Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Religious scholar and climate activist Laurie Zoloth is concerned. She is worried about people who “deny” climate change. But she is also worried about the lack of integrity displayed by people who claim to believe, but who don’t reflect those alleged beliefs in their personal lifestyle choices.
According to the Pittsburg Post-Gazette;
Laurie Zoloth is deeply convinced that climate change represents a great moral challenge for modern times. But she doesn’t spend time complaining about those who deny the scientific consensus of human-induced global warming.
“What I want to think about is my denial, our denial,” she told a group of about 250 people Thursday at the conference, “Integrity of Creation: Climate Change,” which began Wednesday and continues through today at Duquesne University.
It is denial, she said, to acknowledge global warming but continue a lifestyle burning fossil fuels for nonessential travel and eating foods such as meat with a high-carbon footprint. While it’s difficult to make such changes all at once, as president of the American Academy of Religion last year, she proposed that her group take a sabbatical year in 2021 by skipping the annual conference that fills the jet streams with thousands of scholars converging on one city.
It would be just a step, but in reducing one’s fossil fuel use, “then we’re believable, then we have integrity.”
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2015/10/02/Duquesne-to/stories/201510020146
I find Laurie’s quest for personal climate integrity refreshing. I don’t mind that she has a different view about the alleged risks of anthropogenic CO2. Integrity is a solid foundation, which will eventually lead her to climate skepticism.
Leading climate activists who spend their lives jetting to climate conferences, or who use enough energy to power a small town, to light and heat their houses, should be an utter laughing stock. The screaming hypocrisy of jetset climate activists should utterly invalidate their self righteous demands that the rest of us make sacrifices, to “save” the planet. But curiously this rarely happens – climate foot soldiers don’t often criticise the carbon profligacy of their heroes.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’ve always said that any climate “activist” who isn’t absolutely at home on Webex and GoToMeeting is a complete phony.
Their laptops and cell phones should also be solar powered or solar rechargeable
“Their laptops and cell phones should also be solar powered or solar rechargeable”
But it takes a lot of energy and materials to make the devices and you have to keep getting new ones to keep up. That and it takes a lot of energy to get the devices to you from the country of manufacture. On top of that, the energy to run the internet is huge to boot.
So even with a solar run portable device — you are still part of the industrial society and its release of CO2.
Why aren’t they? I’ve done my books for 25 years with a tiny Sharp calculator than runs on a 1″ solar panel. How come all the mobile doohickeys aren’t charged that way? I also have a solar charge box than runs about 9 miles of electric fence for livestock. The panel is 18″ square. Seems to me ALL these tech nuts could be putting their money where their mouth is! Let’s see a solar-powered Tesla!
I think they should use vegan runners with messages held in forked sticks – that’s really sustainable!
In fact, they should be living entirely “off the grid” if they truly walked the talk
That’s right! Whenever I hear a warmist get all high and mighty – I look into their lifestyle or carbon investments. The louder they are, the bigger their wonderful carbon footprint. Multimillionaire property owner David Suzuki, super rich multi-mansion owning Al Gore, uber rich Prince Charles with 4+ houses and staff of over 150, economist and multi-green investor Lord Stern who says climate change is much more serious than he previously thought (his investments need a boost he means) and so on…………….
What do they all have in common? Flights and more flights. They cannot help it, they need to spread the word about co2 emitting airplanes and cars. LOL and LOL.
Here is a fraction of the scheduled flights of the past.
We must act now because small island states will go underwater. Now back to reality.
This is what I call planning for future sea level rise. Get tourists to FLY IN and hope your investments get flooded. A brilliant plan! Then people get all upset when I am sceptical and cynical. BS!
That would be great, we would never hear from them again. Sounds like a plan.
Breaking news from NASA!
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10208065441381957&set=a.3092527320286.2158944.1477134476&type=3&theater
Bingo, Bryan!
@Menicholas, that still doesn’t prove there is life on Mars. 😉
An Apr 8, 2015 blog-post, entitled “No More Flying”, at the “…and then theres physics (ATTP)” blog, links to a “peer reviewed” study that–sitting down?–scientifically proves that “on-line” eco-conferencing is a fully practical, low-carbon alternative to CO2-spew, frequent-flyer “physical attendance” eco-conferencing. And not only that, but the study’s lead author, Corrine Le Quere, also scientifically proves that “on-line” eco-conferencing would allow THIRD-WORLD WOMEN CLIMATE SCIENTISTS OF COLOR TO BETTER PARTICIPATE IN THEIR FIELD!!! (“Towards a culture of low-carbon research for the 21st Century” by Corrine Le Quere, lead author).
And so in light of all that in-your-face, irrefutable common-sense, presented in Corrine La Quere’s research paper, the naive public, with its idealized view of climate scientists, might expect the enlightened, leading climate scientists, at the ATTP blog, to embrace “on-line” eco-confabbing with enthusiasm, as yet another opportunity for them to PRACTICE WHAT THEY PREACH!!!TO LEAD FROM THE FRONT AND BY INSPIRING PERSONAL EXAMPLE IN MATTERS OF CARBON-FOOTPRINT REDUCTION!!! Right?
Likewise, that same naive public might be surprised–shocked, really–if, instead, leading climate scientists at ATTP responded to Corrine La Quere’s work by launching a panic-attack WAR ON THIRD WORLD WOMEN CLIMATE SCIENTISTS OF COLOR!!!, in which the main argument of their infantile, spoiled-brat, privileged-white-dork frenzied-defense of their “physical attendance” eco-confabbing was that that little perk is the choicest gobbet in their good-deal swill-ration–SO BACK OFF LADIES!!!. Again, right?
I’ll leave it to the interested reader to pull up the relevant ATTP blog-post and see whether the hive-worthies who hang-out at that blog took the “high” road or the “low” road. I will only provide, as a teaser, this comment from Rachel M, the sole and frustrated advocate of the “high” road, “This thread reminds me of the interactions I sometimes have with my children.”
Incidentally, here’s the money-shot from Corrine le Quere’s report: “A large proportion of people agreed that flying helped to maintain working relationships and networks and if they flew less (or not at all), it would limit their career prgression”. In other words, those careerist climate scientists devoted to “physical attendance”, at Gaia gab-fests, pay no never mind to all their copious, BABY-KILLING!!! AND POLAR BEAR KILLING!!!, CO2 emissions, in their travel to/fro their little “greenwashed” hive-swarms because such attendance keeps them members in good-standing of climate science’s “good ol’ Boss-Hog” networks (some brazen-hypocrite carbon-piggies are more equal than others), which, in turn, assures them continued “front-of-the-line” privileges in their “career progression” of ever more snout-appealing, trough-and-swill up-grades.
Final thought of my own: “on-line” conferences also make it more difficult for the hive’s alpha-porker shot-callers, runnin’ the good comrades’ eco-cons to plot their agit-prop strategies and to play the Gruber-card and say things behind the public’s back they would never say to the public’s face. That is, “on-line” conferences tend to leave “a record”.
Le Quere is Professor of Climate Change Science and Policy at the University of East Anglia and Director of the UK Tyndall Centre for Climate Change, founded by Mike Hulme, a climategate luminary.
On her webpage (https://www.uea.ac.uk/environmental-sciences/people/profile/c-lequere), she says,
“I was also invited to deliver the annual Bolin lecture in Stockholm University in 2014, and was listed among 20 ‘women making waves in the climate change debate’ on the Road to Paris web site.”
Say Mike,
Any chance of you being asked to deliver the keynote address in Paris next Month? Loved what i’m guessing is your abridged thoughts on Corinne and Co.
At work, we quit traveling to conferences and meeting almost a decade ago. We use tools like SKYPE, WebEx, or other similar ones to conduct our meetings. No jet fuel consumed, and the comfort of my own office near where I live. No hotel or rental car bills either.
But that is not what these globe-trotting science wannabees are in the AGW business for, now is it?
I do even less travel, I work remotely from my home using a standard telephone ADSL connection. In fact most of the company does this too, we use the various teleconferencing tools plus telephones to do our work and collaborate. The commute is the best part, though casual Friday is a bit of a drag.
” Going ” to conferences lacks integrity.
It can all be done on line.
Don’t forget Teamviewer for the budget conscious.
With modern remote conferencing tools, it is no problem what so ever to arrange a conference from a dozen geographically distributed locations. But no. These people like to fly. There is no way to keep presidents of different organizations from taking a flight to Tahiti to have a little drink with umbrella in it.
And call it a climate conference.
I totally disagree. I propose the following rules for climate conferences.
(1) All attendees (but especially heads of state) should be physically present at the conference venue.
(2) All conferences should be held in late January.
(3) Only two venues can be used, on alternate years. They are Yakutsk and Marble Bar.
(4) The conferences shall be held outdoors.
Me, well, I hope that Paris is FREEZING COLD in December and that they have electricity supply problems and muslim riots on the streets.
Paris city authorities already power off street lights because they cannot afford the costs. The city is broke.
That Paris and most of the west is broke could in large part be the main reason a cause for AGW.
Or so the masses must be lead to believe.
“AndyG55
October 3, 2015 at 10:24 pm
Me, well, I hope that Paris is FREEZING COLD in December and that they have electricity supply problems and muslim riots on the streets.”
Andy, that’s why they changed it to “CLIMATE CHANGE”, so what ever happens (snowstorm or sunstroke) they’ll see it as justification for them burning lots of fuel to have a climate conference.
hypocritical ba$tards
Patrick
October 3, 2015 at 11:16 pm
Paris city authorities already power off street lights because they cannot afford the costs. The city is broke.
=============================================================================
I call bs on this statement (not the bit about Paris being broke but about the street lighting). Give me a citation which doesn’t include an article from the Daily Mail (sigh) in 2012. The last time I was in Paris a little earlier this year, the place was certainly NOT in darkness.
However, they do appear to be looking to implement an energy efficiency program, which is a good thing n’est-ce pas?
http://www.engerati.com/article/paris-streetlights-start-smart-city-network
Energy efficient bulbs, right!! Not Daily Mail, but this;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2013/07/01/paris-illumination-ban-city-of-light-dimming_n_3529378.html?ir=Australia
AndyG55
It’s unlikely Paris will have no electricity in December, barring the EDF staff striking which could easily happen, normally 80% of French electricity is nuclear generated. In fact France manages to export power to the the UK (1-2GW normally), Italy, Belgium, Switzerland, Spain and Germany. Quite often a bit of unpredictable wind comes in from Germany or Spain.
The irony is that I frequently attend Oil and Gas Industry conferences with attendees from Europe, America and Asia. All those meetings are virtual. Only climate scientists can afford these massive junkets. Its not just the cost of the travel and hotels its the lost time spent travelling that costs, if you are doing a real job that is.
A bit off topic, but critical to those here who believe in a fair Justice system in the U.S., if you care to read. Concerning the Obama Justice Dept. and how it is now infiltrated with Obama appointed, leftist idealists, who will carry on there after Obama leaves office:
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/justice-and-the-obama-justice-department/?utm_source=housefile&utm_medium=email&utm_content=september2015&utm_campaign=imprimis&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_vH8NlJICotZIu1YwwB5fdcCmiKcc9HMd13ozSIJiX7Y8PtSlodDcTAjgMEaRax911oPiftufiuSGAc2RkPPOgh_sKpg&_hsmi=22552564
sabbatical year in 2021
Suggests the group is locked into hotel and convention sites through 2020. That’s a big carbon footprint. They could get serious and cancel all future meetings. Then there would be believable and integrity. The current leaders and shakers will be replaced by 2021 so the current crop has nothing to forego.
What a hoot.
Yes, a case of “Lord, make me good, but not just yet”.
Like St. Augustine.
Delaying one’s integrity for another six years is pathetic enough; but notice also that she says “in” 2021, not “with effect from” 2021. But it illustrates beautifully the vacuousness of the whole Green philosophy; their actions are mere gesturing, purely symbolic. They’ll preach to us that we should limit our productivity, to reduce our carbon footprint, to somehow reach the arbitrary temperature reduction of 2°C, but will never talk real numbers. The symbolism alone is enough for them, and hang reality. Soviet Russia, anyone?
… their actions are mere gesturing, purely symbolic …
Virtue signalling:
from:
http://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/virtue-signalling-and-moral-decisions/comment-page-1/
‘nonessential travel and eating foods such as meat with a high-carbon footprint.’
The idea that the Catholic Church should make abstinence from meat on Fridays part of its penitential practices has had a small airing on Catholic sites.
This above argument gives a further justification based on poor quality climate science.
The historical argument is that cows produce methane which causes AGW so endangers mankind.
There is no empirical evidence that cows or methane cause global warming.
Meat contains essential fatty acids and essential amino acids required for conception, foetal growth, child and adolescent growth as well as normal physiological functioning of the human body of any age.
Places such as the Sudanese grasslands are capable of feeding Africa by extensive grazing, preventing protein malnourishment and the pathologies it inevitably causes.
There is no argument that we in the West do not need the high fat and protein diet we consume.
However adherents of the Catholic faith, such as myself, need be aware that proscriptions limiting beef production and any such false narrative may only harm, those most in need of food, in the third world.
I always understood that abstaining from meat on Fridays had been a practice, not only in the Roman church but the English one also, for centuries. Although probably observed more in the breach than the practice, during my childhood in England in the 1940s it was still an active tradition. The irony is that it was introduced as an economic measure to assist a fishing industry in trouble.
I may be wrong here, but I believe it was only the Catholic church that only allowed fish meat to be eaten on Fridays, and the practice has been recently re-introduced. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14929199
In the 40’s in England there may have been rationing that impacted on meat eating on any day of the week, so perhaps Fridays was chosen to coincide with the catholics – but this is complete guesswork on my part.
I dont know if any other religion bans meat eating on Friday (or any other day) ..
Man Bearpig – there is. The Eastern Orthodox Church fasting rules call for abstinence from meat and dairy on Wednesdays and Fridays, as well as during the four major fasting seasons (Great Lent, Apostles’ Fast, Dormition Fast, Nativity Fast). A majority of those days call for abstinence from fish as well. Someone following the fasting rules strictly (not all can) would avoid meat and dairy on about half the days in the year.
The ‘saturated fats’ scandal of Ancel Keys is a good lesson in the dangers of politicians and bad science.
Exactly! I often bring that example up as a warning to people about over confidence in consensus. It can have ‘catastrophic’ consequences.
A bloody scandal if you ask me. At least CAGW was caught early, but the powers that be don’t care.
Pays to track down the primary sources on LOTS of things. Too often they turn out, as Bill Clinton once said, to have no “there” there.
@ur momisugly Jimbo October 4, 2015 at 2:37 am
Yes Ancel Keys was the Michael Mann of nutrition. Well known and famous for his saturated fats study that had carefully picked research included the diets of Cretan men studied but during a religious fast and left out populations studied that didn’t ‘fit’ the hypothesis. There is a good commentary on the dietary research and the way it was picked up by the politicians and advice to the population to change diets to increase carbohydrates and reduce meat, in “Good Calories Bad Calories”.
The parallels with AGW research show that there is a fundamental fault in the practice of modern science which is not egoless and has become combative, perhaps due to the continual fight for research funding by increasingly commercial universities.
@Lewis: you lost me with the word “faith.” Best to stick to the science, and to reality.
I always find it fascinating how people who claim to have no “faith” can display so much faith in the religion of their choice. In your case this would be science and atheism.
Meat also contains vitamin B12, an essential vitamin for the brain and nerves. B12 is only obtained from certain meats. Vitamin supplements don’t work. Your body rejects most of those vitamins and removes it through urine. Laurie Zoloth likely believes in evolution, so I would like to ask her why did the human body evolve canine teeth if we weren’t meant to eat meat? And for those that believe in a creator, why did he give up canine teeth if we weren’t meant to eat meat?
Look in a cows mouth, all the teeth are flat, for grinding. In a human’s mouth, only the back teeth are flat. The other teeth are designed for cutting and tearing. Not something that is needed for a vegetarian diet.
Isn’t it just warm blooded animals that are Catholic restricted on Fridays (making fish, snakes, reptiles, alligators and the like okay/see google)?
Yes. Only warm-blooded animals are included in the restriction.
Rumour has it Dr. Suzuki plans to retire and retreat from public life to his four houses allowing him to contemplate the affects of opulent western lifestyles on the climate. No more private jets for him. A humble retirement.
Lorne
Never listen to rumours.
Simon.
It was a joke.
Or David Suzuki.
What do you expect from hypocrites?
DO AS I SAY,:
AND NOT AS I DO.
ECO-HYPOCRITE?
Eco-hippycrite?
I eat meat every day for protein and just eating pleasure…(I like fillet minion, ribs, pork chops, lamb chops, etc) – even the Catholic church resented the edict of not eating meat on Fridays. But here in the southern Baja, I eat more fish than red meat – I like rare tuna and rare swordfish (but I think it’s sailfish)…
YES! Greens are what real food eats. We did not evolve with multiple stomachs. However, a nice side salad and a vine ripened tomato or two are always welcome. When the first herbivore reaches self-awareness and can make fire, I may change my opinion.
I guess she is booked fully through 2020, or figures by that time no one will remember she ever said that and will just continue on flying all over the place or heck maybe they are looking for a better deal in Fiji.
Ah good. An article about how a warmista feels. This is a good moment to dig deep. The mindset of the Ms Zoloth is that she feels uncomfortable living a lifestyle that denies some unknown other somebody something.
If you really want to understand this mindset see the movie “The East”. It’s a movie about an anarchist group that attacks pharma and big energy production to name a couple. During one point in the movie, the daughter of the CEO, (daughter is a member of the group) lashes out at her kidnapped father for condoning a lifestyle of living in posh gated communities while poisoning those that cannot afford to move away from the filth. It’s a powerful little drama as the Dad unexpectedly jumps into the waste pond and confesses. Thought provoking film and an opportunity to understand what Ms Zoloth represents with more depth.
Warmistas aren’t stupid. They know there is doubt to the CAGW concept. They won’t give up on the change it can bring because they sense an opportunity to advance social justice causes.
We need to talk about what that means more than failed CO2 models. What kind of society do we want ? Is it okay that Joe drives a SUV while Mel drives a little ecobunny ? Should Jenny be allowed to live in a 1200 sq ft house while millions suffer ? Should little Joey be tutored with expensive piano lessons while a little child in Pakistan starves ?
The above is the type of dialogue that needs addressing.
I doubt that your examples to force people really make sense and can never work. The best way to solve problems of poverty and all the horrible human suffering it brings is to have a healthy and robust capitalist system and continue spreading use of fossil fuels for all the wonderful things they do to combat poverty, starvation, and most of a society’s ills.
We have enough phony science and totalitarian governments in the world.
We need freedom and honesty and faith in the gospel to solve the problems you discuss.
There will always be differences in result, because people do not have equal abilities and equal drive.
In any system some will do well, and others not so well.
In the US, even the poorest live better than most people in the rest of the world, and they live better than almost everyone a couple hundred years ago.
The solution is to grow the economy, and let everyone compete for what they want.
Mark writes
“There will always be differences in result, because people do not have equal abilities and equal drive.
In any system some will do well, and others not so well.
In the US, even the poorest live better than most people in the rest of the world, and they live better than almost everyone a couple hundred years ago.
The solution is to grow the economy, and let everyone compete for what they want.”
Knute replies ..
Bravo. Cut to the quick.
I would also add that ANY system developed by man is flawed because man is NOT perfect.
Up till now, the system you describe above has arguably achieved the best success.
Notice, nothing, absolutely nothing you’ve described has anything to do with CO2. There are truly bad things occurring that should be corrected. CO2 is not one of them. The greatest travesty of this moment is the unintended consequence of more deserving problems going unaddressed.
Science got tooled.
It’s still getting tooled.
It’s still arguing about how many camels can you fit on the head of a pin while its abusers are moving on.
Get mad bro.
Knute writes: stuff
the post I was responding to had nothing to do with CO2. It made no sense to add in a reference to CO2 since it had nothing to do with the subject being discussed.
Mark writes
“Knute writes: stuff
the post I was responding to had nothing to do with CO2. It made no sense to add in a reference to CO2 since it had nothing to do with the subject being discussed.”
Knute replies …
Hahahahaha “stuff”. At least get me to laugh harder by adding an adjective.
Nor should you add CO2 to your discussion. Addressing CAGW from a CO2 pov is futile. The data shows it’s a false conclusion yet the skeptics movement fails to gain much traction. The warmistas have moved on.
Skeptics are losing ground.
Do you like losing even when you know you are right ?
Skeptics are pounding the table that the data is a fraud. It is. Meanwhile you get no traction and they get the support of the pope and his 1B followers.
Advantage warmistas.
Skeptics continue to pound the table that the data is a fraud. Warmistas handcuff the IMF for building future coal plants and hand the business over to the BRICs.
Advantage warmistas.
Skeptics will continue to pound the table with new data that shows this is a fraud. Warmistas will likely secure 100s of billions of dollar in handout money thru the UN yearly !
Advantage warmistas.
Your attempt at cutting to the quick concerning the root support of CAGW is a seldom used approach. It’s seldom used for the same reason people don’t call out obvious race baiters. Your opponent knows that and will continue to abuse you because of your fears.
Advantage social justice warriors.
Get mad bro.
“… What kind of society do we want ? Is it okay that Joe drives a SUV while Mel drives a little ecobunny ? Should Jenny be allowed to live in a 1200 sq ft house while millions suffer ? Should little Joey be tutored with expensive piano lessons while a little child in Pakistan starves ? …”.
=================================
Knute apparently has a zero-sum economic model in mind.
Joe, Mel and Jenny should be ‘allowed” to do with their legally acquired wealth whatever they like, assuming a Liberal Democracy.
The answer to poverty is economic development and growth which requires the use of abundant cheap reliable energy.
BTW, who are “we”?
inre: Knute’s Pete Singer argument
Chris Hanley is correct. Ari Schulman recently wrote an article on this subject, and he said, “Singer’s morality, then, must be one of total leveling. Hence he has made a career not only out of condemning Western consumer culture as frivolous and selfish, but of depicting even most of our charitable giving as little different.” (emph added)
But there is more to Pete Singer’s philosophy than total leveling:
“Consider, for example, one of the most prominent champions in our day of the project to make us objective judges of universal moral obligations: Princeton University philosophy professor Peter Singer. Singer is less interesting for — and often seems less interested in — doing good philosophy than in using philosophy as an instrument of provocation. Singer and his followers make a point of defending practices like infanticide for no reason other than preference, euthanizing the elderly (including his own mother), bestiality, cannibalism, and other such bourgeois peccadilloes. That these arguments are sure to be met with shudders and gasps is of course not incidental to what motivates them, so perhaps they are better met with a roll of the eyes — except for how seriously many intellectuals take these arguments, and how tellingly they distill certain universalist and countercultural strains in the legacy of Enlightenment thought.”
ref: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/in-defense-of-prejudice-sort-of
If it wasn’t for advancements in civilization and people living “the good life” what reason would anyone who doesn’t have those advantages strive for to attain them? Advancements in civilization carry the worlds people forward along with them. So, I do not feel bad that some people are not as advantaged as I am, just as I do not feel guilty or bad for people who lived 100 or 2000 years ago without our modern conveniences.
Original blog clip
“… What kind of society do we want ? Is it okay that Joe drives a SUV while Mel drives a little ecobunny ? Should Jenny be allowed to live in a 1200 sq ft house while millions suffer ? Should little Joey be tutored with expensive piano lessons while a little child in Pakistan […]
Dahlquist writes …
“If it wasn’t for advancements in civilization and people living “the good life” what reason would anyone who doesn’t have those advantages strive for to attain them? Advancements in civilization carry the worlds people forward along with them. So, I do not feel bad that some people are not as advantaged as I am, just as I do not feel guilty or bad for people who lived 100 or 2000 years ago without our modern conveniences.”
Knute says …
:::: Provokes actually … it’s called murder boarding … getting the debator ready for the barrage :::
So in your trickle down view of world advancement, you got yours, the disenfranchised got less and that’s okay ?
:::: the social justice warrior sees the above as his entry point for attack ::::
If you think this is not a real and widely spread thought process there is this dude called the pope. He just got about 1B people at least tacitly supporting him.
Chris
Please reread my blog in total context.
I do not ascribe to social justice principles as they are currently wielded.
I’m trying to provoke well meaning and generally smart people to recognize what this fight is about. You cannot defeat an enemy if you fight them using only the things you see thru your own field of vision. Learn to live in the mind of your opponent and you’ll gain advantage more quickly because you’ll see the weaknesses more easily.
Interesting how Knute refers to people wanting to keep what they have earned as being bad.
On the other hand his wanting to take what people have earned and give it to others is somehow noble and caring.
Give your own stuff dude, spending your time worrying that people have too much stuff is what has driven most of the mass murders of the last few centuries.
“Interesting how Knute refers to people wanting to keep what they have earned as being bad.
On the other hand his wanting to take what people have earned and give it to others is somehow noble and caring.
Give your own stuff dude, spending your time worrying that people have too much stuff is what has driven most of the mass murders of the last few centuries.”
Actually Knute doesn’t support that line of thinking but presented it as an opportunity for readers to be provoked. It’s ironic that you latch on to Knute being the originator of such beliefs. See beyond your joy identifying “someone” to pile on and become more aware of how you are being baited. It’s called murder boarding.
Do you know that your opponent practices such skills before they unleash their message ? They already know your answers and are far more prepared than so called smarter people.
They laugh at the bait you take and have been taking for years.
Knute
When people start getting things for free ( mostly in the U.S. ), those things become less valuable to them than if they earned it themselves. As for poor and disadvantaged people in the world in general, the only real way to help them is to give them the tools to accomplish their own advancement… Not to weep over their condition and shower them with money, houses and SUVs to bring them up to the standards we enjoy. Health, if we can, yes. But peoples must make themselves proud of their own accomplishments for it to have value and sustainability.
Your “social justice warrior” cannot accept the cold, hard truth that the human condition is a fact of life and that for civilizations to advance and maintain there must be hard work and struggle for those advancements to have value. No one can give value to a person or a peoples…It must be earned by themselves. And your “social justice warrior” , he or she cannot give value either.
For one example, take many of the American Indian tribes. Over the last century, many tribes were given everything they owned, cars, houses, etc. by the Government and they had no pride in what they were given (in most cases, if you ever visited any reservations in the past). Wreck your Govt. car, they get you a new one to wreck…let the house sit and rot… “We’ll get a new one when this one falls down”. But when some of the tribes were given the opportunity to make business for themselves, Casinos and accompanying businesses, the reservations looked like pride had lifted them up and people began to take care of what they had because there was value in it for them. I’m only using a few examples I have witnessed personally here. But without earned value, things are almost worthless. Social justice warriors are selfish, narcissistic, self hating pawns of the leftist guilt trippers who want everyone else who has anything to feel guilty about it.
And the worst thing about social justice warriors is that if they ever did succeed in helping a group of people to advance, they would immediately begin taxing and regulating everything they earned and had value to the group.
The social justice answer to all that well written answer is …
“Sure you got yours and I’m suffering. You are a selfish person. Even the pope can see that you got wealthy while I got poor”.
::::: Additional notification … Glad you are beginning to NOT take the CO2 bait :::::
Knute would like you to reread the post and see that he is attempting to encourage you to put yourself in the mind of your opponent. It is a tried and true way to learn to anticipate his tactics vs reacting with the same old drivel.
Get mad bro.
What business is it of yours how much others have?
What is your proposal, to have govt take from those you deem to have too much?
Who gets to decide who has too much? You?
Down that path lies totalitarianism. Even if you try to paint it with the pretty face of “social justice”, the only way to implement it is via fascistic means.
As every country that has tried to implement your dream has discovered, all it results in is death, destruction and misery for all, with the exception of those who run the asylum, who continue to live lives of luxury.
n response to Knute:
Ah good. An article about how a warmista feels. This is a good moment to dig deep. The mindset of the Ms Zoloth is that she feels uncomfortable living a lifestyle that denies some unknown other somebody something. If you really want to understand this mindset see the movie “The East”. It’s a movie about […]
Mark replies
“What business is it of yours how much others have?
What is your proposal, to have govt take from those you deem to have too much?
Who gets to decide who has too much? You?
Down that path lies totalitarianism. Even if you try to paint it with the pretty face of “social justice”, the only way to implement it is via fascistic means.
As every country that has tried to implement your dream has discovered, all it results in is death, destruction and misery for all, with the exception of those who run the asylum, who continue to live lives of luxury.”
Knute provides …
Ah, well done Mark. Finally a bit of testicular umbrance. My intent in posting my little diddy is to move the discussions here beyond fudged temp readings and scientific fraud.
Science and any attempt at using facts/evidence is NOT what this is about. If you attempt to frame the debate in that manner you will and are being sidelined. That train has left. The social justice warrior cemented just enough momentum to create support for his real agenda. Science was abused and needs to learn from it.
Get mad bro.
I’m not so sure about the Greenies shedding their hypocrisy. As pointed out earlier, their resulting “increased integrity” may eventually lead them to climate skepticism, however for the others, it will just give them more time to promote and gloat about their greenness.
Then they will at least be honest fools. I can respect an honest fool, We can even learn from them from time to time. However, we cannot learn anything from one who is dishonest, especially with themselves.
Flying? If one examined what OECD countries would have to do to reduce GHG emissions by 70 to 80% below 2010 levels by 2050 as recommended by the IPCC, one would have to almost eliminate fossil fuel use within 35 years. Given the politically correct opposition to additional nuclear energy generation, this would mean severely restricting all transportation uses – cars, trucks, aircraft, and marine vessels and completely electrifying the railways at enormous cost. It would mean shutting down all energy intensive industries like oil refining, vehicle and vehicle parts manufacturing, chemicals production, cement plants and others. It would mean significantly cutting agricultural production. Bicycles and horses would make a major comeback. There would have to be severe limits on the size of residential units and on residential construction outside the urban zones. The truly astounding part of all this is that, according to IEA projections of energy demand growth in the less developed countries, the complete transformation of energy economies in the OECD would still not compensate for the growth in emissions elsewhere. Global emissions would actually grow by 2050.
Now, we would simply have to build underground and let the surface do as it pleases
Bob
“completely electrifying the railways at enormous cost”
IIRC isn’t this what South Africa did in another era? But when I was there they still used steam for shunting – apparently electricity doesn’t do that so well.
So do they get “Greenie Points”?
From the article…”…Religious scholar…”. I didn’t bother reading any further about this person and her opinion about climate change.
Patrick, Many people are of the same mind. Just one word from, or of the wrong topic and the walls come down Same with me at times. But there is still this, Eric Worrall thought it worth posting. I tend to look at what he offers up.
michael 🙂
I agree, and I usually read all his posted articles. But I said I didn’t bother reading any further about this person (Ms. Zoloth) and her opinion on climate change (Because of her *belief* that humans are causing climate change, something that isn’t there/happening. Also, to have anything to do with religion, you too have to believe in something that isn’t there).
Patrick, I find it quite ironic that a religious scholar would not ultimately trust God and would buy into the notion that humanity has accidentally gained a deic control of the climate by using the element of fire and becoming “too numerous for the planet”.
I always wonder how these folks justify conflicting beliefs?
It would be quite a capricious God to state that after the Noachian flood he would never again destroy the entire Earth with water again – but then decide to do it with fire.
“Laurie Zoloth….as president of the American Academy of Religion”
I agree. Refreshing integrity.
NO, a façade of integrity.
Why 2021….?
ps.. Can I ask what age she might be, and when she is due to retire ??
I bet its 2020 !!
I bet your right, here she is –
http://www.religion.northwestern.edu/faculty/zoloth.htm
Look at the slideshow on her page: her students appear to travel all over the world ‘studying religion’.
I agree
MSM in Australia today!
3 Oct: News.com.au: Perth Now: Miranda Devine: Perth electrical engineer’s discovery will change climate change debate
A MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate, on the eve of the UN climate change conference in Paris next month.
A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.
He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.
He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought…
Dr Evans says his discovery “ought to change the world”.
“But the political obstacles are massive,” he said…
PHOTO CAPTION: Dr David Evans, who says climate model architecture is wrong, with wife Jo Nova…
You heard it here first!
Originally published as Climate change debate cracks
http://www.news.com.au/national/western-australia/miranda-devine-perth-electrical-engineers-discovery-will-change-climate-change-debate/story-fnj4anv2-1227555674611
Marvellous! Let’s hope this spreads widely.
Not in Australia it won’t!
Many of us have been saying that for the last 10 years.
Anyway, there is not A model, there are over a hundred, and most of them use their own parametrized climate sensitivity ‘constant’, Parametrized because nobody has actually empirically measured it, and therefore nobody has proved that the climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide is actually a CONSTANT. The values, by the way, range from 1.5 degrees to 4.5 degrees, depending on the model. And some people want us to believe that an assemble ot those models can give magically the correct climate prediction, with a parameter which varies 300% from model to model.
The fact that every model has to be tuned using different constants for the various unknowns is just more proof that none of the models are accurate.
As long as she turns off the electricity and central heating too, I’ll be happy.
Take a sabbatical in 2021…six years from now…way to take one for the team Laurie!
Carbon footprints are a crock. To date, nobody has been able to show that CO₂ is harmful. Griping about carbon footprints is playing into the alarmists’ hands.
By contrast, the green airplane in the illustration has jet engines that are defintely dangerous, and would probably burn through the wings before the jet ever got off the ground. But no worries; it’s just a model.
Many real-world passenger jet aircraft hang their engines on plylons some distance below the wing, but in no case does the wing pass through the engine. Always avoid boarding aircraft with that kind of configuration.
Of course, the green airplane is just clip art, generated from a 3D model where the artist/modeler didn’t have good attention to detail, and you want to have good attention to details in your models, if for no other reason than verisimilitude, which is what models are all about.
But if you don’t have the original 3D model, it may be difficult to fix the clip art. With the original 3D geometry, it should be possible to move down the engines and their pylons by sliding them down on the y-axis, and then render a new image with the correct configuration.
With airplane models, it’s relatively easy to spot mistakes where parts are out of place, the wrong size, upside down, and what have you.
The pause befuddles the climate models. Just like the green airplane model with the wing-burning engines, the thermageddon climate models don’t, won’t and can’t fly.
Have you never seen a picture, or in reality, an English Electric Canberra, also known in the U.S. as a B57? The engine mountings are symmetrical to the centre line of the aerofoil. The same is also true of the Gloster Meteor the second production jet aircraft.
Yes, the key term is “engine mountings.” The engine is separate from the wing, and may be removed from it for service, replacement, and upgrades.
As I said, in no case does the wing pass through the engine, either with piston, or jet engines. Piston engines were commonly mounted in the wings of multi-engine aircraft, and that practice continued in the early days of jet aircraft for some concerns, but these days, almost all passenger jet aircraft mount the engines externally, either hanging on the rear fuselage, or mounted on pylons hanging from the wings.
The engines were mounted in the wings, but the wings were not mounted in the engines.
But, my point was about bad data in a model. If you want to talk about airplanes, that’s ok too, because the green airplane illustration has a flaw, where the leading-edge of the wing is passing through the engine nacelle, and the pylons are proturuding through the upper surface of the wing. That’s a configuration that would never occur in the real world.
The green airplane clip-art illustration is rendered from a 3D model. In that model, a few of its component parts are out of place – bad data – because there was an error in importing the model, or because the modeler made a mistake, possibly moving the model slightly while failing to select all of its components. I can see that, but perhaps you cannot. C’est la vie.
Bad data = bad model. Works the same way with airplane models, and climate models.
de Havilland Comet – first jet airliner
tri-jets had their centre engine in the rudder
“tri-jets had their centre engine in the rudder.”
No, tri-jets had one engine in the vertical stabilizer, and not the rudder, which is the moving part of the vertical stabilizer.
The situation is analagous to wing-mounted engines, where the engine is affixed to the aircraft at attachment points in the engine mounting.
Yes, the Comet, like the Tu-104 and some other early passenger jets, had its engines mounted in the wing roots. As I’ve said, almost all modern jet passenger aircraft now mount their engines externally, either on the rear fuselage, or on plylons hanging from the wings, which is where the green airplane illustration has an error.
In the drawing/model of the jet aircraft accompanying this post by Eric Worral, the bad data is obvious – at least to me – because the engines & their pylons are out of place.
If you can’t see that, then I can’t help you.
analagousanalogousMany older planes had the engines in the wings.
Most military planes have the engines inside the fuselage.
The engines are put on pylons to make maintenance easier. That’s it.
It is said that Rajendra Pachauri had over 500,000 air miles from jetting around the world to all of the climate conferences before his past caught up to him. Al Gore is still using his “G” to jet around for the latest photo opportunity while his many houses burn up enough energy to light a small village. Obama went to Seattle this spring from Washington DC for a $1500 a plate dinner speech. Air Force 1 and 2 plus two C17’s carrying his secret service detail and the motorcade burned over 520,000 gallons of jet fuel for a Democratic fund raiser. Leonardo Dicaprio is developing a small island in the Caribbean after he removed the indigenous locals from it. The diesel power plant for the island is said to be state of the art and very low emissions. You could go look at this wonder land that he is building but the “security” force on the island does not like sight seers and will ask you to leave. He is selling villas to an exclusive clientele for when the world gets really messed up by the “Green” crowd. I suppose that we should just look the other way and give these champions for the Climate change cause a pass. George Orwell “Some Pigs are more equal than others” Animal Farm 1945.
There are certain long term benefits of lots of airline flying:
http://www.virgin-atlantic.com/en/gb/frequentflyer/membershipbenefits/goldforlife.jsp
http://www.britishairways.com/en-gb/executive-club/tiers-and-benefits/lifetime-tier-points
This is a problem for a philosopher. A similar argument could be made in everyday life. If you see a boy drowning in a shallow pond do you ruin your 200 dollar shoes and wade in immediately, there is no time to spare, and save the boy. Well, if you don’t did you have a moral obligation to save the boy? But if you did then don’t you have a moral obligation to give up your expensive lifestyle and assume a life of penury to save starving and needy people for considering your behavior in saving the drowning boy you have no less an obligation to others in need. I find the climate scientist/activist in the same conundrum but it is one each of us confronts everyday balancing what is possible but realizing that we will always be morally compromised in some way.
But are we and is the climate scientist morally compromised in our necessary life choices saving the boy but choosing not to save every child even though you don’t want them to die and in the case of the climate scientist enjoying herself in the company of other like minded souls and dining largely on the public purse while presumably contributing to the problem she is seeking to solve while the meeting is meant to put in place policies to solve the problem. Is she really morally compromised? Are we? I don’t really think so. And I’ll tell you why because each of us (I hope) makes ethical choices at every point in our lives balancing what is possible with what is good.
We can endlessly debate whether the IPCC is good or bad but that is a separate question to what was presented.
(with apologies to Pete Singer for stealing his example but quite a common moral dilemma)
Hilarious – the end justifies the means.
[snip – an over the top rant -mod]
@Steven Shales
Let me try again.
Allow me to flesh out the point you’re making, Steve, as I understand it. CO2 “pollution” KILLS BABIES!!!. But you don’t think someone, Steve, who fully buys into the idea that anthropogenic CO2 is a baby-cide, is “morally compromised” if they choose forms of transportation that inject, directly or indirectly, tons and tons of CO2 into the atmosphere–even when there are readily available, if less “fun”, alternatives? And remember, we’re talkin’ about putatively lethal CO2 that is the by-product of non-essential travel, by our elite carbon-phobes, to eco-confabs and for their personal recreation, which is travel that could easily be replaced by zero-carbon (i. e., zero dead-baby), on-line conferencing or resort to local amusements within cycling or hiking range.
So Steve, I don’t get it. So just why aren’t our brazen-hypocrite, carbon-piggie CO2-spewing betters “morally compromised”?–and I’m referring to those who talk a good anti-CO2 game, who insist that “climate change” represents a “great moral challenge for our times”, who would kill jobs with their green regulations by the millions, and who would bring the coercive powers of the state to bear on us “little guys” to curb our peon-nobody, de minimus carbon-appetites.
And while you’re at it, Steve, could you spell out just what you think the moral duty of a leader is to set the example and to lead from the front and by inspiring, personal example, in matters of carbon-foot print reduction. None?
Having said all that, let me note, that in her world, Professor Zoloth’s call for exemplary leadership, in any form, is probably a brave proposal, and deserves respect and admiration, on that score. And the Professor also demonstrates her self-awareness when she says, “in reducing one’s fossil-fuel use, then we’re believable, then we have integrity”. The corollary being, of course, that those of our betters who do not reduce their fossil-fuel use lack credibility and integrity–and one might even say that they are “morally compromised.” Agree, Steve?
P. S. Thank you for the jerk on my chain, mods.
If you answer yes that you are morally obligated to do x and in doing x you harm yourself where does the moral obligation arise in the first place? Also, what if doing x wins you applause and accolades and a guest spot on some news program have you used doing x to your advantage? Let’s say you got a book contract and a movie deal would those ends justify the means of doing x, saving a life or maintaining personal integrity? You didn’t start out with those ends in mind but they happened what do you do now?
I started this with the assumption that all actors were morally good. Any presumption that the actions of any of the actors were or are less than morally good rests entirely with the reader.
@Steve,
Let’s take this in bite-size increments:
Yr: “If you answer yes that you are morally obligated to do x and in doing x you harm yourself, where does the moral obligation arise from in the first place?”
Response: Steve, I hate to break this to you, but if there’s a “moral obligation” to do something, one is obligated to do it whether it does harm to you or not. Is this really hard for you to understand? Let me try and explain. So if I’ve sworn before God to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, in a court of law, I’m morally obligated to do the same, regardless of whether my truthful testimony helps my case or not. And the “moral obligation”, in the above example, arises and ends with my oath-bound duty to be truthful and my ethical conviction that perjury, for personal gain, is morally wrong (though perjury would be morally permitted in a Nazi court to save a German Jew’s life, for example–but you know what I mean, Steve).
The balance of your first paragraph, Steve, is otherwise kinda silly and, therefore, not worth my effort to quote it and then break it down for detailed rebuttal. Rather, I’ll say, generally, that if an act of mine inadvertently gains me some sort of an unlooked for “good-deal”, then that stroke of good luck is neither here nor there in terms of the moral character, or lack thereof, of my original action. So, for example, if I decide to car-jack someone, and that someone turns out to be a notorious terrorist, driving a car-bomb, and I just happen to frustrate his attack, just a few blocks short of the site of his intended, mass-casualty atrocity, then I’m still a car-jacker and deserve to be judged accordingly. “Normal” people understand these things Steve–really!
Yr: “I started this with the assumption that all actors are morally good”
Response: Hitler? Stalin? Pol Pot? Dr. Evil? Are you a freakin’ lunatic, Steve?
Look, Steve, I’m goin’ to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you’re some sort of Professor-type and that all your half-baked, look-mom-I’m-Socrates!, beyond-good-and-evil!, like-really-heavy-man! cat-nip for dumb-kid undergrads makes sense in the hive-bubble. But let me hedge my bets, Steve. While I’m leanin’ toward you being some sort of ivory-tower hive-worthy, I want to leave open the possibility, too, that you’re just another hive-bot.
OMFG! I’m a climate doubting morally compromised and heavily conflicted wimp unable to make sane decisions on the spot!
Ok – I’m over it. The climate will need to be actually changing in an unnatural way to justify all these moronic climate change-driven policies that destroy our economies and take away our freedoms.
To satisfy some activists we all should be wearing a hair shirt and living in a cave – without a fire.
They should all travel by horse drawn vehicle and sail boats to get there this would keep them all out of our way for a good long time before each of these bun fights and help them appreciate all the things that fossil fuel brings to their lives as they bump along looking at the back end of a horse.
James Bull
I have talked with several people who are garden variety environmental activists. The reason they do not act on their beliefs, or make any changes to their lifestyles, is simply because it won’t make any difference “until every one does it.”
This also conveniently prevents them from having any real, direct experience of what they are demanding from others and from society.
What I want to know is, who convinced these people that they are so brilliant that they can rip out society, infrastructure, agriculture, what have you, and replace it at will. I am afraid it is the Universities, and the use of psychoactives at a time when their brains were still developing. This makes them believe in things that aren’t there.
Leftists have been told that the are the best and the brightest for so long, that many of them have come to believe, even when the evidence from their own lives refutes that belief.
“Leftists have been told that the are the best and the brightest for so long, that many of them have come to believe, even when the evidence from their own lives refutes that belief.”
Hahahahaha leftists. ZzzzzzzZzzzzzzzZzzzz baited and hooked soon to be fileted. Stop being such an easy target.
If you are a scientist, you likely became one partly because you thought your intelligence allowed you to not take part in the politics of living. Your opponent preyed on you because you thought YOU were above that.
Now, really, who was smarter at that moment ?
There’s a video out there on youtube of Obama just before he arrives in Alaska. The camera pans down to his itinerary pamphlet for just that visit to Alaska.
No lie, was one huge stainless staple and as thick a Gideon’s bible with paper.
Gossip is Obama and Michelle have separated but living separate lives in the White House.
So his and hers separate bedrooms and his and hers private jets to and back from Paris