Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Petition against windfarms | Main | Manmade earthquakes »
Thursday
Jun022011

Greens, scientists and bad people

Australian politician Peter Phelps has, in that quiet underspoken way that Australian politicians have, compared climatologists to scientists working for the Nazis.

At the heart of many scientists—but not all scientists—lies the heart of a totalitarian planner. One can see them now, beavering away, alone, unknown, in their laboratories. And now, through the great global warming swindle they can influence policy, they can set agendas, they can reach into everyone's lives; they can, like Lenin, proclaim "what must be done". While the humanities had a sort of warm-hearted, muddle-headed leftism, the sciences carry with them no such feeling for humanity. And it is not a new phenomenon. We should not forget that some of the strongest supporters of totalitarian regimes in the last century have been scientists and, in return, the State lavishes praise, money and respectability on them.

He elides from here into a quotation about the involvement of scientists in the rise of the Nazis. This is probably going to cause a few ructions - in fact it already is. The problem is that as soon as you invoke the N-word, you conjure up pictures of jackbooted stormtroopers rather than the mild-mannered scientists who are the problem. This is a pity, because he is making what appears to me to be a serious point.

The rise of the Nazis was abetted by well-meaning nice people who wanted only good things, such as law and order and 'schoolsnhospitals'. In just the same way, I'm sure that Schellnhuber's intentions are entirely honourable too - he's saving the planet after all. He just thinks that only way to do so involves taking us into a dictatorship, run by well-meaning nice people like him.  He's a minority of course (although I'm sure there are others who share his views but don't voice them), but that's no reason not to point to the dangers. The price of liberty is, after all, eternal vigilance.

(Could commenters note, I will be ruthless about snipping comments that are rude/off topic/aggressive on this thread.)

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (64)

Wasn't Claes Johnson prevented from teaching his class in mathematics because of his views on the Greenhouse effect?

Jun 3, 2011 at 1:03 AM | Unregistered Commenterandyscrase

@Bishop:
"Any German speakers want to read the whole WGBU report and confirm? Die Welt were clear that there was a call to limit democracy but it's possible this is down to interpretations and reading between the lines."

It's hard for my stomach to do it in one go, so here a selection of quotes up to page 9. I guess I am not the only one to find a distressing similarity to totalitarian discourses of the past:


Sustainable strategies and concepts must be developed for this in order to embed sustainable global development in transnational democratic structures, to formulate answers to the 21st century questions regarding global equity and distribution of resources, and, not least, to be able to claim world-wide legitimacy.

This means concrete academic search processes, for example by global governance theoreticians, international law experts, cosmopolitans, transnationalists and philosophers of justice to formulate legitimate and realisable norms, rules and procedures which, all together, could form the basis of an ideal global social contract. This would be something of a quantum leap for civilisation, on par for example with the transition of the feudal systems to constitutional states and democracy.


The WBGU views this structural transition as the start of a ‘Great Transformation’ into a sustainable society, which must inevitably proceed within the planetary guard rails of sustainability.

One key element of such a social contract is the ‘proactive state’, a state that actively sets priorities for the transformation, at the same time increasing the number of ways in which its citizens can participate, and offering the economy choices when it comes to acting with sustainability in mind. The social contract also encompasses new forms of global political will formation and cooperation. The establishment of a ‘UN Council for Sustainable Development’, on par with the UN Security Council, and the forming of international alliances of climate pioneers between states, international organisations, cities, corporations, science and civic organisations, would be examples of this.


The WBGU has developed the concept of a new social contract for the transformation towards sustainability – not so much on paper, but rather in people‘s consciousness – (reeducation comes to mind)

The WBGU’s Transformation Strategy
The great transformations the human race has so far experienced were, for the most part, the uncontrolled results of evolutionary change. The challenge, unique in history, with regard to the upcoming transformation into a climate-friendly society is advancing a compre-hensive change for reasons of understanding, prudence and providence. The transformation must be anticipated, based on scientific insights regarding the risks of continuing on high-carbon development paths, in order to avoid the ‘standard historic reaction’, a change of direction in response to crises and disasters

For another, the transformation needs a powerful state, counterbalanced by extended participation on the part of its citizens.


must address four major challenges:
...
Traditional contract philosophy presupposed the fictitious belief that all members of a society are equal. Considering the disproportionate distribution of resources and capabilities in today‘s international community, we must have effective, fair global compensation mechanisms in place.

The contract has to bring two important new protagonists into the equation: the self-organised civil society and the community of scientific experts.


The new social contract is an agreement to change: the global citizenship consents to expecting innovations that have a normative link to the sustainability postulate, and, in exchange, agrees to surrender the instinct to hang on to the established The guarantor in this virtual contract is a proactive state that involves its citizens in future decisions requisite to the agreement of sustainability targets.

It is by no means the case that the contract calls for a merely superficial or even resigned acceptance on the part of civil society: rather, the civil society is acknowledged as an active partner with shared responsibility for the success of the transformation process, and mobilised, thereby legitimising the process. The concept of a proactive state is therefore indelibly intertwined with the acknowledgment of civil society, and the innovative forces in the economy, in science and in administration.

A central element in a social contract for transformation is the proactive state with extended participation in a multilevel system of global cooperation. It entails two aspects, frequently thought of as separate or contradicting: on the one hand empowering the state, which actively determines priorities and underlines them with clear signals (for example with bonus/malus solutions), and on the other hand, giving citizens more extensive opportunities to have a voice, to get involved in decision-making and to take a more active role in politics. A powerful (eco-)state is often thought of as restricting the autonomy of the ‘man in the street’, whilst at the same time, any meddling on the part of the citizen is viewed with misgivings as a disturbance factor to political-administrative rationality and routines. A precondition for a successful transformation policy, though, is the simultaneous empowerment of state and citizens with regard to the common goal of sustainable policy objectives.

http://www.wbgu.de/en/publications/flagship-reports/flagship-report-2011/

Jun 3, 2011 at 10:25 AM | Unregistered CommenterPatagon

Fascism is a doctrine that people should be prevented from disagreeing with the Leader's consensus since disagreement prevents getting things done and a united people (or bundle of sticks - the fasces) is stronger than the individual. As such anybody who says that, in the eco cause, sceptics should be arrested or even censored from the BBC is, if the term is meaningful, a fascist.

Nazi has the same general rules but with an enthusiasm for mass murder so eco-fascists who are unconcerned about the DDT killing 1 1/2 million annually or indeed high electricity prices causing 25,000 excess pensioners deaths annually are eco-Nazis.

So long as the term is factually provable & used consistently no eco-fascist has a right to claim to have been insulted.

While I would have no problem with being called a "climate catastrophe denier" the word deniier (or denialist) alone is too unspecific. James Hansen, I understand, denies being a lying charlatan & is thus literally a denier.

I think the misuse of language to deceive is one of the philosophical problems of politics and such misuse should be pinned to the wall whenever it appears.

Jun 3, 2011 at 11:54 AM | Unregistered CommenterNeil Craig

It is not just scientists for discussion re Adolph. For example, one of the most talented photographers of the 20th Century was Leni Riefenstahl, who produced, directed and filmed some of the famous Hitler rallies. She died in 2003 after achieving photographic fame again, this time with fish.
Then, there are the engineers whose contributions to a smallish Germany taking on the World at war were outstanding.
Also, there are the writers who, like Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels, developed new genres like applied propaganda with sound and light and cyanide.
With a cultural heritage like that, who can blame Prof Schellhuber? He has some high historic hurdles to climb before fame is blessed on him.

Jun 3, 2011 at 12:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterGeoff Sherrington

The human race uses about a millionth of the energy reaching earth from the sun to sustain itself. A tiny increase in the efficiency of our use of that energy will sustain many multiples of the present population in a manner to which we can but hope to become accustomed. The transnatioanal authoritarians who trumpet 'sustainability' as the new clarion call suffer mostly from lack of imagination.
============

Jun 3, 2011 at 3:18 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

@ kim,

yes, all imagination. Ever heard about energy density?

Jun 3, 2011 at 5:10 PM | Unregistered Commenteropastun

Hey, are you Pommy *&^%*s making fun of us Aussies again? Saying we use aggressive *&^%# language? Listen, mate, if we hear any more about Aussie violence and aggression from this Bishop Hill fellow, we'll send our expatriate mates around to show him what's what ... Eh? Wozzat? The Bishop thinks the Greenies are more dangerous? ...

Jun 3, 2011 at 10:38 PM | Unregistered Commenterdavid elder, australia

@ Patagon

thanks for the link

this means what ? - "A powerful (eco-)state is often thought of as restricting the autonomy of the ‘man in the street’, whilst at the same time, any meddling on the part of the citizen is viewed with misgivings as a disturbance factor to political-administrative rationality and routines. A precondition for a successful transformation policy, though, is the simultaneous empowerment of state and citizens with regard to the common goal of sustainable policy objectives."

WTF - why do people/departments get away with this hogwash?

Jun 3, 2011 at 11:03 PM | Unregistered Commenterdougieh

Oh, yes, opastun, I've heard about energy density. Did I speak of the density of the mass of humanity, several quadrillion individual souls, if all the sun's energy falling on earth were dedicated to the sustenance of humans?

I'm a skeptic, as leery of wind and solar applications, except for special, local situations, as I should be. I'm merely deconstructing 'sustainability' as so commonly overused, lately, for the appalling lack of imagination, and the urge to defeat and totalitarianism that it is.
================

Jun 4, 2011 at 12:55 AM | Unregistered Commenterkim

er, and most of that energy would probably be devoted to producing food, and quite, locally, like maybe on the wall of your domicile.
=======

Jun 4, 2011 at 12:58 AM | Unregistered Commenterkim

opastun, my point is simply that a tiny increase of the efficiency of our use of the sun's energy would allow an increase in the magnitude of the humans sustainable. An example was accomplished in our own time with Norman Borlaug's Green Seed Revolution.
==============

Jun 4, 2011 at 1:11 AM | Unregistered Commenterkim

When we have space industry building square miles of tinfoil solar satellites will be cheap and easy and with no weather they will last forever. The amount of energy within geosyncgronous orbit is 17,000 times greater than hits Earth. Fusion would be equally unlimited and fission is not seriously limited if we are allowed to use it.The era of cheap energy has not yet dawned.

Jun 4, 2011 at 11:16 AM | Unregistered CommenterNeil Craig

My lawyer is actually an environmental and natural resources attorney employed by the US Department of the Interior. Walter Kay's essay argues that the goal of environmentalist-ecologism, ie, the creation of a statist control-center within the state.

This has already been achieved through nebulous, feel-good dreck like the Endangered Species Act (ESA). For instance, Interior has to rule on an Enviro-wacko groups claim to protect a bird at high altitude, allegedly "endangered" by global warming because - while doing very well and not endangered - its high altitude habitat IS though alleged warming. But because Interior is directed to use the "best available science" in making rulings, it accepts the disaster of the IPCCs uncertain and contested findings.

Thus, short of clarifying ESA, the goal of skeptics must be to get the IPCC unmasked and dethroned.

One way this could come about is through the climategate episode, which has meant fewer and fewer of the best scientists participating (eg, Nils-Axil Morner on sea level change, of Chris Landsea on hurricanes). The fewer who do, the more they need to be organized to critique and contest its authority as the "best science."

Jun 5, 2011 at 2:28 AM | Unregistered CommenterOrson

Yes, Neil; we have vast imagination, and engineers who can't help but debunk politicized science.
=============

Jun 5, 2011 at 2:47 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>