Finally somebody comes right out and says it: climate + world governance is a match made in green heaven

Manhattan Beach, USA

Protesting for world climate governance - Manhattan Beach, USA (Photo credit: 350.org)

To be effective, a new set of institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational enforcement powers.

Skeptics get scoffed at when we say the burdensome regulations that have been and have been sought to be imposed by the alarm over global warming are just a tool to secure a larger governance control. In today’s society, if you control how energy is generated, used, and tax, you pretty much control the modern world. People will do almost anything to keep that computer, iPhone, and electric heat and appliances.

Now in Scientific American, one writer just lays it all out for us to see, pulling no punches.

Effective World Government Will Be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe

Almost six years ago, I was the editor of a single-topic issue on energy for Scientific American that included an article by Princeton University’s Robert Socolow that set out a well-reasoned plan for how to keep atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations below a planet-livable threshold of 560 ppm.

If I had it to do over, I’d approach the issue planning differently, my fellow editors permitting. I would scale back on the nuclear fusion and clean coal, instead devoting at least half of the available space for feature articles on psychology, sociology, economics and political science. Since doing that issue, I’ve come to the conclusion that the technical details are the easy part. It’s the social engineering that’s the killer. Moon shots and Manhattan Projects are child’s play compared to needed changes in the way we behave.

Unfortunately, far more is needed. To be effective, a new set of institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational enforcement powers. There would have to be consideration of some way of embracing head-in-the-cloud answers to social problems that are usually dismissed by policymakers as academic naivete. In principle, species-wide alteration in basic human behaviors would be a sine qua non, but that kind of pronouncement also profoundly strains credibility in the chaos of the political sphere. Some of the things that would need to be contemplated: How do we overcome our hard-wired tendency to “discount” the future: valuing what we have today more than what we might receive tomorrow? Would any institution be capable of instilling a permanent crisis mentality lasting decades, if not centuries? How do we create new institutions with enforcement powers way beyond the current mandate of the U.N.? Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?

Read it all here

About these ads

206 thoughts on “Finally somebody comes right out and says it: climate + world governance is a match made in green heaven

  1. No matter what the UN does, or attempts to do, China, India and Brazil will just keep on chugging along and spewing who knows what into the atmosphere. And everyone knows it.

  2. Are the reeducation camps and the Ministry of Truth big enough? Forced marches, Jack booted green enforcers and so called western democratic governments lining up to sign up for this. YES, Obama, the EU collective and the present government in Australia immediately comes to mind. The trouble is extreme left or right wing governments are as hard on the people as each other. and the right to live a peaceful life should be sacrosanct. When will we learn that governing from the center is always the best option for mankind, warts and all!!!!!

  3. I think I ended my subscription with them in 2006 or 2007. I started referring to them as “Scientific” American but I guess these days they have devolved to Scientific “American”.

    It’s sad as it was a pretty fine science magazine back in the day.

  4. I just got back from the beach. It’s still there. No Star Trek universe transnational government needed to sweep back the sea level rise because there hasn’t been any since I started going there 50 years ago.

  5. “I’ve come to the conclusion that the technical details are the easy part. It’s the social engineering that’s the killer.”

    Was that an intended pun? Social engineering is indeed the “killer”! Haven’t we already been down that road with Stalin, Mao, and Hitler? Putting politicians in charge of enforcing “science” is never a good idea. At best, it will end up forcing science into the dark ages to preserve the status quo. And, at worst, it will end up in mass slaughter.

  6. Stix really believes this. That’s scary. On the other hand, he’s so in love with his notion that he has lost any sense of proportion, which makes his advocacy much less credible. That tends to happen to people who have tuned out any fact or argument that might weaken their belief or put them to real intellectual effort. True believers self-destruct.

  7. A perfect explanation of why we are bitter and want to cling to our guns.
    [some words in the above have been borrowed from Barack Obama]

  8. “Would any institution be capable of instilling a permanent crisis mentality lasting decades, if not centuries?”
    ——————————————————————————————————————

    Yes, Oceania comes to mind. The author of this can find his blueprint in “1984”.

  9. When you have scientists, professors, and the media all clamoring to establish a world government to protect the climate, it spells trouble. Now all that is needed is a powerful religious figure to add to the chorus. Oh wait, that’s already happened:

    “…the protection of the environment, of resources and of the climate obliges all international leaders to act jointly…”
    “…to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority…”
    — POPE BENEDICT XVI,Jul 6, 2009, Charity in Truth

  10. I thought journalists were trained to think critically:

    Gary Stix commissions, writes, and edits features, news articles and Web blogs for Scientific American. His area of coverage is neuroscience. He also has frequently been the issue or section editor for special issues or reports on topics ranging from nanotechnology to obesity. He has worked for nearly 20 years at Scientific American, following three years as a science journalist at IEEE Spectrum, the flagship publication for the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. He has an undergraduate degree in journalism from New York University. With his wife, he wrote a general primer on technology called Who Gives a Gigabyte?”

    http://worldsciencefestival.com/participants/gary_stix

    WUWT?

  11. Gary Stix is the author and I can find no further qualifications other than ‘journalist and author’. This apparently is enough to qualify to be Senior editor at SA.

    I am still steaming at this gibberish. Another screwy offering from our Sydney Morning Herald, that attempts to demolish sceptics, Heartland, the Galileo Movement, and then has the cheek to say we need to prioritise science over politics. All this from a lecturer in public policy and politics and whose doctoral thesis examined the role of neo-liberal ideology in Australia.

    I note the SA article produced a backlash in comments, deservedly so.

  12. “It’s the social engineering that’s the killer. ”

    True on so many levels. And a killer quote.

  13. Nice to know he is looking out for our best interests. /sarc

    But may I ask, what ever happened to global warming?

  14. Remember, this is ALL based on 0.7 degrees C warming over the last 150+ years, and a bunch of computer models programmed by advocates. The “Age of Information” has becime the “Age of Disinformation,” and we are all the poorer for it…

  15. In two years time we will cross the psychological threshold of 400 ppmv in CO2
    and only a meager 160 ppm increase is left until the Day of Reckoning, when
    Earth will be unlivable……
    I like to buy some real estate where the future world government will reside …..
    …….Geneva is already expensive, I prefer Kasachstan or Turcmenistan (places with
    an …stan on end) but another good place for me would be Micronesia, there are
    good solid atolls about….Each visitor has to bring a bag of sand as sustainable
    contribution as 20 kilos suitcase …..
    JS

  16. Excerpt below, from an article written by Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace.

    Please note that this article was written by Moore in 1994.

    The Berlin Wall fell on November 9, 1989.

    The Earth Summit in Rio occurred just 2 1/2 years later, in June 1992.

    Twenty three years after the Fall of the Wall…

    So comrades, come rally
    And the last fight let us face
    The Internationale (and Global Warming) unites the human race.
    So comrades, come rally
    And the last fight let us face
    The Internationale (and Global Warming) unites the human race.

    :-)
    ___________________________________________________________

    http://www.greenspirit.com/key_issues/the_log.cfm?booknum=12&page=3

    The Rise of Eco-Extremism

    Two profound events triggered the split between those advocating a pragmatic or “liberal” approach to ecology and the new “zero-tolerance” attitude of the extremists. The first event, mentioned previously, was the widespread adoption of the environmental agenda by the mainstream of business and government. This left environmentalists with the choice of either being drawn into collaboration with their former “enemies” or of taking ever more extreme positions. Many environmentalists chose the latter route. They rejected the concept of “sustainable development” and took a strong “anti-development” stance.

    Surprisingly enough the second event that caused the environmental movement to veer to the left was the fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.

    These factors have contributed to a new variant of the environmental movement that is so extreme that many people, including myself, believe its agenda is a greater threat to the global environment than that posed by mainstream society. Some of the features of eco-extremism are:

    • It is anti-human. The human species is characterized as a “cancer” on the face of the earth. The extremists perpetuate the belief that all human activity is negative whereas the rest of nature is good. This results in alienation from nature and subverts the most important lesson of ecology; that we are all part of nature and interdependent with it. This aspect of environmental extremism leads to disdain and disrespect for fellow humans and the belief that it would be “good” if a disease such as AIDS were to wipe out most of the population.

    • It is anti-technology and anti-science. Eco-extremists dream of returning to some kind of technologically primitive society. Horse-logging is the only kind of forestry they can fully support. All large machines are seen as inherently destructive and “unnatural’. The Sierra Club’s recent book, “Clearcut: the Tragedy of Industrial Forestry”, is an excellent example of this perspective. “Western industrial society” is rejected in its entirety as is nearly every known forestry system including shelterwood, seed tree and small group selection. The word “Nature” is capitalized every time it is used and we are encouraged to “find our place” in the world through “shamanic journeying” and “swaying with the trees”. Science is invoked only as a means of justifying the adoption of beliefs that have no basis in science to begin with.

    • It is anti-organization. Environmental extremists tend to expect the whole world to adopt anarchism as the model for individual behavior. This is expressed in their dislike of national governments, multinational corporations, and large institutions of all kinds. It would seem that this critique applies to all organizations except the environmental movement itself. Corporations are criticized for taking profits made in one country and investing them in other countries, this being proof that they have no “allegiance” to local communities. Where is the international environmental movements allegiance to local communities? How much of the money raised in the name of aboriginal peoples has been distributed to them? How much is dedicated to helping loggers thrown out of work by environmental campaigns? How much to research silvicultural systems that are environmentally and economically superior?

    • It is anti-trade. Eco-extremists are not only opposed to “free trade” but to international trade in general. This is based on the belief that each “bioregion” should be self-sufficient in all its material needs. If it’s too cold to grow bananas – – too bad. Certainly anyone who studies ecology comes to realize the importance of natural geographic units such as watersheds, islands, and estuaries. As foolish as it is to ignore ecosystems it is absurd to put fences around them as if they were independent of their neighbours. In its extreme version, bioregionalism is just another form of ultra-nationalism and gives rise to the same excesses of intolerance and xenophobia.

    • It is anti-free enterprise. Despite the fact that communism and state socialism has failed, eco-extremists are basically anti-business. They dislike “competition” and are definitely opposed to profits. Anyone engaging in private business, particularly if they are successful, is characterized as greedy and lacking in morality. The extremists do not seem to find it necessary to put forward an alternative system of organization that would prove efficient at meeting the material needs of society. They are content to set themselves up as the critics of international free enterprise while offering nothing but idealistic platitudes in its place.

    • It is anti-democratic. This is perhaps the most dangerous aspect of radical environmentalism. The very foundation of our society, liberal representative democracy, is rejected as being too “human-centered”. In the name of “speaking for the trees and other species” we are faced with a movement that would usher in an era of eco-fascism. The “planetary police” would “answer to no one but Mother Earth herself”.

    • It is basically anti-civilization. In its essence, eco-extremism rejects virtually everything about modern life. We are told that nothing short of returning to primitive tribal society can save the earth from ecological collapse. No more cities, no more airplanes, no more polyester suits. It is a naive vision of a return to the Garden of Eden.

    ***************

  17. No doubt Gary Stix would readily volunteer (and expect) to be one of the architects of the social change and hence would not be subject to the ‘radical solutions on the social side’.

    As with most people who advocate radical changes to society, they are not willing to be the first in line. Euthanasia/suicide is available to those who wish for a smaller population but they don’t line up to start the process. Those that want more control over resources don’t seem to want to limit their own use and even argue that they need to fly around the world to deliver their message without acknowledging the hypocrisy of doing so (Al, put your hand up).

    ‘Would any institution be capable of instilling a permanent crisis mentality lasting decades, if not centuries?’ – As Louis points out – YES! Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler – insert your own crazy, freedom-hating, megalomanic dictator here.

    ‘Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?’ – Stix needs to look in the mirror when asking this as he is sounding like the very thing he is asking about.

  18. The Green Movement’s True Colors: green on the outside and red on the inside.
    Watermelons as James Dellingpole calls them.

  19. World Science Festival: Gary Stix: Senior Editor, Scientific American
    Gary Stix commissions, writes, and edits features, news articles and Web blogs for Scientific American. His area of coverage is neuroscience. He also has frequently been the issue or section editor for special issues or reports on topics ranging from nanotechnology to obesity. He has worked for nearly 20 years at Scientific American, following three years as a science journalist at IEEE Spectrum, the flagship publication for the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. He has an undergraduate degree in journalism from New York University. With his wife, he wrote a general primer on technology called Who Gives a Gigabyte?

    http://worldsciencefestival.com/participants/gary_stix

    for those able to listen to BBC, which it seems is possible at this link.
    this program, along the same lines as Stix, was on BBC World Sce Business programe last nite. listening to BBC’s Peter Day encourage/contribute to this nonsense is painful. it would seem we are in a new phase of CAGW PR:

    BBC World Service: Global Business with Peter Day
    Peter Day hears from Alan Moore author of No Straight Lines: making sense of our non-linear world and asks him ‘what next’ for the industrialised world.
    In his book he argues that the industrialised world is facing the combined problems of social, organisational and economic complexity.
    In this edition of Global Business he tells Peter Day how No Straight Lines interprets the disruptive trends shaping our world and how companies can address the challenges and move onwards and upwards.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00ph35n/Global_Business_No_Straight_Lines/

  20. “Would any institution be capable of instilling a permanent crisis mentality lasting decades, if not centuries?”

    Eh…you mean like fire, brimstone, fear of an apocalypse.

    or

    Fighting sabateurs, splittists, deviantists, reactionaries, counter-revolutionaries.

    or

    Blaming all the failures of your utopia on an often vulnerable or arbitrary minority[, or deniers,] or the 1%.

    NOTE: I made an edit in [brackets] since your wording might push some buttons like what happened on the other thread – Anthony

  21. “Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?”

    As the saying goes, that’s not a bug, that’s a Feature!

  22. It only took this cluck 30 years to figure this out. It has been the plan all along. It’s why arguing the science with these creeps from the UN has always been pointless. “Climate Science” has always been just the magician’s buxom, scantily clad assistant flouncing about the stage to distract the pigeons from from what is really happening. It’s why the focus for Rio has moved from the climate catastrophe loser to the even more ephemeral and ambiguous “Sustainability” which can be manipulated to justify almost anything they care to attempt. This stuff has been obvious from before the time when they got around to publishing Agenda 21, although if wanted to know about it you were always on your own because all those hard working “investigative journalists” couldn’t be bothered to do a simple Google search.

  23. Everyday my faith in humankind seems to drop a little lower… :(

    We have fought wars against tyranny, fascism, communism, slavery, racism and encroachment of freedom. What is wrong with us now? Why are we so unwilling to stand against this brainless nonsense and its blatant power grab? Can we really not see that this is a battle we must fight for our sakes as well as the future of our children?

  24. AJB –
    thee Guardian article by Biermann and Bernstein mentions the ICSU-sponsored Planet Under Pressure conference in London later this month. here is a partial list of Plenary Speakers & Panelists:

    Planet Under Pressure 2012
    26-29 March 2012 London
    Plenary Speakers and Panelists
    John Beddington
    UK Chief Scientific Advisor
    Jeremy Bentham
    Royal Dutch Shell plc
    Frank Biermann
    VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Richard Black
    BBC
    Yvo de Boer
    KPMG, The Netherlands
    Georgina Mace
    Imperial College London, UK
    Lord Martin Rees
    Past President, The Royal Society, UK
    Mark Stafford-Smith
    CSIRO, Australia
    Will Steffen
    Australian National University, Australia
    Achim Steiner
    United Nations Environment Programme
    Sir Bob Watson
    Department of Environment and Rural Affairs and University of East Anglia, UK, on behalf of the Blue Planet Laureates

    http://www.planetunderpressure2012.net/

    think Rio.

