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
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
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.
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?
Following up…
pat says:
March 18, 2012 at 11:04 pm
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.
A post based on that document would go far beyond the OP in this thread.
Which is why I am voting for Ron Paul. Even if I have to write it in.
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.
When a “Fearless Fosdick” solution is required, world government can make it happen.
“When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.” – Abraham Lincoln
“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 🙂
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,..
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.
Paul Coppin
We’re quoting Lincoln in a thread about central government?
The irony.
Speak of the devil:
I should be a ‘futurist’ — My predictions are coming true already.
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.
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/
He obviously can’t contain his enthusiasm maybe reality will.
[SNIP: sorry, that was just a little too serious and I don’t think we should be suggesting that. -REP]
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
“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…
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
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.
From the article:
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!”
Thanks Gail!
http://www.infowars.com/texas-mayor-officially-cancels-agenda-21-membership/
Time to kick back..
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