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.
FGS!!!! Read Jonova.com.au re David Evans. – comment on it – understand it – disseminate it – don’t procrastinate. He has done the work now GET IT OUT THERE
sure , but….when you live in wealthy soceity you enjoy à lot of things that need fossil fuel to work..
you have to let this down too.
As I keep saying: Climate extremists are amongst the most gullible people on the planet. They have no idea whatsoever how much they need fossil fuels, yet they are the fist to criticise anyone else who uses fossil fuels or worse … defends society against those who are stupid enough to envisage a modern society without fossil fuels.
This seems to fit about here
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2015/10/sanctimonia.html
You might think it is a good idea to ban all crematoria and close them down immediately. There must be a heck of a lot of carbon dioxide produced every time a human being is reduced to bone fragments. Can’t recall alarmists producing this idea, however.
What to do with the bodies? Bury them in the near-deserts where the added protein and fat will be good fertilizer, and help to grow cattle for good food. If cows are too flatulate, then sheep, goats or rabbits will do nicely.
Or even imitate Discworld and sell rat pies – a la “Cut-me-own-throat Dibber”.
Burial at sea. Feed the fishies.
I believe that it should be a legal requirement for any activist to prove they have a below average fossil fuel consumption with no allowances or offsets whatever. Until then I will continue to regard them all as despicable charlatans and fraudsters.
David says
“I believe that it should be a legal requirement for any activist to prove they have a below average fossil fuel consumption with no allowances or offsets whatever. Until then I will continue to regard them all as despicable charlatans and fraudsters.”
Knute replies
I suppose you are talking about the wealthier CAGWites. It’s a simple demand that you make in a complicated battle. So they say, yes, you are right I’ll do that … I’m working on it.
You just validated their demands by agreeing to the NEED to have to reduce a carbon footprint. You’ve been baited and hooked.
The disenfranchised are already below the average of the first tier nations and so they’ll be waiting for your check as you strive to be lead by example.
My gawd. Be smarter.
Clever, a mental game of ‘twister’.
Knute, you’re like the modern day Sun Tzu. Amazing. You need to put out an updated version of the Art of War.
Thank you.
Anyone can do it.
1. Become aware of your own pattern bias and make sure you have an objective observer to call you out on it.
2. Learn to identify the other 3 classic patterns which you can’t do well if you aren’t doing number 1. Once you identify the primary pattern, there are fallecious lines of argument associated with that pattern. Under duress humans default to a pattern that is engrained in them when they are young. It’s a defense mechanism to being hurt as a child in an adults world.
3. Figure out if the group or person you are dealing with is friend or foe. Is compromise a possibility ? Can resolution based on a balanced approach occur ? Are you in this together ?
4. If a friend, attempt to offer balance to the pattern bias and fallecies. Plant seeds. Make sure to manage your own bias. Resist any temptation to change them. Manage your own bias. I said it twice for a reason.
5. If a foe, do not engage in 4. Identify the pattern of their attack and learn to anticipate it. Use the sparring as a way to learn their pattern. Work on taking away your own weaknesses that they painfully expose while you probe for theirs. A foe wins by abusing you until you learn to defend yourself.
The trump card for the cagwists is that you have been manuveured to prove that CAGW is not real. The burden should have been on the CAGW core to prove that it is real. They know that, so they corrupted just enough of the already corruptible peer review process to create the 97%. This was a stunning blow for the integrity of the scientific process concerning this issue. I don’t want to be too hard on science because this was just more of the slow erosion of independence that science relied upon. CAGW was not the first, but they were the best so far.
Science is flailing like a lost child on this issue. They know facts do not support the CAGW core, but they can’t get a corrupt peer review process to consider it. Within the midst of the skirmish lies a path to the victory. You are getting your ass handed to you despite being factually correct. You are being abused because you are failing to fix your own dysfunction.
First thing science should do is resurrect the brand of independence that can’t be bought. The market for it already exists as courts are struggling to find expertise that measures up to the Daubert Factors. Find a way to create a new peer process. Make it the gold standard. Subject its rigors to all comers. Seize back the thing that made your profession the hope of mankind. It will be slow at first, but it will gain steam. You’ve been adrift for a long time.
Second, well actually along with the first stop allowing yourself to baited. Why do you accept that carbon dioxide even matters ? Why do you elevate CAGW leaders integrity to be equal to their carbon footprint ? Why do you even say you admire them if they prove they can live off the grid ? They are sucking you into their strengths while you should be focused on regaining yours.
I’m routing for science.
Thanks for listening.
I agree with Knute that calling for legalities against them is not an answer. Proper strategies are vital.
The effect of CO2 on the earth’s climate is tiny at most, and CO2 is very beneficial to all life forms. We could use at least 3 times what we have now and then be close to what plant growers use in their greenhouses.
When will the people demonizing CO2 explain why there has been no increase in temperatures for nearly 20 years in spite of the fact that CO2 levels have goon way up?
” goon way up” … I may have meant “gone way up” 🙂
“Integrity is a solid foundation, which will eventually lead her to climate skepticism.”
Not while her only integrity is obedience to decarbonisation. Her token gesture is in support of AGW paranoia and away from scepticism.
“Integrity is a solid foundation, which will eventually lead her to climate skepticism.”
—————————-
Probably not. She is giving advice, trying to direct and control others via the conversation, just like her peers in the climate fearosphere. Her advocacy is camouflage; “…then we’re believable”. She is useful to the cause, a true believer.
The planet’s thick deposits of fertile, Carbon rich topsoil were all built by grazing herds of ruminants, turning CO2-fed, Sun- powered plants into food and fertilizer, while disturbing the topmost soil layers, mixing seeds/organic matter with their hooves. The plow which turns the topsoil to grow the grains to fuel her vision, is also the plow which sends the topsoil to the bottom of the sea.
Mental horsepower is built with fat and powered by meat. Without a proper diet, the peasants won’t have the energy to pick up that pitchfork, or even realize when the time has come to wield it. Without enough food of any kind, those peasants won’t continue to exist. Listen to those with deepest pockets, those who stand atop the Green food chain long enough and you’ll see just how useful Ms. Zoloth and her do- good intentions really are, to the ultimate Green agenda, which is this: too many human beings exist and their populations must be reduced- there will be more for us, with fewer of them.
Alan says
“Listen to those with deepest pockets, those who stand atop the Green food chain long enough and you’ll see just how useful Ms. Zoloth and her do- good intentions really are, to the ultimate Green agenda, which is this: too many human beings exist and their populations must be reduced- there will be more for us, with fewer of them.”
Knute replies
Half right. The haves of the green agenda want what you describe. The have nots want unfettered ability to reproduce, consume and for the haves to support that right.
Science ? Who cares. It’s not about science.
The social justice movement needed a catalyst because it was languishing during the economic boom of the past 30 years. It stumbled into CAGW and voila, it grew legs.
Scientists were easy marks. Public funding for research had dwindled and they had shown themselves capable of being bought off for cheap.
Scientists are pissed, but mostly quiet hoping this will blow over.
The rich are laughing all the way to the bank.
The disenfranchised have a new hammer to latch on to (CAGW) and making organizational progress.
I’ll buy dinner for the smarty pants who accurately predicts what will happen next.
It may not be long before the full economic fall-out of the climate change agenda is felt in North America and the result will be plenty of have-nothings here.
It’s here but not much affecting the inhabitants yet except for a few locations.
The article’s description of Laurie Zoloth as a “Religious scholar and climate activist” supports the perception that “Climate Change” is a faith based belief system, not a science based concept. Although supporters of this belief system continue to refer to it as “science,” even claiming that the “science is settled,” I am not aware of any science based hypothesis ever put forward by anyone which could scientifically connect wide varieties of change in the climate (inclusive of all possibilities such as warmer, cooler, wetter, drier, more storms and fewer storms) to increased CO2 in the atmosphere.
For Global Warming alone, there is at least a scientific argument that CO2 can warm the earth’s surface through increased downwelling long wave infrared radiation. In fact, the expected nasty effects of added CO2 continue to be measured in increased temperature. We are all aware of the improved marketability of the broader term “Climate Change.” But to explain how the added CO2 will cause this all inclusive “Climate Change,” there is only hand waving. Might, could, may, and potentially are not scientific terms. So I ask of all, Skeptics and Believers, does anyone know what the proposed scientific relation is between added CO2 and the dreaded “Climate Change?”
2021 WILL BE TOO LATE !!!
Brilliant!
Since environmentalism is a left wing creed and being a hypocrite is a prime tenet of the left her stance is very unusual if not almost unique.
Meh. This is just guilt-relieving, more-greenie-than-thou pontification on her part. It is a meaningless gesture.
And no one who doesn’t read WUWT gives a rat’s ass. I promise! 😉
@Knute
…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….
Well before you have that dialogue, I think you should consider an important prior.
Do there exist absolute moral and ethical rules which are so precise that detailed comparisons can be made between house sizes? Should some people be allowed to define these for all the other people in the world? Should these people be allowed to enforce these rules on everyone else using oppression and violence?
Because you need to address this issue first….
Geezer
@Knute suggests …
…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….
Geezer adds …
“Well before you have that dialogue, I think you should consider an important prior.
Do there exist absolute moral and ethical rules which are so precise that detailed comparisons can be made between house sizes? Should some people be allowed to define these for all the other people in the world? Should these people be allowed to enforce these rules on everyone else using oppression and violence?
Because you need to address this issue first….”
Knute replies
Ah good. Not one word about CAGW. It was never about CAGW because CAGW was a backdoor way to get people to be sympathetic to the social justice movement. It was also a way for the rich to latch on to a new thing and make more money from the lie. It’s akin to making up reasons to go to war. Same coin, different sides.
Science allowed themselves to be abused. I’m sure most scientists are not stupid. They know when they are being taken advantage of.
So you realized (for awhile now) they you are being abused. Now what ? You pound the table about twisted data and outright fraud. Well some do. Most stay quiet hoping it will blow over.
The rich got wealthy on the ruse.
The disenfranchised are gaining ground concerning social justice movements.
Science is turning into a punching bag.
Perhaps scientists should get a tire track tattoo across their forehead too let folks know who they are.
Get mad bro.
Not sure how you can get lobster and champagne using Webex, and get someone else to pay for it.
It would be just a step, but in reducing one’s fossil fuel use, “then we’re believable, then we have integrity.”
It takes a lot more than that to have ‘integrity’, babe…
Living a life of fraud?
That’s because it’s not about what they proclaim it’s about. Like MOST things the statists and elitests do, it’s about CONTROL.
The purpose of EVERY lie is CONTROL.
Holier than thou. Is she aiming for sainthood?
Most leftists that I know, believe they have already achieved sainthood.
And most scient(ists) hide behind the scientific method thinking that it will guard them from being abused. Above the fray so to speak. It makes their profession an easy mark.
Go beyond the easy ad homs attacks. Your opponent is much better than you at the game of jacking up emotions.
Get mad bro.
Learn better tools.
As I understand it the basic premise of the CAGW crowd is that increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 disrupt the “natural” atmospheric heat balance and the only way to restore that “natural” balance is by radiating that unbalanced heat back to space per the S-B relationship, i.e. increasing the surface temperature. BTW, the atmosphere is not, as some postulate, a closed system. That assumption simplifies calculations, but ignores reality.
One, there is no such thing as the “natural” heat balance. As abundantly evident from both paleo and contemporary records the atmospheric heat balance has always been and continues to be in constant turmoil w/o regard to the pitiful 2 W/m^2 of industrial CO2 added between 1750 and 2011. Fluctuations in incoming and outgoing radiation, changing albedo from clouds and ice, cosmic rays, 10 +/- W/m^2 range of solar insolation from perigee to apogee, etc. refute that notion of a closed system.
Two, radiation is far from the only source of rebalancing the “natural” heat balance. Water cools the surroundings when it evaporates and warms the surroundings when it condenses. The water vapor cycle, clouds, precipitation, etc., a subject which IPCC AR5 admits to having a poor understanding, modulates and moderates the atmospheric heat balance and has done so for millions of years all without the help or hindrance of industrialized man. The atmospheric water cycle is just on huge global atmospheric swamp cooler for the earth. Other planets don’t have that. The popular GHE considers radiation only and excludes water vapor. Large commercial greenhouses typically have a wall full of evaporative cooler pads, water & fans.
CAGW has zip to do with science and everything to do with a hazy, starry eyed, utopian, anti-fossil fuel (90% anti-coal) agenda bereft of facts & reality.
Flying to the conference may seem to lack integrity, but it’s business as usual. “Carbon” restriction laws don’t apply to the elite, the important. Neither will the wealth redistribution this movement is actually about.
Socialism is never for the socialist.
The party is the vanguard of the proletariat because the proletariat do not know what they want. Now where did I read that, oh yes, Joe Stalin a lovely fellow in every way.
It only matters if the airplane traffic to the destination cities of these CAGW conferences is increased to handle the attendees. Otherwise, the planes fly anyway and the amount of CO2 generated hasn’t increased.
The whole leftist enterprise is a do what I say not as I do deal. That’s the way they roll. Always have always will.
A conservative vegetarian doesn’t eat meat. A leftist vegetarian doesn’t want you to eat meat.
Ha-ha. True dat.
I had an acquaintance a few years ago who was a very strong advocate of the vegetarian lifestyle. When I pointed out that he ate almost as much meat as I did, he said that it was OK, because he felt bad about it.
From the McKibbens down to the warmist bloggers, I would love to follow any of them around for a day and remind them not to use any carbon-based energy, lest they be elitist and hypocritical. Don’t you dare heat your house in the winter, or use an air conditioner or drive a car, or cook on the stove or use your computer, because that would make you look like a “denier” as they call my kind. If I were a warmist I would not be caught dead in a car or an airplane. I would set a golden example and walk or ride a bicycle or use a paddle boat. No phone, no lights, no motorcar, not a single luxury!
You sound like a shoe in for an Amish community. 🙂
Katherine Hayhoe says: “when I get speaking or meeting invites, I ask if we can do it via video first”
https://twitter.com/KHayhoe/status/575637633243574272
I got blocked from her twitter for pointing out that all of her upcoming trips must have said video wasn’t available. I mean flying to NY to see a film, that shows you care about your carbon emissions.
I’ve yet to see a conference where she is presenting by video conference, though i could have missed it.
I think what’s sad is basic scientific ignorance , gullibility and need for guilt which cause apparently nice people like Laurie to fear the very molecule out of which , in equal measure with water , they , like all life , are constructed .
“…It would be just a step, but in reducing one’s fossil fuel use, “then we’re believable, then we have integrity…”
It is truly “just a step” towards being “believable” and having “integrity.”