HuffPost Notices Academic Climate Hypocrisy

Green Pass

Nobody seems to mind, if a “Green” clocks up a lot of air miles.

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Huffington Post has noticed that many university academics are utter climate hypocrites, that many of them rate their personal importance by how many professional air miles they can accumulate every year.

The Climate Change Hypocrisy Of Jet-Setting Academics

By Nives Dolšak and Aseem Prakash

03/31/2018 09:00 am ET

Recently, we witnessed a fascinating conversation among a few of our professorial colleagues about their frequent flyer status on a prominent airline. Two of them had achieved “Diamond” status ― the very top of the priority boarding pecking order. They spoke the most and were the loudest. The others, with either Platinum or Gold frequent flyer medallions, also noted how “busy” they were with “all this travel.”

The group casually mentioned the various benefits ― such as seating upgrades and access to airport lounges ― that come with their statuses, but the bragging was not really about those perks. It was about importance and recognition. After all, only the most successful academics fly around the world, attending conferences, participating in workshops and giving lectures. Congratulations all around!

But while these universities are working to help their communities take on climate change, academics are accumulating big carbon footprints with their jet-setting professional styles. As The New York Times noted, “Your Biggest Carbon Sin May Be Air Travel.”

This is a notable disconnect between what universities preach and what their culture incentivizes and their star professors do. Academics are probably among the people most aware of the threats posed by climate change. But might their own carbon-profligate lifestyles undermine their moral authority to demand that coal miners, Teamsters working on oil pipelines and mining-dependent Native American tribes sacrifice their own economic well-being to fight climate change?

Read more:

The author notes that in 2014, University of Washington academics submitted claims for 136 million miles of professional travel – enough for a return trip to Mars.

This issue goes beyond feeling outraged at the blatant climate hypocrisy.

Why should any of us take academic warnings about anthropogenic CO2 seriously, when behind closed doors those same academics demonstrate their true level of concern by competing with each other to create the largest possible professional carbon footprint?


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Jimmy Haigh

What’s this? More liberal/leftie hypocrisy? Surely not!

Bill Powers

Don’t you know who I am? Do as i say not as I do all you little people


Some pigs are more equal than others.


Why does this egregious hypocrisy of climate “scientists” come as no surprise?




+1010 no pressure

“First, transparency.” (Quote from the article.) The authors, who are UOW professors, then neglect to reveal how many air miles they have sinned in the past year. Travel is evil, we should all be on foot or on bicycles. No, wait, bicycles are made in factories, which are also evil. Welcome to the new Dark Ages.

Fille du Fleuve

It doesn’t matter how many air miles the authors of this article have accumulated, because they aren’t preaching at people to return to the Dark Ages and face famine and dire poverty.

I’ll start believing that CO2 might be a problem when the people who claim it’s a problem start acting like it’s a problem …


Looks like a high carbon production.

Anto, as you might remember, flew in a massive private helicopter from London to Oxford in order to deliver a “we’re all doomed!” climate change lecture. Just to keep up the facade, he pulled a bicycle out of the chopper and pedaled the final few hundred metres.

Paul Penrose

The bicycle part was the most insulting.


Like ordering a double cheeseburger, a large side of fries, and a DIET coke.


Agree 100%. It’s tough to believe in someone’s statements when they obviously do not.


Pop Piasa

I’ll start reading the Huff Post when they realize CO2 is not the primary driver of global temps.


Sweden introduces aviation tax in effort to help climate
Passengers departing from Swedish airports will be hit with an extra charge of between 60 and 400 kronor ($7 and $48) depending on where they are flying to. The charge will apply to everyone except flight crews, passengers stopping without changing planes and babies being carried in a guardian’s arms.


These liberal elites get so upset when we are unwilling to change our lifestyle to fight climate change, yet here they are bragging about who among them has the biggest carbon footprint. If they really believed their own hype about catastrophic climate change, wouldn’t they want to set an example for everyone else?


Could it be said that they are hoist by their own shibboleths? No. Oh, well. “Educated” hypocrites do as all hypocrites do and it’s especially true of those who have achieved the status of highly educated ignoramuses who have weaonized their own ignorance and delusions.


That’s why, as annoying as he can be, I have some respect for Ed Begley Jr. – at least he walks the talk.
Granted, he gets crazy if you challenge him, but he’s no hypocrite at least.

Ed Zuiderwijk

How many air miles have Al Gore and his Flying Circus accumulated over the past decade?


Doesn’t Al Gore claim to be Climate Neutral?


Of course Al is carbon neutral. For every pound of carbon dioxide he produces powering his many mansions, flying incessantly about the world, or running global media events, he prevents someone else from producing one by encouraging countries to run various scams like carbon ‘markets’ and taxes that force everyone else to use less energy.
Heck, isn’t that the DEFINITION of a carbon market? Forcing those who can’t afford to produce CO2 to sell their ‘credits’ to those can. Rewarding virtue signaling and penalizing actual productivity. Why, It’s Economic Marxism of the purist form, completely divorced from value and worth.

Tom in Florida

He’d be better off if he was calorie neutral.

Michael Jankowski

At one time he had the company of a board he sat-on pay for carbon credits to offset his travels, so he pretended jet-setting across the globe was being done responsibly.


Al Gore used to, and probably still does, purchase the carbon credit offsets for his travel from a carbon trading company controlled by his Generation Investment Management climate fund…


Or Arnie:
“…six years after leaving Sacramento, he’s still reinventing himself—as a kind of globetrotting do-gooder, promoting a handful of causes like fighting climate change and gerrymandering.
But mostly, he’s having a hell of a good time. Wherever he goes, everybody knows him. Everybody loves him.
With a net worth estimated at $300 million, he zips around the world in private jets and has restaurant owners pick up his tab because they’re just so honored he chose to eat there.
Constant selfies. He sounds off on whatever he wants, but has no actual responsibility. His perfect day is waking up and not knowing what country he’ll eat dinner in.”

Carbon Bigfoot

That’s why his cardiovascular system is for shit. So much for Conan the Magnificent.


Sounds like a couple of former presidents. And most celebrities.

Mumbles McGuirck

” Everybody loves him.”
Especially the maids. 😉


If only someone invented some kind of televisual method of meeting but I can’t imagine that would happen in these ‘professorial colleagues’ lifetimes — not while all the BIG BUCKS keep rolling in!

Moderately Cross of East Anglia

Right and don’t forget all those people involved looking after these hypocrites to ensure they are waited on hand and foot and fed – in fact the very people whose lives these academics are happy to screw up. Weapons grade stupidity and hypocrisy hardly begins to describe these academics.

Dr Deanster

Weapons Grade Stupidity …… now that’s a good one!

Pop Piasa

WGS… Most often observed in combination with an extreme desire to leave a “big mark” on society.

Russ Wood

There are EXCELLENT televisual meeting programs – my wife uses one to give Webinars on her professional speciality. The particular one she uses is ‘Zoom’, but there are many others.
Ah! But then the ‘climate experts’ wouldn’t be able to spend a week in a nice resort at someone else’s expense! (Probably the taxpayers’).

James Bull

A friend of mine runs just such a company used by many to hold meetings and presentations for all sorts of industries world wide. But of course the elite have to have it better than the likes of us.
James Bull


When its the Huffington Post that has noticed this hypocrisy – you really have to take notice…!

When the Puffington Host notices hypocrisy, the hypocrisy is of truly monumental proportions, especially if it occurs amongst its own anointed ones. The main support of CO2 Global Warming Alarmism is held firmly in place by the Group Dynamic rewarding true belief and systematically punishing criticism or analysis of the hollow shell of CO2 Global Warming Alarmism, which would harm the acolyte’s benefits.

Hokey Schtick

Academics are so very important. A PhD literally makes you a better person.


Source please.


It’s peer reviewed science! So it MUST be true!
(No, you can’t look at the data. Why should I let you when you just want to find something wrong with it?)

Pop Piasa

Well, I think we’ve come along some, in my youth a fellow had to be a WASP PhD to be the better person.

Javert Chip

…and 97% of them agree.

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia

’round here, to most ordinary people, it usually designates that you are some kind of bludger.

Huff post may have noticed the hypocrisy – but as far as academics are concerned, it will go over like a lead balloon.


The lead balloon of hypocrisy will go high above their heads.

Russ Wood

But don’t worry – the ‘Mythbusters’ actually built and flew a lead balloon!

Mike McMillan

By golly,

Carl Friis-Hansen

The top members of The Party usually have more rights than the Common People. How was it in the USSR? Common People stood in line to get food from the stores, the Top Party Members had the food delivered in time for their breakfast. Common People were put on long waiting lists for a car, the top brass meanwhile got a car with chauffeur. No doubt the climate lectures must have similar privileges. /SARC


While at the same time the party was preaching about love, peace and equality. If words would have been enough, communism would have been a paradise. Communism was like feudalism, but atleast the kings and nobles were more honest about their beliefs.


Simon Montefiore in his book the “The Young Stalin” mentions that by “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” Lenin meant exactly that :” OF the proletariat “, not ” BY the proletariat”. In similar vein , in his recent book about the communist spies in Britain (Philby , Burgess , Fuchs etc) Richard Davenport-hines talks that the early sympathisers of Soviet Russia admired the communist system because it encouraged working people to stay in their ordained roles and not try to “ape” the bourgeoisie by attempting to improve their status.
Clearly the global warming advocates are following a well worn path.


Nothing new here. You had the same situation with the Church, preaching about the sinfulness of sex to the obedient faithful while they themselves were practicing pedophiles. Ditto for politicians who craft laws to penalize those who miss paying their taxes while they themselves game the system.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Istanbul

Four feet good, two feet better.
– 1984

David Chappell

or the climate prime team version, four engines good, two feet, no way.

Six feet is under review.

Moderately Cross of East Anglia

No need for sarc, it’s true.

Don Vickers

education is no substitute for common sense

F. Leghorn

It would appear that “common sense” isn’t all that common.


sigh, how many years have we all been pointing this out?
but now the presstitutes “discover it”??
and because some media talking heads mention it the sheeple will now discuss and go gosh golly gee tsk tsk

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Istanbul

I think I managed 150,000 air miles last year. Does that give me tenure?

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Istanbul

“But might their own carbon-profligate lifestyles undermine their moral authority to demand that coal miners, Teamsters …”
Since when do academics have ‘moral authority’?
There is a lot more moral authority in the company of coal miners than some motley assemblage of academics. Since when do academics study, apply, review, approve and enforce morals? And by what authority?
Those who can, do.
Those who can’t, teach.
Those who can’t teach, criticise.
Now, where do academics who preach against ‘climate change’ fit on that spectrum? The greatest teaching is by example, not criticism. Obviously the flight-profligate like me are not eligible to preach against air travel. And to preach against carbon emissions, fly all over the place, and upon arrival, preach against air travel some more, obviously disqualifies the speaker as a climate-moral authority.
Is it now, “Become an academic and see the world”?


Those who can, do.
Those who can’t, teach.
Those who can’t teach, [criticise] teach teachers.

old construction worker

Those who can, do.
Those who can’t, teach.
Those who can’t teach, leach.


Those who can, do.
Those who can’t, teach.
Those who can’t teach, [criticise] teach teachers.


“Those who can, do.
Those who can’t, teach.
Those who can’t teach, teach teachers.”
Those who can’t teach teachers go to Admin, and wind up as Vice Chancellors on about £236,000 annually – plus expenses . . . .
Do hope this appals!


Auto April 1, 2018 at 3:43 pm
… Do hope this appals!

Well, it gets an idiot out of the classroom and may be preferable to losing a very able teacher to admin.


Kicked upstairs, as it’s sometimes called.

Don B

“Captain Renault: I’m shocked! Shocked to find that gambling is going on in here. [a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]. Croupier: Your winnings, sir. Captain Renault: [sotto voce] Oh, thank you very much. [aloud]. Captain Renault: Everybody out at once. “

Dave O.

Not only hypocrites but wrong to begin with. Double whammy.

John G.

Of course they might be perfectly aware their entire premise is wrong and so comfortable they’ll do no harm by being hypocrites. For them the whole exercise is to simply control the gullible to their advantage. That’s probably true for academics, politicians and liberals in general. Not that many aren’t taken in by their own ruse, i.e the true believer useful idiots.

michael hart

Get back to me when The Puffington Host notices that they themselves also enjoy fossil-fuel dependent lifestyles, like to travel by jet to far flung destinations, and spend lots of time lecturing others about the evils of such activities. It’s hypocrisy squared.


Hypocrisy isn’t the problem with academics, it is the quality of the science and education that they are producing. They are no longer centers of higher learning, they are liberal indoctrination Orwellian Re-Education Camps.
Deplorable Climate Scientists Have Destroyed Credibility of Science
Here at CO2isLife we have always maintained that CAGW isn’t a scientific issue, it is a political issue. Science is an unbiased, impartial, objective, blind and unbelievably politically incorrect process. Science is the search for truth, no matter how ugly, racist, sexist, homophobic or politically inconvenient it may be. The facts don’t give a damn if … Continue reading


How much did Bill McKibben pay for their science degrees???

Bruce Cobb

With Climatism, hypocrisy is a feature dealt with by comparmentalizing and if necessary, by atonement. Work, then, is separated from climate, with the “justification” that one does, after all, need to make a living. Atonement can be accomplishment through various “sacrifices” like driving a Prius, and recycling. Participating in Earth Hour and Earth Day festivities gives you bonus points.


This is a notable disconnect between what universities preach and what their culture incentivizes and their star professors do.

Perverse incentives are the reason most published research findings are false.
Professional success requires that an academic publish. Not only that but their papers are rated for impact. If you don’t publish, you won’t get a job. After you get the job, you have to continue publishing or you won’t get tenure. Publish or perish.
To get published you have to produce interesting results.
There’s no penalty for being wrong.
Interesting, but wrong, results are much easier to publish than solid, but boring, science.
We really shouldn’t be surprised if the professors follow the rules, or game the system. If we want a different result we have to change the incentives. That’s much easier said than done. one idea


“what universities preach“.
‘Preachin ain’t Teachin’
john 20:18

Joe Crawford

Thanks for the ‘one idea’ reference CB. The article and comments provide more depth to Judith Curry’s reason for leaving academia when she stated that she no longer knew how to advise her post docs.


cB–Your impact article ends with the following paragraph. —
“In today’s competitive academic milieu, it is critical that authors proactively “curate” themselves. Curate is based on the Latin word cura, loosely translated as “care.” Authors need to establish their presence on author profile platforms, use contemporary strategies to enhance discoverability, consider multiple avenues of dissemination, reach beyond numbers to tell a story, and efficiently track research outputs and activities.”
This is still advertising, and despite the number of strategies, a lack of diversity. All these criteria, too much quantitative, can be easily used like regulations by controlling administrators. There are attempts to put qualitative criteria (like old times?) into the mix, but it requires a broader understanding of fields of research.
The last paragraph in your idea link–“As one of the academics who believe that understanding how nature works is valuable for its own sake, I think the cure that Sarewitz proposes is worse than the disease. But if Sarewitz makes one thing clear in his article, it’s that if we in academia don’t fix our problems soon, someone else will. And I don’t think we’ll like it.” Lots of good comments.
The man who installed computer science in our university warned me that it would not all be good. Try researching hard subjects. Happens more often in engineering, failures obvious quicker.


Thank you for making the connection with Judith Curry.

But if Sarewitz makes one thing clear in his article, it’s that if we in academia don’t fix our problems soon, someone else will. And I don’t think we’ll like it.

When science achieves a breakthrough, we all benefit forever more. The problem is that breakthroughs cannot be planned. In that light, I’m OK with scientists getting it wrong most of the time. Most breakthroughs are a result of serendipitous discovery … an accident meeting a prepared mind. We aren’t likely to have the breakthroughs on which we depend unless we fund curiosity based research. Funding bodies have to quit demanding objective and ‘results’. That only helps to ensure that breakthroughs won’t occur.
On the other hand, people have to quit demanding that scientists be the arbitrators of truth. Scientists have to quit pretending that they possess God’s ultimate truth. Individual scientists have to choose whether they will continue as scientists or become activists. Activism should be seen as a taint on a scientist’s work and should bring her credibility into question.
If scientists can’t get their role straight, small minded politicians will point out that we are wasting billions of dollars funding stuffed shirts who are wrong more often than right.

Patrick B

At one time in the past, publishing shoddy or false data and improper data analysis would have resulted in the ruination of an academic scientific career. Unfortunately, that’s no longer true in many areas and has never been true in CAGW circles.


The thing is they will never, EVER identify any greenie. Can’t do that — they are all fellow Stalinist comrades & the means justifies the ends.

Observing personal “carbon footprints” validates the entire cultural fraud of AGW by the same people who claim to be skeptical of a “science” that is actually politics. When you see the “hypocrisy” or personal consumption card played it should always be noted that human CO2 consumption is minor and dwarfed by other climate inputs.
Don’t pander to fraud, they deserve zero even if you attempt to be critical.

AGW is not Science

Agreed. STILL no empirical evidence that CO2 drives temperature. Stop paying lip service to that nonsense, and keep pointing it out as nothing more than hypothetical BS.


An inlaw was an aircraft engineer. I asked him how much fuel was expended, per seat, in a trans Atlantic flight. For a fully seated 767 a single seat uses 930 pounds of jet fuel. That’s enough to drive a big SUV coast to coast.


Curiosity beckons. How many miles for trans Atlantic flight vs. a cross country drive?

Patrick MJD

Transatlantic flight at ~35000 ft. Certainly a much larger arc travelled by the plane carrying passengers as well as the fuel, food, crew and baggage/freight. Lets not forget the SUV drives at 70mph. The plane, 400-500mph? Apples and oranges.

Back when I worked at a Federal Department HQ in Wash DC, I knew more than a few “executives” who flew unnecessary trips, just to maintain air mileage and airline membership status.
There are times when face to face meetings are urgently necessary. Other than that, phone calls and video calls easily satisfy long distance business. Much better, in fact, since one may make many phone calls or video conferences at the moment they’re needed. Great means of communicating without wasted time in airports or in the air.
Delta Airlines’ Diamond status is awarded when a person achieves 125,000 Medallion Qualification Miles (MQMs), plus $15,000 Medallion Qualification Dollars (MQDs) in one calendar year.
Flying around the world five times:
• Boeing 777 @ 512 knots (590 mph) = a minimum 42 hours in the air per round the world trip, 210 hours total; i.e. 8.75 days flying. Without counting airport and travel to/from airport time.
• Boeing 747-400ER @ 495 knots (570 mph) = a minimum 44 hours in the air per round the world trip, 220 hours total; i.e. 9.2 days flying. Without counting airport and travel to/from airport time.
Other airlines or planes will vary, YMMV.
Those “executives”, “researchers” or “whatever” taking pride in their airline mileage status entirely miss the rationale behind why they travel.
Instead those researchers beef up their travel for selfish and egotistical reasons. Causing one to wonder how much their research is influenced or affected by their rather sick desire for travel status and premium travel attention.
Bets on manniacal’s travel status?

R. Shearer

I suggest that public sector employees not be allowed to earn frequent flyer miles on public sector “business.”


Nah… let them earn miles, just make it a taxable benefit.
The company/university/foundation pays for the travel, let them travel steerage… err, coach, like the rest of us. The perks are a taxable benefit.

That topic was discussed at the highest Civil Service levels and eventually decided in favor of employees keeping benefits given to them by the airlines.
Of course, it’s the highest levels of executives who travel most frequently and thereby gain the most from frequent flyer memberships.
While many Federal employees love to travel and seek to amplify travel opportunities and various perks associated with travel.
Many Federal employees consider travel an onerous chore.
In order to work at the highest Federal administrative levels, many if not most job descriptions include somewhere in the fine print; “frequent and/or long periods of travel may be necessary or required”.
One accepts travel duties and responsibilities or forfeits their job.
Airline perks are poor recompense for the time and inconvenience.
Unless, i.e., one’s ego is wedded to airlines treating a person as some sort of royalty. Which speaks volumes regarding researchers pursuing or maintaining “diamond” status. Pompous a$$, comes to mind.
When I stopped traveling, I happily let all travel memberships and mileages lapse.
Yeah, I converted a few miles into magazines; but magazine offers rarely included magazines I had any desire to read.
I converted some miles into a plane ticket to visit family. But, travel is travel, and best avoided.
The rest of the miles eventually evaporated, after months/years of airline nagging that expiration was nigh.

“AZ_Scouser April 1, 2018 at 12:01 pm
Nah… let them earn miles, just make it a taxable benefit.
The company/university/foundation pays for the travel, let them travel steerage… err, coach, like the rest of us. The perks are a taxable benefit.”

I agree with that thought!
Upgrades and free tickets are directly translatable to cash income; since airlines allow people to “purchase” upgrades and tickets.
Federal executives at officer level, i.e. the highest level executives, are always flown at “First Class”.
All of the rest of use minions fly at coach, government rate. i.e., without operative upgrades, expect seats behind the engines and near the toilets.
When a Federal employee is sent on trave enough, the airline starts “upgrading” seating and classification, without the flyer requesting such consideration.
I’ve always assumed the reservations program is triggered by a traveler’s total air mileage.
I once won a raffle for a stay in the Bahamas. I always wondered why I had to claim that trip as income, but airline perks avoided IRS radars. Could there be IRS conflicts of interest in operation?

And yet this idiocy, fueled by millennial ignorance, continues to expand. Everybody go their files, haul out your latest electricity bill and check your cost per kilowatt hour. Then hum to your self, “These are the good old days…”

“Why should any of us take academic warnings about anthropogenic CO2 seriously, when behind closed doors those same academics demonstrate their true level of concern by competing with each other to create the largest possible professional carbon footprint?”
Well said!


One of their solutions is for universities to charge a carbon fee to the fliers or their sponsors, and to purchase carbon offsets with the proceeds. How this regains their moral ground when they’ll require miners to give up their jobs for the planet, escapes me.


They would build the carbon fee charges into their travel allowances in their grant submissions. So who would end up paying the bill? (Hint: not the academics or government scientists, all of whom are pulling downd 6-figure salaries.


Coming to you this very month:
Tenth International Conference on Climate Change: Impacts & Responses
2018 Special Focus: Engaging with Policy on Climate Change
20–21 April 2018 University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, USA
Check it out….. Or Check in!
oneworld® is pleased to be the official airline alliance of the International Conference on Climate Change: Impacts & Responses.
attendee benefits
Discounts on flights for attendees and one travel companion.
Travel up to seven days before and seven days after the event.
Flights available from all oneworld member airlines and affiliates.
Enjoy a user-friendly booking tool showing the most convenient flight options.
24-hour support via email or phone.
Earn rewards and tier status points on eligible oneworld flights.
Frequent flyer privileges including access to some 650 premium airport lounges worldwide, fast track at security lanes in selected airports and extra baggage allowance.*
Seamless connections and quality service on oneworld member airlines.
*Privileges depend on your oneworld tier status level. For more information visit


There is more irony and hidden meaning in the OneWorld message for the climate change faithful congregants than you realize.


All the invites to conferences, symposia, workshop, special lectures, etc all feed the egos of these CAGW scientists. It makes them believe, even those with doubts, that they are right, the movement is right. Also if they are seen to be good devout monks and high priests then they believe they will ensure “their” funding that is they will get paid. It doesn’t just happen in Climate “Science” but in other sciences as well though not quite to the same extent. Two of the biggest expenses in government budgets is salary and benefits and travel. To of the greatest controls that elected officials have over government bureaucrats and tenured professors, where generally they can’t be fired, is cut salary and travel. Such cuts can easily be defended to the general public by just listing the destinations and the cost.

R. Shearer

Yes, but other than Bali, Fiji, Cancun, Rio, NY, Paris, London, Prague, Vienna, Durban, Venice, Doha, Copenhagen, Aspen, Vancouver, etc., these conferences tend to be where no one wants to visit.

AGW is not Science

LMFAO. Since the Climate Fascists, whether overtly or covertly, support human “depopulation” to “save the planet,” they should hold all “climate conferences” at Auschwitz, including a free, live demonstration of the gas chambers for all participants. You know, in the “practice what you preach” manner of the necessary “sacrifices.”


