EXCLUSIVE: Bringing the stunning hypocrisy of a climate conference out into the open

Some hypocritical findings after attending a climate conference at the University of California at Berkeley

UC Berkeley is just a short drive away, about three hours.

We are often told by the “holier than thou” types who lecture us on the evils of modern energy consumption that we should travel less, reduce our use of fossil fuels, have less children or no children, and suggesting we even kill ourselves for the betterment of the planet.

However, these same people don’t seem to practice what they preach. First, let’s set the stage. For example Eric Holthaus, who is meteorologist and staff writer for Grist (formerly Slate) wailed that he will have a vasectomy to prevent population growth.

holthaus-vasectomy

Then he said, kids are OK while telling the world how “fucked up it is”, and announces his first child with this tweet:

He’s now reportedly got two children and is in the process of divorce (according to his Twitter feed – his choice to make such details public).

Then there was the flying debacle:

Then a year later, suddenly, flying is OK again.

But he talks about a bus trip that fossil fueled trip is somehow better for the climate than flying as opposed to just staying home. The destination was the American Meteorological Society’s 2014 annual meeting in Atlanta:

Over the past year, I’ve had to make a few small sacrifices, sure. (My 28-hour bus ride from Wisconsin to Atlanta wasn’t the most relaxing travel experience I’ve ever taken. I’d have much preferred one of these.) But an amazing thing has also happened since I’ve embraced slow travel: My world has shrunk and become richer. (It’s also easier to escape those awkward family reunions.)

This article ISN’T about Eric Holthaus, but I used his claims and self-rationalizations as a very epic and public example of climate hypocrisy. Having set the stage, read on.


Yesterday and the day before there was, in Berkeley CA, a large international climate change conference officially titled the “Tenth International Conference on Climate Change: Impacts & Responses”  — here’s its website: http://on-climate.com/ 

And here’s a PDF of all the seminars presented at the conference:

http://on-climate.com/assets/downloads/Climate-Schedule-of-Sessions_1.pdf

There were some real gems there, like this one:

However, my finding has little to do with the content of the conference, but with the mind-boggling hypocrisy of its participants.

Although the conference itself (look at the program below) is essentially little more than a gigantic condemnation of humankind’s carbon footprint, the vast majority of the participants took long-distance commercial airplane flights to reach the conference (and return home afterwards); because they’re special and the rules don’t apply to them.

Basically it’s a life-lesson posing as a conference about why people shouldn’t ride on carbon-spewing airplanes – attended exclusively by people who rode on carbon dioxide-spewing airplanes to get there. Of course, they could do this conference entirely over the Internet via via conferencing, slide sharing, and online publication, but what fun would that be? Plus you don’t get to leave your country on a “vacation” to the United States, all expenses paid.

Since we at WUWT find great entertainment in pointing out the outrageous hypocrisy of people like Leonardo DiCaprio and Al Gore who lead extremely high-carbon lifestyles as they jet around the world lecturing everyone about how they shouldn’t lead high-carbon lifestyles, it might be sobering to note that Leonardo DiCaprio and Al Gore are not unusual in the climate change community: the truth is that MOST climate change researchers are equally hypocritical and spend the year constantly jetting around to an endless series of pointless conferences, often in resort destinations.

I got my hands on a copy of the otherwise “secret program” for the conference (which is NOT posted online), which reveals the identities of all the participants and (most importantly) where they came from to reach the conference – which turns out to be from nations all over the world.

C16Opening2B

I compiled this list of nations from which the participants traveled to Berkeley, California to attend this conference about the need for “low-carbon lifestyles”: I also completed the map below which highlights not only the countries, but the locations from within countries where participants traveled from. Due to pin density issues, not all locations are visible in some places like the Eastern USA. And, some pins may not be exactly accurate in location but approximate, but that doesn’t detract from the story it tells.

  • Bangladesh
  • Australia
  • Nigeria
  • Brazil
  • Great Britain
  • Saudi Arabia
  • Thailand
  • India
  • South Korea
  • Spain
  • Malawi
  • Israel
  • China
  • France
  • Uganda
  • Mexico
  • Japan
  • Costa Rica
  • Switzerland
  • Pakistan
  • Canada
  • Iran
  • Taiwan
  • South Africa
  • Italy

The map: (click to enlarge)

Imagine what the map must look like for the COP conferences, now up to COP24 held last November. There’s another smaller one coming up in Bonn on April 30th.

I found this all quite amusing, and also politically significant, because it reveals that these people are not really serious about their “policy recommendations”: They themselves feel completely free to spew as much carbon as they want into the atmosphere, which means they actually aren’t really concerned about the issue (i.e. the whole field is a hoax) or they’re flaming hypocrites of the worst sort.

In conversations with some people at the conference, I learned that they all basically confessed that the conference was “totally unnecessary” and nothing but a bunch of “time-wasting bullshit.”

But there is a constant merry-go-round of academic conferences scheduled all over the world every year which they are required to attend to maintain their academic status – and also to get free vacations, of course. There are dozens of conferences like this every year, year after year, all over the planet, all similarly purposeless and unnecessary – part of the endless academic gravy train of grants and free travel.

Follow the money, because that’s really all climate change policy, sustainability, and science seems to be about these days.


Pages from the conference guide:

Advertisements

260 thoughts on “EXCLUSIVE: Bringing the stunning hypocrisy of a climate conference out into the open

      • +97
        I think media-enabled western self-loathing (but projecting the guilt and punishment onto others) has reached its pinnacle.
        And I’m not really sure what the Klimate Kult Klowns are actually qualified to do but’s it’s clear they must be kept away from positions of power and influence.

    • Its all about Eric, isn’t it?
      Yeah sad but also stupid, self important, stuck up, snivelling, sanctimonious etc etc

    • Who is the author, Wendy Lynne Lee?
      I’ll let her tell you….”(I am a) Marxist, Atheist, feminist, vegetarian, union activist, queer, animal welfare theorist – and one of the most reliable, hard-working, publishing professors BU has. Want to discuss my commitment to my university with my university president? Call him: 570-389-4674.” – Wendy Lynne Lee

      • Her claim to being an atheist tells it all. “When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.” Attributed to G.K. Chesterton.

      • Not necessarily, propaganda from the “vast majority of” scientists is always beneficial to the continual never ending barrage of disinformation. There has to be something to counter the millions of scientists, engineers, physicists, and intelligent people that pay attention to the actual amount of warming; and how much of it is actually caused by c02. They rightly dismiss the ever failing climate models that forecast sure catastrophic consequences but without the money to advertise like the globalists our voices are seldom heard.

      • Correct Sudz. It’s very seldom they will use their money for green endeavors unless it’s subsidized. It’s usually do as I say not as I do, especially with the billionaires and millionaires. Why should the rank and file be any different. I like how some of the conference goers admit that it isn’t accomplishing anything but just makes them “feel” as if they’re doing good.

  1. Anthony, when I click on the conference guide pages they open a new comments section also. I see the mods potentially getting slammed here.

  2. Actually living a low carbon lifestyle is what the peons are supposed to do, not the elites. Guess who decides who the elites are?

    • Ah, yes, but you can offset your highcarbon lifestyle with by buying carbon credits from a company that you yourself own. That way, you can be both virtuous and profitable.

  3. Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    “Follow the money, because that’s really all climate change policy, sustainability, and science seems to be about these days.”
    Spot-on Anthony. Great investigative post exposing the serial eco-hypocrites. Though, not sure how “Exclusive” it is owing to your disturbingly true observation that “there is a constant merry-go-round of academic conferences scheduled all over the world every year which they are required to attend to maintain their academic status – and also to get free vacations, of course. There are dozens of conferences like this every year, year after year, all over the planet, all similarly purposeless and unnecessary – part of the endless academic gravy train of grants and free travel.”
    WAY to go Eric and Co…!

  4. haha oh man, putting the EXCLUSIVE tag on this is pretty desperate. It’s been a running joke/complaint about flying to climate conferences ever since they started doing climate conferences. I have one in Geneva next month. Am I flying? Yes. Did I try to book a train ticket? Of course, but 11 hours extra travel time and 6x the ticket price just wasn’t doable.
    Does it bother me? Of course. But on average you get 1 conference a year (at least at the universities I know) to go to and connect with your colleagues. It’s not all that bad.
    Cheers,
    Ben

    • See Ben, here’s the thing, and there’s really no way of getting around this. I don’t give a shit what you think about this article.
      You never do anything, but harass and complain.

      • But wouldn’t you find it much more fulfilling if your site was host to a wider chorus of voices? It would be great if there were a platform for environmental scientists and the skeptical american public to communicate.

      • Ben, I’ve offered guest posts to many different scientists through the years to explain their position. This includes serially unpleasant people such as Michael Mann and Grant Foster, aka “Tamino”. They all either just ignored the invitation or turned me down. My takeaway is that just like the people at this conference, they really don’t want to “communicate”. They’d rather dictate.

      • Anthony: Did you offer Benben the opportunity to post an essay here at WUWT to explain and show evidence of his position on climate change?

      • Thank you, Anthony!
        That well sums up all of our opinions regarding bbben’s wasting time, fuel, space, thoughts. etc. with it’s puerile whines.

      • I’ve thought of writing an article, but I didn’t want to deal with the animosity of the comments. I was also warned that it would be “annotated” which could mean misinterpretation and ridicule.
        Why would scientists want to write for such an inhospitable, disrespectful, distrustful crowd? It wouldn’t matter what they say since they are constantly portrayed as frauds, hypocrites and fools.
        People have priorities, Anthony. You don’t know where people try to reduce their carbon footprint. It could be by taking the bike to work or by changes to one’s investment portfolio or putting solar panels on one’s roof. Attending conferences – or a specific conference – is for some very important to their science, not just because of the presentations but because of the ideas kicked around.
        “In conversations with some people at the conference, I learned that they all basically confessed that the conference was “totally unnecessary” and nothing but a bunch of “time-wasting bullshit.””
        OK, you had conversations with some people, all of whom thought it unnecessary. That could be 3 people. I don’t know who these people are, but you want to convey that idea, so why was it a waste of time? The idea about Marx was off-the-wall, but there were plenty of talks to choose from. Don’t you have anything constructive to say? Were none of the talks interesting? Did you learn nothing? Or was your mission to again try to show how hypocritical it is to use fossil fuel and believe in CAGW?
        How many of those people believe humans should stop using fossil fuels? Did you ask about that while you were there, or just complain about what a waste of time the conferance was?

