Music Break: Ludovico Einaudi -Elegy for the Arctic

June 21, 2016


Through his music, acclaimed Italian composer and pianist Ludovico Einaudi has added his voice to those of eight million people from across the world demanding protection for the Arctic. Einaudi performed one of his own compositions on a floating platform in the middle of the Ocean, against the backdrop of the Wahlenbergbreen glacier (in Svalbard, Norway).


21 Responses to “Music Break: Ludovico Einaudi -Elegy for the Arctic”

  1. […] Hat tip to Climate Denial Crock of the Week. […]

  2. The announcement I’m waiting for from Greenpeace et al. is how a stunt like this has been fully planned out to the last detail, including the amount of diesel needed for the crane to lift the piano off a large ship onto whatever platform this is, along with the amount of diesel and particulate emissions expended to place/float out the platform; to create the fake ice on top of the platform; to transport Ludovico Einaudi and the whole rest of the audio/video recording crew out there; the fuel for whatever flying machine that was above all of this; the fuel for whatever means of transport that was needed to arrive at Svalbard (at least 600+ miles north of Sweden); the fuel needed to provide food, shelter and other facilities for everyone; and finally, the “carbon footprint” to pull off this entire stunt, with the last item being how the whole thing is summarily canceled due to the sheer amount of fuel needed to make it happen that otherwise only adds to what Greenpeace believes is melting the glaciers.

    One more thing: notice how clean and white the snow is on the far mountains? At least Peter Sinclair can save himself a trip to this particular locale when it comes to observing the ‘dark snow problem’. Nothing to see there, move along.

    • redskylite Says:

      Well it is good to see that you are concerned about diesel usage and carbon footprints at long last. As you very well know the people who want to continue selling carbon dioxide emitting fossil fuels spend an awful lot of money and resource hoodwinking the general public (and users). So unfortunately to try and counter this propaganda machine in some meaningful way, some resource also has to be used. But what better and peaceful way than music ?

      “The Kochs have spent over $88 million in *traceable* funding to groups attacking climate change science, policy and regulation.”

      • redskylite Says:

        Oil-Funded Groups Have Spent $2.7 Million To Defeat California Candidates Who Want Climate Action.

        Groups funded largely by oil companies have spent $2.7 million in California to defeat candidates for the state legislature who support strong climate action.

        • @redskylite: Oh, brother. First, when you encounter AGW skeptics bemoaning the lack of electricity generated by solar plants, or the size of any given footprint of anti-global warming activity, do yourself a favor and look up the words “irony” and “satire.” But if you actually believe I’m expressing disingenuous greenie positions, nossir. I’ve probably been a more ardent environmentalist than many of you – . Commenter “dumboldguy” lampooned what I said months back, but you notice he never disputed any of my points as being non-green.

          “…some resource also has to be used. But what better and peaceful way than music? …” How about a music performance showing stock photography / videos in the background recorded at Greenpeace’s headquarters with a prominent banner across the bottom saying “we canceled the on-site glacier bay performance due to the unnecessary carbon footprint it would have created”? Would any enviro-activist have condemned that as not being ‘in your face’ enough?

          So tell us: you do actually advocate melting some of the glaciers just a little bit in order to dictate to people that they shouldn’t partake in their own personal activities that melt the glaciers a little bit? In order to prevent any damage to the planet, it’s ok to damage ancient indigenous sites ( )? In order to have a planet for creatures to look forward to a safer future, you have to cut short the futures of birds and bats via wind farms, and cut short the futures of animals formerly living peaceably around or flying over solar farms? In order to stop death at abortion clinics, it’s ok to kill a few abortion doctors? Or did you not think this line of reasoning out all the way?

          • redskylite Says:

            Good I’m glad you like carbon free technology and are presumably aghast at the large sums of money spent trying to knock climate science and sustain 19th century technology instead. This blog doesn’t normally comment on abortion so I’ll not respond. Personally I like tidal/marine energy, there is a great choice including nuclear, depending where you live. Anyway as a concerned citizen you will be interested in this latest report from Potsdam, where dangerous abrupt climate change tipping points have been mapped and the ways we can still prevent catastrophic climate change are described.

            “A crucial type of threats, associated with the crossing of tipping points in the Earth system, is summarized in a landmark map for the first time. Second, implementing the Paris target is feasible through the controlled implosion of the fossil industry, instigated by a technological explosion related to renewable energy systems and other innovations. Third, the target is simple enough to create worldwide political momentum.”


          • redskylite Says:

            Just in case you prefer the rundown in the conventional media here is the same report as reported in the Washington Post . . .

            ” . . . . these are all complicated, nuanced stories, and the idea that they can all be pulled together into one analysis — much less one figure — is hard to believe.”

            read on MacDuff


    • ubrew12 Says:

      “Nothing to see there, move along.” Everything you post is leading to this message, whether stated or not. Why not just post it once, at the start of ONE post, and leave? It is clear that the ‘nothing’ you are asking us to see (and ‘hear’, in this case) is what happened to you. It is NOT clear that it has happened to us, yet. Give us a chance to make up our own minds, before joining you in your light-free echo-chamber.

      • @ubrew12: “… It is clear that the ‘nothing’ you are asking us to see … is what happened to you. …”

        ?????????? Ya lost me there.

        Friend, I’m giving you every chance in the world to make up your own minds by presenting a side of the issue which is totally absent at ClimateCrocks. I’m not a climate scientist and have never made assertions to that effect. I was simply a guy in the late ’80s who remembered the global cooling craze as clear as day when Gore, Wirth and Hansen first showed up. I ignored both crazes as being overblown, but with this latest one, the accusation that skeptic climate scientists were paid industry money to lie became too noisy to ignore. So I did an elemental search back in late 2009 to see what it was about and where it came from, and ran into irreconcilable differences about its origins inside of the first day. Since I had both time and my own money to spend time looking deeper into why folks were contradicting themselves in the accusation, I stayed on it. And then after one other guy cited my work here at Crocks in 2014, I chimed in to simply ask if any one of you could point me straight to evidence proving skeptic climate scientists are paid and directed to push industry-created lies. This should have been a home run ball you guys could whack into the next county. But not one of you ever actually takes a swing at it – no open and welcoming invitation to look at devastating full-context document scans, undercover video/audio transcripts, leaked emails, money-transfer receipts, nothing. You instead call me names, hurl accusations, and tell me to leave permanently. Me, I openly invite you to read your own leaders’ material and explain the contradictions in the accusation, I’ve never hurled funding accusations at you, and I don’t call you names. I even invited Peter Sinclair straight out to see if his perceptions of me were supported by reality ( ). And if it isn’t abundantly obvious yet, I read your leaders’ material, yet I routinely see AGWers advising each other to never read skeptic material.

        “Nothing to see there, move along” is not anything that happened to me, but it is what will happen to you the moment you start asking critical thinking questions about particular science assertions in the global warming issue, and especially when you start asking critical thinking questions about why so many details in the corruption accusation against skeptic climate scientists don’t line up right. That’s when there’s a better-than-average chance that some light will come into your own pro-AGW echo-chamber. Remember, there’s no crime in asking questions. If your leaders are what you believe they are, they will gladly explain things to you. But if they narrow their eyes at you and suggest you’re becoming a heretic over answers that you just want to use to knock me out, that’ll be the proverbial “comes the dawn” moment for you. If there is any ‘faith’ in the AGW issue for me, it’s that I have faith in how some of you guys will free yourselves from the shackles of an ideology which offers you nothing in return, via the freedom you already have to ask tough questions.

        • ubrew12 Says:

          My point was that you obviously didn’t listen to the music video. Yes, it takes energy to get to the Arctic, but in this case what you take back out of it is worth it. You mentioned a ‘global cooling scare’ of the late ’80s. There was no global cooling scare. Not in the late ’80s, not ever. How could you make that claim, and claim to be a student of these issues? In the 1970’s, a few Science articles caught the attention of the News magazines, but it never amounted to a ‘scare’, and even then the number of Science papers published on Global Warming outnumbered those worried about aerosol-induced cooling by a factor of Six to One. You didn’t know this? As for whether skeptic scientists have ever been in the payroll of fossil-energy, does Willy Soon ring a bell? Or how about Roy Spencer:

          Amazing your ‘homework’ didn’t uncover this. Sorry you got called names, but if your advice regarding someone else’s music video is ‘Nothing to See Here’, I’m going to call you out. I don’t see any use in the rest of us shutting our minds as thoroughly as you have done.

  3. “One more thing: notice how clean and white the snow is on the far mountains? At least Peter Sinclair can save himself a trip to this particular locale when it comes to observing the ‘dark snow problem’. Nothing to see there, move along.”

    Yes, because we all know that tiny carbon particles can easily be spotted by the naked eye from miles away! Unless it was electrically powered by renewable sources, I think the Greenpeace thing is a stunt, too…but otherwise you’re really trying to outdo yourself for stupidity, which is saying a lot!

    • @Kendal Stitzel: You can’t be serious. So the Dark Snow* project is one that in full disclosure needs an asterisk in the title leading to “* It’s actually white snow until you get right up close to it and then it goes dark”????

      With all due respect, your explanation here is one we’d expect from creation scientists when asked why there are rock fossils on the tops of mountains, to which they respond with something like “God placed those there to test our faith.” Take a look at the main photo at the Dark Snow page ( ). You are telling us we can’t see this from across an ice-choked bay? Is what’s on the Dark Snow photo’s far horizon something that turns bright white from a mile or two further back?

      • Really, Russell, you take a look at one photograph and conclude that all of Greenland has turned black all the time? (Although that’s a hell of a picture!) It’s clear you haven’t seen any of the videos or explored the site, but forgive me for that would be a lot to expect for someone who apparently understands science at such a childish level. Do get yourself a cookie and toddle off, there’s a good fellow now.

        • Again with the creation science-style defensive response? Astute readers here will see I did not use the word “black” in my prior comment but rather was suggesting it was you who claimed the snow was darker when viewed from only a short distance away, but otherwise appears white further out. Meanwhile, is it possibly you who has not viewed the dark snow videos? Screencapture below of one of the several animations depicting large swaths of Greenland visibly turning darker. Are you disputing this representation, that the darkness caused by “tiny carbon particles” — your words — which are only apparent to the naked eye from a foot or less away, thus untrained observers mistake it all for being the bright white reflective surface that it is not? And one more question: a counterargument to “the big melt” was offered elsewhere ( ). Have you explored that site and others offering alternative explanations about Greenland and AGW in general, or would that be a lot to expect from you?

          • Why, Russellito, that last graphic sure shows that the snow should be pitch black everywhere along the coast. But, wait! The graphic in the following link show that most of Greenland should actually be PINK!

            Or wasn’t Greenland supposed to be green?
            And, yes, I’ve seen the WUWT site. I quickly reached the inescapable conclusion that it’s all a stinking reeking crock, just like your work for Heartland. Which is why I’m over here where I can get some real science. Have a lovely day.

          • @Kendal Stitzel: Dude ……. that ‘last graphic’ you are trashing is directly from the Dark Snow project’s Youtube video – the one ClimateCrocks’ Peter Sinclair is helping with video work while begging all of you to support it.

            WUWT is a stinking crock? Your pals here will give you a polite round of applause for saying that. Readers who bop in here for the first time will ask you to explain in detail where WUWT is a crock, and perhaps even to one of my guest articles there ( ). Let’s use that one as an example, just to kill a couple of birds with one stone. Name five lies within my piece, or five easily debunked errors within it regarding details about the accusation that skeptic climate scientists are paid to lie. Or pick any given blog post of my at

            My work is a crock? Sounds great to your pals, but if find yourself in front of an audience of otherwise disinterested folks who could be either swayed to your argument or repelled from it, how are you going to stand and deliver on that assertion? Give it a shot.

  4. Andy Lee Robinson Says:

    They could have asked me to go and play my Arctic elegy!

  5. andrewfez Says:

    Peter, can you do a blog post on the WV flooding. There’s some pretty horrific pictures and videos happening right now on my social media. Everything in the 100 year floodplain is sitting underwater, and something like 18+ people have drowned.

Leave a Reply to Russell Cook (@questionAGW) Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: