Month: January 2023

In Honor of Fred Singer

S. Fred Singer (1924 – 2020) passed away on April 6, 2020 at the age of 95.

Dr. Singer is the author, coauthor, and editor of many books, including Climate Change Reconsidered (several volumes), a comprehensive critique of the assessment reports of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He was a senior fellow of The Heartland Institute and research fellow with the Independent Institute.

Dr. Singer published more than 200 technical papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals,  His editorial essays and articles have appeared in Cosmos, The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, New Republic, Newsweek, Journal of Commerce, Washington Times, Washington Post, and many other publications. His accomplishments have been featured in front-cover stories appearing in Time, Life, and U.S. News & World Report

Dr. Singer was an elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), American Geophysical Union, American Physical Society, and American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics.  Dr. Singer gave hundreds of lectures and seminars on global warming, including to the science faculties at leading universities around the world.

This post commemorates his steadfast labors to expose the truth of climate change as a natural variability and to neutralize the poison of claiming humans are causing a climate crisis or emergency.  To this end below is a synopsis of his analysis originally published Sept. 10, 2001 in the Wall Street Journal.  The source is Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System at ClimateCite.

Just how much of the “Greenhouse Effect” is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account– about 5.53%, if not.

This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn’t factored into an analysis of Earth’s greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.

Water vapor constitutes Earth’s most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth’s greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many “facts and figures’ regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC’s, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

For those interested in more details a series of data sets and charts have been assembled below in a 5-step statistical synopsis.

Note that the first two steps ignore water vapor.

1. Greenhouse gas concentrations

2. Converting concentrations to contribution

3. Factoring in water vapor

4. Distinguishing natural vs man-made greenhouse gases

5. Putting it all together

Note: Calculations are expressed to 3 significant digits to reduce rounding errors, not necessarily to indicate statistical precision of the data. All charts were plotted using Lotus 1-2-3.

Caveat: This analysis is intended to provide a simplified comparison of the various man-made and natural greenhouse gases on an equal basis with each other. It does not take into account all of the complicated interactions between atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial systems, a feat which can only be accomplished by better computer models than are currently in use.

1. The following table was constructed from data published by the U.S. Department of Energy (1) and other sources, summarizing concentrations of the various atmospheric greenhouse gases. Because some of the concentrations are very small the numbers are stated in parts per billion. DOE chose to NOT show water vapor as a greenhouse gas!

TABLE 1.The Important Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)
U.S. Department of Energy, (October, 2000) (1)Table 1 is not a very meaningful view because 1) the data has not been corrected for the actual Global Warming Potential (GWP) of each gas, and 2) water vapor is ignored.  But these are the numbers one would use if the goal is to exaggerate human greenhouse contributions:

The various greenhouse gases are not equal in their heat-retention properties though, so to remain statistically relevant % concentrations must be changed to % contribution relative to CO2. This is done in Table 2, below, through the use of GWP multipliers for each gas, derived by various researchers.

2. Using appropriate corrections for the Global Warming Potential of the respective gases provides the following more meaningful comparison of greenhouse gases, based on the conversion:

( concentration ) X ( the appropriate GWP multiplier (2) (3) of each gas relative to CO2 ) = greenhouse >contribution.:TABLE 2.Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)
adjusted for heat retention characteristics, relative to CO2

NOTE: GWP (Global Warming Potential) is used to contrast different greenhouse gases relative to CO2.

Compared to the concentration statistics in Table 1, the GWP comparison in Table 2 illustrates, among other things:

Total carbon dioxide (CO2) contributions are reduced to 72.37% of all greenhouse gases (368,400 / 509,056)– (ignoring water vapor).

Also, from Table 2 (but not shown on graph):

Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions drop to (11,880 / 509,056) or 2.33% of total of all greenhouse gases, (ignoring water vapor).

Total combined anthropogenic greenhouse gases becomes (28,162 / 509,056) or 5.53% of all greenhouse gas contributions, (ignoring water vapor).

To properly represent the total relative impacts of Earth’s greenhouse gases Table 3 (below) factors in the effect of water vapor on the system.

3. Table 3, shows what happens when the effect of water vapor is factored in, and together with all other greenhouse gases expressed as a relative % of the total greenhouse effect.

