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.

Vœux de nouvel an climatiquement incorrects

Le Télégramme de Brest, Le Petit Bleu, Le Pays Malouin, Le Ouest France
.
Monsieur le Rédacteur en Chef,
.
De retour au pays pour les fêtes de Noël, je constate que notre classe politique toutes tendances confondues analyse Copenhague en termes négatifs. Dans les journaux tout le monde est d'accord et répète le même message comme au temps de la Pravda des Soviets. La charmante capitale danoise, une des villes les plus eco-friendly de la planète, serait en passe de devenir synonyme de fiasco, de honte, de débâcle. En bref de Bérézina. Comme la bataille du même nom (une rivière en Russie) pour la Grande Armée (1812), le souvenir de la conférence restera graver dans les esprits des écologistes comme un traumatisme. Le parallèle me parait intéressant car la défaite des uns est toujours la victoire des autres. En ce début d'année 2010, je me sens profondément russe si l'on peut dire, et me réjouie de la déroute de l'idéologie réchauffiste !
.
Parler de “gavage” climatique en période de ripailles est un peu facile. C'est surtout politiquement incorrect. Outre-Manche où je réside comme ici, la vérité qui dérange le plus c'est que la fin du sommet et de sa «surmédiatisation » ont été accueilli avec soulagement par la majorité silencieuse. Le catastrophisme écologique n'a pas marché. Les citoyens restent dubitatifs alors que les politiques continuent de jouer les passionarias du climat. L'eurodéputée Corinne Lepage se lamente de l'échec de l'Europe et fustige dirigeants politiques et économiques (Le Monde, 23 décembre 2009). Comment prendre de tels propos au sérieux lorsque l'intéressée qui critique les “méchants” lobbies commerciaux, se fait la porte-parole du “gentil” lobby écologique de l'économie dirigiste verte que Bruxelles souhaite tant imposer! La solution préconisée (plus de pouvoirs aux institutions européennes) reviendrait à agrandir le trou déjà béant du déficit démocratique européen. Réjouissons nous plutôt que l'UE ait raté son premier test de l’aire de Lisbonne et que les appels à plus de « supranationalité » soient restés lettre morte.
.
Les idéologues anticapitalistes camouflés en vert ont raté leur coup d'état dans le bunker gris comme le remarque avec esprit l'essayiste Guy Sorman. La pyramide climatique renversée qui repose en fait sur une poignée de fonctionnaires onusiens et de scientifiques (une cinquantaine) est apparue bien fragile à Copenhague. Il y avait bien quelque chose de pourri dans le Royaume du Danemark - la conférence elle-même avec son bilan carbone record ! En fait, c'est l'ensemble de l'édifice climatique construit par quelques hommes dont les intérêts vont bien au delà de ceux des "générations futures" qui doit être revu. Le réchauffisme n'a pas rapporté que des images au gourou du GIEC, le Dr. Pachauri ainsi qu'à son compère américain Al Gore, "the green millionnaire". Il serait grand temps d'ouvrir la matriochka climatique onusienne. On y trouvera certainement autre chose que de l'altruisme et des bons sentiments. Pour mieux comprendre les enjeux, lire absolument "La servitude climatique : changement climatique, business et politique" de Jean-Michel Belouve.
.
Nos hommes politiques et ONGs menés par notre président sauveur-généralissime tous unis sous l'étendard de la "vertitude" étaient donc partis va-t-en-guerre contre le réchauffement de la planète pour assurer la survie de l'humanité. Comme la Grande Armée de Napoléon, ils sont rentrés au pays dans le froid sans gloire. Personne n'a remarqué lors de cette retraite en ordre dispersé que l’étude de l'institut de recherche moscovite, l’Institute of Economic Analysis, révélait que les centres britanniques Hadley et CRU déjà impliqués dans le « climategate » (le scandale des courriels) n'auraient en fait utilisé que 25% des données de température du vaste territoire russe. Tiens un autre bidouillage ? Inutile d'attendre que le GIEC refasse ses calculs. Tout le monde l’a compris maintenant, le brouhaha climatique c'est avant tout une histoire de gros sous et de politique. La grande perdante c'est la science, la vraie, celle qui demande transparence, scepticisme, débat et liberté d'expression.
.
Quelle insulte pour l'humanité toute entière qui n'a eu cesse de maîtriser la nature et de s'adapter que de vouloir faire croire qu’une augmentation de température de deux degrés puisse conduire à la fin du monde, l’éco-Armageddon ! Quel gaspillage aussi. Les ressources disponibles devraient être utilisées pour résoudre les problèmes environnementaux existants. Pourtant c'est une bulle financière qui est en train d'être gonflée (celle du carbon trading) et l’Europe prêche le protectionnisme vert mettant en danger le développement des pays pauvres. Tout ceci est absurde et dangereux. A Copenhague on l’a échappé belle. Des mesures contraignantes - un traité - auraient sonné le glas du progrès et de la liberté. Les historiens français ont du se battre contre les lois mémorielles liberticides. Les scientifiques et les citoyens devront eux aussi se défendre contre la clique écolo-politico-climatique qui ne recule devant rien pour imposer sa vérité. La liberté pour la science c'est la liberté pour tous!
.
Le vrai danger n’est donc pas le climat qui change depuis 4 milliards d'années sans que les hommes de sciences n'en comprennent encore toutes les causes mais la prise de pouvoir par une minorité au nom d'une idéologie et moralité environnementaliste. Selon notre gourou national Nicolas Hulot, à Copenhague c'est la démocratie qui aurait échouée (Journal du Dimanche, 20 décembre 2009). Sur ce point il est en parfait accord avec le grand "démocrate" Hugo Chavez. Si la fin - la révolution environnementalisme - justifie les moyens, on peut craindre le pire. Méfions-nous donc des tendances totalitaires de notre intelligentsia rouge devenue verte et des journalistes qui n'osent plus la critique. Et la taxe carbone dans tout ça, une autre bérézina? Dans sa grande sagesse, le Conseil constitutionnel l’a annulée et tant pis si cette décision a laissé au vice-président du GIEC, Jean Jouzel, "un arrière goût de déception" (Le Télégramme, 30 décembre 2009). Qu'une majorité de français s'y oppose n'interpelle malheureusement personne dans les hautes sphères politico-climatiques. Cette entente pragmatique entre le gouvernement qui a besoin de remplir les caisses vides de l’Etat et la minorité écologiste qui veut imposer son diktat vert à la majorité est une grande fourberie.
.
Mes résolutions pour la nouvelle année sont donc climatiquement incorrectes puisqu'elles sont raisonnables. Soutenir le développement économique moteur de la prospérité et d’un environnement plus propre. Continuer à protéger la nature avec des gestes "verts" dictés par ma conscience. Refuser d'être réduite à une empreinte carbone. Ne pas me soumettre au règne du climatiquement correct. Dire «niet » à l'"oppression climatique" par la peur, au dirigisme écologique et au culte sacrificiel de la déesse Gaia (la terre mère), ce «nouveau» collectivisme mystique. Jamais les paroles de l'écrivain et philosophe russe Ayn Rand n'ont eu autant de pertinence aussi je lui laisse le mot de la fin: “Il va sans dire que lorsqu’on évoque un sacrifice, il y a toujours quelqu’un pour récolter les offrandes sacrificielles… L’homme qui vous parle de sacrifice parle d’esclaves et de maîtres, et il a l’intention d’être le maître”.
.
Sur la Côte d’Emeraude en 2010 soyons heureux et libre. Bloavezh Mad!
.
Veuillez agréer, Monsieur le Rédacteur en Chef, l'expression de ma plus haute considération.

Copenhagen failed but it is not the end of the world.

University of Portsmouth (UK) students newspaper
.

Do we need more “climate summiteering"? If Copenhagen is a barometer of where global governance is at, the answer is obvious. The conference was shambolic. Too much global hubris was bound to lead to nowhere. It did with global-esque proportions and we have now "climate conflict" to add to the long list of climate issues. The "climate bubble" has burst, or at least deflated, leaving the world more disunited than before. As conference garbage is being recycled, polar bears costumes put away for the inevitable next climate pow-wow, it is time to cool it and reflect. It is also time to be positive because it is not the end of the world.
.
Pointing fingers at the hosts for poor management is hypocritical. The eco-friendly Nordic nation took upon itself to organise a planetary event with the most fatuous of aim; saving humanity from eco-Armageddon. The bar was set so high that mundane issues of accreditation cards and queuing up in freezing temperatures were bound to heat up excited minds. In fairness to the organisers, theirs was a mammoth task. 192 official delegations, thousands of lawyers, lobbyists, activists, journalists and climate tourists had descended upon the capital. Everybody who was a “climate somebody” - famous or anonymous - was there, eager to be seen, filmed and heard. Handling the “touch-and-go” influx of world leaders on tight schedules, inflated egos and diverging agendas while keeping an eye on climate warriors, hooded trouble-makers, benevolent demonstrators and, the far more sinister potential threat of terrorism, was never going to be easy. The problem is elsewhere.
.
Reporting live from Copenhagen, a French radio correspondent was critical of the “Danish government's agenda”. The summit could be best described as a “clash of agendas”. Green millionnaire Al Gore came with his carbon trading agenda while poor countries came with "climate justice". Greenpeace with a lot of "climate banners". Behind the world leaders' "climate zeal" lies the naked truth of national interests. To explain President Sarkozy's newly found “vertitude” (green attitude), one needs to look at his many agendas. Hugging Brazilian trees and President Lula da Silva before the conference was primarily a trade-agenda stunt. In the declared war on fossil fuel-generated power, the state-sponsored nuclear industry stands to win a lot. But until lucrative deals are signed, something needs to be done about the state deficit (€1,500 billion). "Climate taxation" is the government's weapon of choice. Some analysts put his eagerness down to resurgent Gallic anti-Americanism, and an attempt at re-invigorating French clout in Africa now wallowing in Obamania. A lot of the "hyper-climatehood" is meant for home consumption too. With upcoming regional elections, the ruling party (UMP) needs to be in a position to counter the rise of the "climate left" (red gone green).
.
Predictably after weeks of "climate overload", most people are experiencing “climate fatigue”. In the absence of CO2 propaganda, one is strangely left with the realization that for two weeks, “Big Climate brother” had been watching and intruding into our lives. Indeed escaping the eco-moralising disseminated from the moral heights of the summit's bunker and relayed by cheerleading media, was simply impossible. Putting the kettle on for a hot brew suddenly felt like a crime. "Thou shall feel guilty" was the message. According to British journalist Christopher Booker, this is precisely the point. Scaring the populace with "climate alarmism" is how a few can impose their diktat on the rest - and naturally profit from it. Hungarian-born education expert Frank Furedi warns that governments are going down the road of turning kids into "Orwellian eco-spies" (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7830/). The fine line between raising environmental consciousness and indoctrination through fear has been crossed.
.
At times, politicians, activists and UN climate luminaries appeared so engulfed in their apocalypse rhetoric that they looked more like the high priests of a cult than the cool-headed deciders we need to address environmental issues in a sensible way. The UN "climate machin" is an unstoppable train, busy justifying its existence, hiding its "climate tricks" and fittingly driven by a railways engineer Dr. K. Pachauri. Unfortunately bad ideas never die and "climate hype" is now big business. While "climate chaos" was making the headlines, the outcome of the big bang summit was eventually decided by a few leaders. What was the background show (conference) all about one might ask? Outside the bunker in the EU, sovereign debt is mounting, economies stagnating and societies are more fragmented than ever. The prospect of social unrest is very real but leaders keep on pledging money they do not have.
.
Emerging economies need more development and freer trade, not hand-outs. Europe proposes protectionism of the green kind. "A disastrous idea" says the London-based International Policy Network (IPN) as it will hit poor countries the hardest. Failed international aid is to be revisited into a vague "climate fund". For corrupt recipient governments, this is heart-warming news because the cash will keep coming. For disappointed young activists, a word of comfort. Even with a non-binding agreement, there will be enough jobs for the "climate boys". Why worry then? “Climate crime”, warns Europol, is rising and already costing taxpayers dearly. Soon it will cost lives and those deaths will not be caused by the climate changing - it has been doing so for 4 billion years - but by decisions taken by a handful of people. The list of bad ideas goes on. The British PM with his "meilleur ami" from across the Channel now wants to turn the Union into a global "climate police" (post-conference proposal for a new agency equipped to "snitch" on countries suspected of non-compliance). Soon perhaps UN "climate-enforcing" operations...
.
Finally there is the central but clearly inconvenient question of the science upon which decisions are being taken. IPCC truth followers and opportunist politicians accuse “other thinkers” - scientists, economists, ordinary folks who dissent - of endangering the survival of humanity. In short of being heretics. This is profoundly disturbing. Yet hope is not completely lost that reason and science may prevail. The French “Academie des Sciences” quietly announced before the summit that there is no scientific consensus on global warming. More voices of reason continue to rise above the politically correct climate brouhaha. The Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) suggests that the British climate research institutes (HadleyCRUT and CRU) have “cherry-picked” (Again?!) temperature data of the vast Russian territory. Given that 75% of available data was not used, the report calls for the IPCC to recalculate temperature increase. This is not “flat-earthing” or “sceptic rant” but what science should be about; reason, questioning, transparency, free and open debate.
.
To end on a note of optimism, the failure of Copenhagen is in fact a blessing. By putting themselves under the spotlight, the proponents of warmism stood with no clothes for the whole world to see. The climate change agenda is all about high politics and (carbon) money dressed in a lofty moral garb. Is it essentially anti-freedom and anti-progress. Predictably the IPCC will blame politicians for the failed talks and hope to pursue its illiberal agenda unchallenged. We have seen it all before. When the UN fails it huffs and puffs. Then nothing. Or rather business as usual. It too must be held to account, and "climate resignations" should be tendered. The world is not short of talent and new thinking is clearly needed. In the meantime, we can now all get on with life on earth and look forward to the new year without eco-Armageddon.