Is Climate 'Activism' Becoming a Cult?

Oneiric 3 · 24-09-2019 5:38pm #1

What exactly is the point of these mass and highly co-ordinated 'climate protests' lately, other than to prey on the most vulnerable minds (children) by telling them the world has 10 or 12 years left before it self-destructs?

And take this quote from UN GS Antonio Guterries:

"Mr. Guterres told the young activists that he feared “there is a serious conflict between people and nature, between people and the planet.” Saying that there is no time to lose, with so many people around the world already suffering from the impacts of climate change, the UN chief has been bluntly telling world leaders “don’t come to the Summit with beautiful speeches … come with concrete plans,” including carbon neutrality plans for 2050, options to tackle fossil fuel subsidies, taxing carbon and a possible end to new coal power sources after next year.".

https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/09/1046972

The attempt here to convince 'young activsts' that all of the worlds ills and sufferings are down to climate change is not only factually wrong, but increasingly quite sinister. Not only poisoning the minds of the most innocent of people, but also grossly misleading them by playing down the real politics and policies that do actually result in world misery, but I have to ask, to what end?

At least there as still some sane minds left in the world, but I fear that more and more, their voices will be muted:

EUROPEAN CLIMATE DECLARATION: THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY
Date: 24/09/19Press Release, Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL)
As the latest U.N. climate summit begins in New York, a new, high-level global network of 500 prominent climate scientists and professionals has submitted a declaration that there is no “climate emergency”.
The group has sent a European Climate Declaration with a registered letter to António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Professor Guus Berkhout of The Netherlands, who organized the Declaration, said: “So popular is the Declaration with scientists and researchers worldwide that signatories are flooding in not only from within Europe but also from other countries such as the United States and Canada, Australia and New Zealand.”

The group’s letter warns the U.N. that “the general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose”.

The Declaration adds that the models, which have predicted far more warming than they should, “are not remotely plausible as policy tools”, in that “they … exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2” and “ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial”

https://www.thegwpf.com/european-climate-declaration-there-is-no-climate-emergency/

We live in very, very curious times...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuDRn9z7XXQ

Akrasia · 25-09-2019 8:00am

Let me get this straight, you're saying Climate change activists are becoming cult like, but in that post, you refer to some group called CLINTEL which is a newly formed umbrella group for climate change denial funded by the a network of climate change denial think tanks

Climate change activism is being led by scientific evidence that the world is warming and we are getting very close to what could be irreversible tipping points that will have severe consequences for the carrying capacity of our planet. This is a scientific consensus that is accepted by the vast majority of experts in their respective scientific fields. The argument on the other side of the 'debate' is led by a rag tag bunch of non scientists, and discredited theorists who refuse to let their pet theories die despite being unable to support them with evidence.

Climate change denial is being led by extremely wealthy individuals and corporations with vested interests in preventing action on climate change, who are funding social networks of bloggers, you tube channels, and the worst kinds of pseudo news sites on the internet, with the express goal of twisting people into believing that the scientists are all part of a cult and activists are part of a cult and that everyone is lying to them (except for the climate denial websites of course)

Climate change activism is no more a cult than the anti slavery movement was, or the Fight for marriage equality, or the pro-vaccination movement. Compare this to the 'libertarian' movement where its followers consume the same bubble of media, which tells them that everyone else is lying to them, this libertarian bubble that shares many of the same individuals and think tanks that also reject climate change because they're thinking it about it completely backwards. They do not like the implications of climate change, therefore it must not be true, and if they don't have evidence to support their theory, they'll make it up, and attack real scientists to discredit the real science amongst their followers.

25-09-2019 8:01am

No.

