Guest essay by Eric Worrall
USA Today thinks celebrities like Leonardo DiCaprio and climate scientists attending conferences should set an example, by reducing their personal carbon footprints.
To fight climate change, start with Leonardo DiCaprio’s private jet lifestyle
Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Opinion columnist Published 2:31 p.m. ET June 4, 2017
Even though Donald Trump withdrew from the Paris climate agreement, there’s plenty Congress can do.
So last week President Trump pulled out of the Paris climate agreement — to the extent that one can pull out of an agreement that’s not actually legally binding, anyway. This left some people upset.
But if climate change is really such a crisis, and if sacrifice on our part is needed to stop it, then why aren’t we seeing more sacrifice from people who think it’s a problem?
That’s what one person asked on Twitter: “What if climate scientists decided, as a group, to make their conferences all virtual? No more air travel. What a statement!” And what if academics in general — most of whom think climate change is a big deal — started doing the same thing to make an even bigger statement?
It would be big. And what if politicians and celebrities stopped jetting around the world — often on wasteful private jets instead of flying commercial with the hoi polloi — as a statement of the importance of fighting climate change?
…
These proposals are just the beginning, and I’m sure that enterprising members of Congress and various state legislatures can come up with more. But the important thing is to set a good example: Treat climate change like the crisis you say it is, and maybe more people will believe that it really is a crisis.
…
I share the author’s concern. A few months ago I started a petition urging the world’s governments to ensure every climate scientist has access to video conferencing technology, so they can avoid the moral trauma of having to travel by air to attend climate conferences.
Please support my petition if you have not done so already.
Isn’t it astounding that the vast majority of supposedly Eco-Conscious Celebrities have carbon footprints surpassing those of small towns? Giant Mansions, Private Jets, Large Entourages, and no personal responsibilities for the Causes they espouse! And, in many cases, living near or purchasing property that they tell all of us will be “underwater”, yet somehow won’t affect their own personal property. “Do as I Say, Not as I Do” has never been more true regarding these people.
It is the nature of elitism that the rules proposed for the lumpenproletariat are not followed by the elect. Consider the behavior of the leadership in communist countries, and the sort of lifestyle they enjoy relative to the commons.
…. yep, the Orwellian pigs in “animal Farm”, yet they can’t see the hypocrisy.
Run along and be good little socialists now while we administer you, and construct massive lies that we disseminate through the controlled media that makes you opine at the level of a parrot.
Their mantra is: Pay as I say – not as I do!
Why did you single out the leaders of Communist countries? They are no different than the leaders of “democracies” or what laughingly passes for them, either. But to be most specific about the issue of leading by example, in a world with no true warming issues, there is no reason for leaders and elite to sink to the level of the commoner, thus lead by example, because “that is why they own the MSM and pay them to do – sell the issue for them.” And since at least part of the “commoners” are waking up to the fact that “climate news in the MSM is the essence of fake news,” leading by example now would be pointless since the campaign is turning against the elite.
No, they aren’t losing it yet since they still “own” most of the senators and representatives or whatever titles the elected officials use, thus they still have the power to create 1984, but for how long? If there are too many commoners that finally realize that they are not watching “entertainment” on TV but subtle to not so subtle propaganda, then the elite find that they have lost, no matter how many boots, body armor, and Tasers they put on the streets and into action against those that have clearer vision.
Its a real change for this site. All the usual science deniers are vilifying Leo for flying around in his jet and contributing to global warming. I thought all you guys didn’t believe that his emissions contribute to man made global warming because its not happening. Hmmmm, Strange days indeed!
Could you be any more ridiculous “Steve “?
There … fixed it for you.
It’s the hypocrisy, stupid!
No one here needs credit the repeatedly falsified, antiscientific consensus orthodoxy of CACA in order to relish St. Leo’s hypocrisy.
What we believe is our business. Leo clearly does not believe what he preaches. He does not even pretend to believe.
Steve, there is help available for the comprehension issues from which you obviously suffer.
still a waste of fuel and total airframe time (TAT) and total airframe cycles (TAC) which drives (per hours and cycles) a ton of maintenance.
Must be a disconnect between your eyes and the left part of your brain.
mmmm…Steve, did you actually read the article in USA Today? Apparently not. This post is merely a re-post of part of an article in the sort of main stream media. Why are so many “supporters” of Catastrophic global warming such hypoccrits?
Steve…
Not as strange as your logic.
steve writes: “I thought all you guys didn’t believe that his emissions contribute to man made global warming because its not happening”I
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I will offer a small correction, but I don’t speak for all guys neither is there anything that all guys believe or disbelieve (even for something as fundamental as whether I am indeed a guy).
The correction is that his emissions probably won’t result in catastrophe; it might contribute somewhat to global warming.
All of me thinks that the average of various temperature measurements made over the past 150 years has increased, but not monotonically; a long term rising trend from the little ice age, but over an even longer span of time different trends emerge.
Leo is a hypocrite; expressing concern for sea level rise but building a luxury resort in Belize at sea level. It is amusing to see and pretty well erases the worth of anything he has to say on the subject. His worries may have merit, but not because of his advocacy. Clearly he isn’t worried about it and neither, apparently, are his insurers.
His emissions, and mine, contribute to global warming; particularly our methane emissions.
I suggest you work on your reading comprehension, as it seems to be weak. The only thing being vilified is DiCaprio’s hypocrisy. Nothing is being denied. Evidence-free claims are being rejected.
If you really think that AGW is a problem, you should be condemning DiCaprio and other major CO2 emitters. You also should not be using a computer, as it is produced using fossil fuels, contains plastics (more fossil fuels), and is likely being run using power from fossil fuels, unless you are off the grid and using solar panels and/or windmills as your sole power source(s).
I am sure you are eager to correct your delinquency, so I will not be offended by your non-reply. Indeed, I am thrilled to support your devotion to living a life of integrity, even if we disagree about AGW. Best wishes as you embark on a lifestyle free of fossil fuel use!
Poor “steve”. He is yet another sad example of how being a true believer in the climate crisis requires not only the removal of one’s sense of humor but also a significant reduction in one’s cognitive abilities as well.
What are you up to in the school holidays young steve? Catching a movie with Leo in Titanic? Now there’s a lesson for you with sea ice, not to mention human hubris and folly.
If I have my awareness raised any further it’ll punch through the CO2 barrier that’s causing the planet to boil.
Indeed, during the USSR days all party elites lived high on the hog.
Jim Hansen! Jim Hansen! Is the Major Degan six feet under water as you predicted? Jim?
“Do as I Say, Not as I Do”
===============
Gluttony is one of the seven deadly sins.
“take less of the pie, so I can take more”.
That is the message behind Gore, DiCaprio and indeed the Pope. They are not interested in reducing their carbon footprint. Their message is that we, the common people should reduce our footprint, so that the gluttons of the world can increase theirs.
