Reject Paris pandemonium

5 Thoughts on “Reject Paris pandemonium”

1. Andy on 03/12/2015 at 11:05 pm said:

   “Faith and Science Initiative” from COP21, featuring James hansen
   http://unfccc6.meta-fusion.com/cop21/events/2015-12-02-16-30-tzu-chi

   Via the “Buddhist Tzu Chi Foundation ”

   Note that Hansen states that energy imbalance is 0.6 W/m2, no mention of trends or theoretical forcing.

   And then, onto “climate justice”…..

   Oh well, it got interesting for a few seconds

   Reply↓
2. Richard C (NZ) on 04/12/2015 at 9:02 am said:

   >”And then, onto “climate justice”…..”

   Post on the “Paris pandemonium” at WUWT provides an interesting link trail in comments as to how the concept of “climate justice”, and the mob mentality of it, has its origins in Structured Design Dialogue (SDD):

   ‘On #COP21 and the Madness of Crowds’ – Guest essay by Charles G. Battig

   “It is unfortunate that Charles Mackay is no longer alive to add yet another chapter or two to his insightful book of human follies, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. First published in 1841, his book chronicles in sixteen examples of crowd psychology with some of the notable economic and social foibles of the past. The preface includes his observation that “[w]e find that whole communities suddenly fix their minds on one object, and go mad in its pursuit: that millions of people become simultaneously impressed with one delusion and run after it, til their attention is caught by some new folly more captivating than the first.”

   Chapter headings include The Mississippi Scheme, The South-Sea Bubble, The Tulipomania, Fortune-Telling, The Magnetisers, The Crusades, and The Witch Mania. These and the other chapters were chosen by Mackay to illustrate recurring but transient moral and economic epidemics, and to “show how easily the masses have been led astray, and how imitative and gregarious men are, even in their infatuations and crimes.” The foreword by Bernard Baruch in the 1932 edition references Schiller’s dictum: “Anyone taken as an individual is tolerably sensible and reasonable – as a member of a crowd he at once becomes a blockhead.”

   See the second comment replying to Paul Westaver “It is easy to identify the mimetic triangulators”:

   Robin December 3, 2015 at 8:07 am

   That would be why Alexander Christakis, one of the Club of Rome founders, has now moved on the Structured Design Dialogue, to drive everyone’s understandings in a common direction. http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/framing-then-refining-lasting-webs-of-mutual-social-understanding-to-fulfill-aspiration-grounded-in-infamy/ Obama’s Organizing For America used the SDD techniques in his 2012 reelection campaign.

   The Rockefeller Foundation, a heavy promoter of a transformative vision based on social justice and green energy, has a related initiative it abbreviates as CFSC–Communication for Social Change. The new K-12 education legislation the House passed last night has a new Literacy initiative tucked into it that would have the same Whole Language mimetic effect of providing the terms people are to use to talk about events, problems, recurring themes for needed social justice, etc.

   Normally shorthanded as Delphi it is everywhere in the Transformationalists’ bag of tools to frame the accepted conversations.

   http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/03/on-cop21-and-the-madness-of-crowds/#comment-2086032

   Link quoted is this:

   ‘Framing, then Refining Lasting Webs of Mutual Social Understanding to Fulfill Aspirations Grounded in Infamy’
   http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/framing-then-refining-lasting-webs-of-mutual-social-understanding-to-fulfill-aspiration-grounded-in-infamy/

   Excerpt:

   Communication For Social Change as the Rockefeller Foundation called it. As the FrameWorks Institute seeks to prepare common mental maps to reliably guide the perceptions of the masses, so too SDD “brings the lack of a commonly shared metanarrative into focus and encourages creative adaptations among participants.” Change within the person in other words just like the shift to student-centered learning. If this all seems a bit Egg-Heady to you and not a real threat to the way of life we all take for granted, http://obamavision.wikispaces.com/file/view/Figure_1-_Amended_Classification_of_59_Inhibitors_to_Bottom-up_Democracy.pdf/50379547/Figure_1-_Amended_Classification_of_59_Inhibitors_to_Bottom-up_Democracy.pdf makes it clear the Obama campaign in 2008 used SDD by name to gather input into the vision that fundamental transformation must be alluding to: “Obama’s vision for engaging stakeholders from all walks of life in a bottom-up democracy employing Internet technology.”

   The National Center for Dialogue and Deliberation that we just keep encountering http://ncdd.org/806 announced the giveaway of the SDD software to help encourage the dissemination of the participatory democracy model. Remember the one that lies at the heart of how urban metro areas are to operate politically in the future? The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act and sector strategies and Career Pathways with Big Business are such drivers towards a reality of collectivism precisely because they intersect with these declared goals of Metropolitanism and the determination of so many mayors that they are the place for achieving Economic Justice.

   Now added to that we get Christo declaring in a 2012 Training Workshop on Why and How We Ought to Reinvent Democracy that SDD is the means “for building capacity internationally for addressing highly complex problems using the science of dialogue.” We also see in this 2012 published paper the intentions to use online coursework delivered internationally to allow broad interaction to reach common understandings of what are called Continuous Critical Problems. Dialogue via the Internet and the virtual realities it can deliver to create common experiences become a means for “Striving for Sustainable Global Democracy Through A Group Decision-Making Process: A Critical Review of an Online Course to Model Transformative Praxis.” http://www.sociostudies.org/journal/files/jogs/2012_1/135-151.pdf

   From now on every time we hear the word Sustainable, we need to remember that article’s lead-in quote that “Sustainability is not simply about changing practices but more centrally about agreeing to change practices together.” Think of it as creating a mass perception of consensual collectivism via dialogue and deliberation. SDD trains participants, including K-12 students where it is much more likely to be called Guided Dialogue or the Discourse Classroom (unless we are in Finland where as we saw the required practice over years is a component now of what Global Citizenship is to come to mean). Think of how handy the rejection of facts, logic, lectures, and textbooks will be, as SDD uses ‘triggering questions’ (or what the related Understanding By Design or Backward Mapping call Essential Questions) to supposedly examine the roots and ‘deep drivers’ of messy, real world situations.

   # # #

   So there you have it. The madness of the COP21 crowds explained by the Structured Design Dialogue technique.

   Reply↓
3. Richard C (NZ) on 04/12/2015 at 9:08 am said:

   Also in WUWT comments above:

   richard verney December 3, 2015 at 8:08 am

   The Daily Telegraph are today carrying a related article on the problem of not thinking, ar being allowed to think, freely and independently. This article discusses the impact of this on Universities, and education.

   See: A refusal to think freely is making universities increasingly irrelevant
   http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/12030100/A-refusal-to-think-freely-is-making-universities-increasingly-irrelevant.html

   An insightful commenter (colin harrow) observed:

   “Today’s prevailing orthodoxies, which Orwell described as the body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question, is almost exclusively confined to the opinions and agenda of a metro-sexual, metropolitan, bien pensant liberal-left elite who have influence and power out of all proportion to their numbers.

   They have no democratic basis or mandate whatsoever for this agenda other than the self reinforcing opinons of their chattering class fellow liberals, and education, particularly higher education is one of their bastions.

   And when orthodoxy becomes dogma it so easily lends itself to authoritarianism, and that is precisely what appears to be currently happening in our universities.

   It is probably the greatest political oxy-moron of modern times that liberalism has created a new totalitarianism which is as bigoted and dogmatic as any previous extreme ideology of the left or right.

   Ain’t that the truth?

   Reply↓
4. Richard C (NZ) on 04/12/2015 at 9:37 am said:

   >”Obama’s vision” [ignoring the scientific madness for the moment]

   For President Obama to make good on his promise to stop the oceans from rising, he needs China’s Communist Party to agree to curb its CO2 emissions at the UN’s Climate Conference in Paris. This it will never do. China’s Communist Party knows that to stay in power – its highest priority – it must maintain the economic growth rates that have raised the incomes of much of its population and kept opposition at bay. Curbing fossil fuel use, China’s leaders understand, would dampen its already faltering growth and provide an existential threat to their rule. While they may talk a good game at the UN’s Paris talks, they will make no binding commitments to reduce C02. —Patricia Adams, Financial Post, 3 December 2015

   Hotlinked at source:
   http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/funding-row-threatens-paris-climate-deal-india-and-china-warn.html

   The other short articles in the CCD COP21 roundup at the same link are worth a look too, the title of which is:

   ‘Funding Row ‘Threatens Paris Climate Deal’, India And China Warn’

   Ah yes, “funding”.

   Reply↓
5. Richard Treadgold on 04/12/2015 at 9:57 am said:

   Richard C,

   An insightful commenter (colin harrow) observed:

   That is a superb insight. Thank you.

   Reply↓