Graces7 · 25-09-2019 12:19pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Let me get this straight, you're saying Climate change activists are becoming cult like, but in that post, you refer to some group called CLINTEL which is a newly formed umbrella group for climate change denial funded by the a network of climate change denial think tanks

Climate change activism is being led by scientific evidence that the world is warming and we are getting very close to what could be irreversible tipping points that will have severe consequences for the carrying capacity of our planet. This is a scientific consensus that is accepted by the vast majority of experts in their respective scientific fields. The argument on the other side of the 'debate' is led by a rag tag bunch of non scientists, and discredited theorists who refuse to let their pet theories die despite being unable to support them with evidence.

Climate change denial is being led by extremely wealthy individuals and corporations with vested interests in preventing action on climate change, who are funding social networks of bloggers, you tube channels, and the worst kinds of pseudo news sites on the internet, with the express goal of twisting people into believing that the scientists are all part of a cult and activists are part of a cult and that everyone is lying to them (except for the climate denial websites of course)

Climate change activism is no more a cult than the anti slavery movement was, or the Fight for marriage equality, or the pro-vaccination movement. Compare this to the 'libertarian' movement where its followers consume the same bubble of media, which tells them that everyone else is lying to them, this libertarian bubble that shares many of the same individuals and think tanks that also reject climate change because they're thinking it about it completely backwards. They do not like the implications of climate change, therefore it must not be true, and if they don't have evidence to support their theory, they'll make it up, and attack real scientists to discredit the real science amongst their followers.

Heartfelt thanks for this. After dipping into the thread on AH re Greta....THANK YOU!

compsys · 25-09-2019 12:29pm

No.

"At least there as still some sane minds left in the world".

From reading your post you don't sound like one of them I'm afraid.

Honestly, why do men (I'm presuming you're a man) get so triggered by women, and younger people in particular standing up for themselves and making noise about an issue they feel passionate about?

ZX7R · 25-09-2019 1:24pm

compsys wrote: »

No.

"At least there as still some sane minds left in the world".

From reading your post you don't sound like one of them I'm afraid.

Honestly, why do men (I'm presuming you're a man) get so triggered by women, and younger people in particular standing up for themselves and making noise about an issue they feel passionate about?

Wow,
5 posts in and you manage to go from climate activism to feminism.
Well done I'm impressed.

riffmongous · 25-09-2019 1:32pm

Mr. Guterres told the young activists that he feared “there is a serious conflict between people and nature, between people and the planet.” Saying that there is no time to lose, with so many people around the world already suffering from the impacts of climate change, the UN chief has been bluntly telling world leaders “don’t come to the Summit with beautiful speeches … come with concrete plans,” including carbon neutrality plans for 2050, options to tackle fossil fuel subsidies, taxing carbon and a possible end to new coal power sources after next year.".

https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/09/1046972

The attempt here to convince 'young activsts' that all of the worlds ills and sufferings are down to climate change is not only factually wrong, but increasingly quite sinister. Not only poisoning the minds of the most innocent of people, but also grossly misleading them by playing down the real politics and policies that do actually result in world misery, but I have to ask, to what end?

Grossly misleading is right!

And then going on about sane minds while referring to the Monckton man, you've got 0 credibility.

And who is this Jim O Brien from the 'Irish Republic' on the list of signatories? More alarm bells ringing when someone signs themselves like that

Oneiric 3 · 25-09-2019 2:28pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Let me get this straight, you're saying Climate change activists are becoming cult like, but in that post, you refer to some group called CLINTEL which is a newly formed umbrella group for climate change denial funded by the a network of climate change denial think tanks

Climate change activism is being led by scientific evidence that the world is warming and we are getting very close to what could be irreversible tipping points that will have severe consequences for the carrying capacity of our planet. This is a scientific consensus that is accepted by the vast majority of experts in their respective scientific fields. The argument on the other side of the 'debate' is led by a rag tag bunch of non scientists, and discredited theorists who refuse to let their pet theories die despite being unable to support them with evidence.