  25. CLIMATEGATE EMAILS
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Climategate Email 0889554019.txt 10 Mar 1998
    From: Anne JOHNSON
    To: [multiple agencies]
    Subject: new IPCC-SRES Zero Order Draft

    http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0889554019.txt&search=governance

    […]
    Zero Order Draft
    IS99 Storylines and Scenarios
    February, 1998
    Ged Davis et al
    For Comment Only
    Draft Paper for the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios
    […]
    1.1 What are scenarios?
    Scenarios are pertinent, plausible, alternative futures.
    […]
    The scenarios we have built explore two main questions for the 21st
    century, neither of which we know the answer to:
    – Can adequate governance — institutions and agreements — be put in place
    to manage global problems?
    – Will society’s values focus more on enhancing material wealth or be more
    broadly balanced, incorporating environmental health and social well-being.
    The way we answer these questions leads to four families of scenarios:
    – Golden Economic Age (A1): a century of expanded economic prosperity with
    the emergence of global governance.
    […]
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Climategate Email 1265.txt 21 Nov 2000
    from: “Institute for Global Futures Research (IGFR)”
    subject: Global Futures Bulletin #118
    to: (Recipient list suppressed)

    http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1265.txt&search=democr

    REVOLUTION (PART 3/3)

    REACTIONARY RESPONSE TO A NEW REVOLUTION
    In considering the possibility of a major political revolution, it is
    necessary to consider the prospect of a counter-revolutionary
    response. To what extent are conscious, coherent and possibly
    centralised agencies working to derail the growing revolutionary
    movement ? Afterall, the future of capitalism may be at stake.

    It is likely that a majority of those engaged in the proto-revolution are
    seeking major reforms of capitalism rather than the overthrow of
    capitalism. This is because alternatives to the current capitalist world
    system have not been clearly articulated (unlike with previous Marxist
    revolutionary movements). Also, disillusionment with experiments in
    state socialism in the Soviet Union and China is still strong.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Climategate Email 2919.txt Apr 19 2001
    from: Mike Hulme
    subject: Re: Cross section of climate opinions
    to: “Simon Torok”

    http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=2919.txt&search=democratic

    […]
    Our late 20th century democratic process however is not well suited to
    finding and implementing solutions to very (in political terms) long-term
    problems such as climate change management.
    […]
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    IPCC OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    IPCC-SRES
    Emissions Scenarios

    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/emission/index.php?idp=91

    4.2. SRES Scenario Taxonomy
    4.2.1. Storylines
    […]
    The writing team spent the better part of the first year (1997) formulating the storylines…
    […]
    Box 4-2: “Neutrality” of the SRES Scenarios The SRES scenarios are intended to exclude catastrophic futures. Such catastrophic futures feature prominently in the literature. They typically involve large-scale environmental or economic collapses, and extrapolate current unfavorable conditions and trends in many regions. Prominent examples of such scenarios include … “A Passive Mean World” (Glenn and Gordon, 1997, 1999). In this last scenario the world is carved up into three rigid and distinct trading blocs, with fragmented political boundaries and out-of-control ethnic conflicts.
    […]
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    A “world…carved up into three rigid and distinct trading blocs” you mean like Orwell’s 1984?

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    […]

    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/emission/index.php?idp=93

    4.3.1. A1 Storyline and Scenario Family
    […]
    In the A1 scenario family, demographic and economic trends are closely linked, as affluence is correlated with long life and small families (low mortality and low fertility). Global population grows to some nine billion by 2050 and declines to about seven billion by 2100.
    […]
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Where the hell did two billion people go in the space of fifty years!!!?

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    4.3.3. B1 Storyline and Scenario Family

    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/emission/index.php?idp=94

    The central elements of the B1 future are a high level of environmental and social consciousness combined with a globally coherent approach to a more sustainable development.
    […]
    The “Ecologically Driven” scenarios by WEC (1993) and IIASA-WEC (Nakic?enovic? et al., 1998) – with accelerated efficiency improvements in resource use – share several of the characteristics of the B1 type of future, as does the egalitarian utopia scenario in the TARGETS approach (Rotmans and de Vries, 1997).
    […]
    A strong welfare net prevents social exclusion on the basis of poverty. However, counter-currents may develop and in some places people may not conform to the main social and environmental intentions of the mainstream in this scenario family.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    “Counter-currents may develop and…people may not conform” -you can count on it.

  26. Carlos says:
    This is fascism, plain and simple.

    Yes. And it makes you wonder why anyone in the free world would desire to live in such a society. Why would they want to give up freedom so easily to a dictator they can only hope is benevolent? Only the ruling class could be happy in their “utopia.” Then it dawned on me. These people don’t expect to live in such a society; they plan to rule over it.

  27. Send the little Hitler round to my place and I’ll give him a damn good thrashing to re-educate him and demonstrate the humanity of the totalitarian “utopia” he seems to think can exist.

    Unlike facists of his ilk I promise not to extract the extreme penalty.

  28. “Some of the things that would need to be contemplated: How do we overcome our hard-wired tendency to “discount” the future: valuing what we have today more than what we might receive tomorrow?”

    Hmm. I guess the old saying will become “a bird in the hand is worth 0.61523 in the bush.” And I suppose hookers will no longer want the money up front. Hey, maybe I can tell the tax man to wait for his money! This has possibilities… :-)

  29. Send the little Hitler round to my place and I’ll give him a damn good thrashing – simply to demonstrate how totalitarian regimes function you understand !

    These people are a joke – how do they intend to decide who dies and when the genocide is necessary??

    How do they live with themselves ??

    [Moderator’s Note: they both got caught in the spam filter. Patience is good. Sometimes repetition is worthwhile. -REP]

  30. Second Amendment – Bearing Arms

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
    ===================
    “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.”
    Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II

  31. It would be enlightening to know just what position Gary Stix sees himself holding in such a new order.

  32. But, but, I thought it was you climate skeptic guys working to establish world government.

    After all at the moment there is no real incentive to establish a world government. Everything is peaceful and happy the way things are.

    To establish a world government is going to take a multinational crisis to occur. The most likely crisis is severe, damaging and obvious climate change requiring draconian measures.

    This is most likely to be the situation if action is left til the last minute.

    So what kind of world government are you guys aiming for?

  33. stop it before they’ve looted our last dollar…

    19 March: Daily Mail: Tom Leonard: Broken down and rusting, is this the future of Britain’s ‘wind rush’?
    Broken promises: The rusting wind turbines of Hawaii
    A breathtaking sight awaits those who travel to the southernmost tip of Hawaii’s stunningly beautiful Big Island, though it’s not in any guidebook. On a 100-acre site, where cattle wander past broken ‘Keep Out’ signs, stand the rusting skeletons of scores of wind turbines.
    Just a short walk from where endangered monk seals and Hawksbill turtles can be found on an unspoilt sandy beach, a technology that is supposed to be about saving the environment is instead ruining it…
    Yet the 27-year-old Kamaoa Wind Farm remains a relic of the boom and inglorious bust of America’s so-called ‘wind rush’, the world’s first major experiment in wind energy.
    At a time when the EU and the British Government are fully paid-up evangelists for wind power, the lesson from America — and the ghostly hulks on this far-flung coast — should be a warning of their folly…
    But most importantly for the scrum of investors who were thrusting their snouts into the trough, there was the extraordinary generosity of the government.
    Between 1981 and 1985, federal and state subsidies in California were so favourable that investors could recover 50 per cent of the cost of a wind turbine.
    Even better, the amount they were paid for their electricity was tied to the price of oil, which had shot through the roof…
    Not to put too fine a point on it, for some wind energy investors it was simply a tax scam.
    But as tends to happen with a business that is driven by financial incentives, it lasted only as long as the subsidies…

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2116877/Is-future-Britains-wind-rush.html

  34. Lunacy, these people really don’t get it – they actually need to offer something now apart from a Jack boot or whatever the Marxist equivalent of one is. Consider what would have happened if these bozos were in charge of the problem of removing waste pollution problems related to horses prior to the introduction of the motor car – instead of ending up with motor cars we’d still be trying to get people to use their horses less.
    Two years ago, nobody used a tablet for anything, now practically eveyone is using them.
    20 years ago nobody used mobile phones and barely anyone had heard of the internet.
    30 years ago barely anyone used PCs
    Behaviour change is easy when you have something atractive on offer, but impossible if you want to treat people like morons.

  35. The political aspect of AGW has always been crystal clear. The left likes where it takes us and the right does not. In my experience, most of the non-scientific proponents and skeptics (present company excepted) don’t know beans about the truth or fiction of the science involved and do not care. That’s the fundamental nature of politics and should surprise no one. The tragedy from which we may be a long time recovering is the wholesale corruption of large segments of the scientific community by vested financial and professional interest (no mystery there and its an old, old story) and by the infusion of political motives. The politically driven corruption of large segments of the scientific community is a relatively recent (over past 30 years) development from my observation and has its roots in “environmentalism as a religion” movement where “good” is an article of faith and whatever means are required to achieve that good are justified.

    We may be witnessing the passing of “The Age of Reason”.

  36. Apart from the Lenin-esque type of language …. indeed lets alter society for soem defined greater good …… we all know how that worked out last time !!

    But this sentence really got me : “How do we overcome our hard-wired tendency to “discount” the future: valuing what we have today more than what we might receive tomorrow?”

    Overturing centuries of basic economic principles ….. !! Such complete and utter socio- bollocks.

  37. A little bit of this and a tad more of that. Then we can end climate change. Vote for him, not her, and we can end climate change.

    It is so simple, why didn’t we think of that?

  38. “Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?”
    —————————————–
    Stix would happily be just that dictator. If not him, another would surely rise to assume that role.

    The greens are a scary lot!

  39. “LazyTeenager says:
    March 18, 2012 at 11:29 pm

    The most likely crisis is severe, damaging and obvious climate change requiring draconian measures.”

    Tell that to the millions of hungry people in East Africa. Their hunger is nothing to do with “damaging and obvious climate change” but the pure greed and corrupt Govnt and authorities. Sorry to use bad language, but you really are an idiot!

  40. I subscribed to Scientific American from the mid-1970s until sometime in around 1990. SA was a thick magazines full of wide-ranging information, from mathematics through biology and physics to engineering topics. There were occasional special editions that were absolute treasure troves on special topics. There was no better way to gain a general idea of what was happening across the entire technical and scientific world.

    Sometime around 1990 (plus/minus a year or two), they must’ve had a new editorial team or something. The size of the magazine dropped by half, lots more attention was paid to making the layout “pretty”, and the articles began to lose substance and started to get preachy, with “green” and “progressive” rants masquerading as technical articles. I gave them a year or so (and a couple of letters to the editor) to sort it out. They didn’t, so I cancelled my subscription. That’s more than 20 years back.

    Since then, I’ve seen the occasional issue lying around, and flipped through it. There’s almost nothing left. Superficial reporting, political bias, no sign of what was once a real resource to people interested in mathematics and science. It’s just another glossy, content-free decoration on the newsstand. Right next to Cosmo, where it (unfortunately) belongs.

  41. The age of reason. The age of reason is tied the scientific method.

    This seems so easy, they tell us that temperature of the world is a simple linear relationship with the CO2. Case closed.

    Don’t we know that unvalidated, unverified, currently falsified computer models with assumed boundary condidtions is not scientific?

    I will repeat. Unvalidated, unverified, currently falsified computer models with assumed boundary condidtions of partial differential equations of a chaotic system is not science!

  42. @Louis says:
    March 18, 2012 at 9:20 pm

    “I’ve come to the conclusion that the technical details are the easy part. It’s the social engineering that’s the killer.”

    Was that an intended pun? Social engineering is indeed the “killer”! Haven’t we already been down that road with Stalin, Mao, and Hitler?
    ———————————————————————————————————————
    Rudyard Kipling – 1919
    The Gods of the Copybook Headings

    …As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
    There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
    That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
    And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

    And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
    When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
    As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
    The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

  43. This guy talks of preventing his international organisations falling into the hands of a malevolent dictator. He does not realise that benevolent committees will do terrible harm to the people of the Earth if they think the cause is worth the suffering. The road to Hell etc…

  44. In the UK whch is already largely governed by the ‘transnational’ European Union, the Association of Chief Police Officers produced a report in 2009 entitled The Carbon Cost of Crime and it’s Implications. It unquestionably accepts the views of the IPCC, the UN, Stern and Daly, concluding that: “There is now emergent scientific consensus that the consequences, particularly the climate implications, of current energy profligacy, are apocalyptic.”

    There is a sinister implication that crime is more serious the larger it’s carbon footprint, as the report gives estimates for the carbon costs of different crimes, with the total being:
    “The report tentatively and conservatively estimates the carbon cost of crime in England and Wales at an annual minimum of 6000000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent. Estimates up to six times that amount could be justified…”

    The report includes the following sentence:
    “Breathing is another activity bearing a carbon cost. Until an acceptable means of breathing less is devised, there is little ethical scope for thinking of breath reduction as a means of reducing one’s carbon footprint.”

    http://www.designforsecurity.org/uploads/files/Carbon_Cost_Crime_260410.pdf

  45. Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?

    Yes, we could. By not granting such powers to any organization ever. Hell-loo. Electorate? Constitution? Checks and Balances? Anyone?

    Know your world history. The worst catastrophes by far were brought over governments gone berserk in each and every case, starting with Justinian or even earlier.

  46. Some people have a kneejerk reaction to the prospect of a world government just like some people have a kneejerk reaction to nuclear power, a world government is nothing to be frightened of, it’s a natural progression. Most countries like USA and Australia and UK etc started out as seperate states that then united under a central government for the common good, the next step is for the countries then to unite under a central(or world) government for the common good, it will be elected just like our governments are, it’ll swing between being a government of the left persuasion to one of a right persuasion just as it happens now in all democratic countries. As I say, it’s a natural progression and is nothing to fear.

  47. Truthseeker says:
    March 18, 2012 at 9:58 pm

    I think that the UN is already trying to make this happen through international legistlation …

    http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/EPLP-031-rev3.pdf

    I am not fluent enough in legal-speak to be sure how binding this will be on sovereign states …
    ===========================================================================
    Truthseeker, this might help explain it –

    http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/proposed-un-environmental-constitution-for-the-world-would-establish-an-incredibly-repressive-system-of-global-governance

  48. Anthony took the words out of my mouth after I read the title:

    Skeptics get scoffed at when we say the burdensome regulations that have been and have been sought to be imposed by the alarm over global warming are just a tool to secure a larger governance control.

    For years commenters on WUWT and other sites sounded to me a little paranoid. But as time went on I began to see light. The more power these loons got the more they wanted and I could see they really did want to use Co2 as a proxy to gain global government powers. Nothing surprises me any more and we must re-double our efforts before these scam artists get what they want. Pay heed impartial observers and lukewarmers – don’t say you didn’t see it coming.

    “Effective World Government Will Be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe”
    ………………………….
    “To be effective, a new set of institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational enforcement powers.”
    ………………………….
    “How do we create new institutions with enforcement powers way beyond the current mandate of the U.N.? Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?”

    As they say the Devil is in the detail.

    Cat’s eyes, drugged meat, world government, adjusting past temperatures, making scary stuff up condoning liars and law breakers: where do they draw the line?

  49. I used to relish receiving issues of Scientific American. I still recall with pleasure articles such as The Arrow of Time, The Quantum Mechanics of Black Holes, and a marvelous issue devoted solely to the Earth’s biological wonders. I was a subscriber to Scientific American up until the late 1970’s (as best I can recall). About then they began publishing articles on nuclear warfare and its dire implications for humanity. As it happened I agreed largely with the articles, but I knew deep down that they had crossed the line between observation and advocacy. The articles would have been fair game for, say, Foreign Affairs. But they were a sad and fierce departure for this fine old magazine. I still catch an issue from time to time, and there is always something there that confirms why I let them go: Scientific American is neither.

  50. Tolerance of the intolerable….. What are we gonna do guys? They are not going to stop. Why should they? They have our money. They control most of the media. They school our children or set the curriculum. They can turn fiction into fact. They can change the law….. and they will lie to your face while they do it.

    This guy pretty much reflects the general mindset of anyone that works within the unelected bureaucracy. They have a vast conceit as to their purpose and huge contempt for the common people they were meant to serve. They have become a vast parasitical Socialist apparatus which now sits at the crossroads of serving the Free citizens of Western Democracy, or enslaving them…… and they are most certainly sending us broke.

