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
Jessie wrote:
He would take note of Ellsworth Toohey
http://www.tysknews.com/Articles/exterminating_ellsworth.htm
Thanks for the link.
LazyTeenager,
“So what kind of world government are you guys aiming for?”
I would take a leaf out of a book called “Hitch hikers guide to the Galaxy”. There was a part where the President of the Universe was introduced. Because a President of the Universe would have such powers that could lead to much harm if abused, we were then told that safe guards were in place to check his power. The President does not know he is the President. He turns out to be a hermit living in a shack in some out of the way planet. Does not even know he is the President of the Universe, and therefore can do no harm.
That is how the world government should be formed – preferably on the Moon!
“Effective World Government Will Be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe”
=================================================
This world government will surely put no pressure on people:
Paul Ehrlich’s Mini-Me!
Just a heads up…may be worth a fresh post. DeSmogblog is worried that climate scientists have given skeptics some serious ammunition with this ‘world government’ meme. Interestingly Chris Mooney at DesM is in favour of “global governance as much as the next liberal”, but preferred the message remained hidden. Well worth a read:
http://www.desmogblog.com/got-framing-why-scientists-must-pay-attention-communication-science-and-not-just-afterthought
“Jeremy Thomas says:
March 19, 2012 at 12:42 pm
Re: Professor Rodolph Rummel”
Thanks for the tip. Never heard of the guy before now, but I’m going over to Amazon right now & start making up for lost time. Never ceases to amaze what unintuitive truths pop up when you combine number-crunching & bonafide scholarship.
Dogstar & Jeremy Thomas, Thanks for the information. It is incredible the things you learn on this site.
Chris Mooney at DesM is in favour of “global governance as much as the next liberal” comment was delicious!
The Pompous Git says: March 19, 2012 at 10:18 am…
Hi Git,
The above link works fine for me – anyway, Patrick Moore’s full article “Hard Choices for the Environmental Movement” can be located by googling:
Greensprit Berlin
Re Lomborg, I published the following article in E&E in early 2005. Lomborg actually accepted the bogus science of catastrophic global warming (OK – he’s an economist) and simply said there are much more economical means of solving the (alleged) warming problem. For this heresy, he was stoned by the watermelons.
Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Jan Veizer and Nir Shaviv received similar treatment for actually challenging the bogus CAGW science. “How dare they! The science is settled!”
Funny how the warming alarmists keep changing their version of the “settled science”, about as often as they change their underwear. First it was Global Warming (but the warming stopped), then it was Climate Change, Weather Weirding, etc, etc.
Regards, Allan
Drive-by shootings in Kyotoville
The global warming debate heats up
Allan M.R. MacRae
[excerpt]
Full article: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/28/the-team-trying-to-get-direct-action-on-soon-and-baliunas-at-harvard/
Drive-by shootings have moved from the slums of our cities to the realms of academia. Any scientist who dares challenge the Kyoto Protocol faces a vicious assault, a turf war launched by the pro-Kyoto gang.
These pro-Kyoto attacks are not merely unprofessional – often of little scientific merit, they are intended to intimidate and silence real academic debate on the Kyoto Protocol, a global treaty to limit the production of greenhouse gases like CO2 that allegedly cause catastrophic global warming.
Witness the attack on Bjorn Lomborg, author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist”. While Lomborg did not challenge the flawed science of Kyoto, he said that Kyoto was a huge misallocation of funds that should be dedicated to more important uses – such as cleaning up contaminated drinking water that kills millions of children every year in the developing world.
In January 2003, the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) declared that Lomborg’s book fell within the concept of “objective scientific dishonesty”. The DCSD made the ruling public at a press conference and published it on the internet, without giving Lomborg the opportunity to respond prior to publication.
In December 2003, The Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation repudiated the DCSD’s findings. The Ministry characterized the treatment of the Lomborg case as “dissatisfactory”, “deserving criticism” and “emotional”, a scathing rebuttal of the DCSD.
But such bullying is not unique, as other researchers who challenged the scientific basis of Kyoto have learned…
**********
The may want a world government, but it won’t happen. As more and more countries realize the BS of Global Warming, they will pull out of it. As long as that happens, Alarmists will get more desperate and make fools of themselves.
Were men able to keep Yakubu Gowon from killing over 1 million people in Nigeria? Or Kim Il Sung who led North Korea and took over 1.6 million lives? Did mankind prevent Leopold II in Belgium, Adolf Hitler in Germany, Jozef Stalin in Russia, Mao Tse-Tung, or Hosni Mubarak, Bin Laden, Benito Mussolini or Hussien from their evil acts? Each of these men took the lives of somewhere between many thousand to well over 70 million innocent lives. They were eventually stopped because there were still free people in other parts of the world who were willing to come to rescue of the people or the dictator died.