Climate change denial is being led by extremely wealthy individuals and corporations with vested interests in preventing action on climate change, who are funding social networks of bloggers, you tube channels, and the worst kinds of pseudo news sites on the internet, with the express goal of twisting people into believing that the scientists are all part of a cult and activists are part of a cult and that everyone is lying to them (except for the climate denial websites of course)

Climate change activism is no more a cult than the anti slavery movement was, or the Fight for marriage equality, or the pro-vaccination movement. Compare this to the 'libertarian' movement where its followers consume the same bubble of media, which tells them that everyone else is lying to them, this libertarian bubble that shares many of the same individuals and think tanks that also reject climate change because they're thinking it about it completely backwards. They do not like the implications of climate change, therefore it must not be true, and if they don't have evidence to support their theory, they'll make it up, and attack real scientists to discredit the real science amongst their followers.

"This is a scientific consensus that is accepted by the vast majority of experts in their respective scientific fields."

To coin an old phrase.. "science is not a democracy'. And no, climate activism is not akin at all to the 'anti-slavery movement' or any other genuine revolutionary act in history at all. In fact, I would suggest that it is the opposite.

It is interesting to hear some of the comments on this thread though; really shows how the Cult of Scientism works on the mind. Anyone who might dare to challenge their world view is labelled as 'questionable with 'zero credibility' etc etc. No doubt they are being funded by big oil and fossil fuel companies as well...

Same old story every time...

Oneiric 3 · 25-09-2019 2:36pm

compsys wrote: »

Honestly, why do men (I'm presuming you're a man)

How dare you.. :mad: I actually identify as 'they/them/their/xi & vis'

I would kindly ask you to respect my pronouns when addressing me in the future.

riffmongous · 25-09-2019 2:48pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

"This is a scientific consensus that is accepted by the vast majority of experts in their respective scientific fields."

To coin an old phrase.. "science is not a democracy'. And no, climate activism is not akin at all to the 'anti-slavery movement' or any other genuine revolutionary act in history at all. In fact, I would suggest that it is the opposite.

It is interesting to hear some of the comments on this thread though; really shows how the Cult of Scientism works on the mind. Anyone who might dare to challenge their world view is labelled as 'questionable with 'zero credibility' etc etc. No doubt they are being funded by big oil and fossil fuel companies as well...

Same old story every time...

Let's be clear, the only reason we have this nonsense thread is because it's your worldview that is challenged by the overwhelming majority of scientists and evidence and you have to reach for the views of a few pseudoscientists and out of field 'experts' (the first two scientists on your list of same people are geophysical scientists rather than climate or meteorology, one is Monckton another is an energy consultant)

And since you brought it up, the main signatory spent 10 years working for Shell, before setting up a seismological research group for the fossil fuel industry and now just happens to have moved into climate. Same old story indeed

sydthebeat · 25-09-2019 2:50pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

What exactly is the point of these mass and highly co-ordinated 'climate protests' lately,

wow....

just.... wow

compsys · 25-09-2019 4:43pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

"This is a scientific consensus that is accepted by the vast majority of experts in their respective scientific fields."

To coin an old phrase.. "science is not a democracy'. And no, climate activism is not akin at all to the 'anti-slavery movement' or any other genuine revolutionary act in history at all. In fact, I would suggest that it is the opposite.

It is interesting to hear some of the comments on this thread though; really shows how the Cult of Scientism works on the mind. Anyone who might dare to challenge their world view is labelled as 'questionable with 'zero credibility' etc etc. No doubt they are being funded by big oil and fossil fuel companies as well...

Same old story every time...

"The cult of scientism"?

Jesus wept. You're actually embarrassing yourself now.

Out of curiosity, why do you think the opinions of a minority of 'scientists' who deny climate change outweigh the vast scientific evidence to the contrary? Do you know something the rest of the world doesn't?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 25-09-2019 4:50pm

Denying climate change is akin to believing in the Old Testament God these days - even 12 year olds are beginning to realise it.

