US Midterms: Sierra Club declares Victory

“… While we have lost friends in Congress, we are gaining them in the streets …”

Eric Worrall writes: The President of the Sierra Club is confident of widespread and growing public support for the environmental movement, explaining apparent setbacks for the green movement, in the recent US midterm elections, as a conspiracy of corporate interests and bolstered by sinister voter suppression tactics.

According to Michael Brune, president of the Sierra Club;

“Despite the climate movement’s significant investments and an unprecedented get-out-the-vote program, strong voices for climate action were defeated, and candidates paid for by corporate interests and bolstered by sinister voter suppression tactics won the day.

This election marked a pivotal change in how candidates confront the climate crisis, We’re not backing down.

Public support is solidly behind action to tackle the climate crisis. While we have lost friends in Congress, we are gaining them in the streets, as our movement grows stronger and broader”

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/223028-did-climate-change-win-at-the-ballot-box

What can I say – I hope you receive the help and counselling you may in my opinion need Mr. Brune. Coping with rejection and loss can be deeply traumatic. Regardless of our political differences, I have no wish to see you suffer undue emotional pain, during this potentially difficult period of personal adjustment.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
174 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Brute
November 10, 2014 1:08 am

I would dearly appreciate specifics on the “sinister voter suppression tactics”.

TheMightyQuinn
Reply to  Brute
November 10, 2014 1:27 am

“Voter suppression” = The dead were only allowed to vote once.

Brute
Reply to  TheMightyQuinn
November 10, 2014 2:09 am

And so are aliens. Please provide evidence.

Norman
Reply to  TheMightyQuinn
November 10, 2014 2:11 am

🙂

Reply to  TheMightyQuinn
November 10, 2014 7:20 am

+1

mikeishere
Reply to  TheMightyQuinn
November 11, 2014 6:25 am

+100

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Brute
November 10, 2014 1:58 am

The Sierra Club spokesman knows there were no “sinister voter suppression tactics”. The Sierra Club is doing what they always do… “sinister voter propaganda tactics”.

James Loux
Reply to  Alan Robertson
November 10, 2014 3:10 am

He knows that there was voter suppression because his voters didn’t vote.
He knows that the suppression was sinister because they spent millions and still their voters didn’t show up to vote, so it had to be sinister since they can’t figure out what the heck happened.
He knows they are gaining in the streets because all of those voters who didn’t vote were their voters, and most voters did not vote!
Obama, too, believes it and said it clearly; he sees a mandate for his actions based on the number of voters who didn’t vote. He claimed them as obviously supporting his policies, “the silent majority.”

joe crew
Reply to  Alan Robertson
November 10, 2014 9:50 am

To relieve their pain and suffering, I suggest they find and hug those cuddly polar bears and gray wolves they purport to love and care about. But then, if they are eaten by said loving creatures, am I responsible for the beats having been poisoned by such toxic people?

RockyRoad
Reply to  Alan Robertson
November 11, 2014 6:57 am

It sounds like the president of the Sierra Club is happy to lie. It’s amazing what high-information voters can do to the fortunes of a devious organization like the Sierra Club.

Evan Jones
Editor
Reply to  Brute
November 10, 2014 3:32 am

I don’t know what you are talking about. Why, Mickey mouse, Super (and Spider) Man, Batman, and Ranger, Lone are proud registered democratic party voters in Ohio. Who are we to dispute the wisdom of the nation’s greatest superheroes?

Jimbo
Reply to  Brute
November 10, 2014 4:32 am

Les Misérables Brune also added:

Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, was even more blunt in an interview Wednesday morning. First, he recounted some of the ways 2014 was a success: It elevated the issue of climate change generally and made candidates in a number of key races change the way they talked about the issue. But when it came to electing a slate of pro-environment candidates, which environmental groups spent an unprecedented amount of money on this year, “on that,” Brune said, “there’s been a miserable f*cking failure.”
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/11/environmental-groups-election-2014-climate

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Jimbo
November 10, 2014 6:31 am

2014 looks like a failure, not a success. The very well paid efforts to spread their message seem to have fallen the deaf ears of a numbed public, fed up with the endless gloom and doom of the Sierra Club. Shame. The Sierra Club used to do useful things. Now its a “mff” as Brune put it.

wws
Reply to  Jimbo
November 10, 2014 6:33 am

Does this brainiac ever even consider the possiblity, that, just maybe, if you “raise awareness” and “elevate the issue” and “make candidates change they talk about the issue”, that if you do ALL of that and then LOSE massively, it means that your issue maybe, just maybe, ISN’T ANY GOOD????
Ya think there’s a possibility of that?
(yeah, he doesn’t dare go there because up til now, their entire schpiel was that voters were too ignorant and uneducated about “the issue”. Well, where do you go once you do all of that edumacatin’ and you still lose???
You go home and give it up, that’s what you do.

beng
Reply to  Brute
November 10, 2014 5:59 am

Brute, the “specifics” that explain it are — psychological projection. All they’re doing is lamenting that their tactics weren’t enough this election.

John Leggett
Reply to  Brute
November 10, 2014 7:29 am

There were fewer than normal dead Democratic voters.

PeterinMD
Reply to  John Leggett
November 10, 2014 7:54 am

Not here in Maryland. Although some of the dead were replaced by illegal aliens. 400 IA’s in Frederick county who have voted previously, were summoned for Jury duty and they submitted they were not required to show up because they aren’t citizens!

Jeff
Reply to  John Leggett
November 10, 2014 8:50 am

@PeterinMD says: November 10, 2014 at 7:54 am
Hmmm, 400 IAs, and they actually submitted that they weren’t require to show up for jury duty? Wow, they should have been summarily rounded up and deported. Of course, in the current environment, I don’t think they have much to worry about. Next January, maybe so…..

Jeff
Reply to  John Leggett
November 10, 2014 8:53 am

John Leggett says: November 10, 2014 at 7:29 am
There were fewer than normal dead Democratic voters.

To paraphrase Dorothy Parker’s quote about Calvin Coolidge, how could they tell?

Greg
Reply to  Brute
November 10, 2014 8:42 am

When the models don’t work, it’s because the data needs “correcting”. When the election doesn’t work it’s because voters have been “suppressed”, the polling data needs correction. I think I see a pattern forming here.
Now I’m not a trained psychologist, but I think this is what is known as being “in denial”.
Eric Worrel’s short post sums it up very nicely.

asybot
November 10, 2014 1:20 am

@guest, thanks. Now my smile after last Tuesday is even bigger, add to the fact that the billionaire from CA spend millions to support the same losers almost give me lock jaw from smiling and I sure would like to know as well about the “sinister voter suppression tactics”, ( I wonder if that means the GOP kept the lids on the coffins?)

Margaret Smith
Reply to  asybot
November 10, 2014 5:15 am

Presumably they themselves know as those that employ such tactics (i.e. dirty tricks) always accuse their opponents of doing so when they lose.

Lank flushed the bowl
November 10, 2014 1:22 am

“Our movement grows stronger and broader”. I think he is refering to his recent ablutions.

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
November 10, 2014 1:23 am

So…. they are recruiting the homeless? That would be a step in the right direction: they can open shelters, provide food and warmth for the winter. They certainly have the money to do so. Oh, but absolutely NO proselytising…. that would be a violation of ‘separation of church and state.

michael hart
Reply to  Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
November 10, 2014 11:11 am

And the warmth will be based on fossil fuels.
And so is the food. You won’t get even remotely close to two fishes and five loaves of bread using “renewables” in the cold, still, dark, of winter.
There is a winter of the mind in these people.

Athelstan.
November 10, 2014 1:26 am

To call this lad Brune delusional – doesn’t quite cut it does it?
Mind you, the left spend most of their lives denying reality, and for a length of time it works – until you grow up……………………

M Courtney
November 10, 2014 1:33 am

…and bolstered by sinister voter suppression tactics won the day.

So is there going to be a legal challenge to the election results?
If not, he really shouldn’t besmirch your democracy in that way.

LKMiller (aka treegyn1)
Reply to  M Courtney
November 10, 2014 6:03 am

Constitutional Republic, actually.

Gunga Din
Reply to  M Courtney
November 10, 2014 1:12 pm

So is there going to be a legal challenge to the election results?

Beyond the races where the margin of victory allows for or requires a recount, I don’t know of any grounds for a legal challenge.
All they can do is claim an imaginary victory. Kind of like climate models’ claims don’t match reality.
(Besides, investigating voter fraud and such just might find even more of those voting machines like the two in the Chicago area and Maryland with the same “calibration error”. That error changed a vote for a Republican into a vote for a Democrat.)

John Endicott
Reply to  M Courtney
November 11, 2014 9:57 am

M Courtney says: November 10, 2014 at 1:33 am
…and bolstered by sinister voter suppression tactics won the day.
So is there going to be a legal challenge to the election results?
===========================
Of course not, that would require investigations which might turn up actual vote fraud (committed by those on their side of the political isle) which would lead to even more voter ID laws which would lead to more alleged “suppression”. Better for them to just bluster in public without actually doing anything about it.

November 10, 2014 1:42 am

And behind the evil conspiracy of corporate interests is… Hydra, Spectre… and the most notorious international organisation of evil… Kaos.

Greg Woods
Reply to  Will Nitschke
November 10, 2014 2:35 am

Not mention the evil organization Kochaos…

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Will Nitschke
November 12, 2014 6:27 am

Not Kraw … Kraw!!

November 10, 2014 1:46 am

So the Climate Change Alarmists are the Conspiracy Theorists now.

Brute
Reply to  Jim South london
November 10, 2014 2:12 am

Not now. From the start. Read back.

November 10, 2014 1:48 am

“Sierra Club declares Victory” – waiting for the Monty Python Black Knight scene…

Frodo
Reply to  Ben D
November 10, 2014 11:48 am
Frodo
Reply to  Frodo
November 10, 2014 11:49 am

Oops, sorry about that, let’s try that again….
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjEcj8KpuJw?feature=player_detailpage&w=640&h=360%5D

M Seward
November 10, 2014 1:59 am

Petulant children i how they strike me. Petulant little brats who just don’t know why they feel so uptight but any adult can tell them that they just need to do a poo.

Jack
November 10, 2014 2:02 am

” we are gaining them in the streets, as our movement grows stronger and broader”
Tell them they are dreaming.

Mike Jowsey
Reply to  Jack
November 10, 2014 2:34 am

Shades of “The Castle”, Jack?

Mike Jowsey
Reply to  Mike Jowsey
November 10, 2014 2:36 am

toorightmate
November 10, 2014 2:13 am

In addition to the worries of the world falling in, there is also the current problem of how to finance the debacle known as the Ivanpah Solar Plant.
And you reckon you’ve got problems?????

tadchem
November 10, 2014 2:17 am

“Defeat is VIctory.” – Big Brother

Oldseadog
Reply to  tadchem
November 10, 2014 3:47 am

“De feet is OK”- Idi Amin’s chiropodist.
(Sorry.)

asybot
Reply to  Oldseadog
November 11, 2014 6:31 pm

Glad I have a cover in case of spritz.

H.R.
November 10, 2014 2:19 am

“…we are gaining them in the streets..”
I have news for the Sierra Club. Road kill doesn’t pay dues or vote.

Auto
Reply to  H.R.
November 10, 2014 1:02 pm

Errrr . . . .
Even here in the UK, following the changes in voter registration brought in under PM Blair (a Socialist eager for power, if unsure what to do with it), I’m not convinced that roadkill doesn’t vote.
Historically, I’ve always understood that, at least in Daley pere’s Chicago, any resemblance between the population and voter rolls were not co-incidental, but rather evidence of sinister voter suppression ((c) Brune) [i.e. some roadkill was prevented from voting].
It’s better in Putin’s new-look Russia, he tells me!
[Mods – that last sentence is /Sarc. You probably guessed!]
Auto

Reply to  H.R.
November 10, 2014 6:48 pm

Well, voting maybe.

November 10, 2014 2:24 am

Brings a welcome sense of perspective to the phrase “in denial”.

pat
November 10, 2014 2:30 am

this Michael Brune? i’ve bleeped out the naughty word:
7 Nov: Motherjones: Kate Sheppard: How Environmental Groups Are Reacting to Tuesday’s “Miserable F**king Failure”
Climate deniers won big in the midterms. So where do green groups go from here?
Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, was even more blunt in an interview Wednesday morning. First, he recounted some of the ways 2014 was a success…
But when it came to electing a slate of pro-environment candidates, which environmental groups spent an unprecedented amount of money on this year, “on that,” Brune said, “there’s been a miserable f**king failure.”…
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/11/environmental-groups-election-2014-climate

CodeTech
Reply to  pat
November 10, 2014 4:32 am

Couldn’t have happened to a more deserving f**king group, too.
Nice catch pat.
It’s actually very educational for the younger people in my life, as they watch the left’s “throw money” attempts fail one by one, falling to common sense and intelligence. Sadly, they left’s “throw money” tactics work in some circles and for some causes. We really need to be vigilant on the civic and local political front.

Michael C. Roberts
Reply to  CodeTech
November 10, 2014 9:35 am

CodeTech – Your earlier comment along the lines of 1960’s hippies/commies growing up and influencing current events – those are my conclusions as well. Regarding this comment – Be vigilant on how current lefty Washington State governor Jay “I’ll Pass a Carbon Tax on my Watch” Inslee is planning on forcing his will over the entire State (not just those like-thinking souls in the County of King) – Executive Order, anyone? With a modest shift in the State legislature (thanks, Eastern Washington voters!) Jay-man will not be able to forcibly shove a “Carbon (is that black soot – or the gas Carbon Dioxide?) Tax” down the throats of his constituency. I also noticed a shift in the local left-leaning newspaper yesterday. The Opinion section is on a Sunday usually peppered with articles of the left regarding “tackling/fighting/paying for Climate Change” – those were notably absent – except for one glaring article on the Carbon Tax issue. History: In this State back in the early 2000’s (when the “Globull Warming” scam was still in it’s infancy) the voters of this State passed one of those ill-informed, Agenda 21/Sustainabilty goals: “By the year 2020 this State will regress to carbon emission levels of 1990” or some such thing (can’t recall the exact language, but you catch my drift). In yesterday’s article, not only was the author writing that the “Carbon Tax” would serve to lower emissions of that “Evil Carbon”, but it would also serve – and $$ US along the lines of several BILLIONS were bandied about – to “Provide $$ US for another federal mandate to lower State K-12th grade School class sizes”. What’s not to like? It also stated a “Carbon Tax” was inviting because it would “tax polluters” while creating ample revenue for other unfunded mandates. Crazy thinking, what???????? I’ll post that article here soon, a great read……Wake Up, Evergreen State Coast Voters!!.

Michael C. Roberts
Reply to  CodeTech
November 10, 2014 10:02 am

My earlier post is apparently still in moderation. In that missive I promised a link to a referenced article, and here it is for your reading pleasure: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/11/08/3476855/election-fallout-leaves-gov-inslee.html
Should this post pass moderation sooner and be shown prior to the earlier post, my apologies – wonder what I wrote that kicked it over to the moderators?? I try not to create additional work for you guys when I post.. it would be enlightening to know what was said so I may reword or avoid the trigger statements???
[Don’t worry about trying to avoid “key words and trigger phrases” … Everybody gets their turn in the queue. Life happens. Then you – the physical leftovers at least – either get recycled into someone else here on earth, or get shot into space. 8<) .mod]

asybot
Reply to  pat
November 11, 2014 6:39 pm

@ pat one error: There’s been a “Miserable F***ing Failure” Should read : there is been a “Fantastic F***ing Failure!” Oh right Brune said the first sentence, I said the last one!

Jimbo
November 10, 2014 2:31 am

“Despite the climate movement’s significant investments and an unprecedented get-out-the-vote program, strong voices for climate action were defeated, and candidates paid for by corporate interests….”

In the past the Sierra Club wasn’t shy about receiving over $25 million from fossil fuel interests.

Time – 2 Feb, 2012
Exclusive: How the Sierra Club Took Millions From the Natural Gas Industry—and Why They Stopped [UPDATE]
…..TIME has learned that between 2007 and 2010 the Sierra Club accepted over $25 million in donations from the gas industry, mostly from Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy—one of the biggest gas drilling companies in the U.S. and a firm heavily involved in fracking—to help fund the Club’s Beyond Coal campaign. …..

As for losing friends in Congress and gaining supporters in the streets, I hope next time the street people will vote in large enough numbers so Sierra can gain friends in Congress. What a nutter.

Lawrie Ayres
November 10, 2014 2:32 am

The mid term result restored my faith in the common sense of the American people or at least enough of them to win. Still nearly 50% show that they lack common sense and are still dangerous. Same here unfortunately. Conservatives have a very fine margin and are up against a tax and spend opposition. The left love spending other peoples money and a great many love receiving other peoples money so they vote for ——— you get the drift and realise what an uphill battle we must wage.

Brian H
Reply to  Lawrie Ayres
November 10, 2014 8:42 am

It’s a cycle. See the Mise theory of ‘computability’ (?). Socialist economies can’t effectively figure how much of what is needed where and when, so their efforts can’t break even. They make it up by spending the past’s built up resources and capital (OPM – other people’s money). As Thatcher noted, eventually it runs out. Then the prophets of profit regain power for a time, till there’s enough for the freeloaders to try to confiscate once more, and round we go. Rinse and repeat.

Auto
Reply to  Lawrie Ayres
November 10, 2014 1:42 pm

P.J. O’Rourke – I think – quoted, or mis-quoted, [in ‘Parliament of Whores’, a well-thumbed copy of which lives in my ‘Favourites shelf] one of a number of political philosophers – perhaps Tytler, perhaps de Toucqueville, perhaps neither, thus: –
A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.
Does this need to be more widely publicized?
Auto

Andrew N
November 10, 2014 2:34 am

I think I am seeing it more clearly now. The ‘common’ voter only listens to the powerful messages of undemocratic sinister ‘corporate interests.’ If only they listened to the democratically elected and run non government organisations such as the Sierra Club, Greenpeace and WWF. Organisations untainted by the stench of corporate money, run by people that only have the interest of the planet at heart. Organisations who are fully accountable to … Wait, who are they accountable to?

Greg Woods
Reply to  Andrew N
November 10, 2014 2:41 am

Accountable to whom? It is the moral superiority of being accountable to all of humanity.

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  Andrew N
November 10, 2014 6:53 am

Accountable to Tom Steyer

asybot
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
November 11, 2014 6:44 pm

Tom Seyer does nor give a F,,k, He has so much money it does not mean a thing, What these Billionaires are doing is a game much beyond our grasp They buy sport teams , big companies changing hands to them is a game because it is the only thing that provides them with adrenalin and excitement is playing with people lives and countries ( Ala Soros).

Reply to  asybot
November 12, 2014 9:47 am

Slight disagreement. It is not beyond OUR comprehension, just our ability. We do not have billions to play the hypocrite with.

High Treason
November 10, 2014 2:50 am

Maybe people are waking up to the reality that the green movement is too similar to the Nazi movement in terms of ideology and tactics for comfort. Even their lies are done Nazi style- make the lie big, tell it often and people will come to believe in it.

Old England
Reply to  High Treason
November 10, 2014 12:38 pm

Hear Hear. But not just the Nazis take a look at communism. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge also comes to mind, close down all industry and revert to an agrarian economy, and those who don’t agree you simply remove on a permanent basis – 25% of the population were exterminated in that particular case.
Thee are some extremely unhealthy thought ‘processes’ within the climate-activist industry which seem to parallel some of Pol Pot’s thinking. I refer to some of the Warmists who call for the trial and execution of so called ‘deniers’.

Larry in Texas
Reply to  High Treason
November 12, 2014 3:00 am

That’s right. And the Sierra Club has been using hysterical, Goebbels-style propaganda to try to drive their points home. The big lie is one of the worst recent phenomena of American politics, particularly in the Leftist environmental movement.

Peter Miller
November 10, 2014 2:56 am

Such is the logic of climate alarmists and how climate science is practiced today:
Black is white, unless of course it is black, but then it is still white.

Col Mosby
November 10, 2014 2:58 am

Jeeez!! Brune sounds like a refugee from Pravda.

November 10, 2014 2:59 am

Reblogged this on the WeatherAction News Blog and commented:
Wow. This flips from rampant paranoia to denial. Please don’t show them a map of 3year+ ice in the Arctic it might send them over the edge they are desperately clinging to.

Barbara Skolaut
Reply to  craigm350
November 10, 2014 9:58 am

“Please don’t show them a map of 3year+ ice in the Arctic it might send them over the edge they are desperately clinging to.”
Actually, please do.

November 10, 2014 2:59 am

Somewhat a predictable response. The alarmists continue to claim warming even in the face of the fact that none has taken place for over 18 years, so it is only “logical” that a defeat is a “victory”. Additionally, one of the key post-election talking points for the left has been the so-called voter suppression. Refer to the wave of news articles on these suppression claims (with no facts) in the days that followed the drubbing last week.

mpainter
November 10, 2014 3:24 am

The voice from the grave. The “climate change” alarmism is political poison and don’t you know the Democrats have learned that the hard way. The Greens will not recover from this spectacular flop. Let’s see if Brune keeps his job. Fat chance that his “street” friends will be able to help him out.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  mpainter
November 10, 2014 9:56 am

I believe Brune’s wider support in the streets is a prophetic statement about where he and his high living friends are going to end up! Hey if your voter suppression tactics are not as good as your opponents you should resign voluntarily. He better grab up a teller or garbage man job before the 100,000 unemployed climate scientists hit the streets, too.

Jaakko Kateenkorva
November 10, 2014 3:26 am

Oh là là. When confronted with the impending loss of popularity and influence the president of the Sierra Club, Mr Michael Brune, seems to display some anger. In Kübler-Ross scale there are still three more steps to go to reach acceptance. Fortunately he can count at least on me to speed up the process.

William Astley
November 10, 2014 3:38 am

The warmists and the green movement are determined to get out the vote. Their problem is the vote is for sanity rather than green hell. The EU have thoughtfully provided an example of the madness extrapolated, to provide a warning. What are the costs? What are the ‘benefits’?
The question ‘Do you think climate change, also known as global warming is a serious problem?’ is disingenuous as it hides the implications of answering the question in the affirmative. There is a cost to the scam. Triple the cost of energy (first step), massive job losses, and international agreements that force transfer of our taxpayer funds to developing countries to spend on green scams and massive new bureaucracies.
Reword the question including the implications of accepting the implications of the AGW ‘crisis’ and the forced expenditure on green scams and transfer of wealth to the developing countries.
1) Do you support massive expenditures of funds on wind farms, conversion of food to biofuel, and solar farms?
It is a fact that massive expenditures on green scams has made almost no appreciable difference in the rise of atmospheric CO2 and has caused the tripling of the cost of energy in the countries where that policy is mandated. The amount of land required to grow food to convert to biofuel to replace transportation fuel would exceed the total amount of land currently allocated for human agricultural use. The food to biofuel scam will result in mass human starvation if it expanded to replace all transportation fuel. Those allocating the food to biofuel policy have not done a back of the envelop calculation to attempt to quantify the ‘benefits’ and downside of the policy.
2) Do you support mandated world legal agreements that would commit our country to massive expenditures on green scams that do not work? Note the developing countries will be exempt from the mandated green scam expenditures that do not work. Note also that the legal agreements will commit our country to massive transfer of wealth to the developing countries.
As our country has no surplus funds, the green scams and fund transfer to developing countries will require cuts in public spending (education, health care, roads, bridges, and so on.) The cuts in public spending to finance the green scams will result in massive job loss and further deflation.
Alternative question:
Same as above 1 and 2, except there is now observational evidence the planet is cooling rather than a pause in warming, which provides unequivocal proof that the entire AGW theory was incorrect. The majority of the warming in the last 70 years was due to solar magnetic cycle changes. Cutting CO2 emissions will make no difference in climate ‘change’.

Brian H
Reply to  William Astley
November 10, 2014 8:49 am

Speaking of biofuel stupidity, 25% of the US corn crop now generates 2% of fuel used, mandated to rise to 10%. If you think 25% is a problem, try 125%.

johann wundersamer
Reply to  William Astley
November 10, 2014 8:58 am

Yes. 3 times Yes.
Condense it to
3 max. 5 word questions,
3 max. 5 words answeres.
an absolute winner.

johann wundersamer
Reply to  johann wundersamer
November 10, 2014 9:22 am

‘scuse me, of course only Goebbels would do.
From where stems our lack of communication.
Intertwining science with politics.
‘d be really interrested in that topic.
Thx – Hans

johann wundersamer
Reply to  johann wundersamer
November 10, 2014 9:46 am

and the looser is –
POLITICS!
no, not with me.
the rolling stones live on Mick Jagger, Mick Jagger lives on the rolling stones.
nothing simpler than that.

Col Klink
November 10, 2014 3:45 am

How ironic that one of those who claim their opponents are deniers of reality should provide an
almost perfect example of same.

klem
November 10, 2014 3:49 am

Um, wasn’t it the Sierra Club that happily accepted $20 million from an American natural gas company to fight a competitor a couple of years ago?
And at the same time, they were fighting the global natural gas industry.
I’d say the Sierra Club is an expert in sinister tactics, wouldn’t you?

hunter
November 10, 2014 3:55 am

He and the other tailors are working hard to convince their emperor/billionaires that the climate crisis suits they have sold them really are magnificent.

November 10, 2014 3:58 am

Way back in the 70s I belonged to some of the environmental organizations but had to leave when they lost their way. I am still an “environmentalist” if that means cleaning up the water supply, the air, and keeping dangerous chemicals out of everyday products. I believe that wild animals have as much right to be left alone and to have a habitat as do humans. Alas, these “environmental groups” now only do alarmism to keep the funds coming in. They are as much in on the “earth is going to fry” scam as the grant-eating rent-seekers; and that is too bad as many of us support a clean environment.
The DDT fraud and the Freon fraud were examples of bad science before the CO2 will kill us scam.

Brian H
Reply to  markstoval
November 10, 2014 8:54 am

Here’s another: warming and melting and rising oceans. Takes centuries or millennia, and during the previous high water and temp periods both the planet and mankind boomed. What’s not to like?

Jim Francisco
Reply to  markstoval
November 10, 2014 10:25 am

The DDT fraud and the Freon fraud were examples of bad science before the CO2 will kill us scam.
I agree with Mark. These scams, frauds and hoaxes will cause great harm to the true envoirmental problems. If there ever is a real harm coming to the earth that could be averted by a world wide effort, it may not be believed because our scientists and government officials have cried wolf too often.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Jim Francisco
November 11, 2014 4:24 pm

Or, it’ll be believed but quickly taken over by interested parties seeking to take advantange of a “real” catastrophe.

Claudius
November 10, 2014 4:03 am

I got into a knock-down, drag-out with a lady at church one time over this very topic. Environmental impact studies conducted by industry are biased. Proven fact. So using exactly the same logic, enviromental impact studies conducted by the EPA and the Sierra Club and like-minded organizations are not biased how?

Speed
November 10, 2014 4:05 am

From The American Interest …
America’s Biggest Loser
Though many have commented on this already, it is important to note just what a flop Tom Steyer’s massive contributions were to last week’s midterms.
[ … ]
We have said it before and we will ay it again: the chief obstacle to more effective climate policy in the United States isn’t ill-founded climate skepticism. It is well founded policy skepticism. Greens are right that we have a problem, but their policy prescriptions are impractical and poorly grounded. Taken as a whole, the green movement operates on emotion rather than reason, rejecting science when it doesn’t like what science says (on nuclear power and GMOs, for example), and allowing itself to be manipulated by crony capitalists and lobbyists (like the ethanol lobby) who seek to turn public concern over climate into lucrative subsidy regimes for inefficient producers.

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2014/11/09/americas-biggest-loser/

mpainter
November 10, 2014 4:13 am

Brune: “This election marked a pivotal change in how candidates confront the climate crises”
#####
Here, Brune speaks the truth. Now the candidates will be running from the “climate crises”, to save their political tails from oblivion.

Claudius
November 10, 2014 4:15 am

You guys have probably all seen this before. This is the published agenda presumably of the enviromental movement. Nobody knows for sure who erected this monument in Georgia. My guess is that 99.999 percent of the people actually actively involved in the enviromental movement are nothing more than “useful fools.” Anyway, read the manifesto published below, in my humble opinion it explains the mindless, knee-jerk reaction to any human application of technology to any of a myriad of topics, power generation and distribution, agriculture, food production and preservation, material science and development, eg plastics, medical technology and so on. If whatever the topic, the projected outcome contributes to supporting or promoting the human population on planet earth these people will do anything to undermine and stop the effort.
Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.
Unite humanity with a living new language.
Rule passion — faith — tradition — and all things with tempered reason.
Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
Balance personal rights with social duties.
Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite.
Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature.

ferdberple
Reply to  Claudius
November 10, 2014 5:55 am

Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.
=============
eugenics.

LordCaledus
Reply to  Claudius
November 10, 2014 10:25 am

Looks to me like a lot of flowery language being used to describe horrific human rights violations.

mpainter
Reply to  LordCaledus
November 10, 2014 12:10 pm

“Leave room for Nature”
######
Who is to be the chooser of those who have to “leave room” and those who get a private jet and a palace overlooking the sea?

Reply to  Claudius
November 10, 2014 11:16 am

You forgot to as “as long as they agree with me.” to just about everything on the list. Nature is great to them, except when it isn’t. Remember AlGore getting the TVA to release enough water so he could kayak?

PRD
November 10, 2014 4:18 am

The far left should run him for president. He sounds just like our current White House occupier did in his concession speech. Utter denial of the truth in statements such that he “hears the other 2/3rds” of Americans and the outcome will not change the direction of his policies. Petulant little twits they are.

ferdberple
Reply to  PRD
November 10, 2014 6:16 am

It was Richard Nixon that coined the phrase “Silent Majority”. Barry O is in good company.

Jtom
Reply to  ferdberple
November 10, 2014 8:26 am

Nixon’s silent majority were voters, and they silently and overwhelmingly voted for his re-election, while demonstrators protested loudly in the streets.
In no way is Barry O like Nixon, or in his company.

CodeTech
November 10, 2014 4:27 am

I don’t live on “the streets”. I live in a house on a lake. I work in an office in an industrial area. My only contact with “streets” is when my tires roll over them. I don’t talk to people on “the streets”, unless they’re police officers and they need to assist me in a detour or something.
In my youth, I also believed in the “revolution” and all of it. But I grew up. I know that if any street rabble were to accomplish a “revolution” it would quickly be taken over by their masters, who would simply be a different group of opportunists and corrupt officials from the ones currently duly elected. From experience I know “better the devil you know”, so I’ll stick with trying to improve things through currently approved channels.
By the way, “improving things” means getting rid of the opportunistic scum suckers like Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and others that accomplish nothing useful and are simply fronts for communist groups left over from 60s-era anti-Vietnam hippies.

Mary Kay Barton
November 10, 2014 4:31 am

Brune’s denial sounds just like Obama’s denial of reality, “I also heard the 2/3 who didn’t vote.”

ferdberple
Reply to  Mary Kay Barton
November 10, 2014 6:05 am

Put “throw the bums in jail” on the ballot and see what happens. Give the voters a real choice and they will vote.

Hoser
November 10, 2014 4:34 am

The dirty little secret is they are selfish and in it for the money. They can’t be seen by supporters and failing in any meaningful way. If they keep up the bravado, the dollars will keep coming, at least temporarily. Headlines matter. Sticking to the party line matters. Retractions, if any, are buried. It’s always political, not scientific, no matter how the arguments are dressed up.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Hoser
November 10, 2014 5:13 am

It’s no secret at all.

CodeTech
November 10, 2014 4:37 am

Already 50 comments, and no mention of this?
http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/

Harold
Reply to  CodeTech
November 10, 2014 6:54 am

Baghdad Brune.

Harold
Reply to  CodeTech
November 10, 2014 6:56 am

This is actually pretty ripe for a “downfall” video.

DC Cowboy
Editor
November 10, 2014 4:43 am

“I see no Americans in Baghdad” 😉
Sounds much like the early WWII Soviet news releases about ‘defeating’ the German invasion. “The German Facist armies were defeated at city A and are retreating in confusion towards city B only city B was 30 miles closer to Moscow than City A.

ferdberple
Reply to  DC Cowboy
November 10, 2014 6:09 am

our armies are advancing swiftly to the rear.

November 10, 2014 5:03 am

They cry racism, as the first black Senator is elected in the South – a Republican (the first black senator ever – post reconstruction – was also a republican). They cry racism, when the first black woman of Haitian descent is elected as a Republican. The cries of racism are becoming expected and ignored because of the “cry wolf” syndrome.
So they switch. To voter suppression. They cry it, but when investigated, the only incidents that can be found are democrat voter suppression (the Military in 00 in Fla, the Electronic machines in 12 & 14 that flip to democrat, the Black Panthers in 08, the illegals not only registered to vote, but encouraged to vote by democrats in 14). In time, this will become the same as the cries of racism. So we will watch to see the next cries from the left on why they are losing. As the party of victimization, they can NEVER admit that perhaps people just do not like their message. Because they cannot imagine they may be wrong! IN their minds, they are the only perfect Human Beings. Always right, never wrong.

Leon Brozyna
November 10, 2014 5:10 am

Mr. Brune isn’t the only poor soul who was suffering from denial.
The media was in such denial that they didn’t cover the stories that hinted at the drubbing the Dems experienced until they could no longer keep from covering the elections.
Their solution? Cover Ebola … it lends itself to video with hazmat suits (what? No stories about flu deaths? Not as exciting.) And now that the elections are over, Ebola stories have dropped to mere footnotes. Was it a vast conspiracy? Nah … people are too stupid to work a good conspiracy, despite the best efforts of Hollywood scriptwriters.

LogosWrench
November 10, 2014 5:14 am

Also Mr. Brune don’t forget to don your tinfoil hat so Monsanto and the Koch brothers can’t read your mind. Good grief. What a knob.

Tom in Florida
November 10, 2014 5:26 am

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias where unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude.
————————————————————————————————————————-
Et tu, Brune?

ferdberple
Reply to  Tom in Florida
November 10, 2014 6:11 am

too stupid to even realize they are stupid.

PaulH
November 10, 2014 5:34 am

So are these “sinister voter suppression tactics” another excuse for The Pause? 😉

Ralph Kramden
November 10, 2014 5:42 am

Public support is solidly behind action to tackle the climate crisis. While we have lost friends in Congress, we are gaining them in the streets, as our movement grows stronger and broader
I think you would have to be a special kind of stupid to believe that.

Editor
November 10, 2014 5:44 am

Nice to see him back on track. His first draft started with “Now is the winter of our discontent.”
From the weather reports and forecasts, he may well be discontented this winter.

Admad
November 10, 2014 5:48 am

“… candidates paid for by corporate interests and bolstered by sinister voter suppression tactics…”
Evidence please. [tumbleweed]

MarkW
November 10, 2014 5:49 am

Every poll that I’ve seen in recent years has shown support for the CAGW position has fallen.
Support for radical solutions has fallen even faster.

BarryW
November 10, 2014 5:50 am

Bagdad Bob found a new job with the Sierra Club?

November 10, 2014 5:56 am

This might help some understand why Brune is so desperately trying to apply more lipstick to this particular pig:
(figures from 2008)
Deborah Sorondo COO $235,414
Carl Pope Executive Chairman (2010) $202,689
Michael Brune Executive Director (2010) not yet reported
Louis Barnes CFO $184,737
Bruce Hamilton Deputy Exec Director $171,659
David Simon Director Info & Communication $164,257
Gregory Haegele Dir of Conservation $157,448
Note that while “not yet reported”…his comp was expected to be between $184k and $202k, IN 2008.
These people are all in Sales. And to maintain their lucrative positions and benefits, they need to sell, period.

ferdberple
Reply to  jimmaine
November 10, 2014 6:27 am

Dodgy Geezer
November 10, 2014 5:59 am

We can think of no reason why people didn’t vote for us, so it must have been ‘sinister voter suppression’.
Where have I heard that excuse before? Possibly other memes from the same background could be used?
– 97% of voters were on our side
– We have only 4 years to prevent political meltdown
– By (insert any date here) the last pair of Republicans will be sitting on a melting ice flow in the Antarctic
– All Republican states will face a mixture of droughts, floods snow and heatwaves in the next (insert any figure here) years
– Children in the next (insert any figure here) years will never have seen a Republican voter.

Jimbo
November 10, 2014 6:03 am

This coming week two thirds of the US will get a taste of global warming. It will remind voters why they should get their priorities right and ‘tackle’ climate change as soon as possible.

NBC News – 9 November 2014
Polar Invasion: U.S. Braces for Freezing Temperatures, Heavy Snow

Reply to  Jimbo
November 10, 2014 6:13 am

One of the reasons I moved to Fl 🙂

stewart pid
Reply to  jimmaine
November 10, 2014 7:59 am

I hear the skiing sucks in Florida … is it true?

Reply to  stewart pid
November 10, 2014 10:37 am

Even if the interglacial ends, it will still suck in Fla. I hear the highest point is less than 350 feet. I guess they can do cross country. 😉

ferdberple
Reply to  Jimbo
November 10, 2014 6:32 am

A massive storm packing arctic air moved eastward Sunday, promising a deep chill for two-thirds of the U.S. and heavy snow from Montana to Michigan, according to meteorologists.
===========
payback for the two-thirds of voters Barry was listening to. a heavy dose of global warming.

Man Bearpig
November 10, 2014 6:10 am

One day the Sierra club will have to come to with their denial of the real world.

Reply to  Man Bearpig
November 10, 2014 6:15 am

Unfortunately…no, they wont’. There’s no accountability in any of this. Look at the number of predictions that have been complete failures, yet those same people are still predicting away, and there are people that anxiously await each and every new prediction.
For some reason, people don’t have enough sense to say “Hey…STFU. You’re an idiot, and you’ve proven it beyond doubt.”

wws
Reply to  jimmaine
November 10, 2014 6:35 am

They have COMPLETELY become a religious cult. For cults, the fact that they are despised and mocked by the mainstream becomes proof of their Inner Moral Courage.
And “evidence” which shows that they are wrong is just Gaia testing them, to see if they are truly worthy of salvation.
By the way – they aren’t losing support in Congress, they are becoming MORE SELECTIVE in who they will associate themselves with!!!
(hat tip to Spinal Tap!)

Mickey Reno
November 10, 2014 6:41 am

Worrall first developed this theory during the physical act of love. A profound sense of fatigue… a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily, he’s been able to interpret these feelings correctly.
/sarc

Mark from the Midwest
November 10, 2014 6:44 am

Due to legalization of pot in Colorado many traditional democrat voters were too stoned to follow the election or to make it to the poles. By investing heavily and promoting the businesses that manufacture and distribute pot in the state many, traditionally Republican, small business owners saw a rare, and sinister, opportunity to suppress the Democrats voting rights..
Subsequently, Cory Gardner defeated Bozo Udall, (although it seems Udall has shifted from hugging trees to hugging female reproductive organs, so maybe the Greens had already lost him).

Leon Brozyna
November 10, 2014 6:53 am

Still in moderation??
Okay … I’ll change the dreaded “d”-word
… … …
Mr. Brune isn’t the only poor soul who was suffering from {d*****} refusing to face reality.
The media was in such {d*****} a state that they didn’t cover the stories that hinted at the drubbing the Dems experienced until they could no longer keep from covering the elections.
Their solution? Cover Ebola … it lends itself to video with hazmat suits (what? No stories about flu deaths? Not as exciting.) And now that the elections are over, Ebola stories have dropped to mere footnotes. Was it a vast conspiracy? Nah … people are too stupid to work a good conspiracy, despite the best efforts of Hollywood scriptwriters.

Joe Crawford
November 10, 2014 7:04 am

Rationalization – a defense mechanism in which controversial behaviors or feelings are justified and explained in a seemingly rational or logical manner to avoid the true explanation.

November 10, 2014 7:07 am

“HELP HELP! I’m being suppressed – I forgot to vote!” R-iiiiiight.