TABLE 3.Role of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases
(man-made and natural) as a % of Relative
Contribution to the “Greenhouse Effect”

Total atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) — both man-made and natural– is only about 3.62% of the overall greenhouse effect— a big difference from the 72.37% figure in Table 2, which ignored water!

Water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas, comes from natural sources and is responsible for roughly 95% of the greenhouse effect (4). Among climatologists this is common knowledge but among special interests, certain governmental groups, and news reporters this fact is under-emphasized or just ignored altogether.

Conceding that it might be “a little misleading” to leave water vapor out, they nonetheless defend the practice by stating that it is “customary” to do so!

4. Of course, even among the remaining 5% of non-water vapor greenhouse gases, humans contribute only a very small part (and human contributions to water vapor are negligible).

Constructed from data in Table 1, the charts (below) illustrate graphically how much of each greenhouse gas is natural vs how much is man-made. These allocations are used for the next and final step in this analysis– total man-made contributions to the greenhouse effect. Units are expressed to 3 significant digits in order to reduce rounding errors for those who wish to walk through the calculations, not to imply numerical precision as there is some variation among various researchers.

5. To finish with the math, by calculating the product of the adjusted CO2 contribution to greenhouse gases (3.618%) and % of CO2 concentration from anthropogenic (man-made) sources (3.225%), we see that only (0.03618 X 0.03225) or 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity. The other greenhouse gases are similarly calculated and are summarized below.

TABLE 4a.Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the “Greenhouse
Effect,” expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED)This is the statistically correct way to represent relative human contributions to the greenhouse effect.

From Table 4a, both natural and man-made greenhouse contributions are illustrated in this chart, in gray and green, respectively. For clarity only the man-made (anthropogenic) contributions are labeled on the chart.

Water vapor, responsible for 95% of Earth’s greenhouse effect, is 99.999% natural (some argue, 100%). Even if we wanted to we can do nothing to change this.

Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth’s greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor). This is insignificant!

Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28% (factoring in water vapor).

The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce your winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come later.

Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about 0.035%.

My Comment

Readers may have wondered, as I have, how the typical Earth Energy Balance diagrams can show surface solar radiation amounting to ~161 W/m2 and downwelling IR atmospheric radiation ~333 W/m2, more than twice as much.  This despite the fact that shorter wavelengths are more energetic and longer wavelengths have less energy.

Part of the problem is lies in calculating the conversion from radiation amounts to energy.  The formula is Energy level E = pV, where p is the Planck constant and V is the frequency.  Too often the shortcut is to assume the average frequency of visible light as the conversion factor.  That is a reasonable assumption for sunlight, but greatly exaggerates the energy of LWIR, which is 10 to 20 times longer than sunlight wavelengths.

In the tables above Dr. Singer did all the calculations considering each GHG’s volume and adjusted it by its ability to absorb IR radiation and the energy carried by each IR frequency.

 

 

via Science Matters

https://ift.tt/pBKAmjc

January 25, 2023 at 08:15PM

Stephen Fry, Emma Thompson and Aisling Bea: Stop Financing Fossil Fuel

Essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Auto; Jetset celebrities Stephen Fry, Emma Thomson and Aisling Bea have demanded banks stop financing production of jet fuel? Maybe they haven’t thought it through.

Emma Thompson and Aisling Bea urge UK banks to stop financing fossil fuels

By Beth Timmins

Business reporter, BBC News

Emma Thompson, Stephen Fry and Aisling Bea are among celebrities calling on the five of the UK’s biggest High Street banks to stop financing new oil, gas and coal projects. 

It follows criticism that HSBC, Barclays, Santander, NatWest and Lloyds are funding “fossil fuel expansion” despite making green pledges.

Businesses and charities like Greenpeace also back the campaign. 

HSBC and Barclays said they were helping their clients to cut emissions.

The Make My Money Matter campaign points to research by environmental charity Rainforest Action Network, which claims that between 2016 and 2021, HSBC, Barclays, Santander, NatWest and Lloyds funnelled almost $368bn (£298bn) towards the fossil fuel industry. 

It added that in the same time period, the lenders financed the 50 companies making the biggest investments in oil and gas projects to the tune of $141bn.

It added that while HSBC and LLoyds had made “welcome new announcements” on stopping direct finance for new fossil fuel expansion since then, “there is a long way to go”.

“HSBC was this month found to have provided $340m to a company opening a new coal mine in Germany,” it said. 

