Once Again, This Is Why Climate Change Scolds And Activists Have Neither Credibility Nor Integrity

Blogger Ann Althouse received a trenchant comment on her post chiding New York Times columnist Nick Kristof for flying to Easter Island so he could deliver a metaphorical warning about climate change. Noting that Kristof could have leaned all he needed to learn about Easter Island’s well-documented environmental catastrophe without flying halfway around the world by jet, she wrote,

“How on earth….did Nicholas Kristof think he could get away with that sanctimony?! DO NOT LECTURE US! Let your example come first, and then you can talk. You flew to Easter Island — you led a tour, enticing others to fly to Easter Island — so obviously, you think nothing of your carbon footprint or the carbon footprint of all those other people who jetted out there with you. When your actions are so radically different from your words, I don’t believe your words. The depredations of global warming may be coming, but I don’t believe that you believe it.”

Bingo. But Althouse commenter JPS really nails it, writing [remember, AGW is Anthropogenic Global Warming),

“so obviously, you think nothing of your carbon footprint….When your actions are so radically different from your words, I don’t believe your words.”

It’s like this:

Trump, Bjorn Lomberg or other AGW semi-skeptics: “Why should we limit our use of energy? It won’t make the slightest bit of difference as long as India, China and everyone else go on burning all the fossil fuels they want!

Concerned AGW believer: “This is the problem! You are the reason we’re not making any progress toward averting this obvious disaster!”

AGW semi-skeptic: “Wow, look at you, lecturing us all about our carbon footprints while you jet all over the world.”

Concerned AGW believer:Look, come on. If I cut out everything I do, it wouldn’t make any difference as long as you’re all free to go on burning fossil fuels like it doesn’t matter.”


People call Althouse a conservative for making observations like this. Obviously the same thing happens to me. This post, and the Althouse post it’s based on isn’t conservative; it shouldn’t have any ideological content at all. We should pay attention to facts and the analysis of facts performed without conflicts, bias or dishonesty. Not pointing out conflicts, bias or dishonesty because it weakens a position that you, your tribe or your “team” have a personal or ideological stake in being proved true isn’t the act of a good partisan, it’s the act of an unethical human being.

55 thoughts on “Once Again, This Is Why Climate Change Scolds And Activists Have Neither Credibility Nor Integrity

  1. I most certainly believe in climate change or global warming since it has been with us for billions of years. The latest is our contribution and I certainly am convinced that we (human industrialization) has influenced the normal planetary dynamics.But the sky is falling crowd apparently offers an end of world scenario in case we either ignore them or do not proceed full bore with their recommendations. I am also convinced that technology will soon mitigate the “impending” doom. Just imagine a breakthrough on fusion energy as one pertinent example. Technology may have created a mess but technology (and science) will fix it.

    • I support Global Warming and do my part to contribute to it. Unfortunately, I do not have a car and I only use a scooter for around the town use. It really does not burn much gas unfortunately so the emmisions are minimal. I do not use energy saving bulbs and have good and proper incandescent bulbs sent down to me from the US. (Here, it is hard to find anything but those infernal energy saving bulbs).

      One thing that many people do not seem to realize, and the MSM certainly will not let on about it, is that our carbon-producing activities have likely forestalled an impending Ice Age, perhaps even put it on the run. Many people really in the know on these matters understand this important fact. Who wants to live in a frozen tundra after all.

      • Everything helps with enough little things it can amount to a big thing. I have had solar since 1983 – well before it became “The Thing.” All relatively new windows and appliances that reduce my footprint. I will not live in a cave, but I will be cautious. If everyone chooses the same path it would make (hopefully) a dent.

        I am notorious on how we consume. I would have a $1 charge on any styrofoam. Same with bottles, cans, plastic bags and a litany of other items that are avoidable.

        What is frustrating is this is no longer about science, but about politics. I believe the science and certainly am not dismissive of countering evidence, but I have seen first hand how dramatically some changes have taken place. There is just too much evidence that supports we (humans) are screwing things up. To me, it is a question of just how great is our impact on a normal process?

