no possibility of deploying clean energy sources in time. Here we disagree, though I grant it will take years and be expensive.
“However, I do believe that CO2 sensitivities have been over hyped, while the hype over the consequences [is] off the scale.
Unlike yourself, who have yet to provide any reasons for believing in CAGW, here are a brief list of my reasons for being sceptical.
1) Hansen et al have predicted an Ocean Heat anomaly which has not yet been found. According to Trenbeth, half the expected heat cannot be found. Yet how can this be consistent with the premise of a radiative imbalance of nearly 1 watt per square meter?”
Do you have a cite for that Hansen et. al. paper? I can look it up, but a cite would save me time. As for Trenbeth’s missing heat, does this come from the CRU e-mails? AFAIK that claim has been debunked.
“2) The coupled climate models predict a hotspot in the tropical mid-troposphere that so far has also eluded discovery.”
I thought you skeptics held that climate models are inherently worthless.
“3) There has been no statistically significant warming since 1995.”
This I know comes from Phil Jones’s BBC interview back in February. It’s clear that the interviewer picked 1995 as the earliest year for which Jones would answer that way. Jones has since set the record straight.
“4) IPCC predicted outcomes are based on positive feedbacks being programmed into the models for which there is no real world evidence.”
Again — models? People here keep saying they are no evidence of anything.
“5) The reason for believing that CO2 is the major climate forcer is because without the CO2 forcings (and the attendant feedbacks), the models cannot hindcast the twentieth century warming. This is an argumentum ad ignorantium, especially since many of the forcings are have a low level of scientific understanding (IPCC AR4).
I know this is true for CO2 forcing, calculated from century-old physics. I don’t know that the feedbacks are folded in.
Regarding the current observed warming, the calculated CO2 forcing is the largest factor. Land use is 20 percent AIUI. Black carbon is a smaller amount. The Sun would be important if its output were increasing right now, but measurements show it is not.
“6) The standard AGW model believes that CO2 induced warming leads to reduced cloud cover resulting in positive feedback, but Dr Spencer has written a paper based on the hypothesis that the IPCC have got it completely backwards. He believes that it is the reduced cloud cover that causes the warming.”
If true, this cannot explain why nights have warmed more than days, or polar regions with less direct sunlight angles have warmed faster than temperate latitudes.
“7) Actual surface temperature records have suspect quality and do not adequately allow for local heating effects, as shown by Dr Pielke.”
I don’t believe this claim.
“8) Natural climate change that has occurred for millennia adequately accounts for modern warming.”
Not if the recent warming has increased in step with CO2 emissions, as the data show it has.
“9) Lindzen and Choi have cast doubt on the assertion that the ERBE satellite data shows stratospheric cooling.”
I believe this is a long-debunked paper.
CO2 is how to touch Gaia’s G-spot. If you touch her there, she will tip right over and have an immediate climate, losing all semblance of self control. Robert Palmer has a song about it.
Robert in Calgary wrote: “Come on Chris! Smokey gave you a very simple challenge. Stop being a coward, either you can back up your claims or you can’t. Which is it?”
I’ve played this game before. Any effort I made to meet that simple challenge would be found to be insufficient. Data would be disbelieved or disregarded. Links would be deemed suspect because they are part of “the climate pal review system.”
I actually do believe understanding the reality of climate change is a fairly simple matter. Scientists have been working at it long enough, after all. Of course, anyone who thinks the scientists are making it all up won’t agree. But I have little to say to such a person, except to advise that they stop using the products based on such fraudulent science.
As far as challenges go, I too have issued one. In fact, it dates from long before I chimed in on this dispute; I am merely reminding people here of its existence. I doubt that anyone will step up and claim the prize for meeting that challenge, enormous though it would be for anyone who could prove AGW was not a problem.
Chris Winter says:
“Any effort I made to meet that simple challenge would be found to be insufficient. Data would be disbelieved or disregarded. Links would be deemed suspect…”
That is exactly the excuse you’re using to hand-wave away the charts I provided for you, when I asked you to provide empirical evidence backing your belief in the CO2=CAGW conjecture; it’s psychological projection accusing others of what you are doing. It’s a tactic, and the alarmist crowd uses it all the time. I even provided a chart made by Phil Jones — and you attacked your Joanne Nova strawman instead of discussing Jones’ chart.
I’m not interested in educating anyone who pretends to have verifiable, testable facts, but who won’t produce them. So I suggest reading the WUWT archives. You can get up to speed that way, and with any luck the scales will fall from your eyes.
Nit-picking every chart provided shows a closed mind. Another occasional refugee from RealClimate used the same tactic every time I posted a chart, trying to explain why each one was insufficient for one reason or another. Last time he pulled that stunt I gave him fifty charts refuting his position. What happened? His cognitive dissonance forced him to reject all 50 charts!
If you are a True Believer in the repeatedly debunked CO2=CAGW conjecture, or in Michael Mann’s debunked hokey stick chart, where he claimed there was no MWP, no LIA, nothing but an unchanging climate for a thousand years [the hockey stick handle], then there is nothing I can do for you, any more than I could convince Mrs Keech’s acolytes that there are no flying saucers, or Jehovah’s Witnesses that the end is not really nigh.
But if you think you have an open mind, then look at what the charts say, and don’t worry too much about who posted them. Most of the attribution is in the charts or the address anyway. And FYI, here are those 50 charts:
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
click6
click7
click8
click9
click10
click11
click12
click13
click14
click15
click16
click17
click18
click19
click20
click21
click22
click23
click24
click25
click26
click27
click28
click29
click30
click31
click32
click33
click34
click35
click36
click37
click38
click39
click40
click41
click42
click43
click44
click45
click46
click47
click48
click49
click50
Chris Winter, a mighty keyboard warrior. He’s played the game before.
Gosh. Mr Lee seems to blame filthy humans and their filthy religions for everything.
Atheists often smugly point to the fact that: “There are never any atheists committing acts of terrorism, are there?”
Mr Lee says there are. He was the first, there will -sadly- be more.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/theblotter/2012903380_appellate_court_overturns_conv.html
As if to confirm my comments above about the political nature of the term ‘terrorist’, this story is about a non-violent environmental activist wrongly imprisoned – but her conviction has been overturned because the judge used the t-word. I’m disappointed that some climate skeptics fall into the same trap.
As if to confirm my comments above about the political nature of the term ‘terrorist’, this story is about a non-violent environmental activist wrongly imprisoned – but her conviction has been overturned because the judge used the t-word. I’m disappointed that some climate skeptics fall into the same trap.
Non-violent? 2 counts of arson are “non-violent”? You have a weird dictionary.
Besides, the the case was remanded due to errors. The evidence was not thrown out.
@PhilJourdan – Yes, arson when there is no danger to people is non-violent. Violence does not mean harming inanimate objects.