What the Green Movement got Wrong

[Questioning_Climate]

What the Green Movement got Wrong
A Channel 4 programme from Thursday 4 November. It goes over some of the main issues that the Green movement failled to comprehend and thus got worng. It conveniently avoids debate on AGW.

This programme should be essential viewing for all everyone, particularly in schools

There was a debate held afterwards which had the usual culprits trying to prop up the mantra. I didn't watch all of the debate at the time but will view it later. From the bit I did see, it was all the same weasel-words, obfuscation, ad hominems, etc that are found in all their arguments.

Anyway, see what you think, but be warned, it may affect the way you think about the world:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/what-...od#3136406

Please note that the videos are only available for 28 days.

Apparently, the original programme was called "What the Green Movement got Right" but it was so short they recycled into the 63 minute "What the Green Movement Got Wrong" and still missed out half of the material.

James Delingpole has a follow-up piece on the programme:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesd...qus_thread


Josh helps to summarise it with this cartoon:

---

[Richard111]

I watched for about 20 minutes or so and gave up in disgust. It seemed to be a celebration of the green movement and the the things they did right or wrong.
The AGW bias from the BBC is horrendous, so much so that we tend to watch CCTV most for real world news. Apart from the big projects they don't say much about China but then neither does the BBC.

[Questioning_Climate]

Richard111,

Whilst I agree with your stance, sometimes it is worth sitting or wading through the dross to get to the truth. It is a bit like a jury sitting through the ramblings of a serial criminal.

The video debate was interesting in some ways because it put environmentalists against environmentalists and even they can't agree with each other except in attacking anything that is not 'deep green'. Underlying the entire proceeding was the assumption that climate change is man-made and a problem. There was some "expert" on nuclear energy who was clearly biased and spun all the points in which he was involved.

It must have struck a nerve in the green camp because they are already pushing out videos on U-Tube telling the brethren not to believe what the programme said.

[strogoff]

Unfortunately I can´t watch the documentary (the service is not currently available in my area) and I would have liked to. Anyway, I read Delingpole´s article this morning and I have just read Monbiot´s. Reading the last one always makes me sick and almost embarrased for his claims a la Marie Antoniette (however, anger lifts my spirits).

There has been a U turn in greenies lately, rather quick, and it is not only that now they like what they were against before (nuclear, GMOs,...) but now they are also against their previous "solutions" (biofuels, wind farms, carbon credits... see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APy7I-UgSkI).

I see it as a political maneuver cause they want to run as green parties for the next elections. At least this is clear in Spain. This is creating some confusion among their own ranks and the worst part is for food, organic agriculture and biotechnology. There you have astute activists as Michael Pollan or fickle idiots as Monbiot (I was wrong about veganism. Let them eat meat – but farm it properly).

Monbiot says:

Quote:Nuclear electricity may indeed be part of the solution, but the real climate challenge is not getting into new technologies, but getting out of old ones. This means confronting some of the world's most powerful forces, a theme with no place in Brand's story.

This is stupid. Getting out of old technologies and not getting into new ones means not technology at all. Nothing to do with the world´s most powerful forces (??)

AND,

Quote:The film's proposal – that we should switch to technologies which tend to be monopolised by large conglomerates – could exacerbate this problem.

Again the "powerful forces", his bias is becoming evident. BTW, what does he think The Guardian is, a beach kiosk?

And last but not least, his assertions on DDT, cherry-picking and singling out Annex B of the 2001 Stockholm Convention deserves answering with better documented sources. I have not the time to research dates and death figures.

I guess it´s inevitable that idiots exist but those that are infectious should be treated apart.

[Questioning_Climate]

Strogoff,
I think you have misinterpreted Monbiot’s meaning. He used the same one in the video debate. It is the way he has phrased it. Not even Monbiot is so stupid as to call for all technology to be destroyed - although some people might disagree and say he is. Anyway, I think what he meant was that new industry must replace the old but he is worried that the old will remain, particularly in the developing world.

Most of the rest of his rantings are not worth the electrons used to transmit them. He is pretty much the perfect stereotype of a UK environmentalist, born into a privileged family and became prominent on the back of it. He has been accused of being a bandwagoner and that seems to pretty much sum him up.

That said, he has done a few valid things in his time. A notable one being his attack on feed-in tariffs for renewable energy.

At the moment he is having difficulty coming to terms with his life-long crusade being based upon a scam (thin air) and that is causing him to make all kinds of ridiculous and/or contradictory statements. He is simply confused and is struggling to find a route out without the embarrassment he is going to go through the longer he keeps up the charade. He knows all too well that his ideology is dying in front of him and he is grasping at anything that might save it.

[strogoff]

Q_C,

I must apologize to Mr. Monbiot for misinterpreting him. Either my wrath is blinding me or that I have not seen the documentary and only read a few of his articles. I´m also stunned by his tangled planning to feed the world with grain without mentioning proteins, given his background.

Maybe he has done a couple of valid things but, as Delingpole puts it, what about the harm he has done?

He could be a good example to watch the confusion among greenies. Instead of withdrawing their past statements, knowing them to be wrong, some repeat them endlessly without much conviction. Latest Monbiot´s articles seem more awkward and half-hearted than contradictory. Let´s see how he manages to rationalize his predictable stance changes; that will be funny.

[Questioning_Climate]

Strogoff,

Yes, it'll be interesting to see him squirm as the story unfolds. Delingpole is correct about the harm Monbiot and his cohorts have done. You cannot give back life. It is ironic that the greens are calling for sceptics to be tried for crimes against humanity when they are the real criminals.

Will they ever apologise or repent? It seems unlikely but the leaders should be made accountable. Nobody has the right to distort the truth, manipulate data, misrepresent, etc especially when it results in the harm that the green movement as caused and is continuing to cause.

[Sunsettommy]

Quote:Will they ever apologise or repent? It seems unlikely but the leaders should be made accountable. Nobody has the right to distort the truth, manipulate data, misrepresent, etc especially when it results in the harm that the green movement as caused and is continuing to cause.

I think they do it because they are wedded to an ideology that is communist based.That is why they are willing to lie and cheat,to further their paternalist,socialist aims.

That make them dangerous and unlikely that they will apologize or repent.Which would tantamount to admitting that what they hold dear has been wrong for decades.

I despise socialist environmentalists.

[Richard111]

Well, for what its worth, I believe the greens have made a U turn, at least with regard to nuclear and GM crops. My cynical reason is that they realise a lot of people are going to start dying soon from starvation and lack of energy and the finger of blame will point at them. They are attempting to clear themselves of the blame for that.

[Questioning_Climate]

Richard111,

I tend to agree with that idea. Not all environmentalists are completely embedded in the cult and many are beginning to realise the things they have been told are not quite as they thought. Those in the higher echelons will be seeing public support waning particularly as the facts become known. A good example of this happening is two programmes on prime time TV in the UK, within just this week, showing the other side of the coin. One is the topic of this discussion and the other is about the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico presented by Stephen Fry:

Stephen Fry and the Great American Oil Spill
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vy7f9

Quote:Stephen Fry loves Louisiana. Four months after the BP oil spill, dubbed the worst ecological disaster in the history of America, Fry returns to the Deep South together with zoologist Mark Carwardine, to see what the impact has been on the people, the vast wetlands and the species that live there. What they find both surprises and divides the travelling duo.

Basically they find almost nothing but myth and speculation, certainly no good evidence of a massive ecological disaster.

Fry will be in for some intense criticism from the environmentalists because he was surprisingly fair and impartial, unlike his friend who clearly has a green chip on his shoulder.

With a few more similar offerings, the environmental industry will be feeling the pressure and the public will doubt their claims even more.

[Richard111]

Amazing really. The rock under the seabed of the Gulf was shattered 65 million years ago by what ever made the Chixulub crater. That shattered rock is the source of many oil seepages under the Gulf continueing even now. Undersea fauna have been dealing with this for millennia. The Gulf spill was just a bonus.

[Sunsettommy]

(11-08-2010 01:22 AM)Richard111 Wrote:  Amazing really. The rock under the seabed of the Gulf was shattered 65 million years ago by what ever made the Chixulub crater. That shattered rock is the source of many oil seepages under the Gulf continueing even now. Undersea fauna have been dealing with this for millennia. The Gulf spill was just a bonus.

I never thought about that.If correct,then the oil and other fluids have been seeping for a long time into the waters.

