In spite of slanderous attempts by a right wing blogger, Danny Glover is correct.

[Uncle Joe]

if global warming isn't addressed in a serious and aggressive manner mass casualty tragedies such as what happened in Haiti will become commonplace, not because of "Gaia," not necessarily because of earthquakes but because of a myriad number of natural catastrophes, floods, drought, forest fires, pestilence, disease, war etc. will all become aggravated, more intense with increasing frequency.

Post #34 by Junkdrawer on this thread, has a direct link.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7474229

[FBaggins]

1. Forget "slanderous"... his statement was at least as nutty as

Pat Robertson.

[Uncle Joe]

2. Are you referring to the right wing blogger? n/t

[FBaggins]

11. No... though (s)he may also be nutty as a fruitcake.

The notion that Haiti had a killer earthquake because a deal wasn't arrived at in Denmark is no different than thinking that Haiti made a deal with the devil.

[Junkdrawer]

12. No...What he says is (paraphrasing):

"We need more than one hospital ship from the US. The other island nations need to take heed because this type of event could happen to them because of Global Warming."

Listen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2ft5JkNWJA

I think it's quite a stretch to claim that Glover therefore thinks that Global Warming causes earthquakes.

[FBaggins]

16. That's only a "paraphrase" if...

...you stretch the meaning of "paraphrase" to mean "change the meaning".

He said "What happened in Haiti could happen to anywhere in the Caribbean because all these island nations are in peril because of global warming... When we see what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen, this is the response, this is what happens, you know what I'm sayin'?"

I think it's quite a stretch to claim that Glover therefore thinks that Global Warming causes earthquakes.

I think it takes incredible spin to claim anything else. "What happened in Haiti" and "this is what happens" are in "response" to Copenhagen and "because of global warming".

That's a religious statement on par with Robertson's. Not a rational one.

Ya know what I'm sayin?

[Uncle Joe]

18. What happened in Haiti wasn't just an earthquake, that was only the geological event, Glover is

referring to the human catastrophe and the Caribbean along with other island nations would be most in danger of flooding; a major byproduct from catastrophic global warming.

[FBaggins]

19. He said this was a response to Copenhagen.

I mean... give me a break. Maybe he isn't nutty... and I've always liked the guy... but this statement made no sense at all.

Now I know what the sane freeper(s?) must feel like when people jump to defend Robertson.

[Uncle Joe]

24. He was emotional about this human tragedy; and that's what was he referring to.

To Glover; Copenhagen was a watershed moment to avoid such future human catastrophes.

Surely you've been emotional before or in an argument when you're words didn't come out clearly as you intended.

[Junkdrawer]

25. Exactly. n/t

[FBaggins]

28. Sure... that's why I love the "edit" feature on DU. :-)

But that's saying he didn't really mean what he said... NOT that others simply don't understand what he meant.

It's reasonable to suppose that HE didn't mean what he said... but that's not the same thing as not saying it.

[Uncle Joe]

33. He never said earthquake and you've taken that as his meaning.

I've taken human tragedy as his meaning.

[FBaggins]

36. He said "this"

You could check a newspaper to see what "this" was.

Whether it was "human tragedy" in general or "earquake" in particular... it was THIS event.

And it's nutty to think that this event is in response to Copenhagen, or in ANY way related to global warming.

[Uncle Joe]

38. Logic should tell you, the earthquake meant absolutely nothing, like a tree falling in the forest

with no one there to hear it. The earth has many earthquakes with no loss of life.

The catastrophic loss of human life meant everything to Glover as it does to many others, that was the event, I wish you could see that connection.

[FBaggins]

40. Lol... and THE EVENT

was (in his mind) caused by global warming. And, even nuttier, was a proximate response to our actions of just weeks ago.

[Uncle Joe]

42. He was talking about future such events caused by global warming and again

the event was the human tragedy, not the earthquake, but you can ignore that if you like.

[FBaggins]

44. No he wasn't.

"THIS" is not future tense. Sorry.

No doubt he was ALSO talking about future events LIKE this... but he was VERY clearly talking about the CURRENT crisis and its connection to what we did in Denmark.

[Uncle Joe]

47. Human tragedy; global warming future result, more of the same even if

it comes by different means.

[malaise]

46. Agreed

Hi Uncle Joe :hi:

[Uncle Joe]

48. Hi, malaise, peace to you.

:hi:

[Junkdrawer]

20. I think the "response" he's referring to is the sending of one hospital ship....

THAT was the main thrust of his statement.

And how, besides the rightwing blog that started the slander, do you get religion into this?

[FBaggins]

22. Sorry.. that doesn't make sense.

He just dropped "this is the response" into the middle of a sentence about Copenhagen when it really belong paragraphs earlier?

How is it a religion? What else would you call it when someone thinks that a higher power is punishing people for their actions?

[Junkdrawer]

23. "someone thinks that a higher power is punishing people for their actions?"

Where does Glover even hint at that?

[FBaggins]

26. Hint? It doesn't sound like a hint

He said "When we see what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen, this is the response, this is what happens..."

