- Date: 11/12/19
- Global Warming Policy Forum
There’s no hypocrite quite like a green hypocrite is there?
Whenever you get some eco-zealot is lecturing you about impending climate doom and the need for “us” to go vegan, you can be pretty sure that you are dealing with someone whose carbon emissions would put some developing nations to shame and whose diet would make a vegetarian shudder.
Over the last year, the ability of our climate-aware friends to hop from the ski-slopes to the protest march, from the business-class lounge to the barricades, has been an endless source of entertainment. Remember Zoe Jones from Extinction Rebellion? She returned from holidays in Uganda, New Zealand and the Alps to blockade a major thoroughfare in Bristol, infamously preventing people from getting to hospital. “We’re doing the right thing” she opined.
One of our favourites was another Extinction Rebellion supporter, Professor Jem Bendell of the University of Cumbria, who enjoys regular trips to Bali, and is also a visiting professor at institutions in Australia, Spain, Kenya and Switzerland.
Indeed, the hypocrisy of the environmental movement is now so all-encompassing that it is starting to move from the domain of amusing anecdote to that of serious scientific consensus.
We can have a winner, then we need a pile of Dishonorable Mentions.
For me it’s a toss up between Trudeau who preaches and flies and Obama who preached about climate change and just bought a large sea side home.
Australia has the old Green, Bob Brown. He took a car convoy two-thirds of the way up a continent (and on a ferry to get from Tasmania to the continent) with all that fossil fuel use to campaign against a coal mine.
Said coal mine is to provide power to poor Indians. Naturally, Bob is consistently big on ‘helping the poor.’
He’s also into renewable energy. He campaigned
against a wind farm in the one Australian place where such technology might actually work. He cut his political teeth on stopping a Tasmanian hydro-electric dam.
He’s a big believer in forestry jobs being replaced by tourism. A cable-car up a mountain at Hobart met with his resistance, as did a proposal of a walking track with cabins running across a ‘pristine wilderness.’
Bob hates the old doctrine of “terra nullius’, that held that Australia was unpopulated at colonisation and fair enough, but believes in the existence of Australian ‘wilderness,’ untouched by mankind, which is effectively the same thing.
Bob campaigns against forestry, but has been photographed at a bush hut cutting wood.
The UN, hands down.
good one
A posthumous award should go to Maurice Frederick Strong. A Canadian oil and mineral businessman and a diplomat who served as Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations. He was the one who got this sleezeball rolling.
Gorebull is the one who started this mess. He definitely deserves a Special Award of Some Kind, denoting him as the Idiot Who Incited It, or some such thing.
Everyone that flew, drove or arrived by sailboat (captain had to fly), to the Madrid climate conference and/or AGU19 and claims CO2 is evil and must be reduced. They are all hypocrites of the year. Some are famous, some are not, but they are all hypocrites.
We probably have to look back to 1964 & blame the American singer Fats Domino for popularizing travel with the lyrics “… I might take a plane, I might take a train … Kansas City here I come ….” True he did presage Saint Greta when crooned “… But if I have to walk, I’m going just the same ….”
Admittedly he was being, like, totally cis-gender warbling “… They got a crazy way of loving there … .” And actually the song is, like, seriously sexist needing rewriting from “…They got some crazy little women there …. And I’m gonna get me one….”
Nick Stokes, Steven Mosher, Griff “My family and other coal miners but now you can’t benefit from fossil fuels” Griff, “Loydo”, just off the top of my head…
In receiving my award I’d like to thank Patrick, Mark, Lord Monckton… and of course the walruses – without whom it would not have been possible.
I shall be donating my winnings to our new PM, Boris, for his pioneering research in finding out whether the light stays on inside the fridge when you close the door.
It is something not to be proud of Griff, bit like the Darwin Award. But you soak up all the plaudits you like!
Nick, Griff, and Loydo are certainly contenders, but the English Major not so much. You need to do more than make mostly nonsensical, grammatically-poor drive-byes in order to exhibit “great hypocrisy”.
Sir David Attenborough AKA Boaty McBoatface has got to be in with a shout at Hypocrite of the year.
His coverage and lies voicing over walrus tumbling off cliffs will never be forgiven. His claim the plastic in the oceans problem, is a Western World issue without focusing or daring to mention the real culprits. It was easy (for a none scientist) adopting Climate Warming, to ensure he remained in BBC employ, while the honest scientist David Bellamy, told the truth, i.e. “there is no climate crisis” was fired. David Bellamy died earlier this week a bitter man, disgusted at the treatment he received from the BBC.
Boaty David, by contrast, is voicing over yet another propaganda nature series for the BBC. Flying all over the world with teams of technicians funded by the British tax payers, without a care in the world. We have no way of stopping this insane waste of public money, he knows it, the BBC knows it, but change is now on the horizon. The election here in the UK is so big a win for the Tories, they may at long last rein in the excesses of the BBC. Boris Johnson said in the election, the BBC must be changed from its biased left wing base. The end of the BBC licence fee may happen, in the not too distant future.
Bellamy died this week? And not a peep from the Beeb or any other media outlet. Boris has said many things, many of those things was about climate and low emissions technology. So I think he’s just going to follow in the path of past PM’s. Lets hope he follows through on Brexit though.
Well, considering he campaigned on “getting BREXIT done”, he best follow through on it or he’s politically toast. From all I’ve seen from him (from this side of the pond) I don’t doubt he’ll follow through, the only question is what form of BREXIT will you end up with. For my British cousins, I hope it’s one with as few strings left tied to the EU as possible.
John,
The names may not be known to you, but rest assured, the booting out of people like Speaker Bercow, old wood, been here a long time, Ken Clark, ex legal adviser to the Tories, Dominic Greive, ex Tory chancellor Philip Hammond, ex nobody with a big opinion of herself Anna Soubry. These were all blockers of Brexit, all are now out. They are yesterday’s people of no consequence.
Brexit will be delivered and the Tories know, they either do it meaningfully or they will be out at the next election.
The nation has again spoken, and spoken very clearly. The message is clear, “get us out of the disaster that is the EU”
People are saying the EU is the UK’s biggest trading block, that may be true however, that does not stop the UK from trading with any other country. There is talk that the remaining EU countries will not trade with the UK if any of it’s products and services don’t meet EU “climate” conditions. LOL
The UK had access to all of the EU, Australia, New Zealand and the rest of the world before 1973. In 1973, Tory Ted Heath, committed the UK to the Common Market and at that instant severed the Australian and New Zealand markets leaving them high and dry. There is no reason why the UK cannot setup trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand again.
I found out today there were actually 3 votes on Brexit; 2016 referendum, the result was to leave the EU. 2017 general election, the vote was to leave. And since that time, Cameron bottled out ushering in May to delay, and it worked. May bottled too ushering in Johnson as PM. There was much talk of “young voters” having their say, well they did, and they sided with the Tories, to leave the EU. Now, another general election with a Tory policy of Brexit, the Tories won. That is another vote to leave the EU. 3, democratic votes on Brexit and all 3 the result was LEAVE!
Lets hope he gets it done!
Patrick,
I am hoping the stated Tory position on “climate Change due to CO2” is simply them playing to the gallery. There is no science behind the nonsense being promoted and advanced by the EU. They are using climate alarm, simply as a tool, to brow beat, fool and control the masses.
I am sure once the true scientific minds are allowed to speak up, and tell it as it is, the traditional pragmatism of the Tory party, along with a working majority, may just cause the establishment to reflect on what they are doing.
The other sobering reality check coming down the track is a colder planet. It will be interesting to see how long the alarmists/warmists can keep their charade going.
If you have solar panels on your roof, and you drive an electric vehicle, are you not a “climate hypocrite” if you also run a science denying blog?
“science denying blog”. Again we see totally the anti-science thinking patterns, and the associated propaganda term.
Science operates on the basis of thesis, antithesis, synthesis. True scientists bring out theories, test them, publish them, and then they WELCOME hard criticism, and opposition as a test of their work. That causes the tweaking, or abandonment of weak and false assumptions. And the strengthening, and adoption of the new. That’s human. That’s what made neolithic stone tools better.
You want, and mostly have a distorted science where you are the only players on the ice, and your team gets to jump up and down in triumph every time you score a goal . No referee, opposing hockey players, no defenseman, no goalie. Locking the opposition team on the bus outside the arena. Prety hollow triumphs, especially when … you are so wrong about everything CO2.
First Christina, being skeptical of CAGW does not equal “science denying”.
Secondly, even if we take, for the sake of argument, your nasty slur to be true (its not), there’s no requirement to be a true-believer in CAGW in order to use solar panels and electric vehicles. There’s plenty of other reasons besides climate why someone might choose those things, including simply being interested in the technology. For example, one might choose solar panels to personally save money on energy costs (once the windfall from subsidies are counted in) or to otherwise make up for a shortfall in the grid (Particularly in a high-cost state like California where sun is plentiful and your electricity rates are high and the electricity could be shut off for days at a time to “prevent fires”). So there’s no hypocrisy to be found even when taking your rude nonsense as read.
Denying AGW is not being skeptical, it is denying the science.
There is no science in AGW.
Radiative physics is science.
The owner of this blog doesn’t deny that there might be some AGW. He does deny that it’s catastrophic, and recognizes that so far a fourth molecule of plant food per 10,000 dry air molecules has been a boon to life on the planet, that the so-called “surface temperature data” reconstructions and GIGO models are bogus. If I may presume to speak for him.
Christina, you’ve shown no evidence that you even know what science is. Because if you did know anything about science, you’d know that models are not evidence and that contrary to the narrative you’ve bought hook line and sinker, “extreme weather” isn’t getting worse or more frequent (hurricane activity is actually on the low end of the observed historical record, drought conditions are actually currently relatively few compared to the observed historical record, snow is not a thing of the past, the arctic is still not ice free, etc.) and that there is every reason to be skeptical of the claims of man-caused climate catastrophe. But show us all the depths of your scientific knowledge and prove with actual data and evidence that the climate crisis is real.
You want evidence? 1) Disappearing polar ice. 2) Pole-ward migration of species. 3) Rising sea levels 4) Rising global temperatures in both the ground and satellite record. 5) Melting glaciers …. there is plenty of evidence, and it has convinced a vast majority of scientists that A) the earth is warming up and B) CO2 is the cause.
“Christina Widmann December 13, 2019 at 12:30 pm
there is plenty of evidence, and it has convinced a vast majority of scientists that A) the earth is warming up and B) CO2 is the cause.”
There is no evidence emissions of CO2 from human activity is having any warming effect given CO2 concentration increase has been linear since the start of the IR and temperature rise hasn’t and we know from ice cores CO2 concentrations follow temperatures by about 800 years. So your “evidence” is bogus at best.
Patrick, there is no evidence in the ice cores of CO2 being 400 ppm, therefore your mention of them is irrelevant.
There is plenty of evidence that CO2 levels have been multiples of 400ppm in the distance past. 1800-2000 ppm during the Age of the Reptiles, and steadily decreasing since. Do you not know plants require CO2 to live ?
During the last Ice Age temperature trough CO2 levels fell to 180 ppm, just 30 ppm above the Death Zone for plants. All plants. The basis of the food chain for all life on earth. That Christina is the real extinction level event.
It is a regular deception of the Climate Extremists to cherry pick “start dates, and finish dates to morph the slope of graphs to hide giant contradictions in their theory. Just google “CO2 levels over geologic time”, and you will see CO2 levels have been dropping for 200 million years and have brought life to the edge of extinction. From a lack of CO2.
Christina you gave no evidence only a set of events that you assert is man’s fault.
1) which reappears each winter. Arctic still not ice free. Your lack of evidence that mankind is responsible and lack of evidence that it’s catastrophic is noted.
2)species migrate, its what they do. Your lack of evidence that mankind is responsible and lack of evidence that it’s catastrophic is noted.
3) Sea levels has been rising steadily for centuries. Your lack of evidence that mankind is responsible and lack of evidence that it’s catastrophic is noted.
4) Again, it’s been rising since before man is claimed to be responsible. Your lack of evidence that mankind is responsible and lack of evidence that it’s catastrophic is noted.
5) Some glaciers have been melting others have been growing. Your lack of evidence that mankind is responsible and lack of evidence that it’s catastrophic is noted.
A) the earth has been warming since the depths of the little ice age. Your lack of evidence that mankind is responsible and lack of evidence that it’s catastrophic is noted.
B) is an assertion without evidence (the ice core records show the opposite relationship between CO2 and rising temps throughout history). Your lack of evidence that mankind is responsible and lack of evidence that it’s catastrophic is noted.
1) “the earth has been warming since the depths of the little ice age.” ……why?
2) At no point do the ice cores show CO2 at 400 ppm. Because of this, they are worthless with respect to what is happening today
3) “Some glaciers have been melting others have been growing.”……more are shrinking than growing
4) Why are sea levels rising? Could it be because glaciers are melting and water expands due to rising temperature?
5) ) “species migrate, its what they do”….that doesn’t explain why they migrate towards the poles.
6) “lack of evidence that it’s catastrophic is noted.” Yes, the term “catasrophic” is not a part of the AGW hypothesis
The problem you have Mr. Endicott is that a single hypothesis explains all of these observations, and you have not offered any alternative. It’s the reason why you and your ilk cling to the belief that < 5% of scientists who study these things are correct.
“Christina Widmann December 13, 2019 at 5:25 pm”
Ok, how about the paleoclimate record?
“Christina Widmann December 13, 2019 at 6:43 pm
2) At no point do the ice cores show CO2 at 400 ppm. Because of this, they are worthless with respect to what is happening today”
Ice cores show CO2 concentrations FOLLOW temperatures.
“Christina Widmann December 13, 2019 at 6:43 pm
1) “the earth has been warming since the depths of the little ice age.” ……why?”
We are still in an iceage, currently enjoying an interglacial. Interglacials are warmer. The Roman warm period was warmer than today. The Holocene optimum was warmer than today. Why?
We have been IN an Ice Age ( The Quaternary Ice Age) for 2.3 million years. We are presently in the likely extreme tail end of a brief Interglacial Warm Period, where most warm periods end in about 10K Years.
If we shrunk one Ice Age-Interglacial cycle down to a calendar year, the place where most of us currently living north of about 40-45 degrees North would be under 1-3 miles of ice from Jan 1, to about Dec 7th.
Part of human intelligence is the capability of us to recognize patterns. In a world that over time is cold, cold, cold, cold, cold, cold, cold, cold, cold, cold, warm, cold, cold, cold, cold, cold, cold, cold, cold, cold, cold, warm etc,etc, who would surmise that what comes after this warm period ends would be “even warmer” ? Even with more of a very weak thermal forcing molecule like CO2.
“Christina Widmann December 13, 2019 at 6:43 pm
The problem you have Mr. Endicott is that a single hypothesis explains all of these observations, and you have not offered any alternative.”
https://www.google.com/search?q=hypothesis+meaning&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBAU832AU832&oq=hypothesis&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l7.358742j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
yes, the term “catasrophic” is not a part of the AGW hypothesis
So tell your fellow travelers to stop preaching catastrophe and crisis. There isn’t any.
The problem you have Mr. Endicott is that a single hypothesis explains all of these observations, and you have not offered any alternative.
The one with a problem is you and your side of the issue. That “single hyposthesis” isn’t any such thing what it is, however, is a baseless assertion without evidence that claim everything as “proof” which means it’s not falsifiable which means it’s not science. Again: Your lack of evidence that mankind is responsible and lack of evidence that it’s catastrophic is noted.
It’s the reason why you and your ilk cling to the belief that < 5% of scientists who study these things are correct.
Yet another baseless assertion. you do realize that the so-called “97% consensus” is 1) politically , not scientifically, derived, and 2) proven to be total bunk. the “studies” the have, after the fact, attempted to show that there is such as consensus have all been debunked, their methods flawed and their results actually not even in line with their so-called methods Even if there was such a consensus (sorry to break it to you, but there isn’t) it would still be meaningless as consensus is not science, it’s politics. Remember what Einstein said when told about the book “100 Authors against Einstein” – “If I were wrong, all it would take is one”. The History of Science is the history of “consensus” being proven wrong by the one.
1) “the earth has been warming since the depths of the little ice age.” ……why?
Certainly not because of man, the depths of the little ice age were long before man’s CO2 is claimed to be at fault (IE the warming started long before the CO2 you are blaming was ever emitted). You see, man is not in control of the weather. Never has been. You are attempting to assert something that you have no evidence to support. You see, in science there is this thing called the null hypothesis. In the case of CAGW the null hypothesis is “because it’s natural”. Your problem is the CAGW has never disproven the null hypothesis (and never even attempted to do so). Until you can disprove the null hypothesis, it remains the answer to all your assertions.
2) At no point do the ice cores show CO2 at 400 ppm. Because of this, they are worthless with respect to what is happening today
at no point do the ice cores show rising CO2 preceding rising temps. Because of this, your claims for the reverse mechanism have no evidence. You are once again asserting something rather than providing evidence to back up your assertion.
3) “Some glaciers have been melting others have been growing.”……more are shrinking than growing
So? That’s been the case for *centuries*, long before man’s CO2 is claimed to be at fault. You are once again pointing to a phenomena that began long before the emission of the CO2 that you are blaming. So once again the null hypothesis hold and you are once again asserting something rather than providing evidence to back up your assertion.
4) Why are sea levels rising? Could it be because glaciers are melting and water expands due to rising temperature? So?
Perhaps, but again it’s something that’s been happening for centuries, long before man’s CO2 was said to be at fault, so again the null hypothesis holds and you are once again asserting something rather than providing evidence to back up your assertion.
5 ) “species migrate, its what they do”….that doesn’t explain why they migrate towards the poles.
again the null hypothesis holds and you are once again asserting something rather than providing evidence to back up your assertion.
6) “lack of evidence that it’s catastrophic is noted.” Yes, the term “catasrophic” is not a part of the AGW hypothesis
Its the C in CAGW, because that what we are really talking about, AGW that is so “dangerous” that you want to pass draconian legislation to restructure the world’s economy in order to “fix” the “problem”. Only there is no problem to fix, there’s no evidence that man is in control of the weather/climate and further what warming we have seen (naturally, see the null hypothesis, and having started long before the CO2 emission you are blaming) has been net beneficial. It’s cold, not warmth, that is the danger to life and civilization.
The problem you have Mr. Endicott is that a single hypothesis explains all of these observations, and you have not offered any alternative.
No, a single assertion claims to explain all. Your problem is that there’s no real evidence to back it up, just assertion and every “prediction” your “explanation” has made has spectacularly failed to materialize in the real world (the arctic is still not ice free, there is no tropospheric hotspot, the heat continues to be missing, snow is not a thing of the past, hurricanes, droughts, and other “extreme weather” events have not been more intense or more frequent, etc, etc, etc,), and the null hypothesis still hold. And I don’t have to offer an alternative, just point out that your explanation is so much non-scientific junk (assertion is not science. Consensus is not science. computer games are not science. Evidence and data, two things your “explanation” lacks, is what is needed for it to be science). And as the null hypothesis still holds there’s really no need for any other alternative.
Let me get this straight.
Anthony has, for his own reasons, voluntarily done some of the of the things the “Greens” would force us all to do and that makes him a hypocrite!?!?
WHY?
Because he didn’t do those things in the name of “Climate Change”?
Because he did them to save a few bucks in a state where the electric rates and gas prices are artificially high?
Because he did it voluntarily?
“cling to the belief that < 5% of scientists who study these things are correct."
Christina … how many scientists / philosophers were on the side of Galileo Galilei when he was put before the Inquisition for holding the heretical belief that the earth revolved around the sun ? Close to zero. The overwhelming number of scientists / philosophers opposed to heliocentricism had ZERO effect on the continual revolution of the earth around the sun. Never once did the sun switch places due to even a vast majority of holders of "earnest belief".
Neither science nor reality succumb to the vagaries of a "vote".
So many to choose from!
I think the greater challenge would be an award for the “We’ve Got to Stop the Climate from Changing!” promoter who WASN’T a hypocrite.