[Jim_Coleman]

But small, disruptive, illegal demonstrations invariably are counterproductive. Rather than call attention to a wrong, they only annoy and anger. I can’t think of an act of vandalism that changed policy.

History is littered with exactly these types of protests leading to major changes. Off the top of my head, I can think of the Boston Tea Party, Gandhi's Salt March, and John Lewis nearly being beaten to death trying to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge. All of these things were "illegal", the Boston Tea Party was explicitly an act of vandalism.

We should expect non-violence from protestors. We should expect the protestors to not endanger peoples' livelihoods. But complaining about some minor vandalism is silly. These kids are going to go to jail. They expect to go to jail, and they're perfectly willing to pay the fines for their civil disobedience, because this is what civil disobedience looks like.

   As for the Boston Tea Party - a little far back for apples to apples. As for Ghandi, I probably should be embarrassed to admit I’m unfamiliar with the Salt March, although the word nonviolent comes to mind when I think of Ghandi. As for John Lewis, his being beaten during a large, organized march by a racist local government official is hardly his illegality. Peaceful civil rights demonstrations are the opposite of stupid vandalism. They worked. If anything, it was the violence against them (Lewis, Evers, King) that moved the needle.

[Chris Hughes]

At a minimum, that was an act of criminal vandalism combined with theft of services...

...and from Akshay Bhatia's perspective it was a full-on terror attack.

A heinous act that took nearly 73 seconds to get under control. Thankfully they had a leafblower on the premises or who knows what might've happened. Just imagine if the playoff had been delayed, or even moved to a different hole. Horrifying to think about, really.

Akshay said he was afraid for his life...

[Chris Hughes]

These days the idea of what constitutes a "protest" is completely out of bounds vs. what a normally functioning society should expect, and allow -- it is truly ridiculous.

Do you really believe that bullshit from yesterday might actually spur someone to "change their opinion"?

Chris:


I didn't see the protest; I don't watch golf on TV except for little bits of the majors.


The very problem nowadays is that no one seems willing to change their opinion on anything, so, no, these protests probably won't help.

If you didn't see it, how can you comment on it?

What took place yesterday in no way constituted a "protest" -- it was a criminal act that should be prosecuted harshly.

What's your opinion on the Jan. 6 'protesters' who actually killed people... should the people who provoked and conducted those activities be prosecuted 'harshly'?

Who are you referencing?

[Carl Johnson]

I simply do not see the logic in protesting at a professional golf tournament about whatever they were protesting about.  As far as I can see the only people who are sympathetic to their cause and view their actions are appropriate had that opinion before their protest and anyone else would certainly not be positively moved by their actions.

Not to defend them, but I read they thought golfers (and golf fans) would be susceptible to a protest relating to global climate change because golf is an outdoor sport affected by the weather (weather events combined over time = climate).

[Rob Marshall]

The whole situation is deeply frustrating.

On the one hand, obviously climate change is the most pressing issue of my generation and those under 40: we know what's happening -- literally the predictions from the 70's are happening almost exactly as they were predicted -- we are already seeing horrific effects (even uprisings/wars) as a result -- we know what we have to do to stop it, but nobody wants to change their lifestyle (we can't even get effective climate-focused lifestyle legislation, like increased density, gas-to-electric mandates, or real transit alternatives, in San Francisco of all places).

On the other hand, the protests are becoming spiteful. Everyone knows it's happening, and anyone who is ignoring their own lying eyes, has wrapped their identity in so much zealotry that it doesn't matter. So the protests effectively exist as overtly annoying folks who the protestors see as complacent. In America, golf is a symbol of those people, so the golf world suffers instead of, say, dressage events. It's not changing any minds, and it's not even informing anyone of anything. It's just saying, if you aren't going to do something substantial, we're going to try to make sure you're miserable, which is ineffective, and probably counter-productive. It makes any good-faith changes or priorities of the sport look like capitulation.