I would like to see EVERY SINGLE CONSERVATIVE NEWS OUTLET, including Fox, Breitbart, Drudge, PJ Media, TownHall etc. and even WUWT STOP reporting, recognizing, quoting, or publicizing in any way the unhinged deluded rants and ravings of “entertainers,” including actors, musicians, comedians, models etc. These people are in no way qualified to be commenting on much of anything outside their form of “art.” Why do WE treat these empty-headed screw-ups as “thought leaders” on important issues? If we all stop giving them attention, a platform for their crap, they’d soon have to go away and concentrate on what they ought to be doing; making better movies, music that actually has a tune, or making people laugh. Sick and tired of them being treated like their opinions are “news.”
Their opinions are news because of their celebrity, not their brains. I think we agree on that. But because as stupid, deluded or otherwise non functional they might be, a lot of people give them their attention. To sit back and not respond is to cede our world to their ignorance. As long as they have the bully pulpit of celebrity, we still need to counter them.
“STOP reporting, recognizing, quoting, or publicizing”
Alternatively you could stop reading; the Libertarian Choice ™!
It is easy to teach these “celebrities” a lesson; just don’t buy their “products”. I will never pay to see a Di Caprio movie.
Having watched decaprios movie about an historical event that bore absolutely no resemblance to the actual event, I agree. I called it “Repugnant”
Yep, DiCaprio’s character in real life had no son, DiCaprio’s character in real life was not married to an Indian woman. The argument between the men was about a stolen rifle.
The Limousine Left never lets the truth stand in their way.
An ecologist friend and I watched Repugnant at the same time and had a great laugh. Young bear cubs out at the same time elk were in full antler, Fall snow in one scene, spring snow in the next, one type of ecosystem in one scene and a completely different and likely geographically distant ecosystem in the next. It was too long ago to remember all the inconsistencies and I couldn’t sit through it again to remind myself, but we both thought it was a laugh a minute. Apparently Di Caprio puts the same rigour into movie making that he puts into saving the world.
BCBill, I watched his “documentary” before the flood.
He said he had to fly half way across the world to finish filming because there was no snow. Obviously hinting at the fact that global warming melted all of the other snow in the entire world except for one place. Or maybe it was just summer and he forgot it won’t snow in summer.
One of biggest changes from real-life and the movie “The Revenant” is that when Hugh Glass finally caught up with John Fitzgerald and Jim Bridger, instead of exacting bloody vengeance, he FORGAVE THEM. Image that instead of your standard-issue revenge movie you had a film where the ‘hero’ ends with an act of humanity and forgiveness. Not my Hollywood.
These people are purposely seeking to blur the lines between fiction and reality. Didn’t you see how well that was working out right up to Comey’s testimony yesterday? There’s a REASON they’re doing this; half the millennials can’t tell life from a video game!
This is so stupid.
People need to get to gather to fight climate change, and the only way to do it presently is on jets. Virtual conferences involving hundreds, no thousands, of people is not practical at the moment. Not sure it will ever be. Talking to people face to face in hall and bars is important.
Case in point: if DiCaprio can keep a few people from flying and a few people from buying SUVs and a few people investing in renewables, his net gain is positive for that particular trip.
It is assumed this is sarcasm
I really hope so, when I was consulting on biofuels I followed all the meetings and thought these people never did any work but spent all their time in meetings and conferences. No wonder they never accomplished anything.
You need to stop and smell the sarcasm.
Either you are being skeptical, or you have no knowledge regarding the state of the technology.
Conferences are one person at a time giving a speech, and everyone else listening. Current technology can handle hundreds of thousands of people at a time. Not only that, they can stream several dozen speakers at the same time with no trouble at all.
If you want to talk face to face, skype handles millions of one on one conversations everyday.
Right. And just try to ask questions. And Just try to have a conversation afterwards over a beer.
I have done video conferences. But they don’t replace the real thing. Sorry.
@ReallySkeptical
Sure, because when there are 500 other people in the auditorium, everyone has a chance to ask questions and have a full and complete dialog with the speaker. /sarc
I’ve been in moderated webinars and you can ask a question (typed) any time. Moderators look them over and the webinar has portions where they pause to answer them. If 20 people type the same question, it only has to be answered once, not 20 times.
Everyone doesn’t ask a question. But I have always been able to ask a question after a presentation if I wished to. Always.
MarkW:
Keep in mind that the international climate shyster shindigs are not actually conferences. They’re public theater for announcing the latest ruling decisions.
During some of the conferences, conferees may be to hammer out their latest joint political statements, but that is the extent of joint work. An argument posture dance that could be accomplished via many other methods.
I kinda favor gathering these international groups into Alaskan, Siberian or other Arctic bases with sufficient MREs (Meals ready to eat).
Spears or fishing gear could be checked out by conference attendees for collecting fresher foods.
Cots, army blankets, do their own laundry, cold showers, plain uninspired foods, etc. are mighty incentives for fools, er, tools to actually accomplish work.
“Keep in mind that the international climate shyster shindigs are not actually conferences. They’re public theater for announcing the latest ruling decisions.”
WOW. complete BS. You have no idea what you are saying.
The TCEQ and EPA hold these sorts of video conferences all the time. Yes, you lose camaraderie and the ability to be bribed by consultants at after-parties, but it’s far more efficient than physical conferences, which happen only a few times a year.
ReallySkeptical June 8, 2017 at 6:36 pm
“WOW. complete BS. You have no idea what you are saying.”
C June 8, 2017 at 4:24 pm
And Just try to have a conversation afterwards over a beer.
“I have done video conferences. But they don’t replace the real thing. Sorry.”
Soooo, it is all about having a good time. Going to cool nifty places, getting out to enjoy the nightlife.
Ah, we have a perfect “idea’ of what we are saying.
Oh and thanks for the heads up on why you really want to go to conferences. On other peoples dime. Yup, it’s all about you, your personal comfort.
By the way off Newfoundland, they are trying to rescue ship crews that are trapped in ice fields. Two meters thick. Arctic ice extent is quit a bit more then climate scientists have been reporting.
Oh and the weather service is reporting snow for Klamath Oregon.
Drink your beer at your local corner bar and stop wasting everyone’s time with with your cockamamie scam.
michael 🙂
“I have done video conferences. But they don’t replace the real thing. Sorry.”
For one thing, because you have to stay home and don’t get to vacation in exotic parts of the world. Did I say vacation? I meant conference.
I’ve been to conferences, and while they were fun, very little of was ever accomplished. They are primarily a social event disguised as work. I’ve also been involved in video conferences large and small. Some were useful, and some were not, however they took much less time, which I appreciated. The activity that really benefits from face-to-face meetings is politics. So if CACG is really about science, let’s stop wasting their time sending them around the world to attend mostly useless conferences and let them get back to their labs (talking about the Scientists here; I don’t care what DiCaprio and his ilk do).
Another nebulous strawman falsely? Just an aberrant baseless distraction?
I suppose you were one of the trollops harassing Lord Monckton when he posted here about some of the international climate shyster shindigs?
Again, just throwing false claims.
Let’s break this down: From COP21 commonly referred to as “The Paris Agreement”
For example, the agenda:
Well, just look at that; speech followed by lecture after lecture with occasional moderated seminars and round table discussions.
Given by who?
• Nik Gowing, International Broadcaster
• Hosted by Carbon Trade Exchange
• Vinod Kesava, Co-founder, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Climate Resources Exchange
• Bertrand Piccard, Initiator, Chairman and Pilot, Solar Impulse
• President Felipe Calderón, Former President of Mexico, Chairman, Global Commission on the Economy and Climate
• Héla Cheikhrouhou, Executive Director, Green Climate Fund
• Moderator: Eric Usher, Officer in Charge, UNEP FI
• Sean Kidney, Chief Executive Officer and Co-Founder, Climate bonds
• Miguel Albero, Global Head Origination Trade & Working Capital Solutions, Santander
• Michel Madelain, President and Chief Operations Officer, Moody’s Investors Service
• Mark Tercek, President and Chief Executive Officer, The Nature Conservancy
• Patrick Brown, Chief Executive Officer, Impossible Foods
• Jonathan Taylor, Vice-President responsible for Environment and Climate Action, European Investment Bank (EIB)
• Carl Pendragon, Co-Founder, Carbon Wealth
• Moderator: Jane Burston, Founder, Centre for Carbon Measurement; Head, Climate and Environment, UK National Physical Laboratory (NPL)
• Helena Molin Valdes, Head of the Secretariat, Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC), UNEP
• Jake Layes, Director, Global Cleantech & Entrepreneur Impact, Autodesk
• Dean A. Scarborough, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Avery Dennison Corporation
• Sponsored by Climate-KIC
• Tim Groser, Minister Responsible for International Climate Change Negotiations, New Zealand
Wayne Sharpe, Chairman and Founder, Carbon Trade Exchange
• Moderator: Anthony Hobley, Chief Executive Officer, Carbon Tracker Initiative
• Nick Henry, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Climate Action
• Sir David King, FCO Special Representative for Climate Change
• Special Performance by The Green School
That is a mighty impressive list of parasites, troughers, rent seekers, snake oil salespeople and shysters. Definitely not the experts claimed by alarmists and false skeptics.
Either you forgot the tag or you are not really skeptical….
PMK
All scientists are naturally skeptics. It’s part of the job.
No. All scientist in the real world are not.
You have never met a scientist then.
Met plenty of scientist all of them human. To suggest all scientist meet the ideal of being a skeptic is to live in an imaginary world.
Sorry. You are wrong. Scientist are natural skeptics. If you don’t question something, you are quickly out of a job. Unless you go to work for the coal industry after you retire.
ReallySkeptical,
Thank you for confirming that Michael Mann and all of the rest of the self-described “climate scientists” are not scientists.
What are you 15 and believe that all scientist are ideal? Sheesh
Actually it is usually the reverse. If you go against the herd you will be out of a job. Human nature. Scientist are just as prone to it as anybody else. It is why Max Plank said “Science advances one funeral at a time”. The late Thomas Gold lamented that scientist are not skeptical of what they think they already know.
Wow. wow. You guys are so naive that you even realize how stupid you are. Go read one Mann’s grants. Go read any scientist’s grant. look at the questions they ask. If they don’t question a known idea (that’s called a hypothesis) you don’t get funded.
BTW that is why conservatives are such poor scientists. They never question authority.
We’re not naive. We’re cynical. It comes with being world-weary and having to deal with “scientists” who try to write regulations and permits without having a clue about how things are actually run.
ReallySkeptical June 8, 2017 at 6:43 pm
“Wow. wow. You guys are so naive that you even realize how stupid you are.”
Really? We easily see you and your cohorts for what you really are. Con artists. I’ve met used car salesman with more integrity.
As for stupid? We will see how many of the climate crises bunch are still livening off grant money next year.
michael
ReallySkeptical June 8, 2017 at 6:43 pm
Oh by the way, your first post was just after 4:00pm
So you have been communicating for 2hr 45 minutes. Without difficulty.
the people you commented to did not need to share a physical presence with you now did they.
Kind of invalidates all your arguments.
But then it was never about “Climate Change” or preventing it, just about the justification to run off to Pub in London or a Hofbrauhaus in say Munich.
michael
@ ReallySkeptical June 8, 2017 at 6:03 pm
Me thinks you are a prime example of a “brainwashed” individual who is, not of your own fault, incapable of common sense thinking, logical reasoning and/or intelligent deductions. Your parent(s), your School Teachers and/or your chosen mentors are at fault for the misnurtured/miseducated status of the aforenoted mental deficiencies.
Anyway, “YES”, it is true and factual that most “real” scientists are natural skeptics.
But, “so what”, ….. that first statement of yours has nothing whatsoever to do with ….. your second statement of ……. “If you don’t question something, you are quickly out of a job.”
Your 2nd statement simply defines “a decision of/by management”, ….. irrespectively of what the subject matter “in question” is or might be.
Skepticism is a learned skill, troll. And always and never are seldom true.
A few people? If his jet was fitted out like an airliner, he would need to influence a few hundred people PER TRIP!
It’s a small jet. Not an airliner. That’s Trump.
HA! The pollution pig Leo Di ‘Carbon Cap’-rio flew a Sony studios private jet from LA to NY six times in six weeks! Not to worry though, ‘ReallySkeptical’ June 8, 2017 at 5:22 pm assures us “It’s a small jet.”
Leonardo DiCaprio the ‘eco warrior’ flew on a private jet from NY to LA SIX times in SIX weeks, Sony hack documents reveal
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3044176/Leonardo-DiCaprio-eco-warrior-flew-private-jet-NY-LA-SIX-times-SIX-weeks-Sony-hack-documents-reveal.html
According to the documents listed on the Sony hack database, 0n April 17, 2014, DiCaprio flew from Los Angeles to New York at a cost of $63,000 for a filmmaker’s meeting that, it was noted, could only be done in person. His then-girlfriend Toni Garrn was listed as accompanying him on the private jet..
On April 27, they flew back to Los Angeles at a cost of $63,000, plus $3,000 in catering and $300 in car service on each end.
On that trip and other work trips paid for by Sony, DiCaprio was also accompanied by male friends who were members of his infamous ‘pussy posse’ in the late 1990s. They included actors Lukas Haas, Scott Bloom and Vincent Laresca.
ReallySkeptical said: “It’s a small jet. Not an airliner. That’s Trump.” Forgive me, but Obama sent Air Force One off to New York for a photo op and made New York City soil its pants by flying it too low.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/nyregion/28plane.html
Hmmm, “Really Skeptical”, can you have a discussion with 1,000 people at the same time ?
Don’t you just love that just so condescending “I have done video conferences” declarative.
Should we mention that few of us haven’t experienced said dysfunctional virtual messes? Along with equally dysfunctional physical travelling shows.
Nah, let falsely skeptical continue feeling so superior. It’s sort of like watching a previously haughty supercilious cat pretend equanimity while dripping toilet water and beating a hasty retreat.
Any bets falsely skeptical casts cold chills and despairing palls on any get together? Putting new impact into “two’s a crowd” meetings.
“Hmmm, “Really Skeptical”, can you have a discussion with 1,000 people at the same time ?”
No.
Most of 1000 people aren’t interested in talking with me.
But I can ask a question in front of 1000 people. And any one or 10 or even 20 of those 1000 people can have a beer with me afterwards. and they can yell at me. and I can yell back.
What a surprise!
falsely skeptical puts up a thoroughly fake strawman argument and then proceeds to argue the false strawman. What a silly childish attempt.
No one asked that question false in one, false in all.
Nor is anyone interested in your other false speculations. We are amused you do the fake sotto voce in your daydream discussion with yourself.
Or did you perform that personal discussion in the mirror first?
ReallySkeptical,
That is exactly your problem and the problem with so-called “climate change” and so-called “climate scientists” in general. You can’t have a reasonable, rational conversation. To the extent that anyone on the skeptical side may be yelling, it’s because those on the alarmist side have been yelling, attacking, insulting, and censoring anyone who disagrees with them for years
in the first place. After a while, people (i.e. real scientists) get sick of it and start to push back.
Is that why they never have their conferences in a place like Cleveland?
I have attended many large conferences, in the states and internationally. Usually it is difficult to speak with a lot of people at the actual conference but the specialized ones usually organize a list of attendees and later on we can interact and discuss via email or phone. We do get to meet, if briefly, at small conferences. I should add that most of us, being retired and working independently, pay our own freight, we are pretty much self-funded. If Big Oil is throwing money around, we sure ain’t getting it!
PMK
Cleveland? Yes they do. Not the big meetings thou, not enuf venue space.
Plenty of space in Cleveland … just eliminate all the useless junkets.
Ah, the false argument from ignorance.
Falsely skeptical is ignorant of Cleveland’s capabilities, so they are “too small”.
Not a problem, places like Marrakech, Morocco are sooo much bigger… Not!
Agreed Pamela!
I worked for one boss on some international standards, who for various rather spiteful reasons, scheduled international conferences at various large logistical centers; e.g.:
• at the Orly airport hotel
• at airport hotel within Heathrow’s perimeter
• at Chicago’s train yard Ramada
I am not positive, but I believe all three places were at Ramada hotels.
etc.
Yes, he tried to schedule America’s hosting meetings at international sites. He had some airline mileage programs that international flights kept full; allowing him frequent flight upgrades. After opening the meetings, he’d often take a flight to Rome or other favorite city of his; returning only to close out the meeting a few days later.
Yes, the view from the Chicago Ramada windows was of train tracks and train cars; at least every window I tried.
Fortunately, we did find a real pub two blocks away from the Ramada; we got directions from the Ramada staff that felt sorry for us. English roast beef sandwiches, porter on tap, wine if desired, fish and chips for lunch… We didn’t eat at the London Ramada restaurant again.
I did manage to change arrangements for one meeting America hosted to be held at San Antonio’s Riverwalk during late autumn. The international members loved the Riverwalk and many brought their wives. I received only a few comments about spices and food, but a lot of “thank you’s”.
San Antonio’s accommodations purchase order went through because the boss who treated the international members with such contempt was on vacation; while his temporary replacement swooned over how cheap the San Antonio costs were. San Antonio was far cheaper than the mega-cities the boss guy favored.
That boss guy booted me off his international team, but I got Christmas cards and letters from quite a few of the international members for years.
Terrific group of people, but most of the work was done, as usual, by individuals working closely with other interested parties, sharing drafts and comments. Final drafts would be shared just before meetings, where inevitably they suffered the same fate repeatedly. Documents were eventually finalized, signed by us, signed by our bosses at home and ratified by the international assembly.
The only advantage the international meeting actually accomplished was gathering us together so we physically met each other and became coworkers.
Right, so everyone else has to give up their FTF time, but not the climate scientist. The whole point of this suggestion is to point out that they say that others should make this sacrifice, but they themselves will not. They of course could, but that would mean that they would have to give up the perks of travel. Obviously if climate change is important enough for others to give up this perk, it should be important enough for them to give it up too.
They could run a conference over the internet if they wanted too. There are many options available, with quite a few that will even take video participation from the audience for Q&A time, with chat as a fallback. I have participated in a few myself, with thousands of audience members and a half dozen separate speakers. The technology gets better every day, and the more people use it the better it will get.
Stop covering for their hypocrisy. If they want us to give up these perks they should lead by example.
Of course if man is not the primary driver of climate then the justification for cutting back on FTF and travel time is much harder to justify. . .
Well, you talk as if it is easy, but there is no easy way to communicate your research but in a scientific meeting. So, until there is another way (waiting) there is nothing but jets.
These Climate Change conferences really are needed for the attenders to personally support each other in the faith – not unlike many other religious conferences.
“there is no easy way to communicate your research but in a scientific meeting.”
Take out the words “easy” and “scientific” to understand how you come across.
I am a physician and an academic and I routinely teleconference and attend educational and other conferences remotely. It is completely feasible and just needs more initiative to make it happen. Asking questions is perhaps even easier and more democratic as they can be submitted electronically and don’t require the usually wrestle for the microphone. Speakers typically provide contacts for follow-up questions. There is nothing in the way of doing this but inertia and the desire to travel at other’s expense
You can’t just jump up and down and yell really loudly when they don’t give you the mike?
Channeling Sam Donaldson.
Just kidding.
ROFL ReallySkeptical – we need to make an exception for the climate aristocracy. Rules are for the little people.
Exactly! The powerful have always lived by a different set of rules than the plebians/peasants/serfs. Has this site turned into a hotbed of socialism with the regulars suggesting that there is something wrong with the rich behaving destructively (pretending for a moment that jetting really is destructive). Just to be clear, the WUWT regulars are being sarcastic because they don’t really believe there is a problem with jetsetting and those justifying the jetsetting are not being sarcastic because they don’t believe there is anything wrong with the natural world order of different rules for the rich? I am so confused.
I has in the business world before grad school, and there are many many meetings that could have been done over Skype except it wasn’t invented yet. Those business trips could be stopped easily. From talking with friends in business, they travel allot, so I am thinking Skype is not in their business plan.
Scientists typically go to one sometimes two meetings a year. Usually one is nearby, a car or van. Then one big meeting, more $$, and more important. So do you think that the science “aristocracy” travel more than the equivalent in industry? I don’t think so.
but the thing is, who said stop traveling? the climate scientists? No. They say invent renewable sources of energy and figure out how to use them. So this article is completely based on false premises.
I’m working on a new start-up venture called SPA (Solar Powered Airlines) that is auto-piloted and carries only one thin person at a time – (no luggage or carry-ons allowed). We are looking for investors, so if you are interested – oh, sorry, I forgot that you are really skeptical.
Why are people paying attention to ReallySkeptical, let alone responding to him?
Yes rules are for little people – meanwhile the ‘eletes’ pay homage in the desert – Di Caprio was a bit late – missed his private plane –
?w=640
you forgot to say its for the children…
why do thousands have to attend these conferences, virtual or otherwise? How about one delegate from each country involved?
Actually, good, ‘ol Lennie can have it both ways. There are plenty of sumptuous sailing yachts in all the hot conference spots. Sail there, save the planet, cut OCO emissions, make it into a movie complete with icebergs, whales, porpoises, sharks eating the guy who fell overboard, sea turtles.
Can’t wait to see it.
Polar bears, there has to be be polar bears
The Stockholm is strong with you.
ReallySkeptical writes “You have no idea what you are saying.”
Is that true also for you?
I suspect, but cannot prove, that each person writing does indeed have an idea what he is saying. However, if YOU have an idea of what you are saying, then it seems reasonable that each person writing has an idea of what he is saying.
As I have participated in online classroom training the assertions about moderators seems correct. Voice bridges tend not to be able to handle large numbers of simultaneous voice streams because the echo canceller cannot function. So everyone is muted except the caller that is given the microphone, figuratively speaking. It actually leads to improved order and discipline when it is possible for only one person at a time to speak to the group; rather than 4/5ths of the group speaking at once and nobody listening.
At any rate, you are chasing a squirrel (as are others); the point is that Leo sabotages his credibility except of course among those who have given him a “green pass”.
Please tell me what intellectual or political value Di Caprio brings to a global warming conference. If it is just to raise awareness, he could achieve the same results staying home and making a promo. I seriously doubt if you or anyone else would need to ask him a relevant question over beers afterwards. The same goes for Al Gore, Bill Nye, and many other participants.
If you really want to get work done and only involve the required people, then why aren’t these conferences held at a central location where there are few distractions? For example, I believe the geographical center of the contiguous 48 states in the US is Topeka, Kansas, or close to it. Why aren’t the US meetings held there and not places like… Hawaii? You know that’s going to attract unnecessary attendees, generating a far larger carbon dioxide footprint for the meeting.
Perhaps it is because those closest to the problem recognize that it isn’t worth the sacrifice.
But, but … how can the delegate from Upper Volta have a chance to rub elbows with a REAL MOVIE STAR or even DiCaprio, if they are not there in person? And have you ever tried to get a decent piña colada in Topeka? Honestly, you don’t know what these climate conferences are all about./sarc
And don’t forget these international climate conferences employ *thousands* of locals to support the delegates in the lifestyle to which they’ve become accustomed. It’s all about the conspicuous consumption. Let’s face it, the Paris Accord was such a bowl of mush it could’ve been hammered out in a few telephone calls, no need to blow millions of dollars on a ritzy conference in Gstaad. The point is to value signal the rest of the world how concerned the UN delegates are AND have a good time.
the most important item at every conference, the one thing that has priority over all others, is to decide the date of the next conference. everything else is window dressing.
And the one thing that has priority over all others at each day’s conference meetings, …… is to decide on which 4-Star “restaurant and bar” the different groups will met at for dinner each evening.
“ReallySkeptical” is “really stupid”.
He thinks we need to radically change *our* lifestyles, but his ability to drink a beer and hustle chicks after a conference is too important to sacrifice for his allegedly holy climate crusade.
Shove off, troll.
“Fighting climate change” puts me in mind of one of those really stupid moths who keep slamming themselves over and over into a light bulb.
ReallySkeptical, you chose the wrong handle. Try “ReallyStupid”.
Ooooooookay, to those who thought this “ReallySkeptical” was a chump/tr0ll, he decided to open his mouth and prove it.
International Conferences represent the ”icing-on-the-cake” for all Cause-Clamouring Gravy-Trainers. First Class all the way; 5 Star accomms; limo-transportation everywhere courtesy of the host-government, and a big fat expenses budget for the participants, courtesy of their employers/promoters.
Most participants are otherwise bereft of such treatment …. wouldn’t *you* do or say anything that might exclude *you* from an invitation to share life according to the egregious diCaprcious-esque lifestyle? And the chance to personally kiss his assignated parts..ners on the cheeks?
Good, I have been pounding this on facebook and other venues recently, especially for Obama and his buddies on a huge private yacht that burns even more fossil fuel than the private aircraft. Obama had probably the greatest carbon footprint than anyone and he continues to be a huge HYPROCRITE.
It is time for the media to expose those who want others to sacrifice and pay carbon taxes.
While I applaud the effort, if the reality is that one’s “carbon footprint” really doesn’t matter regarding a warming of the atmosphere, then why worry about how someone gets to a conference?
I do agree though: real scientists can discuss real science with peers anywhere in the world through video conferencing, so why not use it whenever possible?
Agreed that a carbon footprint doesn’t matter, but these people are trying to impose onerous taxes on the rest of us. Look at the Gas Hog Tax. Affects me, because I like performance cars, but I don’t make millions a year like DiCaprio. I paid a lot more for electricity when I lived in Kalifornia to support bird-grinders and cookers (Tonopah). The money we give to the UN to “fight” climate change comes from my tax money.
These clowns should feel some of the pain we do, instead of just using it as way to see the world.
I know, we are pointing out the hypocrisy of that group – yelling about how terrible CO2 emissions are while “carbon bigfooting” around the planet.
These are the people who believe that the “carbon footprint” matters – but they don’t behave that way. They should lead by example, not to dictate to the rest of us.
I only care if a) that person condemns having a “large carbon footprint”, b) that person demonizes air travel by others, c) that person expects me to pay for their travel (using taxpayer dollars, etc.), and/or d) that person advocates for economic policies that will negatively affect me, on the grounds that carbon emissions are (supposedly) negatively affecting the planet.
if the reality is that one’s “carbon footprint” really doesn’t matter
=================
what matter is the example the person sets. telling your children not to swear, while you continue to swear, ensures that your children will swear in later life.
the same is true of famous people. when they set a bad example other people copy them, because they want to be famous themselves.
The rights of the elites to dictate to the Hoi polloi is an important perquisite when you are an elite…otherwise you are just people. They need all that luxury and rights, and it is our obligation not to partake, so they can fly freely to where ever they like and not be in their way. After all, why should they queue with the rest of us?
++++ X 1,000
No more vacations, I mean meetings in luxurious places at the tax payers’ expenses? That would be very bad for French Champagne growers – and may be the real reason behind France’s enthusiasm about fighting climate change.