Recently received my alumni magazine. My alma mater, once a highly rated science and engineering school, not so much anymore, actually hardly at all anymore, is soooo politically correct now it almost made me puke. Really heavily into everything politically correct and useless to the nth power. Literally sickening for a school that was once so good. Can remember when the late 60’s war protesting hippies tried to block the doors to the administration building. Didn’t work out well for them.

“Academics are probably among the people most aware of the threats posed by climate change. ”
They must know the truth of a scientific malfeasance enabling a financial fraud against humanity that makes Bernie Madoff look like a petty thief.


If they cancelled the CMIP6 and AR6 coordination conferences and simply did a bunch of GoToMeetings and Skpe virtual conferences, then we might could take anything they have to say about reducing CO2 emissions seriously.
But that ain’t gonna happen. Simply because climate change has nothing to do with climate and everything to do about accumulation of power and wealth in the hands of the elites and their academic enablers.

AGW is not Science

True enough, but even if they did exactly what you say about using teleconferences as a substitute for travel, I would still not believe their pseudo-science drivel. I MIGHT believe them to be less hypocritical, but that’s about all the “credit” they would get.

William Astley

There are layers and layers of fuzzy thinking concerning everything about CAGW.
The issue is not how much airplane fuel is wasted by idiotic cult of CAGW scientists to attend purposeless CAGW conferences.
Air travel is a necessity for almost all tourism.
Taxing air travel only reduces CO2 emissions if it stops most air travel (say $2000 US return New York to Paris, standard airfare) which in turn will stop tourism.
The issue for CO2 emissions is tourism, not fuel to run airplanes.
There are CO2 emissions to construct airplanes, airports, cruise ships, hotels, condos, food for tourism, and so on.
The 20 destinations most reliant on tourism
1. Maldives – 39.6% of GDP
2. British Virgin Islands – 35.4%
3. Macau – 29.3%
4. Aruba – 28.1%
5. Seychelles – 26.4%
6. Curaçao – 23.4%
7. Anguilla – 21.1%
8. Bahamas – 19%
9. Vanuatu – 18.2%
10. Cape Verde – 17.8%
11. St Lucia – 15%
12. Belize – 15%
13. Fiji – 14.4%
14. Malta – 14.2%
15. Cambodia – 14.1%
16. US Virgin Islands – 13.3%
17. Antigua and Barbuda – 13%
18. Barbados – 13%
19. Dominica – 12.4%
20. Montenegro – 11%
Top 10 destination cities
1. Bangkok, Thailand — 19.41 million visitors in 2016 (20.19 million forecast for 2017)
2. London, England — 19.06 million visitors in 2016 (20.01 million forecast for 2017)
3. Paris, France — 15.45 million visitors in 2016 (16.13 million forecast for 2017)
4. Dubai, UAE — 14.87 million visitors in 2016 (16.01 million forecast for 2017)
5. Singapore — 13.11 million visitors in 2016 (13.45 million forecast for 2017)
6. New York, USA — 12.70 million visitors in 2016 (12.36 million forecast for 2017)
7. Seoul, South Korea — 12.39 million visitors in 2016 (12.44 million forecast for 2017)
8. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia — 11.28 million visitors in 2016 (12.08 million forecast for 2017)
9. Tokyo, Japan — 11.15 million visitors in 2016 (12.51 million forecast for 2017)
10. Istanbul, Turkey — 9.16 million visitors in 2016 (9.24 million forecast for 2017)

Tom in Florida

Las Vegas had over 39 million visitors last year.


Florida has been averaging right at 100 million tourist per year.

William Astley

Different web numbers for visitors depending on source.
The following is number of visitors to US cities (millions).
1 New York, New York 59.7
2 Chicago, Illinois 54.1
3 Atlanta, Georgia 51
4 Anaheim/Orange County, California 48.2
5 Orlando, Florida 48.0
6 Los Angeles, California 47.3
7 Las Vegas, Nevada 42.9
8 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 42
9 San Diego, California 34.9
10 San Francisco, California 25
What is the cult of CAGW’s goal? Cut those numbers by 50% by 2040?
These idiots are idiots among idiots.

Surely, all flights to CA cities are on the chopping block!


Drill, baby, Drill!
Burn, baby, Burn!
Energy, baby, Energy!
CO2, baby, CO2!
Food, baby, Food!
Sounds like a logical description of the Carbon Cycle benefiting mankind in more ways than one!


Give them credit at last unlike ‘green’ celebrities they are not using private jets !

@1:36 Michael Crichton suggests the symbolic action of banning private jets.

Gary Pearse

Huff post still has a long way to go. Their belief that the profs may deserve all this recognition (In their article) because of all their struggles and hard work after invoking the plight of coal miners and other laborers …

Jacob Frank

Is this the beginning of the breakdown of the enormous dissonance warmunist wackos are eventually going to have to endure? These freaks are going to need a daily 12 step program.


ccccomment image

R. Shearer

Like it!

Peta of Newark

Its just sooooooo delicious innit.
They are the ones telling us to trust the computers (the horrendously complicated models) yet they themselves don’t even trust the computers to exchange tedious humdrum information between themselves (email, cloud sharing, teleconference etc)
They have to do it face-to-face. They don’t even trust each other.
And for exactly the reason I’ve repeated dozens of times here, its possible to hide the dead-give-away telltale signs of your mendaciousness when using a computer. Or simply that you haven’t a clue about that of which you speak.
What would happen if anyone told them that?
(Assuming you survive the initial torrent of personal abuse that is)

AGW is not Science

“they themselves don’t even trust the computers to exchange tedious humdrum information between themselves (email, cloud sharing, teleconference etc)”
You touch on a good point there – the “in person” meetings are possibly used as a way to avoid more information that is “discoverable” via FOI legislation, so that the “sound bites” can be more carefully orchestrated without revealing the “man behind the curtain” malfeasance.

Ens Josh

A tad conspiratorial with a shade of paranoia there “AGW is not a science”.

Ian Macdonald

“Recently received my alumni magazine. My alma mater, once a highly rated science and engineering school, not so much anymore, actually hardly at all anymore, is soooo politically correct now it almost made me puke. ”
Thought of paying my old uni a visit sometime. However, looking at the website it now sounds a lot like yours.
When you think about all that pointless plane travel though, it makes sense to do that if they actually believe that CO2 causes warming, and their funding depends on the climate continuing to warm.

Rich Van Slooten

All of this Carbon Dioxide is not really a problem. Remember it is at 40,000 ft… up there somewhere… pie in the sky … so to speak

John in Oz

Ex-President Obama of ‘Clean Power Plan’ and “[E]lectricity rates would necessarily skyrocket…” fame has recently visited Oz by air, travelled around with at least 5 large, no doubt heavily armoured thus fuel inefficient, vehicles plus police escorts and left after a day or two for another junket in another country, again by air.
I’d be pretty safe to assume he did not pay for a meal and that the Oz Government (meaning us, the tax payers) picked up most of his expenses while in country.
Maybe he is competing with Al for ‘The World’s Greatest Hypocrite’ award, to be presented in front of several hundred adoring lesser hypocrites at a luxury resort somewhere far from the hoi polloi but paid for by the same slaves to their moral authority.

Bumpersticker above liberal tailpipe:

AGW is not Science

Perfect! Now we just need to attach one to each of Fat Albert’s fleet of SUVs and limos.

Patrick MJD

Remember, these people want the rest of us to reduce our emissions (Read, lifestyle) so that they can offset their emissions (Read, continue THEIR lifestyles) at our expense. When politicians started talking about “climate change” in the 90’s and then “actors” got involved too, my suspicion that AGW driven climate change via emissions of CO2 was a sc@m. And sure enough, as each year passes since the late 80’s (Thanks Thatcher), the sc@m is proven.

Ray Boorman

I don’t know how many academics there are at Washington Uni, but if there were 3000, they claimed for 45,000 air miles each last year. That’s quite a few round trips to Cancun.

Charlie Bates

Very good. Now let’s address the financial incentive to beat the drum of global warming threats and keep the grant money flowing in.


“But might their own carbon-profligate lifestyles undermine their moral authority to demand that coal miners, Teamsters working on oil pipelines and mining-dependent Native American tribes sacrifice their own economic well-being to fight climate change?”
Absolutely. I bet they use fast food drive-thru’s too.


Obama grants and international climate meetings are great for frequent flyer miles.