Stark and Stunning Shot of demonstrators under gallows on blocks of ice - Berlin's Brandenburg Gate

[Pluvious]

Wow.

Link to tweet

[onethatcares]

1. about where humanity stands

at this point

[ffr]

23. +1 So we can conveniently drive in our air conditioned cars 20 miles to pick up milk

shipped in from hundreds of miles away.

[Ligyron]

2. I was expecting to see something from the 30's

Ya know, Nazis but now I'm glad I didn't.

[colorado_ufo]

3. The one on the right may be a woman.

What the hell is wrong with human beings?

[tblue37]

25. Is a woman. They are all 3 climate change protesters from yesterday. They are graphically

demonstrating the plight of humanity as the climate warms and the ice melts. They are demonstrating that at a certain point, we are doomed.

[colorado_ufo]

29. Thank you so much for explaining.

I had not seen the details on this, and it had really haunted me!

[Karadeniz]

4. When was this?

[malaise]

8. Today - world climate change protests

Very powerul

[The Mouth]

5. Brilliant

[NNadir]

6. Cute, but the answer isn't cartoonish stunts. We have the asses at Greenpeace for that stuff.

The answer is respect for science and engineering.

This matter isn't going away because people engage in stunts. These people are in Germany, a nation that has a huge interest in phasing out climate gas free energy and no interest in phasing out dangerous fossil fuels.

Zero interest.

[DemocracyMouse]

10. Seems you don't understand affect as a component of effective communication

And why give Greenpeace a hard time? What have you done to save whales, fight oil companies or raise awareness?

[NNadir]

13. I'm a scientist, not a marketing hack playing stupid games.

I have spent the last 30 years of my life studying climate change and energy in the primary scientific literature at my own expense and time. My journal here refers to many things I have found out in that process by educating myself.

I note that this work on which I have labored long hours is a lot different than wearing "save the whales" buttons during trips to the mall to buy Sierra Club Calendars for Christmas and declaring myself an environmentalist.

The morons at Greenpeace have spent the last 40 years attacking the last best hope of the human race, nuclear energy.

Tearing up the seas with diesel powered ships to install wind turbines that will be landfill in 30 years because you have never opened a science book is not environmentalism, it's stupidity; it's ignorance.

There is an absolutely contemptible piece of disgusting schadenfreud by the asshole who used to head that benighted ignorance factory Greenpeace about how happy he is that the climate is collapsing so he can tell everyone about his nine year old paper in an obscure journal that was filled with delusional and destructive "100% renewable" energy horseshit that did not work, is not working and will not work to address climate change." It is a commentary published in the otherwise important scientific journal Nature.

Paul Gilding: Why I welcome a climate emergency

This is Trumpian self congratulations, toxic, ignorant, and completely disconnected from reality.

Greenpeace is an organization of bourgeois consumerist ignoramuses who have trivialized climate science by thinking it's an issue in marketing. It is not about marketing. It is about science, engineering, and - not that these assholes give a rat's ass - very much about human poverty.

Got it?

No?

Well, I suggest you go on pretending that you're "fighting oil companies." Greenpeace isn't. It's making the world safe for them.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

15. the reason for the demonstrations is to get people to listen to scientists

Politicians and the general public have not been listening. "Stunts" get them to do so.

[NNadir]

16. Again, I am a scientist. The people who claim they want politicians to "listen to scientists..."

...aren't doing it themselves. Greenpeace is a perfect example.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

17. the OP is not about Greenpeace

[NNadir]

18. It's about a stunt posing as environmentalism. To me that is very much about Greenpeace. n/t

[Hermit-The-Prog]

19. it's a climate crisis demonstration

The message is pretty clear: If the ice melts, we die.

[NNadir]

20. And the ice will melt. All this driving to demonstrations will be as effective as LIVE EARTH 2007.

In 2007, the concentration of carbon dioxide, as of a few weeks ago, was under 385 ppm; today it's over 408 ppm. This rate of increase, of 2.3 ppm/year is the highest ever observed.

So much for massive demonstrations among the bourgeoisie.

I follow the environment closely. Studying it is a part of my daily life. I'm unimpressed with these cartoons.

[LakeArenal]

27. That's because you are a scientist.

The majority of the uninformed, who will never hear you, learn things from sound bites and “cartoons”. Most commercials are geared to a sixth grade education.

Though I bow to your superior mind, I don’t think it that wise to put down these folks. Many appreciate what they feel is the sacrifice they are making. You may not.
That your prerogative.

[NNadir]

28. Appeals to 6th grade minds have all failed, are failing and will fail. It's time to behave...

...differently.

To do otherwise is to assume that humanity is too stupid to survive.

If you're saying we are too stupid to survive, you may have a case, but we may as not bother if we surrender to that assumption.

Personally, I am a person who is merely intelligent enough to know that I'm not all that bright.

And even though I'm not all that bright, I object strenuously to trivializing a serious issue with an assumption that generalized stupidity is intractable.

We have given too much to advertising and very little to actual thinking.

