Updated: Greenpeace Climbers Arrested for Climate Change Protest at Mount Rushmore National Memorial

Greenpeace protesters unfurled a huge banner on Mount Rushmore to protest climate change and U.S. policy. Greenpeace photo.

Eleven Greenpeace members were arrested Wednesday for mounting a protest on the granite presidential faces of Mount Rushmore National Memorial to urge President Obama to "show real leadership on global warming."

Park staff were alerted by security systems at 10:11 a.m., local time that a number of individuals had breached a controlled area and accessed the top of the monument. While the climbers were able to unfurl a 65-foot-by-35-foot banner next to Abraham Lincoln's face, they were arrested shortly thereafter and taken to Rapid City, South Dakota, and jailed. Possible charges range from trespass to destruction of government property.

Park workers planned to assess the monument for any damage and were to remove the banner as soon as they could safely do so.

National Park Service officials would not say how the 11 managed to evade Mount Rushmore's security systems, reach the top of the monument, and rappel down its face, nor would they describe what security measures are employed at Mount Rushmore.

The banner draped across the front of the monument featured an unfinished portrait of President Obama with the message, "America honors leaders not politicians: Stop Global Warming."

The demonstration comes as President Obama met with other G8 leaders in L'Aquila, Italy, on Wednesday to discuss the global warming crisis in the lead-up to UN climate treaty negotiations in Copenhagen this December.

"This monument celebrates leaders who rose to the great challenges of our past. Global warming is the greatest crisis humankind has ever faced and it is the defining test of leadership for this generation. It's an open question whether President Obama will pass that test," said Greenpeace USA Deputy Campaigns Director Carroll Muffett.

According to a Greenpeace release the activists were trained in rock and industrial climbing and took special care not to damage the monument, using existing anchors placed by the National Park Service for periodic cleanings.

The demonstration followed a series of protests in Italy earlier Wednesday where other Greenpeace activists hung banners on coal plant smokestacks calling attention to the collective failure of leadership on global warming at the G8.

"We're at a moment in history where President Obama must show real leadership on global warming, not only for Congress and the American people, but for the world. Unfortunately, the steps taken to address the crisis so far have been grossly inadequate," said Muffett. "While President Obama's speeches on global warming have been inspiring, we've seen a growing gap between the president's words and his actions."

According to Greenpeace, "the best science shows that to avoid catastrophic global warming, governments must take action to keep global temperature rise as far below 2 degrees Celsius as possible.

"Given President Obama's pledge to follow the science, it's troubling that his administration has not yet endorsed emission targets strong enough to keep us below that critical threshold," the activist group said.

Furthermore, the group, said, the experience earlier this year "with climate legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives, which was drastically weakened by lobbyists for the oil and coal industries and other big polluters, showed that unless the president provides strong leadership on this issue, special interests will win out over the common interest."

"Doing what it takes to solve global warming demands real political courage," Muffett added. "If President Obama intends to earn a place among this country's true leaders, he needs to show that courage, and base his actions on the scientific reality rather than political convenience."

Greenpeace is calling on President Obama to use every tool at his disposal, both within and outside Congress, to strengthen U.S. climate policy with scientific integrity, and to take that policy to Copenhagen in December as evidence the U.S. will do what it takes to solve the climate crisis.

Specifically, Greenpeace is calling on President Obama to:

* Strive to keep global temperatures as far below a 2 degrees Celsius increase as possible, compared to pre-industrial levels to avert catastrophic climate change;

* Set a goal of peaking global emissions by 2015 and be as close to zero as possible by 2050, compared to 1990 levels;

* Cut emissions in the U.S. by 25-40 percent by 2020, compared to 1990 levels;

* Join and encourage other members of the G8 to establish a funding mechanism that provides $106 billion per year by 2020 to help developing countries adapt to global warming impacts that are now unavoidable and halt tropical deforestation.

Greenpeace is also calling on President Obama to attend the Copenhagen conference personally to ensure a strong, science-based agreement is reached.


i am truly sorry to hear about these idoits hanging the flag at mt. rushmore,i worked there for the summer a few yrs. ago,and every nite would help do the evening shows..i wish that greenpeace people would of fell off the faces..they should be arrested and pay a heavy fine for doing something so dumb,what the hell has mt. rushmore got to do with there stances.????and where do these people get paid?or work?

These people need to be arrested. What if every experienced climber in the world decided to climb Mount Rushmore. No one is allowed even near the monument but they think that because they have a cause it is OK. Lock 'em up.

You wanted change.... well here it comes

We visited Mt Rushmore for the 4th of July (a wonderful experience) and I'm very thankful we are out of there now with this going on. I want to see the monument - not some banner hanging up. Sad that people can't find an acceptable way to voice their opinions.

