News update by Ryan Maue
Update: The jails were emptied Monday morning. Also, Daryl Hannah has announced that she is heading to the White House oil-sands protest.
Update: New York Times editorial page comes out for against the Tar Sands Pipeline. However, their language sounds half hearted, and they seem to be checking a box knowing that inevitably the pipeline will go forward regardless of it’s carbon footprint, or something.
The Tar Sands protest organized by Bill McKibben has hit an unexpected snag: the US Park police have cracked down on the protesters. Instead of a simple “traffic ticket” type of arrest and release with a few hours in jail, many climate activists were stunned to learn that their “civil disobedience” may keep them behind bars for at least 48-hours until arraignment [Link to Grist.com lament].
Meanwhile, President Obama is managing the end of Gaddafi in Libya from his beautiful luxury vacation spot in Martha’s Vineyard. With Janet Napolitano always talking about the threats from domestic extremism typically orchestrated by environmental or “green” groups, one has to wonder if the US Parks police in the Capitol are sending a warning message by locking up the protestors for a good spell.
When Obama approves the pipeline and slaps these “true believers” in the face again, will they desert him for another candidate in the upcoming election? Nah.
More pictures of the “protest” including McKibben hauled away in handcuffs here at the Puffington Host. Please try and refrain from mocking these people as hippies or 70s retreads.
Also, has anyone heard if this upstart climate scientist (apparently the only academic currently employed as a professor “descending” on Washington) will still come — and will he risk being arrested?
Climate scientist willing to face arrest at tar sands pipeline protest
Climate scientist Jason Box says oil sands are a moral issue that he feels compelled to address at Keystone XL pipeline protests — UK Guardian
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Andrew30
But if you meant Organic (a marketing compound), then they can bring in some Organic bean sprouts, grown with LED lighting using windmill electricity, not irradiated, pesticide free, from Germany; I hear people have been dying to try them.
Gosh darnit! Ifen that thar global warmin don’t git yer the bean sprouts will.
Almost exactly the argument Tony Blair advanced when convincing us that war against Iraq was necessary (Bush never sold me on the war, but Tony Blair did – much better public speaker). That we could know Saddam Hussein had WMDs but stand by and do nothing. Looks like history has proven that claim (and thus the justification for war) to have been wrong. I’m not buying the argument in this case either.
Maria says:
August 22, 2011 at 3:52 am
1. A 3,000 mile long pipeline makes for a pretty sweet terrorist target.
So do the several hundred thousand miles of pipeline already constructed and operating quietly for some time. Please don’t give Wiebo Ludwig any more ideas (google him). The thing about pipelines is that they are monitored constantly, and, if ruptured, generally shut themselvs down, minimizing the impact. Impact is what terrorists want, and if it amounts to a big ho-hum, they will look elesewhere. A crude pipeline is kinda ho-hum.
2. Tar sands are, until dug out, mostly located under forests. They are not just gaping oil pits that we need to clean up.
Stunted, taiga-like areas. No, we don’t need to clean them up, but we might as well make use of it. I do like your rhetoric, though: “gaping oil pits” sounds so awful by comparison to “naturally contaminated subsoil”. And there are numerous bogs and kettle lakes in the region that are basically “naturally polluted”. I won’t bore you with the origins of the Athabaska Oil Sands, but there is a huge amount of oil just lying around there, leaking into the environment. What a poster child for the environmental kaffe klatsch.
Maria, I was trying to figure out when his first grandchild was born since you say it was a tipping point for him. I didn’t find that info, but since he is over 70, that could have been quite a while ago, or not. This photo makes it look more recent:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/gfx/jeh4.jpg
(assuming these are in fact his grandchildren)
BTW, according to his CV, he has been a scientist for more like 40 years than 30.
…unless of course you figure he stopped being a scientist ten years ago 😉
I think Hansen is sincere in his concern but he ignores far bigger and more likely non-climate risks to the future of his grandchildren.
Toto says:
August 22, 2011 at 11:11 am
“I think Hansen is sincere in his concern but he ignores far bigger and more likely non-climate risks to the future of his grandchildren.”
I think Hansen is a front for Soros who invests in CCS.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/39480
Some European says:
August 22, 2011 at 4:29 am
“But how are we supposed to have a debate when you guys are like: “you’re wrong because you have dumbo ears.””
‘Some European’, you call yourself the most skeptical person; now, see, i’m European just like you and i would call you the most gullible person i read today. Why would a skeptical person believe ANYTHING Hansen says? First of all, the climate models have not demonstrated predictive skill; the IPCC knows this and that’s why they call everything “projection” and not “prediction”.
Demonstrate predictive skill and somebody might actually believe you and your fellow warmists that you know something that we don’t know.
If you can’t, stop bothering us with your collective attempts at lining your pockets with renewables subsidies and grants. Because that money is taken from us against our will. If you want solar cells, wind turbines and a free lunch for Hansen, PAY FOR IT YOURSELF, YOU ARE FREE TO DO SO.
Sorry if this was covered already – I only read the first 1/2 of the comments. The protests in Nebraska are mainly about the location of the pipeline. It goes directly over the Ogallala Aquifer which is one of the largest fresh water stores in the United States. It provides ground water for multiple states extending down to Texas. The problem with the location is that it goes directly over areas where the ground water is closest to the surface. We have not had any independent studies done showing what would happen if a spill were to occur over these areas, but I don’t think it takes a climate scientist to be at least a little worried about it. One geologist from a local university did an estimate that was doom and gloom, but I would like a little more of a full scale study before I would say go for it. I am all for the pipeline, just build it in areas that would give the most protection from a spill. Sorry if I don’t care about TransCanada’s bottom line.
Steve C Says:
Nicely put Steve. I as well looked but haven’t found any evidence for the handwringing over CO2 and, to the contrary, have found that much energy has been wasted on the argument and diverted from some other very pressing problems.
I’m no fan of imported oil and would be very happy not sending any of my energy dollars overseas. But this talk about solar and wind power and other “renewables” (don’t think people really no shat those are) as our answer to our energy problems drives me crazy. When I think of my Kids, I think of our economy getting wacked by high energy prices, not just direct costs to them such as fuel and electricity, but also business that will continue to flee in search of lower costs.
One nuclear power plant, Palo Verde in Arizona, produced 30.6 billion kWh in 2009, has a generating capacity of 29.25 mWh at 1.33 cents per kWh, uses 4,000.00 acres of land.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=conewsstory&tkr=ELPJ:US&sid=ahhl._h9exBw
Total installed wind capacity in the US is about 40.2 mWh so two Palo Verdes can easily exceed total wind generation and do it 24 hours a day. I also suspect, and maybe some one can help me, that 40.2 mWh is wind capacity, not what is produced. As you may know wind turbines operate at a much lower nameplate capacity than nuclear, which is 80 to 95%.
Wind power and solar are important but they won’t power this country without dramatic rises in energy costs and without a large negative environmental impact due to the massive amounts of materials, land and energy used to create and maintain them.
If you truly believe that carbon dioxide will lead to social and environmental disasters, then you must be pro-nuclear. Nothing we do in creating energy is free of cost or risk, so we have to look at the problem carefully and honestly if we are to salvage this country. I don’t think our budget problems are solvable without a long term plan for creating clean, affordable energy, for without it growth over the next several decades is going to be very difficult.
Maria says:
August 21, 2011 at 6:45 pm
Young lady, (obviously you are too caring to be very young, but to me almost everybody is young), I regret to say that you have been ‘brainwashed’ by the propagandists. If you start to think for yourself and read this blog, among others, on a regular basis, I think that you will quickly have your worries soothed.
“at the moment, the majority of the developed world lives an oil-dependent lifestyle;”
Not the majority, but every last one of us. Durban will be in the climate news later this year. It has a guessed at one million people within twenty kilometres of the city centre living in tin and card board shacks. Even those poor souls depend upon fossil fuels, one way or another, to survive.
‘my own lifestyle is completely dependent on oil/other fossil fuels;’
The only way out of that, for you and the rest of us, is for the discovery to be made of a means of capturing energy from some new source requiring a very low energy input. It will come but it might be a long wait. Windmills and solar panels won’t do – the input is too great and the product is lamentable.
‘- it’s scary to imagine that how we live now is not something that can be sustained in perpetuity;’
Perpetuity is a very long time indeed. The resources are extremely large, particularly as regards coal deposits that have not yet been exploited. When my great grandchildren have great grandchildren of their own, the latter will not need to worry too much about the resources, and by that time we may have our new energy source.
‘it’s hard to make the connection between how one lives and the consequences of our lifestyle.’
It pains me that those who complain the loudest don’t see any need to lead by example. That is particularly true of the politicians of all ilks.
‘However, I can only look at what the global political and business community have now agreed are the facts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Accord:’
Facts are facts, not what some large group of people agree between themselves to be so. If it is facts that you are after then in my experience Wikipedia is not a great place to go. Copenhagen was a disaster- for those who promote the manmade global warming fallacy.
the climate change we are seeing right now is faster than any in the known history of Earth – in terms of speed of change over a period of time – that this is anthropogenic is clear from the scientific consensus that has been reached;
– if the climate continues to warm we are now sure that we will see: significant sea level rise; species loss; increasingly violent storms and of increasing number; drought in some areas (we are already seeing climate effects in a number of countries) and floods in others – as a result food and water scarcity; increased risks from consolidating diseases such as malaria; and other impacts to varied to list;
– that the physical impacts of climate change wil have serious social impacts and that these may be far-reaching and frightening; and,
– we do not have enough resources of any kind to support the human population (~7bn) that we now have or the anticipated 9bn by 2050.’
We are seeing no abnormal climate change. Those who cannot correctly interpret what is going on right now should not be believed when they talk of “the history of the earth”. We are not seeing consequential sea level rise; we are not seeing increasingly violent storms, nor an increase in their number; there have always been droughts in some areas; floods have happened since Noah, and the victims are predominantly those who have built on ground where a sane man would not put up a garden shed; in Africa at least, from the Limpopo northwards for a couple of thousand miles, malaria is mainly spread by vehicle – residents of low lying rural areas travelling to town by bus and taking mosquitoes with them – and the problem is greater than it would be if the U.S. had not banned DDT back in the ‘sixties and many well meaning countries in Africa followed suit; resources are ample to feed a much larger population provided that they don’t all insist in living in a metropolis.
From thinking and reading about what’s going on, and also by feeling some responsibility to the children growing up today and those that are not yet born, I can only conclude that we need to radically rethink our lives and how our world works. I would rather not see mass war, death, and horror. I would rather we try to find a new way forward that doesn’t involve causing more destruction of our own habitat than what has already taken place.’
Do some regular reading on this website and I think that you will soon gain the re-assurance that you seek.
‘It seems strange to me that one would not want to think these things through and instead just say ‘I’m happy with my status quo – to hell with my children and grandchildren and the world they will live in.’
I have never heard anyone say that.
‘The NASA scientist, James Hansen, is resolutely non-partisan – so I don’t think you can attribute his thoughts to Obama who, to my knowledge, is a lawyer by training rather than a climate scientist.’
James Hansen is a fraud. Period.
‘The US military have declared climate change to be a ‘serious national security threat’
With the greatest of respect to the U.S. Army, they have been deluged with the same propaganda that you have been subject to.
‘http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/news/FlipBooks/Climate%20Change%20web/flipviewerxpress.htmland companies such as GM, GE, Alcan, Alcoa and BP have established the US Climate Action Partnership calling for ‘strong’ federal action to combat climate change http://www.us-cap.org/.’
They are in it for the money – pure and simple. Wherever there is a subsidy the vultures gather.
‘What I would love to know from this blog community is just who has to say that we need to sort things out around fossil fuel dependency and climate change for you to believe it and use your minds to help come up with a solution?’
