TUESDAY 1st December, 2015
Nils-Axel (‘Niklas’) Mörner
launching the Independent Committee on Geoethics
“When Science becomes disgraced,
it's time for a new Independent Committee on Geoethics”
The presentation follows
The Independent Committee on Geoethics
was founded October 17, 2015
the bylaws states:
We will speak up and “use the sword of truth”
when scientific facts, observational evidence and physical laws
are being set aside, and when geoethical principles are violated
Nils-Axel Mörner, Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Sweden – firstname.lastname@example.org
Believing is not good enough
It must be true
A note on the Independent Committee on Geoethics
The committee was founded on October 17, 2015.
The following basic document for its operation was decided.
The principles of ethics – to know what is right and what is wrong –
are simple. They are deeply rooted in our cultural heritage and
education and personal integrity. To live up to those principles is
another thing: here we often fail badly. The ethical principles that
refer to nature and natural sciences are covered by the term
We realize that ethical principles are often violated in Science as
well as in Society and Politics. Increasingly, in connection with
marketing and lobbying for large projects, ethical principles have
become set aside. Backbiting, ‘book-burning’, career blighting,
obstruction in publication and personal attacks have no place in
science, where physical laws and observational facts must always be
foremost. There are no goals that justify unfair means of fighting
Therefore, there is an urgent need for an Independent Committee
on Geoethics to promote ethical principles in the Earth and planetary
sciences and their correct reflection in social and political life.
We will formulate geoethical recommendations and work for their
wider acceptance and application in science.
We will speak up and “use the sword of truth” when scientific
facts, observational evidence and physical laws are being set aside,
and when geoethical principles are violated.
1. Keep to science
always being ready for new findings and concepts
2. Always anchor your ideas in observational facts
from nature and firm experiments
3. Beware of advocacy and lobbying
by or on behalf of special interest groups
4. Never let your opinion be influenced
by money, promotion, or easy publication.
Some relevant quotations:
Virtue is knowledge. What I don’t know, I don’t pretend I know.
Socrates (470-399 BC)
Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you.
Jesus Christ (~0–34 AD)
You have to read the book written by Mother Nature.
Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519)
False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science.
Charles Darwin (1809-1882)
Honorary president: Charles Darwin (1809-1882)
Steering Committee (alphabetic order): 12 members
Philip Foster (UK)
Ole Humlum (NO)
Madhav Khandekar (CA)
Franco Maranzana (IT)
Christopher Monckton (UK)
Patrick Moore (CA)
Nils-Axel Mörner (SE)
Joanne Nova (AU)
Niichi Nishiwaki (JP)
Leonello Serva (IT)
Roger Tattersall (UK)
One place vacant
at present 22
an unlimited number
Further organization to be established by the steering committee
special working-groups or teams to address special issues
the launching of an online journal
Charles Darwin, Geoethics and the illusion of CO2-driven global warming
Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm, Sweden, email@example.com
Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) insisted that we should first reading the book of Mother
Nature, and only subsequently read books written by man (see p. 144 and 175 in Planetary
Influence on the Sun and the Earth, and a Modern Book-Burning, Nova Sci. Publ., 2015). No
one has red the book of Mother Nature better than our honorary president Charles Darwin.
Besides, his words of 1871: false facts are highly injurious to the progress of science can
stand as a declaration for our new Independent Committee on Geoethics (founded on October
17, 2015, in Prague).
The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection (Darwin, 1858) – i.e. his theory of a
continual evolution of life throughout the Earths history – is proven correct by all means. We
may even say that those who deny this (i.e. the creationists) do not represent science,
progress and logics, but simple anti-scientific illusion (Fig. 1).
Similarly, those who insist that present climate changes are the function of CO2-driven
global warming place themselves in the same shameful box of anti-science (Fig. 1).
When all the 102 AGW-models of the IPCC rises diagonally upwards from 1977 to around
+1.0 °C by 2015 (i.e. today), the observational records remains fairly stable at about +0.2 °C
today. This means a total mismatch between models and observations. In this position, is
there on the whole any doubt what science must chose? – the observational facts, of course.
Like evolution, climate change is a natural process of our planetary environment.
Fig. 1. Science and anti-science:
Natural evolution and natural climate versus creationism and CO2-driven global warming.
(posted on http://geoethic.com)
A note on the IPCC project
It all started in the 70ies. At the UN Conference on Human Environment in
Stockholm 1972, Bert Bolin, a Swedish meteorologist, proposed that the rise in
atmospheric CO2 after the industrial revolution generated a rise in temperature,
which melted ice so that sea level rose. A simple and interesting proposal, which
should have been examined by normal scientific means. If this would have
happened, lots of complications and errors would have been discovered – and no
global climatic hysteria would have appeared.
But Bolin had an old school friend, which he played tennis with twice a week.
This man was Olof Palme, the Swedish Prime Minister. He badly wanted to
promote nuclear power and get away from the oil dependence. So, he took the
proposal to heart, and together with Bolin they developed the idea of an
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The idea was successfully planted
into the head of Gro Harlem Brundtland (Prime Minister of Norway), who in
”the Brundtland Report of 1987” proposed the establishment of an Intergovern-
mental Panel on Climate Change. The IPPC project was born, and Bolin became
its first chair-person.
In all its parts it is built on autocracy. This is quite typical for Olof Palme,
despite the fact that he was the leader of the Swedish social-democratic party.
The Montreal Protocol of 1987 which ”bound member states to act in the
interests of human safety even in the face of scientific uncertainty” became the
base of the project, and its ultimate objective was to "stabilize greenhouse gas
concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous
anthropogenic (i.e., human-induced) interference with the climate system".
Consequently, it seems that the answer was already set before the project
started (i.e. a priori). It must be remembered that, when we in the mid-80s
discussed the set up of the project, several of us object to the fact that the Sun
was totally ignored. To this, Bolin answered: This is a meteorological and
oceanographic project. The sun is purposely left out. If there, by any chance,
would be something that we still cannot explain, this might be solar effect.
Numerous persons became engaged in the project. It is true, however, that
several of the chapters were not at all written by scientific experts on the various
subject, but rather by loyal colleagues who wrote what they were supposed to
write (i.e. collaborators).
This is, of course, to violate the geoethical principles clearly demanding that
we must build up such a project on true scientific expertise. Observational facts
and physical laws must never be ignored or set aside just because they contradict
a model. Real experts must be placed in the centre. The choice of collaborators,
and the feeding of them with benefits surely badly violate geoethics. We have
now passed several Assessment Reports, but the quality has hardly improved in
any significant way. It seems significant that in time for every new international
climate meeting (now COP21 in Paris), there appear of large number of papers
competing in promoting worse and worse horror scenaria for the future.