Jail Time!!!! Thats unacceptable

They should protest quietly in their own homes! Mt Rushmore has nothing to do with the President nor his stance on global warming. Mt Rushmore is about tourist dollars and honoring expanisionist leaders. And, it won't even be hurt by global warming.

Looks like the protest worked; we're all talking about it. I'm not a fan of Greenpeace (not because they are too far left, but because they often are very poor at solidarity with other groups - see "Whale Wars" for a good example) but good for them. Since Mt. Rushmore is about "tourist dollars and honoring expansionist leaders," then I don't really see the harm. I suspect they thought the place relevant because it has to do with presidents, and they were getting a message to the president.

Absurd in most respects? You bet. That's what the voice of reason has been reduced to on a lot of questions of injustice. People protest and raise their voices loudly, obnoxiously, and provocatively when they feel there is no real conversation, no real seat at the table for what's right.

Jim Macdonald
The Magic of Yellowstone
Yellowstone Newspaper
Jim's Eclectic World

Al Gore says this battle is the same as fighting Hitler, so what's wrong with using four dead American presidents in granite to take up the cause against such a readily apparent EVIL? Even Kurt Repanshak is on board with his recent declaration that "I've pledged blind faith to the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change, a scientific body comprised of some of the best scientific minds in the world, one that is said to reflect the consensus of the international scientific community, one that publishes reports -- based on peer-reviewed studies, mind you -- only after they are gone through line by line and word by word and approved by all member countries."

What more do you need? This is a fight against a global evil. Get on board or live with the guilt of your inaction for the rest of your life. It would be like anti-Nazis hijacking a New York Yankees game in 1939 and spreading a banner across the scoreboard to bring attention to the impending Holocaust in Nazi Germany. You'd say "what does enjoying baseball and Lou Gehrig have to do with Hitler?". The very fate of the Jews in Nazi occupied Europe would have depended on your awareness and support. So what gives?

Is this any different? Or is it even more of a grave threat to human existence?

After all we're talking about the fate of a planet! So you say Mount Rushmore is off limits????!!!!


Beamis, while I appreciate the elevated stature you've given me -- "Even Kurt Repanshek is on board..." -- I think you've taken my declaration just a tad out of context. That context, if you read my entire comment, does contain a dose or two of sarcasm. That said, yes, I'm fairly comfortable with the IPCC's conclusions given the global scrutiny they receive.

People looking for attention do stupid things sometimes. And by the way, has anyone actually "proved" that there is man made global warming besides the guy that invented the internet?

And by the way, has anyone actually "proved" that there is man made global warming besides the guy that invented the internet?

I'd say that most readers of this site would view a global warming "non-believer" as a sort of modern day Philistine. Man-made (oh, I mean non-gender specific "human created") climate change is just one of the many new quasi-religious doctrines of the post-modern era that sit at the right hand of the politically correct Gods, along with worship of the nation-state and the infallibility of mob ruled democracy. The mere questioning of these doctrines is an invitation to ridicule and worse.

Doctrines indeed. The global warming cult almost rivals the geocentric views held by the holy Church during the Dark Ages. Galileo was punished. Are global warming skeptics next?

Since Kurt is "fairly comfortable with the IPCC's conclusions", logically, he must denounce the cap and trade bill because the IPCC determined it is likely that nothing we do now can stop or even slow future warming.

Cap and trade is a production tax, one we can ill afford.

The global warming cult almost rivals the geocentric views held by the holy [Catholic] Church during the Dark Ages. Galileo was punished. Are global warming skeptics next?

Frank, please tell me that I'm confused when I interpret this to mean that you're suggesting that those who disagree with the IPCC will be subjected to the sort of horrors that my church perpetrated during the Middle Ages or that you're comparing those with your belief to Galileo. I'm hoping this is hyperbole on your part...

And I would pose another question: Ignore the idea of human-caused climate change, and the predictions of global doom, then ask yourself: Should we be blowing up the Appalachian mountains in search of cheap coal, a fuel that is cited as a cause of climate change? Can we afford to? Is the stopping of mountaintop removal mining, something that I know all too well, having lived my life among it (the Kingston/TVA ash spill last December was less than a half-hour drive from home), not worth our time and attention?

If cap and trade, and the resulting decrease in carbon-belching, mountain-destroying, filthy coal plants, stops Big Coal from running roughshod over Appalachia, then more power to President Obama. I'll pay through the nose for the safety of my friends and neighbors rather than watch our land blown up and our homes swept away by toxic sludge again.

>>the IPCC determined it is likely that nothing we do now can stop or even slow future warming.<<

Frank, got a source for that? Here's what I found on the IPCC site:

Renewable energy resources can play a key role in meeting the growing energy demand while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As shown in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, in association with energy-efficiency measures, they can make a substantial contribution to climate change mitigation as early as 2030.The Special Report on “Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation” aims to provide a better understanding and broader information on the mitigation potential of renewable energy sources: technological feasibility, economic potential and market status, economic and environmental costs&benefits, impacts on energy security, co-benefits in achieving sustainable development, opportunities and synergies, options and constraints for integration into the energy supply systems and in the societies. It will also assess resources by region and impacts of climate change on these resources.

That certainly sounds like it's highly likely we can turn things around....if we have the desire;-)

"Frank, please tell me that I'm confused..."

You're confused. Try to find a class on Austrian economics at your community college to help enlighten you. Or better yet, save the money and read Rothbard.

Kurt, a 2007 UN (IPCC) report in 1997 showed, according to the Associated Press, that "[w]orld sea levels will keep rising for more than 1,000 years even if governments manage to slow a projected surge in temperatures this century blamed on greenhouse gases...". I misspoke and retract "global warming" and insert "some of global warming's predicted effects".

The methods you quote from the UN all require heavy-handed central planning, coercion, and is largely one big pipe dream (we are technologically many decades away from replacing fossil fuels). This is feel-good, non-scientific, greenwashed mumbo jumbo.

And finally, IPCC admits that they could be wrong about humans causing global warming. If you are unwilling to admit that humans are not causing global warming, then you are a fundamentalist. And fundamentalists of any stripe pose a significant danger to liberty.

God bless these brave Greenpeace folks.

Frank, are you still a school teacher? Where's your analytical, open-minded approach?

As for the AP story, how could a 2007 report be reported on by the AP in 1997? Furthermore, the language I offered you came from the latest IPCC website and is not interpreted by anyone else but rather from the horse's mouth, as it were, so it's not been filtered or massaged.

As for your link about IPCC admitting they could be wrong, my reading of that site you linked to seems to indicate you're taking things a tad out of context to forward your position. Rather, the author of that post -- Roy W. Spencer -- makes that inference, which you repeat. Again, massaging the message. Frankly, I don't think you could find any scientist who would guarantee something 100 percent, unless it's that they'll die some day, and then they would make that posthumously via a close relative.

More specifically to the 90% likelihood that humans are driving climate change, here's a tidbit from www.realclimate.org (granted, from February 2007):

The conclusion that large-scale recent warmth likely exceeds the range seen in past centuries has been extended from the past 1000 years in the TAR (Third Assessment Report), to the past 1300 years in the current (ie. 4th assessement) report, and the confidence in this conclusion has been upped from “likely” in the TAR to “very likely” in the current report for the past half millennium. This is just one of the many independent lines of evidence now pointing towards a clear anthropogenic influence on climate, but given all of the others, the paleoclimate reconstructions are now even less the central pillar of evidence for the human influence on climate than they have been incorrectly portrayed to be.

Finally, first you imply that I'm a hypocrite, and now imply that I'm a fundamentalist. Or, to cover your bases, you're using the editorial "you," and not directing it directly at me. But I digress. I think the science is well-founded that humans are driving climate change; right now we're mainly quibbling over the percentages.

As I noted in an earlier comment, If you believe that tens of thousands of scientists are colluding in a massive conspiracy, nothing anyone can say is likely to dissuade you.

Jim, I agree that people should have the right to voice their opinions, but shouldn't that be done in a place that they are responsible for? Why do they, or anyone who does something similar, think it is ok to use public dollars, public places, or other places that I happen to pay for? I am a conservative and think everyone should choose their places carefully for their protests. If they would have fallen, they would have sued the US for their injuries. Fair? I think not.

Once again the enviornmentalist have shown how far out of touch they are. They scream and whine file frivolous lawsuit because the bleeding heart liberals have set up so they can do it at no cost to them. They are destroying the world with their stupidity. If they as I am were conservationists and wanted to use our natural resources in a proper way we would all be better off.

Greenpeace is well known for staging the wild & wacky. I live near D.C. and they routinely show up at protests, usually costumed as the critter of the hour. Their favorite activities include the usual march and chant, street theatre, blocking Metro stations at rush hour, bizarre stunts, and burning effigies. It's all very entertaining but often seems shallow and shrill. There's so much hullabaloo the true message gets lost. And what we need now is clarity. The IPCC report spells it all out very well without all the extra noise.

