Hmmm, sounds like a bad “B” movie plot. From Pierre Gosselin at No Tricks Zone:
(…) Any fan of Hollywood films following the climate debate knows the objectives of mad scientists: They try to rule the world. With his performance in the FAZ in the run-up to the recent UN-Summit on Sustainability in Rio, Prof. Dr. Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber can be ranked along with the likes of Dr. Strangelove and Dr. No:
“The role of climate science remains to put the problem-facts on the table and to identify options for appropriate solutions. The role of politics is then to mobilize the will of the citizens with the aim of implementing decisions that are based on science.”
This demonstrates an odd understanding of democracy. Up to now the “will of the citizens” has always arose from the interests of people and were implemented by electing a goverment that abided to that will. But Schellnhuber wants to turn this on its head. According to Schellnhuber, politics should now tell the citizens what interests they are to have so that measures that follow those prescribed by science will end up getting implemented.
Read more at No Tricks Zone
h/t to reader Rudolf Kipp
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Were the Michigan Militia right after all? I thought them rather extreme in their heyday but militant scientists like Dr Schnellnuber and Dr. Evil must be stopped/sarc – note this is a joke and not a threat everyone.
We need to suspend ALL international flights, then do some HOUSE CLEANING.
Militant scientism is not a very pretty sight when stated so outrightly.
Yet how many people actually have adopted this kind of unquestioning attitude about the superiority of those with a science background, on a personal level? For example, how many people do you know who have taken all of the prescriptions and received all of the surgeries their doctors has said were necessary for treatment? In fact, I met a man last year who had not even memorized the name of his type of head tumor. It is an implicit assumption on the part of patients that the doctor will “do no harm” and that they can cure what they claim they can cure. This has tragic results in some cases, and the likely truth is that iatrogenic illnesses are vastly under reported.
Another example is the implicit trust people have placed in the cosmology and human history handed to us by academic tradition. Now the academics have (naturally) adopted an apocalypse and prophetic role for saving the world from rising seas and temps. So the militant scientistic creed did not begin with AGW and has been accepted by the public for quite some time. These things don’t happen overnight.
The answer is to be responsible for the upbringing and education of your own children, and research exhaustively what the doctors tell you – esp. when they get into a big hellfire hurry to operate.
u.k. (us) says:
“There is a lot more to that story.”
Of course there is. I was just making a point to LT.
If you would like to get a great understanding of the war in Europe from a U.S. perspective before the U.S. became involved in the fighting, I can think of no better nor more pleasurable account than Herman Wouk’s The Winds of War.
I have an extra copy I would be happy to send you, if you’re interested. No charge, of course.
LazyTeenager says: July 15, 2012 at 4:03 pm
Yep it’s called leadership. Generally this is thought to be a good thing.
Leadership means:
Roosevelt says Americans should get off their lazy asses to fight the Nazis….
In support of LazyTeenager’s assertion, let me pull a couple quotes from the International Military Tribunal transcripts –
“MR JUSTICE JACKSON: You established the Leadership Principle, [leiter prinzip] which you have described as a system under which authority existed only at the top, and is passed downwards and is imposed on the people below;”
…
“DEFENDANT: I consider the Leadership Principle necessary because the system which previously existed, and which we called parliamentary or democratic, had brought Germany to the verge of ruin. I might perhaps in this connection remind you that your own President Roosevelt, as far as I can recall – I do not want to quote it word for word – declared, “Certain peoples in Europe have forsaken democracy, not because they did not wish for democracy as such, but because democracy had brought forth men who were too weak to give their people work and bread, and to satisfy them. For this reason the peoples have abandoned this system and the men belonging to it.” There is much truth in that statement. This system had brought ruin by mismanagement and according to my own opinion, only an organization made up of a strong, clearly defined leadership hierarchy could restore order again.”
Great minds thinking alike.
Schellnhuber is chair of the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU). He has ready access to Angela Merkel whose degree is also in physics.
The WGBU report for 2011 is called World in Transition – A Social Contract for Sustainability. The WGBU and therefore Schellnhuber believe in something called The Great Transformation leading to the ‘decarbonisation’ of energy. Their report describes how to achieve this:
“In the WBGU’s view, a long-term oriented regulatory framework must be developed for this to ensure that prosperity, democracy and security are achieved with the natural boundaries of the Earth system in mind.
“The WBGU has developed the concept of a new social contract for the transformation towards sustainability – not so much on paper, but rather in people’s consciousness.
“…..our societies must be willing to act in an anticipatory manner, on the basis of scientific findings.
“…….the established basic pattern of international politics…..is not suitable for resolving the
problems of a global society…….
“…..international cooperation and global governance is therefore an important premise for the success of the transformation……..
“It (the United Nations) will not effortlessly evolve into an integrated, multilateral world order, but represents a foundation for the global society to legitimately pursue aspirations of global governance.
“…..global decarbonisation would become the disarmament diplomacy of the future.
“In the ‘Palais-Royal Initiative’, eminent figures active in international finance and economic policy recently spoke out clearly in favour of such prioritisation on the part of heads of state and government, issuing a forceful reminder of the need to give the ‘global interest’ its own authoritative voice beyond parochial national interests.
“…….it is far more essential that the individual elements of complex governance regimes do not have an impeding effect on cooperation.
“……..the United Nations must speak up in unison far more than they have done so far, their voice must carry political weight and be backed up by credible expert authority.
“Particularly in the energy sector, however, there are evidently blatant deficits with regard to governance at global level. There is a lack of the legal and institutional foundations required for an effective international energy policy for the transformation.”
http://www.wbgu.de/fileadmin/templates/dateien/veroeffentlichungen/hauptgutachten/jg2011/wbgu_jg2011_en.pdf
“mobilisieren” doesnt necessarily translate as ‘mobilise’ it could also mean stimulate , inspire, urge.
Newspapers happily do this all the time, why cant scientists “inspire” politicians
“The role of climate science remains to put the problem-facts on the table and to identify options for appropriate solutions. The role of politics is then to mobilize the will of the citizens with the aim of implementing decisions that are based on science.”
The above sounds very similar to what Graham Thomson wrote in the Edmonton Journal on July 10. For the full article, see: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Thomson+Decision+makers+hill+should+look+those+white+coats/6907973/story.html
The sentence that I am alluding to is: “If we are to make proper public policy decisions on issues such as releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere or releasing deleterious substances into rivers, we need to base those decisions on science.”
To this, I responded with the following letter to the editor, but so far it has not appeared. I am not very optimistic that I will see it. Here is what I wrote:
Political science on the Hill by Graham Thomson
Thomson says: “If we are to make proper public policy decisions on issues such as releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere …we need to base those decisions on science.” I completely agree. And exactly what does the science say about the effect of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? At the following URL, the statement below appears: http://toryaardvark.com/2012/04/02/the-planet-has-not-warmed-in-15-years/
“The Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research (HadCRUT) has long been the gold standard in climate data used by the IPCC, now a new analysis of the data by the UK Met Office shows there has been no global warming for the last 15 years.” So why should we spend a billion dollars on things like carbon capture when the carbon dioxide we emit seems to make no difference?
LazyTeenager says:
July 15, 2012 at 4:03 pm
Yep it’s called leadership. Generally this is thought to be a good thing.
Leadership means:
Roosevelt says Americans should get off their lazy asses to fight the Nazis.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: In actual fact, Roosevelt could not convince the American people to join the war. The Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbour swung public opinion and brought the United States into the war on both the Pacific and European fronts.
LazyTeenager;
Kennedy says Americans should go to the moon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: He painted a vision and the American people enthusiasticaly supported it. You are confusing leadership with dictatorship. That you cannot tell the difference says much about you.