The sole problem is the propaganda which results in tens of thousands of people making a handsome living out of a fallacy arising from a scam. The junk science on which the scam depends is falling apart and before too long the perpetrators will have to dream up a new Ponzi scheme. Until then you and I should rest easy
Maria says:
August 21, 2011 at 6:45 pm
Young lady, (obviously you are too caring to be very young, but to me almost everybody is young), I regret to say that you have been ‘brainwashed’ by the propagandists. If you start to think for yourself and read this blog, among others, on a regular basis, I think that you will quickly have your worries soothed.
‘ at the moment, the majority of the developed world lives an oil-dependent lifestyle;’
Not the majority, but every last one of us. Durban will be in the climate news later this year. It has a guessed at one million people within twenty kilometres of the city centre living in tin and card board shacks. Even those poor souls depend upon fossil fuels, one way or another, to survive.
‘my own lifestyle is completely dependent on oil/other fossil fuels;’
The only way out of that, for you and the rest of us, is for the discovery to be made of a means of capturing energy from some new source requiring a very low energy input. It will come but it might be a long wait. Windmills and solar panels won’t do – the input is too great and the product is lamentable.
‘- it’s scary to imagine that how we live now is not something that can be sustained in perpetuity;’
Perpetuity is a very long time indeed. The resources are extremely large, particularly as regards coal deposits that have not yet been exploited. When my great grandchildren have great grandchildren of their own, the latter will not need to worry too much about the resources, and by that time we may have our new energy source.
‘it’s hard to make the connection between how one lives and the consequences of our lifestyle.’
It pains me that those who complain the loudest don’t see any need to lead by example. That is particularly true of the politicians of all ilks.
‘However, I can only look at what the global political and business community have now agreed are the facts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Accord:’
Facts are facts, not what some large group of people agree between themselves to be so. If it is facts that you are after then in my experience Wikipedia is not a great place to go. Copenhagen was a disaster- for those who promote the manmade global warming fallacy.
‘the climate change we are seeing right now is faster than any in the known history of Earth – in terms of speed of change over a period of time – that this is anthropogenic is clear from the scientific consensus that has been reached;
– if the climate continues to warm we are now sure that we will see: significant sea level rise; species loss; increasingly violent storms and of increasing number; drought in some areas (we are already seeing climate effects in a number of countries) and floods in others – as a result food and water scarcity; increased risks from consolidating diseases such as malaria; and other impacts to varied to list;
– that the physical impacts of climate change wil have serious social impacts and that these may be far-reaching and frightening; and,
– we do not have enough resources of any kind to support the human population (~7bn) that we now have or the anticipated 9bn by 2050.’
We are seeing no abnormal climate change. Those who cannot correctly interpret what is going on right now should not be believed when they talk of “the history of the earth”. We are not seeing consequential sea level rise; we are not seeing increasingly violent storms, nor an increase in their number; there have always been droughts in some areas; floods have happened since Noah, and the victims are predominantly those who have built on ground where a sane man would not put up a garden shed; in Africa at least, from the Limpopo northwards for a couple of thousand miles, malaria is mainly spread by vehicle – residents of low lying rural areas travelling to town by bus and taking mosquitoes with them – and the problem is greater than it would be if the U.S. had not banned DDT back in the ‘sixties and many well meaning countries in Africa followed suit; resources are ample to feed a much larger population provided that they don’t all insist on living in a metropolis.
‘From thinking and reading about what’s going on, and also by feeling some responsibility to the children growing up today and those that are not yet born, I can only conclude that we need to radically rethink our lives and how our world works. I would rather not see mass war, death, and horror. I would rather we try to find a new way forward that doesn’t involve causing more destruction of our own habitat than what has already taken place.’
Do some regular reading on this website and I think that you will soon gain the re-assurance that you seek.
‘It seems strange to me that one would not want to think these things through and instead just say ‘I’m happy with my status quo – to hell with my children and grandchildren and the world they will live in.’
I have never heard anyone say that.
“The NASA scientist, James Hansen, is resolutely non-partisan – so I don’t think you can attribute his thoughts to Obama who, to my knowledge, is a lawyer by training rather than a climate scientist.’
James Hansen is a fraud. Period.
‘The US military have declared climate change to be a ‘serious national security threat’
With the greatest of respect to the U.S. Army, they have been deluged with the same propaganda that you have been subject to.
‘http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/news/FlipBooks/Climate%20Change%20web/flipviewerxpress.htmland companies such as GM, GE, Alcan, Alcoa and BP have established the US Climate Action Partnership calling for ‘strong’ federal action to combat climate change http://www.us-cap.org/.’
They are in it for the money – pure and simple. Wherever there is a subsidy the vultures gather.
‘What I would love to know from this blog community is just who has to say that we need to sort things out around fossil fuel dependency and climate change for you to believe it and use your minds to help come up with a solution?’
The sole problem is the propaganda which results in tens of thousands of people making a handsome living out of a fallacy arising from a scam. The junk science on which the scam depends is falling apart and before too long the perpetrators will have to dream up a new Ponzi scheme. Until then you and I should rest easy
@ur momisugly Mike Bromley the Kurd says: August 21, 2011 at 10:30 pm
@ur momisugly Alcheson says: August 21, 2011 at 11:05 pm
&@ur momisugly Canadians who’ve said they’d prefer the refinery be in your nation, I hear you, but as I’m in the USA, gotta wish for one here instead! :0) It IS a very interesting thought, however & I wonder if your folks have considered it and why they haven’t proceeded that way?
Thanks for the replies, hope to hear more.
Mike, off the cuff I have to agree with Alcheson – once refined, the products have to be shipped or piped ostensibly just as far anyhow since the points of final use don’t vary. So it seems that siting a refinery up north would eliminate 1000+ miles of extra new piping along with all the costs, red tape, etc. involved. Tho I’ve no idea how much of that is already done… I would think, however, that in terms of environmental studies & NIMBY, the pipeline may actually be the more difficult…
Building refinery up north would also help even up end product cost across the nation – right now, fuel is significantly cheaper in Texas because those products don’t have to be piped or shipped very far. Other issues are involved also – and it would be another interesting study to see just how much the various factors contribute to end use costs, for example, lower taxes in Texas (probably many nearby states also), fewer botique mixes, etc., but that’s off on a tangent. The point is that if there were a refinery up north, I would suspect it would lower costs for those in the north including a few major metro areas like Chicago & Seattle. Depending on location maybe California too?
As a nation, e.g., broad national interests and security, it seems to me that just having the backup that’s out of the line of hurricanes, AND that’s newer and so hopefully less prone to outages, would be a massive factor in favor of northern siting… but the ins and outs of the number of refineries and exact locations and aging risks aren’t something I’m knowledgable about – or even how much end product is shipped vs. piped. Impression I have on refineries anyhow is that there are a handful or less, roughly speaking all pretty close to each other.
But these sorts of things are the very issues I’d sure love to see a summary or relatively short report on – caveot, unbiased one(s) based on some solid background research into both pros and cons of each involved issue!
1. Cost of building refinery vs. pipeline, & associated costs of land purchases/right of ways, etc.
2. How difficult or easy & costs aspects associated with distribution from a new northern refinery vs. adding significant quantities to existing southern system.
3. Is aging an issue with existing refineries?
4. Would a new refinery be significantly more efficient either in terms of output, waste products, or operating costs, etc., or is the technology/state of knowledge for refining about the same as that used in existing refineries?
5. How much eminent domain would have to be used to pipe across the nation?
And so on. :0)
@ur momisugly Nuke says: August 22, 2011 at 6:22 am
Thanks! :0)
Both of your points are good ones of course. Aspects that I’d love to see compared… I wonder if the regulatory burdens are actually worse for a refinery vs. piping across the nation & x number of states… and how easy or difficult it would be to site one up north relatively close to source, and tag into existing distribution lines. Or if a boatload of new lines would still need to be built just as you suggest.
That’s the thing, I’ve seen a number of articles about the pipeline (actually probably more about protesters, really), and they’ve mentioned some of the problems with building it – but I haven’t seen articles that have even mentioned the possibility of building a refinery up there. Admission: I haven’t gone looking either, just pondered the idea a bit. It just seems from the mainstream media that the idea hasn’t even been considered & things just defaulted to a pipeline… You’d think if there had been any real suggestion of building a refinery near the source, or cost benefit analyses of issues involved for a pipeline vs. refinery that someone in the MSM would have picked up on it, even if just to utterly bash the obviously insane idea of building a new wicked refinery to create all that eeee-vil gasoline!! /lame attempt at humor
@ur momisugly Jay Neumark says: August 22, 2011 at 5:42 am
Interesting thought. There must be some way to determine one way or the other. Anyone know how? I’ve no idea how sophisticated bots can be made these days… but if there is a good detection method, it’d sure be good to use and I’m pretty sure Anthony would ban ’em asap if the detection method was fairly sound.
Frankly, using them without up front clear identification is about as immoral, unethical, and dirty as you can get as far as I’m concerned.
Maria –
may return after some sleep, so:
Yes, a 3000 mile pipeline could be of interest to terrorists. So, one would assume, are the existing natural gas, gasoline, and oil pipelines that are in total many times that in lenght. You would then have to include the transmission grid EHV circuits which easily exceed that in total lenght, the rail network, microwave repeating stations, natural gas compression stations, etc. Are you arguing that no new infrastructure of similiar function should be built because such might be tempting to terrorist?
Is your concern that of recovering the oil from the sands, the proposed pipeline, or that the recovered oil will be used?
If it is the recovery, I would postulate that had Alberta begun a project of removing the oil sands and reforesting the areas affected, no one outside the immediate area would have even heard of the work.
If it is the pipeline, what is the proplem? There are thousands of similiar pipelines all over much of North America. Are they a proplem sufficent enough to be abandoned?
If it is that the oil recovered is to be used, rest assured that if the XL is blocked, the oil will be transported to the West coast and then to Asian markets. Which is more efficient?
I’ll leave any comments as to the mining and reclamation effects of oil sands to those who are closer to the areas and have first-hand information.
“the climate change we are seeing right now is faster than any in the known history of Earth”
Bzzzzt! (a) Records go back only 100 years or so for most places (more for a very few). (b) The vast majority of places on this earth have no climate/temperature records for any length of time before satellite records. (c) Satellite records go back what – 20 or 30 years? (Others more knowledgable than I am please jump in with better numbers.)
Bottom line is we have only anecdotal evidence for climate history for most of the time humans have lived on this earth (sorry, I don’t believe you can extrapolate the climate history of an entire region from the rings of one old tree).
What we DO have now is better and more records from more places. To our detriment, something that was a local event 50 years ago is now considered international news in the quest to fill the 24-hour “news” maw on a bazillion channels.
But thanks for playing, Maria.
While I despise such protestors, I do not see in this thread why they were arrested.
Blocking lawfrul use of a property would be one reason, hypothetically.
Keith, I gather that protests aren’t legal in the park (next to? surrounding?) the White House because of the security risks. Regardless, there is no question that these protestors knew before they began that the spot they chose was illegal – that’s why they selected it, so they would get arrested and get the publicity. The organizers had been in contact with the police before the protest began, and were told that it was illegal and they would be arrested if they protested in the park.
“That is the natural state of the area. It’s not a beautiful natural environment to start with.”
Hmm, not beautiful. Needs to be “cleaned up”. “Naturally contaminated” (oxymoronic). Why is the human sense of “beautiful” at all appropriate? They sound like weasel words to justify an otherwise act of desparation as the cheap sources of oil disappear. If there is no “peak oil”, why are these costly sources being exploited now? What flora and fauna are unique to these places, that may be lost forever as humans continue to “beautify” the “naturally contaminated”? (But isn’t the beautification just an unneccesary extra cost of extraction, if it was that ugly, why not leave it ugly?)
What to say? It seems mentioning Hansen (who you seem to be convinced is a political activist, despite his repeated statements that he has voted at various points in his life for Democrat, Republican and independent candidates) was red rag to a bull for this forum. You believe me to be ‘brainwashed,’ a ‘bot,’ a ‘troll bot,’ preaching’ and lacking in evidence. The majority of you (some exceptions), in turn, have been patronising, ‘funny,’ lacking in evidence and convinced of the righteousness of your point of view. Some of the ‘facts’ that have been quoted for my benefit are seriously questionable. I will continue to look at my world and search for truths and realities. To the commentor that quoted Socrates famous quote – it’s funny as I was thinking that last night as I fell asleep. You have given me things to think about, and I hope you may also re-examine your own thinking and knowledge for gaps and other possibilities. Good luck. Maria.
Maria,
Unfortunately, you suffer from cognitive dissonance. No matter how many contrary facts are produced, you remain a Hansen sycophant [servile flatterer].
James Hansen has been so totally wrong in his crazy predictions that he cannot be taken seriously by reasonable people. Every one of his predictions has been proven to be wrong. The question is: why do you still worship Hansen’s deluded prognostications? Are you so much in need of a daddy figure?
Disappointing to see the overt political tone here on an issue that should be apolitical, and no less disappointing to read the personal attacks and snark in the comment section.
With that being said, don’t jump into the lion’s den and cry when bitten. A compelling argument will find ears; but talking points and a cheap martyrdom benefits nobody.
@ur momisugly Costard says: August 22, 2011 at 8:30 pm
?? A article about activist protesters chosing to stage their protest where it is illegal in order to get arrested for the subsequent publicity…. is supposed to have apolitical comments? Oooo-kaaaayyyy, I’m afraid I don’t quite get that one.
Then someone shows up after a whopping handful of posts from others, and launches in with a rant calling everyone who happens to hold a different opinion than theirs, insane madmen who’s discussions are nothing but rubbish and who must either have no children of our own or apparently be so callous as to take/allow actions that do our own and everyone else’s children implied severe harm…. all without any effort at discussion or supporting facts or anything along those lines.
Those sorts of posts aren’t a little understandably snark or shame worthy?
The subject of the article itself – activists who think it’s great to break laws, disrupt other folks lives a bit, cost tax payers money, tie up the police and judicial system, and cause a national security risk just so they can get some national news coverage rather than going about debating and making their points legally like the rest of us – and suddenly they’re upset that they’ll be held safely and reasonably comfortably (food, shelter) over the weekend instead of for a few hours….
That’s not a bit understandably snark or shame worthy?
Gotta say, I’m just not following you there.
This WUWT den of lions are generally pussy cats, happy to play and even gently roughhouse a little with all who appear no matter their point of view — and we lap up good debate, facts, science… but I’d say you pretty much hit the nail on the head when you said:
Ok, so I couldn’t resist a little addition that seemed entirely appropriate along with a bit of emphasis. :0)
Maria says:
I will continue to look at my world and search for truths and realities.
That right there is your problem, though. You need to broaden your horizons but you won’t, being comfortable with your cherished Warmist Beliefs. Oh, and BTW, skeptics/climate realists come from many and varied political backgrounds, and many, if not most used to at least assume that CAGW was true before actually delving into it, and discovering that there were indeed holes in it big enough to drive a Mack truck through.
Sometimes I wish I wasn’t a skeptic. It seems that some skeptics are quite nasty people. Some of you guys need to go and tuck your ugly in because it is hanging out all over these comments. Warmists may be deluded and wrong, but at least they are NICE. Sometimes I really wish I could turn my brain off and join them. It must be wonderful to be a committed believer devoted to the cause fighting for the future of the planet along with all the other dewey eyed idealists. Instead I find myself stuck here rubbing shoulders with a bunch of people some of whom seem to be borderline fascist nutjobs to judge from some of the comments.
Ian H says:
Warmists may be deluded and wrong, but at least they are NICE.
Huh? Oh, that was just sarcasm. Never mind. Ha-ha, good one.