…

Read more: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-64399747

The open letter from “Make My Money Matter”; The letter and website were created using the products of fossil fuel (computers), and the website stays up because of electricity provided by fossil fuel.

Dear CEOs of HSBC, Barclays, Santander, NatWest and Lloyds:

We are writing to you as concerned customers and citizens. In 2021, the International Energy Agency (IEA) announced that there should be no investment in new oil, gas and coal if we want to limit global temperature rise and avoid climate catastrophe.

However, the UK’s Big 5 high street banks funneled $141 billion to the 50 companies at the forefront of oil and gas expansion between 2016 and 2021.

This action is jeopardising our futures.

We want you to ensure that your banks stop financing fossil fuel expansion. Here are the steps you need to take:

  1. Stop directly financing fossil fuel expansion activity. 
  2. Put clients on notice that they must stop expansion activity or face the financing consequences.
  3. End relationships if clients do not stop fossil fuel expansion. 

Lloyds has made a start by ending direct financing to new oil, gas, and coal projects; but all 5 of you must ensure you take climate action by following the three steps above, otherwise we will find a new bank.

Do you think we’ll stand for you financing climate catastrophe? Don’t bank on it.

Signed,

Source: https://makemymoneymatter.co.uk/openletter/

In my opinion Emma Thompson is one of the most egregious celebrity climate hypocrites on the planet. In 2019 Emma Thompson flew 5400 miles to participate in an Extinction Rebellion anti-flying protest.

Police told to use ‘full force’ of law against Heathrow climate change protesters

Heathrow is “working with the authorities” to address any protests which could “disrupt the airport”.

By Ceren Senkul, news reporter 
Friday 19 April 2019 07:06, UK

Police have been given the green light by the home secretary to use the “full force of the law” against climate change protesters who are planning to disrupt Heathrow airport. 

Extinction Rebellion has been holding demonstrations over several days in key parts of London in order to get the government to take action on the “unprecedented global emergency”.

…

Actress Emma Thompson joined the protests in London after taking a 5,400-mile flight from Los Angeles in the US.

She said: “I absolutely wanted to be arrested on my 60th birthday but I didn’t quite manage that.

“I’m so proud and thrilled to be part of Extinction Rebellion.”

…

Read more: https://news.sky.com/story/police-told-to-use-full-force-of-law-against-heathrow-climate-change-protesters-11697820

In response to accusations of celebrity hypocrisy, Extinction Rebellion explained the problem is people like Emma Thompson are forced to use fossil fuel, because they are stuck in the system.

Dear journalists who have called us hypocrites,

You’re right. 

We live high carbon lives and the industries that we are part of have huge carbon footprints. Like you – and everyone else – we are stuck in this fossil-fuel economy and without systemic change, our lifestyles will keep on causing climate and ecological harm. 

There is, however, a more urgent story that our profiles and platforms can draw attention to.

Life on earth is dying.  We are living in the midst of the 6th mass extinction. For those who still doubt the severity of our situation, here is the International Monetary Fund on 10th October 2019 :

“Global warming causes major damage to the global economy and the natural world and engenders risks of catastrophic and irreversible outcomes”

And here is Sir David Attenborough on 3rd December 2018 : 

“Right now, we are facing a man-made disaster of global scale. Our greatest threat in thousands of years. Climate change. If we don’t take action, the collapse of our civilisations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon.” 

Climate change is happening faster and more furiously than was predicted; millions of people are suffering, leaving their homes and arriving on our borders as refugees. 

Alongside these people who are already paying the price for our fossil fuelled economy, there are millions of children – called to action by Greta Thunberg – who are begging us, the people with power and influence, to stand up and fight for their already devastated future.

We cannot ignore their call.  Even if by answering them we put ourselves in your firing line.

The stories that you write calling us climate hypocrites will not silence us.  

The media exists to tell the public the truth. Right now there has never been a more urgent need for you to educate yourselves on the CEE (Climate and Ecological Emergency) and to use your voices to reach new audiences with the truth. 

We invite all people with platforms and profiles to join us and move beyond fear, to use your voices fearlessly to amplify the real story.
Thousands of ordinary people are risking their freedom by taking part in non-violent civil disobedience.  We’ve been inspired by their courage to speak out and join them. We beg you to do the same.

With love,

… lots of signatures …

Read more: https://rebellion.earth/2019/10/16/celebrities-backing-extinction-rebellion-say-yes-we-are-all-hypocrites-in-open-letter-to-media/

What protestors like Extinction Rebellion and celebrity hypocrites are really saying is it is acceptable to be a climate hypocrite, so long as you agitate for change. They are all waiting for you lazy engineering types to get off your butts, and find a way for celebrities to live their high energy lifestyles without mining or fossil fuel or anything else which offends green sensibilities.

What can I say? When you lazy engineers do your jobs, when the world runs on magic, green heroes like Emma Thompson won’t need an airplane to fly.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/QkY3iWt

January 25, 2023 at 08:14PM

Climatologist David Dilley: ‘We’re Going Into A Global Cooling Cycle Now’

Government agencies say that carbon dioxide levels are rising entirely due to human activity and the burning of fossil fuels. But are they?

Professor Dilley will show that today’s temperatures and carbon dioxide levels are very close to where they should be based on historical cycles. [emphasis, links added]

He will also show that we are sliding into a long-term global cooling cycle. Global warming begins and ends at the poles—and global cooling is now occurring in the Arctic and Antarctic.

Professor David Dilley is a Meteorologist-Climatologist-Paleoclimatologist and a former NOAA National Weather Service Meteorologist.

Professor Dilley is the founder and CEO of Global Weather Oscillations (GWO), a company heavily involved in the research and development of technology for the prediction of natural climate and weather cycles.

Professor Dilley has 54 years of experience ranging from the Air Force to NOAA National Weather Service and GWO.

As the senior research scientist and forecaster for GWO, Mr. Dilley developed ClimatePulse Technology based on Geomagnetic Cycles of the Earth-Moon-and Sun, and how these cycles align with historical, present-day, and future cycles of climate and weather.

Check out other interviews on Tom Nelson’s YouTube channel.

via The Carbon Sense Coalition

https://ift.tt/bG8BZEO

January 25, 2023 at 06:00PM

Former spokesperson for Extinction Rebellion turns on group, now rejects climate doomsday: ‘Climate activism has a cult problem…I used to be one of them’ – ‘I watched people brainwashed’

From Climate Depot

Former Extinction Rebellion spokeswoman Zion Lights

Zion Lights: “In 2018, I joined Extinction Rebellion UK, the precursor to Just Stop Oil, the group behind this recent spate of destructive direct actions. … One of the founders of XR had watched a few of my media appearances where I spoke about climate change and stargazing. She liked that I relied on data in my talks, and asked me to join the XR Media and Messaging Team. I was catapulted from being a local participant to spokesperson for the whole organization.” …

“In a TedTalk, sociologist Janja Lalich identifies the key elements of a cult: “A cult is a group or movement with a shared commitment to a usually extreme ideology that is usually embodied in a charismatic leader.” Roger preached martyrdom—he pushed everyone to sacrifice more in order to “fill the jails”—and used fear and control as tools for wielding power. I’d often be asked by reporters if XR was a cult, and I’d say no. But it was. It’s not just Roger Hallam who inspires terror and devotion among his climate-change flock. Those qualities typify the climate change movement. … In June 2020, I finally left XR. Soon after, XR put out a statement saying that I was a climate denier and that the media should not speak to me. … Here’s the truth: if we stopped using oil today, thousands of people would be thrust into an even worse energy crisis, and the wheels of society would stop turning. We do need to replace fossil fuels—but with real alternatives, not the radical erasure Roger wants.”

By Zion Lights

Maybe you saw Van Gogh’s “Sunflowers” smeared with two cans of tomato soup. Or the 20-year-old man who set fire to his arm at a tennis tournament, wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with the words “End UK Private Jets.” Or the traffic on London’s M25 highway blocked by protesters for days. One 24-year-old girl, Louise, climbed atop a crane on the highway. “I’m here because I don’t have a future,” she exclaimed between sobs.

All these stories feature young members of a movement that claims to fight climate change by demanding their governments stop using and producing fossil fuels immediately.

Their methods seem unorthodox, and you’re probably wondering how defacing artwork or gluing your hand to the floor of a Volkswagen showroom reduces carbon emissions. I don’t blame you.

The difference between me and you is I used to be one of them.

