Desperate times call for desperate measures. Greenists believe that these are desperate times–acutely so. The future of mankind is at stake. Therefore, it is not surprising that they are calling for desperate measures. We are not now talking about the lunatic fringe of the movement. We are referring to those in the Greenist mainstream, the card-carrying members, who know all the right people, sit on all the right committees and are deeply involved in the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Enter one Professor David Shearman, MD, Emeritus Professor of Medicine, University of Adelaide and a Visiting Research Fellow at the University’s Department of Geography and Environmental Sciences and Law School. Professor Shearman was an Assessor for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report and the Fourth Assessment Report. He is a mainstream Greenist.
The enlightened professor has co-authored a book which addresses the question of what needs to be done to combat global warming so as to achieve planetary salvation. He is convinced that democratic governments are not up to the task. Presumably he has attended too many Copenhagens. (A “Copenhagen” is a UN talk-fest, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.) Copenhagens are not producing the desperate measures required. Apparently, what we need is truly authoritarian government (he is serious.) According to Hauntingthelibrary:
Shearman has penned several books on global warming, such as ‘Climate Change as a Crisis in World Civilization: Why We Must Totally Transform How We Live‘ and ‘The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy‘. His argument is that overpopulation and industrialization are causing an ecological disaster which requires a total change of lifestyle for everyone on the planet. As democracy isn’t up to the challenge, an authoritarian government must (obviously) be imposed to save us from ourselves.
Here are some excerpts from a recent book co-authored by the Professor (The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy). They reveal desperate measures indeed.
Government in the future will be based upon . . . a supreme office of the biosphere. The office will comprise specially trained philosopher/ecologists. These guardians will either rule themselves or advise an authoritarian government of policies based on their ecological training and philosophical sensitivities. These guardians will be specially trained for the task. [p. 134]
Plato must be rubbing his hands with glee.
The good Professor acknowledges that religion is an important element for social control. It is required to keep people in line. The authors muse whether Christianity or Islam should be employed (in an authoritarian manner, of course) to help save the world. But, no. There is a more likely alternative.
However, they [Christianity and Islam] are not the only contenders for providing social glue for the masses. Although too much of the natural world will be destroyed for civilization to continue in its present form, some biodiversity will still exist . . . It is not impossible that from the green movement and aspects of the new age movement a religious alternative to Christianity and Islam will emerge. And it is not too difficult to imagine what shape this new religion could take. One would require a transcendent God who could punish and reward – because humans seem to need a carrot and a stick. [p. 127]
Of course, this transcendent god will exercise his punishment through the state.
It goes without saying that the required authoritarian society needs to be controlled by enlightened elites, like, well, the good Professor.
Chapter 9 will describe in more detail how we might begin the process of constructing such real universities to train the ecowarriors to do battle against the enemies of life. We must accomplish this education with the same dedication used to train its warriors. As in Sparta, these natural elites will be especially trained from childhood to meet the challenging problems of our times. [p. 134]
Now, let’s recap. This is not the lunatic fringe of Greenism. This is hard-core, serious, mainstream Greenism exposing itself in all its nudey-rudey, so to speak. We expect that we will see more and more of this. The Greenist world-view sees the planet becoming more destroyed by the day. More and more carbon dioxide is being relentlessly emitted. The desperation thermometer is therefore rising. Critical mass is approaching. Desperate times call for desperate measures. For Greenists the good Professor is being both reasonable and rational.
The biggest risk facing us in this regard is to think of such views as being on the lunatic fringe of Greenism. They are not. More sinister is the way Greenism has now infected most Western governments and elites, to where they are prepared to countenance desperate measures, like taxing carbon and monitoring household energy and proscribing some light bulbs whilst prescribing others. And let’s not forget the desire of New Zealand’s previous Prime Minister eventually to control the nation’s showers and baths.
None of these irritating measures are going to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. So more serious, draconian measures will be required. Politicians who have bought into the Greenist world-view and who have sanctioned the incandescent light-bulb’s extinction and similar irritants will not find it easy to resist.
Greenism is not going to fade away. The biggest mistake we could make is to laugh off Greenism and not take is seriously precisely because it is so absurd. It is an evil ideology with totalitarian aspirations. It is insinuating itself more and more into the corridors of power in the West. It must be exposed, confronted and rejected. Desperate times and all that.
Cross-posted at Contra Celsum
Tags: Climate Change · David Shearman · Enviro Myths · Global Warming22 Comments
A common objection to belief in the God of the Bible is that a good, kind, and loving deity would never command the wholesale slaughter of nations. In the tradition of his popular Is God a Moral Monster?, Paul Copan teams up with Matthew Flannagan to tackle some of the most confusing and uncomfortable passages of Scripture. Together they help the Christian and nonbeliever alike understand the biblical, theological, philosophical, and ethical implications of Old Testament warfare passages.
What is most disturbing is that it is the absence of freedom which has caused our disastrous environmental situation (although I do not subscribe to the global warming camp there are huge problems) not the presence of it! It was governments allowing the pollution of air and water ways at the behest of special interests and regardless of anyone affected that has lead to this situation.
So all he is proposing is that we make the same mistakes only worse!
And presumably the Supreme Ecologist and Philosopher Guardian of the Biosphere will be answerable solely to Satan.
M and M, I commend you on adding JT to your bloggers. Contra Celsum is one of the best NZ blogs and deserves much wider readership.
We think so too Bethyada, hopefully more people will discover his blog.
David Shearman clearly has some nutty ideas, but he is also clearly not a political scientist of any shape or form, merely a climate scientist trying desperately to come up with ideas to save the planet. He has no political power – his ideas are not about to change the way we run the world, so to read much into this smacks a little of conspiracy theories run amuck. However, even as a thought experiment, try for a minute to think about the issue from his perspective. Take the following broad set of assumptions:
(1) climate change is a potential risk in which there is some probability, that is greater than zero, that the effects of elevated greenhouse gas concentrations may lead to global impacts of enormous cost;
(2) it is a stock problem, not a flow problem. This means that concentrations in the atmosphere are a result of the accumulation of past emissions, not of current emissions. This means in turn that: (a) by the time we can clearly see whether or not it is happening, it is too late to do anything about it – GHGs can be removed from the atmosphere in geological time only, and (b) on the grounds of some notion of equity, those that have been contributing to atmospheric concentrations for the longest time (start of the industrial revolution) bear a greater responsibility to do something about it than those that have only recently started to contribute;
(3) no country acting alone can make an appreciable difference to greenhouse gas concentrations;
(4) any country acting alone will face significant costs of reducing its emissions;
(5) those with the largest historical emissions (developed countries that might have greater responsibility to act, given 2b above) are facing the prospect of future relative economic decline relative to the new emitters (China and India), and this is ignoring the costs of doing anything about climate change.
Personally, I think the above points are a reasonable presentation of the issues. We can argue of course over the size of the probability and the size of the potential impact in (1). I am no scientist, but I take from the debate that there is at least a small probability of a very significant cost; it would be a very brave person to say the probability was zero.
And accepting these points for the moment, you can see why a naive commentator on political issues might suggest world government. Alternatives anyone?
I’m just waiting for one country or company to geoengineer the shit out of the atmosphere.
FFS – didn’t you just have a post about articles which start with a couple of truths to “conceal the moment when we slip into fantasy”? Or perhaps this was a test, to see if we caught the disconnect between the “recap” and the data presented before that point?
Transcendent gods and enlightened elites…
The temperature is rising in the frog pot, reaching desperation levels. “Greenism is not going to fade away. The biggest mistake we could make is to laugh off Greenism and not take is seriously precisely because it is so absurd.” More at M…
I have started to appreciate the arguments presented in this blog over the past weeks, but this seems like a piece with incredibly shaky foundations:
First, there IS a debate in green philosphy and green activism on “saving the planet vs. democracy”. BUT: It is definitely a very tiny group at the fringe of green thinkers (and even more green activists) that believes we should try to save the planet at the cost of democracy.
Second, the term “greenism” connotes the idea that the belief that climate change is a very serious danger is somehow rooted in ideology rather than evidence. This matches perfectly the public misperception that there is serious debate in scientific circles about the reality and danger of climate change. To the contrary, there is hardly any debate whatsoever in scientific circles about the reality and danger of climate change. It is my most plausible explanation of the public misperception that climate science is somehow a particularly shaky area of science that there are anti-greenist ideologies and economic interests that spread this impression.
In case you doubt this, I suggest looking at some of the evidence presented in the following wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
(particularly the part on surveys of scientists).
In a sober assessment (based on common sense or on christian ethics), anybody who buys fire insurance and who does not throw unextinguished cigarettes on the ground in his house WITHOUT supporting the prevention of climate change, shows tremendously inconsistent degrees of risk aversion in different parts of his life.
It makes much more sense to prevent climate change than to worry about your house burning down. At least if you look at the evidence rather than simply basing your polemical complaints about greenism on I-dont-know-what.
