Bishop Hill Let me explain
Jun 23, 2015 Greens My story last week about Naomi Oreskes' transcontinental trips to indulge her passion for skiing got picked up by Breitbart yesterday and the poor woman seems a bit taken aback. Overnight she tweeted this:
Thought 4 day: if U R negative, deniers accuse U of misanthropy. If U love snow, they say U R hypocrite. @ProtectWinters I go with love.
I'm not sure she is quite understanding the criticism, so let me explain. It is not her love of snow that is being attacked, it is the fact that she is willing to take a 5000 mile round trip to go skiing while simultaneously criticising others for excessive consumption. If we are really facing a planetary crisis then trips of this nature are surely going to have to stop.
To answer the question in the title of her book, Why Didn't They Act?, it is probably something to do with the fact that those making the loudest calls for action carry on behaving as if there is no problem at all.
Reader Comments (43)
Sounds like she's working with a Scientologist PR agency, L.Ron Hubbards lot are master twisters of words.
When it comes to the intelligence of warmists... it's worse than we thought.
Not just picked up by Breitbart, but by Dellers no less. Some great comments there.
I'm totally puzzled as to why she didn't understand the criticism, even looking for words which might mean something different in US English. It seems that it's a lot simpler - professor or no, she's as thick as two short planks.
You misogynous mansplainer!
I wondered why the Obama woman had to use a giant aircraft to come to UK last week...and the rest of it?
Usual contempt I suppose?
We're all deniers at heart!
The problem with the “Greens shouldn't ski/fly/spend” argument is that it implicitly accepts one of the Greens' most monstrously stupid arguments: that certain kinds of expenditure are bad because carbon-heavy.
It's simple economics that we all spend what we have, and have no control over the final destination of our expenditure. I can spend all my income at my local organic grocery store, but I can't stop the store owner from spending his earnings on skiing holidays. Our carbon footprint is proportional to our economic shoe size, and nothing else.
What's wrong with Oreskes is not that she flies and skis, but that she's a serial liar about the nature of climate scepticism. Her lying has made her rich. Her riches make her a greater polluter than you and me. That's all.
Yes, Geoff, and also a world-class hypocrite.
Andrew is too polite to mention it but Oreskes has made a career (such as it is) out of mounting vicious personal attacks on honest people she disagrees with. She, and the rest of the hard-core Reality-Deniers like Gleick, Abraham, Ward, Lewandowski etcetera exist only as attack dogs of the worst kind.
Maybe, one day, they'll all be forced to get more suitable employment. But I wouldn't want to eat any of the burgers they had flipped.
Naomi Airmiles- Oreske, all two of her, would appear to be a sanctimonious hypocrite who from the syntax of her tweet seems to be going downhill fast :-)
To clarify - That's 4700 mile round trip for a weekend's skiing?
On the other hand, she could ski Killington VT with a 3000ft drop and only 160 mi by road from Boston. Nah, too sensible.
geoffchambers, I rarely disagree with you but it does matter if she flies. It would matter if she spent her money on anything that wasn't essential. At the moment there is no credible solution to fossil fuels. The only way to cut CO2 is to not do things or better still, do stuff that helps eg she could pay for someone else's insulation if the money was burning a hole in her pocket.
I know it's not a modern trait but if you* believe in something you try to live up to your beliefs. If you believe in charity, give your own money away, not gather it by mugging old ladies. If you believe in god, stop breaking the commandments on a daily basis. If you condemn tax evasion, sexual abuse, political trouble making, and other hypocricies, don't be the BBC. Stop this 'we must' crap and start with 'I must'. Deal with the plank in your own eye before you move onto the motes you see all around you.
* the 'you' refers to anyone with a cause, not 'you Geoff'.
Just to get Oreskes' #ProtectWinters logic straight.
1. #ProtectWinters is a campaign.
2. Campaign believes winters are 'at risk' from Climate Change (formerly Global Warming).
3. Climate Change (formerly Global Warming) is caused by burning fossil fuels and consumerism.
4. We should stop burning fossil fuels and consumerism.
5. Oreskes believes the way to do this is by flying 5000 miles to go skiing.
6. All of Oreskes damage to the environment is nullified by typing the words 'Protect' 'Winters' and 'love' into a computer, and then having it propagate across the Internet using millions of fossil-fuel powered servers in underground fan-cooled 24-hour data farms.
"Her riches make her a greater polluter than you and me. That's all."
No, Geoff, her spending makes her a greater polluter. She does not have to spend her riches - they can be used for other, more environmentally friendly, activities, or even just hoarded to reduce her 'footprint'.
When I checked into the notorious William Con-alley, I found he had just been on a mountain climbing trip to Japan.
This is typical green behaviour. Research shows that green voters tend to make these foreign trips far more than other party supporters. It seems to me that they must rationalise their behaviour - perhaps they think that they can offset all their extravagance by voting green much as in the past people bought indulgences.
No wonder she's an academic - nobody else in their right mind would employ her.
Has any prominent CAGWA ever made the simple response that: 'I fly more than most in order, through my advocacy and its effect on taxation and regulation, that the total of aircraft air-miles flown throughout the world shall decrease'? This would not justify the travel for R&R purposes however.
A more fitting question for her might be: "Why Didn't I Act?"
The "tweet" is a survival strategy and the "denier" insult is meant to prevent the faithful from reacting against her. I am certain she understood perfectly well. Her love of the snow will no longer include bragging about how often she goes skiing.
Does she claim the travel costs to go skiing as a legitimate business expense, connected with her research into the perils of a warming world?
Sounds like perfect logic from a Green scaremonger.
"those making the loudest calls for action carry on behaving as if there is no problem at all"
Precisely. Their actions betray them. They do not really believe there is a problem but their livelihoods depend on persuading others.
A higher income in itself is a first-order measure of the impact on the environment. In a carbon-based economy, all money is derived from production of CO2. Someone somewhere has to have used carbon in some form in order to derive the money to pay a salary; CO2 per capita income.
If the income is stashed away the total carbon impact is smaller than if it is subsequently spent for other carbon-based activities. On the other hand, as we have seen thousands of times, those who have higher than average income, and in almost all cases it is significantly higher than average, tend to utilize the income to support a much higher than average carbon-based lifestyle.
Why is it that everyone who wants more of my money is a multi multi-millionaire?
How many tons of CO2 cost her roundtrip, and what would happen if ALL of humanity did this??
do as we say, not as we do ourselves..
We haven't learnt anything from the many communist experiences.
"She does not have to spend her riches - they can be used for other, more environmentally friendly, activities, or even just hoarded to reduce her 'footprint'." steve ta
I am not sure this is right. The point is that any spending increases your carbon footprint because of the global supply chain involved in just about anything, and because you are creating income for someone else which in turn becomes spending, over which you have no control. It is now difficult to imagine any spending which does not have carbon footprint implications. I suppose I could pay my neighbour for a bag of carrots, but even then she may well have gone to the garden centre few times in the course of their production, or be using equipment with a global supply chain - a plastic tag made in China perhaps, although probably just buying a bag of seeds involves several international transactions.
And the only way to keep your wealth from funding economic activity is to physically sequestrate it, which is normally done by putting cash under the mattress. Otherwise your savings find their way into the economy, through the banking system. I suppose there may be a time lag. But given fractional lending, your savings could have an even bigger on the active economy than if you had spent them. You save £10, £100 is spent in consequence.
So I think Geoff is right - broadly, your wealth = your carbon footprint.
MH
"typical green behaviour"
My take on this is that they can allow themselves conspicuous consumption because they 'know' that their hearts are pure and that the spoilation of the planet that they believe occurs doesn't apply to them.
I bet Pascal Husting wishes he hadn't resigned as a Greenpeace executive now.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/25/greenpeace-staff-call-on-top-executive-to-quit-for-commuting-by-plane
"...behaving as if there is no problem at all..."
Which, of course, there isn't.
Correction - Pascal Husting is still a Greenpeace executive I believe, so his climate sin must have been forgiven.
Actually her tweet doesn't say she still goes to Utah, only that she went there before.
@ Martin Brumby "...exist only as attack dogs of the worst kind."
Isn't there a law about keeping dangerous dogs?
SHSHSH, you can eat a lot of carrots for the equivalent of 5000 carbon air miles. And why can't she sequester her money? If she's sure that an alternative to fossil fuels is just round the corner she can wait to spend it. People make the mistake of thinking that society acts on problems. No, individuals act, and if enough of them act in the same way then the effect can be measured.
Perhaps if she lived up to her own standards she'd have a little more understanding of where a lot of the objections are coming from.
With all the dire warnings from Oreskes about how a change in climate of just a couple of degrees will kill millions, it is incredibly brave of her to go skiing AND come back alive, so many times. She must have an incredible metabolism to survive such regular and rapid climate change, without harming her credibility.
She spends all her time surrounded by 'followers' who do nothing but prise her ever word , so the issues is that in her own mind she thinks nothing she does can ever be wrong.
Therefore she has to claim it was skiing you where acting rather than her own glaring hypocrisy because she thinks it impossible for her to be guilty of this.
Thousands of such 'greens' will be racking up the air-miles this year on their way to Paris , none of them will think its is wrong for them to do so becasue 'they are saving the planet '
A true believer that climate change or @Protectmywinter required action would seek to utilize their excess wealth promoting that change.
Not, by demanding more, screaming louder or pointing fingers, but by enabling those less fortunate who need that assistance.
The poor getting cold? Buy and install solar cells, solar collectors, hot water heaters, more efficient stoves...
Not enough quality fresh water? Buy and install water treatment facilities; even weed filled drainage ponds are effective.
The poor are hungry and can't grow enough food? Stop promoting burning food biomass as fuel!
I see what happened. The Koch brothers bribed Harvard into offering a job she couldn't refuse, therefore making her commute to her preferred ski slopes so much further. She's a victim, really.
Has our Naomi ever heard of Google Search Engine
http://www.boston-discovery-guide.com/new-england-ski-areas.html#central
All within about 50 miles or an hour car journey from Boston MIT.Despite catastrophic Climate Change all these resorts all appear to have plenty of snow on the ground.
Just type in Ski Resorts near Boston Massachusetts.
PS
Or perhaps Ms Oreskes preferred an distant More Premier more Expensive Exclusive location and didnt want to ski with the Locals Hill-Billy Plebs or Hollywood A listers in Aspen Colorado and Palm Springs .Our Naomi a Hypocrite and a Snob
Reminds me of the BBC's 'Ethical Man' - a person who flew around the US telling people off for eating chocolate: https://youtu.be/lMXY5ixnYZo.
rotationalfinestructure , i think you mean Al Gore and other backers of the Harvard Center for the Environment
Didn't she mean that she skied in The Rockies when she lived in California?
Her hypocrisy doesn't bother me. Anyone who preaches such righteousness is bound to be exposed as a hypocrite sooner or later.
It does bother me that such clownish types influence policy and thus make the world a worse place.
But everyone in the wealthy modern world, where 99% of Greenies live , (and live in much the same manner as everyone else), uses a lot of fossil fuels, because it's just the best source of energy. Never mind what they say, using fossil fuels is what they do. And so they should.
You are talking to a person who thinks the Chinese government is a good thing.
Does she still fly to Utah now from MA ?
I haven't seen the evidence, but she did have the option of saying "I meant I used to" but chose to be snarky and namecall instead.
- The way the DramaGreens see it is , that "the little people" should stop putting out CO2 to #ProtectWinters cos it might effect the snow DramaGreens get when they FLY to SNOWBOARD.
Pathological hypocrisy is deaf and blind to criticism.
A bit like a pope preaching redistribution of wealth.
It's everybody else's fault.