Greenpeace could have gotten a good photo op at Mt. Rushmore and gotten their point across without risking life and limb. I'd be interested to know how they managed to bypass security; it seems someone did his homework. I hope we can all agree that what they did was colossally stupid and reckless in the extreme.

Kurt, I'm a skeptic, which means I haven't decided. To me, the science is highly questionable and even more questionable is the political massaging going on from the left, the government, and the media. I admit that it's possible humans arewarming the planet, but there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary. But for a moment, let's assume that humans are warming the planet; then what? Is government the answer? History has shown otherwise. There are far better ways to go about fighting this perceived threat than coercive government measures, a tax on production, and the possibility of increased political and corporate corruption and collusion in carbon trading. Better ways include letting the free market allocate resources toward climate change technology and flipping the switch and individuals divorcing themselves from carbon creation. However, the liberal urban elite feel guilty about the high standard of living they enjoy, but instead of giving it up (who can blame them?), they demand action, mainly in the form of coercive government control and taxes which disproportionately harm the poor and middle class. If "you" should happen to fall into that demographic, try not to take it personally. This comment, however, is directed at you: Certainly as a journalist you learned to avoid logical fallacies such as argumentum ad populum, an appeal to the majority. The majority of people on the planet once believed the Earth was the center of the universe. Just because a majority believes something, that don't make it so.

As a South Dakota born citizen, Mount Rushmore is a fitting monument to make a declaration that immediate change and action is needed to prevent global climate catastrophe. The point of the action is clear: What monument will we leave for future generations?

I am glad to have started such a robust discussion of global warming. It is good to see that everyone has not drunk the Kool-Aid.

Go somewhere else and hug a whale. Leave Mt. Rushmore alone.

I can envision old Ed Abbey and Hayduke applauding Greenpeace for a job well done. Here I quote: The voice of protest, of warning, of appeal is never more needed than the clamor of fife and drum, echoed by the press and too often by the pulpit, is bidding all men fall in and keep step and obey in silence the tyrannous word of command. Then, more than ever, is the duty of the good citizens not to be SILENT.
True Patriotism (1898)

Actually, Frank, last time I looked, I attend the University of Tennessee, an institution that includes five campuses across the state, over 44,000 students, and manages this little thing known as Oak Ridge National Laboratory, home to the National Institute of Computational Sciences, the world's 6th fastest supercomputer, the largest farm-based alternative fuels research program in America, and the world's largest neutronic science research facility - hardly a community college. I could be wrong, though, considering that it's run by the big bad government...

Perhaps you should take a trip down here to the land of the uneducated Southern rubes to enlighten yourself and see what it's like to have your house totally demolished a few days before Christmas by toxic sludge. Better yet, save your money and read any of the 390+ stories written in the Knoxville newspaper about the ash spill.

Again, I'm more than willing to watch my energy bills go up and government play a bigger part in my life if it means the end of coal and all the grief it causes.

Again, I'm more than willing to watch my energy bills go up if it means the end of coal and all the grief it causes.

How noble of you. How about all those who are struggling to make ends meet and can't afford higher energy bills? Hmm?

And if coal companies are polluting private property, the courts are the proper place to seek compensation and to get an injunction against pollution.

At any rate, the coal issue is a red herring which shows your inability to substantively respond. You've replied with an appeal to emotion and made another straw man by implying I think people from the South are uneducated. Any disparaging comments made about your education (or lack thereof) were directed solely at you, and were not intended to disparage the hardworking, Tenth-Amendment-defenders of the South, many of whom would be devastated by cap and trade taxation and higher energy prices.

So many fallacies. Gosh, kid, keep crackin' the books. Don't forget to read Rothbard.

I'm glad that there are skeptics questioning the science of global climate change: such challenges only makes the science more robust. No, the problem I have with much of today's environmental skepticism is that it's not a fair fight. Extremely well funded Conservative Think Tanks (CTTs)--who are largely filled with economists, not scientists (although there are exceptions)--are ultimately behind the environmental skepticism movement (see Jacques, P. et al. (2008), "The Organization of Denial: Conservative Think Tanks and Environmental Skepticism," Environmental Politics, 17, 349-385). From the Jacques study, 90% of environmental skeptic books published from 1972 - 2005 are directly affiliated with CTTs. My concern isn't because they are conservative: my concern is because CTTs have no "checks and balances" system like the vetting process academic peer review goes through, and therefore all sorts of misinformation can get published before anyone has a chance to set the record to be more aligned with what climatologists are actually observing (via the peer review process). That's a dangerous amount of power to give a minority of individuals, and the media's "point/counter-point" style hasn't helped public confusion concerning global climate change matters one bit.

