By Dennis Ambler and Pierre Gosselin
One of the most worrisome aspects of the climate science movement, other than its outright fudging of data, is its unabashed contempt for democracy.
Yesterday a tiny group of “17 international scientists from world class institutions“, who are unhappy with the current development course of civilization because it has not been to their liking, released in a statement the elements of a global climate agreement, and “what needs to be done in order to meet the 2°C target.”
The 17 elitist “scientists” call themselves “The Earth League“.
Not surprisingly the statement calls for the fundamental reorganization of global human civilization and society.
Yesterday the ultra-alarmist Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) also published a press release about that statement from the “international alliance of prominent scientists“, which calls for “bold action by decision-makers to pave the way for a successful international agreement to reduce the risk of dangerous climate change“. The Earth League statement announces:
It is a moral obligation, and in our self-interest, to achieve deep decarbonization of the global economy via equitable effort sharing. This requires reaching a zero-carbon society by mid-century or shortly thereafter, thereby limiting global warming to below 2°C as agreed by all nations in 2010. This trajectory is not one of economic pain, but of economic opportunity, progress and inclusiveness.”
Such promises of zero-pain are not new. Ten years ago Germany’s Environment Minister Jürgen Trittin claimed the transition would “not cost citizens more than a cone of ice cream“. That cone of ice cream today has since exploded to 355 euros – each year – and CO2 emissions still haven’t dropped!
The Earth League’s statement coincides with Earth Day. Not surprisingly among its members is PIK director Hans Joachim Schellnhuber. The statement clarifies what an international climate agreement should achieve in Paris in December.
The scientists include Mario Molina of Centro Mario Molina, Jennifer Morgan of the World Resources Institute, Ottmar Edenhofer of Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, Carlos Nobre of National Institute for Space Research (INPE) (and UNESCO), Lord Nicholas Stern of London School of Economics and Political Science, Johan Rockström of Stockholm Resilience Center and other authors.
People familiar with the PIK recognize that this is very much a “Schellnhubris” Potsdam initiative. Indeed it is amazing to see them claim “scientist” status for Jennifer Morgan, former WWF Climate Director and now a member of the Potsdam “Scientific Advisory Board”. Her qualifications are in Political Science and “International Affairs”. Former World Bank economist Stern is chairman of the Grantham Institute at LSE and has also been on Schellnhuber’s Potsdam “Scientific Advisory Board”.
Edenhofer is also an economist and deputy director at Potsdam, although he is now named as Director of yet another new institution, the Mercator Institute on Global Commons, (that’s the air we breathe, in their book and it must be regulated so everyone gets their fair share. The West has had more than its fair share so we must recant and breathe less). He is famous for his quote that it is no longer about the science, but about wealth redistribution.
Rockström is a long term campaigner, an ecologist not a climate scientist and formerly at the Beijer Instituite which has merged with the Stockholm Resilience Centre. He is the vice-chair of the science advisory board at Potsdam and “he was also co-chairing the visioning process on global environmental change of ICSU, the International Council for Science.”
The Earth League does have a few scientists onboard, such as Sir Brian Hoskins, IPCC and Director of the Imperial College, London, Grantham Institute. He is also on Schellnhuber’s “Scientific Advisory Board”.
Another non-scientist is Leena Srivastava, deputy to the currently “on leave of absence” Rajendra Pachauri.
Of course none of these 17 “leading scientists” will ever admit their contempt for democracy, yet their demands tell us a different story. What their statement tells us is: Yes, citizens are allowed to elect their leaders, but the leaders must do what us elite “scientists” tell them. If that is not contempt for the democratic process, then what is? The PIK Press release writes:
The Earth Statement will be presented by Rockström and Schellnhuber at the 4th Nobel Laureates Symposium on Global Sustainability in Hong Kong “4C: Changing Climate, Changing Cities” hosted by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Asia Society Hong Kong (22-25 April) on Thursday – this will mark the beginning of outreach to leading decision-makers and thinkers.”
Welcome to the next wave of authoritarianism.
Weblink to the full Earth Statement and further information: www.earthstatement.org
Including this definition, from the comments:
BobW in NC 23. April 2015 at 18:45~
Ah, Scientism is flexing its muscles as it rears its ugly head. Scientism, the miming of absolute religious authority by the secular virus of rationalism.
Witness: In my research, I have found that scientism has been characterized as follows by author Austin L. Hughes, Carolina Distinguished Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of South Carolina:
“Advocates of scientism today claim the sole mantle of rationality, frequently equating science with reason itself. Yet it seems the very antithesis of reason to insist that science can do what it cannot, or even that it has done what it demonstrably has not. As a scientist, I would never deny that scientific discoveries can have important implications… But the claim that science and science alone can answer longstanding questions…gives rise to countless problems.” www.thenewatlantis.com/publica…
My thoughts: Two things here stand out to me immediately-
A) That Ayn Rand describes a very similar authoritarian future community in her book 'Anthem,' in which the human race is in the thrall of a new Dark Ages.
B) That there are quite a number of people on this site who believe 'Because Science!' - among which fall a large number of SJWs.
God Help Us.
Anything and everything I hope to write is delayed until.... God knows when. Sorry about that. I knew IRL would get too busy at some point.