Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The Conversation has published yet another green attack on liberal democracy. According to The Conversation, Liberal democracy is old fashioned – it’s antiquated institutions produce climate change “paralysis”, which the authors suggest can be resolved, by transferring democratic powers to unelected panels of national and trans-national bureaucrats.
According to The Conversation;
… Specifically, the failure to tackle climate change speaks to an overall failure of our liberal democratic system…
… Successfully tackling climate change and other big policy challenges depends on making tangible the intangible crisis of liberal democracy.
It means understanding that liberal democracy’s governance machinery – and the static, siloed policy responses generated by such democracies – is no longer fit for purpose.
Naturally The Conversation has a solution for this crisis. My favourite from their list of suggestions, is their idea that democratic powers should be transferred to unelected bureaucrats, who would still somehow be “accountable” to parliament, despite having “staying power” beyond individual political cycles.
Granting more decision-making power to institutions independent of the government of the day, but still accountable to parliaments (such as the Parliamentary Budget Office or Infrastructure Australia). This would increase the capacity of policy planning and decision processes to have staying power beyond individual political cycles.
The authors of this critique of democratic freedom, are Mark Triffitt (Lecturer, Public Policy at University of Melbourne), and Travers McLeod, Honorary Fellow in the School of Social and Political Sciences at University of Melbourne.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I am an alumni of Melbourne University (Physics – which is thankfully not overtaken by the dogma.. yet). I refuse to participate in any University funding campaigns as a result of the attitudes expressed by these impostors.
Good for you. I did the same thing with my undergraduate university and because they are quasi communist, I refuse even to list their name here.
Quasi? I actually think every department at my alumni was headed by card carrying members.
Just an additional note, this is the same sort of system that is being pushed in the central bank in the US currently, as we can all see how that is working out for the US and the rest of the world
I have a degree in environmental engineering and work as an engineer…after reviewing all the data it’s hard to believe that climate scientists are buying into this dogma. After just looking at the theory of CAGW it doesn’t make sense. If the atmosphere just contained n2 and O2 it would be difficult to emit radiation to space. Those gases are poor emitters. Add just a little co2 (a better emitter) and this allows the energy to go to space. Therefore co2 should provide cooling not heating. You can see this effect in the experiment by Anthony watts on this site where he catches bill nye being a fraud. The pure co2 ran slightly cooler air. I think he should run this again using n2 and O2 alone the again adding a little co2.
I think that the reason the pure CO2 ran cooler is because it was contained in a glass container. Glass absorbs the same frequency of IR radiation that CO2 does so none of the radiation that CO2 radiates makes it to the CO2 in that experiment. It’s not the same as the atmosphere. There is no glass container between here and the sun. Correct me if I am wrong.
I would like to know why experiments are not being conducted in a specially built stadium or larger sized construct to collect some empirical data on such things.
Billions spent every year, for what?
Hand waving, guesswork, informed speculation by nitwits….pathetic!
In that experiment the co2 transferred the heat via conduction. But it gave the heat up more freely….in the new experiment I would have a material transparent to olr …..place a blackbody in the container. Shine light similar to sunlight. It would be nice if the container where big enough to saturate the the co2 with the olr.
Scott Scarborough
The glass will absorb and re-radiate as a non grey body. A really tricky experiment
@alex
and a tribute to the genius of pointing to CO2 for anything
hey, credit where credit is due
Well Jamie, those gases don’t have to be good radiators. The earth surfaces ARE good radiators and can cool the planet by themselves, especially where the tropical deserts are.
The earth as seen from space has a spectrum that is deficient in the 15 micron LWIR band where CO2 absorbs, so the CO2 isn’t doing much radiating either.
And Bill Nye’s fraud is in using a 2800 K IR source; half of the sun Temperature, and 10 times the Temperature of the earth so that at its radiating peak , which is 1.0 microns, instead of 10.0 microns, it is 100,000 times as bright as the earth surface in the infrared.
And everything in Bill Nye’s experiment would absorb a lot of the source radiation and heat up, so if you are going to do an honest LWIR atmospheric absorption experiment, you need to use a source that is like a 288 K black body radiator, like an ordinary bottle of water, instead of a 100 watt incandescent lamp.
Bubba Cow
I could design a reasonable experiment but I couldn’t be bothered. The powers that be would label me a crank anyway. Unless they could find ‘the proof’ that they wanted.
Alex
Remember this is the experiment that bill nye wanted to prove CAGW….Personally I woulld like to see how this pans out. Post the experiment on YouTube. The whole CAGW theory got started with just a few cranks back in the 80s
George
Yes. The co2 absorbs some of the radiation at a few wavelengths. But then emits at lower frequencies…. That goes directly to space. Without co2 in atmosphere most radiation goes directly to space. But conduction does not. That energy needs to be converted to lwir to get to space. …so what effect would be greater….the energy captured by co2 or the additional energy that the n2 and O2 transfer to co2 through conduction which would be lost to space.