Sasha
November 10, 2014 7:10 am

THE UGLY TRUTHS ABOUT THE SIERRA CLUB
The Sierra Club may not have the aroma of a Klan rally, with burning crosses and white hoods. In fact, it’s something much more sinister and dangerous, a middle-class do-gooder movement with good public credentials paddling in the most polluted waters of American political life.
The immigrant-bashing within the Sierra Club is scarcely surprising. Board member David Foreman, shared with that son of the desert the late Edward Abbey a horror of immigration. In all such apocalyptic hysteria, there is not even the semblance of rational discussion of any relation between environmental degradation and demographic shifts. How come, for example, the US population has almost quadrupled since 1900, yet there is more land under forest cover today than at any time since the turn of the century? Is it immigrant Hispanics or corporate looters who now strip the Northwest forests? It’s not Mexicans cutting the Sierra Madre forest south of the border but Boise Cascade, an outfit from that bastion of white supremacy, Idaho.
One of the dirty semi-secrets of American environmentalism has been its century-long obsession with population control and racial eugenics. Today the obsession is as alive and malign as ever. The Sierra Club, which advertises itself as the nation’s most progressive and high-minded environmental group, has committed itself to public advocacy of severe restrictions on immigration, a 1997 initiative put up by Sierra Club board member Dave Foreman, Anne Ehrlich and former Sierra Club executive director John Tanton, who now heads the Federation for American Immigration Reform.
For years, there’s been a powerful faction amid the club’s half million-or-so members equating environmental decline with population pressure. The club has fanned such views with its own propaganda. It was the Sierra Club that published in 1968 the classic modern expression of Malthusian dementia, Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb where every wild fantasy about the evil consequences of over-breeding was given full rein.
Under the sponsorship of the Sierra Club, Ehrlich advocated measures of economic coercion against people having children. He urged cutbacks on government programs of “death control” (i.e., public health). He flirted with the idea of placing sterilizing agents in municipal water supplies and advocated punitive taxes on such items as cribs, diapers and diaper services. He also favored making foreign aid conditional on population control through that cherished creature of both the CIA and the environmental movement, the US Agency for International Development. He advised the sterilizing of all Third World fathers of three children.
In all this, Ehrlich was solidly within Sierra Club traditions as well as in agreement with Garrett Hardin, another hero of the enviro-Malthusian, whose mantra has been “The freedom to breed will bring ruin to all.” In 1949, Hardin noted in his hair-raising text book Biology: Its Human Implications that “Either there must be a relatively painless weeding out before birth, or a more painful and wasteful elimination of individuals after birth.”
Almost 30 years before Hardin wrote those words, the nation’s pre-eminent naturalist Henry Fairfield Osborne, a friend of Sierra Club founder John Muir, brought the second international Congress of Eugenics to New York, where promoters of the bogus science included the Rockefellers, the Fords and the Mellons. At this gathering, Osborne urged the erection of an immigration quota system and unveiled his belief that “the modern eugenics movement” would be the appropriate vehicle for advancing the conservation ethic.
Madison Grant, another intimate of Osborne and Muir, president of the Boone and Crockett Club and a leader of the Save the Redwoods League, spoke of “the immigrant tide of southern Europeans, Italians and Jews” as leading to a “racial abyss” that would ultimately destroy homegrown American values as well as the American wilderness. In the same spirit, William Hornaday, director of the New York Zoological Society, spoke of “members of the lower classes of southern Europe” as being “a dangerous menace to wildlife.”
The Nazis followed such pronouncements with keen approval, pored over Grant’s racist threnody “The Passing of the Great Race” (published in Germany in 1925) and used the 1924 US immigration law as a model for their own efforts in the promotion of racial purity. Dr. Gustav Boeters, a leading German eugenicist, declared in 1926 that “what we racial hygienists promote is by no means new or unheard of. In a cultured nation of the first order — the United States of America — that which we strive towards was introduced and tested long ago. It is all so clear and simple.”
****
In the July-August 2005 issue of Sierra Magazine was an article entitled, The Common Good by Jonathan Rowe of the Tomales Bay Institute(http://vault.sierraclub.org/sierra/200507/commongood.asp) The title sounds interesting, but it is little more than a shoddy, poorly-reasoned polemic against the field of economics and the “market-system.” It contains many glaring mischaracterizations of economics and amazingly, in a bizarre feat of circular logic, the author cites methods developed and implemented by economists over many decades as potential solutions to environmental problems that supposedly are beyond the scope of economics. At the same time, the author continually fails to adequately define his terms or offer persuasive evidence to support his grandiose claims. In short, this article appeared anomalous in a magazine that (despite many legitimate polemics against Bush Administration policies) had stayed clear of knee-jerk liberalism and the dubious ideological prescriptions that accompany it.
I have a hatred for people and organizations that criticize economics without having a solid grasp of what it is they are criticizing, and who believe that simply pointing out that there are serious environmental problems in the world and that the world is partly governed by markets is de facto evidence that markets are to blame (i.e. weak correlation is not proof of causation). Whereas this form of naiveté is commonplace amongst some of the more wide-eyed students I come across (i.e. me when I was younger), there is really no excuse for one of the country’s preeminent environmental organizations to be publishing, and thereby sanctioning, such intellectual sophistry.
We are living at a time when there is a strong backlash against environmentalism and pieces like, The Common Good do little more than add fuel to the fire. The majority of Americans are generally supportive of environmental causes, but become wary when environmentalists spend an exorbitant amount of time criticizing the capitalist economic system that has propelled America to such prominence and virtually unparalleled material well-being. While everyone understands that some spheres of life should not be subject entirely to market forces, using overly broad and ill-defined notions of what constitutes the “commons” is more likely to convince people that environmentalists are leftover communists than to draw rightful attention to the many serious problems plaguing open-access resources (it’s also simply sloppy thinking). In addition, with conservatives in charge of all the branches of the Federal Government rallying against the “encroachment of the market system” is clearly not a winning strategy.
Unfortunately, Mr. Rowe and the Sierra Club don’t seem to get it. Charges that economists are largely ignorant and that the “market” is some sort of monster preparing to destroy every last thing on Earth may stoke people’s passions and provide fodder for those who continue to romanticize life in pre-capitalist societies, but it does more harm than good since it obscures rather than clarifies the key causes of environmental degradation.
What is especially frustrating about the perspectives voiced in The Common Good is that free-market principles are actually one of the environment’s greatest allies. Many environmental groups now understand this and recognize that it is actually the absence of markets, or policies that distort them, that are at the root of most environmental degradation (see the speeches by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on this subject).
In the September/October 2005 issue the Sierra Magazine ran a piece highly critical of corporations. While there is much to criticize and dislike about aspects of corporate behavior, this piece also was skewed given that corporations provide so much good for society, including quality goods and services and most of the country’s employment. In one bizarre sentence the author quotes someone who suggests that we enact laws that prohibit all pollution; yes, zero pollution allowed in society! Nonsensical corporate-bashing seemed like another emotional freebie that Sierra just couldn’t resist cashing in on.
I urge members to shift their resources away from the Sierra Club to other environmental organizations that have a healthy respect for the power of markets, such as Environmental Defense, The Nature Conservancy, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. This is one of the beauties of the market; you can let your money do to the talking. And you can rest assured people will listen.
****
SOME OF THE SIERRA CLUB’S DIRTY SECRETS
The Sierra Club has evolved from being a nonpartisan defender of US land, water and wildlife to being left-wing globalists in plaid shirts and hiking boots, crippled by a failed ideology of progressive utopianism and a leadership increasingly corrupted by money and power. The sierra club, WWF, GREENPEACE, they all push regulation as the “cure” to our ills, while picking up corporate sponsorship. It’s no coincidence that Waste Management and the sierra club so often lobby together.
The Sierra Club wants to move the clock of history back to the times when wind, sun, and human and animal work were the only direct sources of energy for human endeavor. Since at present time there is no known and tested way of turning the American economy onto wind-and-solar powered, if Sierra Club prevails in its demands then the economy will be ruined and most Americans will have to rely on heavy work to survive, just like their distant ancestors. And yet Sierra Club calls it “progress.” How absurd!
The Sierra Club favors an expanded nanny state to cope with rapidly expanding population and its effects. But, as author Isaac Asimov remarked, “Democracy cannot survive overpopulation… The more people there are the less one individual matters.”
Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope bragged on his blog about his trip to India which included dispensing a cash prize — a new annual award of $100,000 to be given to an Indian organization creating green livelihoods. The Sierra Club is developing its own foreign policy. Pope spread money around like some Chicago ward politician looking for votes and influence.
Actions from the Sierra Club’s home office show a disturbing uptick in Pope’s pursuit of power by suppressing democracy within the organization. The Sierra Club has a membership of 1.3 million. Most are not engaged in its internal politics. They participate in the organization’s many activities, ranging from hikes and local habitat restoration to political action. The Arizona Chapter has people getting active on right-of-way laws, the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, and many extremely boring legislative issues, but nothing at all about the biggest threat to Arizona’s environment.
There is a yearly Board election where one-third of the 15 Directors are chosen. It has been a point of pride that the Sierra Club is a rare non-profit organization that has some degree of membership influence—at least on paper. But even that pretense of democracy is increasingly battered. In 1999 Sierra management sought to make referendums more difficult by more than doubling the number of petition signatures required to place an issue before the membership in the annual elections. The effort followed a bitterly fought ballot initiative in 1998 around the idea that immoderate immigration poses an environmental threat to the United States. (But the proposed changes to bylaws that would have lessened democracy went down to defeat.)
Pope and his management cronies moved to consolidate power in several instances. Even establishment types were horrified at Pope’s arrogance, according to one member:
Project Renewal was launched in February to replace local committees with management-chosen activists who are presumably good at doing what they’re told. Such a basic restructure of power violates the whole foundation upon which many hard-working volunteers have participated for years. 26 chapters voted against Project Renewal.
In 2007 the Sierra Club joined with Pacific Gas and Electric (which supplies power to much of northern California) to distribute compact fluorescent light bulbs. PG&E’s motive was to look good to California regulators, who will pay it a bonus if it cuts consumer energy consumption. The bulbs do save energy, but disposing of old ones is environmentally problematic because of their mercury content. Again, the national leadership took this action on its own with no input from local chapters.
The Sierra Club agreed to endorse Clorox’s new Green Works cleaning products — for an undisclosed sum. This is the first product endorsement ever in the Club’s history. Executive Director Pope was quoted defended his decision in the New York Times [Clorox Courts Sierra Club, and a Product Is Endorsed , by Felicity Barringer, March 26, 2008]:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/business/businessspecial2/26cleanser.html?_r=0
” ‘I won’t pretend it’s not internally controversial; it is. But we decided it was more important to try to create this marketplace’ than to keep the peace. The major task, he said, was ensuring that the products’ ingredients met the Sierra Club’s requirements for being called ‘natural’, a term that has no federally approved definition when it comes to cleaning products.”
There is big money for product endorsements in today’s green marketplace. The Audubon Society signed a deal with Toyota worth $20 million to “fund conservation projects.”
In 2005 there was an LA Times story explaining the reason for Carl Pope’s surprisingly shrill response beginning with the 1998 Club election where mass immigration considered by the membership. It said in part: “[Hedge fund entrepreneur] David Gelbaum insisted that he played no role in the election. He dismissed allegations that he is calling the shots at the club in any other way. “‘None of that is true,” he said. ‘I’m not some Svengali. I’m not that engaged.’ “But he said Pope long had known where he stood on the contentious issue. ‘I did tell Carl Pope in 1994 or 1995 that if they ever came out anti-immigration, they would never get a dollar from me.’
“Gelbaum, who reads the Spanish-language newspaper La Opinión and is married to a Mexican American, said his views on immigration were shaped long ago by his grandfather, Abraham, a watchmaker who had come to America to escape persecution of Jews in Ukraine before World War I.
“‘I cannot support an organization that is anti-immigration. It would dishonor the memory of my grandparents.’ “[The Man Behind the Land, By Kenneth R. Weiss, Los Angeles Times, Oct 27, 2004]
After putting the atavistic anti-American impulses of a wealthy plutocrat above America’s environment, the Sierra Club received over $100 million from him. To protect the secret as they pursued more money, Pope and his henchmen accused insurgents of being racists for advocating the same position that had been the Club’s official policy in 1989: “Immigration to the U.S. should be no greater than that which will permit achievement of population stabilization in the US.”
So the Clorox arrangement had its precedent. What’s the big deal about a little product endorsement when Sierra management has already demonstrated it can be bought? The Clorox deal did cause an uproar within the Sierra Club. The controversy was apparently responsible for the scandalous suspension of the entire Florida chapter: “The biggest environmental group in the US has expelled the leaders of its Florida chapter weeks after the local activists accused the group’s directors of selling out in a corporate endorsement deal with a bleach manufacturer Sierra will receive a portion of the sales from the new Clorox products, called Green Works and made from mostly plant-based ingredients. However, Clorox has a history of being hit with environmental violations for its less green products – in December, just before Sierra agreed to its endorsement, the company was fined $95,000 by the US government for donating illegal Chinese pesticides to charity…”[US environmental group expels Florida chapter amid endorsement row, By Elana Schor, the Guardian, UK, April 7 2008.]
What a tawdry spectacle it was to see a once-honorable organization selling the good name that took a century to build. And it gets worse: “In addition, the Sierra executive director sent a letter to activists saying the Green Works cleaners ‘have been vetted by’ the group’s Toxics committee, suggesting official approval was given. However, Jessica Frohman, who chairs the Toxics committee, said it did not officially sign off on the products. ‘I don’t want people to think we approved this when we did not,’ she said. After the Floridians’ removal, leaders of other state Sierra chapters got a letter from national president Robert Cox warning them not to ‘seek public media coverage’ of the fight using the group’s name.”
The Scots immigrant John Muir founded the Sierra Club in 1892 with other friends of wilderness “to make the mountains glad.” Sadly, today’s Sierra Club is welcoming foreigners who have no such love of nature, but show their disdain for America and its natural heritage by despoiling the border areas with piles of garbage as they enter illegally from California to Texas. John Muir would be disgusted by what the Sierra Club has become.