Dumbing down is not a good idea. If we are to teach anything, we should teach people to understand that there are issues that they are not competent to address. Climate is one such issue.

[LakeArenal]

30. Well then I think you are not going to get many critical thinkers from the masses.

And yes. I do think people aren’t too stupid, I think they are uniformed, lazy,
and pop culture driven.

Science in America has been attacked by assholes that have many believing the Bible is as factual as science.

In my opinion you are expecting way too much from folks who are ambivalent about science itself let alone climate change. When Gore called it an inconvenient truth, that’s exactly right.

And inconvenience in America just doesn’t fly for a lot of folks.

Arguing with folks on DU is preaching to the choir anyway. We all believe it and fear for the world.

[NNadir]

31. Believe it or not, there are many people here on DU who are abysmally informed about climate change.

I would say that it probably true that the majority of people here think that climate change will conveniently be addressed by rototilling forests, destroying desert ecosystems and continental shelf ecosystems to build wind farms, by putting solar cells on their suburban homes, buying lots of batteries and electric cars.

This, too, is clueless. The trillions of dollars spent chasing this delusional chimera didn't work, isn't working and won't work.

I don't feel like I'm preaching to the choir. We on the left are not as innocent and as noble as we think.

[LakeArenal]

32. Well I think your superior intellect is going to your head

Have a nice day.

[DemocracyMouse]

21. I actually have a Masters of Science from MIT and appreciate your concerns

But let us agree to disagree. "Marketing" and/or protesting the whale industry, etc. in vivid ocean campaigns has drawn thousands into the green movement. Better to partner with the artists than to alienate yourself from them. Mind you, they have better parties.

And one more thing: the renewable energy sector is already more cost effective than oil and gas. And why go on supporting nuclear which still has no effective way to deal with the contaminated waste it produces. I've read reports from former nuclear power directors and commissioners who say they regret their earlier support of the technology.

I like your moxie in any case!

[NNadir]

22. The "green" movement is an oxymoron; it is neither economically nor environmentally sustainable.

With all due respect to MIT, where I am encouraging my son to go graduate school, a degree from that institution does not confer either wisdom or an appreciation of reality. Here's the reality of the trillions of dollars squandered on so called "renewable energy:"

IEA 2017 World Energy Outlook, Table 2.2 page 79 (I have converted MTOE in the original table to the SI unit exajoules in this text.)

In this century, world energy demand grew by 164.83 exajoules to 584.95 exajoules.

In this century, world gas demand grew by 43.38 exajoules to 130.08 exajoules.

In this century, the use of petroleum grew by 32.03 exajoules to 185.68 exajoules.

In this century, the use of coal grew by 60.25 exajoules to 157.01 exajoules.

In this century, the solar, wind, geothermal, and tidal energy on which people so cheerfully have bet the entire planetary atmosphere, stealing the future from all future generations, grew by 8.12 exajoules to 10.63 exajoules.

10.63 exajoules is under 2% of the world energy demand.

Now, I am a scientist. In science - I'm sure they ask people to appreciate this at MIT and every other reputable scientific institution - if one has a theory, and then tests it by experiment and the results negate the theory, the theory goes, not the experiment.

We have squandered more than two trillion dollars in the last ten years on so called "renewable energy" - in the last ten years alone, this on a planet where hundreds of thousands people die each year from contaminated water, and where billions of people lack access to basic sanitary facilities - and the rate of degradation of the planetary atmosphere, measured as the second derivative of CO2 accumulations has reached between 2.3 - and 2.4 ppm a year.

That's a fact.

As for the stupidity of focusing on so called "nuclear waste" - the chemistry of which I am intimately familiar - I note that while the asses at Greenpeace prattle on about it, seven million people die each year from dangerous fossil fuel and dangerous biomass combustion waste:

Here is the most recent full report from the Global Burden of Disease Report, a survey of all causes of death and disability from environmental and lifestyle risks: Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015 (Lancet 2016; 388: 1659–724) One can easily locate in this open sourced document compiled by an international consortium of medical and scientific professionals how many people die from causes related to air pollution, particulates, ozone, etc.

It would be interesting if anyone who claims to give a shit about the environment while demeaning the work of the some of the finest minds of the 20th century, the men who built the nuclear industry, Seaborg, Weinberg, Wigner, Fermi can demonstrate a case where, over the last half a century, wherein so called "nuclear waste" has killed as many people as will die in the next eight hours from air pollution.

For the record, I have known many thousands of people with Ph.D's from outstanding institutions. Some of them are truly impressive, and others, I kind of wonder how they learned to work a screwdriver.

In general, I am impressed with the faculty at MIT, including the nuclear engineering faculty. Charles Forsberg, from my perspective is one of the finest thinkers in energy, although he and I surely would disagree on the usefulness of so called "renewable energy."

The so called "renewable energy" industry is garbage, particularly because every damned solar cell on this planet will be intractable and toxic electronic waste within 30 years, and we'll be poking around for poor people to suffer the profound toxicological issues with "recycling" it.