Further, it seems like your argument, Frank, is at heart an economic one, not a scientific one, as you state that the free market is a better way to "go about fighting this perceived threat." While I am no fan of increased government, I am neither convinced that free markets are the saviors to mankind. The CTTs' arguments are based largely in economics, in part for fear that free markets would somehow be curtailed by necessitative environmental policy. The goal of CTTs, therefore, is obfuscation: create doubt concerning climate change (i.e., present that scientists are equally divided (they are not), the earth isn't really warming (it is), and we aren't responsible for it (we're 90% likely responsible)) so that the average citizen has no earthly clue what to believe. But if there's doubt, environmental legislation won't happen, and free markets stay intact. So, hooray, we keep our Hummers while we destroy our planet.

Oh, one more item: you assailed Kurt over needing to avoid ad populum arguments. I would caution you to be careful about your own bandwagoning sins, as you seem to be jumping in the environmental skepticism movement (which isn't a majority, thankfully) in spite of weighty, academic evidence to the contrary. Now, while I would hardly assume that you would be swayed by any of this, I would at least encourage you to know what and who is behind the movement you so vociferously support.

Would people believe that I used to work for an organization of global warming skeptics? The stories I could tell about the corruption within that very small outfit ...

As for protests in dangerous places, that's really a decision for those driven by their conscience. And, if it costs the government money, who cares? Certainly, cost and inconvenience has to be part of what makes the tactic worthwhile to do. If people want the tactic to stop, then they have to take the cause seriously and evaluate the merits. What's important ultimately is the substance of the cause, not the tactic - people are way too hung up on tactics.

In Bozeman, over the holiday weekend, we had kind of a farce. A group of libertarians and conservatives staged an independence day anti-tax protest at public expense, closing down Main Street for a couple hours. To my deep chagrin, a group sarcastically calling itself the Gay Loggers for Jesus, protested the way the city handled the permit for the conservative group and organized a protest where they actually raised money in order to pay for the public expense in closing down the street. I think it was an awful precedent; the streets aren't simply for cars ... they are also there for people to raise their voices. The cost of living in a supposedly free society should be on everyone alike. Instead of attacking the merits of the protest, they attacked the process of free public protest. The liberal group here was dead wrong. Likewise, the cost of protest on the monstrosity that's Mt. Rushmore should also be paid by the government. And, those who protest do so at their own risk. I would feel differently if the place of protest actually was worthwhile, but then again, it's not the tactic so much as the substance.

I think the best response to a protest someone thinks is wrong is to organize a counter-protest. And, we as rational people should be able to look at the merits of the claim. That people are bringing up such things as the IPCC and having that discussion tells me that Greenpeace held a very successful protest. Banner drops are often ignored; they scored. Now, the real game is on, at least on this forum and probably many others.

Jim Macdonald
The Magic of Yellowstone
Yellowstone Newspaper
Jim's Eclectic World

I finally got to see Mt. Rushmore for the very first time and to think that some people could be so dumb to mess up such a wonderful sight just makes me sick!! Hope every one of them pays a huge fine and does major jail time!!!

you seem to be jumping in the environmental skepticism movement

Global warming skeptic since 1992.

Part of my argument is economic. Part of it is based in science. I've gone over my questions about the science, including the sunspot cycle, in other posts. As for the Earth warming, that remains to be seen. (The global temperature anomaly in January was 0.00 deg. C., the trough of the solar cycle.) There are some who are also critical of computer models that make very general predictions based on some flawed data sets. But go ahead and discredit those criticisms as being based from "CTT"s; nice ad hominem, attacking the source rather than the claim.

I would at least encourage you to know what and who is behind the movement you so vociferously support.

I support no movement. I am merely a skeptic. I vociferously support skepticism. And please don't assume to know what I know about climate skeptics. I've looked at this issue from all sides since studying meteorology 17 years ago.

I finally got to see Mt. Rushmore for the very first time and to think that some people could be so dumb to mess up such a wonderful sight just makes me sick!! Hope every one of them pays a huge fine and does major jail time!!!

Yeah, anonymous, it also makes me sick that the government stole Sioux land, which resulted in the carving of State leaders into sacred stone. Unfortunately, those criminals are dead, but at the very least, the government can honor the Treaty of 1868 and return all federally-held lands to the Sioux at once.

maybe we should hang flags on your house???some things are off limits,you can make a statement without this nonsense of hanging the flags on rushmore...go to third world countrys and try to get them off their duffs and,quit wanting usa to do everything for the world...we had to fight for what we got...

greenpeace,get a real job.....go to brazil,russia,china,iran,irag,saudia arabia,and do your protests.

Chance, I'm with you on your comments. I submit to you Chance, you have a very bright career ahead of you and at least you don't profess to be a know-it-all. Good luck to you young man.

