Saturday, December 19, 2009

Email From 350 Dot Org

Dear Friends,

We need you to read this closely, if you would.

You've always counted on us to tell the truth, and it would be useless to pretend we're happy with the outcome of the Copenhagen climate talks.

You'll likely hear the Copenhagen drama spun in a thousand different ways, but here's our honest take on the outcome: our leaders have been a disappointment, and the talks have ended without any kind of fair, ambitious, or legally binding global agreement. It's unclear whether the weak "accord" which emerged early this morning will provide a platform strong enough to deliver the kind of action we'll need in 2010 and beyond.

That doesn't mean you have failed. On the contrary, the movement you have built around the world allowed everyone to understand the scientific issues at stake. Over and over in Copenhagen, UN delegates came up to anyone wearing a 350 t-shirt with words of wonder and gratitude. We were told repeatedly how much this movement has altered both the tone and substance of these negotiations.

For the first time since these climate talks began almost 20 years ago, a citizens' movement has made it much harder for the great powers to simply impose a weak agreement on everyone else - that's why the US, China, and India had to cut their own deal amongst themselves. Many small nations, poor nations, and vulnerable nations simply refused to go along smoothly with a global suicide pact-because they knew that 350 equaled survival.

Indeed, that very chant--"Three-Five-Oh...Sur-vi-val!"--went up spontaneously among the crowd of hundreds of young people who gathered in the freezing cold at 1 a.m. under the subway stop outside the Bella Center, where the talks were being held in Copenhagen. They hadn't been allowed inside for days -- last night they came to stand outside and deliver the verdict from the movement: this is not enough, this is not over, and we are witnessing a monumental failure of leadership.

That failure can't be allowed to stand. It is our future, the future of every spot on earth and of every person in every generation to come. So we will together, in the weeks and months ahead, figure out how to build a stronger movement, one that will head this earth back where it needs to go. You'll hear from us in the weeks ahead with new ideas, and if you have some of your own please share them by e-mailing

We're approaching a period of holiday around much of the world, and when the new year dawns it won't be all that we'd hoped for. But we are confident, and that confidence comes from you. From every corner of the world, in places warm and cold, poor and rich, Muslim and Christian and Hindu and Buddhist and Jewish and none-of-the-above, we share one basic message: 350 equals survival, and we'll stop at nothing to get there.

On we go.

The team


Martin said...

why do you still expect people to trust the human induced global warming argument after the "Climat-gate" bustup ?

Dredd said...


This is a post directly from not from me. The word "trust" only appears in your comment, not in their post. Thus, you raise a straw man.

But you did ask me something not even covered in their post, that is, you asked why do I "trust" an argument.

I take it that "trust" is the way you deal with an argument then?

I don't use a process of "trust" to deal for or against an argument. Instead, I use a process of proving by searching the available data, by reading widely, then seeing if there is support for that argument in the data.

A conclusion, based upon the data and the argument, is the last thing I do.

Trust is something for kids to do with their parents, or married couples to do with their vows.

This is a matter of science, and the science is clear with no "trust" wanted.

Those who are in denial about what is coming, caused by human error, must trust like you evidently do because they certainly do not have a grasp on reality available through mountains of research and reports.

Here is a link to one post that points out the folly of your premise: Shadow of Time Governs Earth.

Humans are responsible for damage to the earth. The sun cannot be blamed for human overpopulation, for human destruction of forests, for human pollution, the increasing human caused species extinction, nor anything else humans are doing to destroy the ecosystem.

Call the Science Police if you think some scientists committed fraud. That is what the science police are for.

If a competent prosecutor can prove a scientist actually did do fraud they will be punished.

Martin said...


I use the word "trust" intentionally and yes, I do use "trust" when it comes to scientific knowledge. I did not use the word "believe" because I do not think it's a matter of belief but rather facts, the way it should be when dealing with science. So having said that, I my self am not a climatologist (nor do I have a scientific background of any sort), therefor I can't make a valid ruling even if I had raw scientific data presented to me.
But I also haven't observed our Solar system in telescope, but I do "trust" astronomers when they say that Earth orbits Sun. Why? Because there are no other significant group of sientists claiming this not to be true, unlike the way it's with human induced global warming. And to make matters worse, there are these hacked emails which kind of prooves my point... So again, my question is, how can you "trust" an argument if a certain group of corrupt scientists have fuck_ed up so badly...

I'm not arguing about climate change per se, I know that climate is changing, icecaps are melting and Africa (with many other places on Earth) is drying up. The whole discussion is about whether it's because of human induced CO2...

Dredd said...



Then I will say even if the emails showed a fraud, that is 4 or 5 scientists out of thousands upon thousands who do not do fraud.

I do not think the emails show a fraud, but rather they show some bad judgment.

Read this post and you will see that my understanding of global warming and global climate change could endure even if we had ten cold years in a row since 1998.

I say this because in geological, climatological terms, ten years is nothing.

The long range view is where I focus.

Finally, CO2 is only one of several problems we are making, any of which can cause catastrophe.

Thanks for commenting and thinking.