Dickens Goes Metro writes in comments for our other redonkulous climate ethics story today Penn State to lecture on “climate ethics” what I thought at first was a spoof. Sadly, it is all too real.
Coffee spew alert:
National Climate Ethics Statement
To Be Released November 30 On Capital Hill
Senator Barbara Boxer and Rep. Henry Waxman Among List of Speakers
This is our FINAL CALL for signatures. Please send out the message below.
The National Climate Ethics Campaign is pleased to announce that the “Statement of Our Nation’s Moral Obligation to Address Climate Change” will be released Wednesday, November 30 from 1:00-2:30 p.m. in Room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building (The Environment and Public Works Hearing Room).
There are now over 1000 signers now on the climate ethics statement. Please send the message pasted below to organizations, listservs, and people that might endorse it.
If you are in Washington D.C. or vicinity please attend the event. In addition, please urge others know you to attend! Let’s fill the room to tell Congress, the President, and the public that it is our nation’s moral and ethical responsibility to meaningfully address climate change.
Speakers representing a wide range of constituencies will offer their views about our nation’s ethical and moral obligations to address climate change:
Congressman Henry Waxman (D-California)
Virginia State Senator Mary Margaret Whipple (state perspective)
Gary Hirshberg, CEO of Stonyfield Farm (business)
Tim Warman of The National Wildlife Federation (environment)
Jim Ball, VP of The Evangelical Environmental Network (faith)
Joe Uehlein, Labor Network for Sustainability (labor)
Ann Goodman, WNSF (women)
Luisa Saffiotti, Psychologists for Social Responsibility (mental health)
Bobby Pestronk, NACCHO (health)
Lili Molina, Energy Action Coalition (youth)
A speaker representing the NAACP will also speak.
http://climateethicscampaign.org/
===================================================================
Only 1000 people so far representing the climate ethics of the nation? Gosh.
You can see the statement and list of signers here
You can add your name to the list of signers here
Oh what tangled social networks we weave when first we practice to deceive….
As you can see from the list, it’s all about the science.
Hopefully everyone remembers to call ol’ Babs by her proper title:
Interesting – maybe only 999 signers:
James Hansen, Research Scientist, International Research Institute for Climate and Society, Palisades, NY
James Hansen, Adjunct Professor, Columbia University Earth Institute, Kintnersville, PA
“We, the undersigned current and former elected officials and representatives from the business, labor, youth, financial, academic, mental health, physical health, conservation, racial justice, civil rights, development organizations, and faith communities of the United States, recognize that climate change is a real, dangerous, and rapidly worsening problem with deep moral implications.…
You really don’t need to read any more of this. Sigh.
“deep moral implications”
The evidence is unequivocal … AGW is a religion.
Ockham says:
November 29, 2011 at 10:49 pm
Correction: It’s a Cult. The Cult of Marxism
Peter D. Tillman says:
November 29, 2011 at 10:39 pm
Easy to slap that garbage down Peter! Simply show the link below
http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php
None seem to have anything to do with…..
D-California ?
State Perspective (?)
Business (Carbon Trading?)
Faith (!) Should that be “The Cause”?
Labor Network for Sustainability
WNSF (women) (?)
Psychologists for Social Responsibility (mental health)
NACCHO (health)
Energy Action Coalition (youth)
More political baffle-gab. This sounds like an assignment in a PR 101 course at Nonacademic U. Most of these people wouldn’t recognize ethics if it bit them in the ass. To bad Ethics is not a large dog with bit teeth. These people have the moral authority of drug dealer. The last time I looked climate, rivers, rocks and just about everything else in the natural world has amoral, apolitical and therefore unable to be ethical or unethical. It is only people acting from on an apriori assumption that would attempt to define for others what ethics is to mean.
And in Australia today, we have this utter garbage to contend with. Where are their ethics?
http://climatecommission.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/111129_FINAL-FOR-WEB.pdf
Shameful, really shameful.
“To(o) bad Ethics is not a large dog with bit teeth.”
That large dog would be karma. These turkeys will eventually get bitten.
I see a few reps from this organization, including “Edwina Beard, President, New Mexico Interfaith Power & Light, Albuquerque, NM.” That name kind of says it all.
The enviros very deliberately targeted religious groups back around 1990, and probably earlier, as they knew they could get such groups by just fooling their leaders. Or, to use more Biblical terms, fool the shepherd and get the sheep. It was bound to come to this and i expect more of this desperate moral argument as the pseudoscientific part of the “cause” falls apart.
Meanwhile, at the Durban Revival Meeting – HalloCO2yah Brother! – it looks like what must be immoral infidels are spoiling the party, and the collection plates aren’t filling as planned.
Here’s a link to what’s happening there which i find interesting. They are biased but since their real focus is the real focus ($), it provides some insight:
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/special/2127808/durban-climate-summit
This statement has nothing to do with ethics. In fact, it is basically the opposite. It basically says “I promise to support the AGW hysteria no matter what”.
I wish these petitions had a mechanism for a person to sign as being opposed to it.
Also, you really need to watch out for what comes out of Congress. They generally give things names that do exactly the opposite of what the name says. For example, if Congress were to ever propose a “Paycheck Protection Act”, look out! It would probably mandate that they take 90% of your paycheck and “ensure” that you get to keep the remaining 10%.
I certainly hope no taxpayer money is being wasted on that petition.
A speaker representing the NAACP?
Oh yeah, the old New York Times headline joke:
World Ending Tomorrow! Women and Minorities Hit Hardest!
Justice and EQUITY? They want us to take out a second mortgage? Report the thick insulation in the attic??
“One of humanity’s most deeply held universal moral and ethical precepts is to ‘do no harm.’ This axiom says that any activity that unjustifiably causes human suffering and death is morally wrong.”
So it is apparently wrong to divert land for biofuels and make food more expensive for poor people. And it is wrong to make energy more expensive so poor people have to choose between eating and keeping warm. I agree this is wrong. So what is their solution?
1346 as of 01:00 MST.
On Capital Hill? Wonder where that is….EVERYONE knows that Capitol (with an “o”) Hill is where our dear leaders are located!
Along with “ethics”, the folks at Climate Ethics Campaign should look into the availability of remedial spelling classes.
WE the climate-realists
recognize that climate change ALARMISM
is a real, dangerous, and rapidly worsening problem with deep moral implications.…
biofueled famines, death by fuel poverty,
job-killing taxes, legislation and regulation,
wasted wealth that could have helped the world’s poor.
Speaking of faux morality,
PETA has been whining for decades
about the half million animals annually killed by cars,
so why isn’t PETA patrolling
the grounds around the bird slicers
in order to document an equally vast avian slaughter?
Is this particular animal-killing too PC for them?
They don’t mind fining oil companies
ridiculouly huge sums for a single dead bird.
I see that honesty wasn’t one of the ethics they had in mind.
Patrick Davis says:
November 29, 2011 at 11:11 pm
And in Australia today, we have this utter garbage to contend with. Where are their ethics?
http://climatecommission.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/111129_FINAL-FOR-WEB.pdf
Shameful, really shameful.
——————————————————————————————————————
Page 8 is my favorite, although they forgot rising sea levels. Personally I’d save a copy and post it back to them in ten years.
Ethics after the fact is nothing ,nil, nada, zip.
We don’t need your ethics now, we needed your ethics years ago.
Here is an example of Boxer’s ethics. After Roy Spencer’s testimony before a Senate Climate Change committee, she commented: “And lastly, I guess is a certain congratulations, Rush Limbaugh referred to you as the official climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh Excellence in Broadcasting Network.”
These nuts do like their ad homs.
Robert E. Phelan says:
November 29, 2011 at 10:36 pm
The list I just pulled up looks to have 4 dupes in 1,219 names: Adrien Tofighi, Curt Meine, James Hansen and Stephen Soldz.
Nothing major but shows a little lax on the quality control.
Oh and Bren Smith/Brendan Smith makes 5.
These lists don’t seem to have any value, both sides can and have come up with numbers and it doesn’t prove much.
I wouldn’t have believed forty years ago that in my lifetime the weather could become a political let alone a moral matter.
Apparently the only speaker from business they can find is an “organic” yogurt maker.
Politics and ethics … never the twain shall meet.
Two good articles in The Register today (with links to sources)
They’re shouting louder in Oz http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/29/climate_messages_more_strident/ . (according to one of the comments, the referenced Hendra virus has killed 4 people in the last 17 years)
According to the UK Met Offices, we’re back at 1997 temperatures http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/30/met_office_temp_statement_for_durban/ .
(but it’s still getting warmer)
Maybe hell hath frozen over, as they say, when the climate has come when liberals, the progressives also known as communists, debates ethics.
Statement of Our Nation’s Moral Obligation to Address Climate Change
looking for ethics
As an antidote to the above, may I prescribe in today’s National Post Peter Foster’s:
We have a moral obligation to Truth…
The Orwellian corruption of language continues. “Justice” has been turned upside down in meaning.
“Ethics” is the next victim.
Actually I think it is 999 individual signers; a James Hansen signed twice…?
Also noted the usuals (McKibben, Mandia, Jeff Masters) – but was struck by the VAST Network of cottage-industry eco-organizations that (at some level) are self-interested in promulgating this belief system…..
And – ecopsychology…? Wha…?
I can see it now:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2041/11/30/met_office_temp_statement
“Phil Jones Jr has announced that 2041 is provisionally the warmest year since 2040, and the 80th warmest year evah. “There’s no denying it. Our consensus models show that the long-term average continues to be up from the 1840s, and it’s all down to man’s CO2 poisoning of the air”, confirmed Jones”.
I guess Jimmie Hansen deserves 2 votes kinda like a ‘super’ delegate.
“We, the undersigned current and former elected officials and representatives from the business, labor, youth, financial, academic, mental health, physical health, conservation, racial justice, civil rights, development organizations, and faith communities of the United States,”
What nobody who’s job might lead one to believe that they have any clue at all about the science of climate change? Glad the included faith communities, because AGW is a religion, but note scientist is not listed. I think the fact that Hansen signed twice proves he isn’t a scientist.
“Although reducing carbon pollution will have costs, it will also produce incalculable benefits”
We’ll since we did not calculate the cost we could say the cost are incalculable too, but that would not advance the cause.
Question of the day:
Is “climate ethics” an oxymoron? Discuss…
“The statement declares that economic self-interest cannot be the only criteria used to determine if and how the U.S. should respond to climate change. Individually, and collectively as a nation, we must acknowledge our moral obligations to prevent unjustifiable human suffering, honor the principles of justice and equity, and protect the Earth’s natural systems.”
Fine for you, you Class Warfaring Communist ecofreaks! But speaking for a segment of the 98.9% of Parasites who unlike you can not speak yet must be heard!, “Who will feed the Bed Bugs?”* Because, humanoids, your Communism always fails and therefore our populations instead suffer!
*Street Beggar refrain in one of India’s eras of alleged heightened moral sensitivity.
If you recall Al Gore taught a course in climate ethics and morality at Yale. His vision evoled out of his failed attempt to convince people of the dangers of AGW via science and the realization that a faith based approach would be much more productuive in faith based countries. To quote a recent comment from Don Surber in a recent review of a WSJ article, “Climatology has run its course, just as phrenology did nearly two centuries ago. Some other pseudoscience will arise that preys on the ignorance of people — why do you think liberal arts colleges diluted hard science requirements — to enrich its leaders. Those who point out how foolish the whole thing is will be treated as heretics always are.”
This is why the Church of Climatism has found its way into the hearts of many liberal arts and soft science academic types who seem only too happy to become missionaries willing to spread the gospel of climatism. Many are also transnational progressives (Dr. Brown?) and will also likely seek to establish a world court to enforce the new laws established by the Church of Climatism. The religious process is always the same and it has an excellent historical record for shaping social behavior as humans are wired to have a need to believe in something beyond reality. This is why it so easy for parents to get their children to beieve in fantasy. Those not trained in sciences (see Surber’s comment above) remain susceptible to fantasy in adulthoodI.
However how is the formation of “national climate ethics” by members of the Church of Climatism any different than some group writing a declaration that Sharia law, as an example, is to become the pathway for ethic and moral obligations in the United States?
In November 1989, the congress voted itself another pay raise. They called it an “ethics” bill. Apparently, “ethics” = “gimme more money.”
By the way, congressional salary is $168,000 per year, or, if it makes you feel better, a paltry $14,000 per month.
At least until the next “ethics” bill.
TomT says:
November 30, 2011 at 6:41 am
Don’t forget that climate prediction,as an initial-boundary value problem of mathematical physics, is also “incalculable”…the modelers haven’t figured this out yet…
I didn’t see any signatures acknowledging they represent the US Constitution and no one standing up for freedom and the rights of the individual. I wonder how these get “represented”?
Certainly not by any of these people.
I would think Boxer’s fingers would burst into flames if she actually touched a document with the word “ethics” imprinted on it. Maybe she is using sunscreen and gloves these days.
The political class that is so strong in separating church and state are now attempting to attack the moral conscience of the very people they have been instrumental in opposing the practice of faith, celebrations and moral values.
Reading the list it would have been helpful to know the political affiliation of those who signed on to this shameful attempt to link morality to their goal of limitless power to save the planet that is in no need of saving. In my opinion people in the professions and organizations not listed speak to the truth.
The list size hasn’t changed for eight hours, which suggests they aren’t updating it and don’t intend to. Perhaps because there isn’t a mad rush to join up. Repeat after me….
Anyone who says “carbon pollution” just lost all credibility with me (unless they’re talking about something contaminating carbon as opposed to carbon being the contaminant).
That’s what we need, the Clean Carbon Act (CCA) to ensure our carbon isn’t being contaminated with actual toxins. /sarc
Lots of crazies there. And a few dimwits.
Nice. Now we’ll have a bigger list when the trial begin.
Hypothetical questions :
How ethical would it be to take your money by force, and use that money to attack your moral integrity, because we disagree about public policy?
Would that fall within the ethical requirements for a “public servant”?
“Although reducing carbon pollution will have costs, it will also produce incalculable benefits.”
Yeah, I can’t calculate how little benefit there will be either.
Was that statement supposed to be funny? Because it sure was amusing.
The carbon footprint of all signers needs to be monitored as the statement calls for “every citizen to act on these moral principles without delay. Individually, and collectively as a nation, we must rapidly reduce carbon pollution by significant levels…” The signers want to impose significant carbon pollution reduction collectively on everyone else, they need to show us the way.
A woman in Kenya received a Nobel prize because she planted trees. As a result of her work Kenya got some real benefit.
This crop of idiots are on a bandwagon. They are not interested in helping people in Africa find ways of drought proofing their crops. In fact they destroy those experimental crops as they proclaim them to cause infertility and other defects – without any true studies to support them. After all, here in Australia William Farrer created rust proof wheat crops.
If any of them were serious then they would be looking to improve farming techniques in the prevailing conditions. That does not mean using chemicals on the crops, but actually determining what works best, as well as finding the best practice minimum techniques to improve production.
Instead, we have a group of individuals who have never worked in farming preventing people in developing countries from being able to grow their own food. At the same time they are diverting surplus production in other countries towards “bio fuels”, instead of ensuring that countries where there have been famines get access to that surplus production. Something is very wrong with that picture.
From Russ R. on November 30, 2011 at 9:33 am:
Nothing hypothetical about that. It’s become standard procedure to tax everyone in various ways, hidden and not, distribute the gathered monies to those deemed needy and/or worthy (minus bureaucratic processing fees), and declare this to be a necessary function of government because “you rich greedy bastards” don’t give enough to charitable causes.
This must be very ethical, as the Occupy protesters are calling it “social justice” and demanding more, and justice is always ethical, since it seeks redress and/or punishment for crimes committed. Thus all of us “rich greedy bastards” being taxed must have committed a crime, while the needy and/or worthy are the victims of the crime.
But everyone is being taxed, and we are told the monies collected are benefiting everyone (as with combating climate change)… Therefore everyone is a victim of their own crime!
erstellar Bill says:
November 30, 2011 at 12:06 am
…….Speaking of faux morality,
PETA has been whining for decades
about the half million animals annually killed by cars,….
But PETA never mentions that “… PETA employees killed 94 percent of the dogs and cats in their care last year. During all of 2010, PETA found adoptive homes for just 44 pets…. Since 1998, PETA has opted to “put down” 25,840 adoptable dogs, cats, puppies, and kittens… “ http://www.petakillsanimals.com/
When you realize that PETA is about destroying the right to own property and not about animal welfare (not rights) this kill rate of course makes sense. PETA is right in their supporting global warming crap of course because the basis, Marxism is the same for both CAGW and the anti-property rights of PETA and the UN’s Agenda 21.
Fight Global Warming by Going Vegetarian | PETA.org http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/global-warming.aspx
Meat and the Environment | PETA.org http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/meat-and-environment.aspx
UN Says Meat Industry Is the Top Contributor to Global Warming
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-greenhouse-hamburger
A couple weeks ago:
No one ever bothers to mention the little factoid about meat and brain development. Of course if you want a dull witted populous that is easily to control starvation/no meat will work wonders. (I still have not figured out if they want to wipe most of us off the face of the earth or they just want to rob us)
I love this one: Study Finds Vegetarians Have Smaller Brains
http://beefmagazine.com/news/0421-vegetarians-smaller-brains/
The Importance of DHA (Docosahexaenoic Acid) http://www.asianonlinerecipes.com/health-fitness/importance-dha.php
Role of red meat in the diet for children and adolescents. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Role+of+red+meat+in+the+diet+for+children+and+adolescents.%28Section+3:…-a0169311698
This from Business Insider mag a year ago takes on new meaning:
Barton Biggs: Stock A Safe Haven With Food And Firearms To Protect Against Doomsday Pillagers http://www.businessinsider.com/barton-biggs-stock-a-safe-haven-with-food-and-firearms-to-protect-against-pillagers-2010-1
Interesting read: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/rich-class-beating-99-to-a-pulp-2011-11-01
When costs exceed benefits, bankruptcy ensues.
The ethics costs of AGW support are showing themselves to be immensely higher than any purported benefits. Hence the moral bankruptcy being displayed in that petition.
I wonder what their response would be to having the recent JAXA IBUKI satellite results pointed out, indicating that the underdeveloped nations are inflicting HUGE CO2 emissions on the struggling developed countries, which are using more than they produce, but not enough to compensate. Ethically speaking, it is clear that the underdeveloped countries should be forced to industrialize ASAP.
Re the above: in all honesty, since I consider that CO2 increases are beneficial, any compensation should actually be made in the form of payments to the underdeveloped nations for their generous contributions of CO2, which help keep the West’s agricultural productivity high and forests and gardens flourishing.
But don’t suggest it to the UN; the last thing we need is a claim for financial levies which is actually justified by the science.
Like one that doesn’t know the difference between populus (n) and populous (adj)?
😉 ;p