View Full Version : AVAAZ and Climate Change Hysteria
19-12-2007, 02:02 PM
How many of you are aware of AVAAZ ( www.avaaz.org )
I originally came across this group when signing a petition related to Burma/Iraq (don't recall which). They have since been sending me emails regarding Climate Change (as in Global Warming) and soliciting my support to sign various petitions to do with climate.
I emailed them regarding this, questioning their position, but received no reply.
Today I posted the comment below on their website page at Bali: People Power Confronts Climate Change (http://www.avaaz.org/en/bali_report_back/1.php). It appears that comments may only appear for a short while before dropping off the bottom of the page, so not sure how long it will be up.
Avaaz, I signed a petition regarding Burma (a worthy cause) with you and since have received frequent emails regarding climate. Unfortunately, it seems that your motivation runs more with becoming a massive activist group and less with facing up to the realities of what climate change is all about and therefore you end up supporting the very forces that you purport to be fighting against. Ignorance is no excuse for your position, but I suspect that you are not so much ignorant of the facts, as blinkered to anything that might reduce the expansion of your 'corporation'. You may now feel the kudos of being a 'star', as is evident by your attempt to claim that decisions at Bali were due to your activists - 'Just like hundreds of thousands of Avaaz members told them to do'. Climate change is unquestionably NOT primarily due to anthropogenic reasons, it lies beyond that and you are attempting to deny all those who blindly accept your words a glimpse of the consequences of pursuing your errant path. Already there have been huge moves to capitalise on 'climate taxation' which does absolutely nothing to reduce any contribution to CO2 levels. It beggars belief that any credible organisation can be so unaware of the real issues that are driving this issue. I'd be happy to discuss these, in detail with you, in an open forum, rather than the rather closed system that you appear to currently operate, which doesn't encourage contrary views.
Patrick, United Kingdom
Not the best comment, I'll admit, but was done in a bit of a rush. I've taken screenshot and download of page, it will be interesting to see if there is any response, if so I'll keep you posted.
This organisation appears to be expanding rapidly and placing itself as the spokesperson for the world, even if some of their mailing list disagree with their views. They appear very internet savvy and astute at whipping up passion for their views and I'll confess to being somewhat uncomfortable with their self-aggrandisement.
20-12-2007, 01:05 PM
Just to keep anyone who is following this up to date. There have been some responses to my post on AVAAZ and I'm glad to see that they are reasonable, which is what might be expected of those concerned about the world, rather than irate, but sometimes anger takes over from reason, so kudos to those who replied :)
I'll just paste my comment(s), almost exactly as the final version, below which also contain their posts.
Thanks to those who gave their thoughts on my comments - right back on the first page - these are the ones I’ve managed to see.
Comment by: Roger Plenty, United Kingdom
It's not Aavaz that says that climate change is due to anthropogenic reasons, it is the 2000 or so scientists of the Fourth Assessment. They are the experts - why do we employ experts if we are not prepared to listen to what they say?
Roger, this might be fine if if the Fourth Assessment had been produced by an independent organisation. Possibly you are unaware that the IPCC is a political organisation, formed jointly by the WMO and UNEP (UN organisations). The UN is not a beneficent organisation, so hardly surprising the IPCC is equally disreputable. Those who disagree with the view they choose to publish are censored, removed or misrepresented. A little investigation shows that the IPCC reports are political and not scientific, not peer reviewed in the accepted way and claims that the report represents the opinion of 2000 scientists are false.
This is exactly the kind of thing that disturbs me about AVAAZ, a populist organisation that is stirring up passions, but not disseminating the reality. Those with too little time to check anything, then believe the propaganda they push in respect of climate. After all, it is obvious the planet is warming and man is causing it, because it’s the consensus! It appeals to the caring sides of individuals, caring for the planet, caring for future generations, but it is a deception that will cost us dearly in more than just a financial way.
I’d love to believe in a fairy-tale world, where Al Gore is our knight in shining armour and all the people rise up and follow him to destroy the nasty dragon. Unfortunately, it is not so. Al Gore is a manipulative, mendacious individual. His movie is literally riddled with lies and half-truths, not just the odd little mistake. So why the need to produce a fictitious propaganda movie, if your case is clear and incontrovertible? I find it hard to understand how people can hold up such a man, who has just intentionally and persistently lied to them, as their figurehead.
Comment by Helen H. , Netherlands:
Patrick from UK, hi. Actually Avaaz are a good lot, and not megalomaniacs. They patiently discussed with me my misgivings on hounding Wolfowitz for favouring his mistress, because I felt he'd overcome a cultural hurdle (stupid I know). But they finally actually persuaded me to demand his resignation. Whether changes happen 'because' of AVAAZ, including the resignation of Wolfowitz or the Bali agreement, the fact is Avaaz is only as strong as its members. The team at HQ only do what they can, make good publicity, and then depend on us. But WE are AVAAZ!
Helen, maybe I seem a little harsh on AVAAZ, but I am specifically attacking their position on Climate Change, not other areas. They have so hopelessly got it wrong on climate and they are causing immense damage. They are (probably unintentionally, I grant you) forwarding the agenda that is behind the claim of AGW (anthropogenic/manmade global warming), using large numbers of supporters to do so. I don’t dispute the ability of AVAAZ to speak out effectively and in most cases reasonably.
My concern is that AGW is a popular bandwagon, that is hopelessly and irrefutably wrong. AVAAZ have a responsibility to make sure that they present facts to their supporters and not distortions that will suit yet another successful campaign, that brings greater stardom! I don’t see megalomania, but I do see the manipulation of the natural inclination of most people to conserve the planet. Contrary to a few claims in messages on here, the media is actually wholeheartedly behind AGW, any contrary views are given scant mention and there is little investigation of alternative views.
HQ do depend on the ‘WE’ to take action, but they are creating an automatic action response, by feeding on peoples’ ignorance and fear of climate change.
In fact the numbers motivated by AVAAZ are not that great, considering that all that is required is to electronically sign a petition online, over such an emotive issue. Compared this with, for example, the demonstration in London against the invasion of Iraq, with realistic estimates of well over 1 Million people physically present - I was there and so able to confirm for myself that this figure is no exaggeration.
Comment by: npryce, United Kingdom
Carbon trading?????? PATRICK please explain to the world there is no point, it doesn't reduce the CO2 it just buys the emperor more clothes we must slow down the use of finite resources. You sound like you have a clear vision and a way with words, are there any more out there?
This is exactly what I’m hinting at, another sleight of hand.
It may seem from what I’ve said that I think we should just carry on polluting the planet and enjoying whatever big business has to offer us. I feel precisely the opposite, but I don’t want to see false reasons being used to justify action, because there will be consequences for doing so, many of them unforeseen at this point.
One of the already visible consequences is that the issue of AGW is going to be used as a means to control people from a centralised global organisation, ostensibly to take care of the planet, in reality to make every man, woman, child accountable to an unelected politically driven control. There are already so many signs showing this. If you’re unaware of them, then please do some research and you’ll realise why it is imperative to open up to more than the blinkered ‘man done it’ view, that is being pushed by AVAAZ.
I believe in taking care of our planet, reducing our polluting practises etc, but this is just not going to happen if we blindly follow the path of blaming all our ills on AGW.
I wonder how many avid AVAAZ supporters actually want to do something personally to combat what they claim to be the cause of AGW. I’d be surprised if it is one in ten thousand, because it means a complete change of lifestyle, for example: never take another flight, never buy a single packaged or processed product again, never eat cooked food again, only walk to your destination ... NO, the reality is that it is much easier to blame it all on some multi-national corporation, or government, someone to ‘fight’ against, because that makes us feel we’re doing something, while not actually having to change anything ourselves. Meanwhile, pats on the backs all round at how much we’re doing to get ‘them’ to notice us!
Recycling, Carbon Credits etc are a massive fraud, designed to make us think we’re doing something, while leaving Corporations and Consumers free to continue in the flawed way that they (WE!) use this planet. There should be no need for recycling schemes, because the waste packaging should never exist to begin with ... I’m sure I don’t need to point out every aspect of our lives that is pure hypocrisy in respect of concern for our environment!
These are all secondary measures, not tackling the root cause, which is our selfish consumerism. Tackle that in yourself and then you’ll be closer to the planet that, for now, you only imagine you love.
20-12-2007, 01:53 PM
A couple more comments on AVAAZ, with my responses underneath them ...
Hi, Did you guys know that these companies are emitting carbon monoxide, not carbon dioxide. What everyone is going to do, after they sign these agreements...is start putting catalyctic converts on smoke stacks. This will change carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide. That is what the catalyctic conerter does in your car. Then the trees will turn this carbon dioxide into oxygen. That is my understanding of what they want to do. I think canada is actually going to be the leader in all of this. Everyone agreed with what they wanted. It just takes time for companied to hook these things up. Think about something also...There are alot of companies in each coutry attributing to the pollution. I was actually wondering something though..? Do you guys really even know what you are talking about ? Everyone says greenhouse gases..(carbon dioxide)....It's actually carbon monoxide. Well, what do you think about that? Peter Henkel
peter henkel, Canada
In reply to peter henkel, Canada: Peter, unfortunately I think that most people have no idea about what a greenhouse gas is. It is sad to read so many comments on here, where the intention is good, but the direction is completely askew. None of them want to harm the planet, yet there is almost total ignorance as to scientific reality, let alone the more spiritual aspects of what is going on. This is why I am appalled by the reckless disregard that AVAAZ are displaying in regard to this issue, as opposed to others that they tackle. They are either completely ignorant of what is involved (which they should not be), or are choosing to pursue this issue because it ‘feels’ good and is gaining them kudos and hence power and presumably not least financial backing via donations. I am becoming more disgusted with the influence they have, as I read more and more completely naive comments on here. However, I am grateful that they appear to be leaving a voice of dissent visible in their comment section ... so they can't be all bad :-) I’ll reply a little more in depth to your comment in the next 24 hours.
Patrick, Thank you for posting your thought-provoking comments. A have a couple of responses: “A little investigation shows that the IPCC reports are political and not scientific, not peer reviewed in the accepted way and claims that the report represents the opinion of 2000 scientists are false. This is exactly the kind of thing that disturbs me about AVAAZ, a populist organisation that is stirring up passions, but not disseminating the reality.” Criticizing the IPCC for being political is a little short-sighted. The IPCC, while created by politics, is an apolitical body much like NASA. For months, independent scientists contributing to the IPCC debate over the evidence. Nothing gets published without consensus, making the panel’s reports as trustworthy as a scientific document can be. When all is settled among the scientists, the politicians sweep in and seek to excise from the summaries anything which threatens their interests. The result of this tussling between scientists and politicians actually means that the IPCC's are slightly more timid than the real scientists suggest they should be. The main IPCC report (several thousand pages of reading) is where the true meat lies. And it is here that you get to the heart of the matter and realize that in actual fact all these statements out there about “lack of scientific consensus” are merely remnants of a very astute and well coordinated disinformation campaign launched by the likes of the U.S. coal and oil lobbies: http://www.businessweek.com/investing/greenbiz/arc hives/2007/05/exxons_climate.html If you still don’t believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming, I urge you to think about the answers to the following questions that George Monbiot poses in his new book, heat: 1. Do greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere? 2. Is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas? 3. Have human activities lead to a net increase in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? 4. Will more greenhouses gases mean that more heat will be trapped? I doubt anyone on the planet can answer no to these questions. “One of the already visible consequences is that the issue of AGW is going to be used as a means to control people from a centralised global organisation, ostensibly to take care of the planet, in reality to make every man, woman, child accountable to an unelected politically driven control.” On the contrary, the solution to this problem lies in the de-centralisation of energy, transport, trade, agriculture--our economies. “In fact the numbers motivated by AVAAZ are not that great, considering that all that is required is to electronically sign a petition online, over such an emotive issue. Compared this with, for example, the demonstration in London against the invasion of Iraq, with realistic estimates of well over 1 Million people physically present - I was there and so able to confirm for myself that this figure is no exaggeration.” But what happened after the march? The war went ahead regardless. Avaaz is creating a movement that will continue to push for change. There will be ups and downs but we will prevail. We also happen to be much bigger than a million, and it’s working. Undoubtedly, people will still want to question the science and this should be encouraged. True scientists will always be driven to question, and those working in climate change are no exception. There is still an awful lot we don’t know about climate change. But the evidence we have accumulated to date is overwhelming. Those that continue to push the agenda that the science is uncertain or that climate change is a plot for scientists to get funding, are not brave blasphemers fighting for the greater good. They are irresponsible, threatening free speech by arguing with lies and spin. Free speech is a core value of a democratic society. Of course we should always encourage and nurture debate on issues, especially those of the magnitude of climate change. However, we must value a debate on facts and truths above all else. Fortunately, in the process of peer-review, science has found a way of guaranteeing that debate stays focused on facts. Sadly, the same cannot be true for the countless documents poured out by certain organisations like the George C. Marshall Institute! Avaaz will continue to campaign on climate change, as it is clearly the right thing to do.
Iain Keith, Australia
In reply to Ian Keith, Australia: Ian, thanks for your extensive reply, I have only had time to glimpse swiftly through it and it deserves a considered response, which I don’t have time to do now. I will do my best to reply within the next 24 hours. My ‘off the cuff’ thoughts are; that your analysis of the IPCC allegiance is very different to mine; George Monbiot I hold as a classic example of a supposedly ‘liberal’ journalist who is actually supporting the status quo (look at his whitewash of 911) and his questions, that you quote, are intentionally deceptive and leading to the answers that he wants; my point regarding numbers who protest exactly demonstrates that something odd is going on, if Blair succesfully chose to ignore the views of at least 2.0% of the UK population (that is everyone, not just adult voters), why did Bush decide to accept the views of around 0.0003% of the world population? These are challenging times and now is not the point to acquiesce to the manipulators. The easiest way to get people to agree to what you want is to make them think you don’t want it!
Left political groups have traditionally tended to claim responsibility for the successful (change-creating or attention-grabbing) actions of others. Activist groups also align themselves with those they think are in the ascendant and try to gain entry into organisations they'd like to control.
But who'd seek such influence globally?