Oneiric 3 · 25-09-2019 5:24pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebk71P_b5vk

'And now we go to our leader's house - where earlier today, a spontaneous demonstration took place.
A grateful duck has written a new song for our beloved cause.. ahem, I mean 'leader'.

kod87 · 25-09-2019 5:28pm

No,

next question?

Hooter23 · 25-09-2019 5:46pm

Where are these so called climate change scientists and why are they hiding behind a child...

sameoldname · 25-09-2019 6:36pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Same old story every time...

The truth happens to stay the same alright. Lies on the other hand, you can invent something new whenever needed.

Akrasia · 25-09-2019 6:48pm

riffmongous wrote: »

Let's be clear, the only reason we have this nonsense thread is because it's your worldview that is challenged by the overwhelming majority of scientists and evidence and you have to reach for the views of a few pseudoscientists and out of field 'experts' (the first two scientists on your list of same people are geophysical scientists rather than climate or meteorology, one is Monckton another is an energy consultant)

And since you brought it up, the main signatory spent 10 years working for Shell, before setting up a seismological research group for the fossil fuel industry and now just happens to have moved into climate. Same old story indeed

I didn't even notice that Monckton was amongst the elite top 14 'Ambassadors of the European Climate declaration' It's even worse than I thought.

Monckton is a complete and total joke and has absolutley zero scientific credibilty. If this is someone to believe above the likes of, hmm, let me see, every single reputable scientifc body in the world, then one should really take a look at where one gets one's information from.

And someone should probably tell them that Australia, Canada and New Zealand aren't in Europe either

riffmongous · 25-09-2019 7:00pm

Hooter23 wrote: »

Where are these so called climate change scientists and why are they hiding behind a child...

Maybe you could try a scientific journal?

Danno · 25-09-2019 8:51pm

Where I live we have a Tidy Towns group. We appeal the whole time for people to volunteer and help out. You could count on one hand the amount that bother. This pi$$ed me off no end. Then I thought about it more. The people would rather be carbon taxed than move their lazy posteriors to do anything. Hence, watch your carbon taxes rise and rise. In the mean time, clean local areas are being maintained by a small few hard-working cohort who will pay the same carbon taxes.

With regards to global climate change, there is some blame to be placed at the door of humans, and of us especially the big-business and corporate decision makers. However to suggest that all of the warming/change is directly caused by human action is ridiculous. The climate has warmed and cooled many, many times over the millennia. The ones above criticising counter-arguments and counter-evidence as "being financed by big oil" well the same can be said of the climate change side who are incidentally financed by OUR taxes.

There is rationale in moving away from oil and coal. They are dirty fuels. But if all the carbon taxes collected were used to come up with viable alternatives - i.e. cars that charge in five minutes and drive for 500 miles it would be much better than flying Fiachra and Meabh with their H.Dip in gender studies to Svalbard on a junket to study the effects of climate change on polar bears reproduction.

MidMan25 · 25-09-2019 9:07pm

Finally a balanced common sense post above from Danno. My own personal opinion is polluting the planet and wasting resources is wrong regardless of what is happening with the climate. We have developed a lot of clean / renewable alternatives now and should be using them as much as possible.

Danno · 25-09-2019 9:32pm

compsys wrote: »

No.

"At least there as still some sane minds left in the world".

From reading your post you don't sound like one of them I'm afraid.

Honestly, why do men (I'm presuming you're a man) get so triggered by women, and younger people in particular standing up for themselves and making noise about an issue they feel passionate about?

Seeing as you are bringing the gender war into this - perhaps read this: https://www.mytotalretail.com/post/women-consumers-how-retailers-can-better-serve-them/ and then we can agree that most of the warming can be blamed on the "fairer" sex?

compsys wrote: »

Out of curiosity, why do you think the opinions of a minority of 'scientists' who deny climate change outweigh the vast scientific evidence to the contrary? Do you know something the rest of the world doesn't?

Incidentally, it is "science" that gives us the majority of the problems that are with our world today.