Thanks to those folk who took the time and trouble to interact. Since it is now a balmy Saturday night and I have a glass of shiraz in hand, maybe it is the time to respond to some of the critics.
Firstly, I certainly empathize with those who recoiled in horror at the good doctor’s remedies for his perceived ills of the planet. However, I believe it is somewhat gratuitous to dismiss him as an extremist nutjob within greenism, pyschologically comforting though it might be. Let’s not forget that Professor Shearman is a card-carrying member of the IPCC–the UN body championing the genuineness of the purported threat of global warming, and solutions thereto. It is the body most listened to and cited by governments around the world (including our own) on the issue of climate change when they attempt to address the perceived threat. It would appear that he is pretty mainstream to me.
And to those who would argue that he has no connection with realpolitik, may I tactfully remind you that the IPCC stands for Inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change. He is far nearer to the centres of power and decision making than us little ol’ Kiwis.
Now, I know that this opens me up to the ad hominem charge of being a conspiracy theorist nutjob. Well it is true insofar as I do believe that conspiracies exist. After all “conspire” means at root “to breath together”. Whenever folk join together to discuss something or plan to do something they are conspiring, non? Every marriage is a conspiracy, non? Pity the poor children if it is not.
Given this reasonable definition, it would seem to me that anyone who would deny that the IPCC is a conspiracy would themselves verging on the sacred burial ground of “nutjobism”. The issue is not whether the IPCC is a conspiracy–of course it is, as is every virtually every corporate human action–people joining together to think and plan to act in concert! Would any seriously deny that confabulations exist. Homer’s Iliad would collapse in screaming heap of feathers in the first chapter were that the case.
So, accepting that Professor Shearman is a participant in a conspiracy, the real issue is whether his beliefs and advocacy are grounded in reality, and whether his proposed solutions are ethical and moral. We do not think so. Neither do my critical respondents, it would seem, since they hasten to relegate him to the lunatic fringe. But we say, “Not so fast”.
Actually, there is a reasonable test: let the Greenist confabulation rise up and excommunicate the good professor. Then we will believe he is truly an extremist within Greenism. But I expect that this will not happen, since he is not the first to express sentiments of similar ilk. As just one example, how about the main stream media mogul, Ted Turner. He has called for population reduction and the global application of the one child policy of China throughout the world to combat global warming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7CP5jnXDUk
Ted Turner, of course, is not only a media mogul, but is also ensconced within the UN committees and panels. Would we regard ol’ Ted as fringe or mainstream? Good luck on credibly declaring Ted a member of the lunatic fringe. But, mark this–no-one from within the Greenist movement that I am aware of has denounced Ted as a loony extremist. Which sort of begs a question, don’t ya think?
Moving on to Tim’s argument that since the probability of catastrophic climate change being caused by human carbon emissions is potentially greater than zero, the world would be justified in paying an enormous cost and imposing much human deprivation and suffering to reduce said emissions. It’s hard to know where to begin with this. But how about this reductio: the probability of Jews being responsible for many of the ills within the world is potentially greater than zero, so to accomplish the greater good, we had better rekindle the Ultimate Solution. Offended? So you should be. But I would add: it behoves us never to forget that the ideas leading to the Ultimate Solution were fashionable in many mainstream soirees throughout the Europe and America in the 1920’s and 30’s. And if you would baulk at the logic above, then your argument for justifying increasingly authoritarian government to combat climate change equally fails on the flimsy grounds that it is potentially right.
As to those of my critics who assert with suitable gravitas the meme that the “science is settled” it is hard to know where to begin. Maybe the right approach would be to encourage such “riposters” to read just a little more widely. I don’t want to sound condescending in saying this. But it is inevitable, I suppose. Look, let’s cut to the chase. I challenge those who genuinely believe that the “science is settled” to spend a month faithfully reading the articles posted in “Climate Debate Daily” (http://climatedebatedaily.com/) Spend time working through the sites listed as “pro” and “con” and “raw data”. Then come back after 30 days of page viewing and tell us that the “science is settled”. OK, so I’m condescending. But guys–get real. At least read both sides before adopting a propaganda talking point as a personal conviction.
Oh, I forgot. Silly me. All the “con” scientists and sites are funded by “big oil”. Of course. The science is settled, apart from those scientists being paid off by oil companies. Find that convincing? Really!
Ah, well. The sun has gone down, and the glass of shiraz is regrettably empty. Salutations to all respondents, and to all, a good night.
JT
Dear JT
I really would have liked to see some ARGUMENT or some EVIDENCE in your response.
