[Vision2020] "Hard to Get Discussion Going?" Re: Bill McKibben Commentary Re: 10:10 "no pressure" video

[Ted Moffett]

*Paul Rumelhart* godshatter at yahoo.com
<vision2020%40moscow.com?Subject=%5BVision2020%5D%20%22Age%20of%20Stupid%22%20Director%20a%20Woman%2C%0A%20Not%20a%20%22Guy%22%20Re%3A%20%2010%3A10%20%22no%20pressure%22%20video&In-Reply-To=921570.20683.qm%40web46102.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
wrote:

http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-October/071795.html

*Mon Oct 4 16:56:02 PDT 2010*
Believe me, I'm as big a Monty Python fan as anybody.

I'd still like to see a discussion about how far is too far, though.

Why is it so hard to get a discussion going here?
---------------------------
I offered the commentary, sent again below, regarding the "No Pressure" film
from author, professor and promoter of the http://www.350.org effort to
lower greenhouse gas emissions, Bill McKibben, and given what I have read
about this film, I agree with McKibben.  I did attempt to view the film, but
the URL requested a log-in.  I suppose the URL requested a log-in because of
efforts to block viewing of the film originating from the "10:10" campaign,
given the widespread negative reaction.

Apparently, you don't think Bill McKibben's commentary worth commenting on,
at least as far as what I have read on Vision2020... But the fact I posted
it certainly qualifies as an effort to "...get a discussion going..."
McKibben states rather unequivocally that the film in question goes "too
far," though he did not use those exact words.

While on the topic of subjects on which it is hard to get a discussion
going, below are two posts I authored from recent months that specifically
addressed issues regarding climate science, that you has previously
commented on, that as far as I have read on Vision2020, unless I missed it,
have never received a response from you.

I also sometimes feel frustrated by the lack of discussion on this list
regarding important subjects, but also appreciate the voluntary nature of
participation here... So respond or not, as you wish.

In the first post below, I emphatically disagreed with your statement that
the list of estimates of climate sensitivity sourced from Levenson's
research, from the work of many scientists for over a century, are "all over
the board," and explore other critical issues regarding climate sensitivity:
 [Vision2020] Exploring Implications of Levenson's List of Estimates of
Climate Sensitivity

http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-July/070882.html
 ---------------------------

In the following post with the subject heading mentioning Edward's well
reviewed book, "A Vast Machine," a must read for anyone who thinks they
understand how data is gathered on weather and climate, I made the following
statement regarding one of your posts:

"Regarding the DiPuccio "weblog" on ocean heat, for a self described
"skeptic," you are remarkably unskeptical when it comes to presenting
"scientific" statements as reliable, from sources that do not represent a
comprehensive and balanced view of all the published peer reviewed science
on a given issue."
[Vision2020] MIT Press: Paul N. Edwards "A Vast Machine: Computer Models,
Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming"
http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-September/071648.html

On 10/4/10, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> http://climateprogress.org/2010/10/01/bill-mckibben-days-that-suck/
>  (A response to the "No Pressure" Video)October 1, 2010
>
> *Bill McKibben — some-time guest blogger and the author most recently of
> the must-read<http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/22/review-bill-mckibben-book-eaarth/>book
> **Eaarth — has asked me to post this response to a noxious video that some
> irresponsible folks in the UK put together.*
>
> I just climbed off an airplane at Boston’s Logan Airport. The day began in
> Monterrey, Mexico–and though I was tired, I was also feeling pretty good.
> Our big day of action on October 10th has been building to a crescendo: we
> yesterday broke our record from last year, registering more than 5500
> actions for the big Global Work Party.
>
> But I’d barely turned on my computer when that good feeling turned to a
> kind of quiet nausea. There were emails from people all saying the same
> thing: Have you seen this? This was a gross video making its way around
> Youtube, purporting to show people being blown up for not believing in
> climate change. It’s been “pulled” from Youtube by its creators, the British
> climate group 10:10, but of course nothing is ever really “pulled” from
> Youtube. If you want to watch it bad enough, I’m pretty sure you can find
> it. Or you can look at the stories by climate deniers assailing it as the
> latest example of eco-fascism.
> The climate skeptics can crow.  It’s the kind of stupidity that hurts our
> side, reinforcing in people’s minds a series of preconceived notions, not
> the least of which is that we’re out-of-control and out of touch — not to
> mention off the wall, and also with completely misplaced sense of humor.
>
> We put out a statement at 350.org saying we had nothing to do with it–we
> didn’t see it till it had made its way around the web, and as soon as we did
> we let people know we thought it was disgusting.  We’ve known the creators
> for years–they put out a statement apologizing for their lapse. But it’s the
> kind of mistake that will hurt efforts. What makes it so depressing is that
> it’s the precise opposite of what the people organizing around the world for
> October 10 are all about. In the first place, they’re as responsible as it’s
> possible to be:  They’ll spend the day putting up windmills and solar
> panels, laying out bike paths and digging community gardens. And in the
> second place, they’re doing it because they realize kids are already dying
> from climate change, and that many many more are at risk as the century
> winds on. Killing people is, literally, the last thing we want.
>
> There’s no question that crap like this will cast a shadow, for a time,
> over our efforts and everyone else who’s working on global warming. We’re
> hard at work, as always, but we’re doing it today with a sunk and sad
> feeling.
>
> – Bill McKibben
>
> *JR:  The video is beyond tasteless and should be widely condemned.
> Individual anti-science, pro-pollution disinformers, of course, routinely
> promote hate speech but you rarely see anyone on their side denounces them.
> I’m speaking of people like Anthony Watts, with his utterly offensive
> comments on the Purported eco-terrorist who was shot and killed by police<http://climateprogress.org/2010/09/01/eco-terrorist-shot-and-killed-by-police-wattsupwiththat/>.
> And of course there’s the Swift Boat smearer (see “UK Guardian slams
> Morano for cyber-bullying and for urging violence against climate scientists<http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/15/uk-guardian-slams-morano-for-cyber-bullying-and-for-urging-violence-against-climate-scientists/>“).
> And the worst of all is Lord Monckton (see Monckton repeats and expands on
> his charge that those who embrace climate science are “Hitler youth” and
> fascists<http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/12/tvmob-hate-speech-lord-monckton-hitler-youth-fascist-climate-activists/>
> ).*
>
> *None of this excuses that disgusting video.  But the difference is that
> those who are trying to preserve a livable climate and hence the health and
> well-being of our children and billions of people this century quickly
> denounce the few offensive over-reaches of those who claim to share our
> goals — but those trying to destroy a livable climate, well, for them lies
> and hate speech are the modus operandi, so such behavior is not only
> tolerated, but encouraged.*
>
> *Please keep the comments civil.  And no, I’m not linking to the video.
> You can find it only if you want.
> --------------------------------------------*
>
> *Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett*
> On 10/3/10, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I got the gender of the director of "the Age of Stupid" wrong.  My
>> apologies.
>>
>> If any one out there is brave enough to watch this video that is intended
>> for mass consumption by the public at large, please do so and let me know
>> what you think.  If you can spare some time from your researches on climate
>> change, of course.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> Ted Moffett wrote:
>>
>>> The director of "the Age of Stupid" is not a guy, given a meaning of this
>>> word to be "a male."  When this film came out last year, I repeatedly posted
>>> information to Vision2020 about it, specifically referring to the director,
>>> Franny Armstrong, who also directed such noteworthy films as "McLibel" and
>>> "Drowned Out."  Read about Ms. Armstrong and her film making efforts at
>>> website below
>>>  http://www.spannerfilms.net/people/franny_armstrong
>>> ---------------------- Some people toss the word "guy" around in a gender
>>> neutral way, as in "you guys" referring to a group of men and/or women.  But
>>> when specifically referring to the director of a film, to call them a "guy"
>>> I think in most people's minds indicates they are a male.
>>>  I did not watch the video you posted a link to, given I have far more
>>> professional and in depth sources to spend my limited time studying,
>>> regarding what is required to address lowering CO2 emissions.  However, I
>>> did a quick search on the 10:10 campaign and found a different video on
>>> YouTube regarding "The Guardian's 10:10 climate change campaign," which I
>>> did not watch either, but I suspect refers to the major United Kingdom
>>> newspaper "The Guardian."
>>>  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=314UCvMmgrU
>>> ---------------
>>>  For anyone serious about considering plans to lower CO2 emissions to
>>> address anthropogenic climate warming, I recommend study of the following
>>> plan from the Earth Policy Institute for lowering global emissions 80
>>> percent by 2020, or read NASA climate scientist James Hansen's book, 'Storms
>>> of My Grandchildren."  There are numerous professional and in depth sources
>>> addressing this problem, but these two sources are certainly worth
>>> consideration.
>>>  The Earth Policy Institute has discussed "tax shifting" to encourage
>>> less reliance on fossil fuels, and James Hansen has advocated a "fee and
>>> dividend" plan.  Peculiarly, these alternative plans to "cap and trade" are
>>> rarely discussed in mainstream media, as far as I have noted.  James Hansen
>>> has specifically stated that "cap and trade" is a flawed approach.
>>>  I have posted information on the Earth Policy Institute plan and James
>>> Hansen's plans repeatedly, yet I do not recall anyone on this list ever
>>> responding "onlist" specifically to these sources:
>>>  Information on Earth Policy Institute's "80 by 2020" plan:
>>>  http://www.earth-policy.org/datacenter/pdf/80by2020doc.pdf
>>>  James Hansen on "fee and dividend" plan as discussed in a New York Times
>>> article "Cap and Fade."  The article title makes it rather clear that Hansen
>>> does not promote "cap and trade:"
>>>  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/opinion/07hansen.html
>>> ------------------------------------------
>>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>>>  On 9/30/10, *Paul Rumelhart* <godshatter at yahoo.com <mailto:
>>> godshatter at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>    I just stumbled upon this (may contain disturbing images):
>>>
>>>    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UHN3zHoYA0
>>>
>>>    It's a video about the "10:10 campaign" that encourages people to cut
>>>    their carbon footprints by 10%, with a rather remarkable
>>>    punishment for
>>>    those who aren't willing to do so.
>>>
>>>    This isn't a small-time production, either.  It's directed by the guy
>>>    who directed The Age of Stupid, it's written by the screenwriters that
>>>    wrote "Four Weddings", it has a soundtrack provided by Radiohead,
>>>    and it
>>>    has a cameo by Gillian Anderson of X Files fame.
>>>
>>>    While I'm not blind to the humor involved, is this really the
>>>    message we
>>>    want to get across?  Play ball or die?  I mean, I'm willing to
>>>    conserve
>>>    energy and reduce gasoline usage without death threats.  I just don't
>>>    think that "climate change" is necessarily the Armageddon it's
>>>    made out
>>>    to be, and this makes me wonder about the people pushing that
>>>    particular
>>>    agenda.
>>>
>>>    Anyway, take a look and let us know what you think.
>>>
>>>    Paul
>>>
>>>    P. S.  I'm *really* hoping that Ted didn't get issued one of those red
>>>    buttons...
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20101005/d9ad60cb/attachment-0003.html