[Derek]

(11-08-2010 07:56 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  

(11-08-2010 01:22 AM)Richard111 Wrote:  Amazing really. The rock under the seabed of the Gulf was shattered 65 million years ago by what ever made the Chixulub crater. That shattered rock is the source of many oil seepages under the Gulf continueing even now. Undersea fauna have been dealing with this for millennia. The Gulf spill was just a bonus.

I never thought about that.If correct,then the oil and other fluids have been seeping for a long time into the waters.

Yup, that's why when "they" went back after having to leave for a couple of weeks due to weather,
the submersible noticed a heavy marine "snow" falling.

The bacteria had eaten the oil, it just took a little time for the bacteria population to explode due to the glut.
After the glut the bacteria will die back to "normal levels".
(I'm sure Q_C has already posted in respect of these bacteria)

Don't you just love naturally complex systems,
if there's a niche, nature fills it - sooner or later.

[strogoff]

I´m not lucky. The Stephen Fry video is not available in my area either. But from your comments I can imagine more or less how it was.

Don´t underestimate abducted greenies, they really know how to give birth to a new scare. As Derek said, in naturally complex systems, if there's a niche, nature fills it. Happens the same with ideas. Everybody happy because the oil spill disappeared rather quickly with not apparent ill consecuences?. Don´t:

Study: Non-toxic components of BP oil spill found in plankton, moving through Gulf's food web

Quote:The study did not specifically track the toxic components of the oil that has people worried. It focused on the way the basic element carbon moved through the beginnings of the all-important food web. Graham said the "eye-opening" speed of how the oil components moved through the ecosystem may affect the overall health of the Gulf.

Michael Crosby of the Mote Marine Laboratory in the state of Florida didn't take part in the study but said what fascinated him was that the carbon zipped through the food web faster than scientists expected. That in itself is not alarming, but if the nontoxic part of the oil is moving so rapidly through the food web, Crosby asks: "What has happened to the toxic compounds of the released oil?"

You see?

__________

A couple of months ago EPA released an assessment on hypoxia in US coastal waters. As the bacteria feeding on the oil were poorly known and coming from deep cold anaerobic waters I thought it had the perfect ingredients to make a very-very complex scenario and relate the oil spill with hypoxia and climate change:

New Report Warns of Expanding Threat of Hypoxia in U. S. Coastal Waters/Declining oxygen levels in nation’s waters forming dead zones, destroying habitats

Although the study finished before the oil spill happened and thus was not taken into account, the press release includes a very speculative fact-sheet:

Links Between Gulf Hypoxia and the Oil Spill

I have still not seen more on this but I think it could burst at any moment.

[Questioning_Climate]

Strogoff,

Thank you for those links, interesting. I have little doubt that they will try to run a scare on the hypothetical oil plume and link it to hypoxia, toxins and dead zones. The environmentalists have been trying that scare for years relating to waste being dumped in the ocean.

Just like ocean acidity/alkalinity/pH oxygen levels vary considerably. Indeed, oxygen content, like that of any other gas is determined by the chemistry of the sea water and the temperature. On top of that is the biological interaction. Consider the water around a hydrothermal vent for example: http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Mi-Oc/O...istry.html It is generally lacking in oxygen and full of all kinds of chemicals that we would classify as toxic but that doesn't stop life thriving around it. Often it is algae or microbes that are blamed for dead zones but it is far more likely that they a due to lack of circulation currents. In fact many dead zones are in the lower reaches of highly stratified waters.

Since the Gulf of Mexico has continuous leaks of oil and gas it is highly unlikely this relatively minor (in geological and geographic terms) will have any significant long term effect. On top of this, it should be acknowledged that the water is not stationary either vertically or laterally and thus will be dispersed with the prevailing oceanic currents.

To summarise, this scare will be tried because it is another hidden problem that only a few (the chosen few) will be able to assess. Poor quality data with huge uncertainties will be presented without the error estimates to lobby our dim-witted politicians for more funds. Yes, another scare based upon nothing.

[Sunsettommy]

With so many scare stories being disseminated.It is hard to maintain interest in the few legitimate one's that slip through.

That is one of the reasons why I despise many environmentalist organizations.Who are part of the storm,in releasing misleading claims that grossly distorts the true picture on what is going on out there.

Example:

Polar Bears.