Dismay as climate science bosses travel in private jet?

One data point:
I was recently at a college reunion with one of the world's moST prominent conservation scientists. As he lived nearby, someone asked him if he would be driving home: "Good grief no, I'm taking the train".

They will plant a few trees and all believers will forgive them. What matters is not whether a few environmental officials produce as much CO2 as all global warming skeptics combined; what matters is that they're good believers or at least they play so convincingly. Am I wrong?

[Lynas is careful to remove the CO2-offsetting option from them :-) -W]

"all believers will forgive them"

Stereotyping is a satisfying activity for some people.

This post surprises me. Could you expand on exactly what you think is wrong with Mark Lynas's reporting and criticism and what is OK about these people flying in a private jet?

Has not 2006 been a year when many scientists have "got political" and are advocating action - individual and collective?

Douglas Coker

[I'm uncomfortable with scientists "getting political". Or at least, without some clear demarcation between the science and the scientists. You can be a gas-guzzling SUV driver and still do perfectly good science. Requiring the heads of all science institutes to ferverntly beieve in GW is distinctly dubious -W]

William, what is your opinion of a cardiologist making public announcements urging the public to stop smoking?

[Seems fair enough to me. Would a better analogy be, what about a cardiologist smoking? Or, should cardiologists be required to believe in smoking-cancer relations? Probably, since its terribly well established -W]

I thought we were supposed to be doing science in as value-neutral a way as possible and trying to keep our personal beliefs out of it.

I, personally, think this is where the paradigm shift needs to be, and - as much as it pains me to say it - the CA folks can help [strike]drive their last nail into their coffin[/strike] make this happen.

Let me clarify.

First, I think the scientific method is adequate to eliminate bias from data collection and analysis methodology. Increased scrutiny of data archiving for the amateur auditors will ensure more rigorous control.

Second, with this rigorous control helping to eliminate bias, scientists (or their staff, or an advocate/spokesperson whatever the title) will be free to talk about their work to the public, free from IndyFunded shills and FUD spreaders SwiftBoating their good name (a la Hansen).

This ability to talk about the consequences of their work (as in above: a cardiologist going on the morning talk show discussing the perils of smoking) will broaden the civic discourse, allowing better decisioning at ground-level.

This will have the disadvantage of making it harder for the FUD business, but hey: you can't have everything, right Benny P.?

Best,

D

[strike tag not enabled]

Insisting that only the pure may have an opinion is a well known tactic of denialists and deniers.

Insisting that only the pure may have an opinion is a well known tactic of denialists and deniers.

meh, let the man who is without sin cast the first stone.

That being said, who says all climate researchers are conservationalists? Being anti-CO2 and pro-energy are in no shape or form conflicting. To be honest, the biggest pro-energy people on the planet are those that say we shouldn't be relying on hydrocarbons in the first place.

I'm not requesting scientists be "fervent" but there is a consensus on global warming and these particular individuals will be aware of this - surely? Is it therefore not reasonable to expect them to act as well informed, responsible, citizens?

This new global warming/climate change emergency we find ourselves in surely means that existing considerations of what is reasonable, what is possible, what is taken for granted and so on need to be thoroughly reassessed.

Douglas Coker

[A consensus, yes, but an emergency? Rather less clear -W]

Yeah, and they should recycle too.

But keep a sense of proportion when you don't know what's going on, hard as that is. Nobody's identified whose airplane was used or why. Possibly there was a good reason for the trip and some hope of getting someone with money or leverage involved who can make a big difference fast.

Recycling is nice too, but it's a consciousness-raising and landfill-saving exercise, not one that saves many trees or stripmine sites.

The big, big leverage is the coal fired electric generation plants that aren't built yet and can be stopped.

Focus.

I don't consider it a hundredth as bad as the Christians (especially the kooky US right-wing variety) who never practice what Jesus preached, i.e. in their zeal to be Republicans, pro-war, pro-death-penalty, anti-global-warming (I mean the Ross McKitrick "to prevent global warming is un-Christian variety), etc.

As someone who works at the NOC (and actually knows quite well one of the people involved): the trip was to establish a long-term research collaboration with the University in Carolina. Use of the jet was offered by an existing benefactor to the University. I'm not condoning it, mind you, but it wasn't just a foreign jolly.

Incidentally, anyone know how much further you'd have to fly scheduled to match emissions flying in a private jet? To get to where they're going would require at least one change...

Well, let me put it this way, I am concious of the issue and do factor it into decision. Besides I am a cheap son of a bunny, and generally waste not, spend not. That goes for energy too

However, this is not yet THE issue on which all my decisions are made. I do think that it is increasingly becoming a major public policy issue and it is becoming increasingly important. I do think that I (and Jim Hanson) see tipping points ahead and are much more wary than say the humble proprietor and his Japanese rep....