Of course, the big news this week had to do with the unbelievably vile and stupid video produced by the carbon reduction activist group 10:10 this week. But in its shadow, was another embarrassing news item the you’d think the green crowd would also want to denounce and distance from. Joe Romm and Bill McKibben have announced they detest the 10:10 video. Good for them, that’s the right thing to do, and I applaud them for doing it.
But Joe couldn’t resist his urges to get some licks in with his usual flaming rhetoric, making sure that his readers get reinforced with the message: 10:10 video bad, Watts bad. That’s not a surprise, as it is his standard predictable MO. Mr. Romm is as easy to forecast as DC summer weather; hot, muggy, with a chance of storms.
Due to the uproar over the 10:10 video, this story got rather buried in the climate news cycle. It is almost as embarrassing as the 10:10 video, because, well, who would want this guy to align with their cause?
An audio recording attributed to the al-Qaeda leader and broadcast on the internet yesterday expresses concern about the devastating floods in Pakistan and calls on Muslims to provide relief for the victims.”The number of victims caused by climate change is very big… bigger than the victims of wars,” says the recording.
If genuine, the recording would be Bin Laden’s first since March 25.
It was not clear when the tape was made, but Bin Laden congratulated Muslims on the holy fasting month of Ramadan which ended September 10.
“The catastrophe (in Pakistan) is very big and it is difficult to describe it,” the recording says.
“What we are facing… calls for generous souls and brave men to take serious and prompt action to provide relief for their Muslim brothers in Pakistan.”
The recording makes a series of recommendations to deal with climate changes namely preventive measures that should be taken by governments in the face of disasters.
Given the events of this week, do the proponents of AGW really want to have OSBL, a man who kills people for having a differing view than him, as an ally for their cause? Do they really want an ally with a world voice that confuses weather with climate?
Note and update: Some people misunderstood my intent, that’s my fault for not writing clearly in the first place, and I accept the criticism for that and offer my apology if I unduly offended anyone. This was simply a case of writing something, then realizing that people were seeing it completely differently than I intended. I’ve removed the lines above that caused the issue and added this clarification below:
In case somebody misunderstands, it should be clearly understood that it is not my intent to compare these AGW proponents to OSBL in any possible way. I only want to point out that like with the 10:10 fiasco, AGW proponents that don’t want this sort of bad publicity connected with their movement, IMO should distance themselves and their organizations from OSBL.