Opposing nuclear energy is a crime against all future generations, because of the high energy to mass ratio of nuclear fuels. Nuclear power saves lives.

Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power (Pushker A. Kharecha* and James E. Hansen Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895)

Climate change is going to kill the whales, the coral reefs and a lot of other stuff the asinine morons at Greenpeace have actively used to market their ignorance as "green." They are not "green." They are stupid.

I spend most of my working life in hard science. I'm sorry, but your Masters degree, and your vague references to obscure nuclear engineers who you claim (without reference) who regret their work, does not impress me, because day to day, I read hard science and, if one were to read my journal here, comment on it.

Science always involves controversy and testing. The coal intensive (as it is steel intensive) wind industry - and the semiconductor solar industry have been tested. They failed. We hit 415 ppm this year, and I, if not you, give a shit about that result.

Greenpeace is an organization of bourgeois brats with poor educations focusing on bad thinking. They are destroying the planet" with their ignorant cartoon selective attention. That there exists a media that declares them an "environmental organization" is a partial explanation for a media that made "her emails" a more important issue than overt racism and sexual assault on the part of the neo-Nazi now living in the White House.

I am not agreeing to disagree. This issue if far too important for "playing nice." Ignorance is ignorance and nothing else. Ignorance kills.

We need to wake up. We are killing a future that did not belong to us. History will not forgive us, nor should it.

[customerserviceguy]

35. Thank you

I appreciate your reasoned perspective on this.

[UniteFightBack]

24. You are a scientist and they are artists. We need everybody. nt

[Doremus]

33. With all due respect, has the science community been able to drill home

the seriousness of what we face? They actually haven't, have they, or else governments would be much farther along in ameliorating climate change.

I'm speaking of the millions of Americans who are either ignorant of the subject or are climate deniers, how have scientists done so far in getting their attention and agreement?

When groups of people work together the results are generally better than single efforts. Don't denigrate the efforts of these people; they're on our side.

And your smugness is practically nauseating, frankly. Just FYI.

[NNadir]

34. Yeah, Live Earth 2007 was a spectacular success!!! Thanks so much for NOT being...

...smug.

You seem to think that it is the fault of scientists, because no one cared to listen to scientists.

We're at 408 ppm, this being the annual minimum. We hit 415 ppm, this year.

I have an idea. Why don't you organize a big rock concert, to protest climate change, with decidedly not smug rock and roll assholes prancing around on the stage in front of thousands of watts of electric amplifiers wearing "NO NUKES!" teeshirts.

It worked great in 2007 and I'm sure it will work equally as well in 2019.

Right?

During Live Earth 2007, for the week ending on July 8, 2007, the concentration of the dangerous fossil fuel waste was 385.00 ppm.

The week ending July 8, 2019, it was 411.59 ppm.

For the week ending September 8, 2019, the same concentration was 408.59.

Of course, scientists have posted that data on the internet, where anyone who is interested in, um, science, could read it, assuming they're not too busy watching protests on TV and dreaming of electric cars and solar cells.

It's here: Up-to-date weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa

By the way, the figure for September 8, 2019 almost certainly represents the annual low, which comes each year in September. We hit 415.39 ppm for the week ending May 9, 2019.

I'm sure this is all because scientists can't convince people that science is important. We're all just too smug.

Thank you for your deep concern for the environment. You're doing great!!!!! Fabulous!!!! You've stopped the storms, the oppressive heat, the people dropping dead in the street from heat, fires, crop failures dead in its track and all it took was a few cute protests.

As for me and my smug opinion that really all this marketing bull is delusional, I guess I'll just do what I always do, read scientific papers and imagine that in some future time there will be people who care enough and are smart enough to look at reality which - this may be surprising - is not found on TV or in live performances.

That's not the world we live in, but, this said, I have faith in the millennial generation; they are nowhere near as stupid as we've been.

[Doremus]

37. Now that you mention it.

You're spending a lot of bandwidth criticizing everyone else for their lack of action but I don't see you mention your own action plan?

Before you ask, I no longer purchase or consume any animal products. No meat, no dairy, no leather, nothing animal related. I walk to work 3 days a week and carpool often. We consume as little energy as possible, limiting our AC use to twice a week and setting the thermostat in the winter to 60. We do these things in the name of our young grandchildren and all the younger generations who will be the beneficiaries of society's greed and ignorance.

So you monitor climate change, terrific. What actual sacrifices have you made to do your part?

[Doremus]

38. ****crickets*****

[tblue37]

26. The huge protests do move public opinion, as a recent study has shown. nt

[FakeNoose]

7. It's a 2019 version of a hunger strike

Hunger strikes take such a long time and they get kind of messy. This is something immediate that people can tweet to their friends, and maybe even get a selfie.

[trof]

9. Great visual. Drives the point home.

[Autumn]

11. Holy shit. That's one hell of a powerful visual.

[nolabear]

12. WOW. Incredible.

[Raine]

14. Wow that makes the point

without having to say a word or hold up a sign!

[Codeine]

36. Middle-class white people LARPing. nt