and i was also at the wave!!

hi fellow wave-er!

That shows your bias. A lack of information (even if we assumed proxies like tree rings were less reliable than human measurements which are certainly subject to the urbanisation effect) is never good news for any real scientist. You mean it is good news for those pushing alarmism.

In fact the proxies are pretty good & there are several differnt ones so we can be sure that the medieval warming was warmer than now & the climate optimum (9,000-5,000 BC significantly warmer.

And incidentaly the theory is not just that there is global warming, which history shows would be a good thing, but that there is catastrophic anthroprogenic global warming (CAGW) for which there is absolutely no evidence & which is the only thing that wopuld justify the Luddites War on Fire.

Richard, I think that the question of the actual utility of marches and protests is one to be addressed by the political scientists. My own view is that such events tend to be demonstrations of a popular force of opinion on a given issue – a spontaneous and totally unbinding plebiscite, if you like. The fact that marches and so on are usually organised by and constituted of minority groups or interests rather undermines that idea, however.

In terms of tactics, then – marches may raise awareness, or at least spread information, and, if the broader polity takes an interest, they might just put some pressure on the establishment (assuming they get big enough).

Perhaps some activists think that they’re setting up the catalyst for revolutionary, bottom-up change, but I think that in social terms the effect is just the opposite: protests let off steam and prevent more serious and widespread public reaction.

We can both agree that activism is something to ‘relish:’ it’s undoubtedly fun to get on a bus to Manchester or wherever with a bunch of people you often haven’t met before, and shout at things. I suspect that part of the emotional effect is simply the feeling of validation that comes with discovering – in emotional terms, regardless of whether you knew it already in theory – that there are lots of people who agree with you, and will stand with you against the (often nebulous) forces against which one’s principles have come to oppose.

But if all it achieves is a ‘nice illustration [in a] newspaper article,’ what is it actually achieving in any ‘tactical’ sense? Is self-validation and the resulting increase in general morale the (inward looking, introverted) goal? Or is there a culture-moving agenda? Some marches are definitely aimed at building morale: I’d argue that the continuing marches of the Orange Order and the Countryside Alliance fit that model – look at us, we’re still here (just)! Nyaaagh! Etc etc.

Some demonstrations are intended to cause fear in the opposition through simple ‘demonstration’ of superior numbers or organisation. I’d argue that that statement probably applies to a number of movements who would be greatly (and genuinely) offended at the idea that that was their goal: they’d suggest that their aim was to display the strength of popular feeling arrayed against whichever idea they oppose (we’re living in a very reactive age…). The anti-war movement, I suspect, worked on that model in 2003, and it’s a model with a history of success (Eastern European ‘colour’ revolutions, etc).

The environmental movement never struck me as exactly following that pattern. I might be wrong, but reading the literature and following their activist pattern the green strategy is to advance on two different fronts – one, direct action in the form of militant attacks on polluting industry and the creation of ‘climate camp’ style temporary autonomous zones. I suspect that this isn’t particularly the model you support…

The second are the marches, the Copenhagen Wave (check out the googleterms…) etc, which might be closer to the ‘demonstration of popular will’ model but seem to differ in a few respects. This wider, more moderate platform seemed – and you’re closer to ground zero on this than me, hence why I asked – to be focused on ‘building awareness’ (whatever that is!) of the issue, spreading consciousness of the problems and potentials emerging.

I’m really rather curious about your opinion on the ‘tactical’ utility of the green marches and your view of where the ‘point of victory’ lies. Is there some kind of Schwerpunkt in the polluting system, whereby if there is suddenly enough ‘awareness’ the entire stinking evidence will fall down? Is it simple “we’re watching, and we aren’t going to vote for you if you muck up” tactics (you weren’t anyway…). What is the end goal, in your view?

But a part of me relished a moment of civil not-quite-disobedience. It’s the exercise of freedoms that works for me – and of course the miniscule contribution to what adds up to a nice illustration for the next day’s newspaper articles on a topic that matters.

This question is going to sound like it’s got some kind of hidden meaning or implicit criticism, but I mean it entirely at face value: What was your goal when going on the climate change march? What do you expect it to achieve?