Climate change denials
Feb 3 2007 21:11
Recently there have been several reports about climate change, for example the Stern Report and the recent IPCC.
Various so-called experts and mouthpieces for corporate interests have denied that global warming is taking place, whilst at the same time the melt seems to be speeding up.
Recently some scientists predicted a 3 or 4 degree Celsius global warm up. I remember back a number of years, the 'Mundi Club' deep ecologist group were saying that if it rose 3 degrees then a runaway temperature rise effect would begin.
My question is this: Should we regard 'climate change denial' as being of a similar offensive character as Holocaust denial? Because the Holocaust denial people really want to rehabilitate Fascism, and perhaps eventually commit similar actions again, or certainly at least increase the amount of racial oppression in the world. The climate change deniers really want business to carry on as usual, but the effect of that is that millions of people will probably die.
So perhaps they are similar crimes. Does anybody have any opinion about this?
Feb 3 2007 21:36
#2
Steve Booth wrote:
Recently there have been several reports about climate change, for example the Stern Report and the recent IPCC.Various so-called experts and mouthpieces for corporate interests have denied that global warming is taking place, whilst at the same time the melt seems to be speeding up.
Recently some scientists predicted a 3 or 4 degree Celsius global warm up. I remember back a number of years, the 'Mundi Club' deep ecologist group were saying that if it rose 3 degrees then a runaway temperature rise effect would begin.
My question is this: Should we regard 'climate change denial' as being of a similar offensive character as Holocaust denial? Because the Holocaust denial people really want to rehabilitate Fascism, and perhaps eventually commit similar actions again, or certainly at least increase the amount of racial oppression in the world. The climate change deniers really want business to carry on as usual, but the effect of that is that millions of people will probably die.
So perhaps they are similar crimes. Does anybody have any opinion about this?
Another question with more pertinence would be whether or not anyone should anything to do with wingnuts who think anarchists should campaign against social security in order to stoke revolution through immiseration and who in the past has celebrated the gassing of commuter trains?
Fuck off and get laid you pathetic cunt!
Feb 3 2007 22:51
#3
This thread is in Thought. I was under the impression that this was a no flaming forum.
Tacks wrote:
Quote:
GTFO!
Revol68 wrote:
Quote:
Fuck off and get laid you pathetic cunt!
I would like this addressed because there is a fairly consistent tendency to rabidly attack anyone coming on this site with what might be described as primarily ecological viewpoints. This attitude stinks! Now the question strikes me as more than a bit dopey but nevertheless climate change denial is a serious issue. Let's talk about why it happens; who is behind the backlash against climate change science? Let's consider the issues. Firing off a volley of abuse just because of a naive opening statement is exactly what gets this site a bad name and, I presume puts a good number of people off posting at all.
Someone has kindly pointed out to me that there might be personal reasons for the fiery responses - it's only my badly failing memory that let me down on that one - but still that's no excuse! You let off a blast at someone for their name & all you're doing is living in the sad little anarchist ghetto.... either ignore the man or discuss the issues.
Feb 4 2007 01:36
#4
The topic of climate change is a good tool for anyone to show the link between capitalist/consumerist/imperialist ideals and the downfall of the environment. No government tied to money can or will fix this situation. The denial factor is just the first step our governments will use to stop the masses from joining in a global revolution. The near future is ripe for a mass outbreak of people taking on the governments on this and other issues ( workers rights, farmers being screwed by multi national buyers of produce e.g. fruit growers in Australia)For anyone to poo poo the environment is actually part of the problem. To put ones head in the sand is to be as guilty as the ones that cause the problem. I see a parallel to the Jews/Hitler and German people
Bill Weller
Feb 4 2007 03:23
#5
I would rather not use the device of comparison to Holocaust denial because it smacks of a kind of emotional blackmail. It also perhaps might have the unintended consequence of legitimizing to an even greater extent the so-called 'Holocaust Industry' that exploits the suffering wrought by Hitler's regime for illegitimate financial and political purposes.
Climate change denial is a very serious moral failure. I think we should approach corporate apologists in a manner so as to articulate the actual facts and emphasize the need for fundamental institutional transformation. I think that comparisons to holocaust denial are diversive and probably not constructive of our revolutionary aims.
Feb 4 2007 03:39
#6
Blacknred Ned wrote:
This thread is in Thought. I was under the impression that this was a no flaming forum.Tacks wrote:
Quote:
GTFO!