      • CD, the link for submitting articles is open to all.
        It’s just that some people don’t wish to communicate, they want to dictate.

      • The point Anthony makes is that all these flights could be avoided by using the internet These climate people don’t seem to care enough to do what they ask us to do.
        Also, if you could change the phrase “I don’t give a s***” to “I don’t care”, I would appreciate it.

      • Anthony: I was of course referring to your comment that you don’t give a sh*t about my opinion. If the founder of a site uses that language it does not foster an atmosphere of healthy debate. What it does do is that your followers feel free to spew vile comments such as:
        ” Think of BenBen as a paedophile priest, If he really believed god was looking over his shoulder he would not do it. Ergo,they are not true believers.”
        Since it hasn’t been removed by the mods I can only assume that the mods approve. SAD!
        [Comment was found and trashed. That type of comment is certainly not ok. Sorry, weekend coverage is sometimes a bit less robust. We all have day jobs and families and life and etc. -mod]

      • @jeff mitchel: we teleconference multiple times a week, and we fly out to meet our colleagues face to face once a year. It’s really necessary to have met at least once before you can have a productive series of online meetings. That’s just the way people work.
        Also, note that climate scientists say we should fly only for important things, not trivial “oeeh lets go shopping in NYC” type of trips. So it’s not hypocritical to fly to a conference once a year. It’s just a typical WUWT misdirection where they pretend that we say ‘no more flying period’ and then attack us on that. If anything the fact that WUWT needs to resort to such low tricks should tell you enough about who’s on the winning side of the debate 😉

      • Ah yes, the old, I’m too good for you excuse for inaction.
        If we are so despicable Kristi, why do you keep coming back?

      • “I’ve thought of writing an article, but I didn’t want to deal with the comments that would tear my nonsense to shreds”
        there, fixed that for you 😉

      • Benben said
        “It’s really necessary to have met at least once before you can have a productive series of online meetings. That’s just the way people work.”
        Bwahahahahaha!! My husband has worked for MANY multinational companies… very productively…without ever meeting most of his co-workers. It is NOT “necessary” for millions of people. Maybe environmental scientists are “special” kinds of people. But if you insist on that statement being true, then GO AWAY, because unless you’ve met everyone here at least once, you’ll never be able to have a productive online dialog.
        If you really see a need for a forum where “environmental scientists” and skeptics can have an open and “productive” online meeting place (may not be possible since according to you, they would have to at least meet in person once) create it yourself! Or ask your fellow experts to create one. Those of us labeled skeptics by others would LOVE to see such a forum created!! There just arent any “environmental scientists” who are proponents of AGW or CAGW that will participate in such a forum.

      • First, I think we can all thank Kristi for not submitting an article. If your posts are any indication, it would simply re-state CAGW talking points that have been blown up (mostly at this site), and it would be 10x longer than necessary. For benben, “Does it bother me? Of course.” What bothers you, precisely? Unnecessary travel to a conference on the evil of unnecessary travel? Cogitate on that, please. Clearly benben can’t see his own hypocrisy, but how is it that Kristi can’t see it?

    • Why don’t you use services like WebEx?
      Seems like a terrible use of resources (tax money and tuition) to go to conferences.

      • Hi Doug, fair question. We do almost all of our meetings via skype (I usually have co-authors from at least three countries on my papers), it’s just that you want to meet the person in real life the first time. This makes future online meetings much easier. And conferences are great for making accidental connections.
        Also, conferences are pretty cheap. I rarely spend more than 500 euros of taxpayer money, which is negligible in the bigger picture. Also, students love it when I come back from a conference and spend an hour or so updating them on the state-of-the-art, so it has a lot of educational value as well.
        Cheers,
        Ben

      • benben April 22, 2018 at 3:24 pm
        “Also, conferences are pretty cheap. I rarely spend more than 500 euros of taxpayer money, ”
        If it is pretty cheap why don’t you just spend your own money?

      • ehm, because it’s a work related expense. Do you pay for your work related travel? Universities generally pay pretty badly. I know everyone here likes to pretend we’re swimming in money but fact is I get job offers every other week that would pay way more. I’m doing this because I believe in it.

      • Why work at university? Teaching is fun, it’s a great environment to work. You are exposed to lots of random but interesting information. Today I went to a lecture on Japanese samurai sword guards for example. Who cares if I make a bit less money than my friends who work at corporate. I also complain a lot less!
        As for the whole climate change thing. The USA is the only country where the topic has become so politicized. In most countries its treated as a non-partisan engineering challenge (my background is chemical engineering).
        That’s why you’ll also see most of the posts on WUWT being US centered political while if you go to ‘green’ sites like cleantechnica it’s mostly technical stuff.
        It’s an interesting thing to do actually: read cleantechnica together with WUWT for a couple of months. I’ve been doing it for years, very instructive!
        Cheers,
        Ben

      • Benben don’t forget Australia, right there with the US and Canada in the fossil-fuel rich, NewsCorp dominated politicization.

      • benben April 22, 2018 at 3:39 pm
        “ehm, because it’s a work related expense. Do you pay for your work related travel? Universities generally pay pretty badly. I know everyone here likes to pretend we’re swimming in money but fact is I get job offers every other week that would pay way more. I’m doing this because I believe in it.”
        First of all I function as an independent contractor so no, I pay for all my expenses. Second, since there is taxpayer money involved, that expense does not improve the bottom line of the “company” you work for which is the real justification for business travel. So if you do this because you believe in it and it pays pretty badly then suffer the consequences of your decision.

      • benben: “The USA is the only country where the topic has become so politicized. In most countries its treated as a non-partisan engineering challenge (my background is chemical engineering).” Ever heard of Paris agreement? How other friendly states went bonkers when Trump decided not the finance the whole thing? (my background is a U.S. taxpayer).

      • Says bebben. “Also, conferences are pretty cheap. I rarely spend more than 500 euros of taxpayer money, ”
        500 x 10 = 5000
        500 x 100 = 50000
        500 x 1000 = 500000
        500 x 10000 = 5000000
        How many of these flights are there?
        For that kind of money lots of good could be done,
        that does not involve friends meeting friends on other people’s money.

      • Benben, the issue isn’t the cost, it is the amount of CO2 your flights put into the atmosphere. The article just points out that the alarmists are putting CO2 out via plane flights while asking us not to. I want you to know though, I appreciate your contribution to increase plant life on the earth. I’m quite happy that you and other alarmists are putting more CO2 into the atmosphere, helping me to get to my goal of around1400 ppm. Please keep up the good work. Plants will love you.

      • “The USA is the only country where the topic has become so politicized”
        It’s 100% partisan “politics” aka Stalinism everywhere. Those who disagree are attacked and ridiculed, even insulted on TV by the “mainstream” aka fakestream.
        Just because the “conservatives” have endorsed the climate scam doesn’t mean it’s non-politicized. It’s just that “conservative” parties in much of Europe became statist, pro-big gov, no border, anti-nation state, ashamed of themselves, instead of resisting the attacks of the fake “left” aka the Stalinists.

    • Shows that you care more about your career and conferences than climate change and our precious Planet™. Interesting how many people preach about the supposed dangers of climate change but then don’t act like it’s serious. If you truly believed that the Earth was in grave danger and you had the power to stop it, or help to stop it, then rational decision would be to make that choice. Indeed, many people have more worries than climate change, like poverty which I think is much more dangerous.

      • Yeah, taekovuhoser, agree or disagree with Ed Begley Jr’s political beliefs, he atleast is one of the few who tries to practice what he preaches.

    • Paraphrasing the Paladin gunslinger motto:
      Have Taxpayer Money Will Travel.
      Email BenBen@[snip].com

      [Harsh. Let’s not get personal. -mod]

    • I think perhaps you’ve missed the point Ben. There are legitimate reasons for air travel. Lots of them. But it’s hard to believe that climate experts can’t solve the modest problem of doing your professional conferencing using electronic remote access. If you expect to be taken seriously, perhaps you should start giving some thought to working toward a state a decade or so from now where the only physical attendees at climate conferences are locals.
      Will it be as much fun? Probably not (although how anyone can regard modern air travel as “fun” eludes me). Will it be cheaper? Almost certainly yes. Will it be a step toward a lower carbon lifestyle? Yes.

    • Ben if it “bothers” you so much that your wasting valuable university resources. Pick up the phone and not the universities pocket.
      Cheers
      Leigh.

    • Reading that comment was 10 seconds of my life I’ll never get back. “I’m a hypocrite and I admit it?” Do tell. All in favour of banning benben?

      • “All in favour of banning benben” – Not for the comments on this thread. Ban for contravention of site rules (offensiveness etc), not for opinion no matter how challenging or bizarre. This isn’t an alarmist site where contra comments or even simple questions are quickly deleted and their authors banned. Anthony has managed WUWT brilliantly, and those who do put alternative views openly and unoffensively are genuinely welcome. I find many of the alarmist comments very useful, because they challenge assumptions and raise issues that require analysis and thus (NB. by requiring analysis not by being right or wrong) add to the sum total of understanding.
        OK, I admit that benben’s comments on this thread have added little to the sum total of understanding – maybe that flying to conferences is more fun than video-conferencing provided someone else pays, and that matters much more than CO2 emissions anyway (it’s great that we can choose who we blame for those; some really are more equal than others).

      • He can keep posting, the rest of us will point to this article and benben’s response to it as proof that he doesn’t believe anything he says.

      • ban him? let him stand up and shout his hypocrisy from the rooftops as It only helps illustrate the point of the article.

      • last post should have started “ban him? no, let him ” – hate when my fingers refuse to type everything I intent to type and I fail to spot the missing bits before hitting post.

    • benben April 22, 2018 at 2:02 pm
      “Does it bother me? Of course.”
      When people are sincerely bothered by something they take remedial action. Obviously it doesn’t bother you nearly enough. And that was the whole point which I suspect you already know.

      • GHL, that is a disgusting comment
        [MODS] I think ghl April 22, 2018 at 6:55 pm is offensive.

        [Agreed. The comment has been deleted. Thanks. -mod]

    • benben
      Hypocrisy is toxic, not radioactive.
      You act as though the corruption and contempt decline with time.
      They don’t.
      It doesn’t have a half-life.
      It kills your credibility now as much as it ever did.

    • Hmmmm there are a whole bunch of comments saying basically the same. So besides my reply to Doug (we do 99% of our meetings via skype and only once a year fly to somewhere to meet person to person) let me say this:
      Traveling for work is often necessary, and air travel is pretty efficient and cheap method of transport. Outside some random hyperbolic tweets you won’t find any climate scientist saying we should ban air travel. What is bad is that governments are actively subsidizing air-travel over more efficient methods of travel. For example, in my country train tickets are taxed 21% and air tickets 0%. For shorter routes trains are actually faster than flying (and much more pleasant!), but because of these types of subsidies also more expensive. The environmental scientists say: no more corporate welfare for the airlines! level playing field for all modes of transportation.
      Then there is also the point that these subsidies for big corporations have lead to incredibly cheap flights (e.g. 10$ return flights to london from my city), leading to a lot of people just randomly flying a lot just to go shopping or something. That is not sustainable. However, flying for work when necessary, family events, etc. etc., flying is just a part of modern life.
      So then the misrepresentation of WUWT: pretend to say that climate scientists want to ban ALL air travel (we do not), and then pretend that it’s hypocritical to do some basic work related flights. It would be massively hypocritical if you’d find me flying to london every other week, but once a year to Geneva for work, not so much.
      Cheers,
      Ben

      • Let’s ban ALL subsidies and government support of any of this. Private companies can run airlines, trains, and do research. Remove ALL government money.

      • I hate to agree with a hypocrite, but air travel is actually far less polluting than any other kind of travel. The miles per gallon per passenger is around 130 mpg or better for most current aircraft and improving all the time without any need to maintain infrastructure between departure and arrival points. Those who continually complain about air travel’s ‘carbon footprint’ are showing their ignorance.

      • Sounds like a level playing field to me, Sheri!
        Then BenBen would just be a bumbum, looking for a capitalism-supplied job.

      • “What is bad is that governments are actively subsidizing air-travel over more efficient methods of travel.”
        Can’t argue with that, but then that really isn’t the point. If *you* are a “true believer” in the “climate crisis” nonsense, then *you* shouldn’t be using the “carbon [dioxide] spewing” modes of transport that are “contributing” the the “carbon footprint” you preach everyone ELSE needs to reduce.
        There’s no reason that the exchange of ideas can’t be carried out without in-person “conferences.”
        “…flying is just a part of modern life.”
        As is fossil fuel based transport (i.e., all “modes”), electricity generation, central heating, and A/C. So stop telling us we need to “reduce” *our* “carbon footprints.”

      • benben’s misrepresentation of WUWT: “So then the misrepresentation of WUWT: pretend to say that climate scientists want to ban ALL air travel (we do not), and then pretend that it’s hypocritical to do some basic work related flights”
        No benben, the point is “climate scientist” claim big carbonfootprints are very bad. travelling long distances by plane is a larger carbon footprint than telecommuting. So flying off to holiday destinations for bullshit conferences (such as the one in this article) shows that you don’t believe what you preach. because if you did, you would use the smaller carbonfootprint solution instead of the larger carbonfootprint solution.

      • Ian, if people were advocating the climate hypocrites use more carbon(dioxide) intensive forms of travel, you’d have a point. But that’s not what people are saying when they point out the hypocrisy of climate alarmist jetsetting around the world for these conferences. They’re saying if they truly believed what they preach, they wouldn’t be increasing their carbon footprint by jetting (or boating, train-ing, car-ing or any other form of CO2 spewing transporting) off all over the world, they’d hold their conference in the virtual space which would have minimal impact on their carbon footprint. They don’t hence they don’t really believe that which they preach.

      • Benben: Any chance you could link to the comment where someone here at WUWT pretended to say that climate scientists want to ban all air travel? Nice straw man you have there, but the point you so consistently evade is, climate scientists and eco-activists preach against unnecessary air travel. When confronted, they pass off unnecessary, climate-destroying air travel like so: “Well, just once a year”; or “we skype 99% of the time”; or “the kids love to hear about the latest in saving the planet from promiscuous CO2 emissions.” Still like what you see in the mirror? You’ll always have Kristi.

      • I must have said this a couple of times already… but I teleconference a couple of times a week, and I fly to meet my colleagues in person only once a year, and I spend less than 500 euro’s taxpayer money doing it.
        What bothers me is not people flying for work such, but the really frequent “let’s go to Paris to go shopping for a day” type of flying.

      • So you get one conference a year and that’s great, but people are not allowed to shop for a day because you don’t do it, why should they?

      • It’s not that they’re not allowed. It’s that the current system leads to a very inefficient use of resources as a result of market distortion by subsidies and not including external costs.

      • Sir Humphrey said “It’s that the current system leads to a very inefficient use of resources as a result of market distortion by subsidies and not including external costs.“. Well, it certainly sounds like Sir Humphrey.

      • I love the concept of the lunatic left that the Earth resources should be rationed out to each person. This goes with the stupidity that the worlds wealth should be evenly divided up and even a universal basic income given to each person. The classic modern self guilt ridden lefties who love the idea of giving everyone elses money away. The reality is the haves can afford bigger armies and more bombs and it’s the usual pipe dream.

      • “What bothers me is not people flying for work such, but the really frequent “let’s go to Paris to go shopping for a day” type of flying”
        you make exception for what you think is important but condemn others for what you think isn’t. To them going to Paris to shop for a day (or whatever) once a year is just as important as you meeting others in person (when you could just as easily do so virtually) once a year. Probably even more so as they are doing something productive (increasing economic activity, thus helping keep people employed) whereas you aren’t (going to bs conferences that achieve nothing except to give you a nice vacation and some stories to regal your students with). And at least they are paying for their trips off their own money rather than having the taxpayers foot the bill.

      • “… and I spend less than 500 euro’s taxpayer money doing it.”
        How thoughtful of you Benben! And just what do the much abused taxpayers get for their €500?

    • Does it bother me? Of course. But on average you get 1 conference a year (at least at the universities I know) to go to and connect with your colleagues. It’s not all that bad.

      And YOU are the only one on Earth doing this, right? “Not all that bad” for ONE person multiplied by ALL THE PEOPLE who get the one conference mounts up to quite a number of people claiming, “It’s not all that bad”, because they are thinking ONLY of their one self-important self.

    • Hypocrites always have an excuse why they should be excused from the rules that they wish to impose on the rest of society.
      If you actually thought carbon dioxide was a problem, you could always telecommute.
      Then again, your actions show that you don’t believe CO2 is a problem either.

      • Hate-filled people always have an excuse to keep on hating, even if it mean making things up about others so they can feel justified in hating them.
        “If you actually thought carbon dioxide was a problem, you could always telecommute.”
        That’s analogous to, “If you had anything meaningful to say, you would stop insulting people.” It’s not a logical statement.

      • Kristi,
        Not hypocritical at all.
        Any true CACA advocate and acolyte should never, ever travel by train, plane or automobile. Hence, telecommuting is the only way to go.

      • MarkW,
        Kristi’s vainglorious attempts to defend climate change/CO2 hypocrites is analogous to the getaway driver defending the bank robber. She is an accessory after the fact…

      • Kristi, as always, your analogies make no sense.
        If people are convinced that more CO2 in the atmosphere is a serious problem, you would expect them to live their lives in such a way as to minimize their contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere.
        It’s basic common sense. One which you don’t believe that those who believe as you do should be held to.

      • PS, I love the way our burgeoning socialist assumes that disagreement with her, is the equivalent of hate.

      • “That’s analogous to, “If you had anything meaningful to say, you would stop insulting people.” It’s not a logical statement”
        how is that not a logical statement? if someone has something meaningful to say, they would say it. If they don’t and all they have to say is insults, it is very logical to conclude that they lack either something meaningful to say or the ability to articulate meaningful dialogue (or both).

      • It’s quite possible to say something meaningful, and say it in an insulting way.
        Especially when responding to someone who didn’t say anything meaningful in the first place.
        Of course Kristi declares anything that is less than worshipful towards here idols as being “hateful”.
        She also doesn’t see declaring that those who disagree with her as being in the pay of Big Oil, as being hateful.

    • benben April 22, 2018 at 3:59 pm
      But wouldn’t you find it much more fulfilling if your site was host to a wider chorus of voices? It would be great if there were a platform for environmental scientists and the skeptical american public to communicate.
      —-
      Yet it already is and always has been. Anyone can post here unlike unlike RealClimate, SKS, or any of the other LSM propaganda\news websites.
      Want an open and honest debate? Stop calling people who disagree with your dogma “deniers”.

      • Indeed. That “label” is particularly annoying given there’s no “crisis” to “deny” the existence of.

      • Unlike most pro-alarmist sites, WUWT rarely bans people, and usually only for gross violations of the site rules.

    • Ben is clearly not one of the more “important” members of the climate cult. This can be assumed by the number of conference invites.
      1/year is clearly bottom of the class

      • Stephen, I liked yours best because it hits benben where it hurts-his own inflated view of his self importance. In a nutshell, benbens cannot face their own hypocrisy: A conference to discuss the dangers of putting more CO2 in atmosphere is attended by folks who are unnecessarily putting CO2 in the atmosphere. To deflect from this, benben tells us that he only attends one a year (unnecessary, but don’t address that ever, more than a dozen posts yet never addresses this overriding point) so he can see faces in person (quite unnecessary, but it’s “not all bad” when these others all agree and flatter each other on how good they are and saving the planet means sacrifice but aren’t the beaches here fabulous?) and accomplish…what exactly? Oh yeah, the shining faces of his students when he tells of his travels to exotic places (also unnecessary). So benben thinks we could have more of his ilk at this site for more debate? Ben, it would only take one of you to blow up this site, just as Einstein said, if only one of you had real data. Maybe that’s what you’ll discuss at the next conference?

    • “It’s really necessary to have met at least once before you can have a productive series of online meetings”
      sorry, but that’s just Bull. I know it’s bull because in my line of work I’ve productively worked with many people with whom I’ve never met in person but only via online meetings.

      • Same for me. On an average day, I have 2 to 3 online meetings. It’s rare for me to have ever met any of the other people in the meeting. Yet the projects that I have worked on usually come in on or before schedule and have always met with the customers approval.

    • “Does it bother me?”
      Apparently not so much since you keep doing them. Reminds me of a line from a con-man in a classic Doctor Who episode “I admit I had a great struggle with me conscience. Fortunately, I won”

    • It’s the same reason everyone else flys, drive cars, heat their homes etc; they want to connect with people, be comfortable and enjoy life, just like you.
      It’s the problem I’ve had with people who think the world is coming to an end but won’t even discus the possibility of nuclear energy, won’t make the same sacrifices they want every other family to make and burn fuel going to largely useless conferences around the world. Their bike riding and Prius driving somehow helps them justify their lifestyle.
      I very much doubt people’s sincerity.
      Really, if not getting paid to whip the global warming mule, what could they do?

    • Benben
      “As for the whole climate change thing. The USA is the only country where the topic has become so politicized. In most countries its treated as a non-partisan engineering challenge (my background is chemical engineering).”
      A bigger bunch of horeshit has never been written, the rest of the world, as you say, looks at it as control and power mechanism and are too scared to fight it, at least here in the US we used to be raised to believe in freedom and liberty and some of us are still willing to stand up and fight for those things. People like you are screwing the lives of countless millions and perhaps billions of people with your utter nonsense and self importance.
      The middle class and poor will suffer the most from the government controls that your “views” insist upon. If like you said it was an engineer issue to most of the world please explain what engineering is need to control something that has so far been almost exclusively beneficial to man? even if you count sea level rise as a consequence of global warming or even manmade global warming I don’t think you need thousand and thousands of engineers and trillions of dollars to figure out that you have to add one more brick to a sea wall every 15 years or so.
      I don’t need people like you going to conferences and yucking it up and spending taxpayer money to create more self justify bullshit that governments around the world are using to take away our freedoms. Go out and get a job where you actually have to justify your existence.
      “Why work at university? Teaching is fun, it’s a great environment to work. You are exposed to lots of random but interesting information. Today I went to a lecture on Japanese samurai sword guards for example. Who cares if I make a bit less money than my friends who work at corporate. I also complain a lot less!”
      You complain a lot less because you have the easy life paid for by the guy or women who is down the street putting something together and busting his ass, if you think for a second you are making less than him this just shows your elitist bullshit self righteousness, but of course you are too good to go do a real job and fight for a living like all the peoples whose lives you could care less about when standing by watching the world get torn apart over non existent catastrophic scaremongering the your BS is used for to create fear in the masses so they surrender their freedoms.
      Yep you are a hero keep feeling good about yourself and cashing that check!

      • Most of the rest of the world doesn’t permit hoi poloi to interfere with the wisdom of the elite.

      • BEST COMMENT YET! SPOT ON!
        BenBen & Kristi – “for though they have eyes, they (refuse to) see.” Amazing how some random words 2000+ years ago are more relevant now as ever. (parentheses my addition).
        I don’t pray, but in your respective cases, I will make an exception.

    • Kristi
      “I’ve thought of writing an article, but I didn’t want to deal with the animosity of the comments. I was also warned that it would be “annotated” which could mean misinterpretation and ridicule”
      Post it and ignore the comments and if it gets “annotated” (which i doubt very much) point it out! We will all read it and we may make comments you don’t like, so what, you have made yourself heard and that is the most important thing in the end, don’t be afraid no one here can actually hurt you nor would they want to you are free to speak as is everyone else here. Maybe we all will learn something from you or maybe you will learn something from someone here.

    • Not trying to take BenBen’s side I have attended five(5) International Climate Change Conferences, the real ones, sponsored by the Heartland Organization.
      The first I attended was in 2009 in NYC. I met and chatted with Harrison Schmitt , Steve Milloy, Joe Bastardi, Vaclav Klaus, Joe D’Aleo, John Sununu to name a few. There were 800+ of us in attendance.
      The keynote speakers were electric and the Conference was intellectual stimulating. I might add I became a Heartland Sustaining as a result. Joe Bast, Jim Lakely, Jay Lehr are my rock stars…. thank you for all your efforts in this cause.
      BenBen….all of this at my expense even though I was retired on permanent disability.
      Over the years Heartland invited many of the opposition to these conferences and to my knowledge only one scientist from Colorado State ever showed. Second in DC 2017?

  5. I think Holthaus just showed a typical irrational emotional reaction to the issue and it was just an emotional rant to make him feel better. I don’t think he, like many others, really mean that we should have no children “for the planet”. I think deep down they know that doesn’t make any sense. Emotions and feelings generally seem to rule the climate change discussion. Many people just feel a lot of guilt about us “destroying” the planet, which ironically sets us apart from nature and other animals. They don’t give a shit after all. Humans are naturally pessimistic and blaming us collectively for everything seems to be the way to go these days.
    But decisions should be made with logic and reason, and not with emotions. The problem is that we still have those crappy stone age brains, which makes hard to understand enormously complex issues like climate, energy, technology, society.

  6. “…the vast majority of the participants took long-distance commercial airplane flights to reach the conference (and return home afterwards); because they’re special and the rules don’t apply to them.”
    Not necessarily. Sometimes it’s necessary to destroy the planet in order to save it.

  7. Perhaps if the Banquets were replaced with brown bag lunches of dry sandwiches and an apple it
    would reduce the attendance and CO2 emissions?

    • Bag lunches with thick sliced baloney on dry white bread, or horse c*ck as any service person will recall..

  8. > Then a year later, suddenly, flying is OK again.
    Sorry, how do you get that from that linked article?

    • Hi climatebeagle,
      no-one seems to want to respond to your question and since I’m at a loose end I thought I’d give it a go …
      The article is titled:
      ‘My Year Without Flying’
      in Australian English (not sure where you are from) this is roughly translated as “I gave up flying for a year to appease Mother Gaia and to make myself look good to my sycophant followers and then though f* it and went back to flying” (My Year = single year).
      Hope this helps,
      Andy

      • Did you read the article. Yes, it was his experience of a year without flying, nowhere I can see in that article says he is going to start flying again, or “flying is OK”.

      • ha! reading the few comments reminds me of a great quote:
        “there are two types of people in this world, those who can extrapolate from incomplete data…”

  9. Of all the modern environmentalists I have known, rich, middle class, and those claiming to be “poor” less than one percent walk the walk, tried to live by the standards they demand of everyone else. 99% spent most of their time trying to figure out how they could get government to force the rest of use to change our evil ways. I knew a young environmentalist, still in the game preaching how we can all live sustainably, who used air conditioning in his house way outside of town. Why? Mosquitoes and other bugs. I noted I grew up in the SE USA and I never had lived in a house or gone to a school that had air conditioning until I went of to college, even then my apartments didn’t have A/C. The young man didn’t like that at all. He also bragged about starting to recycle. My family had recycled since I was 10 years old. He bragged about driving a really old (ca 20 year old) sedan. It got about 10 mpg. I had never owned a car that got less than 20 mpg and most averaged near 35 mpg. Again he was not happy.

    • Their own undeserved (duped into accepting it) guilt is alleviated by projecting it onto others while they claim the moral high ground. Of course there are also the pure opportunists masquerading as concerned people…

    • There was a “…you had a house…?” in a Monty Python skit I think. Highest first priority for AC was athletics, the money generating kind. Also, this is another time around, ‘virtue’ like this happened around the first Earth Day (1970), some regretted not having offspring. As to meetings we used to pile students in a van, air travel came when things like schools in the middle of the US said they were logical places for marine science research since they were half way between the Atlantic and Pacific. If you only do modeling guess they were right. My experience in marine science was that occasional (face to face) meetings were great but degenerated for a number of reasons.
      If you have a good situation in a university that is great, so many don’t. And salaries (for some, especially administrators) now are one reason tuition is so high in the US at least. I think it was Lindzen who wrote that academics/teachers would take less money if working conditions improved. Second, third, fourth that. Make it a dedicated profession again.

    • Or the save the planet people who drive old VW buses with ‘save Mono lake stickers, thinking they are superior to those who drive an SUV that emits a small fraction of pollution.

    • “Of all the modern environmentalists I have known, rich, middle class, and those claiming to be “poor” less than one percent walk the walk, tried to live by the standards they demand of everyone else. 99% spent most of their time trying to figure out how they could get government to force the rest of us to change our evil ways.”
      BINGO! And further, ALL of them essentially take EVERYTHING THEY HAVE for granted, and are CLUELESS about how fossil fuels are EXACTLY what they have to thank for EVERYTHING that they take for granted – from their shoes to their clothing to their vehicles to their homes with central heating and A/C to the electricity that keeps their laptops, smartphones, tablets and lights on.

  10. Anthony,
    Very many thanks.
    I agree that this is hypocrisy – probably in bold and italics, and maybe underlined, too! – on many attendees parts.
    Maybe not all, though
    i had a quick look through the programme, and found this gem –
    “Energy Ships for the Transition to an Emission-free Global Economy by 2050”
    (From Friday 20th April 2018: – 13:45-15:25 PARALLEL SESSIONS)
    The abstract is interesting: –
    “Energy Ships for the Transition to an Emission-free Global Economy by 2050
    Max Platzer, University of California Davis, Davis, California, United States
    Nesrin Sarigul-Klijn, University of California Davis, Davis, California, United States
    Land-based and off-shore based renewable power generation encounters significant resource and political constraints. In contrast, the wind power available in many ocean areas far exceeds the global power needs. Therefore, in 2009 we proposed to convert the ocean wind power into propulsive sailing ship power which, in turn, makes it possible to convert the relative water flow power between the moving ship and the stationary water into electric power by means of ship-mounted hydro turbines. The electric power delivered from the hydro turbines is then used to split the seawater into hydrogen by means of electrolysis, the hydrogen is compressed and stored in tanks and transported to shore. We will present the major results of the
    techno-economic and socio-political aspects of the “energy ship concept” studies which we conducted since 2009 and we will show that fleets of hydrofoil-borne autonomously operating sailing ship convoys enable the large-scale production of hydrogen, the large-scale energy storage in the form of hydrogen or of electro-fuels made from hydrogen, the production of potable water as a by-product of converting hydrogen into electricity,
    and the extraction of carbon-dioxide from the sea water.”
    So the wind will blow the ships through the water – on hydrofoils [hull out of the water].
    The ships [convoys of autonomously-operated ships!] will also have hydro-turbines in the water which will take energy from the motion (so slowing the ship, it appears), so possibly the hull will be back in the water, if slowed enough.
    This electricity will be employed to split water, allowing free oxygen to be emitted, and hydrogen to be collected.
    And stored.
    On a ship at sea in a salty environment – which will do all it can [and that is a lot!] to degrade any and all fittings on board; including the hydrogen connections.
    Perhaps golden fittings – gold is a noble metal, so that might work – but that could, perhaps, attract the venal, pirates, and other marine outdoorsmen types, looking for a few kilos of gold – autonomous ships, with no crew or guards . . .
    And hydrogen will leak through very small holes indeed – pin-holes is probably a couple of orders of magnitude too big.
    And they will produce potable water and extract carbon dioxide from the water.
    It is an abstract, so I need the full paper to see what is proposed to achieve these aims – and what will be done with the potable water, the CO2 – and the salts extracted from the sea water.
    I have looked, but the paper appears not to yet have been published on line [2121 Z 22 April2 018].
    Having been involved in commercial shipping for forty five years, I do see some potential problems.
    The presenters – who only came from Davis, California [Via Michelin says 63 miles – about 100 Km – and possible to do by bus, I guess] may have answers.
    I wonder if their work is purely hypothetical, however.
    Auto

      • I think this idea came while under the influence of some crystallic substance…….

      • Karlo51 – thanks.
        I didn’t see magnets in the abstract. [Nor crystals! WO, NS – thanks! Your thoughts noted!]
        Possibly in the article proper – it’s too late here, and possibly too much wine imbibed! – to look tonight, beyond a quick, wholly unsuccessful Google!
        I did give a little more thought to the concept.
        I wasn’t hugely encouraged.
        Autonomous convoys will need the ‘Collision Regs’ to be revised, possibly extensively
        [see recent issues of Seaways for discussion on this. https://www.nautinst.org/en/Publications/seaways/
        Again, I cannot be bothered searching the precise issues and articles at this time at night.
        But I guess Google may be your friend. Again.]
        Working with the Trade Winds – as per say the 1850s and centuries earlier – wind power will be feasible [much of the time, with no ‘Just in Time’ delivery guaranteed!. . .], but – there will certainly be problems with the back-haul.
        Right, solar power will help.
        Some help; in the tropics, for sure.
        In daylight: – and at night if hefty batteries are installed on board (and in order and charged. Electricity and seawater are not normally bestest buddies! Solutions are certainly available, although autonomous ships makes repair less likely. Am I ignoring possible advances in robotics? Yes. I am.
        Though those batteries will cut deadweight [the amount of cargo, roughly, that the ship can usefully carry]).
        Now – the performance of these ships in winter – especially if there are adverse winds – is of concern.
        It is December.
        The ship is anchored off the Isle of Wight, waiting to go into Southampton.
        No speed through the water – so negligible generation (from tidal flow, only, so mostly less than 1 knot.).
        And solar is a no-show; at noon, the Sun is about twenty degrees above the horizon [if visible at all through the cloud!], and would be theoretically visible for less than nine hours a day in December.
        Then a winter storm passes up the Channel [one a week or so if the winter is not too bad!]: – the anchor drags – and it is not clear to me how this ship [size unknown, but respectable, for efficiencies of scale (do the original authors have any idea how BLOOMING BIG modern ships – container ships, tankers, bulkers, and the rest actually are? Only asking!)] will keep from grounding and subsequent damage, and perhaps loss of cargo . . .].
        Of course there will be convoys of these ships, so perhaps only one or two off Southampton – others will have gone on to Antwerp, Rotterdam, Hamburg and other NW European ports.
        Where the storm may pass. Possibly weaker, possibly more intense.
        Auto, intrigued for all that, as the folks from Davis may have answers.
        I would like to see them.

    • “…and what will be done with the potable water, the CO2…”
      Isn’t it obvious, you make Sparkling Water out of the water and CO2 and sell it to restaurants so they can use it create their carbonated beverages. This will provide need on-going funding for the project.

      • Ricdre
        Obvious!
        Now you point it out!!
        I apologise for not spotting this sure-fire revenue stream myself – and many thanks for your help!
        I will visit a gastro-pub tomorrow, and will enquire if this could be incorporated into their operations.
        I see no reason why not – they are within about 18 miles – say 28 Km – of the Thames, accessible to (modest) sea-going ships up to the Pool of London, after all!
        Auto

    • Auto,
      I saw that, too. Looked interesting. Quite an idea!
      But Auto, you’re picking who’s a hypocrite based on their research? Some are underlined and italicized hypocrites, but some are maybe OK? That makes no sense.

      • No, not on being hypocritical, but on how obviously impractical their so called research is.
        They have absolutely no idea about the real world and your ” Looked interesting. Quite an idea!” suggests that neither do you.

      • Why don’t you submit an article? Certainly you can ignore the trolls and respond to thoughtful criticisms.

      • Kristi,
        Apologies for the delay in revisiting – various issues here.
        Thanks for your comment – and, again, apologies if you took the idea that I though hypocrisy was dependent on ‘their research’.
        Not my meaning at all – sorry.
        Just the travel.
        From – e.g. –
        •Bangladesh
        •Australia
        •Nigeria
        •Brazil
        •Great Britain
        •Saudi Arabia
        •Thailand
        •India
        •South Korea
        •Spain
        •Malawi
        •Israel
        •China
        •France
        •Uganda
        •Mexico
        •Japan
        •Costa Rica
        •Switzerland
        •Pakistan
        •Canada
        •Iran
        •Taiwan
        •South Africa
        •Italy
        And I note benben goes to only one conference a year on his [her? – I guess his, but open to correction] governments’ Euros.
        Some of the speakers seem familiar names, possibly attending symposia, conferences, meetings, colloquia etc. out-of-state [for the UK ‘abroad’] more than once a year.
        And I did note that the speakers from UCD could have – and maybe did – travelled by bus.
        But apologies, again, at my tardiness in responding.
        Auto

    • This kind of crap is what many of us are frustrated by. These pie in the sky i ideas just keep the illusion ‘afloat’ that these goofy ideas combined can provide the world with cheap, abundant, CO2 free and low cost energy. Anthon’s point was that these conferences do nothing, achieve nothing and burn a lot of fuel in the process.
      It’s more about propaganda and getting the hell out of your cubicle for a week than it is about saving the planet.
      I don’t blame them, I would too.

  11. Yeh Ha Ha and man are you really cool .This is no joke.Since you obviously think the word hypocrisy is a joke.Well hey cool Mr Ben save the planet man and use the internet with your virtue signalling colleagues.Yeh
    sure it bothers you!!! Well if you were truely sincere you should start a campaign with your colleagues leaving out the jet travel to show real sincerity in what you believe.

  12. Anthony
    The hypocrisy gets me.
    I was sacked a couple of weeks ago for objecting to management elitism (appeal ongoing) because I objected to management elitism..
    I risked my job and suffered the consequences. By next week I’ll know if these hypocritical bastards will be sacked themselves for depriving me of my two fundamental democratic rights, free speech and the right to work.
    I’m sick and tired of being pushed around by the alarmist elite.
    Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond to them. Climate alarmism is the mechanism by which, people will react against its own insidious march.
    None of us may be alive to see it, but there is one almighty backlash coming as our children recognise they have been betrayed by the snowflakes they are represented by today.
    I can’t effing wait!
    Thank you mate.

      • Yes, HotScot, as per Max, really sorry to hear that!
        Your daily comments on this site are always worth reading. I have no idea of your line of work but it strikes me that the management would do better to retain your services as an eloquent & eminently sensible member of the workforce.
        Good luck with your appeal, HotScot.

      • But not a right to work at a specific place of employment. Doesn’t mean you can’t have been fired for the wrong reasons (wrongful termination is a thing), just that you aren’t owed a job at any particular place of employment.

      • If you have a right to work, then you can use the government to force someone to give you a job, or absent that demand that the government give you a job.
        Your “right to work” is limited to work that you can provide for yourself.

      • The only RIGHTS you have are the ones you have when you are all alone in the woods with no other people around, After that the only thing that can happen is either we all recognize those rights in each of us when we meet others or you try to take away someone else rights or they try to take away yours.
        When you say someone has a right to something and it requires someone else to give up their rights to achieve that then it’s not a right its slavery, end of story

      • John Endicott
        In my opinion I was sacked because of my outspoken views. There was a collusion amongst management to have me sacked, and I have the evidence to prove it.
        Now, we’re not entitled to work at a specific place, however, for someone to conspire to sack one from a legitimate position is depriving one, of one’s right to work.
        Were the sacking legitimate, I would be the first to agree I deserved to be sacked, but to conspire to deprive someone of employment is no better than conspiring to deny them their fundamental right to work.
        Whatever reason proffered, race, religion, disability, attitude, it’s illegal (in the UK) to deny anyone employment for those reasons, other than in exceptional circumstances. To sack anyone for any of those reasons is denying them their right to work based on prejudice.
        It may be petty fascism, but it is fascism nonetheless.

      • You don’t lose your right to free association just because you become an employer.
        Your employer can sack you because he doesn’t like the shirt your wearing, or just because he wants a space for his cousin.

    • HotScot,
      I can commiserate…. I’ve put my job ‘on the line’ once or twice, over a 30 year long career.
      Stand firm… and look for another door opening!

      • MarkW
        I’m not forcing anyone to pay for my labour. I was employed to provide my labour, and that contract was illegally violated.
        The right to work goes hand in hand with the right to employ labour. It’s an agreement, contractual or otherwise. There is a fair exchange.
        I provided my labour impeccably. I was sacked because I objected to unethical conduct by others. That is depriving one of ones right to work.

      • You have a right to quit for any reason whatsoever at any time.
        Your company has the right to fire you for any reason whatsoever at any time.

      • MarkW,
        “Your company has the right to fire you for any reason whatsoever at any time.”
        Not in the UK. If someone has been employed for at least two years then it is a breach of contract to fire them without good reason.

  13. What needs to done now is add up all the cumitive CO2 emissions of the attendees in the photo for just the air flight from their home location to this UC Berkeley climate change conference. Assume only one seat per country to simply the calculations. Does anyone know what the average CO2 emission per mile is for the typical airline jet? If so, multiply that by the total miles traveled for the listed 25 countries to get the total CO2 used to get there, then double it as they need to fly home. Divide that by 25 to get an average of CO2 / person who flew to get to this conference. Multiply that number by the 44 people pictured in the photo to get a ballpark figure of CO2 used for transportation to and from this conference. Look closely at the faces of those alarmists in the photo, will they feel some guilt after finding out how much CO2 they produced? My intuition says those attendees in the photo have a much larger CO2 footprint per day than those reading this reply, and that is so ironic. ‘Do what I say, not as I do’ – Al Gore’s epitaph .

    • Gary, good idea. Remember also while they are at one of these conferences they are using not quite double the carbon dioxide just living. I am certain back at home that their house and families are not shut down so for a week they are using two different housing facilities both using utilities. The only difference is they are probably only eating in one place. There is also their transportation to and from the airport, restaurants, etc. I will bet they are not using mass transit.

  14. I have been told that the “side discussions” are the real meat and potatoes of these blockbuster events. I’ll bet they are. At the bar, over drinks. Doing God’s work no doubt

  15. Anthony, liberals by definition are missing the hypocrisy-awareness gene.
    In the beach town where I live, all of the climate freaker-outers — which is basically everybody — NEVER ride their bikes around town (it’s a whole three #%@! miles in size … and flat), but instead drive their 5-whales-per-gallon SUV’s to go, like, one block, for every little chore.
    Meanwhile, I haven’t owned a car for eons, and absolutely LOVE getting around on my bike under any and all weather conditions.
    Yet they give ME grief for being a “climate denier.”

  16. Many conferences, and not just in the climate change field, are very low quality and exist only because they provide a destination for a state-funded holiday. Attendees present papers that are a waste of time, but conference organisers accept pretty much anything because that is how they make their living. It is essentially a form of tourism.

  17. Basically what AGU has turned to, A Clown Car entertaining an audience of Clowns.
    I look back at my 28 years and wonder what would have happened if Texaco et al. had not agreed to the out-of-court settlement and gone to a jury trial instead.

  18. Something called Principles and Core Values are missing from the character of so many of these warriors for the environment as well as most warriors for and against broad ill defined issues. I used to hear the expression that Liberalism is a mental illness and chuckle at the joke. Over time I have realized that there is more truth to it than I first thought.

    • That’s partly right – liberals (as a proxy for “warriors for the environment”) are low on some of the values conservatives have, but then they also have some values that conservatives don’t as much, and understand those values differently (e.g., the concept of fairness is different). If we are ever going to function as a united nation again, we will have to try to understand each other’s values.
      I see so much hatred, disdain and blame of the right for the left, and no one at all talking about trying to build bridges. It’s striking. The left talk more about healing the rift.

      • What planet are you from?
        The Left have no interest whatsoever in :building bridges”. They hate the Right with the purplest of passions, to include wanting to behead Oliver North and the Bushes, long before ISIS made beheading a thing.
        You are totally, completely and utterly out to lunch, by 180 degrees.

      • Kristi, that’s because to the left, building bridges means the right caves in and does everything the way the left wants it done. The left has shown no interest in meeting the right half-way on anything.

      • Funny how the only hatred Kristi sees is from the right for those on the left.
        Regardless, what are these values that the left has that the right doesn’t.
        Usually these values are defined by their willingness to use government to steal money from people the left doesn’t like in order to have that money given to those the left does like, which amazingly enough always includes the members of the left.

      • I’ve been an observer of politics for almost 50 years now, and I can say with 100% certainty, that when the left speaks of “bi-partisanship” it means right and left, working together on what the left wants.

      • Mark W
        “I’ve been an observer of politics for almost 50 years now, and I can say with 100% certainty, that when the left speaks of “bi-partisanship” it means right and left, working together on what the left wants.”
        Absolutely, it’s either “get in the back seat elections have consequences” or we have to have bipartisan legislation and of course only on their terms, otherwise the right is trying to kill grandma.

      • “It’s striking. The left talk more about healing the rift.”
        What fantasy land do you inhabit?

      • Kristi
        My brother just came back from a trip to europe, he was telling that there was a big group from California and she spent some time talking with them, he is conservative and a Trump support and he was shocked to learn that most of them were too, they told him how refreshing it was to actually be able to sit and have reasonable conversation about politics and the world without someone jumping down their throat and calling them racists or sexist or some other insult.
        I don’t think you realise exactly how bad it has gotten and how any conservative expresion is met with almost instant hate and derision. I am getting up there in age and I am a libertarian and have gotten in a lot of political arguments in my life with both sides, I can tell you without reservation that while the left has always been less tolerant of differing views then the right it has reached a level that is down right scary any diviences from the group view is met with hatred and ostriation now, it is chilling to me because I believe in “I may disagree with what you have to say but I will defend with my life your right to say it” never in my life did I think it would come to the point were those words would have to be acted on but if it keeps going they way it is I fear for this country.
        Try pretending to be conservative for a while in an academic environment or try being the climate skeptic at a democratic event and see what I mean.

      • A few years back a CEO of a company that makes a particular browser was fired because it became known that he contributed to a group that opposed a CA ammd to require support for gay marriage.
        The claim was that just knowing the CEO opposed gay marriage meant that the workplace was no longer “welcoming” to gays.
        So much for a belief that the left has any interest in tolerating those who disagree with them.
        BTW, this is the main reason why the left wants to force all charities to publish lists of who donates to them.

  19. This is the same syndrome that I seem to see with all noble causes. What happens is that the very gathering conceived as a positive move to prevent a problem is ITSELF a facet of the very problem it is organized to help solve.
    For example, I got a flier today from a local YWCA, soliciting my participation in a block-party style event to protest racism. The flier spoke of inflatable stations for the kiddies to play on and a host of other things designed to provide entertainment and fun. I responded that I did not support such events, since their intended effect was of no effect or negative effect.
    I see people in certain positions of their occupations organizing these big parties in the name of some cause, just to be able to say that they are doing something important to fulfill their job titles. They are parasitizing a cause to have fun, take a vacation, add a credit to their resume’, or just to give a self-gratifying sense of being involved in something important (thus, boosting their own self-importance). These people do not seem to think deeper, as to the ACTUAL EFFECTS or ACTUAL BENEFITS of their partying.
    I mean, what possible real, tangible effect do partying non-racists have on racists who are still being racists while the non-racists are partying in the name of preventing racism?! Hypocrisy, yes. And worse.

    • Real protest would involve confrontation and conflict and the possibility of there being no “safe spaces” nearby. How many SoCal JustUs SnowJobs would sign up for that? ;|

  20. Benben doesn’t educate, he propagandizes. If he knew anything about science, he would reject the AGW hypothesis outright.

  21. Benben maybe take the beam out of your own eye before you try to take the splinter out of everyone else’s? How can anyone take seriously anything any climate scientist says when you people don’t practise what you preach? I am very glad global warming appears to be a scientific fallacy along the lines of phrenology or the aether or vapours, because if global warming was really happening I’d be worried that such hypocrisy will only create more climate skeptics. As it is, well done! Keep it up! Eventually your behaviour and insensitivity will convince the general public it isn’t happening! Then maybe we will have reasonable power prices in Australia and sensible public policy. So please continue flying!

  22. First paper, Mehta is a very good sediment researcher, have read some of his work. Actually works with real modelers and experimental data. “”Water Temperature Change and Morphology of Coastal River-deltas, Prof. Ashish Mehta, et al.,..”
    Not so sure about the rest, but have a Jewish colleague that I will check this out with.—
    “Is Fracking Kosher?: The Role of Climate Change in the Jewish Response to the Unconventional Extraction of Fossil Fuels.” And, of course, if we just say it right.—
    “Global Warming: How to Better Sell the Cause” and “Promoting Dialogue on Campus and within Community” (… using the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale) and someone who needs to take some science courses.–“Fracking: An Often Overlooked Cause of Climate Change” – but not from this one “How a Physics Professor Saved Italy from Big Oil”
    And having just gone through Harvey suspect this could be relevant. “Flood, Rebuild, Repeat: How Flood Insurance Can Trap Homeowners” Tall (two stories above tree line) damaged motels still not open, waiting to see how it develops. Not just flood.

  23. An all expenses air trip to California on someone else’s dime . Sweet and you get to pretend you are saving the planet too .
    The good news is nothing was accomplished …as usual . The models were wrong and the climate con-men are unmasked enough said . Now go try and solve some real problems .

  24. If you really think that the use of fossil fuels is bad then you should stop making use of any goods and services that has involved the use of fossil fuels. In the community where I live that would include the food that I eat, the clothes that I wear, the water that I drink, the buildings that I live in, and even the man made surfaces that I walk on. We would have to severely reduce our population to go back to a time lime more than 200 years ago when fossil fuels were not in use.

    • willhaas
      And, of course, that’s the whole point, isn’t it! This nonsense has nothing to do with “climate change” – it’s a non-stop war against oil, gas & coal and the foundations of our industrial society. These kooks are living in some pre-industrial Eden in their fantasy-filled dreams. I hope we don’t all have to suffer the harsh realities of life that will result if they succeed in restricting access to cheap energy.

      • Talk about fantasy-filled! Why would there be a war against FF? It makes no sense. You’d think having more efficient washing machines, well-insulated houses, more public transport, and a transition to increasing renewable energy use (which many are voluntarily doing) was going to kill off half the population.
        Lowering one’s carbon footprint does not mean erasing it. Get real, people. You’re building a giant strawman.

        • Kristi, did you pay any attention during the Obama administration? or to the Hillary Clinton campaign? If you could not find a “war on fossil fuels” in both, you are willfully blind. What, pray tell, did the “Clean Power Plan ” actually do, if not that?

        • Kristi,
          I always read your comments when I come across them (rather than skim like I do with some other commenters) since you’re one of the few regular commenters here who is on “the other side” (so to speak). What I note is that you have a very different view of the climate change crowd than do most skeptics. Case in point, your view that there is no war against FF, and your view that the top down regulations are improving things without any downside.
          My observation is that these views do not take into account the side affects of these top down regulations (which, btw, are NOT consistent with a free market society which you profess to be in favor of). Forcing companies to make, and people to buy, more costly goods / products out of a fear that wasting cheap energy is causing environmental harm does have an economic cost. And, statistically speaking, higher economic costs can be measured in “lives”. (Yes, I know this is statistical artifact, but it’s a useful reminder nonetheless.) Furthermore, though it may not be true for you, higher costs for such essentials as energy and transportation are a huge burden on the lower economic classes, particularly in the poorer parts of the world. (Willis has written quite eloquently on this.)
          So, yes, arguing that “lowering one’s carbon footprint does not mean erasing it,” may be literally true, but that basically ignores the detrimental effects of “lowering one’s carbon footprint.” Furthermore, many (if not most) of us here truly believe the science says there is no problem with CO2, thus the whole premise of “lowering” is bunk…and why should I pay more for something that isn’t necessary in the first place?
          Hopefully you can see my larger point here, that we’re coming from very different points of view. Namely, that an effort to reduce the use of a cheap and benign energy source is a “war” against it, and that “lowering” is hardly different to me than “erasing”.
          rip

      • Kristi,
        Abandoning FF, as CACA acolytes advocate, would mean the deaths not just of half the people on earth, but 90%, which is exactly what “renewables” advocates want. Just as long as they aren’t among the dead.

      • I do love the bit when Hillary realised she’d made a major ****-up in saying what she’d just said……
        Bless the unguarded moment.

      • @Kristi, you’re wearing some serious blinders there.
        While a war on fossil fuels INDEED makes NO sense, that IS pretty much what the Eco-Fascists are calling for. What the hell do you think “leave it in the ground” means, exactly?! How exactly would humans have the remote possibility of achieving an atmospheric CO2 level reduction of 50ppm to get the the vaunted “350.org” fantasy “ideal,” CO2 level when our emission contribution is a piddling 4% and any change to the massive natural emissions or to the natural CO2 sinks can easily overwhelm what we can “contribute” (or not)?! [Hint: only by returning to being cave-dwelling hunter/gatherer beings.]
        The “war on climate change” IS nothing BUT a “war on fossil fuels” – as a mean to an end (political power and control). And it isn’t about “efficiency improvements” to which you refer, either. All of the efficiency improvements in the world will not move the CO2 level meter one bit absent the denial of development to currently undeveloped countries and the regression of lifestyles in the developed countries. Oh, and on the “inconvenient facts” list is the fact that as the efficiency of electric appliances, vehicles, and so forth increases, so do our propensities to find more uses for electricity (new/more capable appliances), and find more places we’d like to travel to. In short, energy consumption tends to RISE as efficiency increases, NOT fall as it does only in your fantasy world.
        The economic destruction of “climate” policies will be a catastrophe a hundred times as bad as any minuscule human impact on the climate will ever be.

    • Exactly.
      Hey, maybe they can figure out how to distill whale oil into fuel for motor vehicles. That way we could “leave [fossil fuels] in the ground,” like the Eco-Fascists preach. After all, whales are a “renewable” resource, aren’t they?! We can just start a breeding program…/sarc

  25. The bottomless depths of CACA hypocrisy cannot be plumbed.
    Nor would its delusional acolytes want lead to be used in the process.

  26. Anthony,
    “because they’re special and the rules don’t apply to them.”
    Of course. THEIR carbon footprint is virtuous, YOURS is murder and increases the number of death trains from President Trumps’ death mines (which I believe have started to do well again after all these years?).
    I don’t really need to put a “sarc” on that do I?

  27. Eric,
    Please quit being hypocritical and off yourself.
    The Earth and all those you leave behind upon it will thank you.
    Thanks!

      • Kristi,
        No one hates him. He’s just an imbecilic hypocrite.
        Have you really not noticed the war against FF? It has been a major issue in US elections in this century and helps explain Trump’s win in 2016.
        The Left’s antihuman desire to get rid of FF and return world population to 1804, when it’s estimated that we first enjoyed a billion humans, should be blatantly obvious to all.

      • In Kristi’s world view, any attitude that is insufficiently worshipful is indistinguishable from hate.

  28. …because they’re special and the rules don’t apply to them….
    Actually, I don’t think they are being hypocritical. The climate academics and various hangers-on would not recognise the idea that they want rules, but not rules that apply to them.
    I think it’s a little more complicated than that. When they tweet about not having a family or not flying, they don’t really mean this. It’s a kind of meaningless coded greeting that is exchanged between ‘right-thinking environmentalists’ to establish that they are all part of the same family – a bit the the ritual exchange of “How are you?” for Western English-speaking people. No one expects to hear about a series of ailments when saying “How are you?”, and no environmentalist even thinks what the world would be like if any of their theories were to be applied.

  29. I’ve no doubt that a lot of these academics and government-related people put up with the tedium, dehumanizing treatment, and discomfort of modern air travel flying to conferences so they can build up their collections of frequent flyer points. If you collect enough points, you can really impress the object of your affections (or even your spouse!) by taking her/him on a points-funded trip by air to an exotic location in the first class cabin. The lounges, the free drinks, the relative lack of waiting in line, the superior meals (or even just getting meals), the constant attention from cabin attendants, the jealous glowering of the peons as they trudge past on their way to cattle class while you contentedly sip your pre-takeoff drinks, all contribute to the feeling of being (just this once) special.
    I’ve done it quite a few times (not funded by going to conferences, it’s just that I work in exploration and so travel a lot). And it hasn’t lost its charm yet. I think I’ve yet to meet anyone who’s actually paid for a first-class airline ticket; it’s always either points-funded or upgrades that populate the first class cabins these days.
    It’s not about the money you save, it’s about the STATUS (and the money you save).

  30. They themselves feel completely free to spew as much carbon as they want into the atmosphere, which means they actually aren’t really concerned about the issue (i.e. the whole field is a hoax) or they’re flaming hypocrites of the worst sort.

    You have put your finger on it here. They are not really concerned about the issue. No-one in the activist camp actually believes that catastrophic planetary warming will result from unchecked CO2 emissions.
    This may seem a weird thing to say in view of the public pronouncements, but look at what they do. They advocate useless measures which do not make any reductions. They condone continued high and rising emissions from the largest emitter and the fastest growing emitters on the planet. They make all kinds of irrelevant condoning arguments, false as to the facts anyway, about per capita or historical emissions. They refuse to advocate the measures which would be needed in their own countries, for them to make serious reductions in emissions. For instance, for the US to abolish the suburbs and the auto industry. Instead they focus on wind and solar which makes no impact on emissions. Oh, and electric cars….!
    The continual demand is for the West to deindustrialize. Something which, even were it done, would not stop catastrophic global warming, if what they claim to believe is true.
    I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that this is a lobby which is seeking to achieve deindustrialisation through the excuse of global warming. To them, global warming is not a global problem or crisis, it is simply a cause to use as an organizing and radicalization tool. In fact, they positively do not want to see the measures they advocate adopted. Were they to be, their futility would become apparent. And then we would just have to find another useful set of idiotic issues to organize around.

    • “The continual demand is for the West to deindustrialize. Something which, even were it done, would not stop catastrophic global warming, if what they claim to believe is true.”
      And ironically, if done, would result in a massive increase in *ACTUAL* POLLUTION (as opposed to the “co2 pollution” nonsense) as industry moves to countries WITHOUT the level of environmental protections which exist in the “West.”

  31. Very interesting reading is the book “Why Nations fail” showing how in history elites Always have extracted wealth from the masses while suppressing innovation. Fossil fuels supplied enough energy for everyone for the first time in history and separated energy from land ownership. The present energy transition however is backwardness, back to nature dependent and land dependent energy sources which may be regarded as the revolt of a new elite. The basic motive is the fear of shortages and little faith in human ingenuity.

  32. I agree with what Benben and Kristi Silber are saying in this post.
    Scientific conferences are an important part of the normal way we conduct scientific research and criticizing them or their attendees makes no sense.
    They are very important for scientific networking through informal social interactions that cannot take place unless scientists are taken out of their busy routines and put together in the same place. They are also very rewarding, educational and motivating for students. None of that can be substituted by online meetings.
    As with any activity that allows it, some people will take advantage for personal reward, but that is part of human nature and only calls for better oversight and regulation by funding bodies.
    Scientific travel is just a drop in the ocean of travel, and very rarely leads to extra plane-trips, so reducing it doesn’t save fuel, just leads to emptier planes. If you want to go after wasteful use of trips why don’t you target sport events trips? They move thousands of passengers for single events leading to tens of extra flights, when they can be watched on TV at home.

    In conversations with some people at the conference, I learned that they all basically confessed that the conference was “totally unnecessary” and nothing but a bunch of “time-wasting bullshit.”

    Seriously? Apparently you got a small sample there that didn’t get what they had expected. Was it a biased sample of those willing to talk to you?
    I consider two types of meetings. The small specialized ones very related to one’s line of work where you know by name most of the attendees and learn what everybody is doing and what type of problems they are encountering, and get to meet a few new people entering the field, and the very large general meetings with thousands of participants, several simultaneous sessions and workshops. Those are very tiresome and usually you leave them to students unless one of the chairs asks you to give a talk or you want to promote your most recent work to a bigger audience.
    People that think that plane trips should be stopped are activists, whether they are climate scientists or not, and they are talking from their activism, not from their science. Very few scientists are activists because science, unlike activism, is based on objectivity. Some of the posts here and definitely many of the comments have an anti-science leaning that I cannot endorse and I don’t think is positive for society at large. Science has been extremely useful to society, and to continue being so it needs lack of authority both from the outside and the inside. The problem is that science is very expensive nowadays, and with the money comes the power to instrumentalize science. Another problem is that science has grown too fast and there never has been such a large proportion of people dedicated to science. One of the consequences is a reduction of quality in scientific output, an increase in fraud, and a stress over the ways science auto-regulates (like peer-review). Science has always been and should continue being an elitist endeavor with little economic reward. If people get into science to make money it brings problems that science structures are unprepared for.

    • On, “Appologising for global conferences about our mutual hoax, whilst claiming it to be Science.”

    • As long as my taxes aren’t paying for I could careless, conferences in my job are important too but it’s part of the cost my company has to account for when trying to determine how much the cost of our product is.
      When governments are taking up to 25% of all economic output and borrowing money at an ever increasing rate that my kids will have to pay for one way or the other than enough self justifactional bullshit is enough.

      • I don’t care, but I still reserve the right to ridicule those who want the rest of us to lower our “carbon footprints”, but can’t be bothered to do that in their own lives.

    • … partial comment about
      Javier
      April 23, 2018 at 1:26 am
      Scientific conferences are an important part of the normal way we conduct scientific research and criticizing them or their attendees makes no sense.
      I did not get the impression that criticisms were directed at the events or the attendees directly, but rather more at the hypocrisy of claiming that non-scientific people’s use of “normal ways of conducting” other human activities (besides scientific conferences) is at fault. Actually, I’m not sure that hypocrisy is the best characterization. Arrogant entitlement might be a better fit — that is, it’s okay for SCIENTISTS to use air travel, because THEIR activities are more important than other activities of civilization, and so OTHER uses of air travel should be viewed as questionable.
      They [conferences] are very important for scientific networking through informal social interactions that cannot take place unless scientists are taken out of their busy routines and put together in the same place. They are also very rewarding, educational and motivating for students. None of that can be substituted by online meetings. …
      Scientific travel is just a drop in the ocean of travel, and very rarely leads to extra plane-trips, so reducing it doesn’t save fuel, just leads to emptier planes. If you want to go after wasteful use of trips why don’t you target sport events trips? They move thousands of passengers for single events leading to tens of extra flights, when they can be watched on TV at home.

      I rest my case.
      Science has no privileged claim on air travel.
      Sports events and related travel are just as much a part of society as science. The point is that air travel is a normal part of doing any sort of modern activity. So is electricity and plastic packaging and home heating and all the other activities that use fossil-fuel energy. If climate conferences, then, are themed around the idea that fossil fuels, which are a normal part of conducting ALL modern society’s activities, are at fault, then using fossil fuel to transport so many people to such conferences is contradictory and/or elitist to the point of restricting the use of this resource to a chosen few — in effect rationing it for prioritized, class-distinctive uses, controlled by elites.

      • The conference travel may not result in extra trips, but airlines assign planes to various routes based on anticipated traffic. If a bunch of people book a trip in advance, there’s a good chance the airline will assign a larger plane to that route.

    • Javier: Some (named lief) would say YOUR posts here have an anti-science leaning. I would disagree, but the point (and the reason I recoil at your comment) is, your actions are not the opposite of your talk. Their actions are the opposite, they flaunt the fact that they won’t practice what they preach to others. You agree with that?! I don’t detect anti-science in the comments here, only anti-hypocrisy. You should consider whether your experiencing worthwhile academic conferences means that they are all worthwhile.

      • Paul,
        Only a few climate scientists have proposed an abandonment of air travel so we are only talking about a tiny minority, yet trying to imply is a general view.
        And life is not black or white. Some academic conferences are better than others but I doubt that any will be considered a waste of time by all attendees. If a majority of them thinks so the conference stops being organized.

  33. “It’s the same reason I’m a vegetarian.”

    Well god for you, my hero, give the man a roast lamb dinner.
    Asshat.

    • LMFAO. A vegetarian who now has TWO kids, apparently. Who will hopefully not have “vegetarian” BS crammed down their throats (no pun intended) by their Eco-Fascist father. Maybe their mother has more sense (the fact that she dumped him seems to bode well in that respect).

  34. Now we know that our ancestors were wrong to kick out the Pope and his church. People just reverted to old paganism, even more hypocrite, intolerant, and demanding law to enforce their belief on non-believers.

  35. I wonder if anyone has ever told him how much carbon dioxide there is in the atmosphere which he says he is “fighting” ?? I can’t help thinking that if he knew it was measured in parts per million he might give up! These people should never have been born let alone be allowed to reproduce !

    • if they got rid of their Bs, they wouldn’t need to stick to their guns as not having children would naturally follow 😉

      • It doesn’t matter whether they stuck to their guns, because they would be firing blanks anyway.

  36. Have these people never heard of video-conferences? Or even just emailing their contributions to a common site. But…but…that would not let them go to these nice places on someone else’s dime.
    Reminds me of the time I recommended that a company fold a subsidiary as its only function was to collect and forward royalty payments…a function that could be carried out directly without the itermediary.
    I was advised that the subsidiary had a Board of Directors who enjoyed annual meetings at pricey island resorts.
    Human nature…

  37. “…….I’ve thought of writing an article, but I didn’t want to deal with the animosity of the comments…..”.
    I’ve frequently wondered why some individuals like Kristi Silber and Benben come to this website in the mood to argue with skeptics but never submit an essay to post which presents their position on the AGW theory with supporting evidence.
    Nobody I know of ever said that “animosity” is supposed to be absent from scientific debates. If someone tries to make you believe that it is, they are pulling your leg. if your position doesn’t hold up here at WUWT, then it is not scientifically sound and solid. Making excuses to avoid debating the science (or staying silent on the issue of debating a submitted essay, as Benben appears to be doing so far) only serves to demonstrate that you lack confidence in the soundness of your position. In which case, you are hardly in a position to come to this website attacking those with scientific backgrounds and experience and are qualified to debate AGW.
    Nonetheless, I shall wait patiently for Benben and/or Kristi to submit their essays to Anthony for posting on the chance that I might be wrong about the strength of their position on the AGW issue.

    • To paraphrase one of the AGW leading lights:
      Why should I post to your site, when your only goal is to find something wrong with it?

      • LMAO. Exactly.
        And, of course, the true believer types like to pretend they occupy the moral high ground, as if their “climate scientist” heroes have ever actually proven anything.

      • Well if there *is* something wrong with it, wouldn’t they want to know about it? That’s an opportunity to revise and make it less wrong for next time. Truth fears no question.

      • Indeed truth fears no questions, which only shows what they are peddling isn’t anything resembling the truth.

    • I’d be careful with the ” those with scientific backgrounds and experience and are qualified to debate AGW” concept, because the ability to “debate AGW” is not something that should ever be limited to such supposed “experts” alone. That, after all, is in no small part how we got into this new pseudo-science religion to begin with. ANYONE can intelligently and scientifically look at a given “theory” and point out logical fallacies, inconsistencies, examine data, etc. or conduct experiments to test things. THAT is the nature of scientific inquiry, NOT the genuflecting to the ignorance of “experts.”

      • @AGW is not Science: You are of course right, and I do not argue with you. I had not thought of individuals like Christopher Monckton before I wrote that line about who is intelligent and knowledgeable enough to debate AGW. His education was in the classics and journalism, but he obviously makes an excellent climate debater.
        I am not a scientist, but I’ve read enough about the problems with AGW here at WUWT and elsewhere to know that there is monkey business afoot with the issue. I myself might be able give another non-scientist a good argument with what I do know.
        Thanks for your comment.

      • This reminds of a number of alarmists who have openly proclaimed that unless we can come up with a better theory, we HAVE to accept theirs.
        That’s not how science works. An individual theory stands or falls on it’s own merits.
        If it explains the data, it will stand for the moment. Once it stops explaining the data, or when a theory that better explains the data comes along, then it falls.
        The theory of CAGW has made a number of predictions. None of which have come to pass.
        On that detail alone, the theory of CAGW has to be considered a failure.

      • “Why there’s no purple people?”
        “It’s the Purple People Eater what done it!”
        “Have you ever seen it?”
        “Um, no.”
        “Wouldn’t it starve if there’s no more purple people to eat?”
        “…”
        “And where’s the purple piles it’d leave behind after it–”
        “Don’t get hung up on details! You got a better explanation?”
        “Well, no.”
        “Well there you go, it’s the Purple People Eater what done it!”

  38. I wonder what the representative from Uganda is bringing to the conference. They are probably there to announce a new network of weather stations to help fill the central African void of climate data. /sarc

  39. Eric was right. He shouldn’t have children the poor little blighters as they’ll never know what being snowed is.

  40. That Wendy Lynn Lee author (she idolizes China’s new neo-Marxist Emperor Xi) must be a real piece of work. I’d love to have a televised debate with her. She’d be a heaping mass of tears and screaming in minutes as reality and facts hit her.
    Sadly, those types avoid open debates at all cost. They’d end up with their world view utterly shattered if they did so with an informed opponent.

  41. I wish these lunatics would sterilize themselves or better yet, off themselves “for the planet”. I was in Rio for a couple of weeks leading up to the last climate conference there. Not only is Rio a very expensive city to begin with, but prices skyrocket whenever there are large conferences. Also, it’s relatively isolated from other population centres, so the “carbon footprint” of the flights to and from the conference are huge. This did not stop the city from being packed with delegates and their groupies. If the delegates cared about people, they would have chosen a less expensive and closer venue and sent the money they saved to Rio to help the millions of impoverished people living in favelas. The stench of their hypocrisy is overwhelming.

  42. If they were really concerned about increasing CO2 in the atmosphere then they would hold the conference on the Internet. The technology is in place so there is no excuse not to.

  43. I like this comment the best, although I’m only going to read over a 100 of them.
    “Why would scientists want to write for such an inhospitable, disrespectful, distrustful crowd? It wouldn’t matter what they say since they are constantly portrayed as frauds, hypocrites and fools.”
    If this person is worried about being treated badly at least they get treatment here. Their article would never get displayed and they also would have their comments deleted on most big social media sites.

  44. @Benben: I have been working productively with some people over the Net for over a year. Three of them I have met in person, two of them *after* the work began. The other two I have never met. It is sheer NONSENSE to say you have to meet people face to face the first time. There’s a large international software company with a branch here that does all its meetings over the Net; the leader of the local group goes overseas from time to time to meet other group leaders, but the people at the coal face never do this. It is sheer NONSENSE to say you have to meet people face to face the first time. As for conferences being cheap, suppose there is a conference in London I’d like to go to. The cheapest return air fare I can find is EUR 1264, and that doesn’t include accommodation or registration. At the university I worked at for the last 20 years, if we wanted to go to a conference, we had to tell the university a year in advance (before even *submitting* a paper, let alone having it accepted), and there was a limited contestable pool of money for this. The Northern Hemisphere is by no means the whole world.

Comments are closed.