User login
Navigation
Search
Not Evil Just Wrong
12 October, 2009 - 23:15
Hi
I don't know how many of you know that a new film is being launched internationally on the 18 of October called Not Evil Just Wrong.
Now it is being shown in Derby by a maverick councillor who has booked the City Council chambers to show it. Please see attached the flyer for this event. Here’s some links you mind find useful as well.
Now while I haven't seen it it is seems to me that it will open up some arguments that need to be refuted seriously. I was wondering if we could start building up the arguments through the use of this discussion forum. An ideal would be to have a fact sheet for our showing on the 24th of October. Before would be even better.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| noteviljustwrongflier.jpg | 49.05 KB |
14 October, 2009 - 21:06
#2
Hmm, thing is, no-one really knows the outcomes of what we've all been doing with fossil fuels and land clearance and farming. We know what we can measure, which is, in fact, only incidental change so far. CO2, methane soaring but we can't show great leaps in air temperature. That's what people want to see in order that they know there's a problem. The last time CO2 and methane rose like this was in the ending of the last ice age, starting 15000 years ago. It took 7000 years or so for half the ice to melt, about 60 of the 110 metres of sea level increase being flooded by around 8000 years BP (before present). The rest has happened since then. Over that time atmospheric CO2 rose from around 180 to 260/280. So it's a slightly different scenario but very similar. (Read Professor Bill Ruddiman's "Plows, Plagues and Petroleum." I dare you!)
Look, I passionately believe that we have to reduce carbon use and that we should repair our natural surroundings, our ecosystem, our environment. And remember it's "contract and converge" - developing countries must be helped to do just that - develop to a new and sustainable level. I don't see any evidence for tipping points and scare stories such as printed in the New Scientist last week help no one.(October 3rd - Pages 32-35 - Bob Holmes "Earth: The Comeback.")
You see, I reckon that climate change action is actually partly concerned with, well. climate but it is also old fashioned socialism vs capitalism, haves and have nots. We should separate the two. I want a just and fair world that works to build a truly sustainable future. The gross extravagance of the last thirty years must be stopped. People must learn to assess their actions not just for how it helps themselves but also to ensure that their actions don't impact badly on other people living today or some time in the future! I know, super idealistic but really it should be the context to frame actions in, at governmental and personal levels
Yes, answers are needed for condescending but very well scripted pieces like "Not evil, just wrong". Climate campaigners need to define what they're working for, what they're working against and what their vision of the future is. One thing's for sure and that's that a lot of things must change and, remember, the climate always has. "Not evil but visionary". Now that's a good handle!
Sorry, Peter, if this is not quite what you wanted but, as I've said before, I reckon we should be inclusive as well as inspirational.
14 October, 2009 - 23:45
#3
We haven’t seen the film as yet and I will be most grateful when somebody sees it that they tell us about it and the arguments.
I suspect that this film is going to be cleverer and more sophisticated that the Channel 4 rubbish. It may raise some arguments that we need to take on board. If Al Gore got it wrong about the rise of the sea level we need to say so. Yet I believe that, although his data may have been faulty, the sea levels are going to rise much more than the IPCC thought a few years ago. So we need to go into the debate with our hand up in the air, saying honestly and objectively if where we may have got things wrong and where there are areas of doubt.
It seem there is a very easy distinction to be made between the last ten years of weather, which has not necessarily led to that dramatic heating up (in some areas of the globe) and the general climate trend. So if anybody out there can summarise this for me (us) I (we) would be most grateful.
Re tipping points. Actually I think the melting of the ice caps demonstrates a tipping point. Something has snapped in the 20 years (or whatever) as you so eloquently demonstrate. There may or may not be more tipping points. I don’t know but live in fear and, whatever, we still have to do what we can.
I do believe that environmentalists, who have acted as a beacon, have also been untoward the resistance to their arguments and tend to distort and so on. So we should try to be more objective. And by so doing we will take on and win over some of the middle roaders.
Yes this may be underpinned by some sort of critique of capitalism. But I am not sure where that gets us. But I am sure that we need to need to debate, explore, climb out of our Green and Red ghettos, and build a richer and more profound view.
Finally I am at odds with the Campaign against Climate Change, of which I am National Chair, insofar as I think we need to build these levels of understanding, building a hegemonic hold if you like, whereas there seems to be very little space for such discussions with the engine room of our campaign.
20 October, 2009 - 17:44
#4
You guys need to really question what you are protesting about. It is you who would believe the earth to be flat....don't you see you are demonstarting what the government is actually doing!! You are promoting government line!! Thats not protesting!! Wake up, climate change is not a reality, less than 50% of scientists worldwide believe it, it is not a proven science and it is being used to enforce a world governement which believe me none of you should be supporting. If you are true activists you should do your own research into climate change and not believe the propaganda the government and organisations like this push down your throughts. The evidence is overwhelming that climate change is a hoax. Polar bears are flourishing, the antarctic is growing and the UN continues to publish downright lies to try to support their aims and to bury the research done by thousands of scientists worldwide that does not promote it. This organisation itself is floored as it removes posts that do not tow the party line as this one will be removed shortly....thats not democratic!! If what I say is untrue then why should they worry. Check out Lord Christopher Monckton for a start and see what your thoughts are after that. Don't continue to behave like sheep swallowing this global warming BS!
21 October, 2009 - 11:52
#5
Claire
Your comment, "don't you see you are demonstarting what the government is actually doing!! You are promoting government line!!" is not accurate in two respects.
[1] Climate Change is upon us and
[2] the UK Government are promoting Contraction and Convergence [the right international organising principle to deal with climate change] which is a good thing: - http://www.tangentfilms.com/C&C29sept.pdf but with the emissions-cuts left too late [i.e. the right principle at the wrong rates] which is not a good thing.
The UK House of Commons Environmental Audit Committe is gradually coming to the climax of a year long enquiry into this matter and a contest over this point with the Government's 'Climate Change Committee' [supported by the Hadley Centre and DECC]. Here is a memo to EAC summarinsing the Apex Point: - http://mbf.cc/51GV - this is hardly an unqualified support for the Government line and my impression of the position outlined by the Campaign Against Climate Change is that CACC are very concerned about the lack of 'urgency' behind the Government programme.
Christopher Monkton has rather lost his way I fear. Affecting to don the mantle of Winston Churchill, his latest remarks from his tour in the USA are more a rant against 'communism' than anything relevant to climate change.
Mervin King on the other hand, does a rather funnier impersonation by saying about the banks that, "Never in Field of Human History has so much been owed to so few." Reported on the BBC its quite a fFun way to start the day really . . . .
Kind regards
Aubrey
21 October, 2009 - 12:18
#6
. . . . actually what Mervy King said was: - "Never in Field of Human History has so much been owed by so few to so many."
22 October, 2009 - 08:46
#7
Claire
The Campaign unequivocally reserves the right to prohibit discussions when it wishes to, either on the grounds of causing unnecessary offence, or which contradict the ethos of the campaign.
The claim of "less than 50% of scientists worldwide believe it" bears little semblance to the scientists and institutions many of us are familiar with. Only a tiny minority of climate scientists dispute man-made climate change.
However it is not our intent to cause offence nor is it our intention to suppress discussion and the development of ideas – indeed that is why we run the forums – it is just that we reserve the right to moderate and steer discussions on behalf of our community. In this case we deleted the original posting but have re-instated it so that other people can see why.
18 December, 2009 - 14:23
#8
This is a very interesting topic. I agree with Peter and Chris that we have to be able to build an atmosphere where we can talk about climate change and its interaction with capitalism without having to be seen to be in one camp or the other. There is too much of a 'us' and 'them' which doesn't help. I think a part of this problem is that so much of the debate is held on line, where people don't have to interact on a one-to-one basis. And secondly, we often fail to find where we have common ground and move from there. For example, even with Lord Monckton, there is some common ground. We agree that global inequalities and poverty are a disgrace and need to be a priority. And that policy has to be based on the best science available. After that point, our views diverge - but we can still continue the discussion in an atmosphere of respect for alternative views. And where people are blatantly opposing facts for personal interests, this ultimately will be exposed.
Too often we end up in these kind of discussions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne-X_vFWMlw . I would recommend much more speaking with sceptics and undecideds - as long as we don't become confrontational and are prepared to listen to their side.
18 December, 2009 - 16:57
#9
I agree: dialogue and working together are imperative. Who said "No generation has a freehold on this earth. All we have is a life tenancy with a full repairing lease."? It surprised me! (The answer is in the first episode of the BBC's Climate Wars: http://bbc.co.uk/i/dhlgl/ )
22 December, 2009 - 14:50
#10
So, as the beast of international consumerist living looks around stupidly and struggles back onto its feet and governments coyly murmer "I told you to tie your shoelaces better" they try at the same time to offer concern over the destruction caused by several decades of its stampeding. "Oh, yes, we must clear that up later" they say to each other "When he's fully back on his feet, of course!" "But, hey, as he gets going again we could try to reduce the speed at which he causes even more mess" Then "Let's give a few trillion dollars intravenously. Oh, yes, he's off again now." "What do you mean, we should have cleared up a bit whilst he was on the floor. Don't look at the mess,now, see what fun he's having. He'll soon be better than ever".
As the film above is to say "Not evil, just wrong."
23 December, 2009 - 15:22
#11
The apex quarrel [US-India/China] does appear now - finally - to start to resolve in the final text 'noted' by COP-15 plenary, in that both sides do appear now for the first time to be *in* with differential peaking and not to exceed two degrees.
As suggested above, talking-up/down this/that ideology, doesn't really do the cold-logic of numbers for 2 degrees. This is unavoidable for pro-capitalists [like Barak Obama and Wen Jinbao] and anti-capitalists [like HugoChavez and Evo Morales] .
I agree with Mark Lynas in today's Guardian to the extent that he damns those who even now trot out the usual politics of blame to explain 'failure at COP-15'. However, his analysis of Chinese 'motives' and Chinese 'blame' doesn't cut it.
To me it seems that the bride and the groom have finally agreed to get married and even that an ante-nuptial contract is necessary . . . . but the argument/brinkmanship is about whose church the're going to get marrie in.
After twenty years of tracking all this, all roads away from limate-catastrophe lead to C&C and nothing has changed that.
Here is an example of a C&C-scenario image:-
http://mbf.cc/qWlY [it'll be there for 28 days only] with: –
[1] numbers for fossil fuels only
[2] for all-regions/all-years 2000-2050,
[3] contracting globally to near-zero by 2050 and
[4] converging to equal per capita globally by 2020
[5] with a predistributed path-integral of emissions that could just keep under the '2 degrees'.
Use Acrobat ‘tools’ ’select and zoom’ then ‘pan and zoom’ to get big-picture and detailed numbers as-above simultaneously . . .
As suggested elsewhere, C&C can be shown this way at any rates specified.
It is my impression that something like this or better is now the next step.
Do you think the sequel will be entitled "The Earth is Actually Flat" ?