Climate Vigil: “There Is No Plan(et) B”

The rain stopped. The skies cleared.

And several dozen people gathered downtown last night, showing their disgust at President Trump’s decision to withdraw the US from the Paris Climate Accord.

They held candles and signs, and sang songs like Bob Dylan’s “The Times They Are A-Changin’.”

The bipartisan crowd included 1st Selectman Jim Marpe, 2nd Selectman Avi Kaner, State Representative Jonathan Steinberg — and plenty of Fairfield County residents, grateful for the break in the weather after many days of rain.

The vigil began under blue skies …

… with participants holding homemade signs …

… and ended after dark. (Photos/Bruce McFadden)

51 responses to “Climate Vigil: “There Is No Plan(et) B”

  1. Frannie Southworth

    I so appreciate people gathering and love seeing the photos!!! If I hadn’t been out of town for the weekend, I surely would’ve been there. I’m so gratified to read that so many states are independently supporting our environment. It was a devastating blow to our country on many levels, to be pulled out of The Paris Agreement. It is a complete horror for us, our children, and our grandchildren that our current administration doesn’t believe in science or that climate change is real. Let’s hope that the investigations get to the bottom of what is looking like Russia collusion, whatever else is going on with Russia besides the collusion that caused so many secretive and lied about phone calls and meetings with so many people connected to and in the WH, business conflicts of interest, and obstruction of justice, they will be removed from the WH very soon. Then we can help the environment recover from thelack of regulations that protected our rivers and streams and get us back on track with our international allies! Our country ford side-by-side with these allies and work together on so many issues and in a matter of 160 days or so so much of it has compromised from now. My hope is that our allies know that majority of our country wants to be in the Paris agreement and stand with our allies and the rest of the world protecting our planet.

  2. Enough with “the Russians.” There is no “there” there.

    • Russell Gontar

      Maybe enough for you. The rest of the country and the world will have had enough when all the investigations are complete and we have a definitive account of any and all cooperation between Trump operatives and Russia before, during and after the campaign. Like the undisclosed contacts made by Flynn, Manafort, Sessions, Page and Kushner. Their failures to disclose are felonies.

  3. Bob Stalling

    Some thoughts:
    Think about this…we are concerned about the future hypothetical catastrophic-only climate scenarios based on estimated climate sensitivity derived from imperfect computer models. Imperfect because it impossible to calculate all the given variables of everything on earth.
    We then use these scenarios to push policies that are designed to potentially fix the potential catastrophic-only future scenarios by, in part, using money from the rich developed nations to develop the poor undeveloped nations that we are told will be affected by the future scenarios the most.
    The United Nations Millennium Development Goals (recently renamed The Sustainable Development Goals) estimate they need 1.4 Trillion dollars to achieve their goals. This, by the way, is the same United Nations that founded the IPCC….considered to be the Bible when it come to climate change.
    https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/nov/18/14tn-dollars-a-year-needed-to-reach-global-goals-for-world-poorest

    Which all leads me to some questions:

    1. When we talk about development on a global scale, how much more CO2 will be emitted in both the short and long run when you consider the massive increases in construction, manufacturing, transportation, shipping, use of the earths resources and consumption?
    Does anyone have this number? I can’t seem to find it…

    2. The global average temperature (GAT) has increased .8C over the last 140 years, Does anyone know what percent of this number is known to be a direct result of man?
    Does anyone have this number?I can’t seem to find it..

    3. Is the GAT based on temperatures at sea level? 10 feet off the ground? 500 feet off the ground? 1000?
    And I could ask the same about average ocean temperatures….at what depth? Argo floats have not been in place long enough to depict a trend. (30 years is what scientists tell us)

    4. Finally, I would like to ask about the “97% Consensus”. It is thrown around a lot as a way to end debate, but I find this to be a little odd for a few reasons.

    If you go to the NASA web page under ” Scientific Consensus”, you will see one of their references is the “Doran and Zimmerman” paper. I find it odd that in this paper they base their 97% consensus on only 76 scientist.

    From the paper:
    “In our survey,the most specialized and knowledgeable
    respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2%
    (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.”

    http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/testfolder/aa-migration-to-be-deleted/assets-delete-me/documents-delete-me/ssi-delete-me/ssi/DoranEOS09.pdf

    The questions being…
    1. When compared with pre-1800s
    levels,
    do you think that mean global temperatures
    have generally risen, fallen, or
    remained relatively constant?
    2. Do you think human activity is a significant
    contributing factor in changing
    mean global temperatures?

    So last question:

    Is it misleading to use this paper as a reference?

    Also note that when they use the 97% number, they are talking about a consensus on whether or not the GAT has risen and whether man has played a part……NOT on how much man has played a part or what the future consequences are.

    • Nancy Hunter

      Answer your own questions yourself after a visit to the Arctic.

    • The MMGW cult confuses correlation with causation. When you ask for the tests for causation their eyes glaze over.

      What do you think the over/under is before Dan shuts down this thread?

      • Russell Gontar

        Nobody has claimed or is claiming that global warming is “man made”.

        Do you dispute that global warming is real, serious and that human activity is a significant factor in that process? Or do you agree with Trump that it is a Chinese hoax?

        What do you think the over/under is that Micheal will answer either question?

        • You are a bit confused. If no one is claiming that global warming is man made, then what is the point of your question? Do you want me to be the only person to claim global warming is man made?

          ?’s Maybe, no, maybe. To establish whether of not human activity is a “significant” factor, one would need to test for causality; I can find no such tests offered by the MMGW cult.

          • Russell Gontar

            Michael – You inserted “MMGW” aka man made global warming into the conversation, not me. The vast majority of scientists have concluded that GW is real and that human activity is a CONTRIBUTING factor, not the sole cause.

            Just to clarify your “answers” for those playing along at home, it appears to be your view that you are uncertain about the reality of GW, that you do not believe human activity is a factor in in GW and that haven’t ruled out that it is a Chinese hoax. Feel free to clarify.

            • Russell that’s four questions. I answered three. Science is not done by consensus, if it were neutrinos would still have no mass.

              • Russell Gontar

                well, you answered 3 out 4 questions. Now we’re making some progress! But we’re still not sure which of your maybe’s and no’s applied to which question and why you didn’t answer all four.

              • Russell Gontar

                Gee Mike, you’re really making progress. That’s right, the science itself isn’t done by consensus. The consensus comes at the conclusion of decades of observation, experimentation, analysis and the results have been shown to to correct in repeated tests. That is the essence of the scientific method. I’m sure you know all about neutrinos.

        • Nancy Hunter

          Well, I do indeed claim that global warming is man made, that the entire industrialized world is responsible. Simple.

    • Nancy Hunter

      And maybe Google shouldn’t be your source of education. Funny.
      So very funny, JBHart.

  4. Jesse Harte

    It isn’t. That was for you to get a start on knowing a little more about the causes. Like HFC 24, Methane from decaying biomass etc.
    I guess you don’t have the ability to admit you may not be the sage of all things. BTW. are you buying voluntary carbon offsets for your trip to the Arctic? Practice what your preach

  5. Nancy Hunter

    Thanks. Your concerns are understood.

  6. This thread has run its course. Comments are closed.