You need a blackbody inside the container and simulated sunlight onto it. If the container is transparent to lwir. It would be a reasonable simulation of this effect.
Radiation could be emitted directly to space by infrared radiation directly from the earth’s surface with no CO2 ( or H20 or clouds) in the atmosphere
Instead of all the silly non-sensible quibbling ….. why doesn’t someone execute/perform an actual, factual, legitimate scientific experiment to determine the per say “warming” effects of atmospheric CO2?
Just build two (2) identical size frameworks, ……. outside in an area where each will receive the same amount of Sunshine, ……. say 20′ x 10′ x 8′ square, …. out of 1/2″ plastic pipe, …. place temperature sensors (thermocouples) inside of them, ………cover them, top, bottom & sides, “air tight” with 4 mil clear plastic sheeting …… and when the night time temperatures in both stabilizes and reads the same, …….. then at say 3 AM inject enough CO2 in one of them to increase its current 400+- ppm of CO2 to say 700 ppm.
Then record the temperatures in each structure …… and again every hour on the hour (or every half hour, or every ten minutes) ……. for the next 24 hours, 48 hours, whatever.
And if CO2 is the “global warming” gas that all the proponents of CAGW claims it is, then when the Sun rises in the morning and starts shining on the structures, …… the temperature in the structure containing 700 ppm CO2 ……. should start increasing sooner and faster and reach a greater temperature than in the other structure ….. and when the Sun starts setting the temperature inside the structure with 700 ppm CO2 should remain higher than it is in the other structure up until and past the 3 AM starting point.
And if it doesn’t, then the CO2 causing AGW claims are totally FUBAR.
And if the temperature in the two structures do vary ….. then one should be capable of calculating a “CO2 sensitivity figure” via the recorded data.
It takes less time to do something right … than it does to explain why you did it wrong.
Sam
I don’t believe you’d be able to recreate what’s actually happening. The basic theory is that the heating is occurring in the upper troposphere (not really shown by radiosondes)…where there is little water to absorb the LWIR. Whole thing is that most of the LWIR at spectrum is absorbed by the atmosphere in the first 200 feet. then it’s converted to heat energy and convected to the upper troposphere. All the while it’s emitting LWIR radiation at various frequencies (why it’s -60c up there). when it gets to the upper troposphere it then emits radiation at which point the atmosphere is pretty transparent to all LWIR radiation and an easy ride to space. above the upper troposphere convection starts to shut down.
so recreating this whole scenario is nearly impossible….
the problem is that with only a small amount of CO2 about 40 ppm this net heating or cooling is near maximum. You don’t need a whole bunch of CO2 to make this happen. This is why it’s so hard to determine what actually is happening.
the only thing the experiment would show is that CO2 has the ability to cool if that happens at all. It would just be something else the warmists would have to contend with.
The whole problem is none of these experiments scale out to a planetary size. Tyndall’s experiment is repeatable on a micro level but it eliminates all the planetary scale variables.
The contradiction is that this is one of the tenets of experimental design, to eliminate uncontrollable factors to demonstrate a specific effect.
So I don’t think more experimentation is the answer. What is left is observation. If the observations don’t support the theory we can say it might be true. If they don’t we can say it might be false.
The problem is the scale and accuracy of observation don’t currently have the acuity to confirm or refute climate theory to any degree of certainty. The effects are too small and the construct of a global average temperature is just not workable with the data collection methods out there. Which is why we have a polarised vituperative argument.
And there is too much investment in the “C02 is the major factor” theory. It is quite literally to big to fail.
Saying “we don’t know” because the effect is smaller than the data acuity is also unacceptable though.
Perhaps the $$$ spent strangling and straining inadequate date should be aimed at improving it at source but that is investment in hardware and not putting cash into the pockets of the scientists. And the improved data might not be what the funders want it to be.
Well Jamie, give us some specifics.
We all know that CO2 absorbs LWIR radiation in the 13.5 to 16.5 micron band, which is on the long wavelength side of the 10 micron peak wavelength corresponding to the earth surface Temperature of 288 K.
So ok, that explains the extra terrestrial view dip around 15 microns.
So put some specific numbers to these “lower frequencies” that you assert that CO2 emits. And we know that the 15 micron absorption excites the two elbow bending modes of the CO2 molecule.
So just what is this excited state of the CO2 molecule that corresponds to these “lower frequencies.” ??
Now I don’t have a problem with believing that CO2 near the surface, at just 400 ppmm in the atmosphere can absorb a good bit of the 13.5 to 16.5 micron region of the surface gray body radiation; 98% of which should lie between 5.0 microns, and 80.0 microns wavelengths.
Now Trenberth asserts that only 40 Wm^-2 out of the total of 390 Wm^-2 is emitted directly to space. The rest is captured in the atmosphere, and heats it.
A whole lot of conduction convection and evaporation also transfers large amounts of “heat” (noun) to the atmosphere, which raises its Temperature.
So then we are asked to believe that the rest of this energy in the form of heat can only be removed by radiation from a very small number of CO2 molecules in the stratosphere at way sub zero Temperatures.
Seems highly implausible to me
And the only way I know of whereby “heat” can be 100% converted to radiation is in a heat engine whose exhaust Temperature is zero K.
The heat itself can’t escape without some real particulate material, so only radiation can leave the earth.
And of course I am taking for granted the commonly claimed assertion that ordinary mono or diatomic molecules cannot radiate thermal (BB like) radiation; only solids and liquids can radiate thermally.
Well in case I don’t make myself clear; I don’t believe that mantra for a second; but that is the backdrop against which CO2 has to do all of the radiant cooling. (no water at those high elevations.)
But we are being
@ur momisugly Jamie April 24, 2015 at 8:52 am
Jamie,
Me thinks you are mimicking tripe & piffle that sounds really great but makes no logical sense.
Who the ell cares if it’s -60c in the upper troposphere? Ells bells, its -120f in the lower troposphere over Antarctica. And neither one of those “cold spots” affect the lower troposphere air temperatures around my house n’ garden. But now iffen a Polar Vortex comes a rushing south out of the Arctic then I’ll feel the effects of it.
Iffen you don’t have a clue what the near-surface “warming” effect is for CO2 ….. how can you possibly claim that 40 ppm of CO2 is the maximum or minimum of anything?
I too, am an engineer — and after analyzing data realized that AGW is a fraud.
Why has it got legs? It doesn’t matter that it is false. AGW is just a political vehicle to justify ending democracies, capitalism, and nationalism. When full throated it will lead to de-population efforts that will make the Nazis look like angels.
There will be a Uber-class flitting about in private jets and living extravagant lives in extravagant homes and eating extravagant meals. The rest of the world will be reduced to the minimum population necessary for a servant class to do things robots can’t do.
We don’t have any Liberal Democracy system. Our Constitution guarantees to each State a Republican form of Government.
What’s more it INSTRUCTS the Federal Government that that is something they MUST do (guarantee it). That’s in Article IV section 4.
This differentiates it from Article I section 8, which delineates the 17 or 18 things that the CONGRESS is authorized to do; but doesn’t say they must do them.
Read a book “And not a shot fired” by Jan Kozak, a Czech communist bureaucrat in the early fifties about the infiltration of our western culture by using the behind the scenes bureaucrats to destroy us.It is happening today. I was never one of those into the “Conspiracy” theories but after reading and checking the book out, the way things are happening these last 10 years, I pay a lot more attention to it.
You have the right to bare arms in the US. But in the UK this right has been taken away, nio right to own a hand gun.
Take the arms from the people and the people get walked over.
” democratic powers should be transferred to unelected bureaucrats, who would still somehow be “accountable” to parliament, despite having “staying power” beyond individual political cycles”
That is far better than the situation in the EU where the unelected bureaucrats are NOT accountable to the European Parliament. The European Commission of 28 unelected bureaucrats is solely responsible for deciding on and writing the thousands of laws that govern every aspect of life in EU countries. These laws are then presented to the MEPs in the European Parliament who rubber stamp them at a rate of about one every forty five seconds. The laws are seldom if ever amended, never mind thrown out. Democracy has slowly been phased out of Europe since the nineteen seventies.
Sorry? Professor David Karoly.
This is the continuing to Agenda 21
It just so happens that an editorial in the Times today starts thus:
‘A free people requires a safeguard against the destructive power of factions. This argument, advanced by James Madison in the federalist papers of the emerging American republic, remains one of the finest justifications of representative democracy.’
Just about says it all.
Yes, tyranny by faceless bureaucrats has been shown to work so well in totalitarian states.
Does every generation (or decade) have to relearn the same lessons in liberty? It appears so.
I’m hoping that another American generation has been inoculated against socialism by the Obama regime, but am probably hoping against hope.
Unfortunately, I think Obama, and the last few administrations as well, have done a wonderful job indoctrinating the young to the joys of socialism. I just hope the revolution holds off until well after I am gone.
The revolution will come when these “expletive deleteds” run out of other people’s money, to borrow a timeworn phrase.
The Social/Cultural Pendulum has done swung too far off center to the left …… to ever swing back in our lifetime ….. unless we live long enough to witness the “end” of the civil unrest, deaths and destruction initiated by the anarchy “triggered” revolution.
You can not re-nurture (re-educate) a majority of the current population via just one (1) generation at a time (the children) being nurtured …… simply because the parents, guardians and current Educators will insure that will never happen.
The only solution is, ….. “iffen you won’t listen …. then you will have to feel” …. and that “feeling” part is really going to be painful.