Most people put clauses into the same sentence in order to show continuity of thought. That is more than a "hint" that "this" is what happens as a "response" to "what we did at the climate summit".

How else can you read that?

[Junkdrawer]

27. "someone thinks that a higher power is punishing people for their actions?"

Where does Glover even hint at that?

[FBaggins]

29. Again.. he doesn't "hint"... he outright SAYS that

this is a response to what we did.

You do understand that "response" involved a conciousness... right? Someone/thing has to be "responding" to what we did in Copenhagen.

[Junkdrawer]

31. Never mind. Might as well argue with Michelle Malkin....

Pointless

[FBaggins]

32. How would you know?

You hadn't even tried yet.

And this is hardly just Malkinesque.

Huffingtonpost titles it "Danny Glover: Haiti Earthquake Caused By Global Warming"

[Uncle Joe]

30. That's easy, future "human tragedy",

result or "response", I know what he meant and I believe you do as well.

[FBaggins]

35. So this human tragedy IS a response to what we did at Copenhagen?

Or didn't do.

If that's your "know what he meant" then I can't see how you're arguing.

[Uncle Joe]

37. I've already told you he was emotional and that's apparent in his voice, that's why I posted

result along with "response", I have no doubt that's what he meant and I believe you know it as well.

You may not believe human aggravated global warming is for real but I do and Glover does, he's speaking of human tragedy as a result of global warming.

[FBaggins]

39. No doubt he's emotional.

Not the least of his reasons is that this likely spoils the film he was going to make down there (which is not to say that he doesn't care about the tragedy).

And no... his statement is far too clear for me to assume that I "know what he meant" as anything other than "what he SAID".

You may not believe human aggravated global warming is for real

Oh lordy... see what I mean? Where did I say anything about not thinking that global warming is real? All I said was that it was ridiculous to associate an earthquake with it (let alone give "global warming" a magical sentient will that can respond to something that happened a few weeks earlier).

he's speaking of human tragedy as a result of global warming

Yep... and he thinks that THIS is an example of same.

Which is nuts.

[Uncle Joe]

41. If you believed human induced global warming was for real, you would know

the event was the human tragedy, not the earthquake.

[FBaggins]

43. Sorry... English is my first language... and that didn't make sense.

The human tragedy was caused by the event. And believing or not in GW would not inform that opinion. Unless it's a religion to you... which is something else again.

And neither spin helps Glover's position... because it's still THIS that was the RESULT of Copenhagen. Not just hypothetical future "human tragedies"... THIS one.

[Uncle Joe]

45. If you believed human induced global warming was for real, you would know

the future holds many such events.

You can look at the events from the natural catastrophe whether it's drought, flood, disease, war etc. or you can look at the event as the tragic loss of human life and I believe Glover was looking at it from latter point of view.

[FBaggins]

49. So why claim he was misunderstood then say the same thing?

Events "such" as THIS one are not caused by global warming.

And no. Belief in AGW does not mean that you believe that the worst-case scenarios will all come true. Nor does such "belief" transate to "know" except as a religion. As I said. :)

[Uncle Joe]

50. If you believe in human induced global warming,

what do you believe about it?

[FBaggins]

52. Is that on topic for the thread?

Do we have fifteen pages of posting space?

It's simple. The globe appears to be warming (with possible decades-long pauses) and mankind's activity appears to play a non-insignificant part in that.

[Uncle Joe]

Then you will never connect with those people; including Glover that believe

human induced global warming will cause future catastrophic *events and that explains your willingness to look at his statements in the most adverse manner.

*Events meaning major loss of human life.

It's Friday Night, I'm cutting out, have a good weekend.:hi:

[Uncle Joe]

13. That isn't what Glover was stating.

I believe he was stating that global warming will produce many such mass tragedies and that Copenhagen was a watershed moment.

He was referring to the Caribbean because low lying islands are most vulnerable to flooding; which global warming will greatly aggravate.

[FBaggins]

17. It isn't what he was stating... and then your synopsis of what he WAS saying

is hardly different?

Haiti, BTW, is not a "low lying island". Used to live there.

[Uncle Joe]

21. Glover was referring to the human catastrophe, not the earthquake and not only

are island nations more vulnerable to flooding, they're more dependent on the sea and this would also be adversely affected by catastrophic global warming.

[Junkdrawer]

3. Rightwing blog DailyTelegraph seems to have started it all....

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/pact_with_gaia

Then Michelle Malkin picked it up...

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/01/15/danny-glover-the-lefts-pat-robertson/

For those who want to listen, here's the actual statement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2ft5JkNWJA

What he says is (paraphrasing):

"We need more than one hospital ship from the US. The other island nations need to take heed because this type of event could happen to them because of Global Warming."

I think it's quite a stretch to claim that Glover therefore thinks that Global Warming causes earthquakes.

[G_j]

8. the need for hospital ships, preparedness

most climate change models predict some major problems. People seem to have gone out of their way to miss the point he was trying to make.