G. Karst
November 10, 2014 7:36 am

When one shoots themselves in the foot, multiple times… it rarely helps to place one’s foot entirely into one’s mouth. GK

November 10, 2014 8:10 am

I hope the Sierra Club is as “successful” during the 2016 elections as they were during last weeks.

BFL
November 10, 2014 8:14 am

Well there are a few methods of voter suppression historically (and has been covered extensively news wise). See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression#United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_caging
Both sides have used Gerrymandering but the Republicans may be getting the upper hand:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/08/14/2465761/texas-brags-to-court-that-it-gerrymandered-to-increase-the-republican-partys-electoral-prospects/
And (for those who bothered to pay attention) the Florida presidentials were pretty scandalous:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Central_Voter_File
And the Ohio presidential was “somewhat” irregular:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_election_voting_controversies
But….MY favorite president was of course George W. Bush as I sincerely like comedians (it seems that the Democrats just WON’T vote for them):
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm
A couple of favorites:
“I’ll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office.”
“Let me start off by saying that in 2000 I said, ‘Vote for me. I’m an agent of change.’ In 2004, I said, ‘I’m not interested in change –I want to continue as president.’ Every candidate has got to say ‘change.’ That’s what the American people expect.”
Of course, much like college or NFL football, as long as my side wins, why should I care how much they cheat or steal or do drugs or………..

hunter
Reply to  BFL
November 10, 2014 8:33 am

>yawn<, another whiney dem repeating the deocrat lie about Florida, when all that happened was the dems were prevented from controlling the recount and stealing the election. Like they have done in Texas, Illinois, Washington and Minnessota. Cry me a river.
The only clown elected lately to the Oval Office is the choom gang leader sitting their now.

BFL
Reply to  hunter
November 10, 2014 8:44 am

NOT a whiny Dem, an Independent actually, just pointing out that, these days, it really doesn’t matter which political side you get as they both have major deficiencies. Do try to concentrate on not seeing everything in black/white.

Jtom
Reply to  BFL
November 10, 2014 8:58 am

Well, first, let me point out that Wiki is a very poor source of unbiased information. I suggest you look into Lyndon Johnson’s election to the Senate, and Kennedy’s presidential election, to see some egregious voter fraud in the lifetimes of many of us (many more examples before any of us were born).
If you like comedians, I’m surprised that you don’t give Biden the credit he deserves, but Bush was easily eclipsed by Dan Quayle. Fortunately for the US, Bush stayed healthy throughout his term.
I would like to know how Republicans managed to suppress enough votes in Maryland, Mass, and Illinois to elect Republican governors – you can’t gerrymander elections for US Senate, Governor, and other statewide offices.
Lastly, both houses of West Virginia’s state government has been blue for eighty years. Both were turned red last week. It’s hard to maintain that those in office suppressed their own voters.