  51. I originally saw this article in a different thread
    David Spurgeon says:
    March 18, 2012 at 4:39 pm

    Is this what the Professor and his ilk really want?

    Effective World Government Will Be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe

    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/03/17/effective-world-government-will-still-be-needed-to-stave-off-climate-catastrophe/

    _____________________________________________
    Yes CAGW has always been about world government. You can trace it back to the first U.N. Earth Summit in 1972 and the Chairman Maurice Strong. Strong is also a member of the U.N. Commission on Global Governance. Ain’t that a stunning coincidence.

    Strong makes it very clear that he is using CAGW and Environmentalism to promote “Global Governance.

    Quotes from Strong:
    “The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security.” -Maurice Strong at the 1992 Earth Summit.

    “If we don’t change, our species will not survive… Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.” -Maurice Strong quoted in the September 1, 1997 edition of National Review magazine.

    “[The Earth Summit will play an important role in] reforming and strengthening the United Nations as the centerpiece of the emerging system of democratic global governance.” -Maurice Strong quoted in the September 1, 1997 edition of National Review magazine.

    Dr David M.W. Evans on his guest post at Jo Nova’s site brings up how close we came to dodging the bullet of a de facto world government.

    The Copenhagen Treaty was an Attempted Coup

    Nearly all the world leaders met in Copenhagen in late 2009, expecting to sign the “Copenhagen Treaty” to limit CO2 emissions. But China and India torpedoed the negotiations, saying more research was needed to establish whether warming is manmade and refusing to commit to any quantified emissions reduction targets. [xiii] The much weaker “Copenhagen Accord” [xiv] was signed instead.

    The draft Copenhagen Treaty is still available in a few corners of the Internet.[xv] It is 181 pages of dense, convoluted, bureaucratic language, slow and difficult to read. The draft contains options and blanks to be filled in. Nonetheless, it is clear enough.

    The Treaty would have set up a new bureaucracy with the power to regulate CO2 emissions worldwide, able to regulate any market, over-riding national governments as required.[xvi] It could also fine and tax any signatory government.[xvii] In the hands of a judge from the regulating class, it could be interpreted to give this new global bureaucracy the power to tax every signatory nation and regulate its energy use almost completely—just look at how the US Constitution has been extended by interpretation over the years, and that’s a much clearer document. A hint in the Treaty could become the basis for a full blown mechanism to do almost anything the bureaucrats wished.

    From experience with the monotonic growth of centralized power in federations of states, such as the United States or Australia, it is almost inevitable that within a few decades this new body would be parlayed up into a strong global bureaucracy regulating more than just CO2 emissions…..

    One only has to look at the European Union to see how a “Trade Treaty” has grown into an overarching government. As Richard Henley Davis puts it: The threat of Europe taking over the British democratic process comes a bit late as we are already in a democratic system where Parliament is as impotent as a neutered dog…. Parliament is little more than the rubber stamp for European policies seeing as 80% of our laws are now decided by the EU.

    And then listen to the current Director-General of the World Trade Organization (WTO), Pascal Lamy, salivate over the thought of Global Governance

    …If there is one place on earth where new forms of global governance have been tested since the Second World War, it is in Europe. European integration is the most ambitious supranational governance experience ever undertaken. It is the story of interdependence desired, defined, and organized by the Member States. In no respect is the work complete—neither geographically nor in terms of depth (i.e., the powers conferred by the Member States to the E.U.), nor, obviously, in terms of identity….

    Perhaps the most terrifying thing is how the newest “governing body” the World Trade Organization, actually works.

    ….Under the secretive WTO rules, countries can challenge another’s laws for restricting their trade. The case is then heard by a tribunal or court of three trade bureaucrats. They are usually influential corporate lawyers. The lawyers have no conflict of interest rules binding them, such that a Monsanto lawyer can rule on a case of material interest to Monsanto. Incredibly, the names of the judges are kept secret!

    Further, there is no rule that the judges of WTO respect any national laws of any country. The three judges meet in secret without revealing the time or location. All court documents are confidential and cannot be published. It is a modern version of the Spanish Inquisition with far more power…. http://www.publiceyeonscience.ch/images/the_wto_and_the_politics_of_gmo.doc

  52. Peak Warming Man – I believe that you are profoundly mistaken sir. With only one government on this planet there will be nothing to compare it to, no alternative. And do not expect democracy of any sort to last very long, because once all power resides in one place, it will be just a matter of a very short time before that power is fully corrupted and humanity set back many millenia. The fall of the Roman Empire will then appear quaint – to those still permitted to read.

  53. For this classical liberal, who remembers well what the world was like with the Soviet Union, the Warsaw Pact and the systematic abuse of human rights under Communism, the words of this article seem to me to be an artifact of a massive case of memory loss combined with hubris.

    The world has changed since the fall of Soviet Communism, and there is no appetite anywhere for such draconian governance.

    The author is dreaming of he thinks that any of this would be enacted.

  54. Finally, a true confession from a leftist on the true intent of CAGW, which always was and will remain, the growth of government power through ever increasing rules, regulations, taxes and mandates on energy and economies.

    The more power governments take, the more they distort the efficient means of production (land/labor/capital/natural resources). The added government distortions create worsening economies, more poverty and more government dependence, creating the excuse for even more government rules, regulations, taxes and entitlements, which just makes things even worse, ad nauseam.

    As empirical evidence continues to mount and invalidate CAGW theory, the more desperate leftist become to grab power and control, prior to CAGW becoming completely irrelevant and untenable as a tool to grab more control.

    It starting to get a little scary as to what new tool will be devised by leftist to grab more government power….

  55. Stix doesn’t call for government he calls for a dictatorship because there are no elections or freedoms to choose in his manifesto. Theories like his fail to explain where the desire for change is going to come from. Appalling as communism was, it had its roots in grinding poverty and social injustice. He wants us to embrace grinding poverty and put in a totalitarian state to ensure we stick to it. I don’t see why anyone would want that.

    Of course those who are already in grinding poverty quite like the idea of spreading the global money pot around, even though is it more likely that local problems are caused by local leadership. They are encouraged into thinking they can solve their issues with our money, by overpaid and deluded UN types who happily discuss World hunger and drought over a gourmet meal and a bottle of bubbly, also at our expense.

    I guess Stix hopes to socially manipulate us into his utopia by using “psychology, sociology, economics and political science” and no doubt PR too, forgetting that these are very weak tools. Those fields are the arsenal used to make us select one washing powder over another or favour a new electoral candidate. AGW supporters look at the success of X Factor and think ‘if only we could use that kind of selling power’ without ever asking if there are any similarities in the manure that they’re trying to sell us.

    Without excellent science or data there is no drive for serious action on cutting CO2. Without good alternatives to fossil fuels the only alternative is mass poverty. So while it may be true that getting the AGW science and energy engineering right may be “child’s play compared to needed changes in the way we behave”, it would be as well to call for fairies to solve AGW as call for global government. Of course, even the Scientific American might balk at including an article calling for fairies to solve AGW, they prefer a different kind of fantasy.

  56. INstead of taking “care”the majority of people’s genes, would it not be easier to take care of the gene pool of this writer and his ilk.
    And world goverance is a nice way of saying what all this really is — International Communism perhaps with some lipstick — always factoring global dominance and re-education in some form. Pol Pot is but a distant memory

  57. Hell will freeze over, which may be increasing unlikely in a warming world, before China will hand over any power to a communistic world government of bureaucrats such as this. So it may be a ironic that the world’s largest communist state may prevent it from happening.

  58. Robert E. Phelan says:
    March 19, 2012 at 12:02 am
    … Note the sponsors and patrons. Note the agenda. Note the participants.
    These people are building up to have the Rio conference sell us all down the river.

    Good point! Have a look at this (from conference program):

    http://www.planetunderpressure2012.net/pdf/poster_session_1.pdf

    Nitrogen – NITROGEN!!! What, are they going to say we have too much Nitrogen?
    For crying out loud, it’s 78 percent of the atmosphere, are they going to try to get
    rid of it? Well, then they’ll get rid of us too…er,…maybe that’s what they want….

    (Sorry for the rant, but some of this drivel emanating from the eco-nuts
    beggars belief. And, judging by the number of supposed “studies” taking place,
    there must be an awful lot of “greenwash” money [erm, that used to be ours]
    changing hands….).

  59. It is a very great shame the The Australian which is Australia’s national daily news paper is behind a paywall preventing access by WUWT readers. In today’s issue Dr Will Steffen, the executive director of the Climate Change Institute at Australia’s premier university, states that the present heavy rains in Eastern Australia, which also occurred during 2010 and 2011 are due to global warming. In 2007 Professor Tim Flannery, the Climate Commissioner during a prolonged drought period stated the dams in south east Australia would never fill again due, of course, to drought caused by global warming. In response to this article there have been a 108 comments of which 107, repeat 107, were devastatingly critical. Although the sample size is too small to draw any conclusions, it is most heartening to see so many Australians expressing contempt and disbelief for people such as Will Steffen and Tim Flannery. A cogent point made by many is to ask Dr Steffen if he knew this heavy rain was going to occur why didn’t he say so in 2007 so that the expensive desalination plants built to counter the effects of drought (and so far never switched on) need not have been built.

  60. Maybe someone can explain the following to me.
    These people may want a “world government” all they want – it’s not going to happen, and it’s not going to happen because there’s no force on this planet that can make China do what it doesn’t want it to do (and, increasingly, that applies to India, Brazil, etc as well). The only kind of “world government” that China would accept is one where it is the boss – or, at least, where it can veto what it doesn’t like. But that is already more or less where we are right now, isn’t it, whether there is a formal “world government” or not.
    So the whole idea of a world government what would impose the “crisis mentality” for centuries is nothing but a fantasy of some very silly people. Isn’t it?
    Of course, those same silly people can very well want to commit economic suicide, as California is already doing. But that won’t survive true economic decline – even the Soviet dictatorship could not withstand that.
    Meanwhile, the Age of Reason will survive in China and those other countries, while the West reacts to the loss of its power by committing economic suicide – like the Xhosa in South Africa in 1856. Which is unfortunate, but maybe inevitable.

  61. If the UN or the EU were a corporation whose stock traded on the stock exchange, who would ever buy it? What value-add can they demonstrate to a (rightly) skeptical investor? The corruption at the UN is so vast that nobody even notices it any more. Take just one case: Kofi Annan and the Iraq oil-for-food scandal. Much of the revenue from the permitted sales of oil simply vanished while in UN custody. He should have been cashiered for that but he’s now “mediating solutions” in Syria. Then we have the repeated revelations of UN “peacekeepers” engaged in abuse and trafficking of the populations they were sent to protect: Bosnia, Africa. Haiti.

    Bottom line they purport to offer governance services to a needy world, but they soak up precious resources and cannot even govern themselves. Tragic. And terrifying.

  62. I would like to add a bit more depth to my comment above. The critical year is 1972 the year of the first UN Earth Summit when Strong first started pushing CAGW.
    Elaine Dewar wrote in Toronto’s Saturday Night magazine:
    It is instructive to read Strong’s 1972 Stockholm speech and compare it with the issues of Earth Summit 1992. Strong warned urgently about global warming, the devastation of forests, the loss of biodiversity, polluted oceans, the population time bomb. Then as now, he invited to the conference the brand-new environmental NGOs [non-governmental organizations]: he gave them money to come; they were invited to raise hell at home. After Stockholm, environment issues became part of the administrative framework in Canada, the U.S., Britain, and Europe.

    http://www.afn.org/~govern/strong.html

    But if you look at the Global Temperature Graph the earth was not exactly warming in 1972. A key point was Gleissberg had identified an 88 yr cycle in the weather patterns in 1971. With this information a 30 – 40 year warming trend could be predicted.

    Milankovitch had published “Astronomical Methods for Investigating Earth’s Historical Climate” in 1938. The 1960’s saw a lot of work on deep-sea sediments.

    James D. Hays, Columbia University Ph.D. 1964, spent the late ‘60’s developing, in cooperation with Lamont colleagues, a chronostratigraphic framework for deep-sea sediments by connecting the land-dated record of Earth’s magnetic field reversals with marine stratigraphic datums…

    By 1970 Hays realized that this marine chronostratigraphy… could form the basis of a global study of Pleistocene climates… the CLIMAP project was born…

    It was this careful pre-CLIMAP and early CLIMAP chronostratigraphic work that allowed Hays, Imbrie and Shackelton to show, through analyses in both the frequency and time domains, that Earth’s orbital variations control the timing of climate change on ice age time scales, proving the theory that Milankovitch contributed so much to developing…. http://www.egu.eu/awards-medals/award/milutin_milankovic.html

    This research was of great interest to the politicians. So great that there is a 1974 CIA document with predictions of the onset of the next Ice Age.

    George Kukla, together with Robert Matthews of Brown University, convened a conference in 1972 entitled “The Present Interglacial: How and When will it End?”, and reported it in Science magazine…

    Kukla and Matthews alerted President Richard Nixon, and as a result the US Administration set up a Panel on the Present Interglacial involving the State Department and other agencies. None of us knew then that the mid-century cooling was about to be punctuated by a warming spell from the late 1970s to the mid 1990s…. http://calderup.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/next-ice-age/

    Also at this time we had the Ehrlich’s 1968 book The Population Bomb. The 1974, “National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests.” a classified 200-page study from the U.S. National Security Council under Henry Kissinger.

    Much more interesting was White House Office of Science and Technology Director John P. Holdren’s 1973 book co-authored with Paul and Anne H. Ehrlich, Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions. The book recommends.

    A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States,…De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation,….

    ..“This effort must be largely political, especially with regard to our overexploitation of world resources, but the campaign should be strongly supplemented by legal and boycott action against polluters and others whose activities damage the environment. The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge. They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being….. http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2010/09/17/obamas-science-czar-wants-to-de-develop-the-united-states/

    This all sounds like a crackpot theory until you realize the EPA began operation on December 2, 1970, OSHA was created and established by Congress in 1974. In 1970 manufacturing provided 24% of the jobs while today manufacturing accounts for less than 9%. On top of that we have a bunch of Activist Luddites yearning for the Simple Life who feel “spreading fake information” is “moral and defensible” if it brings about the desired outcome and “could be (and in fact was, in his opinion) a much better way to do it then facts”. These act as the foot soldiers for the Academics and Politicians pushing for a world government.

    Given US universities hedge funds, governments and financial speculators are in the recent rush to acquire farmland Africa, one wonders just how much of the CAGW was hype only for public consumption while behind the scenes moves were being made to move manufacturing and “Civilization” towards the equator. The Development of Mexico, India and Brazil come to mind.

  63. “Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?”

    This is actually the very first time I see a warmist social engineer mention the risk of tyranny under their schemes. In general, they are incapable of introspection. This one is a rare exception.

  64. Q. Daniels says:
    March 18, 2012 at 10:41 pm
    What would John Galt do?

    Who is John Galt?

    ;-)

  65. Peak Warming Man says (March 19, 2012 at 1:16 am):
    (…) Most countries like USA and Australia and UK etc started out as seperate states that then united under a central government for the common good, the next step is for the countries then to unite under a central(or world) government for the common good, (…) it’s a natural progression and is nothing to fear.

    No. When the people of the countries concerned can be certain that those taking part in the construction of a world government are representative of their interests and democratically accountable to them, then perhaps there is, indeed, little to worry about. When the push for a world government is coming from a clique of power-hungry, fascist authoritarians representing only their own interests and accountable to no-one, there is every reason to worry … and to do something to stop the process before it is allowed to fester any more. Currently, the latter is demonstrably the case, hence the concern.

  66. From brent says:
    March 19, 2012 at 1:10 am

    Proposed UN Environmental Constitution For The World Would Establish An Incredibly Repressive System Of Global Governance

    http://tinyurl.com/88692zv

    Excerpt

    Work on this proposed world environmental constitution has been going on since 1995, and the fourth edition was issued to UN member states on September 22nd, 2010. This document is intended to become a permanent binding treaty and it would establish an incredibly repressive system of global governance. This “covenant”, as it is being called, claims authority over the entire global environment and everything that affects it. Considering the fact that everything that we do affects the environment in some way, that would mean that this document would become the highest form of law for all human activity. This proposed UN environmental constitution for the world is incredibly detailed.

    They aren’t foolin’ folks.

  67. ‘Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?’

    Not a chance.
    Sociopathic political personalities work such systems and opportunities as though born to it, which they were. Restraint by policy, regulation, and bureaucracy is pointless and impossible; it simply results in the creation of a Nomenklatura privileged layer which produces, props up, and both serves and controls Big Man Secretaries, Presidents, etc.

  68. Sort-of typo: “They aren’t foolin’ folks.” I intended, “They aren’t foolin’, folks.”
    But it works, I hope, the other way, too. The massive rate-payer, tax-payer, and voter rejections of Green policies and politicians as soon as their intentions and effects become evident is heartening. Whether the Greenistas can grab irreversible power before the backlash swamps them, and survive loss of “The Mandate of Heaven” (classical Chinese-adage-speak for the necessary combination of public support and effective governance), remains to be seen. They clearly see the danger of being “outed” and discarded, of course, and are now desperate to circumvent and preclude it.

  69. “Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad”
    Brilliant words from Anon

  70. “Dear sir,
    Your journal is neither scientific nor American”

    Famous letter in the 1960s.

    I gave up SA several years ago, despite it’s excellent articles in other fields of science. ‘The Economist’ may go the same way.
    ———————–
    Goldie says (March 18, 2012 at 11:40 pm)
    “they actually need to offer something now apart from a Jack boot or whatever the Marxist equivalent of one is.”
    The Marxist equivalent of a jackboot is…..a jackboot.
    ———————–

    This is the real battle of the 21st Century – between neo-Malthusians with all their plans to control and restrain humanity, and those who believe in progress and freedom. A running battle fought in politics, the media, the schools and universities, and public opinion. Much of the West has been lost, but can perhaps be regained, and the developing world is not so easily duped.

    Time to mobilise! Just as the Cold War had to be won, this new Malthusian assault must be defeated if a civilisation which has been built up over centuries is not to fall into “the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.”

  71. I am a green German, dealing with Conservation and Renewable Energies for decades in Europe and Africa, even before they came with the CO² stuff. I just had the idea to be a good house keeper, to use everything and not to waste anything. When the CO² message arrived, I soon fond out, that it is’t true, but I thougt it is fine to have a measurement for any case of energy consumption, how much fossil fuel is used.

    Then I found out, that the CO²ers started to frighten grown-ups and even more children. Young people are beocomimg activists, not having the chance to check, if its is true. Nowadays it becomes difficult to say something other than the official doctrine. Scientists are fearing to loose their posts when saying something sceptical.

    And now I have to read this:

    “species-wide alteration in basic human behaviors would be a sine qua non”

    And this in the US! OMG! How far have we gone! How will they achieve this goal? Big Brother? Drugs? Brave-New-World-Media? TV? Surgery?

    Must be a new religion with an efficient working Inquisition. Hmm – as the U.S. are not save now , I have to look for anothe place to escape, if the CO² Gouvernments are taking over. I’ve got it! Poland is not so far away and they dare to say a contrary opinion.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17300952

    At least, the vodka is cheap there, if I need to dream a little bit about real greening….

  72. In terms of travel time, the other side of the world is now closer than the other side of the State was when my dad was a boy.
    Now is the time for planning a world Government that we can live with. Otherwise we’ll end up with one that we can’t live with. The aims of such a body must be
    1) to avoid unnecessary war
    2) to dispense justice, without which war might become necessary
    3) to enhance liberty
    What would such a constitution consist of? Here are my first thoughts.
    The worst aspects of representative democracy should be avoided. The situation where politicians are more responsive to the wishes of their party than their electorate should be prevented. To do this, we should outlaw political parties for such a body. Specifically, we should create the criminal offence of ‘associating with a known politician’. Such an offence should apply only to politicians of that body.
    It should move toward the day when technology permits all people to directly represent themselves.
    The constitution should specify that any provision that operates to exempt the lawmakers from any effect of their laws is invalid.
    It must avoid the financial folly that the Western Democracies such as Greece and America fell into. To do so it should separate its legislative and financial powers, plus limit the percentage of wealth it may tax, plus limit the maximum dollar figure it can tax.
    It must avoid the morass of regulation the EEC fell into. While it may have the authority to recommend regulations, it should not have the power to require them to be enforced.
    A proper system will include separation of powers, and checks and balances. The wonderful virtues of the negative should be stressed. “World Congress shall make no law.” Over and over again.
    Human freedoms that it may not infringe such as freedom of speech should be specified.
    There must be genuine sanctions for breaching provisions of a constitution, or it would end up like the Soviet Union, with a beautiful constitution and a totalitarian actuality..
    There must be a sunset clause on every law it passes. 21 years is reasonable. If they wish to reimpose a law after 21 years of experience with it, then so be it. But a sunset clause frees the present from the straightjacket of the past. Such re-introduction can not be done in block, but can only be done individually.
    Any body, agency, corporation etc. created by the organisation shall likewise expire after 21 years, excepting only such armed forces as it possess to enforce international peace. The body shall tax its member nations 1 percent of their arms budget every year, and use that amount to arm itself. Such an amount is not inherently de-stabilising, but it will accrue over time, while creating a small incentive to nations to reduce their arms budgets.
    A law must be accompanied by a statement of the purpose of the law, the good it means to achieve and the harm it wishes to avoid, and how it is envisioned the law shall achieve that goal. Any infringement of the law that does not defeat the purpose of the law will not be unlawful.
    The practice of adding ‘amendments’ that amount to different laws shall be unlawful. There may be at any time a total of 100 laws only from this body, not counting its constitution.
    So, there’s my first thoughts. Any opinions?

  73. Reminds me of a poster I saw in an old propaganda movie of the 1940’s: “Heute Deutschland, Morgan die ganze Welt!”

    World domination is not a new idea. Scary as it sounds I wonder if it’s actually possible.

  74. I’ve come to the conclusion that the technical details are the easy part.

    Well, now that he’s convinced himself, I guess it’s settled! How ironic that he later alludes to “academic naivete”. Yes, generating electricity from sunlight, wind, or sewer gas is not that hard. Scaling it up to utility or industrial levels of supply and reliability–that’s pretty much impossible. But this naive academic has no friggin’ clue.

    To answer his questions:

    How do we overcome our hard-wired tendency to “discount” the future: valuing what we have today more than what we might receive tomorrow?

    Have children. Then we will do almost anything to ensure we give our kids a better world than we received. Chief among our legacy is cheap, reliable, ubiquitous transportation, abundant energy, housing that keeps us cool in summer and warm in winter, abundant food supply, etc. NO living in caves with 3 hours a day of flashlight-bulb-level electricity for my kids!

    Would any institution be capable of instilling a permanent crisis mentality lasting decades, if not centuries?

    No.

    How do we create new institutions with enforcement powers way beyond the current mandate of the U.N.?

    That’s easy. Get the UN to pass another resolution. There. Done.

    Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?

    No. Never in the history of the world has any dictator NOT abused his power. That’s why we work so hard and spend so many lives to destroy dictatorships.

    Apparently this blockhead wants God Almighty to come down from Heaven and set up heaven on earth to his specifications. That has always worked so well in the past. He takes “academic naivete” to stratospheric levels. And he says we just need to start “embracing” his “head-in-the-cloud answers”.

    Scientific American actually published this???

  75. Unfortunately, ladies and gentlemen, this is what our youth are learning in college from their professors. I can’t tell you how many student I have met who have their own car, at 18, or, at least, a Smart Phone, but faithfully believe in something called sustainability, for which neither they nor professors have any clue about. But, they do love to talk and pontificate. It is as if the kids don’t trust themselves, feel their parents have messed up the world, so let’s put some unknown, unelected body in charge and they will tell us what to do. I find the direction so frightening that it is worthy of being completely ignored or violated.

  76. Gail Combs says (March 19, 2012 at 2:53 am)
    “A key point was Gleissberg had identified an 88 yr cycle in the weather patterns in 1971. With this information a 30 – 40 year warming trend could be predicted.”

    That’s interesting, Gail. However, the abstract of the paper you linked to gives no hint as to cycle dates, and the main body is paywalled (side note: why is the AGU still paywalling 9 year old papers??).

    Do you know where we are in the warming / cooling cycles at the moment? Are we about to go from warm to cool?

  77. The comments in this thread remind me of discussions about the weather. Everybody talks about it, but nobody does anything about it. All of you who rant and rave about “global governance”, etc.: Is that all you do? How many of you are willing to commit your “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor” to stopping it? You complain that “the other side” is coercing the rest of the world thru punitive means to achieve their agenda, yet I see no equivalent means being used to stop them. Why is that? Are we satisfied to vent our spleens on a blog, and let it go at that in the forlorn hope that “the other side” will abandon their agenda? Good luck.

    This is a War. And wars are not won thru defense alone.

  78. If you have not already read it, it is very important to periodically be reminded of just how deep the human folly can be, how it can sweep whole cultures, lead economies to ruin, and then, thankfully, end.

    Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds:

    http://manybooks.net/titles/mackaych2451824518-8.html

    free download. (Many more free download sites if you search on the name)

    http://duckduckgo.com/?q=free+download+memoirs+of+extraordinary+popular+delusions+and+the+madness+of+crowds

    (“duckduckgo” is a search engine that does not track you as Google does…)

    “Memoirs” details the periodic mass insanties of people. From the “Tuplip Mania” in Holland where folks bid up the price of ONE tulip bulb to be close to that of a whole house, to simpler delusions.

    Some day, the entire “Global Warming Hysteria” will be just another entry in the Madness of Crowds, along with the Green Paranoia.

    Sadly, what “Memoirs” also teaches is that these delusions can be persistent, destructive, and often need to simply run to a catastrophic end before folks recognize them.

    But still, it is encouraging in times like these to have some historical perspective, and to realize that This Madness is no different from Tulip Mania and will look just as silly in retrospect.

    Yes, there will be True Believers willing to sell everything to stand on the mountaintop, expecting God Himself to visit them. Some will think you, too, ought to be forced to join them in their Madness… Just politely, but firmly, say “No, thank you. I like my life as it is now.”

    And perhaps ask if they would like to buy a tulip bulb? ;-)

    Maybe we ought to adopt the Tulip as the Global Warmers Emblem for “Save The Planet” governance? Think we could talk them into putting it on a flag and waving it around (with the banner heading “Save the planet, plant a Tulip!” ;-)

    Yes, the risk of a UN Governing Body is real. ( The Agenda 21 folks from the UN are pushing for it, hard; and expect several hundred $Billion PER YEAR in funding, so will not let that dream go easily…). But while being prepared to fight to preserve ones liberties is an unfortunate necessity, I’ve found that simply exploding in laughter in someones presence can take the wind out of their Pomp and Circumstance “right quick”… Never pass up the opportunity to laugh someone out of town… it can be most effective ;-)

    So “All Hail The Tulip Kings! Hip Hip Hurrah!”…

    And remember to ask if they think they ought to eat cake with that?…

  79. “Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?”

    NO. It would be the UN from the start—the epitome of an inept unfeeling dictator. We would already be there.

  80. Socolow’s article goes well beyond the seeds of tyranny. It is a sapling. These kinds of ideas remind one of the intellectual genesis of the genocidal Khmer Rouge, whose murderous pogrom was based on a doctoral dissertation innocently named “Cambodia’s Economy and Industrial Development.”

    We are far beyond a dissertation. “The science is settled” and Socolow has jettisoned all pretense of common morality. He has moved directly to the calculated implementation of tyranny and genocide.

    History repeats. The evolution of the Khmer Rouge is instructive.

  81. They want to force us to stop using fossil fuels.

    In practice, that is not going to happen in a democracy.

    In practice, that is not going to happen in every country.

    So, one would need a non-democratic global government.

  82. I for one welcome our new super national overlords. I like the look of the futuristic jump suits we are to be rationed, though I’m a bit concerned mine might be bright red. I have been practising repeating everything our local dear leader says on the vidi screen and showing my agreement with the waggling fingers. Due to a sporting injury however I am only able to waggle one main finger and do so vehemently.

  83. The Green project was invented by World Government people: CIA and then Margaret Mead and co-conspirators. Later, the project came to serve Wall Street more than tyrants.

    This article strikes me as a last-gasp attempt to restore the original tyrannical purpose of the project.

    Since Wall Street has collapsed the countries that formerly subsidized the project, the infinite fountain of money is gone.

    So it’s time for an urgent appeal to the infinite power-hunger that started the project.

  84. Leo Morgan says: March 19, 2012 at 4:02 am
    [So, there’s my first thoughts. Any opinions?]
    Sounds like perfection…

    Glock

  85. Sam Geoghegan says:
    March 19, 2012 at 2:50 am

    Also watch out for the right as well, who equally desire big government.

    The Progressive right, admittedly–but not conservatives in the US. The Tea Party (for “Taxed Enough Already”) is a strong proponent of down-sized, relatively small, Constitution-based government. The individual knows better than the collective how to spend their money, preserve their freedoms, and avoid socialism/communism.

    Question: Does anybody know how long they took when discussing the concepts in the US Constitution before that document was penned? Was it 2 years, 5 years, maybe even 10 years?

    Answer: It was about 60 years and was the main editorial topic of the time–which back then would have spanned 3 generations. And that’s why the Progressives hate it–because all the excuses they currently use to justify their movement have already been discussed and slapped down–they desperately need us to ignore history to win.

  86. John A says:
    March 19, 2012 at 1:42 am

    For this classical liberal, who remembers well what the world was like with the Soviet Union, the Warsaw Pact and the systematic abuse of human rights under Communism, the words of this article seem to me to be an artifact of a massive case of memory loss combined with hubris.

    The world has changed since the fall of Soviet Communism, and there is no appetite anywhere for such draconian governance.

    The author is dreaming if he thinks that any of this would be enacted.

    Apparently you are a classical liberal – oblivious to the realities around you. “No appetite for such draconian governance” … perhaps somebody’s mumbled in conversation to you about some of these things: Lebanon, the Arab Spring, denial of the Holocaust by Iran, denial of Israel by Iran, Darfur, Tiamenen Square, the Taliban, honour killings, the London, Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Paris rioting, the drug cartels, Red Brigade, FARC, the EU, the UN, Islam, Fatwa, Occupy [whatever], the DNC, Putin, Mugabe, Agenda 21, gun control, criminalization of the legitimacy of self-defence (Britain, Canada – by liberals), Chavez, to name just a few that come to mind without even thinking about it… Many of those in just the last few months and years.

    There is a hockey stick a-brewing, and it has nothing to do with climate. Fascist ideologues have already begun identifying, labelling and ostracising the culls – deniers, sceptics, the radical right, those in the pocket of [insert favourite Big.meme], many other pejorative expressions. All designed to identify and demonize contrarian views. Stars of David on steroids.

    Peak Warming Man said: ,,,the next step is for the countries then to unite under a central(or world) government for the common good, it will be elected just like our governments are, it’ll swing between being a government of the left persuasion to one of a right persuasion just as it happens now in all democratic countries….

    Elected by whom>? Have you looked at the EU? We are not now [in the west], living in democratic countries, nor have we ever been. Democracy is a theoretical principle, not a working governance model. How often does your elected representative vote the way you want him to vote? How is a “vote along party lines” any part of a democratic process? Right and left are relativistic; you keep an eye on the extremes but you watch the movement of the centre, and its trending left. There no longer is a right and left when your only choice is this “re-education” camp, or that “indoctrination” program, just left and more left (or to use the eerily contra “progressive and “more progressive”)

    The singularly most important and symbolic western action of freedom that occured in the last 15 years, world-wide, was the enactment in the US of the “shall-issue” carry laws. Whether you agree with them or not, they represent the last stand of those who cherish what freedom really is: the ability to make and ensure your own choice. That ability, by degree and decree, has all but disappeared in the west. Throw a small pocket knife in your briefcase in Britain and see where that gets you.

  87. mfo – Thanks for that reference to “The Carbon Cost of Crime”, which I’ve just been reading. It’s a whole, unsuspected new demonstration of ‘Whom the Gods would destroy, they first make mad’, and everyone should read it. Surrealism is not dead. Amazing.

  88. I allowed my subscription to SA to expire about a year ago now. I could not justify paying for a magazine which focused so much attention on ACC and AGW and not enough on general sciences. Science topics were what I thought I was paying for after all.

    I’m not sure if the editors of SA are even aware that climate science is really political science.

  89. FWIW, the “Scientific” “American” has been owned by a German company for a while and their Green Agenda reflects the more “Over the top” German attitudes toward “green” than the American common culture. We’re also setting up for a generational backlash as the younger generation is not interested in the Greenwash anymore. They just want to live their lives and are ignoring the propaganda (much as “Reefer Madness” sent more of my generation out to try M.J. rather than scaring us off of it…)

    http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/the-five/index.html#/v/1510896340001/teens-not-going-green/?playlist_id=1040983441001

    So I’d not worry too much about the good ‘ol USA…

    It’s also worth noting that some in the EU are starting to reject “government without representation”

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/eu-overreach-causing-discomfort/

    Especially Spain:

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2012/03/end-of-merkels-europe.html

    “Spain isn’t any old country that will allow itself to be humiliated by the German Chancellor,” he writes – as loosely translated by Ambrose. “The behaviour of the European Commission towards Spain over recent days has been infamous and exceeds their treaty powers … these Eurocrats think they are the owners and masters of Spain”.

    “Spain”, he continues, “and other nations in the EU are sick and tired of Chancellor Merkel’s meddling and Germany’s usurpation – with the help of Sarkozy’s France and their pretended ‘executive presidency’ that does not in fact exist in EU treaties”.

    and Poland:

    http://notrickszone.com/2012/03/11/poland-says-no-blocks-eus-climate-roadmap-napoleon-hedegaard-vents-she-wont-stand-for-it/

    Poland Says No…Blocks EU’s Climate Roadmap…Napoleon Hedegaard Vents She Won’t Stand For It!

    By P Gosselin on 11. März 2012

    Everybody say thank you to Poland.

    It was the only of 27 European countries to reject the EU’s climate roadmap at a conference of Environment Ministers in Brussels Friday, angering environmentalists and EU climate protection expansionists.

    So with their “sandbox” for world domination in the non-representative EU blowing up in their faces at the moment, I don’t see expansion to a Global Domination any time soon…

    Oh, and did I mention Greece?….

    (Sidebar: There are about as many guns as people in the USA. Most of them are owned by “redneck” sorts who don’t like the idea of a world government. Heck, they aren’t all that fond of the Federal government… And the 2nd amendment is not about shooting Bambi, it’s about making sure the OTHER amendments are recognized… So anyone trying to install an unelected government here is going to have “issues”…)

  90. Keith Minto says:
    March 18, 2012 at 9:41 pm

    “Gary Stix is the author and I can find no further qualifications other than journalist and author. This apparently is enough to qualify to be Senior editor at SA.”

    No his real qualification is that he can use “sine qua non” in a sentence [heh].

    Folks – people like Gary Stix should be laughed at. They are merely misguided buffoons pretending to be erudite scholars.

    Again, though, I would remind everyone in the U.S. to please VOTE this November to remove any possibility that disturbing fantasies such as those espoused by Mr. Stix could ever come true…

  91. Peak Warming Man says (March 19, 2012 at 1:16 am):
    (…) Most countries like USA and Australia and UK etc started out as seperate states that then united under a central government for the common good, the next step is for the countries then to unite under a central(or world) government for the common good, (…) it’s a natural progression and is nothing to fear.

    The EU and the Euro are on their way to collapse–so there is something to fear.

  92. Just like Freddy the Sivershirts are back-

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/03/17/elle-macpherson-loves-obama-i-m-socialist-what-do-you-expect#ixzz1pRRjJ75n

    Would that be national socialist, socialist socialist or socialist socialite dear capitalist clotheshorse?(hat tip to Bernard Slattery from Slattsnews for link)
    I know you fought for their right to say whatever comes into their heads mum and dad but it’s so hard, so awful hard…………!!!!

  93. Hmmm. Remake individuals to fit the upcoming society. Where have I heard that before? Seems like they could fill the Gulags but still were left with real people outside.

  94. We have always been at war with oceanic sea level aggression. We have always been at war with anthropogenic CO2. If these enemies did not exist we would have to invent them.

  95. @ Andrew30
    I infer that your reply is from a gun ad.
    That was a nice turn of phrase.
    Nevertheless your reasoning is obscure. Are you against every form of world government, or only those that would be as limited as I proposed?
    Are you repudiating my claim that some form of world government is inevitable, given how quickly we now travel? My high school lecturer in Ancient History claimed the limits of Empire were how far a message could travel in a day. In the 21st century we can get to the other side of the planet and back again in that time.
    Is it your preferred future that you die as a lone crazed gun nut trying to fight all the world, or would you rather take a proactive role in developing a future of freedom, dignity self government and human rights?
    I know that the pseudo religious crackpot opposition to world government is not soundly based on the Bible. I stand by my earlier claim that we should start planning for a government that we can live with, or else we’ll end up with one that we cannot live with. Do you really want to leave planning for the future in the hands of the leftists and totalitarians?
    By the way, was your response a death threat?
    I’ve never received one of those before.

  96. DBCooper says:
    March 19, 2012 at 12:02 am

    Absolutely beyond belief!
    How can anyone be that stupid?

    In my experience, it usually takes an advanced degree or two to make someone that stupid.

  97. From the article : “There would have to be consideration of some way of embracing head-in-the-cloud answers to social problems that are usually dismissed by policymakers as academic naivete.”

    Academic naivete, pie-in-the-sky, wishful thinking, head in the sand… call it whatever you want. It generally means YOU’RE WRONG!

  98. “How do we overcome our hard-wired tendency to “discount” the future: valuing what we have today more than what we might receive tomorrow?”

    Well, that’s easy. You get a tenured job at Princeton or some such place. Then the future forty years down the road is just as rock solid as this evening’s cocktails.

    For those of us without tenure in academia or government, the future can look as tenuous as it must to someone sneaking across the US border in Arizona. The condition of the vast majority of mankind resembles that of the person who saw that he had no future and crossed the border.

    Of course the World Government will be run from the perspective of tenured academics and for the benefit of tenured government employees.

  99. I canceled my subscription to SA last month because of the John Horgan “Should Global-Warming Activists Lie to Defend Their Cause?” article. I had been a subscriber for about 50 years. I was introduced to the magazine by my 9th grade science teacher Phylis Singer (soon to marry Philip Morrison, book editor for SA and very much more).

    To work for “a new set of institutions that have heavy-handed, transnational enforcement powers” betrays everyting about America. Why did my father bother to fight in WW-II? If we wanted “heavy-handed, transnational enforcement powers” we could have just let the NAZIs win.

  100. Yeah. That’ll work. I mean, dictatorial socialism has always produced benevolent leaders for the good of mankind, right? Let’s see…. There’s Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Hussein… to name a few. They did so much good for mankind by actually killing off their own people (and others too!) in order to save the planet. And if you’re going to resort to mass murder and death, why not save the world at the same time? Good call. That way, no matter how ‘bad’ you are, you’re still doing ‘good.’

    Sorta like Assad in Syria. Sure, he’s killed 10,000 of his countrymen lately, but think of how that is helping the planet! Without those people breathing we can all breathe much better ourselves! I wonder why he hasn’t received the Nobel Peace Prize yet? Probably just an administrative oversight. I’m sure the geniuses that run it will fix that oversight soon. They have such a good record going…

    Today, others toil selflessly in an effort to save the planet. Well-known current human environmentalists include: Mugabe, Chavez, Mbasogo, Castro, Berdymukhammedov, Thein Sein, Karimov, Al-Bashir, Afewerki and Jong-Un. Please keep them in your thoughts to help them continue the great work they are doing to “save the planet.”

    Many are joining the cause every day. Soon, if all goes well, we’ll all be forced to! **
    And won’t that be a great day! / sarc

    (** Unfortunately, I won’t be there with you. I’ve been called a “flat-earther” by the pResident of the United States. I won’t be allowed to join the collective. I am… dangerous.)

  101. Power – when we understand this is how it works, and not the other way around, we’ll have found the beginning of a solution to our problems:

  102. Curiousgeorge (March 19, 2012 at 4:45 am) says: “All of you who rant and rave about “global governance”, etc.: Is that all you do? ”

    I learn through discussions on blogs such as this and teach my kids to look at all sides of the argument. Parents giving their kids a proper education to counteract the social engineering they are receiving in schools is an important step. The kids today need to know that schools do not show all the facts.

    Recently, my oldest was quizzing me from a magazine he received in the mail. At the top of the quiz it suggested that if the parents got the answers wrong that perhaps the parents should go back to school. Some of the answers were demonstrably wrong, so I worked through the quiz with him pointing out the good and bad points that it raises.

    John M Reynolds

  103. Does this mean we are in the post-CO2 era? The agenda certainly seems clearer now. I think that contrary to being one of the future leaders of the World Govt, history suggests that Mr Stix is a useful fool who would be one of the first to be “10:10″ed come the revolution. Rather than a violent takeover, it will be more of a boiling frog phenomenon as per gradual takeover of national perogatives by the European Union.

  104. There’s a reason these “head-in-the-cloud answers to social problems” are dismissed by everyone as “academic naivete”–although that term is far to generous–and better communication won’t help. My mother always told me if you don’t want people to think you’re stupid, don’t say stupid things.

    Mr. Stix is far too impressed with his own head-rattlings.

    Who makes the editorial decisions over there at Sci-Am?

  105. Rocky Road

    -Who are the progressive right?

    The tea party doesn’t encompass a single idea- they are a disparate group- from social conservatives to backwater neo-con who have hijacked it like Palin. It’s probably worth noting that the godfather of the movement is Ron Paul who the movement almost shares nothing in common with apart from giving lip service to fiscal government-which is a hallmark of conservatives.

    Bush signed the patriot act, Obama signed the NDAA, both are warmongers from parties who share the common appetite for metastatic government.
    Once we get over this left/right dichotomy-the better.

    I think Tom Woods said once that give a leftist idea enough time, and the neo-cons will embrace it as their own.

  106. “When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.” – Abraham Lincoln

  107. “Intellect loses its virtue when it ceases to seek truth and turns to the pursuit of political ends.” – R.H. Bork

    Some good stuff coming off Twitter this morning :)

  108. A comment on the shifting tactics of the Watermelon Movement:

    1. Very-scary Global Warming did not work (because the 30-45 year natural warming half-cycle is ending), so
    2. it was changed to Very-scary Climate Change. Climate Change apparently is not working either, so
    3. now it’s about to be called Sustainability.

    My response in all of my posts is to insist on retaining the term global warming or CAGW – that is the ISSUE these clowns started with (although a few actually started earlier in the 1970’s with the global cooling scare and easily made the transition to global warming) and it is important to force them to face the falsification of their CAGW hypothesis now that (largely) natural global warming has ceased and a natural global cooling cycle is the next likely stage.

    One specific problem with the watermelons is that there are real problems in the world, and they have squandered a trillion dollars on CAGW nonsense.

    I believe that the beginning of a natural global cooling cycle is imminent – I wrote this in a Calgary Herald article published in 2003 – and IF it is severe it could damage the grain harvest. This is significant for humanity. We can live with some global warming, but we cannot easily sustain a significant decline in our arable cropland due to frequent and earlier killing frosts.

    In the bigger picture, we are near the end of an interglacial, and about 10,000 years ago there was a mile-thick continental glacier sitting right over my apartment. When, not if, this happens again, well, there goes the neighbourhood!

    But Al Gore and Piltdown Mann say we all have to obsess about fictitious humanmade global warming,..

  109. The former Soviet Union attempted to perfect people by perfecting society. In the future, progressives will attempt to perfect man by genetically engineering dissent and free thought out of our gene pool.

  110. More Soylent Green! says:
    March 19, 2012 at 7:12 am
    The former Soviet Union attempted to perfect people by perfecting society. In the future, progressives will attempt to perfect man by genetically engineering dissent and free thought out of our gene pool.

    Speak of the devil:

    Bioengineer humans to tackle climate change, say philosophers
    Authors defend controversial academic paper saying their online critics have misunderstood nature of philosophical inquiry

    Earlier this week, The Atlantic ran an eye-catching, disturbing interview with a professor of philosophy and bioethics at New York University called S. Matthew Liao. He was invited to discuss a forthcoming paper he has co-authored which will soon be published in the journal Ethics, Policy & Environment.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/mar/14/human-engineering-climate-change-philosophy

    I should be a ‘futurist’ — My predictions are coming true already.

  111. Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?

    The proposed organization IS the malevolent dictator, precisely paralleling Marx’s dictatorship of the proletariat. And by political mechanisms the world has paid millions of lives to discover, the proletariat becomes the Central Committee, which becomes the Politburo, which becomes the Autocrat. In this case, one Gary Stix is volunteering for the position. Tar and feathers.

    And for good measures, the same for the editors of Scientific American, who have for decades befouled science with a political attitude which allows this article to be seriously proposed in its pages.

  112. Thanks mfo for ‘The Crime-Carbon Blind Spot’ and loved this bit in particular-
    ‘In the writers’ view, there is a blind spot in sustainability visions where the carbon cost of human conflicts, including crime, ought to be. Googling ‘Carbon footprint of crime’ yields effectively nothing. Limiting the search to Google Scholar does not improve matters’
    It’s right about there you get an inkling of their mindset and the instant appeal of an Adolph, Uncle Joe, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, etc. As Steve C notes it’s obvious what happens to these folk when they intellectually reach

    http://www.endoftheinternet.com/

  113. [SNIP: sorry, that was just a little too serious and I don’t think we should be suggesting that. -REP]

  114. The dictatorial global green government is one of the greatest concern of skeptics. i.e., that the foundational issue is not catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (aka “climate change”) but the underlying paradigm of imposing global government with a radical environmental agenda to “save the world” that severely harms the poor. That intent biases the funding and the science to support that agenda.

    See the Cornwall Alliance Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming

    We call on political leaders to adopt policies that protect human liberty, make energy more affordable, and free the poor to rise out of poverty, while abandoning fruitless, indeed harmful policies to control global temperature.

  115. “Sam Geoghegan says:
    March 19, 2012 at 7:15 am

    Paul Coppin

    We’re quoting Lincoln in a thread about central government?

    The irony.”

    Apparently you don’t understand the quote…

  116. cui bono says:
    March 19, 2012 at 4:44 am

    Gail Combs says (March 19, 2012 at 2:53 am)
    “A key point was Gleissberg had identified an 88 yr cycle in the weather patterns in 1971. With this information a 30 – 40 year warming trend could be predicted.”

    That’s interesting, Gail. However, the abstract of the paper you linked to gives no hint as to cycle dates, and the main body is paywalled (side note: why is the AGU still paywalling 9 year old papers??).
    _______________________________________
    Try this paper: THE SOLAR WOLF-GLEISSBERG CYCLE AND ITS INFLUENCE ON THE EARTH by Shahinaz M. Yousef

  117. Brian H says:
    March 19, 2012 at 3:04 am
    From brent says:
    March 19, 2012 at 1:10 am

    Proposed UN Environmental Constitution For The World Would Establish An Incredibly Repressive System Of Global Governance

    http://tinyurl.com/88692zv

    Excerpt

    Work on this proposed world environmental constitution has been going on since 1995, and the fourth edition was issued to UN member states on September 22nd, 2010. This document is intended to become a permanent binding treaty and it would establish an incredibly repressive system of global governance. This “covenant”, as it is being called, claims authority over the entire global environment and everything that affects it. Considering the fact that everything that we do affects the environment in some way, that would mean that this document would become the highest form of law for all human activity. This proposed UN environmental constitution for the world is incredibly detailed.

    They aren’t foolin’ folks.

    I have highlighted the area that everyone needs to watch in the US. An international treaty once accepted by a two thirds majority of the Senate legally overrides the constitution. This is why there is so much playing with the UN and ‘permanent binding treaties’. The attempt to sigh up to the treaty on small arms is one that is intended override the 2nd Amendment. The Rio Declaration could easily become the Agenda 21 treaty. All you need is to persuade sufficient senators – and we know how simple that can be.
    In the UK and other European countries they are finding that rule is increasingly from the European Commission and Agency Bureaucrats with zero democratic safeguards.

  118. From the article:

    A policy article authored by several dozen scientists appeared online March 15 in Science to acknowledge this point: “Human societies must now change course and steer away from critical tipping points in the Earth system that might lead to rapid and irreversible change. This requires fundamental reorientation and restructuring of national and international institutions toward more effective Earth system governance and planetary stewardship.”

    Notice there is no link to the article referenced.

    That’s the way it’s going to happen, folks. You won’t even know the names of the people who are setting you up for the destruction of your individual liberties in a free society. Because there is a consensus of “several dozen scientists” there’s no need for discussion or even a vote.

    “You will obey!”

  119. I do not like the way world governance is covertly hidden within the climate change agenda. If we are to debate world governance, then lets discuss the merits of global government on it’s own, and not camouflage it, with climate change. I certainly do not accept the UN as democratic way of governing this planet. What real democratic representation will the masses of people receive from the UN??

    If we are to have global government, then a system that answers to the will of all the people must be devised. That certainly isn’t the United Nations. If we are to go down this road, then lets do so, with our eyes open, with freedom and democracy as the basis of it’s structure. It is a big enough task, without mixing climate change into the mix. GK

  120. Good thing there would be no unintended consequences to empowering an unelected elite with such powers… oh, wait…

  121. Leo Morgan says:
    March 19, 2012 at 4:02 am
    So, there’s my first thoughts. Any opinions?

    That it’s time you let go of childish thoughts, is one.

    Instead, try thinking in terms that you have no right to impose anything on anyone else.

    That, hopefully, will lead you to clearer thinking.

  122. The problem here is that your basic science geek watched too much Star Trek and not enough Star Wars. Build this society and a Palpatine will emerge.

  123. Would any institution be capable of instilling a permanent crisis mentality lasting decades, if not centuries?

    So notes Gary Stix. To which I’d answer, we are already in a permanent crisis mentality. The businesses, newspapers, the politicians, the military have all come together to instill a fear in each of us of the future unless we act now:

    We must buy before the prices go up, the item is unavailable, we are the only one without and facing public humiliation.
    That shooting in Butthump, Illinois may be coming to your town, so watch out!
    If Rommey/Santorum/Paul/Obama wins the election, it is game over for the economy/morality/the planet!
    We must surveill every Briton, all the time, and have eye scans of everyone entering the U. S. of A because the Terrorist is in your midst, which is why you sons and daughters need to don body armour tomorrow and shoot up (fill in the blank) foreign country tomorrow.

    I’ve just come back from Abu Dhabi and Dubai. It is peaceful there. The newspapers and Al Jazerra, unlike as we have been told, are full of information, but the information is presented in a nuanced and, at times, clearly positive way. Non alarming, even about Syria. Other people’s troubles are not personally threatening, though of great concern to relatives etc. and borders. Politics – that goes on, but the locals don’t control it – just as we don’t. The palpaple alarm we feel is not based on facts but on instigated feelings.

    The western world already lives in a state of constant apprehended termination. As our governors would have us believe. If CAGW gets further, and it hangs on a fingernail still that it could, we WILL be in a perpetual state of alarm regarding the biosphere. Consider how income tax was a limited, wartime measure … in 1918 or so. If carbon dioxide measures come in, the regulation and control will not be relinquished even when the efficacy of them is shown to be negligible. The Precautionary Principle would become embedded as the EPA has embedded the Pollution Kills, linear non-threshold concept. Any opposition to the entire package, like opposition to any portion of the Patriot Act, would be a blow against humanity (or at least American humanity). This is why Gillard in Australia wants to put it beyond legislative repeal: enshrine the danger with the regulations.

    Stix has the view of an insider already acllimated to a seige mentality. He doesn’t realise it, but he wonders only about whether the end-member of fear can be maintained. And, of course, that is what legislation is all about. Make it part of your daily life.

  124. Every Utopian engineer I’ve spoken to always mentions a massive population cut to achieve their Nirvana. I asked one such idealist, War or plague? He assured me plague is best. In the new world of a stable climate, there will be executions. All for our beloved climate. I can’t wait.

  125. Leo Morgan – “Are you against every form of world government, or only those that would be as limited as I proposed?”

    One size does NOT fit all. That’s why we’ve got 50 states – look on them as 50 petri dishes, each with a different environment that allows experimentation to find what works ‘best’. Look at California. A state that was rich and lush and full of promise – now it’s a place that companies are leaving. Look at North Dakota – a state that’s basically ignoring what California decided to do, and is flourishing.

    One size doesn’t fit all – and any attempt to try will not go down gracefully.

  126. “Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?”

    Simple: No.

    He should read Machiavelli, as Lord Acton summed up: “All power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”

    In fact, look up some of Lord Acton’s other quotes. They are very appropriate for the state of AGW in general. For example, consider this one “There is no error so monstrous that it fails to find defenders among the ablest men.”

  127. “It’s the social engineering that’s the killer.”

    Indeed it is, ask the Cambodians about that.

  128. Leo Morgan says: @ March 19, 2012 at 4:02 am
    ….Now is the time for planning a world Government that we can live with.
    …..So, there’s my first thoughts. Any opinions?
    __________________________
    Yes. Lots of thoughts since I have been digging into this for several years.

    It only took 130 years for the power hungry and greedy to defeat the US Constitution. Therefore the only protection is not to have a world government so people have a possibility of keeping at least one country free. Once the control of the money supply was dragged from the control of the US people and put into the hands of an unelected group with no Government oversight we lost our country. It has taken these greedy families only a hundred years to strip our country of all her wealth and bankrupt the USA.

    Why I think the current fiat money system is UnConstitutional:

    Fiat Money History in the US
    …The U.S. Constitution (Section 10) forbids any state from making anything but gold or silver a legal tender. The Federal Monetary System was established in 1792 with the creation of the U.S. Mint in Philadelphia. The first American coins were struck in 1793. The U.S. Coinage Act of 1792, consistent with the Constitution, provided for a U.S. Mint, which stamped silver and gold coins. The importance of this Act cannot be stressed enough.

    One dollar was defined by statute as a specific weight of gold.

    The Act also invoked the death penalty for anyone found to be debasing money.
    President George Washington mentions the importance of the national currency backed by gold and silver throughout his initial term of office and he contributed his own silver for the initial coins minted….

    The founding fathers were concerned about the unrestrained control of the money supply. One thing they all agreed upon was the limitation on the issuance of money, Thomas Jefferson warned of the damage that would be caused if the people assigned control of the money supply to the banking sector,

    “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a money aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. This issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of the moneyed corporations which already dare to challenge our Government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country” Thomas Jefferson, 1791

    Too bad Thomas Jefferson’s words were not taught to every child from 1791 onwards. Too bad
    A PRIMER ON MONEY by THE COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY
    HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES is not required reading for everyone graduating from high school today.

    A PRIMER ON MONEY: COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY
    HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ~ WRIGHT PATMAN Chairman (1964)

    the balance of power over the money supply lay securely, it was thought, with the public side of the System through authority of the Board of Governors. But when the move toward the alternative open-market technique of control was given legislative blessing by Congress in 1933 and 1935 and a full-fledged central bank thereby created the balance shifted radically toward the private, commercial banking side of the System. [pg 72]

    Do bankers believe that they own the Federal Reserve banks?

    Yes. 100% of the “stock” is owned by the private banks. Also after instigating “the Accord” It was later revealed by testimony of some of the Federal Reserve officials to committees of Congress that the Open Market Committee had held a meeting on August 18 and decided not only to raise the discount rate, but to “go their own way” on the Government longer term bond rate as well, despite what the President, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the head of the Office of Defense Mobilization might do”….Therefore the Federal Reserve is not answerable to the President or Congress or the electorate, nor even to a government audit or even Congressional funding! [pg 79]

    ….Since the signing of the so-called accord, in March of 1951, this event has been widely interpreted as an understanding, reached between the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, that the Federal Reserve would henceforth be “independent.” It would no longer ” peg Government bond prices. It would raise or lower interest rates as it might see fit, as a means of trying to prevent inflation or deflation. These are understandings which have been grafted onto the accord over the years. Certainly, no such understandings were universal at the time the accord was signed. …. At the end of 1951, then, the Federal Reserve had both self-proclaimed independence, as a result of the accord, and an operational policy….. [pg 105] [ full details starting on pg 103]

    The truth is, however, that the Private banks, collectively, have deposited not a penny of their own funds, or their depositors funds, with the Federal Reserve banks. The impression that they do so arises from the fact that reserves, once created, can be, and are, transferred back and forth from one bank to another, as one bank gains deposits and another loses deposits. [pg 37]

    On January 31, 1964, all commercial banks in this country owned $62.7 billion in U.S. Government securities. The banks have acquired these securities with bank-created money. In other words, the (banks have used the Federal Government’s power to create money without charge to lend $62.7 billion to the Government at interest.

    On January 29, 1964, commercial banks had total assets amounting to $304.7 billion, and all of these had been paid for with bank-created money, except $25.4 billion which had been paid for with their stockholders’ capital. In other words, less than 10 percent of the banks’ assets have been acquired with money invested by stockholders in the banks. [pg 46]

    I could add that the other 90% were stolen from the American people. Because devaluation is theft by the government, or by its chartered central bank, no one ever gets prosecuted.

    I suggest your read Louis T. McFadden’s Speeches for the history of the fight over the control of the money supply and our gold. For daring to speak out he was driven from his seat. When he continued to speak out he was shot at twice and then poisoned. This is one of his speeches

    Congressman Lindbergh also spoke out against the Federal Reserve and International Bank Cartel. In 1918 the U.S. government destroyed all the printing plates for Congressman Lindbergh’s book “Why Is Your Country at War ?“ and also the plates of Congressman Lindbergh’s book “Banking and Currency,” written in 1913 and attacking the big bankers and Federal Reserve Law. Only a few copies were salvaged. This a PDF of one of the books. PDF of Your Country At War with modern introduction.

  129. I’ve popped this item on my office door, juxtaposed with the NSDIC sea ice graph and two images of submarines surfaced at the North Pole, courtesy of WUWT. This is needed as the warm winter has emboldened the warmists and a recent MSM article has been prosing on about the disappearance of Arctic sea ice. Thanks, Anthony!

  130. So, at least for the present, it may be that AGW is the One Ring.

    It also occurred to me recently that people like Trenberth, Jones, and some others resemble those ghostly riders in the story, those “that were men once; kings of men” until they “were seduced by the power of the Ring”. While on the sidelines at Tamino’s and other similar sites, and places like the Daily Kos, there are armies of orks ready to attack any unbeliever…

    I’m not actually a great fan of Tolkien or of the movie, but it’s interesting to consider how many of the elements in the story seem to fit the present situation.

  131. Curiousgeorge says:
    March 19, 2012 at 4:45 am

    The comments in this thread remind me of discussions about the weather. Everybody talks about it, but nobody does anything about it. All of you who rant and rave about “global governance”, etc.: Is that all you do? How many of you are willing to commit your “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor” to stopping it? ….
    ______________________________
    George, I have spent years walking up to complete strangers and trying to educate them. I was doing it well before the Tea Party came into existence (Not a member) Why the heck else do you think I spent so much time I can ill afford and have so much information on the politics?

    I HATE history and did my best to avoid it in school but I am smart enough to understand Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. ~ George Santayana, so I have done a heck of a lot of digging.

    I also am smart enough to realize this has to be defeated in the court of public opinion and at the ballot box. If it devolves into an armed conflict we are doomed because “THEY” have the money and weapons. With luck we can grab the minds of the people. That is where the fight is and that is why I keep bringing up the banking ties to the Fabian Society, the ties of the Fabian Society to the London School of Economics and the ties of the London School of Economics to the World Political leaders, bankers and CEOs. The rank and file socialists who think “Capitalism” is a dirty word are not going to be happy they are the puppets of the bankers and CEOs. That is why there has been the desperate attempts to tie Heartland, WUWT and others to “Big Oil”

    It is also why I am the target of snark from those who support the Federal Reserve and Banker families.

    For what it is worth I am a centralist. We need capitalism, we need to not soil our own nest, we need a limited amount of “safety net” to be a civilized society. We also need a heck of a lot less regulation and government funded “Rent seekers” slurping up MY wealth.

  132. Curiousgeorge said @ March 19, 2012 at 4:45 am

    The comments in this thread remind me of discussions about the weather. Everybody talks about it, but nobody does anything about it. All of you who rant and rave about “global governance”, etc.: Is that all you do? How many of you are willing to commit your “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor” to stopping it? You complain that “the other side” is coercing the rest of the world thru punitive means to achieve their agenda, yet I see no equivalent means being used to stop them. Why is that? Are we satisfied to vent our spleens on a blog, and let it go at that in the forlorn hope that “the other side” will abandon their agenda? Good luck.

    This is a War. And wars are not won thru defense alone.

    What if they had a war and nobody came? :-)

  133. This time of year I begin looking for the “April Fools” in small print or the Apri 1 dateline.
    Unfortunately, it appears that Stix is fool of the perennial variety.

  134. Allan MacRae said @ March 18, 2012 at 10:00 pm

    Excerpt below, from an article written by Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace.

    Please note that this article was written by Moore in 1994.

    http://www.greenspirit.com/key_issues/the_log.cfm?booknum=12&page=3

    The Rise of Eco-Extremism

    Allan, your link is borked. My favourite essay of Patrick’s is Environmentalism for the 21st Century.

    It seems like only ten years ago Patrick and I were defending Bjørn Lomborg from the scurrilous attack by SciAm on his book The Skeptical Environmentalist. How time flies!

  135. Peak Warming Man [March 19, 2012 at 1:16 am] says:

    “Some people have a kneejerk reaction to the prospect of a world government just like some people have a kneejerk reaction to nuclear power, a world government is nothing to be frightened of, it’s a natural progression. Most countries like USA and Australia and UK etc started out as separate states that then united under a central government for the common good, the next step is for the countries then to unite under a central(or world) government for the common good, it will be elected just like our governments are, it’ll swing between being a government of the left persuasion to one of a right persuasion just as it happens now in all democratic countries. As I say, it’s a natural progression and is nothing to fear.”

    On the assumption you did not forget the SARC tag, let me ask you something.

    Clearly you have identified yourself as a malleable ball of silly-putty, shape-able to the whims of whomever has you in their hands, but what should happen to all the self-sufficient, independent, born-free people that want nothing to do with your International Socialist (ummm, Communist) utopia? I’m talking about people like me who’s ancestors were only emancipated a century and a half ago and many could not vote until just a few decades ago. I’m talking about refugees that fled dictatorships and war-zones that are first or second generation or newly freed. Women that could only vote beginning a century ago. People living in flyover country many miles away from liberal urban city hellholes. People that have been here for a dozen generations tending the same land hardly disturbed by anyone. Amish, Baptist, Catholic, Mormon, (… etc) enclaves. American Indian reservations. The whole gigantic American stew. What of all these people? Shall they be subject to far-off unrelated bureaucratic governance? Have you ever even considered the mathematics and ramifications of majority mob-rule? The question is, what should all of these people think about your grandiose idea? Here are some possibilities …

    (1) They should bend over and accept whatever an International Socialist majority of voters (or more likely dictators) decree?

    (2) They should be steamrolled over or eliminated altogether to clear the way for the new world order.

    (3) They should continue arming and organizing and then finally rid themselves of the homegrown Socialist cancer that continually plots and schemes their grandiose plans while we are taxed to support them thereby helping finance our own destruction.

    I’m gonna have to go with (3).

    P.S. When you say “Most countries like USA and Australia and UK etc started out as separate states that then united under a central government for the common good” you give yourself away as having no idea of what the USA actually is. The uniqueness of the American republic has somehow escaped you. I suggest you get a hard copy of the Federalist Papers and get reading. Consider it the The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Constitution or The Constitution for Dummies or Idiot’s Guide to the Constitution or whatever.

  136. Sam Geoghegan [March 19, 2012 at 6:53 am] says:

    “The tea party doesn’t encompass a single idea- they are a disparate group- from social conservatives to backwater neo-con who have hijacked it like Palin. It’s probably worth noting that the godfather of the movement is Ron Paul who the movement almost shares nothing in common with apart from giving lip service to fiscal government-which is a hallmark of conservatives.”

    Although I have no doubt you are irredeemably leftist, I’ll take a stab at this reckless and ignorant comment anyways.

    “backwater neo-con who have hijacked it like Palin” … Well you are gonna have to define something for me, what exactly do you mean by neo-con? This is an important question because one must carefully parse liberal speak. The liberals (for those outside the USA the term applies here to leftist progressive democratic socialists) have given us many interesting pejorative terms to deride pro-American traditionalists. For example I have personally been treated to terms like Uncle Tom in years past by compassionate liberals (not so much these days since I am older with a shorter temper and quick to lop their head off), a term which means a fugitive black that has escaped the democrat party plantation. Compassionate liberals also toss around the term Right Wing with abandon in a ignorant attempt to incorrectly associate their opposition with historical Fascists and Nazis (while their own party does contain actual self-described Marxists and Communists!). Lately, since Bush 43 they have teasingly flung the term Neo-Cons at their mortal enemies hoping they will recoil in fear. The fact that the target of the term is almost always Jewish and are derided as pro-Israel warmongers helps to expose their thinly veiled time-tested strategy. So the question is, what do you mean by ‘neo-con’? Did you ever even wonder about the purpose of the term? About the TEA party movement. First of all, no one person has or even can hijack the TEA party movement anyway since there is no infrastructure to facilitate this like a political container such as the (D) and (R) parties. One might argue that the (R) RINOs are trying to hijack or squash it, but that can only fail. I could get into your twisted hatred of Palin as well, but sometimes I like to leave the fact that leftists universally despise Sarah Palin, a pro-American traditionalist that favors low taxes and limited government speak for itself. You really should psychoanalyze yourself and determine how you got the point where these long-standing traditional American qualities have become so repulsive and so alien to you.

    “godfather of the movement is Ron Paul” … Clearly you have never been near a TEA party event (btw: wrong alpha case for acronyms, TEA = Taxed Enough Already, and it is not even a party anyway), because if you had you would know that neither Ron Paul, Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin are the godfather. If there really was one, a Godfather in spirit, it might be Jefferson whose defining characteristic was limited government. The reason the TEA party movement is so hated by the left is that it is a clear revival of the original intent of the founders of the republic. Every member of that ‘greatest generation’ from Sam Adams to Paul Revere to Jefferson and all the others are routinely disparaged these days with particular gusto from the democratic-socialist machine. Any movement that represents pro-American traditional values that does not worship some weakened-America international sensibilities is destined to be hated by the progressive elitists. You know what? That is a badge of honor of the highest order.

    “lip service to fiscal government-which is a hallmark of conservatives … Complete crap. The only way that would be remotely true is if we let you on the left define the terms. When you define Romney and Bush and Dole as conservatives as you always do, your sentence makes some relative sense. Needless to say though, you are only demonstrating how far over to the dark side you have allowed yourself to drift when you classify these politicos as ‘conservative’. And, it’s no wonder you leftists apply the term ‘right-wing’ to those on their ‘right’. But you still can re-calibrate yourself by simply asking yourself a simple question – Where do the founders like Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Washington, Adams (…etc) fit into your idealogical scale? Left, Right, middle, somewhere else? Or you can avoid the question and just take my word for it – you have been assimilated into the Socialist cabal and from where you now sit nearly everyone looks to be right-wing and they present a grave threat to your slave welfare state.

  137. Frosty says: @ March 19, 2012 at 6:48 am
    from the “Policy Brief” link “Transforming governance and institutions for a planet under pressure” http://www.planetunderpressure2012.net/pdf/policy_instframe.pdf

    Truly frightening, I can’t believe how blatant they are about Global Governance…
    ___________________________________________

    I want to comment on page 5 of that document, streamline and strengthen public–private governance networks and partnerships, because few people in the USA understand how that is usurping our right to govern ourselves. Anyone who thinks this is about Democrats vs Republicans needs to trace the layers of this monstrosity to see BOTH parties have turned traitor to their country.

    How public–private governance networks work and what they are doing is another critical piece of information and links to the intentional destruction of US citizen property rights. Property rights translates into the right to grow your own food. Stalin proved in the Ukraine how critical that right is in squashing resistance.

    “…There are currently six Regional Commissions in place, or pending final approval,..Few realize the growing influence they have over the lives of ordinary people, by providing the mechanism through which appointed individuals, rather than elected officials, develop public policy….The Appalachian Regional Commission, created in 1965, was the pilot project

    The regional governance concept began in earnest with the Clinton-Gore administration. On the heels of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, came the President’s Community Empowerment Board, chaired by Vice President Al Gore, which included 26 federal agencies…..” http://www.canadafreepress.com/2004/un030104.htm

    In 1976, the U.S. government signed a UN document that declared:

    Land … cannot be treated as an ordinary asset controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice;

    D-1. Government must control the use of land to achieve equitable distribution of resources;
    D-2. Control land use through zoning and land-use planning;
    D-3. Excessive profits from land use must be recaptured by government;
    D-4. Public ownership of land should be used to exercise urban and rural land reform;
    D-5. Owner rights should be separated from development rights, which should be held by a public authority.

    This document was signed on behalf of the U.S. by Carla A. Hills, then secretary of housing and urban development, and William K. Reilly, then head of the Conservation Fund, who later became the administrator of the EPA. See: http://sovereignty.net/p/land/unproprts.htm

    In 2007 under Bush we got The House Concurrent Resolution 25 X 25 (introduced 1/17/2007)

    “The official title of the resolution [H. Con. Res. 25] as introduced is: “Expressing the sense of Congress that it is the goal of the United States that, not later than January 1, 2025, the agricultural, forestry, and working land of the United States should provide from renewable resources not less than 25 percent of the total energy consumed in the United States and continue to produce safe, abundant, and affordable food, feed, and fiber.” http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:3:./list/bss/d110SC.lst::

    Land-use controls found their way into the 1987 report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, “Our Common Future,” which first defined the term “sustainable development.” The meaning of sustainable development here defined was codified in another U.N. document called “Agenda 21,” which was signed by President George H.W. Bush in 1992. This document recommended that every nation create a national sustainable development initiative.
    http://freedom.org/reports/human-settlements/index.html

    Agenda 21: Chapter 14 ~ PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT: http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/agenda21chapter14.htm
    …By 1995, to review and, where appropriate, establish a programme to integrate environmental and sustainable development with policy analysis for the food and agriculture sector…. By 1995 we got the World Trade Organization Agreement on Agriculture. The UN and WTO then set up a joint task force to write the regulations for farming. After many years of repeatedly introducing “Food Safety bills” “They” finally got the “Food Safety Modernazation Act” passed during the lameduck session in December 2010. One of the sections turns control of US farming over to the WTO.

    And that is a quickie history of how the US citizen lost the right to grow food enthusiastically aided by both the Republicans and Democrats.

    The USDA on Sustainable Development: http://www.usda.gov/oce/sustainable/partnerships.htm

  138. Ian W says:
    March 19, 2012 at 7:54 am

    ….I have highlighted the area that everyone needs to watch in the US. An international treaty once accepted by a two thirds majority of the Senate legally overrides the constitution…..
    ___________________________
    NO!!!!

    THAT is one of the lies they are spreading. The US Supreme court has ruled:

    A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress.. when …the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others. When you’ve read this thoroughly, hopefully, you will never again sit quietly by when someone — anyone — claims that treaties supercede the Constitution. Help to dispell this myth.
    “This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.” – Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.

    The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,
    “… No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, “This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…’
    “There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result…
    “It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).
    “In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined.”

    From: <a href=""www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/treaties.htmsweet libertyt and
    lawful gov

  139. Sliver33 says:
    March 19, 2012 at 10:49 am

    And the UN is started already to disarm the citizens of the US.

    Say, that treaty looks to be applicable to military scale weapons …

    Arms Treaty

    The global trade in conventional weapons – from warships and battle tanks to fighter jets and machine guns – remains poorly regulated. No set of internationally agreed standards exist to ensure that arms are only transferred for appropriate use.

    How does one make the jump from warships and battle tanks to … personal firearms?

    Do you have a link to the actual text of the treaty?

    Have read the actual text of the treaty?

    .

  140. Professor Rodolph Rummel (see Wikipedia), after a minute examination of 20th Century democide (the murder of any person or people by a government), finds that governments murdered six times more people than died in the wars of that violent century (war deaths are not, in general, murder).

    His conclusion: ‘concentrated political power is the most dangerous thing on earth.’

    Mr. Stix’s call for an authoritarian world government is thus, no doubt unintentionally, an appeal for mass murder.

  141. Andrew says:
    March 19, 2012 at 1:58 am
    Hell will freeze over, which may be increasing unlikely in a warming world, before China will hand over any power to a communistic world government of bureaucrats such as this. So it may be a ironic that the world’s largest communist state may prevent it from happening.

    Langsam, langsam. These freaks are more than ready to hand over power to the Communist Party of China and rest assured the Party is ready to take up the hard burden of global responsibility.

    The Middle Empire (Zhōngguó) with its inner and outer subjects and tributary states is more than capable to exercise global governance over the Eastern Barbarians, Southern Barbarians, Western Barbarians and Northern Barbarians for their sole benefit, of course.

    The Gate of Heavenly Peace is wide open.

  142. LazyTeenager,

    “So what kind of world government are you guys aiming for?”

    I would take a leaf out of a book called “Hitch hikers guide to the Galaxy”. There was a part where the President of the Universe was introduced. Because a President of the Universe would have such powers that could lead to much harm if abused, we were then told that safe guards were in place to check his power. The President does not know he is the President. He turns out to be a hermit living in a shack in some out of the way planet. Does not even know he is the President of the Universe, and therefore can do no harm.

    That is how the world government should be formed – preferably on the Moon!

  143. “Effective World Government Will Be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe”
    =================================================
    This world government will surely put no pressure on people:

  144. Just a heads up…may be worth a fresh post. DeSmogblog is worried that climate scientists have given skeptics some serious ammunition with this ‘world government’ meme. Interestingly Chris Mooney at DesM is in favour of “global governance as much as the next liberal”, but preferred the message remained hidden. Well worth a read:

    http://www.desmogblog.com/got-framing-why-scientists-must-pay-attention-communication-science-and-not-just-afterthought

  145. “Jeremy Thomas says:
    March 19, 2012 at 12:42 pm

    Re: Professor Rodolph Rummel”

    Thanks for the tip. Never heard of the guy before now, but I’m going over to Amazon right now & start making up for lost time. Never ceases to amaze what unintuitive truths pop up when you combine number-crunching & bonafide scholarship.

  146. Dogstar & Jeremy Thomas, Thanks for the information. It is incredible the things you learn on this site.

    Chris Mooney at DesM is in favour of “global governance as much as the next liberal” comment was delicious!

  147. The Pompous Git says: March 19, 2012 at 10:18 am…

    Hi Git,

    The above link works fine for me – anyway, Patrick Moore’s full article “Hard Choices for the Environmental Movement” can be located by googling:
    Greensprit Berlin

    Re Lomborg, I published the following article in E&E in early 2005. Lomborg actually accepted the bogus science of catastrophic global warming (OK – he’s an economist) and simply said there are much more economical means of solving the (alleged) warming problem. For this heresy, he was stoned by the watermelons.

    Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Jan Veizer and Nir Shaviv received similar treatment for actually challenging the bogus CAGW science. “How dare they! The science is settled!”

    Funny how the warming alarmists keep changing their version of the “settled science”, about as often as they change their underwear. First it was Global Warming (but the warming stopped), then it was Climate Change, Weather Weirding, etc, etc.

    Regards, Allan

    Drive-by shootings in Kyotoville
    The global warming debate heats up
    Allan M.R. MacRae

    [excerpt]

    Full article: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/28/the-team-trying-to-get-direct-action-on-soon-and-baliunas-at-harvard/

    Drive-by shootings have moved from the slums of our cities to the realms of academia. Any scientist who dares challenge the Kyoto Protocol faces a vicious assault, a turf war launched by the pro-Kyoto gang.

    These pro-Kyoto attacks are not merely unprofessional – often of little scientific merit, they are intended to intimidate and silence real academic debate on the Kyoto Protocol, a global treaty to limit the production of greenhouse gases like CO2 that allegedly cause catastrophic global warming.

    Witness the attack on Bjorn Lomborg, author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist”. While Lomborg did not challenge the flawed science of Kyoto, he said that Kyoto was a huge misallocation of funds that should be dedicated to more important uses – such as cleaning up contaminated drinking water that kills millions of children every year in the developing world.

    In January 2003, the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) declared that Lomborg’s book fell within the concept of “objective scientific dishonesty”. The DCSD made the ruling public at a press conference and published it on the internet, without giving Lomborg the opportunity to respond prior to publication.

    In December 2003, The Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation repudiated the DCSD’s findings. The Ministry characterized the treatment of the Lomborg case as “dissatisfactory”, “deserving criticism” and “emotional”, a scathing rebuttal of the DCSD.

    But such bullying is not unique, as other researchers who challenged the scientific basis of Kyoto have learned…

    **********

  148. The may want a world government, but it won’t happen. As more and more countries realize the BS of Global Warming, they will pull out of it. As long as that happens, Alarmists will get more desperate and make fools of themselves.

  149. Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?

    Were men able to keep Yakubu Gowon from killing over 1 million people in Nigeria? Or Kim Il Sung who led North Korea and took over 1.6 million lives? Did mankind prevent Leopold II in Belgium, Adolf Hitler in Germany, Jozef Stalin in Russia, Mao Tse-Tung, or Hosni Mubarak, Bin Laden, Benito Mussolini or Hussien from their evil acts? Each of these men took the lives of somewhere between many thousand to well over 70 million innocent lives. They were eventually stopped because there were still free people in other parts of the world who were willing to come to rescue of the people or the dictator died.

    How could the question even be asked? Just asking the question shows a degree of naivete that is frightening?

  150. About the tipping points argument: They are all in the rear mirror. Both our population and our way of living are not sustainable. The focus on CO2 is almost comical. What about heavy metals in the sea, acidification, soil and aquifer depletion? All definitive changes.

    As for the Orwellian world: The American focus on the UN is just as funny. It is coming home, literally (I even work to implement it) and there is nothing we can do against. In a few years your “light-bulbs” will spy on you! Forget about your I-Pads which can be remote controlled. The only question left is how to make sure that “you” the population accept it. But people already accept to go “naked” to board a plane: “For their own safety!” The steps from there are small ones. Just need the right psychological “nudges”.

  151. It’s the “Scientific American” in the same sense as “Pravda” was the truth in the former USSR.

  152. For those who haven’t seen it, Richard Black of the BBC chimed in last Thursday. You have to give him credit for laying it all out there in the lead.

    In a nutshell: does the way humanity governs itself need a series of tweaks or a complete overhaul, in order to meet the broadest ambitions of improving the lot of the planet’s poorest, safeguarding nature and making the global economy more sustainable?

    The answer, were it needed, according to the article coming out this week in Science by the “academic grouping” the Earth System Governance Project is quite straightforward:

    This requires fundamental reorientation and restructuring of national and international institutions toward more effective Earth system governance and planetary stewardship.”

    Sounds swell, doesn’t it? And they offer their seven-point plan, with typical peddling of the horrific Sustainable Development dystopia portrayed as some Gaian panacea. One word for this lot: Screw! Mr. Watts if you’d let me get away with it I’d offer two words.

    Seriously, what world do these people inhabit? How stupid do they think we are? They are well into their arrangements, aligning their BBC-SA-UNFCCC parrots to squawk about “critical tipping points” and “irreversible change” but their careful symphony in a repulsive cacaphony (typo intentional) and no amount of “engineering” will make it music to my ears.

    Theirs is a futile attempt at a naked hostile takeover and I for one will match it with the hostility it well deserves. Their sustainable misery is a sure loser. It will be stomped under the large foot of natural progress and the innate desire for freedom. They busy themselves preparing for the future they wish to force upon us, but I recommend they spend more time preparing to be rolled over by the greater mass of humanity that will move forward into the Golden Economic Era with or without them. Cheers!

    Sorry for the tone there. I was born under the thumb of a “benign dictator” and was fortunate to have escaped to this fine land as a child. As you noted, we are scoffed at for exposing what is openly and proudly their agenda. Tinfoil hats, black helicopters, all that crap they offer is simply deflection from reality. It’s delusion. It’s, ironically, utter denial. That’s what they offer. That and manufactured consensus, scary scenarios, lopsided propaganda, and other staples like marginalization of opponents and the stifling of debate.

    And so the gloves have been off for me for a long time now. The great news is, more and more of them come off each and every day. Thanks yet again for your great work Mr. Watts et al. Keep up the good fight. History will be kind to you and many others when this battle is won. How do you think Mann will be regarded in 2050? Cheers again!

  153. I was a subscriber to “Scientific American for over thirty years. Then it was captured by the ideological political, like this oaf Stix types, who wouldn’t know the first thing about say First Law of Thermodynamics. They stopped producing literate articles on Scientific advances and started campaigning for CAGW. I sent letters to the Editor complaining of the propaganda, to no avail. I let my subscription lapse as just another formerly good organization taken over by the leftist green ideologues, to milk for whatever credibility it can bestow.

    Recently they sent me a postage paid mailer and an advert imploring me to re-subscribe. I guess their readership of mostly literate scientists can recognize the decline and are deserting them, en mass.

    I taped the postage paid mailer to a cinder block, and mailed it back to them. Juvenile I know, but it felt good as a protest, and was probably noted, unlike my letters.

  154. Allan MacRae said @ March 19, 2012 at 5:56 pm

    Lomborg actually accepted the bogus science of catastrophic global warming (OK – he’s an economist) and simply said there are much more economical means of solving the (alleged) warming problem. For this heresy, he was stoned by the watermelons.

    Yes, I remember he kind of got it from both sides at the time, poor bugger (so to speak). Patrick Moore was threatened with legal action by SciAm for publishing Lomborg’s response to their attack on him and The Skeptical Environmentalist, so the Git hosted in case Patrick had to take it down. The recent attack on free speech is nothing new.

  155. Many of the notorious mass murderers in history mentioned in comments could not have carried out these crimes without being aided and abided by many others.
    By the way, one of my hero’s is Dr. Carl Weiss. ;-)

  156. old44 Is spot on the greens have given up tree huging they have decided to go for control over us all what ever the cost . the y generation I am sad to say do not no what will happen to them and that is NO future if the greens have anything to do with it

  157. Blade

    I struggle to find a reason why you’re arguing with me. You basically admitted that Reagan, Bush, Nixon, Romney, Palin et al, were/are not real conservatives, yet you use the typical ‘liberal’ smear to rebuke my argument? I’m confused.

    A true test of a neo-con is their willingness to accept foreign intervention as a god-given American duty and to paradoxically oppose Democrats- who basically uphold the same values- whch is to hold Americans to total moral and economic ransom, conduct unscrupulous activities with forign oil-rich nations, uphold corporate hegemony and allow broad latitute with the constitution.

    I have been vindicated and have nothing more to say.

  158. old44 wrote: “You don’t have to worry about Stalin, Mao, and Hitler, Louis, with the Greens it is Pol Pot.”

    Pol Pot’s Year Zero is the best, though oft overlooked, comparison. The ant-Vietnam war generation moved on to No Nukes (weapons) to No Nukes (power) to global warming. Just as their political forefathers denied what Stalin was doing in Russia, they denied what was happening in the killing fields of Kampuchea. I suspect that, for many on the left, climate change is just a means to an end.

    Year Zero

    Zero Order Draft

    http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0889554019.txt&search=governance

  159. Sam Geoghegan says:
    March 20, 2012 at 2:33 am

    Blade

    I struggle to find a reason why you’re arguing with me. You basically admitted that Reagan, Bush, Nixon, Romney, Palin et al, were/are not real conservatives, yet you use the typical ‘liberal’ smear to rebuke my argument? I’m confused.

    A true test of a neo-con is their willingness to accept foreign intervention as a god-given American duty and to paradoxically oppose Democrats- who basically uphold the same values- whch is to hold Americans to total moral and economic ransom, conduct unscrupulous activities with forign oil-rich nations, uphold corporate hegemony and allow broad latitute with the constitution.
    _______________________________________
    Sam, both the Democrats and the Republicans are littered with traitors. As far as I can tell the US Coinage Act of 1792 has never been repealed, probably because everyone had forgotten it existed by the time 1913 rolled around over one hundred years later. The Politicians in the District of Criminals and the bankers are GUILTY of debasing the coins of the USA. This was done by FDR (D) in 1933 when he confiscated all american gold (and gold coins) handed it over to the bankers to be replaced with bank script. and by Johnson (D) when he debased the silver in our present coins.

    Out of all the elected Senators and Congressman only five that I know of have protested this attack on the American people.

    Congressman Louis T. McFadden (R. Pa)
    Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr. (R Minn.)
    Senator Henry Cabot Lodge Sr (R Ma)
    Congressman Wright Patman (D Tx)
    Congressman Henry Barbosa González (D Tx)

    The US Coinage Act of 1792

    …..Penalty on debasing the coins

    Section 19.
    And be it further enacted, That. if any of the gold or silver coins which shall be struck or coined at the said mint shall be debased or made worse as to the proportion of the fine gold or fine silver therein contained, or shall be of less weight or value than the same out to be pursuant to the directions of this act, through the default or with the connivance of any of the officers or persons who shall be employed at the said mint, for the purpose of profit or gain, or otherwise with a fraudulent intent, and if any of the said officers or persons shall embezzle any of the metals which shall at any time be committed to their charge for the purpose of being coined, or any of the coins which shall be struck or coined at the said mint, every such officer or person who shall commit any or either of the said offenses, shall be deemed guilty of felony, and shall suffer death.

    Speaking about the Federal Reserve:
    “I have never seen more Senators express discontent with their jobs….I think the major cause is that, deep down in our hearts, we have been accomplices in doing something terrible and unforgivable to our wonderful country. Deep down in our heart, we know that we have given our children a legacy of bankruptcy. We have defrauded our country to get ourselves elected.” ~ John Danforth (R-Mo) in an interview in The Arizona Republic on April 22, 1992 Former ambassador to the United Nations

  160. Gail

    Fat currency- one of many unconstitutional acts permitted by both parties.
    You don’t need Democracy, you need rule of law, but the same central bank which facilitates government growth, has also addicted Americans with a veracious appetite for entitlements. (large welfare state=big government)
    Try convincing people that hand-outs are immoral and that they directly reduce the prosperity of a nation by looting from the private sector -no one will have a bar of it.

    and we get all this talk about the left, democratic socialism and their desire for central government.
    -It’s already here and It’s completely bi-partisan.

    -yeah, I’m getting off track here. Sorry.

  161. We just lost a prime minister in my bankrupt country who was all for global governance and climate protection; his successor is all for euro-governance and keeps quiet on Greenery. But we have a Governor of the Central Bank that has nothing to do and organizes climate protection seminars! The Greek poltical world is being divided, among Green pro-Europe types on one hand, and eurohaters, eurosceptics and …communists on the other, most of which sneer at AGW.

    So, to you it may appear that the zombies in the picture are leftists, to me they appear like German-WWF-brainwashed-do-gooder types. In all fairness, there are normal and/or enlightened types in Germany, but they are still a minority. Germany is deep in its own eco-trap (but has a good export business from it).

  162. Gail Combs says:
    March 20, 2012 at 5:10 am

    You may find this interesting

    http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/03/measured-in-gold-price-of-oil-is-below.html

    Measured in Gold, the Price of Oil is Below Average

    …”MP: Measured in terms of a stable commodity in relatively fixed supply like gold, the price of oil now is below its historical average, as the chart illustrates, and suggests that the falling value of the U.S. dollar is contributing to record high gas and oil prices, when measured in dollars. Measured in gold, oil and gas are now historically “cheap,” not expensive. “

  163. Since some one up thread was complaining about the Right I thought I’d add a bit (the quoted part below is from a former partner in Dillin, Read and HUD Secretary under Bush 1.

    After reading Dark Alliance, I started to study the extraordinary moneymaking business that DOJ and agencies like HUD had built in enforcement that really only made sense if in fact the government was entirely complicit in narcotics trafficking and related mortgage and mortgage securities fraud.

    If you want to read more about how drug money took down the country you can read Financial Coup d’Etat. If you want the whole story you can start with the table of contents.

    Links here: http://classicalvalues.com/2012/03/wall-street-is-in-the-news/

    So the Right is complicit as well. If only in a useful idiot sort of way. i.e. if the “climate” attack doesn’t work maybe the “drug” attack will. A lot going on in the UN about “Drugs” lately. Anyone notice?

    Also look up what is sustainable in the The Johannesburg Declaration. Drug Prohibition. And drug money is one of the biggest slush funds that keeps the whole shoddy mechanism running.

  164. Dave Wendt says:
    March 20, 2012 at 3:49 pm

    Gail Combs says:
    March 20, 2012 at 5:10 am

    You may find this interesting

    http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/03/measured-in-gold-price-of-oil-is-below.html

    Measured in Gold, the Price of Oil is Below Average

    …”MP: Measured in terms of a stable commodity in relatively fixed supply like gold, the price of oil now is below its historical average, as the chart illustrates, and suggests that the falling value of the U.S. dollar is contributing to record high gas and oil prices, when measured in dollars. Measured in gold, oil and gas are now historically “cheap,” not expensive. “
    ____________________________________
    Thanks

    I did a money supply ~ $/oz gold ~ Min. wage in $ ~ Min Wage in oz gold Chart a while back.
    This is what I found:
    In 1959 the minimum wage was .$1.00 or 0.0284 oz of gold.
    In 1974 the minimum wage was .$2.00 or 0.0102 oz. oz of gold.
    In 2009 the minimum wage was $6.55 or 0.0064.oz. of gold.

    Given this to calculate the average CEO’s wage.

    In 1976 A typical American CEO earned 36 times as much as the average worker. By 2008 the average CEO pay increased to 369 times that of the average worker. http://timelines.ws/subjects/Labor.HTML

    I came up with this as a rough estimate:
    1976 minimum wage was 0.0184 oz gold and a CEO’s pay was 0.663.oz gold
    2008 minimum wage was 0.0066 oz gold and a CEO’s pay was 2.44.oz gold

    No matter how you slice it the common folk are getting taken to the cleaners though price of good inflation (in $$) and wage deflation. Even though “Measured in gold, oil and gas are now historically “cheap,” not expensive. “ The corresponding minimum wage as measure in gold is about half what it was in 1971. The big drop in true wages was from 1959 to 1974 when the minimum wage in gold was halved and it has almost been halved again since then.

    References:
    Gold price http://www.finfacts.ie/Private/curency/goldmarketprice.htm
    Money supply http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/BOGUMBNS.txt
    Min Wage http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm

    An interesting study on where all that cheap labor came from: http://www.opednews.com/articles/History-HACCP-and-the-Foo-by-Nicole-Johnson-090906-229.html

  165. Sam Geoghegan [March 20, 2012 at 2:33 am] says:

    “I struggle to find a reason why you’re arguing with me. You basically admitted that Reagan, Bush, Nixon, Romney, Palin et al, were/are not real conservatives, yet you use the typical ‘liberal’ smear to rebuke my argument? I’m confused.

    A true test of a neo-con is their willingness to accept foreign intervention as a god-given American duty and to paradoxically oppose Democrats- who basically uphold the same values- whch is to hold Americans to total moral and economic ransom, conduct unscrupulous activities with forign oil-rich nations, uphold corporate hegemony and allow broad latitute with the constitution.

    I have been vindicated and have nothing more to say.”

    If by being ‘vindicated’ you mean being called wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong – then so be it. You simply ignored my comments about those ridiculous assertions … “Palin a backwater neo-con that hijacked the TEA party” :: No, she is a quite traditional pro-American who hijacked nothing … that ‘Ron Paul is the TEA Party Godfather’ :: that’s a big Hell No … that there is ‘conservative lip service to big government’ :: no, those RINOs *not* conservatives are big government lackeys … that it’s called TEA, *not* tea and it is not even a party … that the term ‘Neo-Con’ is suspicious as it is usually used with bad intentions … that Palin Derangement Syndrome indicates a problem of your own side … Vindicated? That word doesn’t mean what you think it means.

    And now you say this: “You basically admitted that Reagan, Bush, Nixon, Romney, Palin et al, were/are not real conservatives” … I certainly said no such thing. I clearly said “Romney and Bush and Dole” and by implication all other RINO country clubbers (Ford, Rockefeller, McCain, Christie, Pataki, Wilson, Powell, Dupont, Kean, Hastert, Michel, Crist, Hutchinson, Grassley, Spector, Boner, Chafee … ad nauseum). What they all have in common is the ability to be equally comfortable wearing a (D) or (R) but not ‘Conservative’, and that level of idealogical confusion only happens when leftists try to define the terms. Now, how you were able to insert Palin and Reagan into that comment demonstrates complete ignorance of anything outside your political bubble.

    Your novel definition of the usually bigoted pejorative: ‘Neo-Con’ is easily disproved. You say “A true test of a neo-con is their willingness to accept foreign intervention as a god-given American duty and to paradoxically oppose Democrats- who basically uphold the same values”. Well now, all you have to do is simply ask yourself if there are any so-called ‘Neo-Cons’ that DO NOT “paradoxically oppose Democrats” war action? So, would Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Bill and Irving Kristol, Horowitz, Wolfowitz, Bush 43, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bolton, Rice, Goldberg or any other alleged Neo-Cons challenge the (D) wars and interventions? Of course not! Pretty much all of them back any and all action by either party because most are simply too afraid to be called hypocritical by a (D) President or (D) Speaker or (D) News Media (which is just so ironic). Yes, there might a couple of those listed that timidly questioned smaller actions like Haiti or Bosnia (for very good reason if you ask me) but nothing vaguely compared to the hatred sent towards Cheney or Bush 43. Here is what you do not quite understand: For all practical purposes, all of the interventions and wars whether initiated by a (D) or (R) are pretty much – unanimous. The only difference lies in the media vitriol directed at them later (especially if the ‘warmonger’ happens to be ‘Conservative’ or (R) or Jewish or whatever target the media finds politically incorrect) or lack of vitriol if that ‘warmonger’ has a (D) attached to their name.

    Perhaps if we simply ignore the loaded term ‘Neo-Con’ then these military actions can be argued on the merits. Or perhaps not because then we see that the hypocrisy you tried to assign to ‘Neo-Cons’ is almost exclusively a creature of the left. The Clinton era cheerleaders rooted for Bosnian action while they previously decried the Kuwait Gulf War, not to mention ridiculing Panama, Libya and Grenada. Those of us that were not born yesterday watched in utter astonishment while the leftists simultaneously called for intervention in El Salvador while demanding hands-off Nicaragua (attack the Anti-Communists, protect the Communists). I could spend the whole day describing the cartwheels and contortions that leftist Democrats perform to protect America’s international enemies while attacking their national political rivals. In the big picture terms like ‘Neo-Con’ and ‘Oil Wars’ are simply propaganda constructs that serve to distract from the real issue. The leftist Communists and Socialists infiltrated and have completely saturated the (D) party so that it instinctively opposes any action that rolls back Communism, Totalitarianism and Terrorism. The attempt to change the subject to ‘Neo-Cons’ driving the ‘Wars for Oil’ (what oil did they take?) and ‘Shilling for Israel’ (isn’t Iran still there working on a nuke?) are pure lies not much better than Goebbels propaganda.

Comments are closed.