And then the warmists write articles wondering why people do not care about GW, when it is quite obvious that the people talking about it most also do nothing about it.
..Was this caused by the “Trump Effect” or the “WUWT Effect” ??
I have a client whose Sustainability Director is crying in his cups over this. No more funded junkets to Paris and other exotic destinations. No more bragging around the “covfefe” machine brag about wasting company funds. I love it.
I love how the MSM pretended it couldn’t decipher the “covfefe” tweet ! I knew what was intended by the body of the sentence…They can’t be that stoooopid, can they ?
President Trump was quite correct in the use of the word “covfefe”. It’s the early English spelling of “kerfuffle”. Anybody who has read Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales would have recognized it immediately. The President didn’t elaborate on his choice of that word because he didn’t want to appear to be pedantic and snobbish. Kudos to him! I wish more people would show such consideration for us, the great unwashed masses.
Wonder if Trump even knowns what the Canterbury Tales are.
RS
For those of us of similar age to Trump, Canterbury Tales or parts of it were required school reading. On the other hand, there are some kids today that can’t read “Dick and Jane”. But then again, only us old fossils probably recognize that title also.
PS. Note how little CO2 was used in this discussion.
(From a teleconferencing / videoconferencing veteran of many decades)
DJT graduated with respectable grades from an Ivy League school, so he’s not a dunce.
I suppose he probably has heard of the Canterbury Tales, but I doubt that “covfefe” is cognate or in any way remotely related to “kerfuffle”.
Please show me wrong, if I am.
The Tales are written in Middle English, not “early” English, whatever that means. The forms of English recognized by linguists are Old English (aka Anglo-Saxon, before c. AD 1100), Middle English (which is basically Modern English with Old English vowel sounds, c. AD 1100 to 1450) and Modern English, which is subdivided into Early Modern (to include Shakespeare) and, well, Modern Modern English, when the vowel shift became complete.
“DJT graduated with respectable grades from an Ivy League school.”
.
How do you know they are “respectable?” They have never been made public. He never made deans list.
..
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/real-time/Questions-linger-Donald-Trump-academic-record-Wharton.html
“They can’t be that stoooopid, can they ?”
Yes they can, and then even more when the opportunity arises.
There is no local, state, national or international Law that stipulates which person(s) or group(s) are authorized to coin new verbiage, therefore if President Trump wants to coin a new word with the spelling of “covfefe” then that is his prerogative and/or personal decision and iffen you don’t agree with it then “tuff feces”, ……. just “shove it” and you know where.
During the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s there were literally thousands of new words coined for defining that which was happening/occurring as a result of computer design/development and the Dot.Com Revolution, …. as well as was new definitions were coined for use with already defined words …… and no one complained, bitched or badmouthed anyone for all the new coinage in vocabulary words/terms.
And, ps, ….. hows come you consummate “kibitzers” are not railing about all the silly arsed verbiage being touted by the pharmaceutical industry in their TV advertisments?
There’s example after example out there like the time the climate charlatan flew to Kyoto to sign the accord, flew back to the US later for a fund-raiser then flew back to Japan to speak about the crisis. Remember when then-POTUS flew to Nebraska, drove the 28-vechicle motorcade to Lincoln, I think, to talk to the young mother to tell her not to worry about “climate change” that he was doing all he could. Or when he flew to Yosemite to talk “global warming” failing to tell you that without it, he’d be under nice…or his flight to Tahoe to talk about the permanent drought caused by “climate change”….
If there was a “crisis” they all would be setting an example of how to live a low-carbon existence, using technology and touting why, how they are true leaders.
However, it’s not about the climate…They are all talk, no walk. Typical socialist way…live in squalor as we dictate for you are a “useful idiot” and work to keep us in power.
Let’s see how long Glenn Harlan Reynolds remains an Opinion columnist. Any bets?
$100.00 dollars at 1 day ?
Glen has a blog https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/ Do not think he will have problems getting published.
He has been doing it for quite a while and still there. The stupid can be quite strong in the comments section.
Glenn Reynolds created and runs Instapundit. Always a good read.
He’s been a contributor at USA Today for quite awhile. It was via his blog that I found wattsupwiththat. I still read him every day. He has good stuff. He’s a professor of law at the University of Tennessee. Here is his Wikipedia page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Reynolds
The larger a meeting,
The greater numbers attending meetings,
The more distant and separated committee/commission attendees,
The harder it is to state and maintain one’s positions,
The harder it is to ensure meeting members get benefit, apply influence, exchange discussion.
Giant, i.e. large extended virtual meetings are less useful than watching television or concerts.
Rather than push for international conferences be virtual;
push for said conferences to be held where minimal accommodations await,
Insist attendees take the low cost transportation.
Eliminate the side benefits of conferences serving as elite vacation spots.
Expect attendees to help harvest their food from local farms, fishing trawlers, etc.
A) The total number of vacation attendees will plummet.
B) Desire for interminable lethally boring speeches will evaporate.
C) Grandstanding attention seeking glitterati and politicians will flee.
As one of my bosses used to state:
• “If you like to travel, you’ll stay one place.”
• “If you hate travel, you’ll never be home.”
• “If you love deskwork, you work in operations.”
• “If you hate deskwork, you’ll never stand up to work.”
• “If you hate night wok, you’ll never work days.”
• “If you love night work, you’ll work 7AM-4PM.”
• “If you like sun and fair weather, you will be assigned to dismal rainy locations”.
Now he, knew how to make employee miserable.
But the mechanism is viable.
Take away international glamor, exotic locales, quality food, rich accommodations and return said attendees back to their dull dreary lives; and the whole international travelling climate circus drops out.
Simple 2 questions for liberals and “Greenies”
What would happen if CO2 increased to 650 PPM ?..We don’t know..
What would happen if CO2 decreased to 150 PPM ? Annihilation of all life !
Butch,
my sentiments for a long time.
And at 280ppm the world was only 80ppm away from meaningful plant life beginning to die, and 130ppm away from human extinction.
And the only meaningful evidence that CO2 is affecting mankind is that the planet is greening.
If mankind’s burning of fossil fuels and CO2 emissions are influencing the planet (which I don’t believe) isn’t it extraordinary that humankind happened along, and discovered industry, at precisely the right moment in time, liberating hitherto naturally, but accidentally sequestered CO2 back into the atmosphere?
Were I at all religious, I would be proclaiming it a miracle by divine intervention.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Gaya is back. 🙂
Hopefully these criticisms will motivate DeCaprio to look into the other side of the argument and come to realize that there is no “climate crisis.” And perhaps USA Today
will do so also – they might even attempt to explain why they think there is a climate crisis.
They also might explain why they apparently think the future with respect to emissions, is not a low emission future, with electric cars and molten salt nuclear reactors about to take the stage. Oh, that’s right :these visionaries never heard of molten salt reactors.
Remove first and business class from aircraft, see how many more people can fit in a plane to reduce number of craft and thereby emissions.
Only own one property of moderate size. Sell off second properties after dividing into apartments, thereby supplying accommodation for millions. Think of the natural resources saved.
Own only one car of moderate size per family.
Eat only what your body needs for health and survival.
Travel by public transport.
Install only opening windows in all buildings, even in skyscrapers limit openings to 4-6inches to get rid of air conditioners.
Remove all air conditioning from buildings other than hospitals, nursing homes and pre-school buildings.
Get rid of flashy lighting for concerts, use no electric musical instruments.
Abandon any further development in desert (hot or cold) areas.
Etc, etc, etc.
I’m sure dozens more could be added.
Then you really would believe in catastrophic climate change.
An essay extract, mocking Climate Alarmists, from well known London based Australian, Clive James (author, critic, broadcaster, satirist, poet, translator and memoirist) titled:
‘Western climate change alarmists won’t admit they are wrong.’
“In Gulliver’s Travels he (Swift) populated his flying island of Laputa with scientists busily using rubber numbers to predict dire events. He called these scientists “projectors”. At the basis of all the predictions of the projectors was the prediction that the Earth was in danger from a Great Comet whose tail was “ten hundred thousand and fourteen” miles long. I should concede at this point that a sardonic parody is not necessarily pertinent just because it is funny; and that although it might be unlikely that the Earth will soon be threatened by man-made climate change, it might be less unlikely that the Earth will be threatened eventually by an asteroid, or let it be a Great Comet; after all, the Earth has been hit before.
That being said, however, we can note that Swift has got the language of artificial crisis exactly right, to the point that we might have trouble deciding whether he invented it or merely copied it from scientific voices surrounding him. James Hansen is a Swiftian figure. Blithely equating trains full of coal to trains full of people on their way to Auschwitz, the Columbia University climatologist is utterly unaware that he has not only turned the stomachs of the informed audience he was out to impress, he has lost their attention.
Paleoclimatologist Chris Turney, from the University of NSW, who led a ship full of climate change enthusiasts into the Antarctic to see how the ice was doing under the influence of climate change and found it was doing well enough to trap the ship, could have been invented by Swift. (Turney’s subsequent Guardian article, in which he explained how this embarrassment was due only to a quirk of the weather and had nothing to do with a possible mistake about the climate, was a Swiftian lampoon in all respects.)
Compulsorily retired now from the climate scene, Rajendra Pachauri, formerly chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was a zany straight from Swift, by way of a Bollywood remake of The Party starring the local imitator of Peter Sellers; if Dr Johnson could have thought of Pachauri, Rasselas would be much more entertaining than it is.”
Clive James’ essay may be found at this link (may be pay walled).
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/western-climate-change-alarmists-wont-admit-they-are-wrong/news-story/892c0088ec01f9186e068f55f2ca6794
John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia
Clive is a brilliant thinker, observationalist and the ultimate sceptic, of everything. Probably more of a scientist than most scientists.
What I really like about his essay though, is that he takes aim at his own profession, journalism, rather than disputing the science itself.
With the best will in the world and the greatest of respect to the honest scientists working on climate change questions, this AGW debate was never about the science, which I think we all recognise.
We need more people like Clive who are prepared to expose complicit professions from within, focussing on their expertise rather than being dragged into a scientific debate they can’t win; I mean, just look at the scientific casualties who faced up to academia, the media, and politicians.
What the rich and the Hollywood celebs have discovered, is that if you have a huge, excessive lifestyle of megayachts, multiple mansions, private jets, and vast carbon footprint, if you scream about how terrible carbon dioxide is and how everyone else should cut back, the enviros are okay with you. You won’t get boycotted. The more people point out how excessive your lifestyle is, the louder you can scream about what others should do, to neutralize the criticism. If you must visit the president or a few politicians for photo-op stroke fests, that that really helps too. Then you can just get back to what you were doing, burning untold sums of fossil fuels every day and never installing one photovoltaic cell on your property ever.
Let’s just imagine that there really was an AGW crisis, and the only thing that could lessen the looming catastrophe was for everyone to immediately stop burning fossil fuels. Certainly those who truly could see what was about to happen would immediately slash there fossil fuel use to the bone, not just to set an example, but to do anything they could to avert the disaster themselves.
Why is that not happening?
Because the originators of the crisis are not doing it.
Why are they not doing it?
Because it isn’t necessary. They know that if the atmosphere warmed 3 degrees in a hundred years that it would probably do a lot more good than harm. They also know that such warming is highly unlikely. Contrary to what many here believe, they are not stupid. They are very clever. They have found away to convince a large percentage of the general population (and nearly 100% of journalists), to freely give up their power, freedom and wealth to this ‘elite’ group of individuals, in such away that they do it willingly!
Where I come from, this is called; Irish Diplomacy. The art of telling someone to go to hell, and having them look forward to the trip.
Seriously, if there really was a looming crisis, those who started this would have been ‘setting the example’ 30 years ago. Didn’t happen. It won’t happen, because there is no crisis. This whole climate nonsense is about a small group of people trying to get more wealth and power. People who want wealth and power do not voluntarily choose to live like the Amish!
It is simply not a winning strategy to tell the world that you want to dictate how everyone must live because they are too stupid to do it themselves, and then insist that you get paid huge sums of money and receive a great deal of praise for being such an a$$hole. But if you can find a noble cause that allows you to do the same thing and look good…cha-ching!
For thirty years they have been successful: grants, exotic trips, prestige, recognition, power, media attention, authority and probably even a better sex life. (there are always groupies for this type of stuff.) Eventually, the climate will diverge from their fear-mongering so much, that the whole paradigm will collapse, but what do they care? Paul Ehrlich has proven over and over again that there is no punishment for being wrong! They will still be seen as powerful people with prestige and gravitas, which is part of what they have wanted from the very beginning.
These ‘self-anointed elites’ love that we spend our time bashing Leonardo, because it actually gives credence to their ruse, in a twisted way. We are playing inside of their story line when we call Mr. DiCaprio a hypocrite. If there is no problem with the climate, then Leonardo DiCaprio is just delusional. If we call him a hypocrite, we are passively recognising the crisis story. More importantly, we are focused on a Hollywood actor instead of the fact that we are all marks of a well organized group of grifters.
“Come around tomorrow…I will take you again!”
Why are they not doing it?
Because it isn’t realistic to change the global industrial/technical economies to renewables overnight.
Instead there are plans to adapt at a reasonable, but rapid rate.
And yet you are the product of a coal based income family!
How ironic that “Griff” replies to a comment about Grifters. Starting to understand how he got his name.
At least you finally said something with a bit of truth. “Because it isn’t realistic to change the global industrial/technical economies to renewables overnight.” Of course the debate is whether we need renewables at all.
It won’t happen. Simply, it would takeaway their self importance. They want face to face, in person self indulgence and adulation, in swank locales, seeing the personalities and stars, the excitement and color. These are not problem solvers, nor do they want to solve a problem. And of course, elites exempt themselves from the prescriptions for others.
Trump is a giant! Nothing stinky is too big to fail. We’re he president with the big financial crisis that Obama faced, he would have let these stinkers fail. The stinkers even gave themselves $100million bonuses with the bail out. I now realize that this is the Dems default position. Obama got the instructions on this.
Hillary made big well paid speeches to Wall street ensuring them they were safe with her. We never got to see the speeches. Everyone wanted Trump’s tax returns – knowing that the Dems IRS would never let Trump get away with a nickel. It would have been a circus if they were released no matter what they revealed. Look at the Comey news. The Dems and the demmy MSM reported it the way they wanted it to be. Comey said Trump wasn’t under investigation but they reported the reverse with the usual innuendo.
DiCaprio and his ilk are not really interested in climate change. They are solely into naked self promotion. The real treasonous are those who invite them and provide adulation.
If you believe that the burning of fossil fuels is bad then stop making use of all goods and services that make use of fossil fuels. Remember it is your money that keeps the fossil fuel companies in business. You need to move to an off grid subsistance farm that is totally remote from the rest of the world. For humans to stop making use of fossil fuels, our population will have to be substantially reduced to what it was in the past when mankind did not make use of fossil fuels.
Why? What we need to do is support the companies and governments already making the change.
Shop at Walmart maybe: heading for 100% renewable power and saving the company millions of dollars in the process:
https://www.edie.net/news/8/Wal-Mart-kickstarts-energy-storage-project-to–increase-reliance–on-renewables/
Or IKEA perhaps…
Did you vote Griff? Did you betray those who voted before? Cameron and May are tory cowards. Cameron, and thus May had the mandate to exit the EU. So now we have what was not predicted (Funny that).
BTW, I will not shop at any store that supports “renewables”…so listen up retailers!
The companies you cite still move products via modes of trassportation that involves the use of fossil fuels. They sell products whose creation and manufacture has involved the use of fossil fuels. They do business with customers who make use of modes ot transportation that involves the use of fossil fuels. They are not close to becoming 100% reliable on renewable power.
He’s still alive? I thought he sank with the Titanic. Oh well some movies are too good to be true
I kid you not there are people who think the Titanic sinking didn’t happen, the story in the movie is fiction.
As with most movies “based on a true story”, much of it is fiction, probably even most.
A Rose by any other name would have still let him drown.
One needs to look at the numbers for the Paris accord to decide of all the following is necessary or just a big party at taxpayer expense with a huge carbon footprint
I’m not sure if the CO 2 emissions stated are complete, but I do wonder how these are actually offset. Sounds like Al Gore and other elites purchasing indulgences for his excesses that peons cannot afford to me. Are 20,000 people required to accomplish a non binding agreement?
“20,000 people credited to attend the conference.
21,000 metric tonnes of CO2 the conference is expected to emit and offset.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/30/paris-climate-summit-in-numbers
Here are the crucial numbers:
1 global negotiating text.
2020 – the date when an agreement would come into force.
2C – the amount global temperatures can rise by to provide a chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change, as agreed at prior negotiations.
3C – the amount global temperatures are predicted to rise by if all the current national commitments to cut emissions are implemented.
4-6C – the amount global temperatures are predicted to rise by with no action.
20 – the number of years global climate negotiations have been ongoing.
89 pages in the negotiating text in June.
20 pages in the negotiating text in early October.
50+ pages in the final negotiating text for the conference.
90 new electric vehicle charge points installed in Paris for the conference.
Advertisement
134 – the number of countries in the G77 coalition of developing nations.
147 – the number of heads of state and government who will attend the opening day of the talks.
150 – the number of countries hosting climate marches over the opening of the conference.
166 countries have submitted national commitments to reduce their emissions.
196 – the number of parties to the UN’s framework convention.
3,000 – the number of journalists the COP media facilities can accommodate.
Nearly 6,000 journalists have applied for accreditation.
2,800 police at the conference venue.
8,000 police deployed to carry out border checks during conference.
20,000 people credited to attend the conference.
21,000 metric tonnes of CO2 the conference is expected to emit and offset.
$100bn (£67bn) promised annually to developing countries by 2020 to help them deal with climate change
Personally I vow to live my life has ‘green ‘ as St Gore and DiCaprio , although this does means having to fly a lot more , buy a much bigger house and some beach front property , and a garage full of high end cars. I consider such a sacrifice to be acceptable in the interest of ‘saving the planet ‘ , after all will someone think of the children .
You didn’t mention “World Peace”
“although this does means having to fly a lot more”
Hopefully it also means reading over your comments before clicking the button.
“These proposals are just the beginning, and I’m sure that enterprising members of Congress and various state legislatures can come up with more. ”
I really despise the notion that only authoritarian measures can accomplish their goals. There is a built in assumption I guess that even the people who believe this nonsense will not take it upon themselves to change their consumption patterns.
We need to scream this from the rafters: If you believe CO2 is a problem them stop using fossil fuels yourself! And kindly leave me alone. These people all failed to learn to learn the one lesson from kindergarten: Don’t hurt people and don’t take their stuff.
Yes………the carbon pigs or the carbon bourgeoisie.
Climate change is not a threat; it’s a four-course dinner for the Concerned™
Hey guys, you do know that Leo is a professional actor, do you? He is hired to play a role. It’s all fake! He is no more a real concerned environmentalist than William Shatner is a real cop or commander of the Enterprise.
Grow up!
Grow up? That’s your response to gross hypocrisy?
On reading the whole USA Today article, at the end I was left wondering was the author serious in his proposals or should there have been a /Sarc tag at the end?
Further irony – the ad that just popped up was for flying by private jet (flex jet) Ha ! Too funny!
Celebrities are celebrities because they figure out how to stay in the limelight and that’s how you get the good roles, acting ability a minor issue, good looks help. One of the tools, to have a good agent. So when your agent says, “you better support a cause”, you support a cause.
I saw a program on recycled garbage into FASHION clothing.. as I recall all the people promoting it FLEW in their jets to NYC..to show a few models wearing paper dresses..I think Gore went to to give an award to the CRAFTY green-conscious designer who put 17 cents of used paper into a very ugly dress…. I SWEAR this is true!! wish I could remember the year..must be excess CO2 in my brain.
So called hypocrisy…
The trouble with this tactic, like pointing out private jets and multiple mansions is that you are buying into the unproven theory that these things create CO2 and create global warming or climate change.
So what if they create extra CO2. It should be pointed out that it doesn’t matter. CO2 is a good thing as far as I can see. I agree with Dr. Patrick Moore.
We should make sure real pollution is controlled, but extra CO2 is beneficial.