Luboš Motl writes about the alarming opinion from the German Climate Adviser published in the Spiegel. If you’ve ever doubted that Climate Science has become politicized, this should end any doubt. – Anthony
By Luboš Motl
In his previous life, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber used to be a fairly good theoretical physicist. For example, he would solve the Schrödinger equation with an almost periodic potential in 1983. He has spent a year or so as a postdoc at KITP in Santa Barbara (1981-82).
But the times have changed. For a couple of years, he has been the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and the main German government’s climate protection adviser. What he has just said for Spiegel, in
is just breathtaking and it helps me to understand how crazy political movements such as the Nazis or communists could have so easily taken over a nation that is as sensible as Germany. A few rotten steps in the hierarchy is enough for a loon to get to the very top. He is proposing the creation of a CO2 budget for every person on the planet, regardless whether they live in Berlin or Beijing. Let us allow him to speak:
Humankind has to limit itself to emit only fixed amount of carbon into the atmosphere until 2050. […] Because the industrialized nations have already exceeded their quotas if you take into account past emissions. […] With the current output you see that Germany, the US and other industrialized nations have either already used up their permissible quota, or will do so within the next few years. […]
The industrialized nations are facing CO2 insolvency. This means that they have to notch up their efforts to reduce climate change, otherwise they will use up the CO2 budget actually designated to poorer countries and future generations.
Question: So industrialized nations would have to pay massive sums of money?
Yes. Up to €100 billion ($142 billion) annually. If the richest sixth of the world’s population were to pay this amount, each person would have to pay €100 per year. The West would give back part of the wealth it has taken from the South in the past centuries and be indebted to countries that are now amongst the poorest in the world. It would, however, have to be ensured that the poorer nations use the money for the proposes it is intended — namely to help them to develop a greener economy.
Of course, Schellnhuber is not the first hardcore nutcase of this kind who has been saying such things, pretending that he is oh so smart. Many of you may remember Richard Feynman’s popular book, Surely You’re Joking, Mr Feynman, where he also described a crazy “interdisciplinary” conference where a similar “thinker” has been proposing the same “reparations” paid to the poor countries, based on the same assumptions that Mr Schellnhuber has used.
In order for me to save some time, let me just copy Feynman’s entertaining description of the crazy conference he attended in the 1950s. The amount and basic types of pompous fools haven’t changed: they have just taken over many institutions that apparently include the German government:
There was a special dinner at some point, and the head of the theology place, a very nice, very Jewish man, gave a speech. It was a good speech, and he was a very good speaker, so while it sounds crazy now, when I’m telling about it, at that time his main idea sounded completely obvious and true. He talked about the big differences in the welfare of various countries, which cause jealousy, which leads to conflict, and now that we have atomic weapons, any war and we’re doomed, so therefore the right way out is to strive for peace by making sure there are no great differences from place to place, and since we have so much in the United States, we should give up nearly everything to the other countries until we’re all even. Everybody was listening to this, and we were all full of sacrificial feeling, and all thinking we ought to do this. But I came back to my senses on the way home.
The next day one of the guys in our group said, “I think that speech last night was so good that we should all endorse it, and it should be the summary of our conference.”
I started to say that the idea of distributing everything evenly is based on a theory that there’s only X amount of stuff in the world, that somehow we took it away from the poorer countries in the first place, and therefore we should give it back to them. But this theory doesn’t take into account the real reason for the differences between countries — that is, the development of new techniques for growing food, the development of machinery to grow food and to do other things, and the fact that all this machinery requires the concentration of capital. It isn’t the stuff, but the power to make the stuff, that is important. But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time.
The conference made me so nervous that a girl I knew in New York had to calm me down. “Look,” she said, “you’re shaking! You’ve gone absolutely nuts! Just take it easy, and don’t take it so seriously. Back away a minute and look at what it is.” So I thought about the conference, how crazy it was, and it wasn’t so bad. But if someone were to ask me to participate in something like that again, I’d shy away from it like mad — I mean zero! No! Absolutely not! And I still get invitations for this kind of thing today.
When it came time to evaluate the conference at the end, the others told how much they got out of it, how successful it was, and so on. When they asked me, I said, “This conference was worse than a Rorschach test: There’s a meaningless inkblot, and the others ask you what you think you see, but when you tell them, they start arguing with you!”
Even worse, at the end of the conference they were going to have another meeting, but this time the public would come, and the guy in charge of our group has the nerve to say that since we’ve worked out so much, there won’t be any time for public discussion, so we’ll just tell the public all the things we’ve worked out. My eyes bugged out: I didn’t think we had worked out a damn thing!
Finally, when we were discussing the question of whether we had developed a way of having a dialogue among people of different disciplines — our second basic “problem” — I said that I noticed something interesting. Each of us talked about what we thought the “ethics of equality” was, from our own point of view, without paying any attention to the other guy’s point of view. For example, the historian proposed that the way to understand ethical problems is to look historically at how they evolved and how they developed; the international lawyer suggested that the way to do it is to see how in fact people actually act in different situations and make their arrangements; the Jesuit priest was always referring to “the fragmentation of knowledge”; and I, as a scientist, proposed that we should isolate the problem in a way analogous to Galileo’s techniques for experiments; and so on. “So, in my opinion,” I said, “we had no dialogue at all. Instead, we had nothing but chaos!”
Of course I was attacked, from all around. “Don’t you think that order can come from chaos?”
“Uh, well, as a general principle, or…” I didn’t understand what to do with a question like “Can order come from chaos?” Yes, no, what of it?
There were a lot of fools at that conference — pompous fools — and pompous fools drive me up the wall. Ordinary fools are all right; you can talk to them, and try to help them out. But pompous fools — guys who are fools and are covering it all over and impressing people as to how wonderful they are with all this hocus pocus — THAT, I CANNOT STAND! An ordinary fool isn’t a faker; an honest fool is all right. But a dishonest fool is terrible! And that’s what I got at the conference, a bunch of pompous fools, and I got very upset. I’m not going to get upset like that again, so I won’t participate in interdisciplinary conferences any more.
Feynman’s book continues with a story involving the young rabbis whose main concern was whether electricity was fire.
I wonder how Feynman would feel if he had to be talking to not just a few nuts of this kind but e.g. to 2,500 similar nuts who would be moreover described by the media as good scientists, if not the best ones in the world. 😉
White Guilt gone mad or Marxism running rampant – you decide
Absolute madness.
It was a Mr Lennin (a socialist) I beleive who said that if you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth. And one A. Hitler (another socialist) said that the mass of the people would be more likly to believe a big lie than a small one. Nothing really changes does it? Oh yes the technology changes, the methods change, but mankind stays the same, still in his cave.
Is it just me or have I realised that all these intellectual marxist socialists, actors, actresses, artistic performers of all kinds, environmentalists of all shades, earn their income from the free-enterprise system, or the taxpayers who work in it, who want redistribution of wealth, want other peoples’ wealth to be redistributed, but err, not their own? All the main players come from privilaged & moderately wealthy backgrounds. I recall back in 1997 when New Labour was right up there, the likes of Mick Hucknel (Simply Red), was advocating higher taxes to pay for all the goodies on offer, yet from someone who earns a not so small annual fortune can afford to have his earnings “distributed” out of the taxman’s reach! No, it’s just me then.
Intelligence and stupidity are not opposites, they can quite happily coexist inside the same brain.
Cheers
Mark
Well there’s a whole cultural movement that loosely speaking, likes the idea of the West sharing with the Third World. The idea of sharing is of course very old, and you can find spiritual gurus everywhere preaching that we need to learn to share. But in the West, recently, since about the 60s, the feeling is becoming core to a lot of people. But noble as it is, there’s some massive flaws with the ideal, not just on the material side, but on the psychological side as well.
The biggest flaw, I gather, is that people everywhere are not the same. This is a very simple point, but it is often overlooked in discussions about helping the world. To make the point, there’s some harsh examples we can look at, starting with Iraq. One idea in Iraq was to install a democracy. However, the local culture is quite feudal. Now that’s not a bad thing, feudal cultures organised by clans are a very old institution, and they predate the modern social forms, which in some respects are still so new we could even call them experiments. (Women continue to experiment with their role in a postmodern western society, for example.)
So we go to Iraq and give them ballot boxes and soldiers to keep things safe. What happened? We didn’t change the culture, we didn’t change the people. We may have moved things a little step forward or a little step back, it is hard to say. Why was it so hard? Because the people make the culture and the culture is in the people, and whatever they as individuals value and feel is important, they as individuals and groups will defend with their lives. The Left usually says we need to provide education. Fine, go “educate” Iraq and we’ll hear back from you in 80 years. Social change is very hard and very long. Think about just changing an individual. Can you persuade someone to stop believing in God? Can you stop an alcoholic from drinking? (I don’t mean any judgements about either of these, and would add, can you persuade someone to start believing in God?) The Middle East has a strong religious fabric to their culture, for example, making money from loans is a religious topic, so this affects the economy, it affects everything. Is someone going to go educate them about that?
Education, I gather, can only help people with what they already want, the projects and needs with which they are already invested, and the same goes for a culture as a whole, the lands of the world, the peoples and nations. You can’t impose on people something they don’t want. People themselves can change, as they move through life through the chapters of their own personal story.
On the world stage, we have many in the West invested in a green ideal where the Third World and the Middle East will all be “solved” right now, within their own lifetime. Meanwhile, the people of the Middle East and of various countries in Africa are invested in their own ideals and ways of life.
There is no difference between the West bombing democracy into Iraq, and the West smothering Africa with ‘carbon’ cash. Neither of these get you the result you want, and they create a hell of a mess in the meantime. The people you’re trying to do it to don’t want what you want. India wants to develop fast and get a high standard of living. China wants to do likewise. (I’m guessing, we should ask them). Africa is a step further back, still looking to form some sort of fair nation states beyond tribal strife, with a decent infrastructure and rational worldview that integrates above tribal thinking.
The greens of the West should please just try asking the rest of the world what all these different peoples want.
“Johnny Honda (23:14:52) :
Dudes, I read the website of the magazin “Der Spiegel” everday. You could fill a own blog with their ridicolous stories about climate change. It is a total propaganda newspaper concerning this topic.”
A “Spiegel” is a mirror and, as everybody knows, a mirror shows everything reversed (the English put up with that daily).
A relative of mine worked there long time ago; he remarked that they prove all the prejudices other people have about Germans.
Lex (00:21:49) :
I don’t think Germans will appreciate this phrase:
“it helps me to understand how crazy political movements such as the Nazis or communists could have so easily taken over a nation that is as sensible as Germany”
But actually he is right. If we Germans were really sensible there wouln’t be such a high probability that the same communist party that built up the wall and killed Germans trying to flee the totalitarian regime, could be ruling the country again after the elections in 3 weeks, just 20 years after it’s fall. It’s a shame.
As for “Spiegel Online”, I noticed that you can’t comment on any report ragarding climate. It seems that for them the science is really settled and that no differing opinions are wanted. I guess they are practicing for the change in government..
The other side started with the Nazi business, and I wonder why nobody minds the comparison with communists. But let us leave that to the other side.
But I understand that Eastern Europeans like Motl still know about the time when “das Volk der Dichter und Denker” became “das Volk der Richter und Henker”.
(people of poets and thinkers, judges and executioners)
…have a look at the Logo of the PIK (Potsdam Institut für Klimafolgen Forschung) http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~kropp/accma/gif/pik-logo.gif. wich was founded by Schellnhuber. These guys are well funded (besids others like the government…) by the Münchner Rückversicherung, the largest reasuarance compnany in the world.
