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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.