I saw this and thought of you (via Roger Pielke Jr’s blog):

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/07/rahenau-institute-report-on-ipcc-and.html

Report is linked in the above (direct link here):
http://www.rathenau.nl/uploads/tx_tferathenau/Room_for_climate_debate.pdf

98 pages which I haven’d read yet.

Not fiction if we happen to live in a Godel Universe and we possess fast enough spacecraft. I checked this out with my grandmother only the other day and it is definitely true.

Here are the questions:
1. Peter Harper, Head of Research at the Centre for Alternative Technology “focussing on the changes people can make to their everyday lives, such as organic farming or environmentally friendly ways of running their homes” asked: “Do you think that some of the more fun stuff, we should do less of? I’m thinking of things like the moons of Saturn, the origins of humanity, even the mighty Higgs boson. Perhaps it’s time to stop doing that stuff or defer it until the 22nd century. Isn’t it time for all hands on deck?”

2. Dr Nick Thomas, principal scientist at one of the world’s biggest medical technology companies, asked: “Do you believe there’s a fundamental need to readdress the way science is funded? And if so, do we have to accept a compromise in individual survival if we reduce healthcare spending to the greater good for global survival?”

3. Lackie Mulville asked: “Is the survival of the maximum number of humans worth the environmental cost?”

4. Dr Simon Jones, principal lecturer in geography, asked about the proposed Severn barrage: “Would you agree that such proposals are cumulatively perhaps examples of destruction of the biosphere that inevitably will lead to human extinction? Are our chances with these things 50/50?”

5. Rod Dubrow-Marshall, a social psychologist “whose work focuses on how we can prevent such people unleashing their bio-terror on the planet” asked “Do you think our ultimate survival actually depends on the pooling of knowledge across science, the social sciences and humanities?”

6. Jenny Hainsworth-Lamb asked: “Hi there. I feel that we’re fed politically motivated, one-sided scientific opinions. Making informed decisions about the environment is difficult. To empower ordinary people to change, do you agree that it’s the responsibility of the scientific community to ensure that facts and balanced arguments are delivered in plain English?” and she added:
“I grow my own vegetables and I also, because I do an awful lot of driving in my professional career – I decided to keep bees to try and balance out the effect I was having on the environment”.

7. Nick Pidgeon, Professor of Environmental Psychology at Cardiff University, “currently investigating public attitudes towards climate change and energy resources” asked: “Your analysis points to the inescapable fact, in my view, that combating climate change will require a revolution in technology, in politics, and in our lifestyles on a scale not seen since the Second World War. Are the public and politicians ready for the scale of change that will be required here?”

It must be said that Sir Martin’s responses were mostly uncontroversial, and often interesting, thus deflecting attention away from the fact that the lunatics have taken over the asylum, and have learned to comport themselves with all the aplomb one expects from people who have taken charge of how we are to live for the next hundred years.

Including caring about the things Rees cares about, namely, the environment and avoiding some uncertain-about-the-details yet unanimously doom-laden future.

I don’t think Rees’ metaphorical alien would really give a damn about us beyond passively observing the scurryings of humans on their planet Earth, but Rees seems to think otherwise, or he wouldn’t be using it in place of What Would God Think?.

“And that golden calfs and aliens are merely a scoundrel’s stage props for bullying the submission of others to the conclusions of his own will.”

And all of it done in the name of our best interests.

“One day,” the eco-nobility [the "alphas" or "enlightened ones"] says to us eco-peasants, “you’ll thank us for doing all of this. Really, it was for your own good we did it. Have another Boca-burger.”

Rees uses his imaginary God substitute to let us know he is needy of a conclusion. In the sort of language any real alien (if they exist) might more readily associate with kindergarten, Rees asserts that either his will must reach a self-satisfying conclusion (ie, he must get his own way) or the world will conclude. To lend his demand meta-authority, he pulls his post-democratic alien friend out of the hat to dutifully nod in compliance.

The useful thing about aliens, of course, is that they are inhuman… which is probably why Rees has a preference for them over and above the human nature he rails against. Rees’s idealised fantasy visitor is presented as being curiously detached from all the supposed human mayhem witnessed beneath himself on Earth – like some extra-terrestrial snob – and we can wonder if this is because Rees has conjured him up as perfectly objective or perfectly neutered of all desire. The problem with reaching conclusions – as Rees’s alien might tell you, had he a voice of his own – is that it leaves one with nothing left to do except, perhaps, be a voyeur on the exciting lives of those who haven’t (or who find a value in refusing to).

God, of course, was the all-time grand saboteur of conclusions. Just when we believed we had reached one – or that one was within our grasp – God was good at popping up to remind us of just how small-minded and pompous our doomed ambitions were… of how there is an infinite universe of knowledge we could not possibly know (and perhaps never know). And that golden calfs and aliens are merely a scoundrel’s stage props for bullying the submission of others to the conclusions of his own will.

So international trade between rich and developing nations leads to prosperity, and is therefore nominally good. But how does this square with “travelling little”? Just as Henry Ford allowed his customers to choose any colour of car they liked, so long as it was black, it looks as though globalisation is wonderful, just as long as it doesn’t involve much travel, doesn’t involve meat-eating, doesn’t involve more than a tiny amount of CO2 generation and doesn’t involve the possibility of doing potentially unwise or dangerous things.

It all sounds just a little contradictory, but I think one way it might work, though, is with a two-tier system. The political, media and scientific elite – we could call them “enlightened ones” or “alphas”, maybe, would only need to be few in number (although they would need a larger support cadre – “betas”? – of admin people and technicians.) They would do the travelling, the technology transfer, the flying, the information gathering and information dissemination. The vast remainder of us (“gamma” through to “epsilon” categories, I suppose, would stay home, cultivate our beans and cabbages, live the low carbon life and be content with experiencing the rest of the world via our high-speed internet connections. The possibilities for terrorism and environmental damage would be curtailed, as so few people would travel (mainly the alphas and their staff); from the point of view of the elite, the world would be safe and at peace.

I’m curious – can anyone suggest another way in which the above contradictions could be resolved?

“With the cold objectivity possessed by aliens, Rees peers at us and our futures.”

Yet across the gulf of ideology… intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this untidy and riotous modern civilisation with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us…

(with my apologies to Mr Wells.)

He’s got a very strange definition of optimism here.