Climate Activism Has a Cult Problem

[autigeremt 6,598]

Here's some interesting research done that relates our current state with 56 million years ago. 

Changes in Earth's orbit may have triggered ancient warming event -- ScienceDaily 

[homersapien 11,362]

6 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

FBI Director Christopher Wray admitted he left an August hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee to jump on an FBI jet for a vacation in the Adirondacks, a move Republicans said cut the key oversight hearing short.

The flight in question occurred on Aug. 4, the day before FBI investigators sought and received approval for the unprecedented raid of former President Donald Trump’s resort home in Mar-a-Lago. The search happened after the weekend, on Aug. 8.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, expressed frustration with Wray during the August hearing over him leaving before a second round of questions.

“You left an oversight hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee required by statute so that you could vacation with your family. I find that absolutely unbelievable, and frankly indefensible,” Hawley said Thursday, also asking Wray to turn over all receipts and reimbursements for use of the plane to the committee.

Wray replied: “Senator, we will be happy to comply with oversight requests related to the use of the plane.

Flight Radar 24 records show a Gulfstream G550 belonging to the Justice Department flew from Manassas, Virginia, to Reagan National Airport the afternoon of Aug. 4, then left the nation’s capital for Saranac Lake, New York, at 4:44 p.m. The flight returned to Manassas that evening. Records show the jet took off again the afternoon of Aug. 8 for Saranac Lake, then returned that evening to Manassas.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/wray-admits-jetting-off-adirondacks-august-senate-hearing

The story here is not that Wray left a Congressional meeting to go on vacation, the story is the *Green* Administration isn’t serious about *Green*.  Wray seemingly used the plane to get to the meeting, flew to Saranac Lake to vacation and flew back to Manassas after the vacation.  If Wray drove to the meeting he would have had to fly back to DC to pick up his car.

A whistleblower has stated he has flown the FBI jet to DC to avoid the traffic to DC, so not the first time.

Records obtained by The Daily Wire show the jet has made the roughly 15-minute flight between its base at Manassas Regional Airport in Virginia and Washington, D.C., area airports 140 times since 2020. The whistleblower and currently suspended FBI agent, who spoke to The Daily Wire, said the local trips are made to save Wray and possibly other bureau bigwigs from the 45-minute drive to and from Manassas on either end of their flights.

“The FBI jet is being used, I believe, in a grossly mismanaged way,” FBI agent Kyle Seraphin, who was suspended from the bureau last year, told The Daily Wire. “Chris Wray has a jet fly from Manassas, Virginia, to Reagan National Airport, because he doesn’t want to sit in traffic.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/fbi-director-christopher-wray-summons-bureaus-jet-to-d-c-area-airport-to-dodge-traffic-whistleblower

Speaking of Davos; this is from a year ago but we know it hasn’t changed much:

Researchers found that all private jet flights to and from airports serving Davos during the World Economic Forum 2022 caused a total of 9,700 tonnes of CO2, equivalent to the emissions of about 350,000 average cars in a week. Researchers attribute a majority of these to private flights undertaken by WEF participants. Climate-damaging emissions from private jet flights quadrupled during the one week of the meeting compared to the weeks before and after the event.

“Given that 80% of the world’s population has never even flown, but suffers from the consequences of climate-damaging aviation emissions, and that the WEF claims to be committed to the 1.5°C Paris Climate Target, this annual private jet bonanza is a distasteful masterclass in hypocrisy. Private jets must be consigned to history if we are to have a green, just and safe future for all. It’s about time our political leaders start to lead by example instead of producing hot air in secret meetings with big business,” added Schenk.

Private jets are not regulated in the EU, even though they are the most polluting mode of transportation on the planet per passenger kilometre.[2] For the first time, in 2022, several EU countries have started to push for an EU-wide regulation of private jet emissions. Greenpeace is calling for a ban on private jets and short-haul flights with train alternatives in the EU.

https://www.greenpeace.org/international/press-release/57867/hundreds-of-ultra-short-private-jet-flights-to-davos-world-economic-forum/

Leaders, lead and what we are seeing in not leadership.  These elitists are waiting for a grassroots effort to effect change while doing nothing themselves to alleviate the problem.  Taking Air Force One to Delaware every other weekend isn’t *doing your part* Mr. President.

If this is such a problem why is the current administration just throwing our tax dollars at it?  Start eating bugs 🐛 and driving your electric cars you want us to buy.

You Al Gore wannabes need to talk to your elected officials and demand accountability.  I will still wait until the elitist start to take it seriously.

Just to confirm your point:

You agree that AGW exists and is a serious problem that deserves more commitment to address it by everyone, particularly that hold responsible positions in the government.

Correct?

Edited January 31, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,362]

3 hours ago, autigeremt said:

Here's some interesting research done that relates our current state with 56 million years ago. 

Changes in Earth's orbit may have triggered ancient warming event -- ScienceDaily 

Thanks emt!  Very interesting thesis.  It's also a good example of how geoscience  works.

[SaltyTiger 7,785]

54 minutes ago, homersapien said:

particularly that hold responsible positions in the government.

So vote democrat?

[I_M4_AU 7,791]

52 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Just to confirm your point:

You agree that AGW exists and is a serious problem that deserves more commitment to address it by everyone, particularly that hold responsible positions in the government.

Correct?

If you believe AGW exists and is a serious problem you should press the people that can actually do something about it to take it more seriously than they are.

Arguing with the non believers does nothing when the elected officials refuse to lead by example.   Jump on them.  I am skeptical especially when the top elitist do not change their lifestyle to match their outrage.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

15 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

If you believe AGW exists and is a serious problem you should press the people that can actually do something about it to take it more seriously than they are.

Arguing with the non believers does nothing when the elected officials refuse to lead by example.   Jump on them.  I am skeptical especially when the top elitist do not change their lifestyle to match their outrage.

Exactly, also because the very same ones don't want to listen to what others have found in their research. They think it can only be one way and pick and choose what they want to believe so that it aligns with what they want. 

If you look at the elites like Gore and Kerry they don't really give one rip about the environment. They care about the money it makes them. If they cared about climate change they would change how they live and conduct business. Instead we get things like carbon credits..........which has been shown to be mostly ineffective or a scam. 

[homersapien 11,362]

16 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

If you believe AGW exists and is a serious problem you should press the people that can actually do something about it to take it more seriously than they are.

Arguing with the non believers does nothing when the elected officials refuse to lead by example.   Jump on them.  I am skeptical especially when the top elitist do not change their lifestyle to match their outrage.

Are you even capable of a simple answer or must you always prevaricate?

"Do you agree that AGW exists and is a serious problem that deserves more commitment to address it by everyone, particularly those that hold responsible positions in the government?"

Edited January 31, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,362]

59 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Exactly, also because the very same ones don't want to listen to what others have found in their research. They think it can only be one way and pick and choose what they want to believe so that it aligns with what they want. 

If you look at the elites like Gore and Kerry they don't really give one rip about the environment. They care about the money it makes them. If they cared about climate change they would change how they live and conduct business. Instead we get things like carbon credits..........which has been shown to be mostly ineffective or a scam. 

Same question for you:

"Do you agree that AGW exists and is a serious problem that deserves more commitment to address it by everyone, particularly those that hold responsible positions in the government?"

I mean, once we can agree on that, then we can move on to the effectiveness of our response.

I you don't believe that, then Gore or Kerry aren't relevant, right?

[homersapien 11,362]

16 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

So vote democrat?

If you look at elections purely as a binary choice between parties, then the simple answer is YES.  The Democratic party - in general - has better positions on AGW than the Republican party.

So, if one doesn't want to take the time to research individual candidates on their policies, you would be better off voting Democratic than Republican. 

What does the Republican party say in their platform about the issue?

Having said that, There are a few Republicans who have appropriate environmental positions, so one should look at candidates individually, regardless of party. 

 

 

Edited January 31, 2023 by homersapien

[I_M4_AU 7,791]

17 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Are you even capable of a simple answer or must you always prevaricate?

"Do you agree that AGW exists and is a serious problem that deserves more commitment to address it by everyone, particularly those that hold responsible positions in the government?"

To be clear; I am skeptical AGW exists.  Can it be serious if the party that tells me we need to change our habits by 2030 won’t change their habits?

What is left out of your *serious* problem is any kind of priority.  It is not this administrations top priority, it is only good for fund raising.  Is it an existential threat or not?  Is it the most existential threat of all threats or just the run of the mill existential threat?  Case in point:  Biden just sent 31 Abram tanks to Ukraine that don’t run on unicorn dust.  They pollute.  How many months/years will this disagreement in Ukraine cost the world in terms of AGW?  I would be willing to bet this action isn’t figured into the Paris Agreement.

I think AGW is a way of eking out as much money and power the globalist can get and not solve what people like you believe exists.

Hope this clears it up for you.

 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Same question for you:

"Do you agree that AGW exists and is a serious problem that deserves more commitment to address it by everyone, particularly those that hold responsible positions in the government?"

I mean, once we can agree on that, then we can move on to the effectiveness of our response.

I you don't believe that, then Gore or Kerry aren't relevant, right?

I do agree that it does exist, however I do not agree that it is the only driving factor. Natural changes have been shown to occur over centuries and even multiple decades as well. 

It is being addressed in the US from an energy source standpoint. However, there are things that can help such as better public transit systems....but given how we are so spread out makes it challenging. 

Gore and Kerry are just a couple of people that found a way to get rich off of people. 

 

[abw0004 10,110]

Why do people who believe in climate change need to be called cultish?  That in itself is childish.

There is nothing wrong in wanting to protect the planet and reverse the pollution and damage we are doing to it.

Also, many need to realize those that are in support of ending climate change have nothing financially to gain from it.  Those that support the fossil fuel industry have a lot of money to lose from it.  You don't see scientists getting filthy rich from their research.

 

[johnnyAU 3,630]

51 minutes ago, abw0004 said:

Also, many need to realize those that are in support of ending climate change have nothing financially to gain from it.  Those that support the fossil fuel industry have a lot of money to lose from it.  You don't see scientists getting filthy rich from their research.

LOL. That is absurd. Tons of folks, including individuals, companies, universities, etc...are (and have been) lining up to latch on the Green $$ teat. Do you think scientists do not make their livelihood from funded grants? Do you think individuals, including scientists don't invest money in things other than fossil fuels? How much money has Al "Jazeera" Gore made pushing this propaganda. Trillions are ear-marked. Thinks folks might lose some money, both current and future if the AGW narrative is threatened?

[homersapien 11,362]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

To be clear; I am skeptical AGW exists.  Can it be serious if the party that tells me we need to change our habits by 2030 won’t change their habits?

What is left out of your *serious* problem is any kind of priority.  It is not this administrations top priority, it is only good for fund raising.  Is it an existential threat or not?  Is it the most existential threat of all threats or just the run of the mill existential threat?  Case in point:  Biden just sent 31 Abram tanks to Ukraine that don’t run on unicorn dust.  They pollute.  How many months/years will this disagreement in Ukraine cost the world in terms of AGW?  I would be willing to bet this action isn’t figured into the Paris Agreement.

I think AGW is a way of eking out as much money and power the globalist can get and not solve what people like you believe exists.

Hope this clears it up for you.

 

Yes, understand you don't believe it's a serious or actual problem. You think it's a conspiracy (hoax).

So, your rant about Gore and Kerry's behavior is either related to the role you think they are playing in this AGW conspiracy/hoax or there some other unrelated reason.

Thanks for clarifying.  I understand you completely. It confirmed my suspicions.

Edited January 31, 2023 by homersapien

[abw0004 10,110]

34 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

 Do you think scientists do not make their livelihood from funded grants?

You are missing my point.  You don't see scientists rolling around in exotic cars or have multiple houses.  What they make from their salaries is a modest life, not the kind of money the fossil fuel industry is throwing at politicians to turn a blind eye.  No one thinks they will be a scientist so they can make bank.

Edited January 31, 2023 by abw0004

[abw0004 10,110]

[homersapien 11,362]

1 hour ago, wdefromtx said:

I do agree that it does exist, however I do not agree that it is the only driving factor. Natural changes have been shown to occur over centuries and even multiple decades as well. 

It is being addressed in the US from an energy source standpoint. However, there are things that can help such as better public transit systems....but given how we are so spread out makes it challenging. 

Gore and Kerry are just a couple of people that found a way to get rich off of people. 

 

First, one of the basic principles in doing research and arriving at a valid conclusion is what is known as controlling for (natural) variation.  I can assure you that the science takes into account all sources of warming that can play a roll.  And for the last 2,000 years, without the effect of greenhouse gases, the earth would still be in a natural, 50 million year old, cooling cycle.

https://www.britannica.com/science/climate-change/The-last-great-cooling

https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-global-warming-merely-a-natural-cycle/a-57831350

So not only does your first sentence ignore time frames there is no evidence for it. There are no natural causes - other than greenhouse gases - to account for the current rate of warming. (Additional references below)

I agree with your second paragraph.

As for your last statement on Gore and Kerry, that's just your opinion.  I disagree, but you are certainly entitled to it.

 

 

Edited January 31, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,362]

41 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

LOL. That is absurd. Tons of folks, including individuals, companies, universities, etc...are (and have been) lining up to latch on the Green $$ teat. Do you think scientists do not make their livelihood from funded grants? Do you think individuals, including scientists don't invest money in things other than fossil fuels? How much money has Al "Jazeera" Gore made pushing this propaganda. Trillions are ear-marked. Thinks folks might lose some money, both current and future if the AGW narrative is threatened?

So, bottom line, you don't believe the science.  Every scientist existent worldwide is part of the conspiracy. 

Have a hypothetical question for you though, if you can handle it.

Assume that AGW is true and that it's as serious as been predicted.  How else - other than government's and NGOs spending money on scientific research and technology development - could mankind respond?

Edited January 31, 2023 by homersapien

[johnnyAU 3,630]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Every scientist existent worldwide is part of the conspiracy. 

Not even close to "every scientist existent worldwide" agrees with the AGW premise. That's a myth, but I know it's one you believe.

[johnnyAU 3,630]

44 minutes ago, abw0004 said:

You are missing my point.  You don't see scientists rolling around in exotic cars or have multiple houses.  What they make from their salaries is a modest life, not the kind of money the fossil fuel industry is throwing at politicians to turn a blind eye.  No one thinks they will be a scientist so they can make bank.

Scientists make their living, their families living and the families of those who work with them on the funding for those grants from Green $$.  Just like they have done with fossil fuel money and big tobacco money. It's the politicians, lobbyists, CEO's, etc... that are making the bank. It is just as its always been. Money drives from the top down. The $$ involved when taking over an entire energy sector. 

[homersapien 11,362]

24 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

Not even close to "every scientist existent worldwide" agrees with the AGW premise. That's a myth, but I know it's one you believe.

There's always a few contrarian wackos when you are talking thousand and thousands of people. 

But the evidence indicates a strong scientific consensus, starting with every single reputable scientific organization in the world.

Just search "scientific consensus on AGW" for a list of references illustrating this.

Edited January 31, 2023 by homersapien

[johnnyAU 3,630]

25 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Assume that AGW is true and that it's as serious as been predicted.  How else - other than government's and NGOs spending money on scientific research and technology development - could mankind respond?

Assume it isn't, and the trillions we are throwing at unreliable wind and solar are eventually wasted. We will be depriving humanity of affordable, reliable and available energy sources. Well except those like Gates and Gore who can afford their own fossil fuel back ups while traveling the globe to exotic locations to talk about its dangers, and cashing out.

[johnnyAU 3,630]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Just search scientific consensus on AGW for a list of references

I've done the research. I do it every day. I also listen to loons like yourself every day. 

[homersapien 11,362]

7 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

Assume it isn't, and the trillions we are throwing at unreliable wind and solar are eventually wasted. We will be depriving humanity of affordable, reliable and available energy sources. Well except those like Gates and Gore who can afford their own fossil fuel back ups while traveling the globe to exotic locations to talk about its dangers, and cashing out.

No, you cannot respond to a hypothetical in such a manner.  The hypothetical was to assume it is real. 

Of course the hypothetical was to demonstrate that spending money on scientific research and technology development would be perfectly rational. (So the logic checks out.)

I was wrong to assume you could handle a hypothetical.  Clearly you can't.

Can't say I'm surprised though.

Edited January 31, 2023 by homersapien

[johnnyAU 3,630]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Of course the hypothetical was to demonstrate that spending money on scientific research and technology development would be perfectly rational. (So the logic checks out.

The money spent in R&D should be spent on developing modular (reliable, affordable and available) energy sources across the globe, in case you missed that point. Unreliable garbage like wind, solar and biomass are the opposite. Trying to move to all EV's without either a fossil fuel or nuclear supported grid is disaster. Throwing money at it in an absurd way will only exacerbate any problems. Moving away rapidly from fossil fuels before we are ready either due to virtue signaling or just plain being wrong would be disastrous.