Eco-cultishness and the petition threatening la liberté!

In France, the "debate" on climate change has taken a turn for the worse. A petition signed by 410 scientists (mostly involved in climate research) was presented to the Minister of Education and Research, Madame Pécresse, asking for more political support for the global warming thesis as postulated by the IPCC. And even more astonishingly, requesting the government to "take action" against two climate sceptic scientists; former minister Dr. Claude Allègre and Professeur Vincent Courtillot whose views were expressed in recently published books (see below).

.

The signatories feel that these dissenting scientific opinions are discrediting the supreme seriousness of their own work. The mind boggles.
.

What kind of "action" is not clear. Science by decree? Criminalization of the denial-dissent of IPCC climate truth ? Internment in psychiatric hospitals for those "deranged" scientists? Et pourquoi pas un goulag climatique? The methods used by Trofim Lyssenko to impose his scientific truth under Stalin spring to mind.... But je m'égare - I digress. La France is not ze Soviet Union.

.

Of course not. But eco-intolerence amongst environment activists, scientists and greened politicians is becoming a real threat to freedom of speech and scholarship. After the former socialist minister Michel Rocard's comment, namely that the decision to scrap the carbon tax was a "crime against humanity" - oui, je répète un "crime contre l'humanité"! - we have now scientists requesting government's intervention against climate-sceptic thinking and research.

.

What this is about is an attempt by a group of interested climatologists defending the thesis of man-made global warming, to discredit the work of scientists who dissent. The "niet" of the latter to climate alarmism hype does not go down well with the former, namely the self-appointed priesthood of Gaia .... Behind the carefully crafted text (accessible in article in Libération ), it appears that the objective of "alarmist scientists" (two are members of the IPCC-GIEC) is to see the UN "absolute climate truth" protected by the State, and the publication of dissenting research/opinions vetted.
.

Why? Because these climatologists live from climate alarmism - massive public funds allocated to it - and in the wake of the various climate-gates, scepticism among the publics has risen hence potentially threatening their jobs and could undermine the "climate business" (See post on ze blog Objectif Liberté). Fearing that research budgets might melt away faster than polar ice-caps, our "endangered" climatologists strike back!
.
For more on this latest twist français in the culte de Gaïa, climate alarmism et autres réchauffismes liberticides, read this excellent post by Jean-Michel Bélouve author of "La Servitude Climatique" (see below) in the Cri du Contribuable.: Petition against Allègre and Courtillot: French climatologists are losing it" (Les climatologues français perdent tout sens de la mesure). The author points notably to the fact that the two French "other thinker"-scientists are not alone. Many more have not endorsed the so-called IPCC "scientific consensus"! He notably recalls the 1992 Heidelberg Appeal signed by 4,000 scientists (including 70 nobel prize winners) who inter alia voiced concern about the intrusion of ideology in science (Earth Summit in Rio).
.

Answering the accusations that his work is not peer-reviewed, Prof. Courtillot puts his record straight in Le Monde. and Le Figaro. He notes inter alia: "It is the mechanism of the IPCC I am criticical of. I maintain that even with many more scientists, such a system cannot possibly garantee to tell the 'scientific truth'.

.

Also see the "lettre ouverte" by the mathematician Benoît Rittaud ("Le mythe climatique", see below). His critique hits the nail. The implications of this démarche for state intervention - if acted upon by public authorities - against two scientists are serious; introduction of political censorship of scientific work, infringement of freedom of speech and thought.

.

Douce France, cher pays de mon enfance et des droits de l'Homme... Quid la liberté d'expression et de penser? Pauvre science! With Liberté pour l'Histoire historians have been fighting against state edicted historical truths (lois mémorielles). It now looks like minority view scientists might be forced to do the same "pour la Science".... Aux armes citoyens!
.

That climatologists would resort to this kind of "trick" is deeply troubling. Frankly, this latest épisode climatique begs the question of whether the French "rechauffiste" brigade is not actually prepared to go down the road of green authoritarianism. It is a sad day for our democracy....

.
"Pour rire it's tax free", enjoy the caricature très drôle of a French climate lesson created by Yann Goap for the blog "Pensée-unique" . In the front row, two GIEC-IPCC children-scientists (a Dr. Pachauri or le breton Hervé le Treut?) snitching on their dissenting classmate-scientists (Courtillot and Allègre). The teacher is Madame la Ministre and the leçon is - in franglais - "In réchauffisme we trust" (In warmism we trust). The language used in French is childish and would translate in something like "Mistress, they are pestering us...."
.

Ce à quoi on pourrait répondre (answer) en français de cour de maternelle: Maîkresse, yaka lire queske les bonomes verts veules pas qu'on sêt!

Loosely translated in good franglais this means: read what les druides verts do not want you to know en français.

Dr. Claude Allègre: L'imposture climatique où la fausse écologie.

Benoît Rittaud : Le mythe climatique.

Professeur Vincent Courtillot: Notre voyage au centre de la Terre.

Jean-Michel Bélouve: La servitude climatique: changement climatique business et politique.

Dr. Emmanuel Martin: Un Monde Libre

Le blog de Vincent Bénard: Objectif Liberté, dossiers et gazette du "réchauffement" climatique.

Nananèèèère (so haha see)..

Earth Hour: the tyranny of Gaïa?

Version longue:

Before 1972 (first European environmental action plan), there was darkness in Europe. The nation-state, its citizenry and industries were blighted, selfish polluters not paying due care to “Mother Earth” (Gaïa) and its creatures. And then there was light, green light that is, switched on permanently by a common environmental policy (Single European Act, 1987). Or so goes the official tale. Curiously with the Earth Hour, the friends of Gaïa were asking us to celebrate darkness again, quite literally by switching off our lights for an hour in an absurd ritualistic global communion against progress.
.
The organiser of this initiative, the World Wildlife Fund trumpeted success. In France the national electricity company EDF observed a mere 1% decrease in electricity consumption, a situation that can surely best be explained by the fact that only the modern day followers of the cult of Gaïa - the “greens” - and, their new priesthood - NGOs, experts, politicians - heeded the call. Environmentalists have been influenced by James Lovelock’s “theory of Gaïa” which claims that the earth is a single living organism. Unperturbed by the fact that many scientists view it as little more than a neo-pagan new age religion, environmentalism regards Man and modernity (notably energy production and consumption) as a “disease killing the planet”.
.
The controversial hypothesis has influenced the “deep ecology” movement and is a foundation stone of political ecology in the Western world. It has had a profound impact on governance and policy-making in Europe. As academics like to point out, the environmental policy is the perfect example of Jean Monnet’s neo-functionalist method of integration through “spill-over” in other sectors. Hence the green policy has “stealthily” grown in size and is now on its 6th Environmental Action Programme (2002-2012). Addressing climate change, nature and biodiversity, environment and health, natural resources and waste, it basically permeates all aspects of policy-making, and by implication, of our lives.
.
Apparently we should only be grateful. Questioning the scientific or moral foundation of green economic integration and cultishness is considered politically incorrect. If you do, you are treated as barking mad or ignorant. When your “scepticism” comes out of the closet, you fall into the category of the “bag guys” or deniers. The “good guys”, namely the green experts are a bit like the Navi people in Avatar. They “commune” with Mother Nature and know best. Armed with the absolute Truth, they preach the cult of Gaïa in its less extreme form through policies, laws, campaigns and by resorting to climate alarmism to impose their “noble” cause on the masses.
.
Of course, the European Union is not the utopian planet of Pandora. Behind the official discourse of “legacy to future generations”, (green) greed, power and interests play an important part. Organisations like the WWF are friends with big corporations. Greening one's conscience has a price: donations. The friends of Gaïa also have many friends in Brussels and receive public funds (EU budget) whether taxpayers approve or not. As the recent International Policy Network study “the Friends of the EU" revealed, green advocacy groups like Friends of the Earth, Birdlife or WWF (the so-called big 8 or 10) receive plenty of funds to lobby for more funds and provide environmental expertise to the Commission. The researchers concluded that “sponsoring the narrow interests of such NGOs undermined the democratic process”.
.
Politicians have embraced the green dogma with gusto. When the French government recently scrapped its carbon tax plan, the socialist politician Michel Rocard crossed a verbal Rubicon by calling this decision a “crime against humanity”. The proposed tax promoted by environmentalist leaders with no democratic mandate is in fact opposed by a majority of people (59%). The Secretary of State for ecology declared herself “distraught” by the setback, prompting some bloggers to comment that too much ecology on one’s mind could be a mental health hazard... Rest assured that the proposal will be pursued with a vengeance at supranational level in one form or another. The proverbial democratic deficit of the EU has served Gaïa well.

.
Eco-cultishness is relentless. A friend of mine (No. 34 left) is passionate about off-road motor biking and takes part in amateur races in rural Brittany. His idea of a fun time keeps the local bike shop in business. On racing weekends, the villages burst into life with competitors and support team-families. It is festive, noisy and definitely not carbon-emission free. These armour-clad, mostly middle-aged male weekend-bikers stand accused by the local “écolos” of riding the planet to eco-Armageddon. The green fundamentalists call for a ban but the slow regulation of this activity out of existence is the most likely outcome. The friends of Gaïa with friends in the EU can avail themselves of eco-directives they lobbied for and helped draft. The quasi sacred 1979 Birds Directive springs to mind. Surely there must be a few feathered creatures they could find and whose rights are infringed.
.
European NGOs, like the migrating birds they care so-much about, are not stopped by borders. Driven by a missionary spirit, they are fighting to impose “sustainable development” in the name of Gaïa everywhere possible. In Ethiopia for example, a “coalition of the irresponsible” (NGOs including WWF) is campaigning to stop the government’s project to build the Gibe III dam which would bring progress to millions. In a recent article, Nathalie Rothschild, the editor of Spiked-online, makes a compelling case against “green madness”. She notes that “the needs of the Africans are clearly not a priority for environmentalists. … They are more concerned about preserving the biodiversity of the Omo river than lifting its people out of abject poverty”. In 2010, 70pc of Ethiopians are still unable to switch on a light and the friends of Gaïa would like it to stay that way.
.
Environmental protection and nature conservation should be based on reason, not cultishness. I kept my lights on during "Earth Hour" and celebrated human achievement, progress and the pursuit of happiness in all its forms.