“… 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.
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.
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’.
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%.
Yes. 3 times Yes.
Condense it to
3 max. 5 word questions,
3 max. 5 words answeres.
an absolute winner.
‘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
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.
How ironic that one of those who claim their opponents are deniers of reality should provide an
almost perfect example of same.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Or, it’ll be believed but quickly taken over by interested parties seeking to take advantange of a “real” catastrophe.
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?
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/
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.
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.
Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.
=============
eugenics.
Looks to me like a lot of flowery language being used to describe horrific human rights violations.
“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?
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?
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.
It was Richard Nixon that coined the phrase “Silent Majority”. Barry O is in good company.
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.
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.
Brune’s denial sounds just like Obama’s denial of reality, “I also heard the 2/3 who didn’t vote.”
Put “throw the bums in jail” on the ballot and see what happens. Give the voters a real choice and they will vote.
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.
It’s no secret at all.
Already 50 comments, and no mention of this?
http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/
Baghdad Brune.
This is actually pretty ripe for a “downfall” video.
“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.
our armies are advancing swiftly to the rear.
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.
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.
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.
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?
too stupid to even realize they are stupid.
So are these “sinister voter suppression tactics” another excuse for The Pause? 😉
“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.
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.
“… candidates paid for by corporate interests and bolstered by sinister voter suppression tactics…”
Evidence please. [tumbleweed]
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.