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
It is probably worth pointing out again the comments above by AJB and Pat
AJB says: March 18, 2012 at 10:11 pm
pat says: March 18, 2012 at 11:39 pm
Take a look at the website for a conference to be held this week in London:
http://www.planetunderpressure2012.net/index.asp
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.
“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!
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.
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!
@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!
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…
You don’t have to worry about Stalin, Mao, and Hitler, Louis, with the Greens it is Pol Pot.
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
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.
Proposed UN Environmental Constitution For The World Would Establish An Incredibly Repressive System Of Global Governance
http://tinyurl.com/88692zv
when do we stop talkin?
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.
OT, but at least one British MP realises that green energy subsidies are hitting lower middle class people in the UK, and wants them revised http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/solarpower/9152403/We-must-cut-our-overheated-energy-costs.html
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
Anthony took the words out of my mouth after I read the title:
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Perhaps the most terrifying thing is how the newest “governing body” the World Trade Organization, actually works.
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.
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.
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….
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.
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
Dr. Strangelove resurrected?
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.