Climate scientists are science’s biggest frequent flyers
From the people who want to shut down all fossil fuel technology: A newly published survey of 1,400 scientists from 59 countries has found that climate scientists fly more than researchers in any other field.
Climate experts — who accounted for about 17% of respondents — take five flights per year on average, the study found, whereas researchers who specialize in other fields took four. Climate scientists also fly more often for work than their peers, but take fewer international flights for personal reasons. Air travel becomes more frequent with job seniority across all disciplines, with climate-change professors flying on average nine times per year, and those in non-climate disciplines flying eight times.
Although the difference isn’t enormous, it adds up to a “colossal amount of flying”, says Lorraine Whitmarsh, an environmental psychologist at the University of Bath, UK, who led the study. “These figures are really quite stark, I think, and should be a wake-up call for all of science.”
The survey took place prior to the Wuhan panic, and thus does not tell us about the new fear-driven flying patterns of scientists.
That this story comes from the journal Nature,. which in recent years has become increasing controlled by the leftist propaganda machine, suggests the data is quite convincing. Nature wouldn’t allow any publication of any paper that throws a bad light on global warming or its researchers, unless the data was overwhelming and impossible to ignore.
It also tells us that climate scientists themselves don’t really believe their own doomsday predictions about global warming. Before the Wuhan panic they would routinely run numerous international conferences, often in wonderful warm-weather vacation spots in the midst of winter, and would flock there in the thousands to enjoy that warm weather even as they repeatedly called for government restrictions on everyone else. The article quotes one scientist, who tries to justify this travel:
International conferences might also have an influence, says Kim Cobb, a climate scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta. Meetings to coordinate global mitigation efforts — such as of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — involve hundreds of researchers from different countries. “You need to have a frequent series of meetings to keep up with the data, to advance our findings, to make sure that they are disseminated across the community,” says Cobb. [emphasis mine]
I highlight her quote because her reasons for attending such conferences are unadulterated garbage. While it is important to personally get together periodically with other scientists in the field to exchange results (something that is unfortunately no longer happening because of fear of COVID-19), you don’t need to do this “frequently” in today’s intenet society. Nor do you need to do it to “keep up with the data” or to distribute it to everyone else. If anything, such conferences are very inefficient for achieving these goals. The internet does it far better.
No, the purpose of many of these very big climate conferences had nothing to do with science. I’ve attended a few, and noticed how little real science was discussed. Instead, these conferences were political gatherings, aimed at organizing political action and regulation, as determined by these high-flying climate politicos. And they were always in nice warm weather locations, in winter.
To sum up: Until the climate field acts like it believes its own pontifications about the evils of fossil fuels, no one else should.
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
From the people who want to shut down all fossil fuel technology: A newly published survey of 1,400 scientists from 59 countries has found that climate scientists fly more than researchers in any other field.
Climate experts — who accounted for about 17% of respondents — take five flights per year on average, the study found, whereas researchers who specialize in other fields took four. Climate scientists also fly more often for work than their peers, but take fewer international flights for personal reasons. Air travel becomes more frequent with job seniority across all disciplines, with climate-change professors flying on average nine times per year, and those in non-climate disciplines flying eight times.
Although the difference isn’t enormous, it adds up to a “colossal amount of flying”, says Lorraine Whitmarsh, an environmental psychologist at the University of Bath, UK, who led the study. “These figures are really quite stark, I think, and should be a wake-up call for all of science.”
The survey took place prior to the Wuhan panic, and thus does not tell us about the new fear-driven flying patterns of scientists.
That this story comes from the journal Nature,. which in recent years has become increasing controlled by the leftist propaganda machine, suggests the data is quite convincing. Nature wouldn’t allow any publication of any paper that throws a bad light on global warming or its researchers, unless the data was overwhelming and impossible to ignore.
It also tells us that climate scientists themselves don’t really believe their own doomsday predictions about global warming. Before the Wuhan panic they would routinely run numerous international conferences, often in wonderful warm-weather vacation spots in the midst of winter, and would flock there in the thousands to enjoy that warm weather even as they repeatedly called for government restrictions on everyone else. The article quotes one scientist, who tries to justify this travel:
International conferences might also have an influence, says Kim Cobb, a climate scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta. Meetings to coordinate global mitigation efforts — such as of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — involve hundreds of researchers from different countries. “You need to have a frequent series of meetings to keep up with the data, to advance our findings, to make sure that they are disseminated across the community,” says Cobb. [emphasis mine]
I highlight her quote because her reasons for attending such conferences are unadulterated garbage. While it is important to personally get together periodically with other scientists in the field to exchange results (something that is unfortunately no longer happening because of fear of COVID-19), you don’t need to do this “frequently” in today’s intenet society. Nor do you need to do it to “keep up with the data” or to distribute it to everyone else. If anything, such conferences are very inefficient for achieving these goals. The internet does it far better.
No, the purpose of many of these very big climate conferences had nothing to do with science. I’ve attended a few, and noticed how little real science was discussed. Instead, these conferences were political gatherings, aimed at organizing political action and regulation, as determined by these high-flying climate politicos. And they were always in nice warm weather locations, in winter.
To sum up: Until the climate field acts like it believes its own pontifications about the evils of fossil fuels, no one else should.
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
“these conferences were political gatherings, aimed at organizing political action and regulation, as determined by these high-flying climate politicos. And they were always in nice warm weather locations, in winter”
Dahhhh. Do as I say, not as I do, because I am way more impotent that you.
Every conference I have attended has been for social interaction and schmoozing!
Robert wrote: “Until the climate field acts like it believes its own pontifications about the evils of fossil fuels, no one else should.”
It isn’t just the scientists, it is virtually all Global Warming/Climate Change/Whatever advocates. They continue to use powered transportation, use power at home and at work or school, and purchase goods that were manufactured and delivered using power. These people also do not believe their own arguments.
I also like to examine the progress toward the disaster that we are supposed to experience by the year 2100. We are now 1/5th of the way from the prediction year, 2000, to the year 2100. Have the temperatures and seas also risen 1/5 of the amount predicted?
No.
So the empirical evidence and the behavioral evidence shows that not only is the problem not what they said it was, but they don’t even think that it would be what they said it was.
Now that we know that they don’t believe their own stories, we have to wonder why they keep telling us that there is a problem and that there is a coming disaster.
I’d like to take the time to make some comments about how silly Zimmerman’s editorial is or how illogical it is to expect climate researchers, scientists, etc to somehow exist in a world still predominantly powered by the burning of hydrocarbons without using everything powered by the burning of said fuels, but…
Right now I need to check my frequent flyer accounts!
I can’t blame them when they coordinate to frequently inspect the object of their studies closely in small-angled parabolic flights and then immediately meet and discuss what they’ve found out.
The rest of us mere mortals have been forced to virtual meetings.
They can too.
If you’re not changing the climate, you won’t have a job.
From the headline I was expecting double digits. Maybe even triple digits. Instead you get 4 vs 5 and 8 vs 9. Oh the horror, the horror! Really silly. I know, I know, it’s the principal father thing. Uh hah.
Expected better of you.
This is an example of nitpicking extraordinary.
Herbert Jacobi wrote: “From the headline I was expecting double digits. Maybe even triple digits.”
Interesting how some people misinterpret a greater than sign (>) as a much greater than (>>) or much, much greater than (>>>). It seems that the world’s population is suffering from a lack of knowledge of math and science. No wonder there is such a modern emphasis on STEM classes.
If they believed their science then they would go to great lengths to set examples as to how the rest of us can save the planet. However, neither the scientists nor the advocates do much of this example setting. Instead, the U.S.as a country has set an example for reducing carbon dioxide emissions while not damaging the economy or people’s lifestyles.
As a side note, when the temperature stopped climbing shortly after the Kyoto Accords were signed by many nations, why was not victory declared and celebrations made? Instead, the scientists and advocates declared that the disastrous heat went into hiding, where they could not find it.
This all suggests to me that even if we do solve global warming or even climate change (we didn’t?), the solution will be denied (it was denied).
How much flight time dose Bill Nye the Fake Science guy records in one year while scolding us about cow farts Blow out your sliderule egghead
Star Bird,
I don’t have an answer for you, but he is one of the few who does make an effort to find efficiencies and to otherwise reduce his “carbon footprint.” I do not respect him much, but on this topic he makes an effort.
It’s how I felt about Greta Thunberg’s visit.
Nice, well meaning young woman I’m sure, but perhaps she got too swept up in the excitement to remain mindful of her goal.
Oh yeah, they say she sailed in on some boat propelled by carbon credits and unicorn burps, but if she wanted me to think she was serious she would have stayed home and visited electronically (ironically what so many are now doing these Covid days).
Another test of a global warming Paul Revere is nuclear power. There have been enough studies to make it clear that carbon emissions cannot be seriously cut with wind and solar, nuclear power is necessary. So if you really believe AGW is an existential threat than nuclear power is an easy choice.
Do the greens in Germany really believe? After Fukushima they panicked and closed their nuc plants (as if they were in any danger of being hit by a giant tsunami). And what was the main source to replace the electricity? (Gotta keep building the VW’s BMW’s and Benz’s to export) – Coal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak
Edward wrote: “Instead, the scientists and advocates declared that the disastrous heat went into hiding, where they could not find it.”
Oh yes. I remember the ‘hidden heat’. In fact, if you look back the past 10 – 15 years, you’ll find a number of incidents where Progressives had to ‘walk back’ their dire predictions. It appears that few remember these shortcomings, and we are living in a for-real alternate reality shaped by The Narrative. Does life feel uncomfortable? Sure, when actions don’t match reality. And here we are.
MIND NUMBING NARRATIVE POSING AS SCIENCE
This is possibly the most misleading “Science” show that I guess proposes that the earth before the existence of the human being and technology was some kind of static never changing environment?
They propose that “Before” climate change things were as they should be, and now after “Climate change” and the existence of human beings who apparently invented it, things are now un balanced and the earth is ruined and we all have to jump off a cliff in order to once again have things be as they “should” be.
https://youtu.be/BDPbtP-0AW8 4 min.
Because that is the conclusion that it appears that they are suggesting.
Sorry, this is all just a leading mind numbing narrative posing as science IMO.