Every once in awhile a window opens and shows us the dark, illogical souls of the bureaucrats in the climate cabal. This is one of those times.
Regardless of whether or not scientists are wrong on global warming, the European Union is pursuing the correct energy policies even if they lead to higher prices, Europe’s climate commissioner has said.
There’s more.
Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said ‘we were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change?.
These are the views of the EU climate commissioner, Connie Hedegaard.
Read it all here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10313261/EU-policy-on-climate-change-is-right-even-if-science-was-wrong-says-commissioner.html
h/t to Dennis Wingo, and many others.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The man contradicts himself within the same sentence, and expects people to agree with him. Why is it “good” to have been utterly and hugely wrong?
Dark, yes. Illogical? I doubt it.
You see, when Ms. Hedegaard is talking about “many good things,” she means things that are good for her and her subspecies. The fact that the same things may be deadly for me or for some other variety of human being is just the point. They are instinctively afraid of more intelligent life forms, and they want to exterminate us.
This is a typical tactic of the left, ‘knowing what’s best for you’.
I have a relative who is a very dangerous totalitarian who considers ‘inducing fear in the people’ as a legitimate tactic of government. Of course, the question as to the effect that such scaremongering has on human health is never discussed during Hippocratic oath adherence debates, since it would be rather bad Press for doctors to be seen ‘shaping the market’ to increase the need for their (highly paid) services. The argument we were having was about climate change and the arguments they put forward were exactly the ones above. The debate took place more than 5 years ago.
Today, The Guardian has its usual totalitarian ex communist, George Monbiot, engaging in his normal ad hominems with one decidedly sinister addition: there is ruthless censorship of dissenting opinion in the moderated blog. I know full well what is within the rules and I made around 6 comments within the rules, five of which were suppressed.
Totalitarianism has arrived when ad hominem insults allied to a removal of the right to reply is the staple fare.
I urge all readers to email the Editor of the Guardian at Alan.rusbridger@theguardian.com, expressing your outrage, contempt and derision for his antics, particularly given his self-righteous posturing before the House of Commons during the recent Press Regulation hearings.
Flydlbee says:
September 17, 2013 at 12:10 am
The man is a woman, and I will with difficulty forbear to make capital from that fact. 🙂
This is nothing new. Even 10 or more years ago there were politicians, bureaucrats and even scientists openly claiming that even if it turns out they’re wrong about the science the policies are still good for reasons of “social justice” and other such socialist claptrap.
rtj1211 says:
September 17, 2013 at 12:13 am
Ms. Hedegaard is a Danish Conservative and a former minister. In Europe and the U.K. you don’t have to be a Leftie to be an ecoloon, pace John Gummer, Frau Merkel and David Cameron.
There is nothing odd about the statement.
The EU is heavily dependent on Russian energy supplies. Russia has been known to use energy supplies as a ‘weapon’.
So to the extent that the EU moves away from Russian Oil,Coal and Natural gas for whatever reason leads to EU energy security.
Take away the issue of ‘Climate Change’ in Europe and all the politicians will simply switch to talking about ‘energy security’.
Have the windmll and solar industry’s been successful in tilting the emphasis away from ‘energy security’? Sure…but that is always going to happen when you use 1/2 a reason rather then the whole reason when making political arguments.
Surely what she means is that securing energy supplies, preferably from renewable sources, is a good idea independently of any consideration of climate change?
at least she is frank that it is politics and science has nothing to do with it. In fact climate change is just an excuse to justify the political agenda and get the opposition into a chase to the wilderness and confusion. The science of climate change was a useful driver in the chase while it was convenient, to be superseded by data fudging when science starts to fail and ultimately hidden under the smog of consensus when science could no longer support the divergence between reality and computer models. When it is proven that climate change is more or less a natural phenomena, the political agenda will remain the same. There will just be a new issue. Anybody would try to predict forthcoming issue for the same political agenda ?
Commonly I have seen CAGW movement members:
a) Say they believe anti-CO2 laws are for the best regardless of whether or not CAGW is true, for so-and-so claimed reasons.
… and in some different context & time but commonly by the same person:
b) Pretend that there is no reason anybody would be inclined to exaggerate global warming.
Actually A and B are mutually contradictory. Such is sort of like a combo of “we would never lie” and “we believe lying is harmless,” only not standing out as much as would be so if both were in the same sentence.
Global warming was jumped on by anti-growth, anti-industry environmentalists from the start, and it has never really been primarily about imagined global warming in motivation to them, more an excuse than anything else. If one argues with one of them and shows how the effects are less than claimed, the response is not relief but annoyance that the excuse is being disrupted.
This cartoon is much lauded by climate activists/pro climate change policy types:
http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/5/6/3/What-If-Its-A-Hoax.jpg
It’s popularity reveals all that is needed about the “big heart/small brain” well intentioned mindset
Edit: In my prior post, I meant imagined CAGW, when using the “imagined global warming” phrase (though actually even basic global warming could be described as imagined too for the trend since 15 years ago or relative to much further back like the Holocene Climate Optimum).
I am genuinely shocked and appalled! These people are casting themselves in the role of the ‘philosopher kings’, so convinced of the moral justification of their position that it’s ok to perpetrate their ‘noble lie’ on the people. The end justifies the means. The problem is, it doesn’t! And no-one gave them a mandate to rule by deceit!!
“..would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change?”
Oh, the inanity!
Perhaps Ms “the ends justify the means” Hedegaard would care to consider these consequences of lying about CO2?
– Trashing of the scientific method and respect for science
– Damage to democracy
– Blighting of the landscape with subsidy farms
– Slaughter of wildlife by subsidy farms
– Radioactive pollution of the Chinese landscape producing subsidy farm magnets
– Driving manufacturing from countries with environmental protections to those without
– Corruption and crime fuelled by carbon ponzi schemes
– Transferring wealth from poor to rich through subsidy farming
– and the endless list of snivelling stupidity goes on…
Of course on the plus side there are some consequences that Ms Hedegaard has obviously not considered.
– UN kleptocracy discredited and permanently compromised
– All hope of a “bio-crisis” with bio-debt collected and redistributed under a frame work of UN global governance destroyed
– EUSSR parliament discredited and permanently compromised
– Every activist, journalist, politician or party of the left permanently compromised
– Lame stream media no longer the gatekeepers of opinion
– The rise of New Media and global grass-roots movements that can never be controlled or influenced by the regulating class
The Fabian “long march through the institutions” may have succeeded in taking control of the EU and UN, but it is now ashes in their mouths. The fellow travellers, in their last push to their goal, all chose to hide behind the one stalking horse, global warming. They have effectively trashed the very artificial authorities they helped create and sought to control. Ms Hedegaard can try all she likes to establish a new “narrative”, but there is no hope. All her troops are compromised and the Internet is acid dip to “narrative”. In this aspect I would have to agree with Ms Hedegaard, the global warming hoax hasn’t been all bad 😉
The gist of what Europe’s climate commissioner is saying inspired me to replay a hotair comment of mine from a couple months ago:
Now you see so many warmists saying like: “Well, what if we are wrong? Will we have done such a terrible thing by building a better world anyway?”
A better world?
Like the * 83% * CO2 cuts mandated by 2050 that were in the Cap & Trade bill that passed the US House in 2009. 83%, with large cuts coming immediately. This would have taken a wrecking ball to the economy, and created virtually apocalyptic havoc. “A better world,” I’m afraid not.
Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren had said as early as 1973 that we must embark on a large scale program to “de-develop” the United States and create a “low-consumption economy.” Holdren said this way before the gwarming scare. Nevertheless, de-development was what he wanted then, and now.
The leftist Senator Tim Wirth said in 1993: “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing.”
And to achieve their idea of “the right thing” … it is amazing how deception is so openly and explicitly called for:
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” -Paul Watson, Co-Founder of Greenpeace
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” -Sir John Houghton, first chairman of the ipcc
“We have to offer up scary scenarios… each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective [dishonest] and being honest [ineffective].” -Stephen Schneider, lead ipcc author, 1989
“I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of .. how dangerous it is.” -Al Gore
“Only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention.” -Monika Kopacz, Atmospheric Scientist
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” -Daniel Botkin, ex Chair of Environmental Studies, UCSB
Hence, the fear mongering Chicken Littles, the broken record prognostications of doom that are starting to sound a lot like constant crying wolf.
Tis far better to tax than be taxed…what an upside down world these bureaucrats and functionaries live in. To paraphrase Marie Antoinette “Let them eat renewables”!
Most of these apparatchiks are communists, which should tell you everything you need to know. Can’t quite understand why the US Govt loves the EU so much…..
rtj1211
Two points:
1) As I suspect you know the medical profession do indeed shape the market for their services at great profit for themselves. I reckon they are responsible for the deaths of about half their customers with a great deal of help from Big Pharma.
2) I tried to draw attention to the observation by the IPCC of the global warming slowdown over the last decade on the Guardian website but my comment was censored. In other words the Guardian will only allow comments expressing support for the Dangerous AGW meme even to the extent of disallowing the views of the “consensus settled-science” establishment.
eco-geek says at September 17, 2013 at 12:59 am.
Yes, the Guardian has lost the plot entirley on the Environment. I challenged the point of view that raising energy prices was good for the third world as the poorest will suffer moist form climate change.
My argument was the standard point that poverty is the critical factor in surviving extreme weather – and cheap energy allows the development of infrastructure that mitigates against disaster.
It was clear from the recomends that my points were being considered. And the replies were (in some cases) engaging with the case.
So my posts were then deleted and I was banned.
Nothing wrong with Europeans moving away from Russian oil and gas, putting global warming and climate change aside, this is a clever long term German policy to insulate their country from future oil and gas price shortages… and if global warming turns out to be true well that’s just a bonus as the Germans will have already done the heavy lifting in eliminating CO2 emissions
eco-geek and rtj1211 … best way to counter their censorship is to submit comments of wildly exaggerated and disastrous claims which are then likely to be printed. This reinforces the view that their readership are a bunch of loons … which they are.
M Courtney says:
September 17, 2013 at 1:23 am
“My argument was the standard point that poverty is the critical factor in surviving extreme weather – and cheap energy allows the development of infrastructure that mitigates against disaster.”
We’re fast moving to a situation were renewables are cheaper than burning coal, (not even including the death and lung disease from particulate pollution) …
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/us-utility-chooses-wind-and-solar-cheaper-and-more-reliable-79876
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/graph-of-the-day-big-solar-costs-fall-23-in-12-months-21407
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/utility-shocked-find-already-dead-13706
coal is already dead in the water, just doesn’t doesn’t seem to accept it yet, oh well let their shareholder lose their pants..
So she’s all for killing grannies and grandads then?!. What a nasty piece of work.
Connie has a way with words…and is a little ambitious!
8 Sept: WSJ blog: Philippines Urged to Take Leadership Role on Climate Change
Commissioner Hedegaard said frequent floods in Manila in recent years, including the flooding caused by the typhoon-intensified monsoon last month, puts the country in a “very interesting role” to help convince large producers of greenhouse gases on the need to act decisively on climate change agreements.
“I’m extremely impatient…with a world that says it wants to address these issues but at a phase that is modest, too modest. That is why we want to inject some sense of urgency in the 2015 conference,” Ms. Hedegaard told The Wall Street Journal. “The challenge is to move a bit faster because that is what we need to do.”…
She said that Europe believes that “intelligent way forward would be to solve our economic issues, our growth problems…the job and social aspects and the environment and climate change at once. In the end, it is about how we are creating the growth in the future,” she added…
http://blogs.wsj.com/searealtime/2013/09/08/philippines-urged-to-take-leadership-role-on-climate-change/
If the renewables were what they claim, there might be some excuse for the “better world” delusions. As they are not, and cannot be, the sacrifices and deadly economic disruptions required to build them out are the more destructive the more they “succeed” in displacing conventional energy.