Why Climate Scientists Should NEVER Be Trusted With The Fate Of The World. Pt 2

Share Button

“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.”

That’s IPCC Third Assessment Report and the Fourth Assessment Report Assessor Professor David Shearman. Here he is talking about one of the chapters in his books.

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.

And he’s not done remaking the world. There’s religion.

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.

More here.

So, the next time someone brings the IPCC and how we must trust it because it’s an unbiased assessment and the scientists involved are pure and virtuous… Well, just keep this in mind.

Hat Tip to Greg, the Sonic-Mate, for bringing this one to my attention.


13 Comments to “Why Climate Scientists Should NEVER Be Trusted With The Fate Of The World. Pt 2”

  1. By Rob, January 8, 2011 @ 11:39 pm

    So ALL climate scientists cannot be trusted? That is what your headline suggests.

  2. By Rob, January 8, 2011 @ 11:40 pm

    or only the ones at the IPCC?

  3. By Sonicfrog, January 9, 2011 @ 8:56 pm

    Reflecting on the material from both posts.

    Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said the only way to reduce global emissions enough, while allowing the poor nations to continue to grow, is to halt economic growth in the rich world over the next twenty years. (1)

    As I wrote – Economic growth has slowed over the last three years during this world wide near depression. Has it reduced carbon emissions worldwide? Answer is here.

    All analysis of the effects of Kyoto style reductions on CO2 shows slowed economic growth with virtually no benefits in temp rise (.1 of a degree in 100 years). Because there are no energy alternatives to replace fossil fuels, in order to make a real dent, you would have to destroy the economy and, as the one scientist is suggesting, live under the same conditions as the Great Depression.

    These two examples lean toward the extreme, but, as a rule, they’re not that far from the main stream policy positions of the “consensus”

  4. By Jeff Alberts, January 10, 2011 @ 6:28 am


    Only the ones who can’t be objective.

  5. By Sonicfrog, January 10, 2011 @ 6:50 am

    He has no idea how much that narrows it down.

  6. By Rob, January 15, 2011 @ 6:25 pm

    yeah, and you do mike? @Jeff- my brother needs to pay attention to your answer

    yes jeff, that was the answer i would expect here. back to the intention of the title, it really paints GW scientists with a broad brush. in addition, they mearly make suggestions based on science, facts, and other data. they don’t ultimately make the decisions, they provide potential solutions. yes jeff, not all of them are objective and that is a real danger. like my brother, there’s not objectvity, his posts are rife with his personal political position. i guess that’s the point of having your own blog.

  7. By Sonicfrog, January 15, 2011 @ 8:22 pm

    “it really paints GW scientists with a broad brush. in addition, they mearly make suggestions based on science, facts, and other data.”

    There is nothing “scientific” about the suggestion of going back to depression era conditions and rationing. Have you ever interviewed someone who has either lived through those times, or grew up in a household with parents scarred by those conditions? Again, note that the world economy has slowed to a crawl, arguably the worst economic conditions since the 70’s if not the Great Depression (I’ve seen good arguments for either assertion), and that didn’t make a dent in CO2 emissions at all. So the economy would have to be even worse than now to have any effect. usually, when some religious person says we need to go back to those times, we call them a nut. When a Climate Scientist says it…..

    What you don’t realize is this IS the main-stream view. What do you think the Kyoto protocol would have done to Europe if they would have actually cut their energy usage, instead of buying it from outside sources such as Russia and other Eastern European countries? It’s why Kyoto and the idea of willingly cutting CO2 emissions is essentially dead. Because everyone realizes that without great advances in energy producing technologies, it can’t be done without severely harming the economies. That’s why nothing was signed in Copenhagen, it’s why nothing of any legal binding international law was signed in Cancun… Which, by the way, is where the scientist said the quotes I highlight.

    But the whole point is the climate science train left the objectivity train a long time ago. Yes, there are some scientists that are sensible; Roger Peilke Sr. Jr. Judith Cury, Dr. Roy Spencer, Dr. John Christie, Dr. Patric Michaels to name a few. And do you know what happens when they stray from the beaten path, when they don’t echo the dogma, such as the stuff that I’ve highlighted???? They, like I, get branded a denier.

  8. By Jeff Alberts, January 15, 2011 @ 9:43 pm


    What answer would you like?

    Read this: https://public.me.com/ix/williseschenbach/Svalbard.pdf and tell me that the big players are objective and honest.

  9. By Jeff Alberts, January 17, 2011 @ 1:55 am

    Joanie seems pretty typical. Attack the person, not the facts.

  10. By Jeff Alberts, January 17, 2011 @ 1:57 am

    Joanie, have your brother read the PDF I linked to and have him tell us if it is technically sound.

    I won’t hold my breath.

  11. By Joanie, January 17, 2011 @ 5:18 am

    Jeff, I am not even that interested in engaging with Mike on this topic. As the woman who is married to his brother I have witnessed him being consistently condescending and it gets so old! Even in his so called “apology” he just keeps saying over and over that Rob cannot diplay to him that he knows anything. I shouldn’t get involved in it at all. Mike is a windbag and likes to stir the pot about anything and everything he can find to justify his conservative views. Mountains of scientific evidence exist to support global warming, it’s not really even debatable. That was a personal rant because I am sick of Mike and his “I know everything and everyone else is misinformed” attitude. Sorry about that, I will not be responding again.

  12. By Jeff Alberts, January 18, 2011 @ 4:34 am

    “Jeff, I read the pdf the Willis Eschenbach authored. I guess if Willis is the world-renowned expert on why GM is a scam, I should believe what I read and all the techy stuff contained within. ”

    No, the source is irrelevant. If the information is sound then that’s all there is to it. Show me where Eschenbach is incorrect in his math/reasoning, that’s all that needs to be done. Instead, you attack the man, not the facts.

  13. By Jeff Alberts, January 18, 2011 @ 4:37 am

    “Mountains of scientific evidence exist to support global warming, it’s not really even debatable. ”

    That’s the entire problem. Show me even a molehill of evidence of human-caused global warming, or show me how today’s temperatures are unprecedented. Please. If you won’t debate it, then you obviously have nothing to say.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply