Yes, there really is a way for the climate alarmists to stop spewing CO2. If only they would. Hypocrites.
That's a fair point. I'm convinced there's a lot of climate activism travel. I mean, it can't compare to ordinary civilian traffic, military traffic, and billionaire private jet traffic, but it is there.
But your travel doesnt count,does it, and your asshole probably doesnt smell like shit, does it? You are as big of a polluter as anyone else. Given you are Canadian, statistically, you pollute more, but it is always someone else who has to cut back, not you.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ature/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr Climate scientist admits overhyping impact of global warming on wildfires to get published Dr Patrick Brown claims research that cuts against the ‘mainstream narrative’ on climate change is ‘taboo’ in certain journals BySarah Knapton, SCIENCE EDITOR6 September 2023 • 8:06pm A climate scientist has admitted overhyping the impact of global warming on wildfires to ensure his work was published in the prestigious science journal Nature. Dr Patrick Brown, the co-director of the climate and energy team at The Breakthrough Institute, Berkeley, published a paper last week arguing that climate change had increased wildfires in California. The Nature study has been accessed more than 3,000 times online and was cited by 109 news outlets across the globe. But in a blog and series of posts on X, formerly known as Twitter, Dr Brown admitted that there were other factors influencing wildfires that he had purposefully omitted – such as poor forestry management and an increase in people starting fires deliberately or accidentally. He said he had found that journals would not publish climate studies unless they followed a specific “formula” and “mainstream narrative” in which global warming was viewed as the sole culprit for environmental destruction. Dr Brown made the dramatic claims in his blog Nature denied it had a preferred narrative and said it was “considering the implications” of Dr Brown’s admission, adding that his comments reflect irresponsible and poor research practices. Dr Brown warned that climate scientists often used irrelevant metrics to create “eye-popping numbers” or used time periods that are not relevant to modern societies. And he said he had discovered it was “taboo” to mention that global warming was often mitigated by changes in technology and resilience. “The first thing the astute climate researcher knows is that his or her work should support the mainstream narrative,” he said. “Why did I focus exclusively on the impact of climate change? I wanted the research to get as widely disseminated as possible, and thus I wanted it to be published in a high-impact journal. “When I had previously attempted to deviate from the formula I outlined here, my papers were promptly rejected out of hand by the editors of high-profile journals without even going to peer review.” He added: “This type of framing, where the influence of climate change is unrealistically considered in isolation, is the norm for high-profile research papers. “It is standard practice to calculate impacts for scary hypothetical future warming scenarios that strain credibility while ignoring potential changes to technology and resilience that would lessen the impact