The good news is that professional golf is effectively entertainment, which means these disturbances are effectively symbolic, unlike the concrete filled golf holes at Sebonack. I would expect things could be much, much worse, as any clever chemistry major could do real damage to a golf course if they wanted to, likely without being caught, just walking around the course as a spectator during a practice round.

I'd hope golf culture could could come out strongly in favor of sustainability, but as long as the country club remains a symbol of fuck-you-I've-got-mine, then I'm not holding my breath.

Matt, some were predicting an ice age in the 1970’s too….


On April 28, 1975, Newsweek published an article called, “The Cooling World,” in which writer and science editor, Peter Gwynne, described a significant chilling of the world’s climate, with evidence “accumulating so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.”
[/size]He raised the possibility of shorter growing seasons and poor crop yields, famine, and shipping lanes blocked by ice, perhaps to begin as soon as the mid-1980s. Meteorologists, he wrote, were “almost unanimous” in the opinion that our planet was getting colder. During the years that followed, Gwynne’s article became one of the most-cited stories in Newsweek’s history.

[Jim_Coleman]

   Rob: Your point? The climate change problem is phony? Open to debate? Unresolved? Really?

[Rob Marshall]

   Rob: Your point? The climate change problem is phony? Open to debate? Unresolved? Really?

Jim,
I’m a Florida resident and I dodge hurricanes every year. The water is warmer, no doubt about it. My point was that Matt implied the in the 70’s they predicted this. My point was there were other credible people who were predicting a different climate change.


The scary thing about yesterday was that the got smoke bombs in. If they got them in what else could they have gotten in.

[Sam Morrow]

This is a golf site, not a protester justification site, so I'll bring it back to golf. TPC River Highlands has always looked cool to me on TV and it was on a video game years ago. I think that 15th hole is fantastic.

[Joe Bausch]

If we are talking about it on this site they were effective and will continue.

Bingo!

[Matt Schoolfield]

My point was that Matt implied the in the 70’s they predicted this. My point was there were other credible people who were predicting a different climate change.

Unfortunately there will be protesters like this, at events like this, until this type of propagandist nonsense is not fodder for some sort of argument that people shouldn't have to care about anything. It's also a worthwhile topic on a golf architecture forum... as it affects golf course architecture and historic sites. I deeply want to be respectful on this forum at all times, but I've already discussed this exact issue at length, over a year ago, and you were in that thread. Thus, it can be more than a bit frustrating for me. I apologize if I'm a bit curt here.

The citation you made is Peter Gwynne's piece in Newsweek. The article itself can be read on Archive.org. The article describes concerns about orbital forcing, which is basically the way the earth wobbles, and it wobbles in cycles. The article is correct in it's concern, all things being equal, that we may be near the beginning of a long term cooling cycle because of Earth's precession... however by "near" here, we mean "probably it will start effecting the climate the next 50,000 years."

This is perfectly sensible science, and has a mechanism that has literally nothing to do with concerns about green house gasses, nor are they in conflict at all. Both observations can exist at the same time. The global warming effects happening right now, the ones that were accurately predicted in the '70s, the ones that we are all clearly witnessing, is the serious concern right now. Ice age cycles, while in the relatively remote future, should also be concerning, and we should also study and prepare for them as well. 

By implying that one cancels out the other, you seem to miss the point that two systems with opposite effects can happen at the same time. The science for both of them remains solid, except that the effects of green house gasses, at least in the short-run, will likely have far more impact on the climate than the wobbling of the planet.

The reason why this new story is bandied about is simply because many people actively don't seem to care, and they are looking for a reason to not pay attention, so they repeat this nonsense to somehow imply that there is uncertainty in the scientific community, which is simply not the case. If anyone parroting this talking point actually cared, they should take the time to read an interview with the author in Scientific American that happened literally a decade ago:

Struck, Doug. “How the 'Global Cooling' Story Came to Be: Nine paragraphs written for Newsweek in 1975 continue to trump 40 years of climate science. It is a record that has its author amazed.” Scientific American, 10 January 2014.

