Saturday, July 2, 2011

‘Climate change’ mural on campus that doesn’t permit Old Glory

October 25, 2009 by Staff Reporter  
Filed under Energy & Environment

DURHAM — A worldwide event promoting climate change awareness was carried out locally Saturday by a coalition of young adults who organized the painting of a 40-foot mural in the downtown.

The University of New Hampshire Student Environmental Action Coalition (SEAC) and the Durham Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) co-sponsored the painting of the mural, which is on the side of the Out Back Gift Shop on Main Street. Organizers unveiled the mural at a ceremony Saturday morning as part of an international campaign coordinated by

According to Alex Fried, one of the organizers, there are scientific studies that have shown 350 parts per million is the most carbon dioxide that can safely be in Earth’s atmosphere. He said the current CO2 concentration is around 390 ppm, so the campaign aims to urge world leaders to act on climate change.


RELATED: American Flag Fight: Patriotism vs. Policy at UNH


19 Responses to “‘Climate change’ mural on campus that doesn’t permit Old Glory”
  1. Rick says:

    Next time someone starts talking about how we have to stop global warming, tell them that the planetary temps haven’t changed in 30 years. Yup, the 2008 temperature is almost exactly what the 1980 temperature was.

    Here’s the graph that proves it.

    So if the globe isn’t warming, why are we trying to stop global warming?

  2. Anna says:

    I wonder if the parents of the students who belong to the SDS know that it’s fundamentally a communist organization, founded by the Weather Underground terrorists and their 60′s communist pals.

  3. Paulie says:

    In the old pre-PC days, we could just say, “JP is full of crap,” and be done with it. Now. alas, we have to point out the obvious: the climate model from which ‘climate change’ is derived is a collection of nonsense that cannot even reproduce short-term accuracy when fed with valid data from a few years ago, when compared with the known results of today. CO2 is a lagging (by about 500 years) indicator of warming. Water vapor is a hundred times more ‘warming’ than CO2 anyway, and cannot be controlled. Climate change may, indded, be happening (as it always has), but the influence of humankind is virtually insignificant. Check out Old Sol for the real influence on Global temperatures – or check out temps on some other planets!

  4. Richard says:

    Scientific consensus is similar to voting on math.

    You can get more than half the idiots to vote on an issue if you offer $2 + $2 = $5 and you all can have the left over $1.

  5. Aged Cheddar says:

    UNH is just following the trend of hundreds of its fellow institutions of higher learning, where patriotism is shunned, communism embraced, multiculturalism worshiped and religious faith ridiculed.

    Aren’t Americans proud of the universities we’ve created and all of the young minds who are now and will be in the future about the work of tearing down our culture and institutions. Look around quickly, the America you know will be gone in another decade, a victim of taxpayer funded suicide.

    Too cynical? Try talking some sense into one of these young Maoists we have created! I don’t believe they even think anymore.

  6. George says:

    >> To geo says:

    Take a look at the source data in the temperature model:

    Junk science that even a third grader would could debunk. Understand this, all the global warming is promoted by scammers and con-men and people who stand to profit.

    This must stop by voting out any politician that would believe this nonsense.

  7. Ed S says:

    For all those who beleive in GLOBAL WARMING, listen to your local weather forcast and note how may days that the RECORD HIGH temp. for this date is 105* on (the date) in 1925 or 1875. Or what ever date 50 to 100 years ago.
    What caused it to be so HOT back then?
    My 9 year old grandson shut his GLOBAL WARMING teacher up with that question. Because ALL the other student went home and started to listen to the weather report

  8. poolefredva says:

    It’s reported that the US has spent $70 billion on global warming and climate change research. One would think that if it were a serious problem that for that much money we would have proof or at lease convincing evidence. We haven’t even policed our ground weather stations for proper maintenance and placement, so most of them are severely affected by urban heat effects. The reason scientific associations endorse climate change research is that all their members get to ride the gravy train from the grant system. It’s interesting that the well-known, “name” scientists tend to be sceptics and the lesser lights who are still scrapeing for grants or who have pinned their careers to climate change tend to support it. The primary proponents are Al Gore (physics SAT in the mid-400′s), the head of the IPCC ( a “toot-toot” railway engineer) and James Hanson, who two decades ago was convinced we were headed for another ice age. Respected scientists tend not to personally or vocally support the AGW hypothesis because they know it’s very shaky and could well come back to harm their reputations. That’s why the global warming devotees tend to attach their critics personally, or claim “concensus” or “settled scienct”. When this whole scam finally becomes unsupportable there will be some reputations destroyed.

  9. Greg Palmer says:

    Check out a very interesting Science Fiction Book, Fallen Angels by Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle and Michael Flynn. SciFi (real literature type not pulp) has far more real world science than you can imagine.

  10. geo says:

    I am presently a surgeon who previously was a chemist who still considers himself a scientist (and have a Ph.D. and an MD to support it). For all you knuckleheads out there, science and the scientific method do not care one whit about consensus. They care only for what is reproducibly observable,capable of being hypothesized and experimented upon,and verifiable by objective data. The theory of anthropogenic climate change is based upon a computer model which is completely hostage to the input parameters and the integrity of the modeler. At this juncture there is no credible scientific theory to support that which is presumed to be true by you knuckleheads.

  11. Chris says:

    JP, like all “climate changers”, tells people AGW isn’t politics and then immediately sites international political bodies to support their position rather than science. I am not an environmental scientist, I am a nuclear engineer. Climate change exists and always will. There is not one shred of evidence that supports the theory that man made CO2 has any measurable effect on the world’s climate. The amount of CO2 added by man made processes is so statistically insignificant (about .02% – .05% of all atmospheric CO2) that to state man made CO2 causes climate change labels one as either a moron or someone with an agenda. The agenda is either redistribution of weath or a desire to STOP climate change. Imagine trying to stop the planet emerging from the ice age it currently is in… what damage will you cause? The facts are that over the last billion years the earth has spent most of that time WITHOUT ICE AT THE POLES. As the climate changes, the polar bears will evolve back into brown bears, evolve into something else or die out… just as they evolved to become polar bears to adapt to the new ice entering their environment. BTW: the proper term now is “climate change” rather than “global warming” because for the last 11 years the average global temp has gone down due to low sunspot/solar flair activity. Another inconvienient fact is that high CO2 levels INCREASES CROP YIELDS! So those trying to stop CO2 levels from increasing are trying to starve children in Africa.

  12. Anita Bonghit says:

    JP, consensus once held that the Earth was flat and that the Sun orbited the Earth. In the 1970′s consensus held that the Earth was moving into a new Ice Age. So which scientific consensus should we believe. The so called “facts” used to support Global Warming have been disputed and proven false yet people whose religion is politics and environmentalism can not be swayed from dogma despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

  13. SDSurfer says:

    They won’t allow the flag, but would surely permit a mural of Che or Anita Dunn’s idol, Mao

  14. Greg says:

    Well, if they won’t permit the American Flag to be displayed, then they should lose all government loans–all of em, student loans and otherwise.

  15. JP says:

    TomRay, I highly doubt your claim of being an “environmental scientist.” Scientists by nature avoid political claptrap, and definitely do not blather about “socialist agendas” and other Rush Limbaugh type cliches. The rationality of science does not square with the stupidity of politics.

    Margaret, global warming is not a “political opinion.” It’s a scientific consensus held by every national and international science body in the world. Universities teach the scientific consensus of whatever subject it may be–mitochondrial function, genetic processes, evolution, global warming, etc. They are not going to refrain from teaching the consensus because Senator Inhofe or Sean Hannity says it’s different.

    Krys, how sad that you form such a cynical perspective of college students on the basis of their demonstrating for something which you disagree with.

  16. TomRay says:

    This “Climate Change” business is total crap. I AM an “Environmental scientist IV” myself. No real ES takes this stuff seriously. All this is about is pushing a SOCIALIST adgenda. Forcing us to adopt lifestyle changes that remarkably resemble 1950′s Eastrn Europe, (so we wont complain as much when REAL Socialisim is put in place.)
    It makes perfect sense that those who support this also would not like the US flag.

  17. Margaret Shepherd says:

    It bothers me that so many students have been taught that global warming is a fact when the facts themselves say differently. Political opinions should not be taught in our schools rewriting history and changing scientific data. Pushing political agendas onto school children has long been the beginnings of the downfall of civilizations throughout history. I pray history does not repeat itself here, and that this generation is not doomed to repeat what we ourselves are afraid to learn.

  18. Krys says:

    First off, the now called climate change movement (remember global warming?) is simply a criminal enterprise. Al Gore becamse a multimillionaire while polluting the planet. If these students have so much time for social issues – then they should be able to work (remember that?) and pay for the education – kids 18-21 living at college should not be taken seriously. They are not working, paying income taxes, or fighting overseas. Instead of studying they are wasting time being rebellious children instead of adults, being led around by SDS – that old communist backed student group. Hey college “kids”, why not get a life instead of acting like you are 13 yrs old.

  19. SirWilhelm says:

    I am paying attention, so I know there are opposing views on global warming in the scientific community. There are those that believe the Sun is the cause of global warming, not humanity, and they believe rising CO2 levels are the result of global warming, not the cause. Both sides site much of the same evidence, it comes down to how the evidence is interpreted, and global warming advocates seem to have a hidden agenda. SDS is a Communist organization, Communists love to usurp the Democratic word to legitimizer their system and governments. Imposing CO2 restrictions on existing energy companies will force the redistribution of wealth to “green” energy companies and “developing” countries to the detriment of the industrialized countries. Their placing global warming before patriotism is more proof of where they are coming from.

Speak Your Mind

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!

You must be logged in to post a comment.