ImageImageImage
(via Twitter)

For the past 16 years, I was part of one environmental organization or another as an activist or paid employee. First it was Camp for Climate Action, where we protested a different corporation every year. Once, in a demonstration outside a bank in Edinburgh, we wore garbage bags and painted ourselves in molasses—a nod to the tar sands that the bank was investing in—and stormed the Royal Bank of Scotland headquarters, where I was arrested.

I became a mother in 2011, and swore off putting myself in danger, but I doubled down on my commitment to the movement. I wrote a book on ecologically minded parenting. I was the co-editor of a magazine, Juno, on the same subject. I gave talks, made television appearances, and wrote articles about the threat posed by unlivable temperatures that come from our reliance on fossil fuels.

Then, in 2018, I joined Extinction Rebellion UK, the precursor to Just Stop Oil, the group behind this recent spate of destructive direct actions.

I started out at the local level. Our group was part of the collective that took over Waterloo Bridge in London for two weeks. We packed the bridge with demonstrators and refused to leave. Extinction Rebellion, also known as XR, took over four key sites in London during that time—the largest civil obedience demonstration in decades. It got everyone buzzing.

One of the founders of XR had watched a few of my media appearances where I spoke about climate change and stargazing. She liked that I relied on data in my talks, and asked me to join the XR Media and Messaging Team. I was catapulted from being a local participant to spokesperson for the whole organization.

My days were spent writing for the national press, feeding journalists quotes and information, and editing our newspaper, The Hourglass. The people I worked with had big hearts and good intentions. Some are still my friends.

But there were red flags.

At my first XR media training, I was instructed to cry on television. “People need to see crying mothers,” Jamie Kelsey-Fry, the trainer and longtime XR activist, told me. “They need to be woken up to what they should really care about.” They asked if I’d bring my children to climate marches for the same reason. The whole thing was a masterclass on how to manipulate emotions. We were instructed to bring everything back to the climate emergency and how politicians were failing us. Nothing about solutions or science.

Children sit down at a blockade on Waterloo Bridge during the second day of a coordinated protest by Extinction Rebellion. (Leon Neal via Getty Images)

At the XR office in London, there was a sign that told you to keep your shoes on. Initially, I thought this was funny—a wink to our reputation as barefoot hippies—until I had to sit by people who were in fact barefoot. We had constant problems with people not cleaning up after themselves, and walking around without shoes. I remember collecting all the mugs and other dishes in the office and washing them myself so that we could have a clean environment to work in. The building’s management was always threatening to kick us out. Eventually, they did.

Another example: there was a room for healing at the office, where people could nap, meditate or get massages by volunteers. I was once called into the healing room by a friend to talk about problems in the movement. I thought this could be a productive meeting to talk about things that needed to change—for example, our focus on the end of the world—but was disappointed when we were told to pair up and share affirmations with each other. We were instructed to meditate and then connect to some higher power before sharing our feelings. There was a lot of talk about “oneness.” After about ten minutes of strange pseudoscientific practices, I left with another attendee. I wanted to fix problems, not pray.

I told myself activists can be odd birds and tried not to give it more thought. I mostly hung out with the dorkier types, like me. But over time, I realized there was something wrong, and that the guy in charge of XR, Roger Hallam, was the root of it.

Roger Hallam (via Twitter)

Roger, 56, an organic-farmer-turned-radical, is XR’s most dominant leader. He turned to activism after his farm business in Wales collapsed—a failure he blamed on extreme weather. In 2018, Roger founded XR with several people, but his ego propelled him to the top.

When I first saw Roger in the XR office in London, I didn’t see his appeal. His wiry gray hair was unkempt, and he sat behind his desk every day eating pungent homemade hummus. I noticed he didn’t pay attention to people when they talked. That we were facing certain death was his justification (or rationalization) for being rude to everyone.

Members called him a hero, and fell for his constant self-comparisons to MLK and Gandhi. He referred to himself as a prophet, and “proved” he was a martyr through regular arrests and stints in jail.

“He’s a genius,” Joel Scott-Halkes, another spokesperson, told me. Another common refrain: “He’s the only chance we’ve got.”

Roger liked to claim that war, murder and “the rape of young women on a global scale” are just around the corner.

In 2019, he called the Holocaust “just another fuckery in human history.”

While Roger insists he’s saving the human species from Armageddon, he doesn’t do the things you need to do to prevent it—like lobbying for legislation, electing sustainability-focused politicians, or fighting for actual solutions. (The Free Press got no response from Roger Hallam after sending requests for comment via email and his website.)