So, if you want to know why people are causing a ruckus on golf courses, it's that, even while one of the most important and tragic events in human history is unfolding before our eyes, so many people care so little about it, that they don't even bother informing themselves beyond some propagandist talking points. I'm perfectly happy to disagree with someone on the economics of whether fighting climate change is a worthwhile tradeoff, but literally suggesting that climate scientists are somehow a bunch of dumb oafs that get things wrong all the times, is enough to make me want to join those kids.

I apologize for the wall of text, and I'll pipe down. However, this thoughtless line of reasoning is extremely relevant to the thread, as it's one of the main reasons the protestors are out there in the first place.

[Rob Marshall]

My point was that Matt implied the in the 70’s they predicted this. My point was there were other credible people who were predicting a different climate change.

Unfortunately there will be protesters like this, at events like this, until this type of propagandist nonsense is not fodder for some sort of political score settling. I deeply want to be respectful on this forum at all times, but I've already discussed this exact issue at length, over a year ago, and you were in that thread. Thus, it can be more than a bit frustrating for me. I apologize if I'm a bit curt here.

The citation you made is Peter Gwynne's piece in Newsweek. The article itself can be read on Archive.org. The article describes concerns about orbital forcing, which is basically the way the earth wobbles, and it wobbles in cycles. The article is correct in it's concern, all things being equal, that we may be near the beginning of a long term cooling cycle because of Earth's precession... however by "near" here, we mean "probably it will start effecting the climate the next 50,000 years."

This is perfectly sensible science, and has a mechanism that has literally nothing to do with concerns about green house gasses, nor are they in conflict at all. Both observations can exist at the same time. The global warming effects happening right now, the ones that were accurately predicted in the '70s, the ones that we are all clearly witnessing, is the serious concern right now. Ice age cycles, while in the relatively remote future, should also be concerning, and we should also study and prepare for them as well. 

By implying that one cancels out the other, you seem to miss the point that two systems with opposite effects can happen at the same time. The science for both of them remains solid, except that the effects of green house gasses, at least in the short-run, will likely have far more impact on the climate than the wobbling of the planet.

The reason why this new story is bandied about is simply because many people actively don't seem to care, and they are looking for a reason not pay attention, so they repeat this nonsense to somehow imply that there is uncertainty in the scientific community, which is simply not the case. If anyone parroting this talking point actually cared, they should take the time to read an interview with the author in Scientific American that happened literally a decade ago:

Struck, Doug. “How the 'Global Cooling' Story Came to Be: Nine paragraphs written for Newsweek in 1975 continue to trump 40 years of climate science. It is a record that has its author amazed.” Scientific American, 10 January 2014.

So, if you want to know why people are causing a ruckus on golf courses, it's that, even while one of the most important and tragic events in human history is unfolding before our eyes, so many people care so little about it, that they don't even bother informing themselves beyond so propagandist talking points. I'm perfectly happy to disagree with someone on the economics of whether fighting climate change is a worthwhile tradeoff, but literally suggesting that climate scientists are somehow a bunch of dumb oafs that get things wrong all the times, is enough to make me want to join those kids.

I apologize for the wall of text, and I'll pipe down. However, this thoughtless line of reasoning is extremely relevant to the thread, as it's one of the main reasons the protestors are out there in the first place.

Matt,
I’m not implying anything. I’m just pointing out that in the 1970’s there was talk of us entering an ice age. Not just global warming.  pretty sure it’s been talked about in other posts on this site.

[Anthony Butler]

My point was that Matt implied the in the 70’s they predicted this. My point was there were other credible people who were predicting a different climate change.

