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
Same sort of delusional crap at the Guardian … and similar comments.
How Rio+20 can herald a constitutional moment
Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?
No, we cannot do that.
What would John Galt do?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah. First lets have the catastrophe.
“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… 🙂
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]
GREEN HELL!!!
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/285232-1
http://www.c-span.org/Events/Heritage-Foundation-on-Environmental-Movement/13474-1/
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
It would be enlightening to know just what position Gary Stix sees himself holding in such a new order.
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?
GREEN HELL, Part 2!!!
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/300308-1
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
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.
Lazy,
That governs best which governs least, and you are a certifiable lunatic.
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”.
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.
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?
“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!
Absolutely beyond belief!
How can anyone be that stupid?