Green Fundamentalists Attack Celebrity Climate Hypocrisy

Green Pass
Is the celebrity green pass about to be revoked?

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Back in April this year, WUWT reported on an unusual green attack on blatant celebrity eco-hypocrisy. Now this new green terror has gone mainstream, with rising groundswell of criticism, of celebrities whose vocal support for green causes is contradicted by their openly high carbon lifestyles.

According to the Daily Mail;

Green campaigner Madonna uses her private jet for 120 mile journey from Birmingham to London

Driving would have taken almost three hours but a private jet took just over one.

So it was a no-brainer for Madonna, who chartered her own airline for a trip home from a Birmingham concert to London last Wednesday, according to new reports in The Sun newspaper.

The decision enraged environmental activists, as well as her loyal followers who accused the 57-year-old Unapologetic singer of being a ‘hypocrite’ for increasing her carbon footprint when she herself campaigns to help the climate crisis.

The jet seats just 12 people and would have reportedly contributed 2.907tons of carbon emissions compared to 0.081 for a road vehicle at a cost of £20 petrol.

On her way to a global warming summit was she?‘ Asked on MailOnline commenter. ‘Like the rest of these celebs preaching hipocracy (sic).’

‘Like the obnoxious hypocrite, Bono, “do as I say not as I do”,’ another said, while one former fan added: ‘She has never given her own hypocrisy a thought….Mad-donna….’

In a bid to get influential stars to practise what they preach, climate change activists are trying to show that there are always alternatives to private jet travel.

Friends Of The Earth’s David Powell told The Sun newspaper: ‘We want celebrities to turn their back on private planes and choose more sustainable forms of travel.

Read more:

What is the solution to this dilemma? It is difficult to imagine superstars like Madonna, Bono and jet setting UN climate envoy Leonardo DiCaprio giving up the perks of their celebrity. Yet at the same time, how much CO2 do individuals, however profligate, actually release into the environment? And to be fair, the carbon footprints of even the most famous private individuals are dwarfed by the likes of President Obama, when he flies Air Force One to deliver climate speeches.

The solution might be more effort to appease outraged green sensibilities. Celebrities could surely mitigate any harm their individual lifestyle is causing, by donating more of their wealth to green causes, and by giving more of their time to raising the profile of green campaigns.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 23, 2015 6:38 pm

Not to mention David Suzuki, Al Gore, every lefty green politician in the world, they’re all hypocrites.

Reply to  ArtB
December 24, 2015 12:26 am

Speaking Suziki, the Corbit Report made another brilliant video takedown of the Global Warming High Priests.
Starting at 3:37 in this video, the author mentions the various datasets upon which mean global temperature estimates (and Global Warming alarmism) are based, and then he shows a brief clip of someone asking Suzuki a question about the datasets, which Suzuki isn’t even familiar with.
It’s pure magic!

Stephen Richards
Reply to  LarryFine
December 24, 2015 2:08 am

Best report on hiatus yet.

Reply to  LarryFine
December 24, 2015 4:00 am

Tornadoes, out brake in Alabama! Watch the will blame Climate Change. But here are the facts.

Reply to  LarryFine
December 24, 2015 7:57 am

I brake for tornados.

Reply to  LarryFine
December 24, 2015 11:48 am

Bravo and thanks.

Alan Ranger
Reply to  LarryFine
December 25, 2015 6:19 pm

You can view the full embarrassment of “An Audience with David Suzuki” here together with full transcript.
For Andrew Bolt to describe him as a “pig ignorant phony and imposter” is way too lenient. further exposes the total ineptitude of this obnoxious know-nothing climate warrior.

Alan Ranger
Reply to  LarryFine
December 25, 2015 7:03 pm
Reply to  ArtB
December 24, 2015 1:08 am

How true!

john harmsworth
Reply to  guereza2wdw
December 24, 2015 10:57 am

HA! Thanks Mark, my Christmas laugh!

Reply to  ArtB
December 24, 2015 1:21 am

The famous artists against fossil fuel is doubly ironic since it is the high EROEI of fossil fuels which make elaborate arts in a society possible in the first place…

Reply to  wijnand2015
December 24, 2015 9:29 am

She flies on Like a Virgin Airlines.

Reply to  ArtB
December 24, 2015 10:26 am

Why don’t people let “celebrities” strum their guitars, take off their shirts, act in movies or whatever mostly lightweight thing it is they do without expecting them to be some kind of cultural leaders, environmentally or otherwise? Is there a reason we expect big brainpower there, not to mention scientific authority? Let “artists” stick to ARTS and stop expecting their “advocacy” of things they know nothing about!

Reply to  Goldrider
December 24, 2015 11:49 am

Because the hypocrisy bothers people?

Reply to  Goldrider
December 24, 2015 5:53 pm

A shame game is being played here. Any celebrity who doesn’t go along with the climate change agenda will be called out and shamed. No one wants to lose their career.
Then put the squeeze on them for money.

Reply to  ArtB
December 26, 2015 3:28 pm

In his 1990 article, Suzuki cites models that suggest that more CO2 in the atmosphere will increase clouds, which would tend to cool the earth back down.
That reminded me of something the Warmists claim about how back when CO2 level were far higher than today, there wasn’t run-away warming because the sun supposedly wasn’t as intense. Well, if the higher CO2 caused more clouds, then the sun would have appeared less intense from the available proxy data on Earth because all of it would have been shielded from those extra clouds.
I wonder if they thought of that before and decided to compartmentalize it because it didn’t support their pet theory?

Reply to  Latitude
December 24, 2015 6:19 am

Facts are sooo selfish. They steal the power of The Narrative. Without a good narrative, liberals don’t have a reason for living, nor for advancing the State’s control over all.

John F. Hultquist
December 23, 2015 6:47 pm

#1. I don’t want to be on public transportation with such folks – many are more pains in the posterior than a large thorn;
#2. If a superstar, some celebrities, or the POTUS (any major country leader) travels other than in a private manner there is usual chaos and danger all around.
I’m happy if they keep out of my space.
John Travolta, on the other hand, is a person I would be happy to meet. He does ads for Breitling – because he is a certified private pilot, and owns five aircraft. His home has runways.
He admits to having and using such things. It is his style and he admits to being an ultimate eccentric.
He doesn’t go around preaching green or global warming.

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
December 23, 2015 6:55 pm

John T is a Scientologist…how eccentric is that…and the Church has teamed up with NASA on global warming…haha

Steve Case
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
December 23, 2015 7:07 pm

John F. Hultquist December 23, 2015 at 6:47 pm
…John Travolta … He doesn’t go around preaching green or global warming.

With five private jets, Travolta still lectures on global warming

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Steve Case
December 23, 2015 8:42 pm

As I read what has been written (there and elsewhere) he is concerned about environmental issues including global warming.
“I’m probably not the best candidate to ask about global warming because I fly jets.” John T., said.
That’s not preaching in the style of “blatant celebrity eco-hypocrisy.”
Ben D. writes “ a Scientologist…how eccentric is that
This is not the place — but I will say I don’t know.

TG McCoy
Reply to  Steve Case
December 24, 2015 2:40 pm

At Cancun, the last big greenie clambake,Travolta flew in his Boeing 707. Then had the temerity to
green-eco flags in the flag holders above the cockpit as he taxied in…
when those Klowns start using Conestogas, Stage Coaches and Clipper ships, I might listen…

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
December 23, 2015 8:31 pm

[Comment deleted. “Jankowski” has been stolen by the identity thief pest. All Jankowski comments saved and deleted from public view. You wasted your time, David. What a sad, pathetic, wasted life. -mod]

Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
December 24, 2015 7:57 am

Well I was on a fight with the world famous Dr. Hook a few years back. Even sat beside the singer (Ray Sawyer). You’re right, he was a “pain in the posterior”.

December 23, 2015 6:49 pm

Bette Midler Verified account
December 22, 2015, 63 degrees in NYC. I would like to thank the ignorant selfish climate deniers for all their goodwill toward the planet.

December 23, 2015 6:50 pm

OTOH since the whole carbon footprint is ridiculous and based on the AGW hoax / scam, I say jet around all you want. By pointing out the hypocrisy we are in effect stooping to their level. It is fun, though, and funny that they’re starting to eat each other in a contest to be the purest strain of eco-kook. With any luck they’ll start eating their own young, too, and de-select themselves from the ecosystem.

Reply to  brians356
December 23, 2015 9:10 pm

It’s called “divide et impera” – Divide & Conquer.

Reply to  brians356
December 24, 2015 6:53 am

By pointing out the hypocrisy we are in effect stooping to their level
not correct. pointing out the facts is quite a bit different than hypocrisy.
there used to be a novel concept. it was called leadership. the person that was the leader was supposed to lead. they were the one that went first, to show the way.
today’s leadership instead sits at the back, and tells everyone else to go first. they are not leaders at all, not in the sense of the word. they tell us we should go first, we should go right, go left, go straight ahead.
But we all know there is a reason they don’t go first. it is because they know the road ahead is painful and full of stones. they want us to go first, to clear the path, to remove the obstacles and lay down rose petals, so that they can ride in triumphantly. claiming that it was they that lead us to this glorious destination.
as history shows, all to often we end up walking the path to destruction, with our leaders safe and sound at the rear. ask yourself why planes are as safe as they are. it is because the pilots sit in the front. when there is a problem, they almost always die first. that is the true test of leadership.

Boulder Skeptic
Reply to  ferdberple
December 24, 2015 7:11 pm

But we all know there is a reason they don’t go first. it is because they know the road ahead is painful and full of stones.

While that might be part of it, more likely (my humble opinion) is that they know CAGW is a load of crap.

December 23, 2015 6:57 pm

Offsets are purchased religious indulgences with a different label. More proof that CAGW is a cult.

Reply to  Rob Dawg
December 24, 2015 4:16 am

Have you any idea of the purpose of a ‘religious indulgence’ and the conditions necessary to receive one? Doesn’t sound like it.

Reply to  Alba
December 24, 2015 7:04 am

an ‘indulgence’ is forgiveness of sin in return for an “act of contrition” (something done to make amends for an offence).
so for example, a celebrity might jet around with a huge carbon footprint. that is the sin. then they might give green groups a whole lot of cash to shut them up so they don’t complain. that is the act of contrition.
the indulgence is the green group not complaining about the celebrity. the green group thus has become like a church. they sanction or indulge the sin, so long as they receive their payment. the celebrity shows they are pious by giving money to green groups, rather than living a pious (green) life. the green groups then life a pious (green) life on the celebrity’s behalf.

Reply to  Alba
December 24, 2015 7:11 am

so in effect, what we have is “trickle down” green. the celebrity talks green, say we should all live green, but they don’t actually follow what they say. they don’t actually live green. instead what they do is give money to green groups, so that they can live green on the celebrity’s behalf.
however, the green groups are also busy living their lives, and don’t actually have the time to live green themselves. they are spreading the word, which takes energy, which means they also have a large carbon foot-print.
so what the green groups do is search out people in the 3rd world with very small carbon foot-prints, and hire these people to live green on their behalf. now the green group can claim that they are, on average living a green life. and the celebrity too can claim that they are, on average also living a green life.
they only problem comes when the people in the 3rd world start spending the money they are receiving to live green. suddenly they also start to have a large carbon foot-print, but now there is no one left for them to hire to live green for them.
so in trying to use indulgences to live green, we don’t actually solve the problem at all.

Reply to  Alba
December 24, 2015 7:18 am

Yes, Alba, please tell us all about the “purpose of a ‘religious indulgence'”–specifically the ones that the Pope used to sell….

David Smith
Reply to  Alba
December 24, 2015 7:27 am

A religious indulgence was essentially a “get out clause”. A completely daft notion.
Personally, I’ll leave religious beliefs to the eco-nuts, ISIS, and the Pope.
Science is what gives my life meaning.

Tom Judd
Reply to  Rob Dawg
December 24, 2015 8:01 am

Offsets are actually 3 things. Indeed, they are a religious indulgence. But, they are also a reinvestment if you happen to own shares in the same company that you purchased the offset from. And, they are probably a tax write-off. For the savvy Green they may actually not only be not a loss; they may actually be revenue neutral if not actually provide a return.

December 23, 2015 6:58 pm

How about the man supporting darkness called earth hour and enjoying the whole night festival with all the lights and sound commonly called white night? White night is often promoted by governments who are often the most vocal supporter for earth hour.

December 23, 2015 7:07 pm

” … donating more of their wealth to green causes, and by giving more of their time to raising the profile of green campaigns.”
Heaven forbid. Or did you forget the /sarc tag Eric? On the other hand, maybe you are right. Their money down the drain rather than ours.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
December 24, 2015 7:22 am

The /sarc was, indeed, implied, but I nearly choked on my coffee when I got to that line! I agree, though, that climate celebrities do not appear to believe in the practical implications of their movement.

Reply to  Martin Clark
December 24, 2015 7:16 am

donating more of their wealth to green causes
the donation is an “act of contrition”. it is fundamental to receiving an “indulgence”. the “indulgence” is similar to a get out of jail free pass, for the sin of “carbon pollution”.
green has gone full circle and become the new religion.

old construction worker.
December 23, 2015 7:19 pm

progressive socialists eating its own

Reply to  old construction worker.
December 23, 2015 8:19 pm

Well, I can take progressive socialists. Most actually want to make the world a better place, though often their actions are counterproductive. Convince them that their actions are harming people, and they will actually change (it’s actually not that hard in person, but good luck over the internet).
On the other hand, I have no respect for hypocrites or fakers using the platform for personal power.
I will take an honest fool or well meaning idiot any day over someone who is manipulating the system.

Reply to  benofhouston
December 24, 2015 7:34 am

Well, I can take progressive socialists. Most actually want to make the world a better place
Everybody wants to save the world but nobody wants to help Mom do the dishes.
– P.J. O’Rourke

Paul Coppin
Reply to  benofhouston
December 24, 2015 8:47 am

You are talking about altruists, not progressive socialists. “Progressive Socialism ” is PCspeak for a particularly venomous class of authoritarian self-preservationists. The empathy of the progressive socialist is a ruse, intended entirely to ensure that you supply their world with what they desire, at anybody’s expense but their own, and to make sure you agree that it’s the right thing to do.

Reply to  benofhouston
December 24, 2015 2:44 pm

Paul Coppin, +100. Exactly right.

Reply to  A.D. Everard
December 24, 2015 6:13 pm

Ah the holidays.
I had the pleasure of joining a friend’s son to his fraternity house gathering. It’s a fine ivy school. There were many young adults of the 1%. After settling in I found myself innocently discussing CAGW as the conversation drifted from futures and careers. These are a compendium of young scientists, engineers, business and liberal arts majors.
A few observations.
Note, this is not a strictly liberal crowd and in fact quite a few were staunch conservatives esp when it came to gun rights.
1. For them the science may not be settled but it is mostly an irrelevant point. Indeed there is a curiosity concerning evidence and variables but not an intense interest in testing the overall theory.
2. Past knowledge of historical climate was fairly well known but again irrelevant to the bigger picture of where do “we” go from here.
3. I posed the question of whether it matterred that our energy costs went up 10% and none of them objected. Instead, they saw it as a small price to pay for a brave new cleaner energy frontier.
I did alot of listening and offered several common sense points of view but the dedication to the concept of moving forward from here was strong.
On the way out a couple of the graduated and working students laughed as they saw me approach and pointed out the following ….
Yeah, ya know most of the folks you talked to haven’t paid bills yet. Wait till they see the chunk that’s already removed when they get their first check and we’ll see how long they stand by a 10% increase in the cost of energy being “Ok”.
It taught me alot to mingle with the youngsters. Definitely want to hear more.

December 23, 2015 7:25 pm

Concerts are a huge carbon generator. It takes 20 – 30 transport trucks to carry the stage sets, along with all the people to set things up – truck drivers and crew. And all that heavy breathing during a concert.

December 23, 2015 7:31 pm

Celebrities write a check to these green organizations and all is forgotten.
That is what many companies do also.

Reply to  AlexS
December 24, 2015 3:08 am

That is how mafias get money too. An insurance to prevent something bad happening to you.
Reminds me of the infamous no-pressure 1010 ads where kids that do not agree with the global warming hysteria are blown up by their teacher. The ad was paid with money “donated” by Casio, if memory serves me right.
Is it a mafia? Is it a religion? One thing is for sure, it is not science.

Reply to  urederra
December 24, 2015 6:23 pm

Never get enough of that video.
The movement appeals to the desire to belong.
The video reminds (fear) non belongers what happens when they don’t join and enforces the belief that belongers did the right thing (superiority resulting in getting to live another day).

Reply to  urederra
December 24, 2015 7:00 pm

Did either Hitler or Stalin go this far?
The parents of these children should have been called out for allowing their children to participate in such an affair as this. Unfit parents and should have been looked at by child protective services or are these young adult actors?
In any event, these are people who don’t know the difference between right and wrong or don’t care.

James Francisco
Reply to  AlexS
December 24, 2015 9:03 am

AlexS. Do you think it is somewhat like the supporters of communism in the past? They were showing support in the hope that they would be shot last.

Reply to  AlexS
December 24, 2015 10:31 am

“Living green” is code for “I let everyone know I eat nothing but lentil smoothies and tone my ass with yoga.” Which, apparently, makes up for the monster Suburban and the leased Mercedes, not to mention the ski house in Vail and the condo in St. Barth’s.

Gary Hladik
December 23, 2015 7:51 pm

“The solution might be more effort to appease outraged green sensibilities.”
Extortion? Gee, I thought “greens” were supposed to be the good guys!

December 23, 2015 7:52 pm

But I thought hypocrisy was a central part of climate alarmism.

Reply to  Andres Valencia
December 23, 2015 9:29 pm

It is a central tenet, along with a high degree of haught. One cannot be a contender for Climate Pratt of the Year without these two key characteristics.

December 23, 2015 8:06 pm

Or they could just admit they’re wrong and had simply jumped on the Green Band wagon to make themselves feel important.

December 23, 2015 8:08 pm

The solution is to ignore the idiots that think there is a climate crisis.

Reply to  kokoda
December 24, 2015 10:32 am

I get my digs in by cheering on El Nino!

Boulder Skeptic
Reply to  kokoda
December 24, 2015 7:32 pm

The solution is to ignore the idiots that think there is a climate crisis.

I’m sorry but I can’t disagree more. That seems to me to be exactly why we are on the brink of one-world authoritarian government, destabilization of the US and EU power grids, carbon taxes that will kill jobs and opportunity for our kids/grandkids, and the impending death (literally) of millions of people in poor countries around the world. We were all going about our normal productive lives over the last four decades while the enviro-terrorists and liberal politicians were plotting and building a case with faulty models that it seems only mother nature has yet made a dent in with her real world climate that disagrees with them. That was done with our money, by the way–to add insult to injury. Now’s the time we all need to give mother nature a hand by continually advertising what’s really happening in the world.
But it does appear we have common ground in that we know the “climate crisis” is a load of crap.

FJ Shepherd
December 23, 2015 8:09 pm

Well I suppose the enormous carbon footprint created by 40,000 delegates attending the Paris COP21 conference was for a good cause, so we shan’t upbraid those fine folks.

Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  FJ Shepherd
December 24, 2015 8:04 am

Has anyone attempted to compile the total carbon footprint of COP21?

james griffin
Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
December 24, 2015 12:54 pm

I saw a report at the time quoting 320,000 tonnes of CO2

Big Dave
Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
December 27, 2015 1:14 am

COP21? Powered by the elephant in the room, nukes.

December 23, 2015 8:10 pm
Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  brianjohn
December 24, 2015 8:11 am

That’s a good one! As a Calgarian myself, I just laugh at this.

We were in Calgary and the locals were saying, ‘This has never happened in our province ever.’

Ya, good one! We get those multiple times every year (well except for that super cold winter of 2013-2014).
This is why I never believe a scare story I hear if I don’t already know something about it. When someone has an agenda they are pushing, they can not be trusted! This is why I believe that there is no longer such a thing as a documentary. All modern (and a lot of older) ‘documentaries’ are just propaganda.

December 23, 2015 8:17 pm

It is so much fun when a leftist movement devolves to the point where they start eating their own. But this is not something we should laugh at.
{I digress. Recently a few of the “usual suspects” thought it would be fun to punk the feminist movement. So they started an internet meme whereby the mistletoe kissing tradition was “misogynistic”, “promotes rape culture”, and the rest. On cue, feminists at colleges started protesting and made moves to ban mistletoe. Right up until the hoax was revealed, then Radio Silence.}
It seems a group with a bit more internet media savvy than me could start some fun. Perhaps encourage the urban Metro riders to go after their car owning brethren. “We let Madonna have it for her transportation footprint, you need a taste of this too.” Turn the vegan GW campaigners against their omnivorous colleagues, and have these groups retaliate against the Metro riding, vegan cat owners. Finally get them to turn on any one of their own with a high footprint iphone, ipad, and ultimately, any of them with an internet connection, or any internet device.
Then we will be rid of them. Merry Christmas.

Reply to  TonyL
December 23, 2015 9:28 pm

Hi from Oz. I thought up a similar prank recently – suggest that the CAGW crowd want to ban PAINT! Why? Because almost all paints are based on petroleum (mineral turps, PVA, etc. i.e. fossil fuels), and their manufacture and use releases noxious fumes into the beloved atmosphere. Get a few thousand noodles to buy this, then see the NGOs back away fast when they realise how stoopid it is.
My Christmas present to you all!

Reply to  BoyfromTottenham
December 23, 2015 9:44 pm

But, as usual, be careful what you ask for.
Here in the US, petroleum based paints were banned ~1980 or so, and we have been stuck with inferior latex (water based) paints for everything. Imagine spending the best part of the day painting your house with a water based paint and then an afternoon shower develops out of nowhere.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  BoyfromTottenham
December 24, 2015 1:06 am

My parents still have an old pot of lead based paint which we used to paint the weatherboarding on the roof when we moving in to our 1930’s built house. I painted it, primer and top coat, once in the early 80’s and it’s not been fully painted ever since. Has kept all the borers and rot away. The asbestos guttering and down pipes are another story.

Reply to  TonyL
December 24, 2015 7:24 am

when a leftist movement devolves to the point where they start eating their own.
it is the nature of all movements. there comes a time when the disciples discover that the leader is not pure, that they also are guilty of sin, and must be cast down.

Reply to  TonyL
December 24, 2015 10:34 am

Dude. Don’t tempt me. It’s a slow day, and it’s raining.

Brian R
December 23, 2015 8:17 pm

The biggest question I have is, it’s 120 miles and would have taken 3 hours to drive? The next question is, what kind of business jet would take an hour to go 120 miles? That’s 15-20 minutes tops by anything that could be called a “jet”.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Brian R
December 23, 2015 8:29 pm

[Comment deleted. “Jankowski” has been stolen by the identity thief pest. All Jankowski comments saved and deleted from public view. You wasted your time, David. What a sad, pathetic, wasted life. -mod]

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Eric Worrall
December 24, 2015 1:09 am

Once you get out of the cities and on to the M4, the driver should be easily able to maintain 75-80mph, without getting nicked by the cops. Gets a bit slow around Swindon, Newbury, Reading and Woking…but doable. I have been nicked speeding on the M4, 101mph. The cops thought I sole the car LOL…

Reply to  Eric Worrall
December 24, 2015 1:15 am

Or possibly taxi time from apron to runway and vice versa, plus time in the stack waiting for a landing slot.
Either way, plenty of extra plant food.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Eric Worrall
December 24, 2015 2:11 am

“Eric Worrall
December 24, 2015 at 12:52 am
Frequent car accidents on British motorways can back up traffic for many hours.”
In fact most of the time these delays are CAUSED by the emergency services and Police who shutdown some lanes where they think it is needed. Lets not talk about the endless roadworks, cones and average speed limits. On a British motorway, there are 3 lanes and an emergency hard shoulder (HS). The M25 has 4 lanes + the HS (If my memory serves…have not driven British motorways since 2003). The other issue also is “rubber neckers” on the opposite carriage way focusing on the accident on the other side of the motorway rather than driving.

Ian W
Reply to  Brian R
December 24, 2015 1:12 am

he next question is, what kind of business jet would take an hour to go 120 miles?

Assuming that the time given was solely for the time in the aircraft. Push back and taxi out 10 minutes, flight 40 minutes, taxi in 10 minutes. If the flight was to London assume landing not at Heathrow but more likely Biggin Hill or Norholt, the aircraft would need to follow a standard departure procedure then thread through the London metroplex traffic to join a standard arrival procedure actual track miles could be up to 200 miles. Much of the flight would be medium altitude or low. Speed limit on aircraft below 10,000 ft is usually 250Kts. The time sounds very reasonable.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Ian W
December 24, 2015 2:18 am

Biggin Hill? Not sure about that. Stansted or Gatwick more likely.
Re Biggin Hill. I was there at an airshow in 1972 where a Vulcan took off, flew past, did some more flying, and landed. Busted my ears! I “met” one of the crew, Leslie, online on a Subaru (Cars) enthusiast site. And sure enough, when I found out he flew Vulcans and did so at Biggin Hill in the 70’s he dug out his flight records. He was the pilot that day. Not sure he is with us anymore however, we did have some interesting discussions about the engineering that went in to the Vulcan.

Reply to  Ian W
December 25, 2015 2:32 pm

At least little Madge didn’t fall for the marketing scam.
As you know, London has several ‘London Airports’: Heathrow; Gatwick; Stanstead; Manston (recently closed); City; Southend; Biggin Hill; Northolt; Redhill; and maybe more.
I’ll not get my revs up on the pusillanimous failure of forty years’ of so-called Government to mandate one mega-airport for London.
But the result is a plethora of micro-airports, increasingly further away. Manston is nearer France, for example, and if the seriously cheap-o airlines get their way, Flughafen Hamburg will soon be called London Elbe.
The scam – you emplane at Birmingham; push back, then, very soon, arrive at another gate – to find you have arrived at “London Midlands”!

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Ian W
December 26, 2015 4:57 am

Biggin Hill, essentially was an air field, is now a “London Airport”, really? Last I checked there was no fast infrastructure to get from there to any major London international port. Croydon was the first air “port”.

Reply to  Brian R
December 24, 2015 7:26 am

what kind of business jet would take an hour to go 120 miles
a jet that cruises at 120 mph.

Tom Judd
Reply to  Brian R
December 24, 2015 7:51 am

Returning from the Montreal GP in 1997 a friend and I covered the last 280 miles from Detroit to Chicago in 3 1/2 hours, including a stop for gas.
My car was faster than Madonna’s jet (don’t forget the fuel stop). An old businessman once said if you absolutely have to get someplace fast, drive don’t fly. If greens really wish to reduce carbon footprints they should turn the world’s highways into autobahns.

David Chappell
Reply to  Tom Judd
December 25, 2015 2:35 am

An old saying: Time to spare? Go by air.

December 23, 2015 8:17 pm

And their behavior is surprising why?
Gore: Monkey see. Monkey do.

December 23, 2015 8:18 pm

Movements and Anti-Movements and Counter-movements.
They share common psychologies.

Reply to  John Whitman
December 23, 2015 11:00 pm

Sounds like a laxative commercial…

Reply to  John Whitman
December 24, 2015 6:51 am

Felflames on December 23, 2015 at 11:00 pm
– – – – – – –
ewwwwww, yuck

December 23, 2015 8:25 pm

They also are big on public transportation and busses for the masses.

December 23, 2015 8:39 pm

Why when they talk about Air Force One do they ignore the fact that a large Air Force Transport plane is following, an advance detail is there be fore him and leaves after him and it seems like Michelle has her own Air Force 1-1/2 as she flies separately more than any other FL that I can recall, with separate planes to every Hawaii Vacation, and of course separate Air Force transports flying along. Then there are the Fighter escorts at least two tagging along every mile.

Reply to  usurbrain
December 23, 2015 9:48 pm

, 8.39 pm, And then the special flight for their puppy a few years ago because he was lonely ( or left behind, forgotten in the bustle of going on an “annual” vacation?. I can see the POTUS requiring “special” treatment etc. but this guy has pushed it beyond the limit. A plane for his “beast” automobile that got stuck in Ireland?
My opinion? The more security a person like him needs? I think it is because the more unpopular he is ( like dictators in Africa or South America. Paranoia perhaps?) And those “advance” teams, they are there for up to 2 weeks prior and after. I wonder how much all of that costs not only money wise but the disruptions in daily live/ traffic/ hotels etc. per visit, let alone when plans get changed on a moments notice because he sees a golf course he likes. (oh well I HAD to vent!).

Reply to  asybot
December 23, 2015 11:55 pm

POTUS vacations have cost 70M.

December 23, 2015 8:57 pm

Celebrities have big, and sensitive, egos. They won’t take well to being lectured too if this becomes a thing. I would expect some angry lashing out from some of them, maybe even to the point where they’ll point out how idiotic some aspects of the whole GW thing are, though
I will admit the more likely scenario is simple justification as to how they deserve exceptions not given to the masses because they are so important.
One thing you certainly won’t likely see is any modification of their self indulgent lifestyle.

Reply to  peter
December 23, 2015 9:23 pm

Worshipping at the alter of all things green assuages the guilt that comes from their self indulgent lifestyle.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  noaaprogrammer
December 24, 2015 2:15 am

A bit like medievel england when rich barons would build churches and pay french monks and nuns for a safe passage to heaven

Reply to  noaaprogrammer
December 24, 2015 7:31 am

A bit like medieval england
exactly the same. only the names have changed.

Reply to  peter
December 24, 2015 7:29 am

I would expect some angry lashing out from some of them
nope. most will pay up to get the green groups to look the other way.

Reply to  ferdberple
December 24, 2015 2:55 pm

Except, like all blackmailers, the greens will come back for more. The reprieve never lasts long.

December 23, 2015 9:24 pm

I have always liked the idea that our elected representitives should be forced to use the services that they always avoid using. They would then feel the same pain as the rest of us and maybe make better decisions.
Never mind giving the mayor a chauffeur driven limo. Force the mayor and council to ride the bus. Never mind a taxpayer provided mansion. The whole lot of them should have to live in public housing. When they get sick they should have to use public hospitals … etc. etc.

Reply to  commieBob
December 24, 2015 7:36 am

+1000. don’t expect to see this made into law anytime soon.

David Chappell
Reply to  commieBob
December 25, 2015 2:56 am

A similar idea I have cherished for a long time: require, by contract, all airline senior executives to fly long haul in cattle class (preferably an overbooked flight) at least once every 3 months.

December 23, 2015 9:42 pm

Well Green’s Fundamentalists never listened and learnt when their teachers taught them of Photosyntesis, Archimedes priciple so it’s understandable that CO2 believers forgot to check volcano activity

December 23, 2015 9:46 pm

Some flying quotes …
June 24, 1986, NYT:
“In an interesting analogy, we learn from the writer-producer Richard Broad, of Boston’s public-television station WGBH, that a single trans-Atlantic flight consumes all the energy that an acre of forest produces in 100 years.”✈-flying-climate-fraud-quotes-✈/

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  climatefraud
December 24, 2015 6:17 am

Thanks for that link; welcome to the wacky world of carbon accounting:

✈ Just Plane Wrong
“To be clear: Flying is a luxury. Just 5 percent of the world’s population has ever set foot on an airplane.

What percentage of the world’s population has ever set foot in a bathroom with flush toilets?
By the accounting above, if we assume that 75% the 40,000 attendees made trans-atlantic flights or equivalent, the COP21 conference consumed all the energy that 150-170 acres of forest produce in 100 years. But since they hold these things every year, it is more accurate to say each conference consumes up 15,000 – 17,000 acres of annual forest energy. Surely that’s a trifle expensive for a 34-page agreement?

Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
December 24, 2015 11:29 pm

I really think that 5 percent figure bullshit. There are 3 billion flights a year. Sure most are repeat passengers, but all the same it doesn’t feel right.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  climatefraud
December 24, 2015 6:55 am

Fascinating. Now I wonder how many acre-yearss of forest energy are required for a single episode of one of Mr. Broad’s productions for WGBH?

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
December 23, 2015 9:48 pm

They have calculated that Madonna’s car trip would have used 32 litres of gasoline, round trip. Is that possible for an entourage of press rep, secretary, publicist, security team and hangers-on? Surely they would have taken two or three vehicles. Is that still excessive? Are the people we make famous and pester allowed to evade us?
It is interesting that the radical green calls for shaming the stars are made through media and internet that is powered by fossil fuels. If everyone was listening to them and following their message, the attacks would have never made it out of Britain save by canoe and Town Crier.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
December 23, 2015 10:18 pm

Are the people we make famous and pester allowed to evade us?
There’s the thing. Not only are they allowed to, they must. The crowds they draw would make life untenable not only for themselves, but for anyone around them were they to live a “normal” lifestyle.

December 23, 2015 10:06 pm

Celebrities hypocritically supporting CAGW theory richly deserve attacks by anyone, not because their actions will make the Climate deteriorate, but because they are ignorant hypocrites. The more the Celebrities get away with their hypocrisy the bolder and more ambitious they become in their support for the Great Folly. A few bad reviews in the Press and Media and they might pull their horns in.

December 23, 2015 10:25 pm

All the “greenies” including Al Gore, POTUS, John Kerry, etc. should be made to ride bicycles…
(The list is just too long).

December 23, 2015 11:04 pm

… and some guy in a plane called “Air Force One”

Reply to  Neo
December 24, 2015 7:47 am

Every “Air Force One” flight uses a C-141 advance flight to ferry the President’s limousine and uses the “Marine Corps One” helicopter to get the President from the White House to the air base where the plane is waiting. I think there is also a duplicate of Air Force One that goes along just in case there’s a problem with the main plane. It takes three airplanes and a helicopter to get Obama to his next speech/photo-op/golf course.

Reply to  tadchem
December 24, 2015 7:53 am

And that’s just for one trip:

December 23, 2015 11:09 pm

In the stockmarket, it is time to sell when the busboys start giving tips to buy. Similarly , in the warming cult, when the eco-crit celebrity start to give out orders, it is time to quit the cult.

Reply to  Jack
December 24, 2015 12:00 am

Bubbles ? What’s your opinion on the current alternative energy market ?

December 23, 2015 11:14 pm

Eating their own. Radicals have a habit of doing that. Fun to watch.

Reply to  troe
December 23, 2015 11:58 pm

All humans are prone to scapegoating.
Some more than others.

Reply to  knutesea
December 24, 2015 8:34 am

knutesea on December 23, 2015 at 11:58 pm
All humans are prone to scapegoating.
Some more than others.

Logic dictates that I ask you, because of your claim that everyone does scapegoating, to please tell us some of your targets of your scapegoating?

December 23, 2015 11:52 pm

**The solution might be more effort to appease outraged green sensibilities. Celebrities could surely mitigate any harm their individual lifestyle is causing, by donating more of their wealth to green causes, and by giving more of their time to raising the profile of green campaigns.**
That’s what they have been doing.
But it’s becoming old news and seems such a plan is profitable to celebrities who customers are young and are dumb.
With the older demographic or people who are largely adults, the green ideology is not practical or popular. So things like children heath issues or people in poorer countries are issues which resonance more with their public.

Reply to  gbaikie
December 24, 2015 12:02 am

Well put. I’m making the rounds in visiting mode and see the same as you describe.

December 24, 2015 12:05 am

“What is the solution to this dilemma?”
Politely advising guilt-trip entrepreneurs like David Powell to foxtrot oscar would be a start.

It’s David’s job to demolish Government rhetoric on ‘economic growth at all costs’.

Nope Dave. Your job is to push irrational insecurities around for personal gain. You’re a shabby little grifter trading in other people’s guilt. How much does that so-called registered charity pay you to do the “neg-a-iv” window dressing again?

Reply to  AJB
December 24, 2015 12:48 am

The huckster has limitless possibilities in affluent societies that primarily produce income via financial shenanigans.

December 24, 2015 12:50 am

It’s been 26 years since the James Hansen speech warning of dire consequences if we continue to use fossil fuels. The predictions have failed miserably. The apocalyptic “tipping points” have come and gone. The general public ranks climate change as their lowest concern despite the unrelenting mantra of doom coming from the alarmists. At this point you have to wonder if the current bleating of the alarmists together with the fact that they appear to have begun to eat each other, aren’t finally signaling an end to it all. We can only hope.

December 24, 2015 1:25 am

The other elephant in the room that the Greens will never mention is population. It used to take two hours to get to London from Birmingham and now it takes three. Why? Because of the UKs ever-increasing population, mainly due immigration.
The Greens seem to forget that the biggest threat the the environment is not CO2, but population levels. Do they think that immigrants do not need houses, cars, trains, food, water, and waste disposal? Then they throw up their arms in horror and ask why are there more floods, droughts, food shortages, despoiling of open spaces and disease? “It must be CO2, they cry….”.

Joe Public
December 24, 2015 2:46 am

The irony of being ‘rich & famous’ and unable to flaunt it.

George Lawson
December 24, 2015 3:21 am

What we need are more celebrities to realise that the Green’s campaign is both stupid and pointless. and hugely damaging to the safe and progressive society in which we live. If the Greeny Cult think that a private jet from Birmingham to London will make the slightest impression on the many billions of tonnes of carbon emitted into the atmosphere from the earths daily output then they are living in cloud cuckoo land. Celebs should do their job the way that they wish to do it, and the way the Greenies and everyone else do their jobs, and not listen to these idiots who have already done so much damage to world economies, harming the worlds poor and likely to be the cause, in Britain at least, of major power cuts the moment we have a long spell of cold weather. Greens are a curse on society, and the twisted way in which they see the world should not be listened to by governments, let alone celebrities, who, like all of us are going about their work in the best way for them, all contributing to a better life in the future for all of us. What we now need, are celebrities to have the courage to join the sceptic cause, and help see the Green Cult crushed forever, as it is surely happening at the present time. If they falsely believe that air travel is contributing to a world of gloom and doom, then they should have asked themselves whether it was really helping the worlds output of carbon for 40,000 delegates to fly into Paris recently for such a shambolic conference from which precisely nothing was achieved.

Reply to  George Lawson
December 24, 2015 3:30 am

Thank you George Lawson.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  George Lawson
December 24, 2015 6:51 am

What you are saying in effect is we need celebrities with intelligence, humility and courage.
Sadly, what we get are the Kardashians.

Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
December 24, 2015 7:43 am

Unfortunately, when you have a celebrity with intelligence and humility, they generally do the smart thing and keep their mouths shut so as not to destroy their careers. Courage is a luxury they can’t afford.

December 24, 2015 3:43 am

Well, when we only contribute a miniscule portion to the total volume of CO2, it’s a little difficult to make much of an impact. But huge emitters are still the only ones that can really cut back. What on earth is the average Joe/Josie supposed to do? Skyrocketing electric prices can have little effect on people who already cut back because of cost – and celebrities don’t care about cost. (This is all rhetorical of course. Even if we were able to reduce CO2 emissions, it won’t make any difference in temps – and the extra CO2 is beneficial. They can’t quantify benefits of cutting emissions, nor damage that would happen if we don’t)

Reply to  4TimesAYear
December 24, 2015 7:50 am

But huge emitters are still the only ones that can really cut back.
it costs money to produce CO2 from fossil fuels. Lots of money. Lots and lots of money. In fact, the amount of money involved it staggering.
So, given the amount of money required to generate CO2, those huge emitters already have a HUGE incentive to cut back. So why haven’t they already cut back?
Why does their competition not simply cut back on expensive CO2, thereby cut costs, and under-bid the huge emitters, driving them out of business and solving the CO2 problem?

Reply to  ferdberple
December 24, 2015 6:25 pm

Well, I was referring more to the celebrities who spew it at thousands of times higher levels than the rest of us (we common folks are the ones that coal burning companies burn coal for, for the most part), but I agree – the green competition should be able to show that they can reduce CO2 by producing energy cheaper. It just doesn’t seem to work that way, though 🙂

George Lawson
Reply to  ferdberple
December 25, 2015 2:01 am

What CO2 problem?

December 24, 2015 4:22 am

Iron rule of life: if someone doesn’t practice what they preach, they are evil.
History if full of people who love to preach and then do the things they say are evil and it is human nature to do this. And it is horrible, of course. Doesn’t stop them from preening themselves for their virtues of preaching and not practicing.
None of this crop of liars think they are harming the planet when they have gigantic carbon footprints. Not one of them.

Bruce Cobb
December 24, 2015 4:51 am

If these enviroloons and Madonna-ites are so “enraged” why don’t they organize a boycott? In fact, this could start a movement against all greenie-preaching hypocritical celebrities. Hit them where it hurts. But that would be just the beginning, since the entire anti-carbon “save the-planet” greenie campaign is rife with hypocrisy. It is all based entirely on lies, corruption, and hypocrisy.

December 24, 2015 7:32 am

Simple. Calculate and publicize the ‘carbon footprints’ of media-driven events such as international conferences and concerts. Tell everybody you can think of. When it becomes widely known that ‘green’ leaders will burn nearly 3 tons of CO2 just to shave a couple hours off a trip, their ‘concern’ for the environment loses all credibility.

December 24, 2015 7:58 am

The recently released movie ‘Star Wars- The Force Awakens’ is an all-time box office record and has no AGW or Greenie messaging. Wow. Disney . . . fist bump and high five.
Even though it lead actor Harrison Ford is involved in AGW and green organizations.

Pat Paulsen
December 24, 2015 8:35 am

So, avoiding a 3 hour drive puts her convenience ahead of the planet and yet she likely says that she is trying to save the planet? More do as I say not as I do hypocrisy?

Harry Passfield
December 24, 2015 8:59 am

I couldn’t care less if Madonna wants to fly. It’s her money, her time, her consideration. It doesn’t matter how much ‘carbon’ is in her footprint, it’s not relevant. ‘Carbon’ is not a temperature control knob. Which is more than can be said about the knobs who mount high horses – and raise my temper(ature) with their stupidity.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Harry Passfield
December 24, 2015 10:31 am

No one cares about that; the issue is the weapons-grade hypocrisy, plus the fact that they use their celebrity status to help amplify their CAGW ideology.

December 24, 2015 9:01 am

The last verses of my Algorhyme apply equally to either gender and besides that, to her.
Yet, while (s)he’s pleading that all should be heeding
H(er) carbon reduction ambitions,
(S)He hopes you’re not seeing h(er) own footprint being
Hundreds of poor folks’ emissions.
Let’s hope (s)he’s thought out, while jetting about,
The messages of h(er) actions.
By far they outweigh any words he might say,
In the minds of the wiser factions.

Tom Judd
December 24, 2015 10:25 am

I feel very Christmasey today so, borrowing from ‘Away in the Manger’ I’ve written an ode (or, odious, depending on one’s aesthetic tastes) to Madonna; one of our legions of elite Greens.
Away in a private jet,
It’s one helluva fast sled
Our lady Madonna
Laid back her swelled head
The stars in the bright sky
Looked down where she fly
Our lady Madonna
If she hadda’ drive she would die
The cattle are lowing
The rich lady wakes
Our lady Madonna
More money she makes
I love Thee, Madonna
Look down from the sky
While I’m driving my beater,
You’ll zip right on by.
Be near me my lady,
But far away you’ll stay
Taking transport with the hoi polloi
Is definitely not your way
Bless all the dear fan clubs
In Thy tender care
Remember, they have to drive
But you can soar through the air

Reply to  Tom Judd
December 24, 2015 10:39 am

Tom Judd on December 24, 2015 at 10:25 am
– – – – – – – –
Tom Judd,
That’s not bad, not bad at all. : )

December 24, 2015 10:36 am

Don’t forget Emperor Bon Ki Moon an his 10,000s of immune diplomats and staff in Manhattan, NY.
Ever see Mr. Moon ride a bicycle to work?
Ha ha

December 24, 2015 12:40 pm

Ironically Bill Gates stopped flying coach at the same time the brief modern warming of 28 years to 1998, stopped.
No global warming, no need to spare the CO2 from his private jet.

December 24, 2015 1:39 pm

It will be a cold day in hell before I set store in what the likes of Mizz Ciccone avers, the same goes for the rest of luvviedom – I cannot abide sanctimony nor, hypocrisy particularly when it issues out of the mouths of harridans given to outpourings of pleonastic drivel.
For good or ill, and through their works so shall ye know them.

December 24, 2015 2:29 pm

Mr. Worrall,
*Consistent Greens* or *CAGW Fundamentalists” I can sort of relate to, but you’re triggering some sort of “Chaos Theory” type reactions in my brain with the “Green Fundamentalist” label in your title ; )

Jeff Alberts
December 24, 2015 3:11 pm

The solution is for them to finally realize that CO2 is not the boogeyman.

clovis marcus
December 25, 2015 2:06 am

2hrs 12mins by train New Street to Euston. I know, I’ve done that journey many times.
98 miles @ 0.052kg per passenger mile.

December 25, 2015 5:56 am

leadershipcomment image

Ed Zuiderwijk
December 25, 2015 7:42 am

On yer bikes!

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
December 25, 2015 7:22 pm

Nah, but maybe somebody else will ride the bike for them.
2016 is likely going to see a divestiture of US equities with a SP PE of 23 … high side of range. The wealthy (including celebs) are ahead of this curve and likely bottom feeding for fossil fuel (oil and gas) companies with nice low debt balance sheets. Biggest drumbeats I hear are for Russian based companies such as gazprom and the China CFO. The euro is shrugging off bad news at these low prices as well.
Down with US equities
Up with foreign oil and gas
Up with the Euro
Up with resource rich Canada
Coal still the pariah as places like California and Norway divest public funds of the demon coal.
The rich will make bank on a commodity rebound while looking like they are living green. It’s a special kind of hypocrisy practiced by only the most adept.

December 26, 2015 3:23 am

One of the reasons why these numpties are in denial about their rank hypocrisy is that they have long-since justified it to themselves:-
“I will continue to live my jet-set life and, by selflessly lending my fame and gravitas to the fight against global warming, many more GHG emissions will be prevented thereby dwarfing my own carbon footprint and making it all perfectly OK”.
The same goes for Obama, Al Gore and all the rest of the Paris-ites who flew in for their big fossil fuel-powered knees-up recently. It’s utterly appalling, especially when you factor in that it’s all a diabolical h0ax anyway.

December 26, 2015 11:06 am

This is From Freeman Dyson

The environmental movement is a great force for good in the world, an alliance of billions of
people determined to protect birds and butterflies and preserve the natural habitats that allow endangered species to survive. The environmental movement is a cause fit to fight for. There are many human activities that threaten the ecology of the planet. The environmental movement has done a great job of educating the public and working to heal the damage we have done to nature. I am a tree-hugger, in love with frogs and forests. But I am horrified to see the environmental movement hijacked by a bunch of climate fanatics, who have captured the attention of the public with scare stories.

December 27, 2015 6:33 pm

But wait, there’s more … there’s Leonardo “I like money but sorry, capitalism has to go” DiCaprio who preaches his climate change alarmism from the pulpit of extreme wealth. Typical hypocrite!

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Mervyn
December 28, 2015 5:02 am

December 27, 2015 at 6:33 pm
But wait, there’s more … there’s Leonardo “I like money but sorry, capitalism has to go” DiCaprio”
What? You mean DiCrapio? My dyslexia knows no bounds.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights