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.
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.
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:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Holthaus may find a surprising number of volunteers to help him achieve his aim.
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? ;|
Benben doesn’t educate, he propagandizes. If he knew anything about science, he would reject the AGW hypothesis outright.
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!
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.
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 .
Do as I say, not as I do.
Mac
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.
Hi Kristi,
Well if it isn’t war then it’s certainly high-level terrorism……..
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.
Jones, I really didn’t need to see that Shrillary video so early in the morning….
Kristi apparently does not spend any time listening to what her fellow SJWs have been saying.
@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
The bottomless depths of CACA hypocrisy cannot be plumbed.
Nor would its delusional acolytes want lead to be used in the process.
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?
Eric,
Please quit being hypocritical and off yourself.
The Earth and all those you leave behind upon it will thank you.
Thanks!
Chimp,
Do people here hate Eric Holthaus for a reason? Or is he just convenient?
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.
Kristi,
Dunno if you’re an American or not, but even if not, how did you miss the Democrat War on Coal:
https://www.nrsc.org/press-releases/democrats-war-on-coal-2016-03-22/
In Kristi’s world view, any attitude that is insufficiently worshipful is indistinguishable from hate.
…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.
Like a secret handshake or a scripted conversation password from film noir.
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).
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.”
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.
Wot? No participants from The Netherlands? That’s progress!
Couldn’t see Norway either – how’s that happened?!
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.
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.”
That comment was from me.
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.
“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).
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.
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 !
Instead of “stunning” hypocrisy, I would call it “totally expected” hypocrisy.
one could even say “business as usual” hypocrisy
I wish they all had the B’s to stick to their guns and not have children.
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.
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…
“…….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.
Hope you have a lot of patience, as I suspect it will be a long wait indeed.
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!”
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