Guest good fracking grief by David Middleton
These people actually seem to take themselves seriously…
How to Make Academia Less Hypocritical and More EcologicalBy Martín López Corredoira & Beatriz Villarroel
Science and academia in general are not only a source of knowledge but also a guide to how reason can build a better society. Although most researchers do not intend to claim an ethics for humanity, they should nevertheless set an example of behavior for the rest of the population since they symbolize the wisdom of our epoch. However, at present we observe that science and technological progress, far from being a solution, are driving one of humanity’s major problems: an ecological crisis.
A recent article referring to Sweden declares that universities and colleges account for the greatest emissions of carbon dioxide from air travel among State employees. More than half of their 100,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO₂) released in 2017 originated from the Ministry of Education.
[…]
Ironically, climate scientists tend to fly a lot. For instance, a weekend-long annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union, whose scientists study the impact global warming is having on the Earth, was responsible for an estimated emission of 30,000 tons of CO2. The Paris meeting on global warming solutions in 2015 (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 21st session of the Conference of the Parties and the 11th session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol) produced around 300,000 tons of CO2 emissions. The panorama of hypocrisy is that we have “jet-setting academics” among the highest ratio contaminators, while they exert their moral authority to demand that people in less privileged groups of our society, such as coal miners, teamsters working on oil pipelines, and mining-dependent workers sacrifice their own economic well-being to fight climate change.
[…]
Researchers have different reasons for flying, but the main one is attending conferences celebrated at great distances from their workplace. Are these congresses, symposia, workshops, schools, and meetings so important for the development of science?
[…]
Nonetheless, one thing is clear: those who attend conferences and enjoy the benefits of prestige and networking reap higher rewards for their careers than those who do not. Hence, any measures taken regarding the problem should be taken globally for the entire scientific community because, as in all ecological solutions, sacrifices from well-intentioned minority will not save the planet, but in this case, it will harm careers of this minority.
[…]
No, for a science that aspires to be a worthy representative of wisdom and reason on Earth, there is only one solution that is acceptable for the present situation: the suppression of conferences. Not a mere slight reduction, but a total or almost total (> 95%) suppression of the number of these events. And this should be done not by appealing to the goodwill of scientists and academics, but by introducing rules/laws to govern the number of conferences. Governments, administrators, and politicians should think about it seriously, as beer-drinking with colleagues and feeding the narcissism of some researchers at conferences is an expensive luxury that we cannot afford in the times of a climate crisis.
The reality we are facing is a hard one, and it is not time to propose optimistic solutions that give false childish hopes to people about global warming while they keep their bourgeois lifestyles.
[…]
Martín López Corredoira (1970-), PhD in Physics, PhD in Philosophy. Staff researcher at Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias (Canary islands, Spain).Beatriz Villarroel (1984-), PhD in astrophysics, international postdoc at the Nordic Institute of Theoretical Physics (Stockholm, Sweden) and the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias (Spain)
Real Clear Science
Can you say Marxists?
I hadn’t planned on going to the AAPG convention this year. It’s in San Antonio… But now, I think I might just fly over there for a day next week. There’s an entire technical session on aeolian (eolian) system dynamics and there’s a lot of oil in the Norphlet formation. Maybe I’ll drive… Whichever leaves the biggest carbon footprint.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Science and Academia… symbolize the wisdom of our epoch. “ Meeting many of these people has demonstrated to me that knowledge and wisdom are not the same.
It’s not a crisis. It’s a dilemma. A conundrum. The obvious good of heating people’s houses and growing and transporting food, versus possible environmental damage by 2 degrees of warming. Most of the general population are on the “heating-my-house-is-good” side without needing to have climate expertise.
And while philosophizing, most of the plants, insects, trees, and animals of the world are likely on the “a-couple-of-degrees-warmer-is-nicer” side of the dilemma, also without needing any climate expertise.
And the general population fully realize that “climate scientists” can’t really proclaim “no problem” or they are out of a job.
Drive.
A passenger on a commercial liner achieves a fuel efficiency in the realm of 80 – 100mpg.
Wait a minute here….have the Progressives in the USA seen the attendees list?
I count only two genders acknowledged….what happened to the counts of other genders (61??) in attendance?
David M,
Of course their suggestions are stupid, but I feel that you took them too seriously.
How many times here at WUWT have we pointed out the hypocrisy of climate alarmists?
I see these guys doing the same thing that we do here. I support their words. They are so outrageous that they force academics spouting climate doom messages to look at themselves in the mirror. “Put up, or shut up,” as one commentator wrote.
If climate scientists want to really get serious about their warnings, then they need to do some serious lifestyle changes, … like NOT flying. I would add that they need to stop driving to their university jobs, stop using credit cards, stop using air conditioning and heating, … hey, maybe just stop breathing.
Yeah, stop breathing — think I’ll write a stupid article about how climate scientists should just stop breathing — that would quieten the messages of doom a bit, wouldn’t it.
I need to learn to make my sarcasm more obvious… 😉
It can be tough sometimes, David, when the target of your sarcasm has long since become an unknowing a self-parody – as many in the alarmist camp have.
Yeah, David M, … more smiley faces, I suppose.
My bad — I obviously had a moment of sarcasm density — too much CO2 in the room, I guess — I had to close the windows, because the whether here took a turn towards a cool spell.
Two people with Ph.D.’s in physics, Martín López Corredoira and Beatriz Villarroel, and neither one can figure out that climate model with about 100 W/m^2 of error, is unable to resolve the impact of a 0.035 W/m^2 annual perturbation.
It’s ludicrous.
I was going to ask when physicists became so mush-brained. But we know when.
It was in 1995, or thereabouts, when the physics establishment let Ben Santer get away with his lie in the IPCC SAR, and then stood silently by while the eco-yahoos proceeded to assassinate the character of Frederick Seitz for his protesting the lie.
Ludicrous? Yes.
Shameful? Even more so.
It reminds me of “”Animal Farm, “We are all equal, but some are far more
equal””.
Forget all about CO2, that just the excuse , or if political, then its clearly a
smoke screen for World Government, i.e. Communism.
It reminds me of our politicians and one of their many perks.
Fact finding. So despite the internet, despite the consuls or embuses in other countries who could supply any meaningful facts, the politicians want to go on these fact finding trips.
Of course they tend to occur more frequently as our winter approaches, and the Northern Hemisphere summer is coming in.
One of the local trips was written up as he wished to inspect bridges, yes
he did as he drove over them at 100 km, ( 60 mph) .
They get away with it because every politician enjoys such taxpayers
holidays. So the same goes for all of the academics, its “Someone
else’s money””.
MJE VK5ELL
Networking and glad handing at conferences is a lousy excuse for attending conferences.
Hearing presentations that are easily read at one’s workstation or commuting to/from work makes little sense when telecommunications/Skype/Video are effective direct communication venues.
Nor is attending conferences at hot vacation spots conducive to conducting any business.
Yeah, putting doughnuts or sandwiches and coffee into a conference room quickly attracts attendees; only those attendees quickly disappear as soon as the coffee and foods are gone.
Nor does one expect those transient attendees to actually remember what they heard while consuming foods and gossiping with their friends.
And yes, I have been measured and judged based on education I might have received during the past year; education that means conferences or training sessions.
Sorry, after enduring “Communications for Managers” three times, I chose the conferences.
That communications class was just one of the ‘approved’ training courses by our HR that ignored employees attending the same course repetitively.
I lost count of Ethics courses that we were required to take every time an executive was caught doing something illicit.
Meanwhile, failure to list recent conference attendance gives interviewers that the job candidate tries to stay ‘up-to-date’.
Tie in a true rewards mechanism for awards/grants/college/graduate research papers; i.e. one that penalizes use of waffle words, bad mathematics, gross assumptions, conclusions impossible to replicate, etc. etc.
All factors that allow the current charade of bad science to afflict multiple branches of science.
I vote for banning attending annual or quarterly conferences.
Planning on attending with clear conscious, if not just to take a victory lap on Guyana.
Actually … the students of said universities cause more CO2 emissions as they travel back and forth to their homes far away.
Why don’t they just order us all to emigrate to the tropics and live in straw huts?
Well, both sides jet off to conferences.
However, I noted several years ago that the “Evil Denialists” hold theirs in Las Vegas in the middle of the friggin’ summer. “Upright Climate Scientists” on the other hand, sip their Mai Tais while lounging on the beach in Bali.
The correctness of our positions is unassailable, but our sanity is sometimes rather doubtful…
As Mike the Morlock says, this is surely satire on the part of Corredoira and Villaroel. If so, it is nicely judged. If it really is not satire, then of course let the fun continue.
ha ha. youse climate deniers give me the lolz.
Here we have academics responding to the climate emergency and all you can do is mock and nit pick.
When was the last time anyone here refused to fly half way across the world for a free holiday and a lobster dinner ? I thought not
These brave men and women are showing you the way. be respectful.
And whats wrong with Marx? by far the greatest man of recent generations, a paragon and beacon. Harpo was good as well, although he never got many good lines
When was the last time anyone here refused to fly half way across the world for a free holiday and a lobster dinner ? I thought not
I’d love to be invited to a free holiday and a lobster dinner. Sign me up. Oh wait, I’m not one of these elite academics, so (like the rest of the peasants) I’ll never be given the opportunity to refuse because I’ll never be offered. Free flights and lobster dinners for thee but not for me.
No-one here “denies” climate.
“…there is only one solution that is acceptable for the present situation: the suppression of conferences. Not a mere slight reduction, but a total or almost total (> 95%) suppression of the number of these events.”
I’d agree with that but make it >97%. That’s much more relevant in a climate science context.
“Researchers have different reasons for flying” – but mostly it’s because they get to claim it on expenses