          • Totally disagree. The science is overwhelming but there are some – a very small minority – that dispute it. You can troll the internet and find them, but for every one there is plenty who support the concept. I’ll side with them. We can change our behaviors and it is already happening in large and small chunks. Mine is small. Here is a larger one. Transition to clean energy is taking place.

            • The science is overwhelming that the earth has gotten warmer, and denying that is foolish. The science is not overwhelming regarding why, or how long it will continue, or regarding what, if anything, can be done about it that is worth the expense and trade-offs. That’s where the hype comes in.

                • What one? NASA is no more convincing on causes and projections than anyone else. The fact is that not one sinble computer model has predicted future warning correctly, and most have been off by many decades and degrees. It is certain that the earth has been warming. Your link endorses this:

                  It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities

                  Likely isn’t sufficient to spend trillions on dubious fixes of a phenomenon that isn’t fully understood. And when advocates, including scientists, bury “likely” I smell politics. As should you.

                  • My link provides the sources within the scientific community that accept “likely” as do I.Science, however, is not a democracy where majority rules. It is based on evidence and I see enough of it to be convinced that our actions are fast becoming patient zero in this issue. Is it worth trillions? Or is it worth incremental changes in the way we address the issues that relate to “likely?” I go with incremental changes that have already been instituted and will continue to be. I do it and businesses do it and government policy does it. I’m betting on a breakthrough in clean and cheap energy development.

                    • Rick M.: “Totally disagree. “The science is overwhelming but there are some – a very small minority – that dispute it. You can troll the internet and find them, but for every one there is plenty who support the concept. I’ll side with them.”

                      Rick M.: “Science, however, is not a democracy where majority rules.”

                      Okay, science is not a democracy, you’re just siding with the majority. Got it.


                    • “I’m betting on a breakthrough in clean and cheap energy development.”
                      Already here. It is called nuclear.

                    • Not really sure about cheap anymore with waste and safety issues. So far solar and turbine seem to be in vogue. Nuke had its day and certainly was viable. Solar farms are cropping up and there goes more than a few acres of trees in my area. They have been setting some up on top of closed landfills.

                    • If the data really supports your point, you don’t have to fake your data. Until the ‘climate science’ people stop faking their data, I won’t take them seriously. If you don’t know about how they erased the Medieval Warm Period or applied an arbitrary exponential to all their temperature data from the early 1900’s to the 1960’s, then you shouldn’t be commenting on this.

                    • …then you shouldn’t be commenting on this.

                      Rick is a True Believer, and global warming is his religion. Fact no longer matter to him, he has a cozy little bubble he is comfortable with.

                      Enjoy your day as this is now a dead issue to me.” -Rick M

                      ‘Don’t confuse me with truth or facts, my mind is made up.’

                • Quoting Obamaites win you no points, Rick. NASA was taken off task by a corrupt Administration, and produced crap like this. Want proof? They were also tasked with Muslim Outreach!

                    • CO2 is NOWHERE NEAR what is has been before in ages past. It is NOT spiking!

                      Dear God, do a little research and quit relying on those who stand to gain from you mindless acceptance of ‘expert’ opinion.

                      This is a #64 on your part.

                    • Here is what I would go by. Just one of many. Of course, the natural reaction from the deniers is to, well – deny! Plenty of research on the issue. Plenty in climatic and geological history. But, then again, your research is undoubtedly better than the myriad of what is presented by scientific organizations just too numerous to even mention.
                      Here is my summary on this topic.
                      This serious issue is now a political issue and it seems the uniform dividing lines are conservative/liberal. Unfortunately, some – especially on the pro side – have been caught up in intimidation and faulty data, but the fact is science and in this instance, geology and climatology simply have enough facts to convince far too many. The science is real, and I can certainly point to other issues that are raised including everything from our glide through the solar system to remnants of super nova’s. I have seen and read all the points and counterpoints ad nauseum. As a former skeptic, the scientific evidence is just too great. They have fully won me over.

                    • “Silly, Silly NASA.”

                      Rick; As a former True Believer, NASA, the NOAA, and a number of other taxpayer-supported Gubmint entities have been caught more than once with their finger on the scale.

                      Then there’s this:

                      “49 Former NASA Scientists Send A Letter Disputing Climate Change”


                      Heck, even the…um…Father of the Mother Gaia Theory (Dr. James Lovelock) has admitted that the hype, by himself included, is way overblown.

                      ”Scientist behind the Gaia hypothesis says environment movement does not pay enough attention to facts and he was too certain in the past about rising temperatures”


                      Lovelock, a self-styled “old-fashioned Green” says: “(Environmentalism has) become a religion, and religions don’t worry too much about facts.”

                    • You wish to play dueling sources? Yeah, Paul, I’d take NOAA, NASA, Concerned Scientists and dozens if not hundreds of others. Forget convincing me as I have seen all your “data” in many forms over the years and it just does not cut it for one bit. As a former skeptic, I am no longer since there is just too much evidence.

                      Enjoy your day as this is now a dead issue to me.

                    • ”You wish to play dueling sources?”

                      Nope, I thought we *were* having a discussion were there’s an exchange of opinions and facts.

                      ”I’d take NOAA, NASA, Concerned Scientists and dozens if not hundreds of others.”

                      It’s abundantly clear that there’s been subterfuge, refusal to share methodologies & data sets, evidence tampering, secrecy, and more-than-borderline felonious activity; you don’t think those are valid enough to consider?

                      ”Forget convincing me as I have seen all your ‘data’ in many forms over the years and it just does not cut it for one bit.”

                      No, you really haven’t; there’s PLENTY more that I haven’t even posted. And maybe there’s a misunderstanding; I’m not seeking converts

                      “As a former skeptic, I am no longer since there is just too much evidence.”

                      As a former True Believer, I’ve seen too much policy-based evidence making as opposed to evidence-based policy-making to see that it’s the slam dunk the alarmists so fervently contend it is.

                      ”Enjoy your day as this is now a dead issue to me.”

                      Ferchrissakes Rick; because I don’t see things the way you do…really?

                • “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…”
                  -The Club of Rome

          • It would appear that this is one more aspect of a large and mutable lie. Another example of ‘narratives’ spun and set into motion that entrap people and which require a dismantling process that is extensive and time-consuming.

            In solidarity with the truth you have presented I’ve turned on all the burners on our stove for 4 hours and will let the glorious heat rise to the very Throne of God!

  2. ”flying halfway around the world by jet”

    Please note; Climate Hypocrites don’t do things halfway.

    This was ALL THE FREAKIN’ WAY AROUND the World!

    NY Times charters private jet to warn about devastating effects of fossil fuel

    For a mere $135 large (double-occupancy) & carbon footprint be damned, Kristof & assorted Climate Hypocrites:

    (bolds/caps mine throughout)
    “Circle the globe on an inspiring and informative journey by private jet, created by The New York Times in collaboration with luxury travel pioneers Abercrombie & Kent. This 26-day itinerary takes you beneath the surface of some of the world’s most compelling destinations, illuminating them through the expertise of veteran Times journalists.

    ”Travel in a group of just 50 guests, joined by some of The Times’s most noteworthy journalists and local contributors, who offer firsthand perspectives on the people and places that shape our world. Join a dedicated flight crew aboard an EXCLUSIVELY CHARTERED BOEING 757 WITH FIRST CLASS, FULLY LIE-FLAT SEATS, accompanied by A&K’s top-notch Tour Directors and local experts, for an around-the-world adventure like no other.


    Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!! This monumental hypocrisy, positively staggering by itself, absolutely buries the irony needle.

    This is Signature Significance on freakin steroids!

  3. Actually, this is a dumb argument.

    I don’t typically like the New Republic, but I thought Emily Atkin successfully rebutted this line of argumentation here:

    Advocates like Gore certainly have suggested ways individuals can do their part. In 2007, he stated, “The only way to solve this [climate] crisis is for individuals to make changes in their own lives.” But just a year later, he said, “In addition to changing the light bulbs, it is far more important to change the laws and to change the treaty obligations that nations have.” Last month, he said the three best ways are to talk about climate change (which he does), look for environmentally responsible choices when making large purchases (which he does), and support climate-friendly political candidates (which he does). Individual action has never been the focus of his message.

    As David Roberts pointed out in Vox last year, the reason climate advocates don’t intensely advocate for personal behavioral changes is that they’re “insignificant to the big picture on climate.” That’s true even for huge energy users. DiCaprio’s emissions “are a fart in the wind when it comes to climate change,” Roberts wrote. “If he vanished tomorrow, and all his emissions with him, the effect on global temperature, even on US emissions, even on film-industry emissions, would be lost in the noise.” And it wouldn’t be hypocrisy, since DiCaprio isn’t asking you to stop flying.

    This is not to say that celebrities and other wealthy people should be given carte blanche to consume as much dirty energy as they want. If Gore and DiCaprio and Obama and Musk want to be good advocates of emission reductions, they should do as much as they can to signal that they’re doing their part. But if we’re to take this hypocrisy argument seriously, then every rich person who wants to advocate for climate action must live in the smallest home possible and bike to work and not fly anywhere; they’d have to give all their speeches via Skype, I guess. And unlike Tucker Carlson or Ann Coulter, who almost certainly have above-average carbon footprints, people like Gore are using their wealth for good. “He’s devoted his life to making sure we act in time to avert a global climate crisis,” the climate scientist Michael Mann told me. “The lowering of carbon emissions resulting from his efforts dwarfs whatever his own personal carbon footprint (which I know he is mindful of) might be.”


    It’s also kind of common sense; if the private jets of Gore et al. had a significant effect on climate change, you’d think there’d at least be some climate change activists criticizing them for it. But instead, the criticism comes almost exclusively from pundits and orgs that are skeptical of climate change or outright hostile to the idea.

    • As I recall, when the global warming thing first started they were absolutely asking people to cut back on fossil fuels. “Reduce your carbon footprint! Drive hybrids! Stop your parents from buying SUVs!” I’ll grant they’re preaching that less now, and I think the “Hypocrisy!” cries had something to do with it.

    • Did you not comprehend the thrust of the commenter? The argument you just articulated is the same argument made by climate change skeptics who say that US measures are just symbolic and pointless because India, China and the third world’s energy practices make it futile. That was the point. If your argument is a valid one to rebut Althouse’s, then so is the skeptic’s rebuttal to the Paris accords.

      How could you miss that? This is Fractals 101.

      • I wonder what kind of general mockery is leveled at Christianity when individual Christians do not live up to the standards they claim would improve society if everyone practiced them?

        Non practicing environmentalists if they don’t recognize that if their beliefs are true, then it doesn’t matter if their individual effects are .0000000000001% of the change, they must follow through personally…but failing to accept that values based reasoning, surely they recognize the practical optics of not practicing what they preach.

        • That is a great comment, Michael. I consider myself a very good Christian. I talk about Christianity all the time, I haven’t murdered anyone, and I only vote for other outspoken Christians like Roy Moore.

        • The comparison to Christians is an interesting one. While there may be shades of gray, usually there is a big difference between hypocrites and the imperfect but trying to do their best. I may not agree, but I respect those who are honestly trying to do what they believe is the best. Unfortunately the word hypocrite has become loose and overused in inaccurate ways.

          • Yes, there is a vast swathe of difference between hypocrites and those who fail in their standards on occasion.

            My point was that Chris’ argument would seem to permit adherents to one religion to get away with active and intentional hypocrisy, when we know the greater society often mocks to scorn the other religion even when it’s a mere failure on the part of an adherent and not active hypocrisy.

      • Exactly. Why should I change my lifestyle when it’s a mere fraction of the impact of any of the hypocrisy crowd? Same argument.

    • ”if the private jets of Gore et al. had a significant effect on climate change, you’d think there’d at least be some climate change activists criticizing them for it.”

      Not exactly.

      Climate Hypocrites like Gore, DiCaprio, et al, are quick to exempt themselves from the energy usage/lifestyle concessions they try to guilt others out of.

      They don’t get criticized for one, and ONLY one reason; they;re high profile Warmalista Alarmacysts and are therefoe issued a pass.

      Not unlike that epic POS Jimmy Bakker, whose extravagant lifestyle was explained away because ”Why should I apologize because God throws in crystal chandeliers, mahogany floors, and the best construction in the world?” and “God doesn’t want his p[eople to go second class.”

      The UNIPCC? give me a freakin’ break! Take a look at the carbon footprint of their “Last Chance To Save The Planet” soirees; c’mon haven’t these people heard of teleconferencing?

      The 2007 “Last Chance” Bali conference is a prime example. Private jet after private jet delivered their pampered charges off on the small island with a small airport.

      How small? Well, lemme tell you how small.

      So small that after landing, these private jets had to take off, fly to another island(s), land, taxi, park, then taxi again, take off again, fly back again, land again, collect their surely fatter (after gorging on the best noshments to be had) passengers, then taxi again, take off again, and fly them back home.

      Sound like an ecologically sound approach with an eye toward a healthy Mother /Gaia to you?


      There’s little doubt in my mind that most of those @sswipes don’t know the first thing about albedo, feedback loops, aerosols, sensitivity, UHI, a truthful accounting of Ursus Maritimus, etc.

      What they DO know is a thing or two about is shakedowns and the absolutely mind-bending possibilities that the Statist/Big Gubmint involved wealth distribution aspect of Global Warming INC present.

      If you wonder why the criminally insane UNIPCC has no Conflict of Resolution provisions, and has fought tooth-n-nail any attempt to institute them, wonder no more!

    • Is that argument any more than one person can’t make a difference, so the hell with it? If that’s the case, why should anyone vote? Maybe I’ll throw my styrofoam 1980s style quarter pounder container out the window tomorrow because why not? If I stop littering, what difference does it make? That article is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read. And I’ve read some dumb things.

      • Conservatism is about self control. (Not calling you a conservative)

        That includes self control for the good of society as well as family and self. I don’t throw trach out the window because it violates the Golden Rule. I vote because it is my civic duty. This is ethical.

        What the climate hoaxers want is not about ethical behavior, but about control. Thus, hypocrisy is common since they don’t really believe their own lies.

      • “If I stop littering, what difference does it make?”

        Depends, do you travel along any route by foot or bike regularly?

        When I run along a golf course daily, I see the accumulation of trash that accrues overnight.

        When I walk my Good Golden Girl later in the day, I re-purpose her poop bag into a trash bag. If it’s especially messy, I take an extra one.

        And I draw a measure of satisfaction the rare times if, when I run the next morning, I don’t see any additions; clearly quantifiable results by what I don’t see.

        If Global Warming INC were really focused on making this a better Planet
        by cleaning it up rather than shrinking lifestyles back to pre-Civil War era levels (40 % across the board per the UNIPCC), they’d have a lot more followers, including me.

  4. Katharine Hayhoe: “I’m a little worried the U.S. is falling behind”

    In what, pray tell?

    “Climate persuasion.”

    What’s that exactly?

    “When it comes to climate change denialism, Hayhoe tends to defer to social scientists.

    “ ‘They’ve found that more education doesn’t change people’s perceptions—that in fact, the people with the highest degree of science literacy aren’t the ones who are most concerned, but rather, the most polarized. Because those people can muster evidence to explain why they’re right, too,/b>.’ ” (bolds mine)


    “Evidence” to explain why they’re right? How unscientific!

  5. ​​These are direct quotes from the Rock Stars of Climate Science discussing fun, scientific principles like hiding data, deleting/holding up skeptical comments, redefining the peer review process, attempting to silence skeptical research, ignoring/evading FoI requests, deleting tax-payer-funded damning emails; might any of this be defined as felony conspiracy?

    All come under a basic heading: WHERE’S THE EFFIN’ WARMING???

    (bolds/caps mine throughout)
    *Dr. Phil Jones: ”I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

    *Dr. Michael Mann: ”We can hold (realclimate.com) comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not …”


    *Dr. Phil Jones: “I HOPE YOU’RE NOT RIGHT ABOUT THE LACK OF WARMING LASTING TILL ABOUT 2020. I’d rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office press release with Doug’s paper that said something like – half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on record, 1998!”

    *Dr. Phil Jones: Bottom line – there is no way the MWP (whenever it was) was as warm globally as the last 20 years … this is all gut feeling, no science, but years of experience of dealing with global scales and variability.”

    *Dr. Phil Jones to Michael Mann, on the death of Australian sceptic John Daly: ”In an odd way this is cheering news!”

    *Dr. Phil Jones: ”If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyoneWe also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.”

    *Dr. Phil Jones: ”PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. DON’T ANY OF YOU THREE TELL ANYBODY THAT THE UK HAS A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT.”

    *Dr. Phil Jones: “I did get an email from the FoI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails – unless this was normal deleting to keep emails manageable!”

    *Dr. Phil Jones: ”Can you delete any emails you may have had with (Dr.) Keith (Briffa) re AR4? Keith will do likewise … Can you also email (Dr.) Gene (Wahl) and get him to do the same?”

    *Dr. Ben Santer: Next time I see (skepic Dr.) Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him.”

    *Dr. Phil Jones: – ”try and change the Received date! Don’t give those sceptic something to amuse themselves with.”

    *Tom Wigley: If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse sceptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.”

    *Dr. Phil Jones: ”I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

    *Dr. Michael Mann: ”How to deal with this is unclear, since there are a number of individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used by an unscrupulous editor to ensure that anti-greenhouse science can get through the peer review process (Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Baliunas, Soon, and so on).”

    *Dr. Michael Mann: ”We can hold (Warmalista Alarmacyst site realclimate.com) comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not …”

    *Dr. Kevin Trenberth: ”WHERE THE HECK IS THE GLOBAL WARMING?” We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. … ”


    “The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”Thomas H. Huxley

  6. I used to resent the label of “conservative.” And rightly so, considering that I would be a complete radical in just about any other historical era. But pointing out completely obvious and true things makes you a “conservative” now, so I have to reevaluate. “Conservative” just means rational, non-extremist adult now, the vast majority resides to the increasingly shrill Left of me, to the Right are a few Libertarians, and also, perhaps hiding under a bush somewhere, some Nazis.

  7. BBC Forced To Retract False Claim About Hurricanes

    “A warmer world is bringing us a greater number of hurricanes and a greater risk of a hurricane becoming the most powerful category 5.”

    Paul Homewood at notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com informed them of their ascientific assertion, and that sentence mysteriously disappeared.

    Seems they forgot to add the necessary ingredient of COULDIFMAYMIGHT.

    Anywho, in its stead:

    “Scientists are still analysing what this data will mean, but a warmer world MAY bring us a greater number of more powerful category 4 and 5 hurricanes and could bring more extreme rainfall. (bold/cap mine)

    ”Correction 29 January 2018: This story has been updated to clarify that it is modelling rather than historical data that predicts stronger and wetter hurricanes. (bolds mine)


    A retraction of an unsupportable claim about the Global Warming that’s here and worse than the models predicted?

    That’s the first time THAT’S happened…so far today.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.