Climate Activism Has a Cult Problem

[SaltyTiger 7,764]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

You actually don't understand the science if you call it unsubstantiated.  The "narrative" is based on scientific fact.  You are completely ignorant.  What's worse, you don't care.

It's a waste of my time to argue the facts with you.  I'll just leave you a reference if you change your mind about educating yourself. (Your kids will appreciate it.)

https://skepticalscience.com/

Have you bought your electrical vehicle?

“These new tax credits are designed to help consumers move away from highly polluting furnaces, home appliances, and cars in favor of newer, cleaner technology — such as heat pumps, induction stoves, and electric vehicles — that run on electricity.”

[creed 1,629]

I believe in Global Warming, but you folks on here are clueless to the root cause and think technology is going to correct it. Technology will only stretch the timing of the issue. Everyone needs to watch David Attenborough's "A Life on Our Planet: My Witness Statement and a Vision for the Future".

[autigeremt 6,569]

AGW/Climate change in my opinion is caused by a variety of things…most of which are naturally occurring (polar shift due to electromagnetic change resulting in axis change) combined with man made pollution. Sinking economic growth is ill advised and only helps the rich. 

[homersapien 11,354]

18 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

I'm also ashamed of fellow Auburn grads that hold such a death grip on the narrative as you do. It's quite embarrassing.

That's pretty funny. 

What do you think Auburn University's position - the administration, deans, academic faculty, research staff, extension staff, students - is on the AGW narrative?  

Does Auburn University take it seriously?  

Who's more likely to embarrass Auburn University, someone who accepts the science of AGW and takes it seriously, or someone who thinks it's a hoax?

[homersapien 11,354]

18 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

From your article:

Primary global energy consumption grew by 5.5% last year to a new all-time high. This represented the fastest energy consumption growth since the early 1970s, and is a reflection of strong global demand bouncing back from 2020’s Covid-19 energy consumption decline.

Fossil fuels accounted for 82% of primary energy use last year, essentially the same as in 2020, but down from 83% in 2019 and 85% five years ago. The remaining share of primary energy use consisted of hydroelectric power (6.8%), renewables (6.7%), and nuclear power (4.3%).

 

Global carbon dioxide emissions rebounded from 2020 levels, growing by 5.9% in 2021. However, this is still about 1% below the record levels of 2018 and 2019.

You’re blowing smoke Homer.

Do you want to bet that the closer we come to 2030 the year of total destruction of humanity the goal post will have shifted to say 2040 and the Davos crowd will ask for even more money?  After all, they are failing and the only way to save humanity is to give them more authority over us and more money.

Oh, look:

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has estimated that greenhouse gas emissions would need to be cut by half by the end of this decade. We would then need to reach "net-zero" by 2050. So far, we are not on that trajectory.

"Current international policies are taking us towards around 2.6 C of warming by 2100, and the ambitious but so far not enacted promises made at the U.N. climate talks in Glasgow last year would only just about make 2 C," McKay said.

https://www.newsweek.com/newsweek-com-world-ends-tipping-points-climate-change-1751237

I’m sure the data will show enough improvement to be able to push the total destruction of mankind to 2050,  but we better get ready to spend even more money and give up more comforts by then.  No more gas stoves and forget gas heat.  No burning of fire wood to keep warm, but we can borough into that rotting wood to dig out our future dinners. 🐛 

What's you point?

I see a lot of obfuscation about current consumption, goals and timing but I am not seeing anything that suggests we shouldn't develop wind and solar energy sources. 

Are you saying should abandon efforts to develop emissions-free energy sources like wind and solar power?

If that's your point, just come out and say it.

Or are you saying any effort to mitigate AGW is hopeless?

 

 

[homersapien 11,354]

14 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

You look bad all own your own. But thanks I’ll take the win.  I reject the modeling. There is no scientific proof of anything. All they have is modeling. It produces the results they desire because they input their own data into their own model.

https://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming

Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted global warming

Study debunks idea that older models were inaccurate

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/

Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

 

https://www.nationalacademies.org/based-on-science/climate-models-reliably-project-future-conditions

Climate models reliably project future conditions

[johnnyAU 3,630]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

someone who accepts the science of AGW

Why don't you poll them and find out? In fact, gather their signatures while you're at it. Make sure to tell them no current or future funding will be in jeopardy regardless of their answers. 

LOL. There is no "science of AGW". There is belief, similar to that of a cult as you have just alluded via your verbiage, which you embrace, worshipping knelt at the altar. There are giant leaps of faith, assumptions and unsubstantiated claims that bridge over to the delusion of AGW and CAGW.  However, belief isn't science, and neither is consensus even if it swaddles you like a warm blanket.  Yes, I am embarrassed by folks, especially pompous, snarky pseudointellectuals who are more driven by ideology than proof. Feel free to happily pay your carbon tithes, enjoy your Beyond Meat smorgasbords (perhaps with a side of bug snacks), and perhaps consider moving to a 15 minute city in the future. None of it will do squat to alter the climate but at least you can continue to virtue signal. That's something.

BTW, I could have sworn you were done with your discussions with me. Are you also not a man of your word? That's a shame. 

[homersapien 11,354]

26 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

Why don't you poll them and find out? In fact, gather their signatures while you're at it. Make sure to tell them no current or future funding will be in jeopardy regardless of their answers. 

LOL. There is no "science of AGW". There is belief, similar to that of a cult as you have just alluded via your verbiage, which you embrace, worshipping knelt at the altar. There are giant leaps of faith, assumptions and unsubstantiated claims that bridge over to the delusion of AGW and CAGW.  However, belief isn't science, and neither is consensus even if it swaddles you like a warm blanket.  Yes, I am embarrassed by folks, especially pompous, snarky pseudointellectuals who are more driven by ideology than proof. Feel free to happily pay your carbon tithes, enjoy your Beyond Meat smorgasbords (perhaps with a side of bug snacks), and perhaps consider moving to a 15 minute city in the future. None of it will do squat to alter the climate but at least you can continue to virtue signal. That's something.

BTW, I could have sworn you were done with your discussions with me. Are you also not a man of your word? That's a shame. 

I am curious, do you call yourself a Christian? 

Do you believe the Christian narrative regarding everlasting life after death?

Edited January 27, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,354]

23 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

BTW, I could have sworn you were done with your discussions with me. Are you also not a man of your word? That's a shame. 

Such a display of willful ignorance absolutely fascinates me. I just cannot resist keeping it going.

It's a weakness.

[johnnyAU 3,630]

9 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I am curious, do you call yourself a Christian? 

Do you believe the Christian narrative?

This is my last response to you, so you may enjoy having the final word. I honestly couldn't care less about your opinions, but I'll keep my word. 

No and no. However, everyone is free to believe as they wish in regards to faith, as long as they don't try and force their beliefs upon others or demonize those who choose to follow other religions or none at all.  I've certainly met a lot of very kind, generous people of faith (regardless of the religion), as I have who are agnostic or atheist and of course vice versa.  

[homersapien 11,354]

1 minute ago, johnnyAU said:

This is my last response to you, so you may enjoy having the final word. I honestly couldn't care less about your opinions, but I'll keep my word. 

No and no. However, everyone is free to believe as they wish in regards to faith, as long as they don't try and force their beliefs upon others or demonize those who choose to follow other religions or none at all.  I've certainly met a lot of very kind, generous people of faith (regardless of the religion), as I have who are agnostic or atheist and of course vice versa.  

See, we have something in common.

[jj3jordan 2,040]

15 minutes ago, homersapien said:

See, we have something in common.

Not really. Seems like johnny is not a basher like you. Loved the transition from your AGW fail to try and bash johnny for being a Christian. Only a gullible gump is capable of being a Christian AND an AGW denier.  Ironic. We are human caused climate change deniers but you are just a climate denier. In your sad angry world climate doesn’t just change on its own, it needs someone to blame.

 

[I_M4_AU 7,773]

55 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Or are you saying any effort to mitigate AGW is hopeless?

It’s.not.worth.the.cost.at.this.time.  Those windmills are expensive to produce, especially in energy cost, and are more expensive to maintain than the fossil fuel alternative.  The vessels exploring sites to construct them are suspect in killing hump back whales (nothing proven yet).  The Solar Panels turn toxic in 20 years.  What’s the plan to dispose of this toxic material?  Where do we bury them so the water will be toxic like Camp Lejeune in 10 years?

I guess there is no thought about cost as it is just taxpayer dollars and it could create meaningless jobs until better technology is developed.  We could actually wait to develop new technology as the US is doing pretty good at limiting CO2 admissions without the expense.

[jj3jordan 2,040]

54 minutes ago, homersapien said:

https://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming

Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted global warming

Study debunks idea that older models were inaccurate

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/

Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

 

https://www.nationalacademies.org/based-on-science/climate-models-reliably-project-future-conditions

Climate models reliably project future conditions

Propaganda.  50 years left, 30, 20, 12, 10, 2000 no ice cap, all failed all wrong. Agenda driven opinion disguised as science funded by politicians fleecing the public for cash is meaningless.

[I_M4_AU 7,773]

3 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Not really. Seems like johnny is not a basher like you. Loved the transition from your AGW fail to try and bash johnny for being a Christian. Only a gullible gump is capable of being a Christian AND an AGW denier.  Ironic. We are human caused climate change deniers but you are just a climate denier. In your sad angry world climate doesn’t just change on its own, it needs someone to blame.

 

Climate change and *Mother Nature* is the new Pagan god for these people.  It surpasses any other deity.

[homersapien 11,354]

1 hour ago, jj3jordan said:

Not really. Seems like johnny is not a basher like you. Loved the transition from your AGW fail to try and bash johnny for being a Christian. Only a gullible gump is capable of being a Christian AND an AGW denier.  Ironic. We are human caused climate change deniers but you are just a climate denier. In your sad angry world climate doesn’t just change on its own, it needs someone to blame.

 

BS

What AGW "fail"? 

Climate is not changing "on it's own", it's changing because of the accumulation of human-produced greenhouse gases.  It's not me that claims that, it's science - physics to be precise. 

You can deny the science or not, but it doesn't change the reality.

 

 

 

[homersapien 11,354]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Climate change and *Mother Nature* is the new Pagan god for these people.  It surpasses any other deity.

"Mother Nature" represents reality, for better or worse.  Denying it won't affect it. It just makes you feel better in the meantime - before it becomes undeniable.

Of course both of us will likely be dead before that happens.  So what we are really talking about is our responsibility to our successors.

Most of us recognize and accept that responsibility, others don't.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

BS

What AGW "fail"? 

Climate is not changing "on it's own", it's changing because of the accumulation of human-produced greenhouse gases.  It's not me that claims that, it's science - physics to be precise. 

You can deny the science or not, but it doesn't change the reality.

 

 

 

Ummmm the climate would still be changing on it's own if humans were not here. How that change would look compared to current changes can't be determined exactly but that is beside the point. 

Natural climate changes due to naturally occurring events did not cease to exist once humans started to inhabit the planet. So should we label you a NGW denier? 

BTW it is science and physics that have proven that the climate has changed over time...long before humans. 

[homersapien 11,354]

2 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Propaganda.  50 years left, 30, 20, 12, 10, 2000 no ice cap, all failed all wrong. Agenda driven opinion disguised as science funded by politicians fleecing the public for cash is meaningless.

You have a child-like sense of time. 

There's plenty of ice left - just a lot less than a few years ago. But, so far, so good.  Right? 

Only a fool declares what can - and has been observed - "propaganda".

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/

 

Edited January 27, 2023 by homersapien

[I_M4_AU 7,773]

13 minutes ago, homersapien said:

"Mother Nature" represents reality, for better or worse.  Denying it won't affect it. It just makes you feel better in the meantime - before it becomes undeniable.

Of course both of us will likely be dead before that happens.  So what we are really talking about is our responsibility to our successors.

Most of us recognize and accept that responsibility, others don't.

The point being *Mother Nature* is not the primary shaper of the world as we know it like some believe.  There are other considerations.

Our responsibility to our successors lies with the children we have fathered.  They are the future and will have to solve the problems of their time.  Each generation should learn from the previous, whether it good or bad, but it is their responsibility to determine how to proceed.

I hope they will not be tainted by what we believe now to be true.

[homersapien 11,354]

36 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Ummmm the climate would still be changing on it's own if humans were not here. How that change would look compared to current changes can't be determined exactly but that is beside the point. 

Natural climate changes due to naturally occurring events did not cease to exist once humans started to inhabit the planet. So should we label you a NGW denier? 

BTW it is science and physics that have proven that the climate has changed over time...long before humans. 

You are confusing changes occurring on a geologic time scale (millions of years) with the rate of change that are occurring over the human time scale (centuries).  It's a common logical fallacy regarding AGW climate change.

Natural cyclical climate changes occurring over millions of years are not relevant to the rapid change caused by AGW.  The relatively rapid rate of change associated with AGW will not allow humans - much less human culture - time to evolve naturally in order to adapt. 

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

This rapid change will ultimately have apocalyptic effects on our species if it isn't attenuated. Unchecked, the rate of temperature increase caused by AGW will create crop failures, more extreme weather, famine, wars over resources, mass refugee migrations, etc. 

The problem AGW is analogous to discovering a distant asteroid which is certain to impact the earth at some point in the future. The rate of climate change in that event would be even more rapid than AGW.

If we have the technical potential of avoiding that event, would it not be the sensible course to make the attempt? 

And who knows how long the effort will take?  Possibly - if not probably - longer than some of us will live.  All we know for sure is that the clock is running on whatever time we have left to succeed.

Like I said, this really boils down to the responsibility we have toward future generations.

 

 

 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,773]

 

 

[homersapien 11,354]

54 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The point being *Mother Nature* is not the primary shaper of the world as we know it like some believe.  There are other considerations.

Our responsibility to our successors lies with the children we have fathered.  They are the future and will have to solve the problems of their time.  Each generation should learn from the previous, whether it good or bad, but it is their responsibility to determine how to proceed.

I hope they will not be tainted by what we believe now to be true.

Your first sentence is a non sequitur.  What - other than nature - "shapes" anything?

But primarily, AGW is not a "belief".  It is fact as established by science.  And science is the only way to ascertain fact.  Anything else is mere belief.

The only way future generations will be tainted - or hindered - is by "our" belief in what is not fact.

[I_M4_AU 7,773]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Your first sentence is a non sequitur.  What - other than nature - "shapes" anything?

The economy, world wars, conflicts between nations that don’t lead to war, monetary values, etc.  Now nature can affect these things, but it is not the driver.

If you didn’t see or can not see the tweet I just posted:

 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

18 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You are confusing changes occurring on a geologic time scale (millions of years) with the rate of change that are occurring over the human time scale (centuries).  It's a common logical fallacy regarding AGW climate change.

Natural cyclical climate changes occurring over millions of years are not relevant to the rapid change caused by AGW.  The relatively rapid rate of change associated with AGW will not allow humans - much less human culture - time to evolve naturally in order to adapt. 

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

This rapid change will ultimately have apocalyptic effects on our species if it isn't attenuated. Unchecked, the rate of temperature increase caused by AGW will create crop failures, more extreme weather, famine, wars over resources, mass refugee migrations, etc. 

The problem AGW is analogous to discovering a distant asteroid which is certain to impact the earth at some point in the future. The rate of climate change in that event would be even more rapid than AGW.

If we have the technical potential of avoiding that event, would it not be the sensible course to make the attempt? 

And who knows how long the effort will take?  Possibly - if not probably - longer than some of us will live.  All we know for sure is that the clock is running on whatever time we have left to succeed.

Like I said, this really boils down to the responsibility we have toward future generations.

 

 

 

 

You are a science denier if you discount the fact that there have been rapid changes in the climate in the past. Plenty of research has shown that there has been changes in the past to glaciers that occurred over periods of time as short as centuries. Glaciers in the North Sea have left canyons below the surface that scientists estimated were formed over 100's of years not millions. Research has also shown that Antarctic ice has melted faster than it does today....roughly 10 times faster. 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rapid-antarctic-ice-melt-in-the-past-bodes-ill-for-the-future/

 

You would be foolish to think that we have enough information to know for certain that the climate changes today are only because of humans. Just as one cannot know for certain that the changes are solely because of natural occurring events or changes.