One of Schellnhubers top employe and a advisor to the government as well is Dr. Stefan Rahmstorf. He makes a little extra money by selling silver amulets to ban the evil CO2. I’m shure you all know, only a silver bullet can kill the werewolf 😉 http://www.rahmstorf.eu/co2pins/background.htm
At CA Rahmstorf is known as the inventor of the ‘Rahmification’ as Steve McIntyre ‘admired’ it. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6746. In 1999 he cashed in 1 million $ from the James S. McDonnell Foundation. McDonnel, a believer in parapsychology, made his fortune with military aircrafts like the Phantom, Banshee, Damon, Vodoo… if this in ghosts has something to do with the selection of the PIK-logo…I don’t know…
@ur momisugly Stefan (02:16:04)
Its a big misconception among these ‘progressives’ that people from other cultures are ‘just like us but with funny hats’.
It’s a mixture of ignorance, naivety, and ego-philia. Ned Flanders on stilts.
Re: Mark Fawcett (02:10:20) :
‘Intelligence and stupidity are not opposites, they can quite happily coexist inside the same brain.
Cheers
Mark’
Nicely put Mark!
And never mind politics, highly accomplished scientists and engineers can sometimes have disastrous interpersonal skills, and wreak havoc and misery when they are put in charge of their fellow human beings. We can’t be everything! We are after all a colonial organism, composed of often highly-specialised individuals.
I grew up in a now defunct communist country, and I’m amazed how little has the world learned from this totally failed experience in organizing human societies. Only twenty years after the fall of East-European communist regimes, very little remains for one to see, read, experience from this embarrassing period of human history.
I just hope that with the internet, all those participating in this collective folly of Copenhagen will have a permanent place to be embarrassed about their positions regarding climate change and the need for re-engineering the human society. Look at the ‘Climate Thinkers Blog’ – what an oxymoron!
http://en.cop15.dk/blogs/climate+thinkers+blog
Just consider the timeless words of Milton Friedman:
‘We all know a famous road that is paved with good intentions. The people who go around talking about their soft heart — I share their — I admire them for the softness of their heart, but unfortunately, it very often extends to their head as well, because the fact is that the programs that are labeled as being for the poor, for the needy, almost always have effects exactly the opposite of those which their well-intentioned sponsors intend them to have.
David Cameron is not the man to lead the Conservative Party. He wants Zac Goldsmith to administer Green Ideas [that will surely fail]. They like Wind Power, Solar Panels [In the UK? Are they insane?], hate Nuclear Power [Idiots] and think Carbon Trading is a viable entity!
Why don’t they look at historical records and see that CO2 is neither a poison nor pollutant! Remove CO2 and we die! Geo-engineering? Bah!
The UK is full of wimps. Where is the next man/woman politician that will stand up and tell the truth. Then point the UK in the right direction? Start by banging the French and German politico’s heads together.
Mr. Schellnhuber often gives valuable insights into his state of mind.
Not a long time ago Mr. Schellnhuber asked for a “Cultural Revolution” to deal with climate change. After realizing this term is burned since Mao Tse-Tung, he now calls the same crap “Great transformation” http://www.greattransformation.eu
In June 2009 a conference took place in Germany to answer questions like “How can democracy cope with this climate Stress?”
“Democratic regimes are not well prepared for the level of participation that is required: Can free democratic societies cope with the effects of grave changes in the global climate, or might authoritarien regimes possibly be better placed to enforce the necessary measures?”
Excellent contributions from:
Stefan (02:16:04)
and
Fatbigot (00:17:35)
Well said in both cases.
Jeez.
Why alternate examples would be preferable ?
Sofar the communism and the national socialism as political systems have been the most efficient population control systems in the history of mankind .
The difference being mostly that the national socialism had a more efficient macro economical management than the communism .
So whenever when the issue is population control and micromanagement of individuals , the communism and the national socialism are both the best systems to analyse in order to see what methods have been used and with what efficiency .
Doing this analysis it appears very clearly what Lubos is saying – the radical environmental philosophies , targets and methods are very similar to what both the communism and national socialism did .
The same causes producing the same effects , people like this Schellnhuber are objectively equivalent (e.g have similar methods and targets) to people like Trotski or Goebbels .
The fact that their philosophy doesn’t base on the “race” or on the “class” concept is irrelevant to the question whether the concrete content of their methods is similar to the methods of other totalitarian systems .
That’s why the example is full in order .
Once somebody says that the “goal sanctifies the means” , he becomes morally equivalent to both communists and national socialists .
Obviously the more the means are inhuman , the more the goals are glorious and appealing .
After all both Hitler and Lenin were promising a bright future full of happiness and peace in some (very) far future .
Unfortunately on the journey to this bright future one had to liquidate plenty of people who didn’t see the wrong on their ways because they were either mentally insane or clearly ennemies of happiness and peace (generally manipulated by some absolute evil X – fill here in your favorite absolute evil like Exxon , plutocracy , capitalists etc) .
The faster they were liquidated the faster the bright future would come .
Ergo : it is your duty to participate actively or passively on the liquidations (not necessarily physical , a removal from the society is less messy and does the same service) because if you don’t , it would be a clear and objective proof that you too don’t want mankind’s happiness .
Logically it is then YOUR liquidation that follows …
[i]”And that’s what I got at the conference, a bunch of pompous fools, and I got very upset.”[/i]
I have no doubt that is what will be seen in Copenhagen this December also. I tend to consider people like Schellnhuber , Van Jones, etc. as a test, in the same sense as a saint would consider the temptations of a demon a test, and with similar consequences for failure.
Lubos is always a bit controversial and ” over the top”. He is one of those people living in an ex communistic style satellite that can see the danger in the agendas being proposed – and is very forthright in commentating about these dangers.
Hmmm I wonder what the German language translation is for Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor.
TonyB. Quite frightening what our UK government has or hopefully had in mind. But as you say the Conservatives are equally as greenie-alarmist as Labour. I have ben writing to the Tory Leadership for some time and more recently shadow Energy and Climate Change Secretary Greg Clark. Utter waste of time. Never is a scientific question referred to let alone answered. One is politely thanked for making contact and is then referred to the Tory white paper The Low Carbon Economy. Of course this just reiterates the need to reduce carbon emissions and takes it from there. In other words ‘the science is settled.’ And all the time we have a cooling period.
There seems to be only one backbencher who is prepared to put his head above the parapet and that is Peter Lilley. But he read physics at University.
It is interesting that people react negatively to any comparison of the AGW delusion with Nazi states or communist states and also religions.
These three are collective delusion societal situations and I know of no other systems of such a type that have dominated such large numbers. There have been mass delusions, like the people dying to catch the tail of a comet, or the african tribe that killed off all its cattle and became extinct, but they involve much smaller numbers of people.
TonyB 01: 21: 26
I couldn’t agree more, Tony. Furthermore, I reckon that in future historians will call the twentieth century the time when ordinary people in the Western world gained unprecedented freedom, power and prosperity and the twenty-first century the one where it all got taken away again.
@ur momisugly Stefan (02:16:04) :
To borrow a fairly recent concept: “Hearts and Minds”. The difficulty is that in order to change someones mind, one must first change their behavior. There are many ways of accomplishing that, thru rational argument, etc., but usually it involves demonstrating to the target population that their current behavior is not conducive to their future well being. Hence the phrase: “Make them an offer they cannot refuse”.
I agree that these unfortunate comparisons do not belong here; but one has to understand that in Eastern Europe the time, when “Volk der Dichter und Denker” became “Richter und Henker” is still very much present.
(people of poet and thinkers, judges and hangmen)
As long as there are idiots, there will be socialism.
I agree that these unfortunate comparisons do not belong here; but one has to understand that in Eastern Europe the time when “Volk der Dichter und Denker” became “Richter und Henker” is still very much present.
(people of poets and thinkers, judges and hangmen)
“The most brilliant propaganda technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success.”
No prizes for guess who said it