Let’s look at the first paragraph. I don’t want to be rude but the argument seems to be this:
1. There is a member of the IPCC (note that the IPCC has thousands of members) that expresses views that are horrible.
2. THEREFORE, his views views cannot be on the fringe of the IPCC but must rather be mainstream.
Seriously — that is the kind of reasoning that I can extract from your article. The IPCC has had thousands and thousands of scientists. Simply because one of them expresses horrible views, that means he is mainstream?
If some member of your church expresses horrible views, does that automatically mean these views are mainstream within your curch?
It seems so obviously wrong that typical proponents of preventing climate change (take your average right or left wing european government or take your average natural scientist) are anti-democratic that I don’t know where to begin.
*************************
As for whether the science is settled. I do read around a lot. I do suggest you spend thirty days on http://www.skepticalscience.com. The simple fact that there IS a debate in the public does not prove that there IS also a debate in scientific circles. It’s very easy for contrarians and media to CREATE a public debate.
It’s very difficult for us as laypersons to evaluate which side of the PUBLIC debate on climate science is right or wrong. Therefore, I do consider it useful to consult which side of the public debate scientists think is right or wrong and which side of the debate gets through the reviewing process of journals (and there the odds are clear: Over 97% of those who work most clearly in this area, believe in anthropogenic climate change — smth that the public believes to be unsettled. Of course, that doesn’t PROVE it’s true, but it’s still a very relevant consideration for us as laypersons.)
In case you feel like actually doing some REASONING, I suggest you present some ARGUMENT here as to how to explain the evidence mentioned in the wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
For example, you could present a conspiracy theory (in the traditional sense of the word), but work on it to make it plausible.
**************************
I actually doubt how much you’ve read on climate change as there really is no such term as “assessor” for the IPCC. As I googled it, I realized that this David Shearman thing is a huge blog thing (and in those blogs he is called “assessor”). What is true is that he once did something small for the IPCC (as did many thousands of others) and that he once was a professor. However, he does seem to be a person at the fringe — just try googling him…
*********************
(BTW, why argue against climate change measures by only considering authoritarian measures? There are tons of measures that are completely democratic and simply cost us some money, nothing more… — insurance that makes perfect sense)
Interesting, stats also show that the majority of philosophers who specialise in philosophy of religion (the subject that studies the rationality of the existence of God) are theists.
I take it then that those outside the discipline, Dawkins, Hawking, and so on will accept the consensus, and adjust their moral and ethical views accordingly.
…though there’s quite a difference between the natural sciences and philosophy here (many philosophers simply don’t do phil of religion because they don’t believe that God exists and therefore see no value in phil of religion. In contrast, scientists don’t forego climate science because they don’t believe the climate — or climate change — exists. Natural scientists are fairly united in the belief that climate change is real and anthropogenic)…
…when 97% of doctors say that smoking can cause cancer, we take this at least as a very serious indication that smoking might actually cause cancer. In the climate debate, in contrast, many take such a consensus to indicate some conspiracy or something…
I am not so resolute in my faith when it comes to stats about what scientists collectively believe as it seems Dominic is. Perhaps that’s because every scientific consensus theory on a matter, prior to the current one, has been mistaken.
Dear Murph
That’s a completely reasonable position and I hope we ALL are skeptical when it comes to scientific positions and consensus positions in particular.
I’m not claiming we can be SURE that our emissions are dangerous. All I’m claiming is the following: It is completely a matter of common sense (and of very basic moral demands) that if 97% of those who understand the science and whom we trust in other areas, claim that there is a considerable (not to say huge) danger attached to our grand experiment of changing the composition of the atmosphere, we better take this seriously. If someone tells me there’s a 50% chance that smoking causes cancer, this would already be reason enough for me to change my behavior (heck, often 5% or 0.1% probability of catastrophe is enough). How much more should we change our behavior because there is SOME probability that the 97% might possibly be right (they might well be wrong, too — but at least we should consider the possibility that they might be right given that it’s such a an overwhelming majority)
(BTW, I am referring to the scientific consensus not because I think it is infallible but because — based on considerations of social epistemology (testimony etc.) — I think that for us as laypersons it makes more sense to consider the evidence w.r.t. to the opinions of scientists rather than to directly consider the scientific evidence itself)
Dom your missing Murphs point, its not that he is denying science is infallible, he is suggesting the track record of scientific consensus shows they are unreliable. If every single claim that the second coming is about to occur has been proven false people reject future claims of this sort. they don’t claim, oh well we are not infallible so we should accept there word this time.
Thanks for the reply, Matt.
My question is this: Why should we discount the weight of the views of scientists to almost zero? We don’t do so in a host of other cases (for example, we trust physicists when it comes to building bridges). Why only in the case of climate science? And why so incredibly radical? These are totally inconsistent degrees of skepticism that we apply to different fields of science.
The example you mention with the second coming of Christ seems to be of a different sort – there’s a track record of incredibly unreliably produced beliefs in this area. If we think the same holds true for day-to-day natural science as practiced in our universities, why do you still trust what your doctors says?
Hey, Dominic
Just for sake of clarity. Your position is that Prof Shearer is not mainstream Greenist. Mine is that he is. My argument is as follows:
-Shearer has views that we find are outrageous and extreme
-Shearer’s Greenist colleagues do not call him out for holding extreme views
-Therefore it is reasonable to infer that his colleagues’ silence indicates they find his views tolerable and neither extreme nor outrageous.
To use your “church” analogy, if the members and leaders of a congregation will not disassociate themselves from an outrageous position of a particular member, it would be reasonable to assume they endorse it or at least find it arguable or reasonable. Or, another analogy: extremist Islam is only extremist if Islamic people themselves reject it as extreme and un-Islamic.
To give your argument some force it seems to me that you need to move beyond personal assertions that Shearer is fringe and extreme Greenist, and provide some evidence. Arguing that he is one amongst thousands of scientists working for the IPCC proves too much–for on that basis, no-one would ever be able to hold anything other than an extreme view (that is, we are all ones amongst thousands).
I think it will be hard to amass evidence that Shearer is regarded by his colleagues as being on the lunatic fringe. Bear in mind that he is preceded by Dr James Hansen calling for climate sceptics to be put on trial for crimes against humanity!
Dr David Suzuki, prominent global warming advocate in Canada in 2008 publicly called for politicians who opposed a programmatic response to combat the perceived threat be thrown in jail. (“Toward the end of his speech, Dr. Suzuki said that “we can no longer tolerate what’s going on in Ottawa and Edmonton” and then encouraged attendees to hold politicians to a greater green standard.
“What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there’s a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they’re doing is a criminal act,” said Dr. Suzuki, a former board member of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.” (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=290513)
Prof Shearer would also find warm support from non-scientist environmental activists, such as “David Roberts, a staff writer for the environmental organization Grist, wants to see leading warming skeptics hauled before a “war crimes” tribunal.
He writes: “When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us, and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards – some sort of climate Nuremberg.” (http://www.examiner.com/seminole-county-environmental-news-in-orlando/global-warming-extremists-silence-doubters-with-charges-of-terracide)
These references come from a two minute search on the net. I have no doubt we could amass hundreds of similar quotations calling for extreme authoritarian actions against “deniers” and advocacy of authoritarian “forced compliance” policies from both scientists and Greenist public agitators. It seems to me that you would have to argue that not just Shearer, but all such extremist sentiments are not representative of mainstream Greenist views. The only way I can think of to establish your case is to hear from Greenists themselves disassociating them and their organizations from such sentiments.
JT
“Why should we discount the weight of the views of scientists to almost zero? We don’t do so in a host of other cases (for example, we trust physicists when it comes to building bridges)”
Because modern scientists smell … the smell of research funding money and politics
In the case of bridges, they have pretty good record of building bridges that work. The theories for building bridges have been pretty much the same for centuries with very little change.
If scientists start coming up with new theories of how to build bridges, I’m sure we all be skeptical and demand lots of evidence before we give them money to start building us bridges with their new ideas.
Within forced-equality circles are the same practices condemned in all others, power and influence as currency. Capitalism necessarily pops up in another form when there’s an attempt to suppress its directly monetary manifestations. And wouldn’t it be a surprise if sometimes a little money actually changed hands as well.
Sorry for not responding for such a long time.
Seriously — any green party I know is fffffirmly committed to democracy. If we wanted to find someone who is not, I suggest looking at climate deniers who deliberately pursue disinformation campaigns with big money. In the US, they even try to take climate scientists to court for what scientists have done all along.
@Anon: The basics of climate change science have been known for a long time. You wouldn’t believe smoking isn’t dangerous simply because 50 years ago, it wasn’t widespread knowledge, would you?
If money is distorting the debate about facts on atmospheric science in any direction, it is surely in the direction of the deniers. There’s so few credible scientists today that are willing to speak for denialist medias, that if you are one of the few, you can make more than a living out of it.