[timeforpeace]

4. All those things, plus earthquakes, because of global warming. No wonder many don't believe.

[Junkdrawer]

5. only the rightwing bloggers are saying earthquakes = global warming....

and they're shoving those words down Glover's mouth.

He didn't say that.

[tabasco]

34. Don't bother with the atroturfer. n/t

[FBaggins]

51. It isn't at all limited to RW bloggers

Huffingtonpost reads it the same way

[Junkdrawer]

54. Katy Hall, the associate entertainment editor at Huffington Post.

Really?

[Uncle Joe]

6. It's difficult for most people to grasp such enormity but it seems entirely logical to me.

The earthquake aspect isn't nearly as clear cut by any stretch along the lines of those other things and I don't believe that's specifically what Glover was referring to.

Having said that my own belief is that relatively rapid melting of the Earth's major glaciers and ice sheets must have some shifting of weight affect on the Earth's mantle, and maybe this in turn has an adverse affect on the planet's major fault lines.

[FBaggins]

53. With respect, Uncle... you're not working with big enough numbers.

Thinking that melting of glaciers is shifting tectonic plates is like saying that you lost your balance because one of your hairs fell out.

[Uncle Joe]

55. Or the Butterfly Effect, now I'm cutting out.

:hi:

[Political Heretic]

7. We don't actually know what will happen.

Here's how the facts of global warming science break down:

1. The planet is warming - scientific consensus exists on this point.
2. Human actions are contributing to rate of warming - scientific consensus exists on this point.
3. The scale and scope of the consequences of unchecked global warming - no scientific consensus exists, partly because we've moved from understanding and observing the past and present (in 1 and 2) into predicting and guessing about the future.

For my part, I believe that the risk of the worst case scenario is so great that it requires us to act, even if consequences might turn out to fall somewhere else on the spectrum below global catastrophe. The responsible position is that its not worth the risk. Human's contribute to warming, humans can slow or reverse their impact on warming - and should. It's the safe bet.

[Uncle Joe]

9. I guess that's were logic takes over, just assuming that 1 & 2 are correct.

What happens when the glaciers melt and the rivers dependent on them dry up? I see nothing but drought, starvation and war fought over precious water.

What happens when the oceans become too acidic or warm to support plankton and coral reefs and all the sea life that depend on those ecosystems? I see more starvation and wars fought over dwindling productive fishing areas.

What happens when invasive species and viruses take root in places previously hostile to their existence? I see pestilence and disease among populations ill equipped to handle them.

Again assuming 1 & 2 are correct, what will change those adverse dynamics other than a major die off or alterations in humanity's existence?

[Political Heretic]

56. It's not quite that simplistic, but I agree that the risk justifies action.

Your speculation is precisely that. Speculation. And that's the problem. There's peer reviewed mainstream science in mainstream journals such as Science in which some scientists dispute the notion of global catastrophe from global warming, based in scientists best predictions about the impacts of rising temperatures.

On the other hand, there's peer reviewed mainstream science in mainstream journals such as Science in which some scientists predict extremely disturbing, catastrophic consequences. The science of trying to predict outcomes and interpret the likely consequences of climate change is far less concrete than our understand what is actually happening right now (not just trying to predict what we think WILL happen in the future.)

Having said that, despite lack of scientific consensus on the exact scope of the potential outcomes of climate change, it seems completely obvious to me that no outcomes are positive and we ought to immediately get serious about doing something about out as a nation.

[stuntcat]

10. and population means the disasters kill thousands more people

Humans' population has more than quadrupled in a few decades, with the poorest people being the most crowded and living in the places disasters strike hardest.

I think the Pestilence, Disease and War parts are going to get worse and worse each decade. In fact I'd bet my life on it.

[Uncle Joe]

14. I agree, but there is one silver lining as nations develop their birth rate seems to drop,

if the developed world can help the poorer nations develop in a far more sustainable way than we did, maybe the human population increase will slow or actually decline.

I tend to believe as you do because in order to alter that dismal future we must change our way of thinking, living and governing dramatically and at this point in time, I'm not sure if we're up to it.

I can certainly understand Glover's emotional frustration.

[Junkdrawer]

15. Safe bet. We're all living on a technological high wire....

It doesn't take much to create HUGE disasters.

[GeorgeGist]

57. So you are saying ...

that the response to Haiti is just like Copenhagen.

[Wisdomandtruth]

58. Haiti

I'm not sure what Danny G is talking about and I hope he will get some help soon for the seizures he has suffered for years. Haiti and the Bahamas are the result of longstanding volcanic activity. There are fault lines all over the area. If you study plate tectonics you'll understand what is happening and what will happen. Under the Atlantic and running across Iceland is the Mid Atlantic Ridge. Underwater mountains are forming the ridge due to lava leaking out where tectonic plates are separating. Lava comes from the center of the earth (which is slowly cooling). I remember most of this from high school science. (Yes, I graduated from college, too.) THis explains volcanic activity all over the planet. ALso, US scientists warned the Haitian government a serious quake was imminent two years ago.