|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 29, 2011 23:40:04 GMT 1
Schellnhuber’s/Merkel’s Authoritarian WBGU Blasted From All Sides, Mocked: “No One Intends To Build a Wall” By P Gosselin on 28. Mai 2011 "No one wants an eco-dictatorship." Since Angela Merkel’s WBGU (German Advisory Council For Global Change) released it’s summary for policymakers dubbed ”Social Contract For The Great Transformation” back in April, it has come under heavy fire from all sides for its advocacy of green authoritarianism and frustration with democracy. WBGU chairman Hans Schellnhuber, head of the über-alarmist Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, even once called this Social Contract For The Great Transformation a Master Plan for “transforming global society”. Angela Merkel: Chancellor of the world? Reaction to the Schellnhuber’s/Merkel’s WBGU master plan was swift and harsh. Indeed, many find it unsettling that Chancellor Angela Merkel and a group of elite German scientists would preoccupy themselves with “global change” in the first place. Last I knew Angela Merkel is the Chacellor of Germany, and not The Chancellor of the World. Why all the global ambitions? Equally unsettling is that the WBGU advisory board is particularly occupied by Teutonic vanilla-flavoured elitist scientists, who appear no longer content doing research, are frustrated with democracy, and so have taken it upon themselves to make master plans for transforming global society to suit their world view. Stockholm sentences democracy to death – Revkin appalled Worse, they’ve surpassed all standards of temerity and arrogance in that they and 20 Nobel Prize winners recently set up an elitist Stockholm Court, appointed themselves as judges, then put humanity on trial (without allowing a defense) and promptly found it guilty. The verdict, to no one’s surprise, calls for the Great Transformation of the World, i.e. demolishing democracy. Even warmist Andy Revkin of the New York Times blasted this kind of Volksgerichtshof. Quite naturally many are spooked by this recent hockey-stick trend in arrogance by a few German and global elitists. Germans appalled by the WBGU In the wake of the release of the WBGU’s Social Contract For The Great Transformation, German publicist Dirk Maxeiner wrote a piece here at Die Welt blasting the WBGU’s master plan, saying: The idea of a globally controlled resource economy is Utopian and totalitarian to the core.” Just one day later Maxeiner’s harsh words were followed by extraordinarily blistering critique from Winand von Petersdorff in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung on May 15 , 2011, also read here at NTZ, where he warned. An ecological tyranny is growing in Germany; it leans on a large majority. And the German federal government is leading the pack.” Retired meteorologist Dr Wolfgang Thune also ripped the masterplan, saying the WBGU’s vision. would be the death of freedom and self-determination in favour of the brutal creation of theoretical world concepts and fictional world models that have no semblance of reality.” Claus Leggewie: "No one wants an eco-dictatorship." Alarmed at the negative publicity the WBGU’s master plan was getting from the public, WBGU member and Great Transformation co-author Professor Claus Leggewie penned a response at Die Welt here and mocked critics: Notorious deniers of climate change, known fools and confused full-time polemics have allowed their prejudices to run loose when they claim that the WBGU is a totalitarian conspiracy.”And: No one wants an eco-dictatorship. That word does not appear once in the WBGU report.”
How reassuring! But with Leggewie’s words completely contradicting everything he co-authored in the WBGU report, scientists and others reacted again, for example Edgar Gärtner of the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) blasted Leggewie’s resposnse, saying it reminds us of how former communist East Germany’s Walter Ulbricht claimed in 1961, just 2 months before the Berlin Wall was erected: We have no intention of building a wall.” As Benny Peiser’s website writes here, Gärtner’s critique was also supplemented by Fritz Vahrenholt’s response which appeared yesterday in the online Die Welt here in a piece titled: Eco-Dictatorship Pure. Vahrenholt writes: Germany’s green government advisers admit frankly that decarbonization can only be achieved by the limitation of democracy – both nationally and internationally.” As the Berlin Wall came to symbolize the failure of communism, so does Angela Merkel’s WBGU symbolize the failure of The Great Transformation. Time to dismantle the WBGU’s ugly vision of green authoritarianism. Tear down this Plan, Ms Merkel. notrickszone.com/2011/05/28/schellnhubersmerkels-authoritarian-wbgu-blasted-from-all-sides-mocked-no-one-intends-to-build-a-wall/ |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 29, 2011 23:49:20 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on May 30, 2011 9:07:49 GMT 1
In credits for "World in Transition - Climate Change as a Security Risk" "Professor Dr Stefan Rahmstorf Professor for Physics of the Oceans at Potsdam University and head of the Climate System Department at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research" www.wbgu.de/fileadmin/templates/dateien/veroeffentlichungen/hauptgutachten/jg2007/wbgu_jg2007_kurz_engl.pdfI thought, I know that name, a bit of 'ferreting around' produced an exchange between StA and YT, www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbradio4/NF2766778?thread=7353156&skip=50#p93697760...funny thing is, in that post there is a mention of 'Vanity Fair' and an address for the article is given- except it is now missing, odd that - here take a look "-I don't want to spoil the plot, by quoting any more... << just here, there it is - gone! "Here's a portrait in Vanity Fair." I will admit to getting waylaid by 'other' parts of this magazine. ---------------------------- Raymond S. Bradley - first link at the top of the page takes you to.... $15 t-shirts .... ---------------------------- StuartG -" it was a bit 'macho' and set a very different climate, I tried the website at Vanity it's been pulled. Cheers, StuartG ps. MM just for nostalgia's sake, here's the start of the thread "Temperature series undone. Now turn of CO2." www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbradio4/NF2766778?thread=7353156&skip=0and have placed another 'Nostalgia post' on the 'Oz Farmers' thread. add: Full .pdf [271 pages] of "Climate Change as a Security Risk" www.wbgu.de/fileadmin/templates/dateien/veroeffentlichungen/hauptgutachten/jg2007/wbgu_jg2007_engl.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 30, 2011 12:33:14 GMT 1
As you know I'm not a conspiracy theorist, stu, but some people are. Yesterday, in connection with the German WGBU document, I came across this critique from the Schiller Institute schillerinstitute.org/green_fascism/2011/wgbu.htmlNote the concern with the inheritor of the British Empire - the City of London - global bankers/plutocrats jumping on the AGW gravytrain. Note the purported Green Alliance between the British Royals and German Greens. Weird when you suddenly come across an alien perspective like this! |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 30, 2011 14:06:38 GMT 1
BBC – 30 May, 2011 Germany pledges to end all nuclear power by 2022 Germany’s ruling coalition says it has agreed a date of 2022 for the shutdown of all of its nuclear power plants. Environment Minister Norbert Rottgen made the announcement after a meeting of the ruling coalition that lasted into the early hours of Monday...Before March's moratorium on the older power plants, Germany relied on nuclear power for 23% of its energy. www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13592208Green numpties! Could this be connected with the rejection by Canada, France, Japan and Russia of the renewal of the Kyoto Protocol yesterday? It is very hard to grasp the idiocy of this German policy coming from a one-time (and still considerable) industrial giant. Do they think Germany is Tsunami-prone or earthquake prone? Do they think Denmark will supply them with its unuseable wind generated electricity forever? Is Germany showing the resurgence of fascism? Eco-fascism, the green variety? This inane Green influence is a VERY good reason to totally eschew proportional representation. |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 30, 2011 14:19:59 GMT 1
Does the German political elite think it can replace the 23% of its electricity now generated from nuclear from other reliable sources before 2022?
Will it import natural gas from Russia or fracked shale gas from Poland or nuclear from France?
Is German industry totally subordinate to the Greenshirts now?
Does the elite really believe the discredited "Am deutschem Wesen soll die Welt genesen!" (German character will heal the world).
|
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on May 30, 2011 14:30:14 GMT 1
The Blue-Green Alliance [Cyan-ide? just a thought] Makes good reading, but they've got the power balance wrong. Whatever anyone believes, staunch Royalist through to raving Republican, the Royals in this country don't have that type of political influence. They can have a diluting effect, over time, in bringing people into the fold by various means. We saw that with Obama. True, Prince Phillip WAS the president of WWF, from 1981-1966, He wrote an open letter about the rain forests, wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/borneo_forests/about_borneo_forests/borneo_prince_phillip.cfm no dates when written. Hardly a dictatorial act. The Schiller/LaRouche setup seems to try to dub anyone 'Hitler' they are trying to in HTH's case here, [but not quite, note the wording] www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2008/2008_10-19/2008_10-19/2008-18/pdf/72_3518.pdf and here with Obama's picture en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:More_Larouche.jpg Here's the present president of WWF, Yolanda Kakabadse, "a Doctor in Science (ScD) Honoris Causa from the University of East Anglia (2008)"
Weird and Alien, Yep! read the Wiki's on LaRouche/Schiller. I think 'We' can see where the Neo-Schicklgruber's are...
EIR, Executive Intelligence Review, part of the LaRouche setup.
LaRouche/Schiller
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaRouche_movement
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiller_Institute
|
|
|
|
Post by principled on May 30, 2011 17:29:20 GMT 1
Marchesa My eyebrows were raised when I heard about the closure of nuclear power in Germany by 2022. Surely, they can't believe that wind power will fill the gap, especially the offshore type ( www.offshorewind.biz/2010/06/23/germanys-first-offshore-wind-park-experiencing-turbine-failure/)? My understanding is that, like the German experience, companies here in the UK are having trouble coming up with a reliable design for these enormous wind generators as well. So that leaves gas stations, "easy to build", but how is that greener than nuclear? I'm truly mystified. If they are worried about accidents, then what about some of the french reactors which are not too far from their border! The only thing I can think is that industry will turn to complete flexible working, where you are called in as soon as the wind starts and go home when it stops! P |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 30, 2011 17:46:14 GMT 1
I find it mind-boggling, too, principled. Is it anything to do with HJ Schellnhuber being Research Director of the Tyndal Centre at UEA? Take a look at this!
Membership of Boards & Committees (Selected previous/current activities)
Chair of the German Advisory Council on Global Change
Chair of the Global Change Advisory Group for the Sixth Framework Programme of the European Commission; Member of the corresponding panel for the Seventh Framework Programme
Chair of the Global Analysis, Integration & Modelling (GAIM) Task Force of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP)
Member of the Board of the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI)
Member of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Dahlem Conferences
Member of the Grantham Research Institute Advisory Board
Member of the Committee on Scientific Planning & Review of the International Council for Science (ICSU)
Member of the Environment Steering Panel of the European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC)
Member of the World Economic Forum (WEF) Global Agenda Council on Climate Change
Member of the Advisory Board for the World Development Report (WDR) 2010
Member of the Global Energy Assessment (GEA) Council
Chair of the Advisory Board of the European Climate Foundation
Member of the Joint Advisory Board on Climate Change Research at Imperial College and LSE
Member of the Strategic Advisory Board of the IASS
Chair of the Climate-KIC Governing Board of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT)
Chair of the Unit "Climate, Energy and Environment" of the German Academy of Sciences Leopoldina
Member of the Editorial Boards of the scientific journals “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences” (PNAS), “Climatic Change”, “Climate Policy”, “GAIA”, “Integrated Assessment”, “Systems Analysis, Modelling, Simulation”, and “Europe’s World”
Special Tasks
Chief Government Advisor on Climate & Related Issues for the German G8-EU twin presidency in 2007
Member of the High-Level Expert Group on Energy & Climate Change advising José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission
Honours
Bavarian Scholarship for the Exceptionally Gifted (1970)
Heisenberg Fellowship of the German Science Foundation (DFG) (1987)
Membership of the Max Planck Society, the German National Academy (Leopoldina), the US National Academy of Sciences, the Leibniz Science Association, the Geological Society of London, and the International Research Society Sigma Xi
Wolfson Research Merit Award and Research Fellowship of the Royal Society (2002)
Ambassador of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (2003)
Honorary CBE (Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire) awarded by Queen Elizabeth II in 2004
Distinguished Science Advisor for the Tyndall Centre (2005-2009)
Visiting Professor in Physics and Visiting Fellow of Christ Church College at Oxford University (2005-2009)
German Environment Prize (2007)
Longstanding Membership of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (e.g., Coordinating Lead Author for the Working Group II Synthesis Chapter in the Third Assessment Report) who was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in 2007[/b]
Environment Prize of the “Bundesdeutscher Arbeitskreis für Umweltbewusstes Management e.V.“ (B.A.U.M) (2008)
Order of Merit (“Roter-Adler-Orden”) of the State of Brandenburg (2008)
„Best Paper Award 2008“ for co-authorship of an article on distributed integrated assessment modelling, published in "Environmental Modelling & Software", Vol. 23 (5), 592-610. (2008)
Times Higher Education Award: Research Project of the Year (University of East Anglia: Climate-System Tipping Elements, initiated by Hans Joachim Schellnhuber) (2008)
"Ambassador of Science" of the State of Brandenburg (2009)
This man seems to be the equivalent of our Beddington, King, Watson and Houghton et al combined - truly one of the Great and the Good Movers and Shakers. You can throw in Hansen and Gore, too. This is where Big Science and BIG political activism meet! Yea!
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 30, 2011 18:18:37 GMT 1
I just found this. I don't know whether this plan still stands but what a green contradiction if it does. 26 New Coal Power Plants In GermanyPosted on April 24, 2010 by steve ......The ironic fact is that the Europeans, who started this whole push to build wind mills and solar panels in an effort to ’stop climate change’ (or global warming, they keep changing the problem) are not exactly living up to their public proclamations. The Germany government is one of the biggest proponents of ‘green energy’ . However, they are currently planning to construct 26 new coal power plants. Via Spiegle.de: The Vattenfall project in Berlin is only one example of a larger trend. Utility companies want to set up a total of 26 new coal-fired power plants in Germany during the coming years. In the long term, the power plants will replace older, dirtier plants. But that doesn’t alter the fact that the plans are a direct contradiction of the climate goals formulated by Merkel. Why would Germany want to construct more coal plants? But the new plants are a big business opportunity for Germany’s four major energy providers, Vattenfall, RWE, E.on and EnBW. Coal imports from South Africa or Poland are relatively cheap and can be used to produce electricity and heat at a high profit. In this way, the companies intend to secure their dominant position on the German market for decades to come. And German politicians are explicitly encouraging them to do so. Both Merkel and Gabriel have an interest in the power plant construction boom. For Merkel, the case is clear-cut: New power plants will secure thousands of jobs in Germany. The projects resemble a giant program for the stimulation of the economy. The power plant operators plan to invest more than €30 billion ($40 billion) in construction and infrastructure. Yep, you got it. The Europeans will tell you publicly that they are for ‘Green Energy’ but, when push comes to shove, they will do what’s best for their economy and their people. motorcitytimes.com/mct/2010/04/26-new-coal-power-plants-in-germany/ |
|
|
|
Post by principled on May 30, 2011 21:26:42 GMT 1
Marchesa
Report on TV news tonight talked about the existence of German plans for new, coal fired power stations. The Germans are usually pragmatic people, so I would have been surprised if there wasn't a plan "B" somewhere for power generation post nuclear.
The UK on the other hand, doesn't even have a plan "A". Doh!
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 30, 2011 21:35:45 GMT 1
They must have been reading this thread, principled!
I knew we had a select group of lurkers!
|
|
|
|
Post by principled on May 31, 2011 10:56:27 GMT 1
Marchesa Just finished reading a blog by DM's Michael Hanlon about Germany's nuclear decision. A couple of interesting quotes: About Germany's superficial "Greeness" so beloved of the Green movement "There are rules governing where you can wash your car (can’t have those nasty detergents running into the groundwater). Putting the bin out in Munich or Aachen requires a post-doctorate qualification in recycling theory. My car is German and its handbook is peppered with endless green naggery"  Then comes the real story: "As a result Germany still make a great deal of its electricity (getting on for half) by burning coal, a major source of the 830m tonnes of CO2 the Federal Republic emits annually. That total figure amounts to about 10.15 tonnes of CO2 for every German compared to 9.25 tonnes in the UK and 6.4 tonnes in France." Another victory for the greens? "In fact, German energy-industry emissions are about 355mt a year, so the nuclear shortfall could result in a 70-million-tonne increase in carbon emissions every year if the balance is taken up by fossil fuels." " It would be ironic if a country which has made it more or less illegal to throw away rubbish citing the supposedly irrefutable logic of recycling, makes a decision that will cause irreparable damage to the planet based on the logic of witchcraft"  I can't help wondering what the "Green movement" think of these hollow victories. Are they really worried about CO2? Every action they have taken seems to be inclined either not to reduce it or, more likely, to increase it. Perhaps CO2 is just a mask for some other agenda they have. I leave you to imagine what that may be.  P |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 31, 2011 11:58:47 GMT 1
Yes, they seem perversely averse to grasping that intermittent sources of elec supply need backing up with other more flexibly sources to stop the lights going out if the wind don't blow. And the greater the proportion of intermittent capacity the greater the amount of duplication in thermal backup needed! Mad!
Germany really is headcase allowing green politics to drive out common sense.
Apparently the NIMBY element is now up in arms about the new grid of Pylons necessary to deliver all this wind energy from the north to the south of the country through their lovely landscape!
You couldn't make it up. They don't want coal, they don't want carbon sequestration, they don't want nuclear, they don't want a new grid! The internal contradictions of greenery.
The only thing they DO agree ony is insulation. Fair enough - that's useful and yields DEFINITE benefits all round.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 31, 2011 12:01:00 GMT 1
I've posted this elsewhere before but it's delicious and I need a larf after contemplating all this German nonsense.
How Green Were The Nazis?
The sound of creaking leather from their collective greatcoats broke the silence as the assembled Wehrmacht officers leaned forward to examine the huge table map of the Spreewald, the vast forest area standing between the XI SS Panzer Corps and the Red Army. The problem was clear - vast stretches of gorse in the forest (ulex europeus) were in flower and it was the nesting season of the rare inversely-spotted bark-spitter.
"Well, gentlemen" General Busse announced to his colleagues "there is no way we can attack them through the forest - the damage to the environment would be too great. Our panzer tanks still emit excessive CO2 and the electric hybrid version is still on the drawing-board."
The other officers grunted in assent. There were those amongst them who could still recall the terrible Battle of the Somme in 1916 - how entire woods were destroyed, how the crash of the shells broke the noise abatement regulations as far away as Camden and how the noxious exhaust from the infernal English tanks caught the back of the men's throats. No, that was the carbon footprint to end all carbon footprints. Never again!
"However" the General continued, "I have developed a strategy that I believe you will find is sufficiently eco-friendly. The XI Panzer will move forward by bicycle on the left flank, the SS Mountain Corps will take the right flank using public transport - there is still a regular bus service from Lubben after 10 o'clock- and we will send a small diversionary unit through the forest. But I must spell out one important message for them: keep to the paths and no shooting!".
by Tim Sanders
|
|