Be reasonable. They only want a little tyranny. Only just enough to get what they otherwise cannot get if put to a vote. A kinder, gentler tyranny. What’s your problem?
Oh, is that all? Well, no problem then. Please cut of my electricity immediately and take away my vehicles, modern appliances and other conveniences and medical care. I’ll go cut some trees down to build a shack, heat it (maybe burn it down a time or two) and kill the tyrants deer to feed my family. I will be happy to watch many of my grandchildren die before they’re 5 and my daughter die in childbirth. That sounds wonderful in the new kinder, gentler green tyranny.
“I’ll go cut some trees down to build a shack, heat it (maybe burn it down a time or two) and kill the tyrants deer to feed my family.” No you wont. That’s the bureaucrat’s tree and deer.
Oh, the stupid, how it BURNS! At some point the pain becomes unbearable. Over my dead body. Hear that man-bear-pig? Go ahead. Do it.
Oh thank you now I understand, so now I will bow to your every wish.
I think there are some who were unable to detect the mordant sarcasm inherent the phrase “kinder, gentler tyranny.” #B^)
Socialists are by nature tyrannical. Here’s what an Australian Labor senator called Nick Bolkus thought free speech was: “Real freedom of speech is about resourcing durable institutions within society that can present alternative views, critique government policy, and review government decisions.”
Democracy works just fine, thank you. All they have to do is present a cogent argument to the voters. Obviously the warmists have failed to do so, despite decades of lobbying and spending. Normal people can see through their swindle.
Absolutely. If you can’t convince the voters, and you start talking about democracy not working, my first reaction is ‘do we have a left-wing or right-wing extremist here?’
Democracy is the guard against incompetent pseudo-scientists. The days for “Believe as I do or else” is over long ago, dear CO2-believers. Consensus is a political term and those who speaks against democracy acually believe that All people are equal but some are more equal. The step from that to fascism isn’t far.
Communism, not fascism.
The ends of communism and fascism are the same. They just go about it differently (or so they think).
Agreed. It’s just a matter of what flavor of socialism you prefer. Kind of like the difference between Coke and Pepsi.
The communists have a two-stage programme:
1) Nationalise everything.
2) Tell everyone what to do.
The fascists have a single stage programme:
2) Tell everyone what to do…
No. Problem with that statement is the more to the left you look the closer you will find the extreme right…
Like the difference between Coke and Pepsi? Heresy! If you can’t tell the difference you must be a northerner.
Well, some corruption is inevitable. But I still dink sweet tea.
Can we be clear on something that even presidents don’t understand? The Founding Fathers abhorred democracy. The United States of America was founded as a Republic-not a democracy. Democracy is the first step toward dictatorship and is in essence mob rule. So please, stop with the democracy garbage.
been living in the political world too many years not to realise that very few politians understand Natural Forces of our Planet… even less the closer to the top one look 🙂
Franklin did not say, “A democracy — if you can keep it.”
My father said ….. a Democracy will not work unless you can get all of the people (voters) in the same room …. at the same time.
Just call it statism and you’re covered whether they are fascists like Mussolini and Hitler, communists like Stalin, Mao, and Castro, or Jihadists like Khomeini or ISIS, or the confused like Barry. They are all the same in that they believe their beliefs exist in a one-to-one correspondence with reality. You agree, that confirms it. You disagree, that also confirms it.
Even worse, they hardly notice if you don’t say a word…
“Barry” is not “confused.” He studied well at the feet of Alinsky and other American leftist revolutionaries, while for twenty years attending a church with as much anti-Americanism as your average madrassah in Iran.
He’s about as confused as to his direction as Lenin was.
They are confidant that these “independent” institutions will be staffed by strong left people so their aims will be met and democracy can go to hell.
No taxation without representation.
They are too stupid to realize that they are the “useful idiots” who will be the first to be eliminated under the new dictatorship.
The brown shirts of our time.
The sad thing is that all revolutions are initially led by intellectuals, who end up being the first stood up against the wall when the revolution comes. Why would new rulers want to keep people around who wanted to throw out rulers?
It’s like the old semi-joke that “If you marry a woman who cheats on her husband, you’ve married a woman who cheats on her husband.” Or man/wife. All the same.
Yes, we must have a Climate Czar to save The Planet. How about John Holdren?
He’s unqualified.
And your point is?
He’s unqualified.
Yes and… Something like a person being unqualified is going to stop the greens? Assuming it actually gets that far, that is.
That is a feature, not a bug.
Consider the historical context of how the framers regarded the importance of an informed citizenry as a restraint on excessive government power, and its applicability to efforts such as the one discussed above.
According to historian Richard D. Brown, in his
volume, The Strength of a People: The Idea of an Informed Citizenry
in America, 1650-1870, (1996), John Adams’; “Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law,” written in 1765, was one of the first American arguments
in favor of an informed citizenry as a check on governmental power.
Early in the essay, Adams correlates the rise of knowledge with a
decline in oppression: “But the fact is certain; and wherever a
general knowledge and sensibility have prevailed among the people,
arbitrary government and every kind of oppression have lessened and
disappeared in proportion.”
After describing the tendency of both canon law
and feudal law towards oppression, Adams lauded the early
settlers’ determination to avoid the perils of both by providing
for the broad diffusion of knowledge among the population:
The most important body of knowledge, said Adams,
was knowledge of the character and conduct of the rulers:
Adams then discusses the means and methods of
disseminating knowledge to the public so as to preserve
liberty:
Little did Adams know how well his words would fit the internets in general, and the AGW government power grab in particular.
Yes, a free press is essential to preserve the freedoms of the people. Little did the Founders envision that the free press would give up their duties as watchmen of liberty just for more sales.
The funny thing is that they don’t do it for more sales, as evidenced in their ratings and losses. They do it for the “cause”
‘Sales’ is really a form of Canon. It has become a quasi religion because through various agencies, the businesses that run media are not veiwed by their ability to make a profit, pay their stafff and survive but by their market capitalisation, their PE ratio and their earnings multiple when absorbed into a larger organisation.
This uber commercialisation, is what is twisting the background ‘free enterprise system’ that Adams et al assumed would persevere like the night sky on a clear noght into the vicious, predatory, voracious and utterly egotistical, frenzy of collateralised wolf pack lunacy it is today.
They propose the same solution that all leftists propose for society’s problems: enlightened bureaucrats that are never corrupted and always act impartially on the facts. I’d like to know where you these “philosopher kings” exist – I’ve never met one.
Henry II?
Of England?
Surely you jest.
By the standards of the day, Henry II was a great guy. His lasting legacy is the British legal system – that’s no mean feat.
They do exist. George Washington could have made himself king, but he chose to be a president. One of the former presidents of Colombia was also such a man, he assumed absolut power to crush the communist insurgents, then returned the power to parliament, when the job was done.
People like are very rare though, most of the giving someone absolute power does not work out well.
Eric, can we go back to giant rabbits and spiders, please.
This is not helping my blood pressure, but you are having a good run
of troll free posts.
I am sure that monarchs can be very good rulers.
According to Mr Edward (teddy) Bear, King Luis So and So (nicknamed the handsome) was a very kind man. I am pretty sure that Edward Bear had his name changed to Winnie The Pooh, and if you can’t believe Winnie The Pooh, who can you believe.
Nobody has a better record of protecting the environment than dictatorships. Take the Soviet Union, for example. Wait, no, East Germany. Wait, not them — The Peoples Republic of China. No? How about North Korea? How about the fresh air and pristine beauty of North Korea? Anybody want to live there? Anybody? Anybody? Bueller? Ferris Bueller?
“Danke shoen, darling, danke shoen!”
To get things done, you need a Mussolini or worse.
They will achieve a lot, good or otherwise.
At least the coal trains of death will run on time.
And to think, people roll their eyes and groan whenever anyone says that the *Real* goal of the climate change movement is to do away with democracy, and re-institute totalitarian governance systems over all of humanity.
But every once in a while, the mask slips and you see the true goal shining forth, just like it has here.
Exactly so.
Let’s hear more bright ideas from them “… when the enemy is making a false movement we must take good care not to interrupt him …” Napoleon.
“But every once in a while, the mask slips and you see the true goal shining forth, just like it has here.”
Yup.
Here at about 2:15, the truth accidently escaped his lips: Walk the walk? Hell no… It is not what you do, it is who you vote for:
Michele, you go girl!
Watch her posture: she never flinches, and she holds the mic rock-steady.
(I would have snapped off those index fingers by 1:30.)
That basically sums up the movement right there. It isn’t about their own personal choices or responsibilities, it’s about changing the laws so that you have no choice or responsibility.
Well that piece shows just what a dingbat that joker actually is. And with his money, that makes him a dangerous dingbat.
Wow! What a wacko – F him.
How far we have fallen, if this is now what passes for leadership.
I’ll have to go back and listen to a JFK speech on NASA or something to restore my faith in in the US.
Kennedy’s come in two flavors -pretty smart and pretty dumb.
Watching this rant and seeing that he’s inspiring to so many actually scares me.
It’s all I can do to just shake my head in bewilderment. With people like this no wonder Jim Jones and David Koresh were able to control their followers. Totally lacking in constructive thought and free will.
I wonder, if Obama’s team really tried, how many members of Obama For America and other followers of The Cause would actually drink the poisoned Kool-Aid themselves (ala Jim Jones’ group of wackos) because their leader told them it would save the earth if they drank it.
How many ignorant fools would just do what they were told?
The answer is terrifying.
Here in the US, I frequently encounter people who reach into their golf-bag for the #5 cliche: “With all the gridlock, Congress can’t get anything done.”
EXACTLY! JUST AS IT’S SUPPOSED TO BE!
The US’s system of checks and balances is designed put a straight-jacket on hare-brained schemes, which are in unlimited supply.
That sound of grinding gears in government? That’s the music of the Constitution playing.
The last thing we want are politicians who can “get things done.”
Hear, hear, Max Photon!
(a chorus of hearty voices from above to the sound of enthusiastic clapping…. John Adams…. John Marshall…. Abraham Lincoln …. Ronald Reagan …. )
We have John Marshall to thank for every activist court since him. Lincoln was a statist who trashed the Constitution.
There was a civil war. Different constitutional rules apply, are in the constitution, and are constitutional.
Well, Mr. Harlani, and just how would YOU have abolished slavery?
A civil war? You mean the War of Northern Aggression? If it wasn’t for Lincoln and the suppression of States Rights, we would be much better off today.
(ummm…../sarc)
Janice,
The US war from 1861-1865 was definitely not fought to abolish slavery. It was a case of the federal government asserting itself over states’ rights.
Janice, our families at that time all voted for Lincoln, and were Yankees. Baumgartners, Nugents, Scotts and Webbers. Lots of women had both brothers and husbands off to war. Thank God they did, and the lands West were settled by both blacks and whites. They were all free states thanks to that generation settling it.
Here’s a Nebraska sodhouse, the same as my folks had to build.
http://memory.loc.gov/award/nbhips/lca/105/10527r.jpg
Freedom is hard work! (:
Hi, Zeke — thank you, so much, for sharing. What a fine heritage you have! Glad that pluck and perseverance your ancestors demonstrated was passed on to you as you keep on keepin’ on here at WUWT with your many fine comments in support of TRUTH!
Janice
Thanks Janice! I left a reply here on accident. Cheers
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/23/claim-democracy-creates-climate-change-paralysis/#comment-1915481
The English Royal Navy started suppressing the slave trade in 1807. Maybe that was a bit late, but if they’d interdicted all nations’ ships as well as British slave traders, perhaps history might be a bit different.
Boogie Wonderland
by Earth, Wind and Fire
1979
Oh the memories!
Guys, play this for the gal in your life, and there is a 97% chance she’ll be shaking her bootie all over the living room with a huge smile on her face 🙂
“Lincoln was a statist who trashed the Constitution.”
Right, Lincoln violated the COTUS when issued a mandate to cede part of the State of Virginia to become a new State in the Union …. simply because he wanted control of the Rail Road.
Doubtless you’ve encountered BuSab and Jorge McKie. It is set in a future where communiciation is rapid and legislation can go from bad idea to law in days, hours or even minutes. His job is to slow government down so a bit of thinking can take place and reconsider bad ideas.
That was such a great idea! I wish we had something like that…
“No man’s life, liberty or property are safe while the Legislature is in session.” —Gideon J. Tucker
/Mr Lynn
James Schrumpf. For your information the RN did “interdict” slave ships of ALL nations
You would think after 230 years, all the laws that were needed would have been thought up by now
You romantic fool you! They have not even begun.
Unfortunately it also works in reverse. Stopping bad ideas entering the system can be effected because of gridlock, but then trying get rid of bad ideas when they have become deeply entrenched in the system CANT be effected because of the very same gridlock. Maybe this was what Jefferson meant when he talked about the slow encroachment of tyranny.
The argument is ironically self-refuting, a demonstration of the falsehood of their thesis. In fact no reasonable person of epistemic humility and dedication to science believes that he knows that CAGW is coming or even believes that he knows that the risk of CAGW is high. At this point in time the only kind of person asking for this power can be one who is unreasonable, lacking in epistemic humility, or lacking in dedication to science – exactly the kind of person into whose hands it would be disastrous to concentrate power. Yet here you have two guys asking for technocratic power because they believe they know these things. Anyone who makes this argument is a living and breathing demonstration of its invalidity.
Thar’s lots of 5 dollar words in thar. I had to look a few of dem up.
“epistemic humility” and “dedication to science” strikes me as redundant.
So does “epistemic humility” and “dedication to science”
!
The leader of Canada’s Liberal Party, Justin Trudeau, famously said that he admired “China’s basic dictatorship” because it allows them to get things done. I look forward to Le Dauphin’s impending reign and Canada’s descent into cultural revolution, complete with mass starvation, a one-child policy buttressed by forced abortions, cancer cities, and the St. Lawrence turning the same chromatic yellow as, well, the Yellow River. Executions of ideological heretics (with the family billed for the bullet), smog you can cut with a chainsaw, crowd control by main battle tank…can’t wait for Canada’s very own great leap forward!
Communist China – every Liberal’s ideal state. Democracy just gums up the works. P.J. O’Rourke put it best when he said of the Kennedys:
“They were demagogues of oligarchy. Disguised as populists, they championed the definitely privileged and supposedly enlightened few. These few, when ensconced in the offices of government, would decide what was best for the many. The Kennedys saw political office as the source, rather than the result, of social order. They held government to be the fountainhead of all privilege, responsibility, benefit, and constraint. They did not know and probably couldn’t understand the idea of a free people chartering a government for the sake of convenience and paved roads. It never occurred to a Kennedy that the proper role of federal administration might be to guard the coasts and let UPS deliver the mail. And only in the vaguest, election-fixing way did any Kennedy realize that public officials serve at the peoples’ sufferance.”
“…There is something more horrible than hoodlums, churls and vipers, and this is knaves with moral justification for their cause.”
That last line should serve as the epitaph for all of the shrieking bien-pensants responsible for the moral panic that has provided fertile societal soil for the greatest and most costly scientific fraud in modern memory.
Donald Mao’s china was one thing but the true representation of environmental Eden was Pol Pot’s Kampuchea and he did so while garnering an observer seat at the UN!
Smacks a bit of Plato’s Republic “Plato divides his just society into three classes: the producers, the auxiliaries, and the guardians. The guardians are responsible for ruling the city. They are chosen from among the ranks of the auxiliaries, and are also known as philosopher-kings. ”
And we know who the “Guardians” will be 🙂
The Lysenko solution.
Morons.
this is the most ‘terrorizing’ thing I’ve ever read here at WUWT ! Once we’ve gone to this level …
Rules of Bureaucracy
Rule #1: Maintain the problem at all costs! The problem is the basis of power, perks, privileges, and security.
Rule #2: Use crisis and perceived crisis to increase your power and control.
Rule 2a. Force 11th-hour decisions, threaten the loss of options and opportunities, and limit the opposition’s opportunity to review and critique.
Rule #3: If there are not enough crises, manufacture them, even from nature, where none exist.
Rule #4: Control the flow and release of information while feigning openness.
Rule 4a: Deny, delay, obfuscate, spin, and lie.
Rule #5: Maximize public-relations exposure by creating a cover story that appeals to the universal need to help people.
Rule #6: Create vested support groups by distributing concentrated benefits and/or entitlements to these special interests, while distributing the costs broadly to one’s political opponents.
Rule #7: Demonize the truth tellers who have the temerity to say, “The emperor has no clothes.”
Excellent.
Don’t forget: Create a continuum of paid federal holidays.
That is indeed excellent. Is it your own? If not, can you provide a citation?
/Mr Lynn
For more rules and tips on governing in the 21st century please visit our webpage,
http://www.un.org/en/ga/
Rules of Bureaucracy – Developed thousands of years ago, and still applicable today.
Identical to rules for tyrants, socialist, leftist, liberal and communist governments.
Did you get this from Hillary Clinton?
“the past is the key to the future”
Yeah, it would be nice to get rid of this pesky democracy. These clones don’t seem to know that the concept of “the environment” came from democracies. Here is a picture of the environment in the former Soviet Union under just such an unelected bureaucracy. There was no government – all were bureaucrats. I ve never heard of a tougher idea to sell than this.
http://www.gerdludwig.com/stories/soviet-pollution-a-lethal-legacy/#id=album-37&num=content-308
Sounds familiar…
There was another hideous excuse for tyranny: Eugenics.
{substituting “climate change” for “eugenic”}
“Political unification in some sort of world government will be required…
Even though… any radical {climate change} policy will be
for many years politically and psychologically impossible,
it will be important for UNESCO to see that the
{climate change} problem is examined with the greatest care,
and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake
so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”
– Sir Julian Huxley, UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy.
Source: http://www.infowars.com/eugenics-quotes-from-lofty-ideals-to-highly-centralized-population-control-run-by-psychopathic-maniacs/
**************************
Actually, Enviroprofiteers, motivated as they are by cold-hearted greed, worry one much less than a certain religion ….. (which some uninformed WUWT commenters will, bizarrely, defend — eye roll) whose motivation for totalitarianism is hot-blooded fanaticism. Certainly, the Isl@mofascist leaders are also motivated largely by greed, however…. their followers, whom the leaders use like rabid hyenas, unlike the majority of the AGW Cult members, are zealous and will k1ll for their beliefs.
Wait — a — minute. Come to think if it… it’s not reassuring at all. Soc1ialism/Envirostalinism (the necessary political structure necessary to ensure the Enviroprofiteers’ profits) is, in the end, enforced out of the barrel of a gun… .
Now, who said that?
I think he was a Commun1st…
from a country where real (not imaginary CO2) pollution is providing yet one more case of the failure of soc1alism to ever be truly “green.” {As More Soylent Green! ably points out, here}
*************************
Thank you, Eric Worrall, for the heads up! I’m not worried. There are too many clear-thinking Australians (who love liberty!) for this to be a real concern. GO, AUSTRALIA!
*******************
And, Eric Worrall, THANK YOU, so much, for all your efforts, week after week, to keep WUWT an excellent site for truth in science! You are one of WUWT’s giants.
More Soylent Green!’s comment is … HERE (oops): http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/23/claim-democracy-creates-climate-change-paralysis/#comment-1915228
And Gary Pearse (writing while I was) ably points out the same, here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/23/claim-democracy-creates-climate-change-paralysis/#comment-1915277
Thankyou for the compliment Janice 🙂
Isn’t this known as the EPA?
+++Jquip
Says it all. And it is well known the EPA meets with foreign powers at Climate Summits.
I think jut about everything is, in the end, enforced out of a barrel of a gun. (Including our freedoms.)
Good point, Mr. Jones. And that is why (not informing you, I realize you agree with this) we must maintain the U.S. Constitution’s checks and balances on just who gets to pull the trigger.
Evan … it’s all about gold, silver, and lead.
… and natural law… as in the right to: “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”
with which ALL {humans} are “endowed by their Creator {or “Higher Power” or “The Universe” or whatever “force” you believe in}.”
To hear these southerners tell it, the north was just sitting quietly wondering what it was all about. But the fact is, the number one national pass time in America was then, and always has been, arguing. Any one who thinks Northerners didn’t have deeply held opinions and convictions about slavery in the US is playing fast and loose with the facts.
To illustrate, I shall regale and delight all of you with the story of the time my Uncle Jack, the circuit preacher, offered to come and speak about slavery to a town known for its southern sympathies:
“It was taken for granted, of course, that he was an Abolitionist and would denounce the south. The blood of those southern sympathizers at once began to boil. Everyone anticipated a lively time, and interest became intense. All felt that the foolhardy young fellow did not realize the danger to which he was exposing himself. An old gentlemen, the village blacksmith, felt it was his duty to warn the reverend…As usual Newgent was firm. He told the gentleman, however, that he wanted to be fair to both sides, so if those who disagreed with him desired, they might get a man to follow him and present the other side of the question.
This they were only too anxious to do. When the time came they had their man. By the time Newgent and his wife arrived at the little schoolhouse that evening, it was completely packed and an immense crowd was gathered on the outside. It was with the greatest difficulty that they forced their way through the anxious throng and made their way to the front of the building. The opponent was on hand, ready to take his measure and smash all of his arguments….If he could not demolish the frail Abolitionist, there were enough present who were ready to lend all the assistance he needed. The smell of brimstone was in the air, indicating the presence of that commodity in unlimited quantities. All that was lacking for a real conflagration was something to touch it off. And that something was momentarily expected.
After a brief preliminary exercise, the preacher opened the discussion. Like the great apostle on Mars Hill, he complimented his hearers on their seeming interest in the subject at hand. “As the subject of slavery,” he said, “is stirring our country from one end to the other, and as it is a subject of such vital importance, I take pleasure at this time in presenting one phase of it.”
“I wish to observe in my remarks, First, the slave; Second, his master; Third, the law by which he is held in bondage; Fourth, how he is to be liberated; Fifth, where he is to be colonized.” Thus far, well and good. These were familiar topics and had been discussed pro- and con- even by the school children. Hence, his opening remarks were according to expectations, and breathlessly they awaited what was to follow.
Their consternation and chagrin can only be imagined when he proceeded to state that the slave was the sinner; his master is the devil; the law by which he is held in bondage is sinful lusts and habits; he is to be liberated through the blood of Christ; and heaven is the place of his colonization. Around these propositions he built his discourse without any reference to slavery as a civil institution…and his antagonist had no disposition to reply.
“Well, we are beat,” said the old blacksmith after the service was dismissed, “but the boy is the sharpest fellow that ever struck this town.” And he was not alone in his conclusion. [In his previous visit he had tricked both saloon owners to close for one day so that he could have a meeting at the schoolhouse.]
I hope this anecdote goes a way to demonstrate by lively description that all were fixed on the subject of slavery and they knew exactly what they were doing when they elected Abraham Lincoln. +Janice, thank you for your welcomed wuwt presence too!
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them to another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate but equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Natures God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights just Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of he governed.
Janice, your version leaves a little something to be desired.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Janice, your version leaves a little something to be desired.
Send lawyers, guns, and money . . .
I respectfully disagree. I believe our freedoms are inalienable, but that they may have to be DEFENDED out of the barrel of a gun.
Upon failing to convince the people that CAGW is true despite countless alarmist claims, falsifying records, half truths, downright falsehoods, and muzzling of any dissension they desperately say the only answer is to turn over all control to them. Elections only get in the way. In America the first step would be to rid the government of that pesky Constitution….good luck with that.
Interesting to watch the socialists try to get rid of democracy in the name of a vague threat (climate change) and make it look like they are saving the world. They tried back in the 1970s and it failed as it will fail this time.