Nonetheless, people, especially women, clamored over him.

That’s because Roger knows his followers—mostly young men and women—feel immense guilt about their carbon-heavy lifestyles. He preys on their guilt and their anxiety about the future. You could almost describe Roger as the leader of a cult.

For any cult to work it needs to offer salvation. Roger offers that, plus a sense of purpose and belonging to the young people who flock to him.

“I won’t live to be thirty,” youth members would tell me. I tried to convince them they would live, but they were already under Roger’s spell.

Police officers carry Greta Thunberg away from the edge of the Garzweiler II opencast lignite mine. (Christoph Reichwein via Getty Images)

In a TedTalk, sociologist Janja Lalich identifies the key elements of a cult: “A cult is a group or movement with a shared commitment to a usually extreme ideology that is usually embodied in a charismatic leader.” Roger preached martyrdom—he pushed everyone to sacrifice more in order to “fill the jails”—and used fear and control as tools for wielding power. I’d often be asked by reporters if XR was a cult, and I’d say no. But it was.

It’s not just Roger Hallam who inspires terror and devotion among his climate-change flock. Those qualities typify the climate change movement.

Just think of Greta Thunberg, at once an archangel and a Jeremiah, telling a Davos forum in 2019: “I want you to panic.” She is also heavily influenced by XR: In 2018, at 15, she was invited to attend its first assembly, which drew more than 1,000 people to London’s Parliament Square for a “Declaration of Rebellion.” She has since amplified the message of imminent apocalypse to her 5.8 million Twitter followers and beyond, building her own cult of personality in the process.

When a movement that bills itself as compassionate and democratic seems to rely so heavily on messianic figures trading in doom and gloom, you have to ask yourself: Is this really the most ethical way to change the world?

Police officers try to control the crowd as members of Extinction Rebellion, chained together inside a length of pipe, wait to be arrested on October 8, 2019. (David Cliff via Getty Images)

October 2019 was, for many of us in XR, a turning point.

That was when XR shut down the London Tube. I was against the action, but others targeted the Canning Town station since it had inadequate security. They didn’t care that the reason it had inadequate security was that it was underfunded because it was in a beat-up neighborhood. The people who use the Canning Town station every day are the working poor, the people who really need to get to work, the people who don’t have the luxury of working from home. I watched in horror as the news hit, showing videos of a mob pulling one activist down from atop a Tube train by his foot and kicking him.

In response to concerns about the violence, Gail Bradbrook, another XR co-founder, told me: “Disruption is what we do. This is what climate change will lead to anyway, and people need to see it.”

A few of the other spokespeople—there were six of us—refused to defend the London Tube event on TV, though some of Roger’s closest allies did. They no longer saw the need for any sort of persuasion: “We don’t need to take people along with us, Zion,” said Caspar Hughes, an older man who was likewise obsessed with Roger. “We don’t have time for that.” (Hughes was arrested this past summer after gluing himself to a copy of da Vinci’s “Last Supper.”)

The Tube disruption lost the group much-needed public support and a lot of money. It also splintered the movement.

A few weeks later, I appeared on The Andrew Neil Show. I was pressed to defend the assertion that “six billion people will die by the end of the century because of climate change,” a figure made up by Roger.

I knew that I couldn’t condemn Roger on national television, but I also couldn’t lie. The host moved on: What, exactly, did XR think we should replace gas with?

I wanted to say nuclear energy, but couldn’t. Finally, I told Andrew Neil the truth: “I’m not here to talk about solutions.”

I didn’t quit XR the night of the Andrew Neil interview. It would take a few more shocks—Roger’s grand plan (unfulfilled) to shut down Heathrow Airport by flying drones over it; his own daughter, Savannah Lovelock, breaking ties with XR over that stunt; Roger’s proposal (denied) to spend a small fortune from XR’s donations to fund a trip to the United States—in a private jet, no less—to launch the organization there.

…

Full article here: https://www.thefp.com/p/climate-activism-has-a-cult-problem?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

#

Spokeswoman who quit Extinction Rebellion now works for Michael Shellenberger to fight for the NUCLEAR industry says: ‘Once I understood the facts, I did change my mind’

3.5
2
votes

Article Rating

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/cTny09k

January 25, 2023 at 05:05PM