Unfortunately there will be protesters like this, at events like this, until this type of propagandist nonsense is not fodder for some sort of political score settling. I deeply want to be respectful on this forum at all times, but I've already discussed this exact issue at length, over a year ago, and you were in that thread. Thus, it can be more than a bit frustrating for me. I apologize if I'm a bit curt here.

The citation you made is Peter Gwynne's piece in Newsweek. The article itself can be read on Archive.org. The article describes concerns about orbital forcing, which is basically the way the earth wobbles, and it wobbles in cycles. The article is correct in it's concern, all things being equal, that we may be near the beginning of a long term cooling cycle because of Earth's precession... however by "near" here, we mean "probably it will start effecting the climate the next 50,000 years."

This is perfectly sensible science, and has a mechanism that has literally nothing to do with concerns about green house gasses, nor are they in conflict at all. Both observations can exist at the same time. The global warming effects happening right now, the ones that were accurately predicted in the '70s, the ones that we are all clearly witnessing, is the serious concern right now. Ice age cycles, while in the relatively remote future, should also be concerning, and we should also study and prepare for them as well. 

By implying that one cancels out the other, you seem to miss the point that two systems with opposite effects can happen at the same time. The science for both of them remains solid, except that the effects of green house gasses, at least in the short-run, will likely have far more impact on the climate than the wobbling of the planet.

The reason why this new story is bandied about is simply because many people actively don't seem to care, and they are looking for a reason not pay attention, so they repeat this nonsense to somehow imply that there is uncertainty in the scientific community, which is simply not the case. If anyone parroting this talking point actually cared, they should take the time to read an interview with the author in Scientific American that happened literally a decade ago:

Struck, Doug. “How the 'Global Cooling' Story Came to Be: Nine paragraphs written for Newsweek in 1975 continue to trump 40 years of climate science. It is a record that has its author amazed.” Scientific American, 10 January 2014.

So, if you want to know why people are causing a ruckus on golf courses, it's that, even while one of the most important and tragic events in human history is unfolding before our eyes, so many people care so little about it, that they don't even bother informing themselves beyond so propagandist talking points. I'm perfectly happy to disagree with someone on the economics of whether fighting climate change is a worthwhile tradeoff, but literally suggesting that climate scientists are somehow a bunch of dumb oafs that get things wrong all the times, is enough to make me want to join those kids.

I apologize for the wall of text, and I'll pipe down. However, this thoughtless line of reasoning is extremely relevant to the thread, as it's one of the main reasons the protestors are out there in the first place.

Matt,
I’m not implying anything. I’m just pointing out that in the 1970’s there was talk of us entering an ice age. Not just global warming.  pretty sure it’s been talked about in other posts on this site.

There's also been 'talk' on how tax cuts for billionaires would fix our federal deficit problems. How's that worked out so far?

[Craig Sweet]

Chris Hughes...he was a misdemeanor.  For you to equate this with Jan 6th is laughable.

[Ronald Montesano]

Tom Doak nails it, with few and accurate arrows.

Jason Thurman is hilarious. Go back to his post and reread it.

I'm a progressive, so a lot of you frighten me. We share golf, so I stick around.

[Tom_Doak]

A couple of things immediately came to mind on seeing this incident …..

1) Participant, spectator, staff etc safety -  eg the terrible Monica Seles incident

Yes, it's possible that the PGA Tour should spend a bit more of their private equity haul on security, especially if Ashkay Bhatia has a vote.


One takeaway I had from sitting near the front for an Indiana Fever game was that the WNBA has surely beefed up security from what they used to need.  There were security guards at every aisle that led to the court.  Even the sheriff was there, although he looked less able to defend the court than the rest.

[Anthony Butler]

These days the idea of what constitutes a "protest" is completely out of bounds vs. what a normally functioning society should expect, and allow -- it is truly ridiculous.

Do you really believe that bullshit from yesterday might actually spur someone to "change their opinion"?

Chris:


I didn't see the protest; I don't watch golf on TV except for little bits of the majors.


The very problem nowadays is that no one seems willing to change their opinion on anything, so, no, these protests probably won't help.

If you didn't see it, how can you comment on it?

What took place yesterday in no way constituted a "protest" -- it was a criminal act that should be prosecuted harshly.

What's your opinion on the Jan. 6 'protesters' who actually killed people... should the people who provoked and conducted those activities be prosecuted 'harshly'?

Who are you referencing?

The irony here is that you need to be somewhat smart to play dumb effectively... If you need to know what I'm referencing here, let me know.

[Matthew Rose]

I believe this sort of thing will usually attract less sympathy to a cause, not more.

[Mike Worth]

This could be a good approach


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QxAiLuPHnHs&pp=ygUtb2ZmaWNlciBtYXkgaSBzdWdnZXN0IHlvdSB1c2UgeW91ciBuaWdodHN0aWNr

[archie_struthers]

 


AG    it's not that I'm taking the ostrich position as a rule in my life . My friends would surely tell you this is far from the truth!
However this site has been a safe haven from politics for at least the twenty five years I've participated and enjoyed.


It's obviously Ran's call but I think the no politics has worked. You do manage to make a good argument as to the water issues that will always follow golf around. A nice entree into legitimacy here you might say.


Just worried that if we do allow discussions or climate change it may lead to worse discussions and animosity on a friendly , at least for me , refuge from the daily attacks on our minds!

[Tim_Weiman]

AG    it's not that I'm taking the ostrich position as a rule in my life . My friends would surely tell you this is far from the truth!
However this site has been a safe haven from politics for at least the twenty five years I've participated and enjoyed.


It's obviously Ran's call but I think the no politics has worked. You do manage to make a good argument as to the water issues that will always follow golf around. A nice entree into legitimacy here you might say.


Just worried that if we do allow discussions or climate change it may lead to worse discussions and animosity on a friendly , at least for me , refuge from the daily attacks on our minds!

Archie,


I am surprised this thread has not been deleted.


Tim

[Chris Hughes]

These days the idea of what constitutes a "protest" is completely out of bounds vs. what a normally functioning society should expect, and allow -- it is truly ridiculous.

Do you really believe that bullshit from yesterday might actually spur someone to "change their opinion"?

Chris:


I didn't see the protest; I don't watch golf on TV except for little bits of the majors.


The very problem nowadays is that no one seems willing to change their opinion on anything, so, no, these protests probably won't help.

If you didn't see it, how can you comment on it?

What took place yesterday in no way constituted a "protest" -- it was a criminal act that should be prosecuted harshly.

What's your opinion on the Jan. 6 'protesters' who actually killed people... should the people who provoked and conducted those activities be prosecuted 'harshly'?

Who are you referencing?

The irony here is that you need to be somewhat smart to play dumb effectively... If you need to know what I'm referencing here, let me know.

The floor is yours...

[Ted Sturges]

Perhaps the single biggest problem in the world today is the fact that most people are unwilling to listen to the views of someone they don't agree with.  It's really sad if you think about it.  I'm 62 years old and I've never seen our nation more divided in my six plus decades.  It's a damn shame.  Our country would be a better place with more open minds.  God gave us two ears and one mouth for a reason.


TS

[John Kavanaugh]

Trolling is a form of protest. Posting ChatGPT modified statements under the cloak of intellectualism is far more dangerous than some clown act on an 18th green. Only a robot would believe that the sun is the worst enemy of our youth.

[Tim Martin]

Trolling is a form of protest. Posting ChatGPT modified statements under the cloak of intellectualism is far more dangerous than some clown act on an 18th green. Only a robot would believe that the sun is the worst enemy of our youth.

Where you been? Was it something someone said?

[Rob Marshall]

Trolling is a form of protest. Posting ChatGPT modified statements under the cloak of intellectualism is far more dangerous than some clown act on an 18th green. Only a robot would believe that the sun is the worst enemy of our youth.

Welcome back John!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()