How could the question even be asked? Just asking the question shows a degree of naivete that is frightening?
About the tipping points argument: They are all in the rear mirror. Both our population and our way of living are not sustainable. The focus on CO2 is almost comical. What about heavy metals in the sea, acidification, soil and aquifer depletion? All definitive changes.
As for the Orwellian world: The American focus on the UN is just as funny. It is coming home, literally (I even work to implement it) and there is nothing we can do against. In a few years your “light-bulbs” will spy on you! Forget about your I-Pads which can be remote controlled. The only question left is how to make sure that “you” the population accept it. But people already accept to go “naked” to board a plane: “For their own safety!” The steps from there are small ones. Just need the right psychological “nudges”.
It’s the “Scientific American” in the same sense as “Pravda” was the truth in the former USSR.
For those who haven’t seen it, Richard Black of the BBC chimed in last Thursday. You have to give him credit for laying it all out there in the lead.
In a nutshell: does the way humanity governs itself need a series of tweaks or a complete overhaul, in order to meet the broadest ambitions of improving the lot of the planet’s poorest, safeguarding nature and making the global economy more sustainable?
The answer, were it needed, according to the article coming out this week in Science by the “academic grouping” the Earth System Governance Project is quite straightforward:
This requires fundamental reorientation and restructuring of national and international institutions toward more effective Earth system governance and planetary stewardship.”
Sounds swell, doesn’t it? And they offer their seven-point plan, with typical peddling of the horrific Sustainable Development dystopia portrayed as some Gaian panacea. One word for this lot: Screw! Mr. Watts if you’d let me get away with it I’d offer two words.
Seriously, what world do these people inhabit? How stupid do they think we are? They are well into their arrangements, aligning their BBC-SA-UNFCCC parrots to squawk about “critical tipping points” and “irreversible change” but their careful symphony in a repulsive cacaphony (typo intentional) and no amount of “engineering” will make it music to my ears.
Theirs is a futile attempt at a naked hostile takeover and I for one will match it with the hostility it well deserves. Their sustainable misery is a sure loser. It will be stomped under the large foot of natural progress and the innate desire for freedom. They busy themselves preparing for the future they wish to force upon us, but I recommend they spend more time preparing to be rolled over by the greater mass of humanity that will move forward into the Golden Economic Era with or without them. Cheers!
Sorry for the tone there. I was born under the thumb of a “benign dictator” and was fortunate to have escaped to this fine land as a child. As you noted, we are scoffed at for exposing what is openly and proudly their agenda. Tinfoil hats, black helicopters, all that crap they offer is simply deflection from reality. It’s delusion. It’s, ironically, utter denial. That’s what they offer. That and manufactured consensus, scary scenarios, lopsided propaganda, and other staples like marginalization of opponents and the stifling of debate.
And so the gloves have been off for me for a long time now. The great news is, more and more of them come off each and every day. Thanks yet again for your great work Mr. Watts et al. Keep up the good fight. History will be kind to you and many others when this battle is won. How do you think Mann will be regarded in 2050? Cheers again!
I was a subscriber to “Scientific American for over thirty years. Then it was captured by the ideological political, like this oaf Stix types, who wouldn’t know the first thing about say First Law of Thermodynamics. They stopped producing literate articles on Scientific advances and started campaigning for CAGW. I sent letters to the Editor complaining of the propaganda, to no avail. I let my subscription lapse as just another formerly good organization taken over by the leftist green ideologues, to milk for whatever credibility it can bestow.
Recently they sent me a postage paid mailer and an advert imploring me to re-subscribe. I guess their readership of mostly literate scientists can recognize the decline and are deserting them, en mass.
I taped the postage paid mailer to a cinder block, and mailed it back to them. Juvenile I know, but it felt good as a protest, and was probably noted, unlike my letters.
Golden Economic Age that is.
Allan MacRae said @ur momisugly March 19, 2012 at 5:56 pm
Yes, I remember he kind of got it from both sides at the time, poor bugger (so to speak). Patrick Moore was threatened with legal action by SciAm for publishing Lomborg’s response to their attack on him and The Skeptical Environmentalist, so the Git hosted in case Patrick had to take it down. The recent attack on free speech is nothing new.
Re: Professor Rodolph Rummel, there’s a website with lots of useful relevant stats:
Wars, Massacres and Atrocities of the Twentieth Century
Many of the notorious mass murderers in history mentioned in comments could not have carried out these crimes without being aided and abided by many others.
By the way, one of my hero’s is Dr. Carl Weiss. 😉
old44 Is spot on the greens have given up tree huging they have decided to go for control over us all what ever the cost . the y generation I am sad to say do not no what will happen to them and that is NO future if the greens have anything to do with it
Blade
I struggle to find a reason why you’re arguing with me. You basically admitted that Reagan, Bush, Nixon, Romney, Palin et al, were/are not real conservatives, yet you use the typical ‘liberal’ smear to rebuke my argument? I’m confused.
A true test of a neo-con is their willingness to accept foreign intervention as a god-given American duty and to paradoxically oppose Democrats- who basically uphold the same values- whch is to hold Americans to total moral and economic ransom, conduct unscrupulous activities with forign oil-rich nations, uphold corporate hegemony and allow broad latitute with the constitution.
I have been vindicated and have nothing more to say.
old44 wrote: “You don’t have to worry about Stalin, Mao, and Hitler, Louis, with the Greens it is Pol Pot.”
Pol Pot’s Year Zero is the best, though oft overlooked, comparison. The ant-Vietnam war generation moved on to No Nukes (weapons) to No Nukes (power) to global warming. Just as their political forefathers denied what Stalin was doing in Russia, they denied what was happening in the killing fields of Kampuchea. I suspect that, for many on the left, climate change is just a means to an end.
Year Zero
Zero Order Draft
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0889554019.txt&search=governance
Sam Geoghegan says:
March 20, 2012 at 2:33 am
Blade
I struggle to find a reason why you’re arguing with me. You basically admitted that Reagan, Bush, Nixon, Romney, Palin et al, were/are not real conservatives, yet you use the typical ‘liberal’ smear to rebuke my argument? I’m confused.
A true test of a neo-con is their willingness to accept foreign intervention as a god-given American duty and to paradoxically oppose Democrats- who basically uphold the same values- whch is to hold Americans to total moral and economic ransom, conduct unscrupulous activities with forign oil-rich nations, uphold corporate hegemony and allow broad latitute with the constitution.
_______________________________________
Sam, both the Democrats and the Republicans are littered with traitors. As far as I can tell the US Coinage Act of 1792 has never been repealed, probably because everyone had forgotten it existed by the time 1913 rolled around over one hundred years later. The Politicians in the District of Criminals and the bankers are GUILTY of debasing the coins of the USA. This was done by FDR (D) in 1933 when he confiscated all american gold (and gold coins) handed it over to the bankers to be replaced with bank script. and by Johnson (D) when he debased the silver in our present coins.
Out of all the elected Senators and Congressman only five that I know of have protested this attack on the American people.
Congressman Louis T. McFadden (R. Pa)
Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr. (R Minn.)
Senator Henry Cabot Lodge Sr (R Ma)
Congressman Wright Patman (D Tx)
Congressman Henry Barbosa González (D Tx)
Speaking about the Federal Reserve:
“I have never seen more Senators express discontent with their jobs….I think the major cause is that, deep down in our hearts, we have been accomplices in doing something terrible and unforgivable to our wonderful country. Deep down in our heart, we know that we have given our children a legacy of bankruptcy. We have defrauded our country to get ourselves elected.” ~ John Danforth (R-Mo) in an interview in The Arizona Republic on April 22, 1992 Former ambassador to the United Nations
Gail
Fat currency- one of many unconstitutional acts permitted by both parties.
You don’t need Democracy, you need rule of law, but the same central bank which facilitates government growth, has also addicted Americans with a veracious appetite for entitlements. (large welfare state=big government)
Try convincing people that hand-outs are immoral and that they directly reduce the prosperity of a nation by looting from the private sector -no one will have a bar of it.
and we get all this talk about the left, democratic socialism and their desire for central government.
-It’s already here and It’s completely bi-partisan.
-yeah, I’m getting off track here. Sorry.
I made a spelling error above. Voracious, not veracious
We just lost a prime minister in my bankrupt country who was all for global governance and climate protection; his successor is all for euro-governance and keeps quiet on Greenery. But we have a Governor of the Central Bank that has nothing to do and organizes climate protection seminars! The Greek poltical world is being divided, among Green pro-Europe types on one hand, and eurohaters, eurosceptics and …communists on the other, most of which sneer at AGW.
So, to you it may appear that the zombies in the picture are leftists, to me they appear like German-WWF-brainwashed-do-gooder types. In all fairness, there are normal and/or enlightened types in Germany, but they are still a minority. Germany is deep in its own eco-trap (but has a good export business from it).