LazyTeenager;
Al Gore says Americans should pay money to build an Internet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: Funding a mechanism called ARPANET to allow some university researchers to easily exchange information with each other and the US military hardly consitutes “build and internet”. The internet grew from there largely on its own, funded at first mostly by universities that wanted to participate and then by telco’s and isp’s. What Al Gore put into it funding wise is a pittance by comparison, and his claims of inventing it hold about much water as his falsehood filled movie.
LazyTeenager;
Bush says kick the Iraqis out of Kuwait.
>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: My recollection is that pretty much the whole free world and pretty much the entire Arab world was on side with that.
LazyTeenager;
Americans go whine whine.
>>>>>>>>>
I’m not an American, but I have two words for you which no doubt the mods will snip, but you know what they are. America saved the free world from tyranny in two world wars and in the cold war. She deserves both your gratitude and your respect. Now (snip) (snip)
Smokey says:
July 15, 2012 at 5:14 pm
u.k. (us) says:
“There is a lot more to that story.”
Of course there is. I was just making a point to LT.
================
I know Smokey, just thought it needed some expansion.
Gotta remind the kids about human nature.
Mike McMillan says:
July 15, 2012 at 5:14 pm
Excellent post!!! LT has not a clue where his line of thinking leads.
Nerd says:
July 15, 2012 at 3:25 pm
Never! – with video.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator” Doesn’t say endowed by God. Maybe creator is a giant black hole, or Albert Einstein’s great great great etc. grandfather. If it’s God, who created God? It’s like when did infinity start and when will it end? The founding fathers didn’t say God, they said the creator, whatever that means – they knew more than we do. Don’t assume that creator means God.
Please, please y’all, learn what is science and what is not science, perhaps starting with Karl Popper’s Logic of Scientific Discovery and the Boundary Problem. Self-proclaimed scientists are not.
The Ancient Greek conception of democracy mooted the elites by use of sortition, the pinakia and the kleroterion, voter-ID cards in a lottery machine.
You can see a perfect illustration of the modern definition of “Democracy” in Hillary’s Egypt visit today. She’s warning Morsi that he needs to steer more toward “Democracy” if he wants US aid to continue. Morsi was elected by a majority of actual Egyptians, and he’s bravely trying to implement the will of a majority of actual Egyptians. This is real democracy in the old proper sense of the word, but it disagrees totally with the goals of Bush/Romney/Obama/Hillary, so it’s not “Democracy.”
What if the science is unsettled? or, gasp – wrong….
Smokey!… Herman Wouk? Really, he’s a good writer and tells a ripping yarn, and I love reading him too, but I don’t trust him as an historian. Generally, I don’t read novelists if I want to read history.
It’s sort of like climate science: the ones who tell a nice pat story, I don’t trust.
The good Professor doesn’t understand the role of the politician, it is the role of the unelected media party to mobilize the will of the citizens by politically correct misinformation. The actual role of the politician is to provide both regulatory and funding support for ideologically misguided scientists to implement there untested consensus science.
Pamela Gray says:
July 15, 2012 at 3:37 pm
Sounds like an Obama campaign slogan just waiting for make-up and a 10 second sound bite. Welcome to the post-modern Republic.
———————————————————–
err…..what i’m hearing is that the US is phasing into a Post-Constitution republic.
The left largely views the constitution as a antiquated relic and a constriction only. The Constitution, in their mind, is only about what the goverment shall not do but not particularly guiding for what it is to do in a modern era. In my view, in part also, jealous of the UK’s bulldozer Government authority. If in the UK they want to put 400 windmills between Anglesey and the Isle of Man. Who the hell is going to stop them. NHS….done. in the UK the sleeping masses are too busy and so don’t care and are taught an intelectual class system– if you don’t go to the right university, you don’t have a right to intellectually involve yourself with intellectual issues. You are asked to believe you are not bright enough to understand, so, leave it to the leaders…..they know what to do best. In the US it’s a bit different; the question goes here: if you are so smart, how come you are so poor(and that includes you Anthony!!). In the UK it’s ‘if you’re so smart, how come you didn’t go to OxBridge’. No one is going to listen to us over here @ur momisugly WUWT. We’re dismissed with an arm-wave. We need to get together….at a rally and come up with ways to do something. Anthony: I think we need a Rally, a conference. A WUWT conference say 2014 in Colorado or some where ‘middle’. Atlanta. and get our heads together. I know heartland had one in Chicago but we need a WUWT Rally. We need specific ways to fight this AGW based ‘authority creep’s authority creep’!!
