Is Climate 'Activism' Becoming a Cult?

Gaoth Laidir

Is climate activism becoming a cult? The type we saw last Friday and we're seeing on a regular basis from Greta is pretty much a cult at this stage. Take away the subject matter for a second and just look at their behaviour and you have a typical cult. Masses of hysterical kids with banners showing hyperbolic slogans all following every word of an eccentric leader. To see the scenes of the past week has been pretty disturbing. How Greta is being allowed to behave like that, regardless of her message, is disgraceful. She's a kid with issues but should still be allowed to be a kid and do what kids do. But no, she's reading scripted speeches full of hysterical statements of mass extinction and stolen childhoods, and you've got masses of kids (and adults) blindly applauding her every word without question. They are behaving like they're brainwashed, unable to think for themselves but simply follow her word as Gospel. Make your point, but make it accurately.

Promoting this type of behaviour is not healthy for our future. What these kids are really being robbed of is the ability to think rationally for themselves, question things at face value and form their own opinions. You now have these Irish kids with American twangs using phrases way beyond their years, the type you hear only in a Dáil debate. Just go and be kids ffs.

PS It's not only the kids that go for the hyperbolic fear mongering tales of impending doom. There's a specialist in that right here on the forum. And for that other poster, you don't have to read this thread. Scroll on by.

Birdnuts

Akrasia wrote: »

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.

Prof Bates is an independent climate scientist with a slew of peer reviewed papers behind him. Can you tell me how many of the Armageddon predictions from the likes of yourself have come to past over the last 30 years??

Longing

Akrasia wrote: »

Smiley face while talking about homeless people freezing to death??

But anyway. not really on topic.

If you want to be picky. The smiley face was for the help we can give them Akrasia.

Birdnuts

Akrasia wrote: »

Smiley face while talking about homeless people freezing to death??

But anyway. not really on topic.

Crocodile tears when one supports energy poverty generating carbon taxes:rolleyes:

Akrasia

Danno wrote: »

If man-made, then close the station. Just like Birr and Kilkenny.

Ok, but how do you integrate the Birr or Kilkenny data into modern records? Do you just pretend there was a 1c change the day the stations closed?

Regular checking of equipment should rule this out from happening and especially from contaminating a large dataset. You remove the dirty data from the dataset between last calibration and date of fault discovery.

I think you're nearly getting it. Yes, you do remove the 'dirty' data and replace it with a more reliable technology for future measurements.

But what happens to the old temperature data? Do you just leave it there knowing that the sensors were reading the wrong temperature?

You clearly have a faulty thermometer in this instance. Get a RMA as soon as possible, don't wait 50 or 60 years.

That's exactly what they do. They replace the old out dated models, replace them with newer ones, and then adjust the old readings to account for the false readings from the old inaccurate measurements.

I'm glad I could be on this journey with you as you walk yourself through the understanding of why old graphs are different to newer graphs over the same time

riffmongous

Danno wrote: »

If man-made, then close the station. Just like Birr and Kilkenny.



Regular checking of equipment should rule this out from happening and especially from contaminating a large dataset. You remove the dirty data from the dataset between last calibration and date of fault discovery.



You clearly have a faulty thermometer in this instance. Get a RMA as soon as possible, don't wait 50 or 60 years.

1) you'll end up with very few stations then, and short time records. Not much use if you want to study climate. There's not even enough stations as it is

2) your device will drift if it's electrical, you can't control that exactly unless you calibrate it, not check it, every single day, this is just not possible for a weather service. Manned stations are better but then you are back to problem one, lack of data

3) not necessarily even, depends on the accuracy of the thermometer model.

Hobosan

Any time there's a major issue or a potential major issue unfolding, you'll have some do gooders who'll do anything in the name of the cause without any consideration for the consequences.

The whole live aid concert, with all the celebrities singing, smiling and linking arms, ultimateky decimated many indigenous textile and food producers in Africa, as they couldn't compete with the massive amounts of free food and clothing which temporarily flooded the continent, which ended up exacerbating starvation.

That's what happens when you listen to celebrities instead of experts, and even the experts admit that tackling major problems is not easy. Best laid plans that sound great on paper do not transpire in the real world.

Paraphrasing a quote from the book 'Bad Samaritans' , if every problem could be fixed by throwing money at it, we wouldn't have any problems.

It doesn't matter if you believe in climate change or not. Ultimately, it is the clever people that understand the problem who are best equipped to fix it. The most hysterical climate protestors are no better at tackling the problem than deniers. That's what these online conversations always revolve around.

You don't believe scientists so you're part of the problem! Well no, it's not that simple. I'm sure Bob Geldof would rage at someone who didn't believe there was a starvation problem in Africa, and would wax lyrical about inaction, but the starvation denier certainly wouldn't have done as much damage as Sir Bob.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Ok, but how do you integrate the Birr or Kilkenny data into modern records? Do you just pretend there was a 1c change the day the stations closed?


I think you're nearly getting it. Yes, you do remove the 'dirty' data and replace it with a more reliable technology for future measurements.

But what happens to the old temperature data? Do you just leave it there knowing that the sensors were reading the wrong temperature?


That's exactly what they do. They replace the old out dated models, replace them with newer ones, and then adjust the old readings to account for the false readings from the old inaccurate measurements.

I'm glad I could be on this journey with you as you walk yourself through the understanding of why old graphs are different to newer graphs over the same time

You missed the point completely. If a station is being properly maintained and regularly calibrated then it doesn't get to the stage that it's reading 1 degree out. If you upgrade the sensor with a new one, both new and old will be reading the same if they're both properly calibrated.

Danno

Akrasia wrote: »

here's a population distribution map of the US

I much prefer this map:



And take note of the map projection too, much better! :cool:

Akrasia

Birdnuts wrote: »

Crocodile tears when one supports energy poverty generating carbon taxes:rolleyes:

I don't support energy poverty at all.

When you realise that carbon taxes are taxes on products not people, it becomes obvious that carbon taxes should be revenue neutral, and that all the taxes raised should be returned to the public through tax refunds or credits, to allow them to use market forces to reward less polluting energy suppliers because they're cheaper than the heavily taxed suppliers.

This way, the taxes only penalise producers polluting behaviour to incentivise consumers to choose less polluting producers.

Seriously. It's basic economics. Adam Smith would agree with everything I have just said.

riffmongous

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

You missed the point completely. If a station is being properly maintained and regularly calibrated then it doesn't get to the stage that it's reading 1 degree out. If you upgrade the sensor with a new one, both new and old will be reading the same if they're both properly calibrated.

Not necessarily, first electrical sensors drift, you can not realistically control that entirely with calibration on an outdoor thermometer. 2nd device accuracy and precision tend to change for the better over time (aspirated shields for an example from the last year's) and 3rd certain devices can be found to be biased

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

You missed the point completely. If a station is being properly maintained and regularly calibrated then it doesn't get to the stage that it's reading 1 degree out. If you upgrade the sensor with a new one, both new and old will be reading the same if they're both properly calibrated.

Ok, how do you account for drift then

If you calibrate the newer modern thermometer to match the old one that is later known to have been reading cold* then the newly installed station will be reading lower temperatures than nearby stations that are calibrated using the best available technology

Stations aren't calibrated to match the old instruments, the old data is calibrated to match the newer more accurate readings.

Otherwise you would have garbage in, out, everywhere.





*(a design flaw with the model, not a user error)

Gaoth Laidir

For the record, I firmly agree we need to get away from the finite resource that is fossil fuels and fully switch to renewables or nuclear. It just makes sense. What doesn't make sense is the way the climate argument is being hyperbolised (is that a word?).

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Ok, how do you account for drift then

If you calibrate the newer modern thermometer to match the old one that is later known to have been reading cold* then the newly installed station will be reading lower temperatures than nearby stations that are calibrated using the best available technology

Stations aren't calibrated to match the old instruments, the old data is calibrated to match the newer more accurate readings.

Otherwise you would have garbage in, out, everywhere.





*(a design flaw with the model, not a user error)

Again, missing the point of regular calibration schedules. Every 6 months you check your sensor against a verified standard and either adjust it to within the tolerances or immediately take it out of commission and replace it with one that is within tolerances. No drift can occur this way.

Akrasia

Danno wrote: »

I much prefer this map:



And take note of the map projection too, much better! :cool:

It makes absolutely no difference to my point. Old records were distributed by population. Newer stations are distributed by distance

Highly populated areas, the east and west coast and the midlands to southern Border will have had lots of stations based on a population distribution, but proportionally fewer stations than the less dense regions in the mid to northern parts of America

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

It makes absolutely no difference to my point. Old records were distributed by population. Newer stations are distributed by distance

Highly populated areas, the east and west coast and the midlands to southern Border will have had lots of stations based on a population distribution, but proportionally fewer stations than the less dense regions in the mid to northern parts of America

So are you conceding that the stations in populated centres may have been adversely affected by urban development over time? And do you have a reliable map or table listing all these new northerly stations and the magnitude of their effect on the stats?

Danno

Akrasia wrote: »

Ok, but how do you integrate the Birr or Kilkenny data into modern records? Do you just pretend there was a 1c change the day the stations closed?

Not at all. You disregard the data from the date of the environmental change. In Kilkenny's case, the date the buldozers moved in to clear the land for housing.

Akrasia wrote: »

I think you're nearly getting it. Yes, you do remove the 'dirty' data and replace it with a more reliable technology for future measurements.

But what happens to the old temperature data? Do you just leave it there knowing that the sensors were reading the wrong temperature?

Without sounding like a broken record, the data is invalid, gone, not used for calculations. Garbage in=garbage out.

Akrasia wrote: »

That's exactly what they do. They replace the old out dated models, replace them with newer ones, and then adjust the old readings to account for the false readings from the old inaccurate measurements.

Why include data that firstly is known to be incorrect and secondly known to be tampered with? especially when one is using the said data for projections and predictions. It smacks of underhandedness and agenda setting.

Akrasia wrote: »

I'm glad I could be on this journey with you as you walk yourself through the understanding of why old graphs are different to newer graphs over the same time

No need to be condescending, it does nothing but alienate you and your message.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Again, missing the point of regular calibration schedules. Every 6 months you check your sensor against a verified standard and either adjust it to within the tolerances or immediately take it out of commission and replace it with one that is within tolerances. No drift can occur this way.

This accounts for modern records using best practise, not the old records which had to be manipulated to bring calibrate them

And its nowhere near as simple as you make it out to be. There isn't one single standard calibration system. If North Carolina used one system for 30 years and then moved to align their records with S Carolina, they might find that there are big gaps along border stations between the N Carolina standard vs the S Carolina standard, a few miles down the road should these just be ignored or should one or both data-sets be analysed and re-calibrated?

riffmongous

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Again, missing the point of regular calibration schedules. Every 6 months you check your sensor against a verified standard and either adjust it to within the tolerances or immediately take it out of commission and replace it with one that is within tolerances. No drift can occur this way.

Tell us, is drift linear and constant?

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

This accounts for modern records using best practise, not the old records which had to be manipulated to bring calibrate them

And its nowhere near as simple as you make it out to be. There isn't one single standard calibration system. If North Carolina used one system for 30 years and then moved to align their records with S Carolina, they might find that there are big gaps along border stations between the N Carolina standard vs the S Carolina standard, a few miles down the road should these just be ignored or should one or both data-sets be analysed and re-calibrated?

It seems you're coming around to the idea that historical data trends may not be as reliable or simple as made out to be.

We have the WMO with their standards for consistent station siting rules, but yes, many stations included in the datasets have less than ideal sitings. You'd hope these would be disregarded as unreliable but no, they're included in favour of applying some fudge factor to paper over the cracks. It makes that argument you made about 1.1 degrees above pre-industrial levels (whatever that is; no one quite agrees on it) a bit foggy.

Danno

riffmongous wrote: »

1) you'll end up with very few stations then, and short time records. Not much use if you want to study climate. There's not even enough stations as it is

2) your device will drift if it's electrical, you can't control that exactly unless you calibrate it, not check it, every single day, this is just not possible for a weather service. Manned stations are better but then you are back to problem one, lack of data

Yet predictions are being made from "not enough stations" - sorry but that does not compute.

As regards not enough manned stations and calibration of equipment, well there is a big slush fund from carbon taxes that could sort this out, wouldn't you agree?

Danno

That is all I'm contributing to this for now. I guess at this juncture nobody knows whether they're the weather man or the Ojibwe man in all of this:

Preparing for Winter

One year, a young Ojibwe boy was given the task of ensuring the entire village had enough wood for winter. This was the first time he had been given such an honor and he wanted to do it right. Before he went to work he decided to call the weatherman to ask what kind of a winter was to be expected. The weather man told him it was going to be a warm and uneventful winter. The boy thought to himself, ‘this is great. I won’t have to work too hard and I’ll be able to look good in front of the whole tribe.’

Just to be safe, he gathered a few of his friends and they went to work for a week. At the end of the week, after chopping and piling the wood, the boy decided to give the weatherman a second call. The weatherman told him it was going to be a very cold winter. Shocked at this sudden change and not wanting to disappoint the elders of his village, he gathered more of his friends and they went to work. For two weeks they cut and piled wood, hoping that it would be enough to last the whole winter.

Once again the boy called the weatherman and this time the weatherman told him, “Son, its going to be a very bitter, cold and long winter. Maybe the worst winter on record.”

Exasperated, the boy had to ask, “What makes you say that sir?”

The weatherman replies, “The Indians are gathering wood like crazy!”

G'night.

riffmongous

Danno wrote: »

Yet predictions are being made from "not enough stations" - sorry but that does not compute.

As regards not enough manned stations and calibration of equipment, well there is a big slush fund from carbon taxes that could sort this out, wouldn't you agree?

Why doesn't it compute? What changes on a prediction when we change the number of stations?

Its still wouldn't solve the time series problem though and what to do with the old data. Nor is it realistic to pay dozens of people to take manual measurements that would still needed to be controlled afterwards versus paying a handful of people to analyse entire regions

But I do totally agree the money should be directed towards this direction
But people need to be able to make the distinction between the science and the need for action and the politicians and corporatists looking to take advantage of it.

gozunda

 Is Climate 'Activism' Becoming a Cult?

I would suggest that the home for the bewildered is missing a fair few residents...

M.T. Cranium

Let's just say it's complicated. We are being asked to assert our certainty about that which cannot be known with a lot of precision.

I expect it will continue to warm slightly, overall, with a few ups and downs along the way. As to reaching some catastrophic tipping point, that is less certain. The atmospheric system is of course a very complicated mechanism, like the human body, just stressing one part in one way can have entirely unknown and unpredictable consequences as the complex organism deals with that stress.

The heat waves of the 1930s are not that buried and out of sight, lots of people know about them, but the severity of them was partially due to poor farming practices that allowed large scale erosion, turning large parts of the central plains states into desert-like environments. This fed back into the temperatures that were already going to be elevated, and made them more extreme. So that is partly why we won't see that again even in a warming climate, at least until some later stage possibly. Nowadays the hottest weather in that region maintains a higher humidity which for temperatures over 35 C makes it difficult to achieve much higher temperatures (takes more work to heat up humid air than dry air).

There is a cult-like atmosphere surrounding the political side of this question. As to the scientific portion, there is a good deal of pressure on people to conform or risk losing their positions, in some sectors, but this pressure does not apply to broadcast meteorologists as much, and may just spark an opposite reaction from enthusiasts, who by and large seem to be skeptical of at least the full volume claims of climate change. You certainly run into people with mixed opinions, which probably includes myself, I don't dismiss the whole thing as a hoax, but I do find it exaggerated. Whether my level of concern would be enough to justify the political response is questionable, I think if the experts all sounded like me on this question, a lot of politicians (and therefore the media and general public) might be more likely to take a wait and see approach. Yet I can grasp the concept that wait and see is only a good choice if what you see is not a crisis.

People should perhaps focus more on mitigation strategies than tax to modify behaviour approaches. As even the more enthusiastic proponents would likely admit, the tax to modify approach will only have small actual consequences for global climate, either because it's not enough, or because the theory is wrong. So it makes more sense to me to have mitigation approaches ready for use in the event that for example sea levels begin to rise faster. We should be desalinating ocean water at a much greater rate than is currently the case. We should be irrigating dryland areas and increasing agricultural production from them (it would have a slight beneficial impact on climate too).

Those are some responses I would have to this question but I should emphasize that all questions of future climate are murky at best, and until we have accepted theories of why natural variations occur and we are able to predict them, we really have no strong foundation for the part of climate science that then adds a human signal to trend curves, since we really don't know what those trend curves (a) will be, or (b) should have been from 1990 to 2019 without us being here. People say they know this, but I know they don't know.

Hooter23

We cant even predict the weather 2 weeks in advance...the whole climate change predictions seem to be based just on what the weather has been doing over the passed few years...first the temperatures were rising so they called it "Global Warming"...now that they got it wrong and we have seen much colder winters in recent years it was changed to "Climate Change"...So now that covers all weather if we have hot..cold..dry..wet weather...its all because of climate change they can never be wrong again...:rolleyes:

Carol25

I started off as a climate change sceptic years ago, sure the Earth might warm slightly but no major harm done was my motto. We all needed fossil fuels to live, and economic growth to earn a living and survive.
However since that time I’ve done a lot of travel and research and I’ve come to the conclusion that two major issues are being confused into one:
1. Man made pollution
2. Climate change
1. My personal opinion is that man made pollution is at completely unsustainable levels and have been for years. Saw a recent documentary on vegetables being grown in PLASTIC in Spain, it’s left in the soil once vegetables are taken and eventually ends up in the Mediterranean. Which ends up in fish’s diets, etc. This is just one example of how we’re just not doing enough as a human race against waste, pollution and destroying the Earth’s environment. The amazon, fish stocks, species extinctions, etc. These are all happening and we are destroying our planet.
2. Climate change is a very real issue, and the data and research shows that clearly to me. Ice percentages worldwide are falling, the earth is getting hotter, more extremes of everything.

In conclusion, you can call it a Planetary crisis, climate crisis, pollution crisis, a ‘cult’ or anything you want. It’s happening, it’s real and we are not creating a sustainable future for our children. We owe them better than this.

P.s. I’m also genuinely shocked that an autistic 16 year old girl who has managed to mobilise the youth of today to help their future - a very worthy cause, is the subject of such abuse on other social media sites from adults (a huge amount of them being men) who should hang their heads in shame. The internet has truly created a way to divide and conquer us and people are jumping in head first without a thought for their actions.

NSAman

No it is not becoming a cult.

It is becoming a business. When the likes of Mary Robinson start making a living from it, you know there are big bucks being made.

Graces7

Agree totally

Maybe folk forget that these young people are the citizens, parents, leaders of tomorrow and are inheriting the state we are leaving the world in.
It is very much their concern and good to see them out in the streets and with a strong and sincere leader of their own generation.

Whatever your beliefs, we know that we are polluting and doing harm and each needs to curb that damage for the next generation's sake. Rather than arguing and mocking.

Thank you

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1. My pers[/S]onal opinion is that man made pollution is at completely unsustainable levels and have been for years. Saw a recent documentary on vegetables being grown in PLASTIC in Spain, it’s left in the soil once vegetables are taken and eventually ends up in the Mediterranean. Which ends up in fish’s diets, etc. This is just one example of how we’re just not doing enough as a human race against waste, pollution and destroying the Earth’s environment. The amazon, fish stocks, species extinctions, etc. These are all happening and we are destroying our planet.
2. Climate change is a very real issue, and the data and research shows that clearly to me. Ice percentages worldwide are falling, the earth is getting hotter, more extremes of everything.

In conclusion, you can call it a Planetary crisis, climate crisis, pollution crisis, a ‘cult’ or anything you want. It’s happening, it’s real and we are not creating a sustainable future for our children. We owe them better than this.

P.s. I’m also genuinely shocked that an autistic 16 year old girl who has managed to mobilise the youth of today to help their future - a very worthy cause, is the subject of such abuse on other social media sites from adults (a huge amount of them being men) who should hang their heads in shame. The internet has truly created a way to divide and conquer us and people are jumping in head first without a thought for their actions.[/QUOTE]

vistafinder

Ask the people that are still living directly off the land and off the seasons around the world. Its changing and our modern way of living is causing it. The ones that are still connected to the planet that is supporting us.

From experience its the human ego thats causing it and its the people with the big big egos love money the most and its them that are going to keep going.

That young girl has no ego. She is working from a different place the place where the vast majority of children live their lives from. Can ye not remember?

Someone mentioned brainwashed. Sorry to say its most of us that are brainwashed to have no connection or respect for the planet or anyone that is coming after us and its the egos that waste all this time arguing on the internet over and over again.

Its the ego that is stopping us from living a modest life style. From experience.