Oneiric 3 · 25-09-2019 9:42pm

Have no idea who this 'Monckton' lad y'all are on about is, but allow me to join in with you a technocratic sponsored, corporate media approved '2 minutes of hate' session towards him. Grrrrr..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvGmOZ5T6_Y

Let us destroy the few.
For we are the many.

Danno · 25-09-2019 9:47pm

MidMan25 wrote: »

Finally a balanced common sense post above from Danno. My own personal opinion is polluting the planet and wasting resources is wrong regardless of what is happening with the climate. We have developed a lot of clean / renewable alternatives now and should be using them as much as possible.

Thank you MidMan25. The renewable alternatives are not there yet, but they are getting there, thankfully. Imagine if all the carbon taxes collected were financing their development - we'd be there in jig time. I won't be holding my breath though. Diesel, gas, petrol, coal, oil and peat will be left there as "the old reliables" come every October budget. The very money that these carbon taxes take away from the ordinary Joe and Jane reduces their ability to save for a new EV!

Oneiric 3 · 25-09-2019 9:49pm

Danno wrote: »

Incidentally, it is "science" that gives us the majority of the problems that are with our world today.

Indeed. For example, who created the most obscene weapons of war that have been, and still are, being used to slaughter children (in far away countries, so doesn't matter to us that much) to this very day?

Danno · 25-09-2019 10:09pm

riffmongous wrote: »

Maybe you could try a scientific journal?

Ah, the usual condescending "you don't have the necessary education to know what your opinions should be" - right? :rolleyes:

EDIT: And just like that the following posts justify the above!

MJohnston wrote: »

Sigh....now this forum too? Is there no escape from Trump-level thinking anywhere?

PostWoke wrote: »

Imagine being this brainwashed by Koch Brothers propaganda nonsense.

MJohnston · 25-09-2019 10:14pm

Sigh....now this forum too? Is there no escape from Trump-level thinking anywhere?

PostWoke · 25-09-2019 10:17pm

Imagine being this brainwashed by Koch Brothers propaganda nonsense.

Akrasia · 25-09-2019 10:29pm

MJohnston wrote: »

Sigh....now this forum too? Is there no escape from Trump-level thinking anywhere?

There are some very prominent members of this forum who do not accept the seriousness of Climate change unfortunately.

riffmongous · 25-09-2019 10:29pm

Danno wrote: »

Ah, the usual condescending "you don't have the necessary education to know what your opinions should be" - right? :rolleyes:

EDIT: And just like that the following posts justify the above!

Hold on, they asked where the scientists are, that's the answer. They're not hiding behind a little girl as it was put, they are doing and publishing their research the same way they all have

Akrasia · 25-09-2019 10:33pm

Danno wrote: »

Ah, the usual condescending "you don't have the necessary education to know what your opinions should be" - right? :rolleyes:

Well it was a direct response to someone accusing scientists of hiding behind a 16 year old girl

They're not hiding, they're either presenting at the climate change conference, or they're engaged in active research, or they're involved in releasing reports like the latest IPCC report from this week which is further evidence that we need to rapidly decarbonise to avoid potentially disasterous consequence

Danno · 25-09-2019 10:54pm

Akrasia wrote: »

we need to rapidly decarbonise to avoid potentially disasterous consequence

What do you propose?

Akrasia · 25-09-2019 11:01pm

Just for the laugh, Here's a link to Realclimate (a blog run by actual climate scientists of good standing in their community) where IPCC scientist Peter Thorne reviews an article from retired UCD Meteorologist Prof Ray Bates (one of inspirational figures in the climate skeptic movement in Ireland).

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/12/bending-low-with-bated-breath/

Bates manages to sustain his world view through systemic misunderstanding of the latest published science

Its not that he's not intelligent, or that he's not thinking critically, It's that he has clearly formed an opinion and is no longer looking to have that opinion challenged. Instead, he scans research and the literature (including non academic writings of people with who he agrees with) looking for anything that he can use to confirm his existing belief.

This results in him taking data completely out of context, misidentifying graphs and charts, and mis characterising the current state of the research

Ray Bates thinks Equlibrium Climate sensitivity is 1 degree Celsius. This means that he thinks that the planet will eventually warm up by 1c if we double the concentration of greenhouse gasses from the pre industrial baseline

The problem is, as of now, at a time when the sun is in a solar minimum or close to it, we are already at about 1.1c above this level, and we're not even close to doubling CO2 yet, and we've already beaten his ECS, and this doesn't even account for the fact that it takes time for the heat potential of the current CO2 concentrations to fully impact the climate (even if we kept CO2 at the current level that it is today, we will still see temperatures continue to increase for decades as the climate reaches it's new equilibrium state

The other paper he likes for it’s climate sensitivity work is his own somewhat obscure effort (Bates, 2016), which argues for an ECS near 1K, despite the clear evidence that the planet has already warmed up by that, with a net forcing substantially less than 2xCO2, and with an ongoing energy imbalance (as evidenced by observed increases in Ocean Heat Content). This, to be gentle, is pretty much impossible.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/12/bending-low-with-bated-breath

Someone like Ray Bates has made a prediction which, by nothing more than the passage of time, is already completely disproven, yet still refuses to adjust his theories to account for the evidence, and because he used to be a reputable scientist, others accept his analysis as truth even when it's blatantly obvious that he was wrong.

Bates actually amended his original article to cover up some of the obvious errors as pointed out by Peter Thorne, but he did so to paper over the cracks, amazingly, despite the basis of his arguments being shown to be false, he still finished with the same conclusion.

Akrasia · 25-09-2019 11:08pm

Danno wrote: »

What do you propose?

This is a problem driven by economics, it can be solved by economics. Polluting energy was cheaper than clean energy, the remedy is to charge polluters for the costs of the pollution, this forces polluters to innovate to survive, so they either improve their technology, or they abandon it and help make clean energy more economically competitive

People think carbon taxes are taxes on citizens, they're actually taxes on products. If polluting products are expensive, it makes less polluting products more competitive and the sellers of polluting products can compete by either funding political lobbiests to try to change the laws (hence all the climate change deniers) or they can become less polluting to legitimately avoid the tax.

Eventually, as we are beginning to see, economies of scale and the benefits of investment and research will make renewable energy cost competitive and it will drive organic growth of renewals, and organic decline of fossil fuels.

If you don't agree with my solution, why? are you are a filthy communist?

Longing · 25-09-2019 11:18pm

Akrasia · 25-09-2019 11:21pm

Tony Heller is not a credible source. He can't even decide what his own name is.

And I'm not being a snob or anything, he has a track record of blatantly faking graphs

How often does someone get to falsify evidence before they can be dismissed as a fraud?

Oneiric 3 · 25-09-2019 11:23pm

MJohnston wrote: »

Sigh....now this forum too? Is there no escape from Trump-level thinking anywhere?

Oh no, not you too!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqqwTgk8ri0

Oneiric 3 · 25-09-2019 11:29pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Well it was a direct response to someone accusing scientists of hiding behind a 16 year old girl

They're not hiding, they're either presenting at the climate change conference, or they're engaged in active research, or they're involved in releasing reports like the latest IPCC report from this week which is further evidence that we need to rapidly decarbonise to avoid potentially disasterous consequence

They are hiding and directing people to read their 'papers' does not answer the question as to where these scientists are. Do they stand behind the protests? Are they concerned that fear of a 'climate apocalypse' is becoming a very real thing in the minds of children because of their 'work'? Guess we'll never know...

Longing · 25-09-2019 11:34pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Tony Heller is not a credible source. He can't even decide what his own name is.

And I'm not being a snob or anything, he has a track record of blatantly faking graphs

How often does someone get to falsify evidence before they can be dismissed as a fraud?

Graphs are fine. Problem is the ones Nasa and Noaa have altered over time.

As you are talking about name changing . Lets see Ozone in the 90's to Globing warming to Climate Change now you can't go wrong with the last name change. Climate is always changing history shows us that.

Akrasia · 25-09-2019 11:36pm

One more interesting little trick that you will see from climate change 'skeptics'

They will show you a graph showing the average temperature from all the US weather stations over time.

This graph will show that the average temperatures haven't changed much.

What the graph doesn't show you is that the geographic distribution of the average climate station has changed. They have drifted north. As the US climate monitoring agencies have been trying to achieve higher resolution, they have been putting in more climate stations in the sparcely populated northern and midland regions of the USA. In the northern hemisphere, the further north you go, the colder it gets, so the 'skeptics' can find a single dataset that shows USA 'average temperatures' are declining or static, when in reality, it's just an artifact of the expanding monitoring network

Akrasia · 25-09-2019 11:40pm

Longing wrote: »

Graphs are fine. Problem is the ones Nasa and Noaa have altered over time.

As you are talking about name changing . Lets see Ozone in the 90's to Globing warming to Climate Change now you can't go wrong with the last name change. Climate is always changing history so shows that.

Your post makes so little sense that its not worth responding to

All graphs alter over time. That's what graphs are. They show trends.

Datasets need to be calibrated. This is true for all data. If you fail to account for known errors, your results will drift out of sync with reality.

Your mobile phone's GPS requires that the clocks are constantly adjusted to account for the effects of relativity. If they didn't alter these data, your location services would get progressively less accurate until it became unusable

Longing · 25-09-2019 11:42pm

Akrasia · 25-09-2019 11:46pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Have no idea who this 'Monckton' lad y'all are on about is, but allow me to join in with you a technocratic sponsored, corporate media approved '2 minutes of hate' session towards him. Grrrrr..

Let us destroy the few.
For we are the many.

If you don't know who Monckton is, I'll be delighted to educate you

Peter Hadfield is a Journalist who happens to have a youtube channel that exposes Christopher Monckton in excruciating yet quite entertaining and informative detail

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM&list=PL21601B57A0ED5500

Akrasia · 25-09-2019 11:48pm

[/QUOTE]

Famed climate scientist Tucker Carlson?

You have 40 posts to your name who appeared out of nowhere to post on a climate change topic, you're either a regular Boards.ie poster who's too embarassed to post this nonsense under their regular name, or you're some kind of a troll.

Longing · 25-09-2019 11:49pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Your post makes so little sense that its not worth responding to

All graphs alter over time. That's what graphs are. They show trends.

Datasets need to be calibrated. This is true for all data. If you fail to account for known errors, your results will drift out of sync with reality.

Your mobile phone's GPS requires that the clocks are constantly adjusted to account for the effects of relativity. If they didn't alter these data, your location services would get progressively less accurate until it became unusable

Then Don't respond. You come up with wash up propaganda I have to laugh. Graphs alter over time. Thats says it all right there. I have graphs from 40 years ago and the have not changed.

Longing · 25-09-2019 11:50pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Famed climate scientist Tucker Carlson?

You have 40 posts to your name who appeared out of nowhere to post on a climate change topic, you're either a regular Boards.ie poster who's too embarassed to post this nonsense under their regular name, or you're some kind of a troll.[/QUOTE]

Neither you love to attack people who disagree with you Akrasia

Because I have only 40 posts that means I'm a nobody please shut up. That's how i took that.

Futhermore Akrasia you have attack me personally in your last post.

Danno · 25-09-2019 11:54pm

Akrasia wrote: »

This is a problem driven by economics, it can be solved by economics. Polluting energy was cheaper than clean energy, the remedy is to charge polluters for the costs of the pollution, this forces polluters to innovate to survive, so they either improve their technology, or they abandon it and help make clean energy more economically competitive

How is the shelf-stacker in your local supermarket who commutes 20 miles a day earning €9.80ph going to do this? Keep in mind that 1 in 10 of the workforce population are on €9.80ph.

Akrasia wrote: »

People think carbon taxes are taxes on citizens, they're actually taxes on products. If polluting products are expensive, it makes less polluting products more competitive and the sellers of polluting products can compete by either funding political lobbiests to try to change the laws (hence all the climate change deniers) or they can become less polluting to legitimately avoid the tax.

Wrong. Carbon taxes are a tax on energy from fossil fuels, (also - don't forget there is a hidden tax on energy from renewables too in the form of the PSO levy and VAT) As people have *no choice* but to consume energy that involves fossil fuel sources and the fact that manufacturers pass on the cost to the consumers it is a tax on citizens by the back door.

If your analogy was correct, every 0% alcohol beer in a pub would be cheaper than a pint owing to no excise duty on 0%. There are virtually no pubs selling 0% beer for cheaper than a pint on a ml v ml basis. In fact a 568ml pint is still cheaper than a 330ml 0%. Same in Off-Licences in case you want to throw in a greedy publican angle.

Akrasia wrote: »

Eventually, as we are beginning to see, economies of scale and the benefits of investment and research will make renewable energy cost competitive and it will drive organic growth of renewals, and organic decline of fossil fuels.

There is a long way to go, and as I said earlier all carbon taxes should fund the research into alternatives. But as the dogs on the street know, the carbon taxes raised in the last ten years have been squandered. Much of the investment in green tech has come from the private sector where those profits to invest incidentally came off the back cheap polluting fuel were made!

Akrasia wrote: »

If you don't agree with my solution, why? are you are a filthy communist?

Erm, seriously - your solutions are not too far removed from communism!

Akrasia · 26-09-2019 12:02am

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

They are hiding and directing people to read their 'papers' does not answer the question as to where these scientists are. Do they stand behind the protests? Are they concerned that fear of a 'climate apocalypse' is becoming a very real thing in the minds of children because of their 'work'? Guess we'll never know...

The answer to your very strangely worded question is that 'scientists' are not all one homogeneous person

Scientists have their own thoughts and feelings about political events like protests or how to approach tackling climate change. The consensus is that we need to reduce the concentration of GHGs in our atmosphere and Oceans.

Lots of scientists are speaking out
Lots of scientists are staying out of politics altogether

Whenever groups of scientists get together, via bodies like National Acadamies of Science or their equivilents, they always endorse the climate consensus. This is not because they're corrupt, it's because the evidence cannot be denied when you're talking to experts who can instantly recognise the bullsh1t arguments that can easily convince lay people who think they're cleverer than experts.

Danno · 26-09-2019 12:07am

Akrasia wrote: »

All graphs alter over time. That's what graphs are. They show trends.

Datasets need to be calibrated. This is true for all data. If you fail to account for known errors, your results will drift out of sync with reality.

Either a temperature hit 10.2c on an April afternoon in 1942 or it didn't. There is no need to "homogenise" or "calibrate" that data.

Temperature is temperature, it's not a feckin Volkswagen emission test.

Meteorite58 · 26-09-2019 12:08am

Mod Note: Forum Charter must be adhered to. Need to quit the personal attacks.

Here are a few points to keep in mind while posting on this forum:

1. Please refrain from direct personal attacks on any person whether they are members of boards.ie or not.

2. Everyone is entitled to post and has equal rights whether they are weather experts or complete newbies.

3. If you wish you to challenge someone's views (on the topic of weather) then please question the post, do not just attack poster.

4. Stay on topic.

Akrasia · 26-09-2019 12:17am

Longing wrote: »

Then Don't respond. You come up with wash up propaganda I have to laugh. Graphs alter over time. Thats says it all right there. I have graphs from 40 years ago and the have not changed.

Graphs always show change over time

thats what graphs are
old graphs use older data
newer graphs should use newer data

so you've identified a global scientific conspiracy to use the best available data

I suppose you win?

Is Climate 'Activism' Becoming a Cult?

Comments