Climate Craziness AND Quote of the Week – Bill McKibben suggests we can 'change physics'

I’ve never done a double feature before where our Climate Craziness of the Week and Quote of the Week are one and the same. 350.org’s Bill McKibben gets this unique honor.

From the what universe does Bill McKibben live in department? While going on about heat waves, he comes up with the ultimate “I don’t understand science” zinger. How long before people stop listening to this guy? I would not have believed he’d be disturbed enough to write this if I hadn’t read it as a direct quote written by his own hand.

Hat tip to Tom Nelson.

Here’s the quote, its “Big Oil” irrationality on steroids: 

this industry, and this industry alone, holds the power to change the physics and chemistry of our planet , and they’re planning to use it. – 350.org’s Bill McKibben

I’m reminded of this:

Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708473/quotes?qt=qt0198370

Here’s some excerpts from McKibben’s Rolling Stone article:

Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math | Politics News | Rolling Stone

warmest May on record for the Northern Hemisphere – the 327th consecutive month in which the temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe.

Scientists estimate that humans can pour roughly 565 more gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by midcentury and still have some reasonable hope of staying below two degrees. (“Reasonable,” in this case, means four chances in five, or somewhat worse odds than playing Russian roulette with a six-shooter.)

…”The new data provide further evidence that the door to a two-degree trajectory is about to close,” said Fatih Birol, the IEA’s chief economist. In fact, he continued, “When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of about six degrees.” That’s almost 11 degrees Fahrenheit, which would create a planet straight out of science fiction.

We have five times as much oil and coal and gas on the books as climate scientists think is safe to burn. We’d have to keep 80 percent of those reserves locked away underground to avoid that fate…Most of us are fundamentally ambivalent about going green: We like cheap flights to warm places, and we’re certainly not going to give them up if everyone else is still taking them. Since all of us are in some way the beneficiaries of cheap fossil fuel, tackling climate change has been like trying to build a movement against yourself – it’s as if the gay-rights movement had to be constructed entirely from evangelical preachers, or the abolition movement from slaveholders.

…Given this hard math, we need to view the fossil-fuel industry in a new light. It has become a rogue industry, reckless like no other force on Earth. It is Public Enemy Number One to the survival of our planetary civilization. “Lots of companies do rotten things in the course of their business – pay terrible wages, make people work in sweatshops – and we pressure them to change those practices,” says veteran anti-corporate leader Naomi Klein, who is at work on a book about the climate crisis. “But these numbers make clear that with the fossil-fuel industry, wrecking the planet is their business model. It’s what they do.”…this industry, and this industry alone, holds the power to change the physics and chemistry of our planet, and they’re planning to use it.

There’s not a more reckless man on the planet than Tillerson…In December, BP finally closed its solar division. Shell shut down its solar and wind efforts in 2009. The five biggest oil companies have made more than $1 trillion in profits since the millennium – there’s simply too much money to be made on oil and gas and coal to go chasing after zephyrs and sunbeams.

…Until a quarter-century ago, almost no one knew that CO2 was dangerous…if their college’s endowment portfolio has fossil-fuel stock, then their educations are being subsidized by investments that guarantee they won’t have much of a planet on which to make use of their degree. …we have met the enemy and they is Shell.

No, Bill, its you, and you may very well be insane. Get help.

Bill McKibben, an American environmentalist an...
Bill McKibben, an American environmentalist and writer, attending the 2006 Stanford Singularity Summit via an HDTV telepresence system. . (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
164 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 20, 2012 3:50 pm

Jonathan Abbey,
Please convert your units into Olympic-sized swimming pools. That’s the official standard, you know. ☺

July 20, 2012 3:52 pm

Oh, I had my units confused? Whew! That’s a load off my mind! Thanks!

Dan Hue
July 20, 2012 4:03 pm

@DirkH:
A good part of the solar cronies know that it’s all a scam. But it’s where the money is. So they continue peddling solar projects to EU protectorates who get a few billions in stimulus money provided they squander it on renewable energy projects.
vs.
Anthony:
In December, BP finally closed its solar division. Shell shut down its solar and wind efforts in 2009. The five biggest oil companies have made more than $1 trillion in profits since the millennium – there’s simply too much money to be made on oil and gas and coal to go chasing after zephyrs and sunbeams.
I’m confused… which is which?

July 20, 2012 4:17 pm

Don’t mention it. You’re new here.☺

AndyG55
July 20, 2012 4:46 pm

The big question is..
Is Rolling Stone magazine more “scientific” than Nature Climate Change ?
I guess it must be so, if that’s where McKibben wants to put his papers.

Owen in Ga
July 20, 2012 7:02 pm

If you have a century with a beginning temperature about 0.5-0.6 degrees lower than the ending temperature (slight upward slope) and then plateau, what are the odds that the plateau will be higher than the average of the rising century of temperatures? approximately one in one.
I don’t get the maths I am afraid. Learned about slopes of local maxima and minima in basic calculus you see and can’t be fooled by little tricks like this.

Owen in Ga
July 20, 2012 7:03 pm

and personally I loved Rush, but their lyrics can get a bit preachy from time to time.

Ed Zuiderwijk
July 21, 2012 2:07 am

This man is in the proto-psychotic phase.

Jim Masterson
July 21, 2012 2:33 am

>>
Doug Huffman says:
July 19, 2012 at 1:43 pm
The number of stars in the universe as 10E80 is from Eddington’s Large Number Hypothesis, itself an expansive version of Dirac’s LNH.
<<
That’s a pretty large number. It’s also strangely close to the estimated total number of atoms in the “visible” universe.
>>
Werner Brozek says:
July 20, 2012 at 12:50 am
So the total number of stars in the universe is 1.5 x 10^22.
<<
Estimates for the total number of stars in the “visible” universe have that same order of magnitude.
Jim

David
July 21, 2012 5:41 am

Thought you folks would like to know – that we in the east of the UK (you know, the DRIEST bit) – saw the SUN today for what seems like the first time in weeks…
But – hey – this is weather, not climate….

July 21, 2012 9:46 am

Bill Tuttle said

None of us knows what he intended to write, only that which he actually wrote. Targeting what he may possibly have *meant* to say rather than what he *did* say would be an exercise in futility.

That is exactly my point. Mr McKibben talked of “changing the physics” which we have extrapolated to “changing the LAWS of physics, but we have no real reason to think he meant that.
We are making fun of Mr McKibben because of our interpretation of his words.
Let’s stick to criticising foolish things he actually did say. There is no shortage of them.

July 21, 2012 11:55 am

Yes we know that math is hard. But Shirley McKibben could remember that Kool-Aid Should not be made with the bong water.
Yes I am serious, and this comment is appropriate for the topic.

July 21, 2012 5:16 pm

Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:
You speaking through your soiled panties again?

July 22, 2012 10:23 am

Re Robin says:July 19, 2012 at 2:13 pm:
Redefining physics is being peddled by the University of BC’s Physics department, no less.
http://c21.phas.ubc.ca/article/true-false-or-not-sure-philosophy-science-21st-century
Seems like using emotions as a means to knowledge.

1 5 6 7