BFL
Reply to  Jtom
November 10, 2014 10:58 am

Wikipedia doesn’t appear that inaccurate, except on things like climate. But yeah, as I pointed out, I don’t take up for either side, as in the last few decades the middle class hasn’t done so well and the people on the bottom have been just, well, screwed. But I guess, in the vein of “Ignorance is Bliss”, the young don’t know (or care) enough about recent history to realize this (as Einstein says all is “relative”).
However their aren’t that many “Bidenism’s” or “Obamaisms”, as Bush set the all time record based on the sheer number of them (amazing how the “opposite” side would have been had so much fun IF that had occurred). I also think, that based on the general public’s rating of congress that most agree with me (between 7 & 14% approve depending on poll, so low that one could treat those as outliers).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance
http://www.gallup.com/poll/175676/congress-approval-sits-two-months-elections.aspx
Again, the problem is always the tendency to mentally pick a side or a winning team and think strictly black/white.

PMHinSC
November 10, 2014 8:26 am

I would be careful about dismissing any organization with a $100M budget:
http://www.sierraclubfoundation.org/sites/sierraclubfoundation.org/files/TSCF-Annual-Report-2013.pdf

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  PMHinSC
November 10, 2014 1:10 pm

That’s less than 33 cents per person, at that rate they can’t even bribe us with Snickers Bars

garymount
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
November 10, 2014 3:26 pm

They couldn’t even bribe me with the full $100M.

hunter
November 10, 2014 8:30 am

Tom Steyer and his billionaire pals were the victims in this election. Mr. Steyer was sold the idea that he could buy the election if he funded climate extremist messages. He was ripped off by Greenpeace, Sierra Club, WWF, etc. as thoroughly as the Emperor in the “Emperor’s New Clothes”.
My sympaty is tempered by the fact that he is a willing victim.

November 10, 2014 9:18 am

Alarmists belong to a small fringe group. If they actually were they majority that they think they are then they would have no problem in getting elected. But the general population have never properly voted for warmist policies; that’s why they have to be imposed by SUBTERFUGE.
– See how people vote with their wallets, given a choice few people signup to more expensive green energy.
– Please warmists .reconsider you position check your fact and come over to the majority.

Billy Liar
November 10, 2014 9:35 am

Of course the Sierra Club are getting more friends on the street: their ‘friends in Congress’ who lost their jobs are now on the streets!

old fella
November 10, 2014 9:37 am

Can we see Michael Brune’s total income, his sources of income?

Proud Skeptic
Reply to  old fella
November 11, 2014 10:38 am

His salary is just north of $200,000…a nice level, but nothing ridiculous. Not quite in the one percent but close. The head of World Wildlife Foundation makes in the mid $400,000’s. I can’t find Greenpeace but I think I recall that ten years ago, the head made in the mid 300’s.
I suppose they can make money through speaking engagements, too.
I am reluctant to criticize people for their salaries. These are big organizations with big budgets. They need to attract capable people and that takes money.

Resourceguy
November 10, 2014 9:55 am

Know thy radical activist enemy by their threats and rants. Their own fanatical claims need to get more publicity to wake up more people on who the speechwriters have been for the WH in the last few years.

November 10, 2014 10:13 am

What he has is called CDSD
– Cognitive
– Dissonance
– Stress
– Disorder

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  theost168
November 10, 2014 3:25 pm

Sounds like a good excuse to call off tomorrow.

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  theost168
November 10, 2014 3:28 pm

Bet he could get a doctor’s excuse.

Oatley
November 10, 2014 10:26 am

Uh, I think the Dems outspent the R’s this election.
Lots of D’s no longer drinking the Kool Aid.

Bruce Cobb
November 10, 2014 10:53 am

Public support is solidly behind action to tackle the climate crisis.

What’s he smoking? Opinion polls all say otherwise, as did the election results.

Nigel S
November 10, 2014 12:00 pm

Some plain speaking needed as on this occasion.
Waterloo 20 June 1815
Jardin Ainé, Equerry to the Emperor Napoleon
At last after he had left the town, he found in a little meadow on the right a small bivouac fire made by some soldiers. He stopped by it to warm himself and said to General Corbineau,
“Et bien Monsieur, we have done a fine thing.”
General Corbineau saluted him and replied,
“Sire, it is the utter ruin of France.”

Langenbahn
November 10, 2014 12:40 pm

I wish them many more such victories.

Dawtgtomis
November 10, 2014 3:06 pm

Just pains me that organizations I used to respect and trust have become part of the idiocy… I’d rather leave my great-grandchildren the legacy of a warmer, CO2 rich world than one that’s been bankrupted in pursuit of something that turned out to be untrue.

Bob in Castlemaine
November 10, 2014 3:50 pm

The self-deception that believes the lie – but never fear it’s just a flesh wound.

Proud Skeptic
November 11, 2014 9:56 am

OK, I get that he has to show a brave face after the Democrat’s big defeat. Fine…I would expect nothing else.
Obviously the part that makes me shake my head is “and candidates paid for by corporate interests and bolstered by sinister voter suppression tactics won the day” Yes, this has been said many times before. And, yes, it is even funnier now than it was last year and the year before…as if the politicians that support the climate change movement are somehow immune to all of the nasty things that political flesh is heir to (to paraphrase Shakespeare).
In reflecting upon the election, I think the biggest lesson for the Democrats is that they have exhausted their base. Actually, their hyperbole has driven many of their supporters away (or at least made them stay home). For example, by trying to motivate women they drove away men. Assuming I am right, then the Sierra Club has problems, too. This kind of talk does nothing to expand their base…a base that can only be expanded by convincing new people to sign up for their philosophy.
Good lesson for us all.

November 11, 2014 10:11 am

I would not mock this man until you see what he makes.
He is rich from spouting this stuff. We should be so lucky.

Proud Skeptic
Reply to  Joel Hammer
November 11, 2014 10:24 am

True that.

K-Bob
November 11, 2014 12:59 pm

These sorts of claims about the election being “good” news for Democrats (or at least, the leftist Democrats – BIRM) are all based on the ability to project the essence of “goodness” onto the hard reality that second place is actually, “First Place Loser.”
barack has attempted the same thing by claiming indirectly that his mandate is now from all of those who did not vote. Which logically includes those prevented by law from voting and those who are geographically-challenged, i.e. by living in another country. By extension, this would also mean his mandate comes from the rest of the universe, on all the uncounted worlds, from all life-forms (sentient or not).
The Celestial Mandate. It’s not just for emperors anymore.

bonanzapilot
November 11, 2014 1:16 pm

There is a saying in Banana Republics, “Lose the streets and you lose everything.” What’s interesting is if you look at the history of overturned regimes, their leaders continue to say “the people are with me” right up to the point when they are forced to flee the country.

MCourtney
Reply to  bonanzapilot
November 11, 2014 1:26 pm

The implication is that Banana Republics are more democratic than those that change government by elections. Hmm.
But elections mean the failed leader doesn’t have to flee the country – so they never need to get so desperate as to do the wicked when the going gets tough.
Good insight though. It helps to think about why democracy is good. It isn’t because it is accountable to the people. In the end, every government is accountable to the people.
The people produce the power.

bonanzapilot
Reply to  MCourtney
November 11, 2014 3:48 pm

Most BR’s do have elections, but the same person or family always wins by wide margins. 😉

bonanzapilot
Reply to  MCourtney
November 11, 2014 3:52 pm

Until the streets are lost…..

Reply to  MCourtney
November 12, 2014 4:44 am

Some times they never make it out of the country – like Ghaddfy.

Proud Skeptic
Reply to  bonanzapilot
November 11, 2014 4:37 pm

“Lose the streets and you lose everything”
Here in the US we say “lose the streets and you will never be able to get to the grocery store”. We are more pragmatic as a people.

John L.
November 11, 2014 9:12 pm

“Bravo” Sierra indeed. ” Who the gods would destroy, they first make mad”.
About time too.

Vern Moore
November 12, 2014 9:53 am

I smell a GRUBERISM being hoisted upon us. They want us to believe the big lie that they did just fine.

Andrew30
November 12, 2014 12:58 pm

“sinister voter suppression tactics”?
Is Obama left handed?

%d bloggers like this: