Climate Activism Has a Cult Problem

[SaltyTiger 7,789]

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

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?

Sure the University takes it seriously. Of course the affiliates you mention seem to live seem no differently than deniers. Same type homes, trucks, lifestyles….

http://sustain.auburn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/AU_CAP_v1.1.pdf

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF GOALS, TARGETS, & STRATEGIES
CLIMATE NEUTRALITY GOAL
As part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Paris Agreement aims “to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels & to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius.”1
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in order to achieve this ambitious international target of 1.5o Celsius in warming, we must limit atmospheric concentrations of CO2 to around 430 parts per million. Achieving these targets will require us to cut carbon pollution to zero by 2050.2
INTERIM REDUCTION TARGETS
The following plan includes many near-term actions. The relative contribution of these actions to reducing the university’s greenhouse gas emissions remains undetermined at this point. As such, piloting potential action projects & quantifying the reductions achieved should stay top priorities for Auburn.
We have established ambitious, yet achievable, 5-year targets. In 2024, after implementing & tracking projects, Auburn will establish additional interim targets to create checkpoints leading to the 2050 carbon neutrality goal.
 Given this currently accepted set of scientific conclusions, Auburn University will be part of the solution by pledging to:
REDUCE AUBURN CORE CAMPUS GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 100% FROM 2008 LEVELS BY 2050.
 NEAR-TERM EMISSIONS TARGETS FOR AUBURN UNIVERSITY
By 2024, Auburn University will achieve a:
10% reduction from a 2008 baseline in electricity emissions;
40% reduction from a 2008 baseline in funded travel emissions;
15% cap in growth from a 2008 baseline in on-campus stationary combustion emissions; 30% reduction from a 2008 baseline in other campus emissions;
10% cap in growth from a 2014 baseline in commuting emissions; &
0% change from a 2014 baseline in campus fleet emissions.
Collectively these efforts mean Auburn University will reduce total emissions by 20% from a 2008 baseline.

 

 

[jj3jordan 2,051]

7 hours 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.

The problem AGW is analogous to discovering a distant asteroid which is certain to impact the earth at some point in the future. 
 

This line is your problem. You don’t have proof of this. Nothing is certain except that climate does change, before and after humans occupied it. In long periods and short periods. 26 year sun cycles cause change.  As a local expert in science, your “belief” ( and that is what it is, and you are entitled to it) is corroborated by a large group of “scientists” who derive their livelihood and lifestyles from money granted by governments and organizations who desire to propagate AGW as an irrefutable fact. Problem, there are also many scientists who do not concur. However, the AGW army refuses to debate or discuss any other explanation for changing or fluctuating climate, instead they attack these non believers, refuse to even acknowledge their accomplishments and experience, even attempting to decertify, defrock, exile, cancel, and otherwise slander them. Anything but debate as equally qualified and experienced climate scientists. This is the opposite of science at work.  Until You fix that philosophy, you will never convert anyone who has some common sense and thinks for themselves.

 

 

 

[homersapien 11,366]

20 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

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:

 

First, I never said the world is coming to an end. 

As for environmentalism, would you prefer to go back to the time when rivers would catch on fire?  Do you enjoy smog?  Don't care for birds?

You're old enough to remember the environmental movement, apparently just not wise enough to appreciate it.  (BTW, you do know what POTUS created the EPA don't you?  Back in the day before Republicans went off the rails.)

[homersapien 11,366]

13 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

20 hours 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.

 

The problem AGW is analogous to discovering a distant asteroid which is certain to impact the earth at some point in the future. 
 

This line is your problem. You don’t have proof of this. Nothing is certain except that climate does change, before and after humans occupied it. In long periods and short periods. 26 year sun cycles cause change.  As a local expert in science, your “belief” ( and that is what it is, and you are entitled to it) is corroborated by a large group of “scientists” who derive their livelihood and lifestyles from money granted by governments and organizations who desire to propagate AGW as an irrefutable fact. Problem, there are also many scientists who do not concur. However, the AGW army refuses to debate or discuss any other explanation for changing or fluctuating climate, instead they attack these non believers, refuse to even acknowledge their accomplishments and experience, even attempting to decertify, defrock, exile, cancel, and otherwise slander them. Anything but debate as equally qualified and experienced climate scientists. This is the opposite of science at work.  Until You fix that philosophy, you will never convert anyone who has some common sense and thinks for themselves.

 

 

 

In other words, AGW is a "hoax".  Just say it.

Continued accumulation of greenhouse gases will generate climate problems.  It's already happening.  It's just as much a part of physics as the kinetic energy of an impacting asteroid is.  It's completely analogous.

Your denial is meaningless.

[homersapien 11,366]

On 1/27/2023 at 5:18 PM, SaltyTiger said:

Sure the University takes it seriously. Of course the affiliates you mention seem to live seem no differently than deniers. Same type homes, trucks, lifestyles….

http://sustain.auburn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/AU_CAP_v1.1.pdf

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF GOALS, TARGETS, & STRATEGIES
CLIMATE NEUTRALITY GOAL
As part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Paris Agreement aims “to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels & to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius.”1
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in order to achieve this ambitious international target of 1.5o Celsius in warming, we must limit atmospheric concentrations of CO2 to around 430 parts per million. Achieving these targets will require us to cut carbon pollution to zero by 2050.2
INTERIM REDUCTION TARGETS
The following plan includes many near-term actions. The relative contribution of these actions to reducing the university’s greenhouse gas emissions remains undetermined at this point. As such, piloting potential action projects & quantifying the reductions achieved should stay top priorities for Auburn.
We have established ambitious, yet achievable, 5-year targets. In 2024, after implementing & tracking projects, Auburn will establish additional interim targets to create checkpoints leading to the 2050 carbon neutrality goal.
 Given this currently accepted set of scientific conclusions, Auburn University will be part of the solution by pledging to:
REDUCE AUBURN CORE CAMPUS GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 100% FROM 2008 LEVELS BY 2050.
 NEAR-TERM EMISSIONS TARGETS FOR AUBURN UNIVERSITY
By 2024, Auburn University will achieve a:
10% reduction from a 2008 baseline in electricity emissions;
40% reduction from a 2008 baseline in funded travel emissions;
15% cap in growth from a 2008 baseline in on-campus stationary combustion emissions; 30% reduction from a 2008 baseline in other campus emissions;
10% cap in growth from a 2014 baseline in commuting emissions; &
0% change from a 2014 baseline in campus fleet emissions.
Collectively these efforts mean Auburn University will reduce total emissions by 20% from a 2008 baseline.

 

 

Pretty impressive if they can do it by 2024.

(Oh and I suspect all of those lifestyle choices will reflect at least similar improvement in emissions footprints in the future.  We have - or are developing - the technologies.) 

Thanks for supporting my point.  Seriously.

But I'm not sure I understand your second sentence. Are you proposing we make instantaneous radical changes?  Do you think that's practical?

Or to put it another way, do you still own a shirt?  Matthew 5:40-44

 

Edited January 29, 2023 by homersapien

[jj3jordan 2,051]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

In other words, AGW is a "hoax".  Just say it.

Continued accumulation of greenhouse gases will generate climate problems.  It's already happening.  It's just as much a part of physics as the kinetic energy of an impacting asteroid is.  It's completely analogous.

Your denial is meaningless.

AGW is not a hoax. It is just not true, not provable. The hoax is the collective fleecing of wealthy countries and individual citizens of those countries. Not just fleecing but forcible confiscation and imposition of ridiculous requirements under the guise of “stopping the earth’s climate” from doing what it has done for millennia, fluctuating, changing, warming, cooling, storming, calming. And somehow controlling it. That’s the hoax. 

[homersapien 11,366]

20 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

AGW is not a hoax. It is just not true, not provable. The hoax is the collective fleecing of wealthy countries and individual citizens of those countries. Not just fleecing but forcible confiscation and imposition of ridiculous requirements under the guise of “stopping the earth’s climate” from doing what it has done for millennia, fluctuating, changing, warming, cooling, storming, calming. And somehow controlling it. That’s the hoax. 

That sounds like a "hoax" to me.  This is not a conspiracy.

You are in denial.  Or maybe you are just too self-centered to give a damn.  I am giving you credit for just denial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_conspiracy_theory

Climate change conspiracy theories assert that the scientific consensus on global warming is based on conspiracies to produce manipulated data or suppress dissent. It is one of a number of tactics used in climate change denial to attempt to manufacture political and public controversy disputing this consensus.^[1] Conspiracy theorists typically allege that, through worldwide acts of professional and criminal misconduct, the science behind global warming and climate change has been invented or distorted for ideological or financial reasons.^[2][3]

I'd suggest you pursue the links underlined above, but I know you won't.  That's what denial is all about.

 

 

Edited January 29, 2023 by homersapien

[jj3jordan 2,051]

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

That sounds like a "hoax" to me.  This is not a conspiracy.

You are in denial.  Or maybe you are just too self-centered to give a damn.  I am giving you the credit for just denial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_conspiracy_theory

Climate change conspiracy theories assert that the scientific consensus on global warming is based on conspiracies to produce manipulated data or suppress dissent. It is one of a number of tactics used in climate change denial to attempt to manufacture political and public controversy disputing this consensus.^[1] Conspiracy theorists typically allege that, through worldwide acts of professional and criminal misconduct, the science behind global warming and climate change has been invented or distorted for ideological or financial reasons.^[2][3]

I'd suggest you pursue the links underlined above, but I know you won't.  That's what denial is all about.

 

 

No I totally agree with you. It’s all happening. Call it what you want. More of an observation of facts than explanation of why. Insults won’t make it true. But it makes you feel better so have at it. 

[homersapien 11,366]

1 hour ago, jj3jordan said:

No I totally agree with you. It’s all happening. Call it what you want. More of an observation of facts than explanation of why. Insults won’t make it true. But it makes you feel better so have at it. 

If you don't believe the increase in greenhouse gases is causing this, then you don't agree with me at all.

[autigeremt 6,598]

The United States can reduce emissions by 110% and it still won’t reverse greenhouse gas emissions globally. Until China and India get serious about it there’s no reason we should weaken our national security or economic viability while they pollute the world and get rich doing it. It doesn’t mean we should abandon doing the best we possibly can to provide cleaner energy. 

[arein0 950]

9 hours ago, autigeremt said:

The United States can reduce emissions by 110% and it still won’t reverse greenhouse gas emissions globally. Until China and India get serious about it there’s no reason we should weaken our national security or economic viability while they pollute the world and get rich doing it. It doesn’t mean we should abandon doing the best we possibly can to provide cleaner energy. 

You dont think it would be worth it to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions? You do realize most of the world sees what we do and tries to copy us right? You dont think the rest of the world would immediately try to switch over to cleaner energy if we are successful in providing a more efficient alternative?

[I_M4_AU 7,799]

7 minutes ago, arein0 said:

You dont think it would be worth it to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions? You do realize most of the world sees what we do and tries to copy us right? You dont think the rest of the world would immediately try to switch over to cleaner energy if we are successful in providing a more efficient alternative?

What your wrote is a myth. It is what we would like to think, but it is not true.  For an example, China still has slave labor even though the US has condemned that practice.  US corporations are exploiting that labor because of profits.

China, especially, has told us what the US wants to hear, but doesn’t follow through with any commitments on climate change.

At least India doesn’t lie to the world.

[arein0 950]

4 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

What your wrote is a myth. It is what we would like to think, but it is not true.  For an example, China still has slave labor even though the US has condemned that practice.  US corporations are exploiting that labor because of profits.

China, especially, has told us what the US wants to hear, but doesn’t follow through with any commitments on climate change.

At least India doesn’t lie to the world.

So even with worse case scenario and no one follows, you still dont think cleaning our emissions will be worth it? 

[I_M4_AU 7,799]

6 minutes ago, arein0 said:

So even with worse case scenario and no one follows, you still dont think cleaning our emissions will be worth it? 

My point is not every country holds the US as the standard barer of policies as we might have been in the past.  We have destroyed that concept.  Another example; China has forbidden effeminate men from starring in a theatrical presentations in their country.

To your point; the people who are the loudest about climate change are riding around in private jets and telling the peasants to give up luxuries that they themselves do not do.  If these elitists were serious, let them lead by example.  That is what would sway the population. 

The US, without doing a lot, has reduced its emissions over the years.  How much more do we do without better technology that doesn’t require sacrifice to our lifestyle?  And that is the whole issue; what is it worth to humans to go back to eating bugs instead of meat?

That ain’t happening in my household.  You can virtue signal all you want, but that concept isn’t going to fly (pun intended).

[arein0 950]

59 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

My point is not every country holds the US as the standard barer of policies as we might have been in the past.  We have destroyed that concept.  Another example; China has forbidden effeminate men from starring in a theatrical presentations in their country.

To your point; the people who are the loudest about climate change are riding around in private jets and telling the peasants to give up luxuries that they themselves do not do.  If these elitists were serious, let them lead by example.  That is what would sway the population. 

The US, without doing a lot, has reduced its emissions over the years.  How much more do we do without better technology that doesn’t require sacrifice to our lifestyle?  And that is the whole issue; what is it worth to humans to go back to eating bugs instead of meat?

That ain’t happening in my household.  You can virtue signal all you want, but that concept isn’t going to fly (pun intended).

Isnt the whole point of bringing attention to the issue to research and develop better technology? Even if AWG is a myth, it's not, developing cleaner energy still has lots of benefits. For example, you no longer have to import resources to fuel your energy. You still can continue to drill oil and export it to the other countries that haven't changed for extra income. When the world runs out of oil (in the far distant future), you dont have to worry about finding alternatives.

What really bothers me on this board and irl is the fear of change. The fear of change is the number one deterrent of innovation. You cannot have innovation without change.

[arein0 950]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

My point is not every country holds the US as the standard barer of policies as we might have been in the past.  We have destroyed that concept.  Another example; China has forbidden effeminate men from starring in a theatrical presentations in their country.

To your point; the people who are the loudest about climate change are riding around in private jets and telling the peasants to give up luxuries that they themselves do not do.  If these elitists were serious, let them lead by example.  That is what would sway the population. 

The US, without doing a lot, has reduced its emissions over the years.  How much more do we do without better technology that doesn’t require sacrifice to our lifestyle?  And that is the whole issue; what is it worth to humans to go back to eating bugs instead of meat?

That ain’t happening in my household.  You can virtue signal all you want, but that concept isn’t going to fly (pun intended).

As for China, they are all about efficiencies. You show an clean alternative that is more efficient and they will make it a priority to make a change.

[I_M4_AU 7,799]

1 minute ago, arein0 said:

Isnt the whole point of bringing attention to the issue to research and develop better technology? Even if AWG is a myth, it's not, developing cleaner energy still has lots of benefits. For example, you no longer have to import resources to fuel your energy. You still can continue to drill oil and export it to the other countries that haven't changed for extra income. When the world runs out of oil (in the far distant future), you dont have to worry about finding alternatives.

What really bothers me on this board and irl is the fear of change. The fear of change is the number one deterrent of innovation. You cannot have innovation without change.

All great thoughts, so why are we pushing the end of fossil fuel when the technology to do so isn’t here yet?  What is the hurry?  Sounds like an agenda to me.

Fearing change and analyzing the effects of that change are two different things.

[I_M4_AU 7,799]

4 minutes ago, arein0 said:

As for China, they are all about efficiencies. You show a clean alternative that is more efficient and they will make it a priority to make a change.

They are a communist country, stop making excuses for them. They will do whatever it takes to make China the number one superpower.  America is doing whatever it takes to lesson our status as the number one superpower because the woke are embarrassed about being number one.

The insanity!!!!

[arein0 950]

6 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

They are a communist country, stop making excuses for them. They will do whatever it takes to make China the number one superpower.  America is doing whatever it takes to lesson our status as the number one superpower because the woke are embarrassed about being number one.

The insanity!!!!

You need to learn the difference between an excuse and a fact. It is common knowledge that the Asian countries, Japan, Korea, China, are all about their efficiencies. 

[I_M4_AU 7,799]

12 minutes ago, arein0 said:

You need to learn the difference between an excuse and a fact. It is common knowledge that the Asian countries, Japan, Korea, China, are all about their efficiencies. 

It goes beyond efficiency.  Has China invested any money to Ukraine so they can defend themselves against Russia?  Or has China bought Russian oil and has agreements with Russia to bolster the Russian economy while America has put sanctions on Russia?  Would Russia be able to continue in Ukraine if it weren’t for China’s involvement?

China is for China, PERIOD.

It can be a fact that China is all about efficiencies and like Japan on December 7th 1941 want to dominate the world.  You need to learn the difference.

[arein0 950]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

What your wrote is a myth. It is what we would like to think, but it is not true.  For an example, China still has slave labor even though the US has condemned that practice.  US corporations are exploiting that labor because of profits.

China, especially, has told us what the US wants to hear, but doesn’t follow through with any commitments on climate change.

At least India doesn’t lie to the world.

 

10 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

It goes beyond efficiency.  Has China invested any money to Ukraine so they can defend themselves against Russia?  Or has China bought Russian oil and has agreements with Russia to bolster the Russian economy while America has put sanctions on Russia?  Would Russia be able to continue in Ukraine if it weren’t for China’s involvement?

China is for China, PERIOD.

It can be a fact that China is all about efficiencies and like Japan on December 7th 1941 want to dominate the world.  You need to learn the difference.

You are proving my original point that if we show an efficient alternative solution that the rest of the world will follow, China included.

[johnnyAU 3,630]

5 minutes ago, arein0 said:

 

You are proving my original point that if we show an efficient alternative solution that the rest of the world will follow, China included.

The efficient alternative exists. It's nuclear. It's the one energy source worth eventually weening off of fossil fuels would be worth.

It's the idiotic panic button of immediately quitting fossil fuel usage and hoping wind and solar would would be a sufficient replacement (like Germany) that is a problem. They will never be an adequate replacement. People need accessible, affordable and reliable energy sources, not virtue signaling. 

[arein0 950]

4 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

The efficient alternative exists. It's nuclear. It's the one energy source worth eventually weening off of fossil fuels would be worth.

It's the idiotic panic button of immediately quitting fossil fuel usage and hoping wind and solar would would be a sufficient replacement (like Germany) that is a problem. They will never be an adequate replacement. People need accessible, affordable and reliable energy sources, not virtue signaling. 

I never once said we should immediately quit fossil fuels? My point has always been to develop better alternatives because my interpretation of this thread has been "AGW is a myth, so why should we invest in alternative energies." "China and India isnt investing in alternatives, so why should we." I apologize if I am completely off on my interpretation, but that's how a lot of the comments read.

[I_M4_AU 7,799]

18 minutes ago, arein0 said:

 

You are proving my original point that if we show an efficient alternative solution that the rest of the world will follow, China included.

IF we show an efficient alternative????  When will it happen?  The rest of the world isn’t ready to let solar and wind be that alternative.  Germany rues the day they started to decommission there nuclear reactors.

China isn’t going to be the leader in this field, it steals everything from someone else.

[I_M4_AU 7,799]

4 minutes ago, arein0 said:

I never once said we should immediately quit fossil fuels?

Not johnnyAU, but you can thank the present occupant of the White House for this one.  You didn’t say it, but it has been the underlying cause of *panic* that has gripped the leftist world.  It is a self fulfilling prophecy perpetuated by political actors.