Revol68 wrote:
Quote:
Fuck off and get laid you pathetic cunt!
I would like this addressed because there is a fairly consistent tendency to rabidly attack anyone coming on this site with what might be described as primarily ecological viewpoints. This attitude stinks! Now the question strikes me as more than a bit dopey but nevertheless climate change denial is a serious issue. Let's talk about why it happens; who is behind the backlash against climate change science? Let's consider the issues. Firing off a volley of abuse just because of a naive opening statement is exactly what gets this site a bad name and, I presume puts a good number of people off posting at all.
Someone has kindly pointed out to me that there might be personal reasons for the fiery responses - it's only my badly failing memory that let me down on that one - but still that's no excuse! You let off a blast at someone for their name & all you're doing is living in the sad little anarchist ghetto.... either ignore the man or discuss the issues.
this has nothing to do with him mentioning ecology and everything to do with him being a mentalist fuckwit more in need of electro shock treatment than a anything else. This is a prick whose celebrated sarin attacks on commuter trains and has now moved on to pushing for anarchists to start campaigns against social security and the welfare state in some sort of mentalist christian ecology immiseration project.
Steeve booth is a crank, it would be better for the poor dillusion bastard if he was in the pay of the state, unfortunately for him he lacks the ability.
Feb 4 2007 06:24
#7
Revol
I think its counter-productive to not discuss the issue at hand purely because you haven't agreed with the posters previous views and salvos. Even if he is,as you say, a crank, doesn't mean we shouldn't be debating such an issue. And i think the OP is, yes, controversial but quite pertinent also.
Yes climate change denial is a wicked, cowardly and greedy stance that will cost additional loss of life - however I don't feel it is comparable to the Holocaust simply because this latter involved the deliberate, calculating commission of the most heinous acts imaginable as well as those of turning a blind eye, lying, covering up etc. This doesn't mean i think we should let the corporate fuckers off the hook tho!!
Love
LW X
Feb 4 2007 06:35
#8
Lone Wolf wrote:
RevolI think its counter-productive to not discuss the issue at hand purely because you haven't agreed with the posters previous views and salvos. Even if he is,as you say, a crank, doesn't mean we shouldn't be debating such an issue. And i think the OP is, yes, controversial but quite pertinent also.
Yes climate change denial is a wicked, cowardly and greedy stance that will cost additional loss of life - however I don't feel it is comparable to the Holocaust simply because this latter involved the deliberate, calculating commission of the most heinous acts imaginable as well as those of turning a blind eye, lying, covering up etc. This doesn't mean i think we should let the corporate fuckers off the hook tho!!
Love
LW X
yeah but you think cats are decent company so forgive me if i ignore your opinion and continue to treat Steve Booth with the contempt he deserves.
Feb 4 2007 06:41
#9
But i like dogs as well! Just as much! I still have a copy on my Word of that Westie puppy pic you posted - it was so cute! 
I would like to ask if you are up early today or a night owl like me but i don't wanna derail as we are in Thought and i can tell how much you deeply value this thread.. 
suffice it to say i still have loads to do "tonight" 
and work tomorrow but at least i like what i do.. 
Love
LW X
Feb 4 2007 07:11
#10
gee is this how anarchists work together? You start to fight over cats or dogs? how can we save the world?
ps i have 5 cats and 2 ridgeback dogs
Feb 4 2007 07:18
#11
mikabill wrote:
gee is this how anarchists work together? You start to fight over cats or dogs? how can we save the world?
ps i have 5 cats and 2 ridgeback dogs
No this is how more anarchists should relate to the various kooks and cranks that like to fly under it's flag of convenience.
Or perhaps you could suggest some alternative means by which we could fruitfully engage with someone who thinks that anarchists should be campaigning against dole payments and who've a history of celebrating terrorist attacks on civilians?
Face it, some people should be left to rot until they become of some use to the dogs in the street.
Feb 4 2007 07:22
#12
mikabill wrote:
gee is this how anarchists work together? You start to fight over cats or dogs? how can we save the world?
ps i have 5 cats and 2 ridgeback dogs
Well what happens is the hot-headed anarchos try and start a cat v dog fight and the level-headed ones end it!!!
The world is saved by the level-headed anarchos (no it is NOT a contradiction in terms!! ) setting the example for others to follow. 
5 cats and 2 ridgebacks???? v. v. cool. 
Feb 4 2007 07:24
#13
i'm sorry cats are scum, vicious mercenary scum that also make me sneeze!
Feb 4 2007 07:25
#14
oh im new to anarchism i didn't expect so much agro my apologies
Feb 4 2007 07:27
#15
mikabill wrote:
oh im new to anarchism i didn't expect so much agro my apologies
about cats and dogs or about mentalist like Steve "gas the commuters" Booth?
Saying that they shouldn't be conflated, afterall i'd be reluctant to have a dog put down.
Feb 4 2007 07:30
#16
revol68 wrote:
i'm sorry cats are scum, vicious mercenary scum that also make me sneeze!
Are you sure you don't just wrongly perceive them to be scum and vicious etc etc BECAUSE they make you sneeze???
So you are allergic to cats and not dogs? Interesting - perhaps as you have always lived with dogs (so to speak.. ) you have an immunity to their dander/fur you don't have with cats???
You might like to try homoepathy for that!!!
*is joking but nonetheless runs for cover*
Feb 4 2007 07:33
#17
Lone Wolf wrote:
revol68 wrote:
i'm sorry cats are scum, vicious mercenary scum that also make me sneeze!
So you are allergic to cats and not dogs? Interesting - perhaps as you have always lived with dogs (so to speak..
You might like to try homoepathy for that!!!
*is joking but nonetheless runs for cover*
Most people I know who are allergic to cats, and there are many of them (i'm guessing it's a hint from evolution that cats are not to be treated as anything more than vermin) are not allergic to dogs.
I'm especially allergic to tom cats.
Feb 4 2007 07:39
#18
revol68 wrote:
Lone Wolf wrote:
revol68 wrote:
i'm sorry cats are scum, vicious mercenary scum that also make me sneeze!
So you are allergic to cats and not dogs? Interesting - perhaps as you have always lived with dogs (so to speak..
You might like to try homoepathy for that!!!
*is joking but nonetheless runs for cover*
Most people I know who are allergic to cats, and there are many of them (i'm guessing it's a hint from evolution that cats are not to be treated as anything more than vermin
) are not allergic to dogs.
I'm especially allergic to tom cats.
Now thats just plain bizarre!!! They must sense you as some sort of rival to their virility and so seek to weaken you
i would be a bit worried about this if i were you!!
Love
LW X
Feb 4 2007 07:43
#19
Could one of you 2 direct me to a good australian anarchist current
bill
Feb 4 2007 07:46
#20
mikabill wrote:
Could one of you 2 direct me to a good australian anarchist current
bill
I don't know what you mean when you say "bill" in this context - in Britain the normal meaning of this word is a demand or request for payment - this can't be what you mean???
Oh hang on - are you saying your name is bill?? In that case i still don't know what you mean when you say "current" in this context - current what??? Do you mean forum or website or summat?? 
Feb 4 2007 07:51
#21
what i mean is im looking for a anarchist group to learn about and join in the future
Feb 4 2007 07:57
#22
mikabill wrote:
what i mean is im looking for a anarchist group to learn about and join in the future
Ah ok - just saw your thread in the Oceania forum about meeting to meet Aussie anarchos -that was the best place for this question. Wouldn't know of any such groups - sorry!! - I am a London girl. Good luck tho!
Love
LW X
Feb 4 2007 08:04
#23
thanks anyway just so hard to find something to join all people do here is argue
bill
Feb 4 2007 09:28
#24
Well Booth might be a fuckwit - or a wingnut - but this thread is a fucking tribute to wingnuttery! From climate change to cats and dogs in less than several complete fucking non sequiturs. Cheers Bill, seeya, come back anytime, we're pretty much always here talking shite and screaming at one another.
Feb 4 2007 14:00
#25
Mikabill for the sake of clairty, the revol and Tacks response to Steve Booth is in the context of an article he wrote in the mid 90s which seemingly supported the attacks of the cult in Japan that used nerve gas in the subways and the bombing of the federal buildings in Oklahoma by American neo-nazi types. This as you can imagine was quite controvorsial at the time.
I would be quite happy to discuss anarchism with you in these forums, and also the green movement in Australia and elsewhere. I'm sure others would be also, why not start a thread?
Feb 4 2007 17:55
#26
Feb 6 2007 15:36
#27
If this is the no flaming thread I'd like to see the all flaming thread.
Revol 69 is essentially a one-track tapeloop of abuse. He has been dealt with in the past, for example in a thread numbered 69744 back in September 2005 during which several quotations from the articles refuting his points were given. As he could not state from which of the articles the quotations came from, I came to the conclusion that he had not actually read what had been written, but only the stuff selectively quoted.
To return to the question asked about Climate Change Denial - I think the point made about my idea above being divisive and potentially distracting was a good one.
We need to look very closely at the role that the news media, scientific journalism and the advertising industry have promoted global warming in the past and in the present. They have to share some of the responsibility for what has happened over global warming. Now it seems to me that part of the response to GW, for example to install air conditioning systems to cool down office buildings in the hot summers, will really make matters worse.
So (looking at the broader issue), does anybody have any ideas about how the attitudes of media commentators, and advertisers etc can be changed?
Feb 6 2007 18:50
#28
You are aware that the VAST majority of politicians, media commentators and advertisers have publically acknowledged the existence of climate change for years, right?
For fucks sake, am I the only one who remembers those shitty Captain Planet cartoons?
Feb 9 2007 15:32
#29
Some examples of newspaper reports about global warming and the Climate Change Denial Industry -
'The conventional wisdom is that climate change will be gradual and moderate'. - Eugene Linden, 'Time' magazine, 12th May 1997.
In 1991, a cyclone in Bangladesh killed 138,000 people.
In the early 1990s, oil companies organised and funded an anti-green backlash to try to encourage the EU to abandon the Kyoto Treaty. There were various fronts like the 'Global Climate Coalition' , the 'Competitive Enterprise Institute' received $1.3M funding. Other groups, like the 'Cooler Heads Coalition' were financed, the 'European Sound Climate Policy Coalition'.
In February 2005, it was reported that climate change sceptics were orchestrating a backlash in Britain. Those involved included the celebrity front man, David Bellamy, and US sceptics Richard Hindzen, Penny Peiser and Fred Singer of the 'Scientific Alliance'.
At the same time that Hurricane Katrina took place, in early September 2005, the US Republican Party were witch-hunting climate change scientists.
On 23rd September 2005, it was reported that various US multi-nationals refused to participate in a carbon audit of their activities. Those listed included: Morgan Stanley, Harley Davidson, Wal-Mart, Boeing, Apple, News Corporation, Amazon, BSkyB.
The Independent newspaper, 26th September 2004 reported on the contribution to global warming made by the air conditioning systems in the new Meteorological Office HQ in Exeter, and its use of HFCs.
In October 2005, reporting on Third World conditions, it was stated that 1.1B people lack access to safe water. 2.6B people lack safe sanitation. It was predicted that 1.8M people would die as a result of this. 800,000 people would die as a result of air pollution. 1.6M people would die from smoky fires from internal fires and cooking in huts.
The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine reported that 160,000 could die per year as a consequence of Global Warming. (6th May 2004)
In March 2006, the UK government wished to cut funding into research on the impact of climate change on wildlife.
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been observed at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii for over 50 years. The 1.5 ppm (parts per million) annual increase previously observed, increased to 2.2 ppm in 2003. Some scientists suggest that carbon sinks, such as the Siberian tundra previously under perma-frost are now releasing methane. It is predicted that CO2 concentrations will rise up to the 550 ppm level, (double the pre-industrial level), widely seen as a dangerous concentration, by 2050, if present rates continue.
US CO2 emissions doubled in 14 years. 7,122.1M tonnes had been released in 2004, 25% of the world total. (reported 6th January 2006)
European CO2 emissions increased 1.1% 2003/04, UK 2005/06 emissions were reportedly higher than in 1990, the datum year for reduction measures. (Tyndall Centre University of Manchester) In 2006, the UK was said to have 29.4M cars and 3.8M commercial vehicles, whereas the whole of Africa was said to have 13.6M cars and 6.9M commercial vehicles.
On 29th September 2006, the Guardian newspaper ran a headline 'Royal Society calls on oil company to stop funding groups that mislead public'. Exxon Mobil gave $2.9M to thirty nine climate change denial groups - International Policy Network, George C Marshall Institute, the UK Scientific Alliance were listed.
In late November 2006, the US government were reportedly undermining the Nairobi climate change summit through prevarication and blocking measures.
GTFO!