Anthony Watts in reply to beesaman at 3:55 pm;
REPLY: Well, we have a U.S. president who’s never held a private sector job, so what’s your point? /sarc – Anthony
Dear Mr. Watts, I use this (Mr. Watts) formal term as a sign of respect since I don’t know you. Anyway, I really, really hate to tell you this but Obama did indeed hold a job in the private sector. I know it’s hard to believe but he did. He held one for all of about maybe 6 months (not bad for a 50 year old). I don’t remember precisely the words he chose to describe that unique (for him) experience but I think he wrote that he was working for the enemy. Yep, the private sector, the ‘enemy’. It’s both sad and humorous that such a moron got to the position he got to.
This kind of thing always reminds me of that great movie, Our Man Flint, in which scientists attempt world domination by way of controlling the weather – the plot kinda does sound familiar, quite often these days, does it not? If you’ve never seen or heard of the movie – I highly recommend watching it! It’s fun!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059557/
Take, for example, the True Believers of global warming alarmism. With them it’s all about politics not science. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be a Left versus right issue now would it?
Obviously it’s all political and yet for all of the evolution of man, mastery over the vagaries of nature was as prized as the search for truth for its own sake. Now that the nihilism of the Leftists and their liberal Utopianiam has reached its zenith in the West whatever once had value is now worthless and truth doesn’t matter anymore.
Let us state it another way. Who do you prefer George Washington or Mao Tse-Tung?
I think the answer is simple:
■If you are a Tibetan Buddhist monk, you prefer a God-fearing protector of personal and religious freedom like George Washington
■If you are a tenured professor in liberal fascist academia, then Ward Churchill is more inspiring than Winston Churchill, the mass murderer Mao is your philosopher, and Bush-haters Castro and Chavez are your comrades.
beesaman says:
July 15, 2012 at 3:55 pm
Just checked the mad Prof’s CV and as I suspected he’s been an academic all his life. How can he possibly be advising anyone in a world that he has no real experience of?”
REPLY: Well, we have a U.S. president who’s never held a private sector job, so what’s your point? /sarc – Anthony
… exactly! Building our infrastructure was grand. But see now how it is managed. Once we lived with inexpensive energy that fueled our great economic expansion. Now we are supposed to park our expansion and regress to cave man status. Shame on us for being so free to succeed. Check out China, their big economy is shrinking now at an 8% decline. Why? Could it be that the decline of the US is now the decline of all nations and economies? After all, we necessarily have to pay more for energy, according to our lordship…. and the cheap source of our economic growth is being sucked dry.
And we see mad men, as in this example, leading the ignorant into a world of serfdom.
As mfo noted: “not so much on paper, but rather in people’s consciousness”
New ways of thinking by putting the school emphasis all over the world on values, attitudes, and beliefs and reframing them around sustainability.
These are people who write books we were not meant to see about reshaping the mind to filter perceptions in a politically desirable way. And they are ignorant enough of genuine science and history and economics to not understand or disregard the implications of what they push. To get that grant. Or promotion. Or tenure. Or Board position that then drives revenue through political monopolies.
“A sacrifice required for the future of the human race,” says Dr. Strangelove at about 3:50 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iesXUFOlWC0 “All we need is Der WILL.”
Why do these creatures come out of the woodwork at such times?
Noam Chomsky wrote a book called ” Manufacturing Consent”. Any one who has read it, knows full well that this is happening already in America