This comment was edited to remove unnecessary disparagements.--ed.

Many of the comments in opposition to this activist plea for saving the planet and humankind are quite sad and evident of the "head in the sand" mentality of the masses. What a shame. Cries for protecting the ROCK, or having your nostalgia or vacation ruined is hideous. What if each generation only cared about their brief stay on the planet with no regard for the future? Well that is basically what we have now ... self-centered, greedy, ignorant people, governments and corporations. As a 21-year HIV survivor and an openly gay man, I can tell you that ACTIVISM is what saves lives. SAVES LIVES! If it were left to the ignorant (meaning uneducated) masses, there would be no fast track drug approval for ALL diseases and ailments. There would be no right for women to vote, no biracial marriage, no African American equal rights, we would still have slavery, and more. NEVER agree to be oppressed. NEVER stop expressing your thoughts. Never be stifled by comments on Facebook or anywhere. But please take these actions in the context of the intention of the activists... To help all humanity have a planet on which to exist. It's pretty basic. Open your minds and hearts to this issue of global warming. The clues are everywhere. Get your head OUT OF THE SAND and stop the denial.

Back in 1971 when Greenpeace began carving out its niche, soon becoming (in that era) the world's largest environmental NGO, it had a key role to play -- namely, making the public aware of environmental problems and urging environmental action. It's analogous to whacking a mule on the head with a two-by-four to get his attention. That's the sort of thing that you need to do when the public is in the first stage of environmental awareness and action (the "no talk, no do" phase; you don't see any problems, so you don't apply any fixes) or stage two ("talk, no do"; you become aware of serious problems but still aren't doing anything to fix them). The rub comes when you get to stage three, which is the "talk, do" phase (you are keenly aware of environmental problems and you are working on solutions). That's where we are now, and everyone seems to know it except stuck-in-the-seventies Greenpeace.

Here in America we environmentalists are addressing this country's environmental problems using political/legal, educational, and technical means. We are, in short, institutionalizing environmental stewardship. One of these days we'll be at stage four, which is the "no talk, do" phase (environmentally responsible behavior is essentially instinctive; we practice it routinely and unselfconsciously). Meanwhile, we are making progress every day.

The bottom line is this: America has moved beyond the time (and mindset) that calls for the kind of kick-in-the-pants stuff that Greenpeace specializes in. Now Greenpeace pranks are just an embarrassment to environmentalists who have worked very hard, decade after decade, to become effective and gain respect.

Greenpeace is like the crowing rooster who takes credit for making the sun rise. Take away the rooster, and the sun still rises. Take away Greenpeace pranks, and the environmental movement will not miss a beat.

Kurt, I could not make out the "not" in the Greenpeace message (from the photo Greenpeace provided). It appeared to be a red blob. I went back and looked at other photos of the banner and most were similar to the photo you provided. I'm curious to know if you could make it out or did you decipher the complete message from the text in other news reports? Going to all that trouble, you would think they would make the "not" more prominent. Although I understand they wanted the photo to come through.

Without the "not" I was trying hard to understand their message. I'm guessing most people had to rely on the news report text to understand their message....or not...chuckle.

Thanks for posting, Kurt.

Executive Director,
Crater Lake Institute
Robert Mutch Photography

Rob, yeah, the wording on the banner could have been a tad more clear. They sent me a press release, so I knew what it said without looking at the banner;-)

The global warming scare is the greatest hoax ever put on mankind.

Does it bother you at all that Al Gore stands to make millions of dollars if this silly-a$$ carbon credit trade system is put in place? Don’t you think that this is a conflict of interest in the extreme?

There are 31,000 scientists that now say that either the earth is not warming, or if warming, is not caused by man made CO2, including John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel as well as Roger Revelle, the mentor for Al Gore, who came to doubt his original position on man-made global warming.

To the people who blindly believe this dogma: does this information give you any pause? Are you open minded enough to listen to the other side before making decisions that will have negative ramifications to our freedoms, our financial security, and our way of life?

And to those same people, why not nuclear energy? Nuclear power solves a lot of our problems. It’s a clean, safe, sustainable power. And , it would create jobs, something this country desperately needs right now.





Hey Smokey, exactly how will Al Gore make millions off of a cap and trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

Your position on nuclear power suggests that you aren't aware of the overall costs of design, licensing, construction, operation and regulation of these highly complex facilities, let alone the fact that there is presently no long-term storage solution in place for high-level nuclear wastes, other than to store spent fuel rods onsite submerged in deep water pools.

How many years will it take for the initiation of plans for new nuclear facilities today for them to go online in the future? And, if all of them were to go online 10 to 20 years from now, what fraction of the overall carbon footprint would be deflected?

What impact would this ultimately have on global climate? Once they go online, where is the high-level nuclear waste stored?

Like Kurt, I have a high level of trust in the findings and conclusions of the IPCC report. I disagree with you about global warming being a hoax.

Owen Hoffman
Oak Ridge, TN 37830

Good for Greenpeace !! They aren't sitting behind a computer screen, without any information, whinning about things they know NOTHING ABOUT. How exactly do you make a difference? The climbers ARE very experienced climbers and did indeed use the hooks that are there for park service personnel to use to periodically clean. Laughable that the Park Service said that they "got them down safely". They weren't on their job, period. Reports of the greenpeace climbers were in leg chains, that's a bunch of BS too. Greenpeace is a non profit, environmentally aware organization. They ACTUALLY put there money where their mouth is.....AND YOU? Some who post, speak of shooting people, is that your position on anyone that disagrees with your opinion? SHAMEFUL..... Greenpeace will continue to move forward, despite you, and help save this planet we all live on, and for your children, grandchildren, and future generations........GOOD JOB, GREENPEACE !!!!!

Visitors may be regretful of their first and possibly only visit to the monument being "spoiled" by the Greenpeace banner, similar to the way I felt while traveling to Europe and even Washington DC and had sights I had longed all my life to see covered with scaffolding for "cleaning and maintenance" that have spoiled the vistas for years and years. I wonder if these same visitors would have protested their disappointment if it were NPS employees obscuring their view to maintain the monument. I am mindful of the forethought and planning of the demonstration that brought no harm to the monument. These were not paint throwers or people with axes and sledge hammers in hand (which has occurred) but people who voluntarily, routinely put their lives in jeopardy to try to protect the planet and bring notice to the world of the harm we people do to our planet and its inhabitants who have just as much right to live as humans do. As far as I can tell from the news and the postings here, they did no more harm as the people who hang banners and wave from overpasses proclaiming a welcome to our American forces who return home after serving their country by trying to bring liberty to peoples around the world as well as protecting our own. Nothing has been said about the NPS personnel having to go up and force them down or having to mount major repair efforts to mend the damage they did not do, only to remove the banner. I'd be honored to join them in hugging a whale. How many of the so rightous here would be willing to join them in putting their lives in jeopardy to save the life of one of the most magnificant creatures to have ever lived on this earth, one that causes no harm but actually has a role to play in keeping this planet healthy, certainly a more nobel being than what most of those here claim humanity to be.

As for you who idolize Al Gore, please go back and examine his carbon footprint. While I'm not an educated scientist or even as acedemically elevated as some here proclaim to be, you don't have to be brilliant to discover that Al Gore himself and his wife, while espousing programs which would make life less livable for those of us who are not as financially priviledged as they are, lives in a mansion that would house a large homeless shelter, all that resource eating space for just 2 people because they have the financial ability to take up more of the world's resources than they need or deserve, drive several cars, travel around by private jet whenever they feel like it...on and on. Get real; their example is false as they do not live in line with what they expouse. Your idol does not live by the same standards he espouses for the rest of us. Your promotion of the man degrades your postings here that might have otherwise carried some weight for some of us.

I'm sorry for the people of Appalachia who were harmed by the toxic sludge. I applaud any regulation that would stop this from happening again, except cap and trade bill. Work needs to be done to clean up our energy sources, not throw us back into the dark ages, literally, when we have to resort to wood burning fireplaces and candles to keep warm and bring light into our homes. According to the global warming proponents, wood burning stoves cause serious polution also so do you propose that we all huddle in our beds wrapped in blankets 24-hours a day in order to be warm enough to even survive. Look at the statistics of any large-ish city of those old and poor who die in their homes during periods of cold or heat because they cannot afford to bring live giving power into their homes, yet cap and trade would raise that cost and many more will be unable to afford survival. So I'm interested, when are you going to pass legislation to cap and trade Mt. St. Helens which spewed toxic waste and floods of mud which destroyed many homes and killed people. Surely you can't be so ready to blame that on humanity as you are global warming.

Just a few thoughts on the postings here. I love our national parks also but why not complain about the financial explotation that our government allows in them instead of people who are trying to protect our planet?

Owen - here's the info on Al Gore's windfall:


As far as your arguments regarding nuclear power go, did you read anything from the website I provided? The arguments you're using are obsolete. Nuclear technology has come a long way since the 1970s.

Finally, the IPCC report is one analysis - what about the 31,000, and growing, number of scientists who say that global warming is bogus? How can you say the IPCC owns the truth? You're taking it on pure faith.

Going back to Roger Revelle, Al Gore's global warming mentor. Revelle has backed away from his findings, stating that the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain.

That sludge spill, incidentally, was nothing to sneeze at. It was 1.1 billions gallons of nasty, heavy-metal laced muck. That's 3 times the Marin County Spill of 2000, or 50 times bigger than Exxon Valdez...

Greenpeace is nothing but a bunch of media hams masquerading as environmentalists. Any steps which help the environment have resulted from members of real environmental organizations doing the real work.

"As for the Earth warming, that remains to be seen. (The global temperature anomaly in January was 0.00 deg. C., the trough of the solar cycle.) There are some who are also critical of computer models that make very general predictions based on some flawed data sets. But go ahead and discredit those criticisms as being based from "CTT"s; nice ad hominem, attacking the source rather than the claim."

If climatologists really aren't in doubt about global climate change, let alone anthropogenic climate change, then the "claims" to the contrary being made should withstand the vetting process of peer review. They tend not to. While I don't worship at the altar of science, I think at least the scientific process is the best thing we've got going in terms of what's truly fueling climate change. However, there is no such checks and balances process in the open market, and anyone may print anything at any time that may sound good but ultimately be pernicious. All sorts of ideas may be promulgated, true and false. When it comes to climate change, I am no expert, and neither are most of us. It sounds simple enough to look at graphs and draw conclusions, but it seems to me that the earth is such a complex system that matters such as climate change tend not to be so simple to our (untrained) eyes as we might think. Thus, I am highly skeptical (how about that!) of people who are not trained climatologists telling me what's happening to the earth (or, more accurately, saying what's not happening to the earth). If this errs me on the side of "bowing down to the liberal elite academic experts," so be it: we all must bow to something here. At some point we must take a "leap of faith" to trust in some truth. For the skeptic, that leap is to the "I don't know" position, which simply requires distancing from the argument.

With some notable exceptions, most folks crying "foul" are lawyers and economists (and it is further sad to me that the division of pro/anti climate change seems to happen strongly along party lines). Lawyers and economists certainly have the freedom and right to do this (it's a free country), and they may or may not have good arguments (i.e., just because they are lawyers and economists doesn't mean they don't have good arguments). But while you're suggesting I'm simply diverting the issue by casting an ad hominem argument against CTTs and not addressing the issues themselves, I think it is a significant issue that an (largely) untrained, extremely well-funded movement has the clear goal of obfuscating the public so that any kind of legislation that helps the environment (and even smells anti-free market) gets slogged down by specious counter-claims that sound good but ultimately are quickly shaken off by those who study this stuff as their life's work. The environmental skeptic movement is far, far better at idea dissemination than are scientists. I disagree that I'm making an ad hominem argument here, but if I am, at least it seems extraordinarily relevant to me that there is a clear agenda on the part of CTTs and this is fueling much of the environmental skepticism movement and casting a very distinct light on the arguments they foment.

Coal is the future....plain and simple.

Coal is the future....plain and simple

Coal is attractive to politicians, utility companies and some consumers because it is a comparatively cheap fuel from domestic sources – and those qualities all make for good sound bites in our current situation.

Unfortunately, the industry's "clean coal" ad campaign is a classic oxymoron, at least as coal is currently being used. There are major costs in human and environmental health associated with the continuing (or expanded) use of coal; this is a classic case of "pay me now or pay me later."

Set aside the endless debate on whether global warming and climate change is real or imagined, and consider the other impacts of burning coal (and other fossil fuels) with existing technology: in addition to air quality issues, and those impacts on problems such as respiratory disease, there's the insidious but serious problem of heavy metals such as mercury released by burning coal. This is a problem that unfortunately receives little attention.

Can technology be developed to burn coal in a way that is not detrimental to our health? If so, coal has real potential. Efforts so far have been inconsistent and as best I can determine, ineffective – and the added cost required to make coal truly "clean" may make it a lot less attractive to those who are only interested in the short-term bottom line of the cost of producing energy.

Experience in the past 4 years in Texas confirmed to me that most utility companies (and many politicians and state regulatory agencies) have no interest in "clean" coal technology - they're only looking for a quick fix for cheap, domestic energy.

Geez, look what the coal firing plants are doing to China's environment. Gasping and choking populace that's on the verge of dying from all kinds of respiratory diseases. Look what the auto pollution is doing to the climate health of the Los Angeles Basin in California...the increase of respiratory diseases among young children and the elderly. Nothing to sneeze or cough at. I'm sure the gas and oil industry lobbyist (and executives) could careless about the environmental health of this nation...accept for the bottom line.