The Australian Government Broadcaster asks if we should ditch Democracy to ensure a climate change response


Photo: Climate Justice Now! Statement on Climate Change from COP-15, Copenhagen, December 2009. Photo: Neil White/Guardia

Story submitted by Eric Worrall: The Australian Broadcasting Corporation, a taxpayer funded media organization, has just asked whether we should consider restructuring democracy to ensure an efficient response to the climate “crisis”.

The first paragraph;

“Is it democracy that is blocking progress on climate change or the current limited version of it that pervades Western society?” pretty much sums up the rest of the article, which spends several paragraphs praising authoritarianism, before chickening out and trying to suggest that governments are acting contrary to the wishes of voters.”

The article quotes one of our old favorites, Naomi Oreskes, who celebrates China’s authoritarian political process; “China’s ability to weather disastrous climate change vindicated the necessity of centralised government … inspiring similar structures in other, reformulated nations.”

To me, what this bizarre effort suggests more than anything, other than a disturbing lack of commitment to democracy, is that Australian greens are still having trouble accepting that in the last election, they were soundly rejected. Greens are blaming imagined flaws in the democratic process, rather than trying to understand the reasons for their rapidly fading appeal to ordinary voters.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

That’s why greens are called watermelons — green on the outside, red inside,


You have forgotten the most important part, Brown seeds.

Sorry if I’m slow, but what do you mean by “Brown seeds”?


Fascists were known as “brownshirts”.

They will obviously like living under sharia law.<:o)


Sounds like they want a civil war, even though they probably think they are “just” trying usurpation to get a green dictatorship.

In the vote in South Portland, ME, a greenie was trying to claim that they were voting to protect people (by blocking a pipeline). They couldn’t understand that the people did indeed want protection. From them and their economically destructive policies. After losing the vote to ban the pipeline, the city council banned it anyway.

The problem with pipelines is they can’t go through a built up suburb, and so they plan them through woods, and in New England that is usually “conservation land.” The fact people voted for the pipeline shows they know the need is urgent. Last winter a month of natural gas cost as much as a year did, the year before.
Despite the fact we can’t get enough propane, they are shutting down a coal-fired plant because the EPA is idiotic. We are in serious danger of not having enough power to go around, and having rotating black-outs in the coldest part of the winter. In the case of many heating systems, when the power goes off, so does the heat.
I’d say that city council is facing a very angry public by February.


It is the same with wind farms they claim that 90% of people support them but they never actually ask the people that will be impacted by turbines. Greens do not mind destroying other peoples lives. Greens believe that all humans except them are the problem with the world, while they sit back sipping lattes in inner urban cafes.

Ian W

If next winter follows the forecast of the Old Farmers’ Almanac and of Joe Bastardi, they may not have enough gas at any price and the council may have some explaining to do. Nothing like severe cold and no energy supply to concentrate the minds.

Robert of Ottawa

Greens live in, and appeal to, the suburbs. A place far removed from nature. The wind and solar subsidy farms are in the countryside, not the suburbs.


And, yet, I prefer a government that allows fools like these ones to freely express themselves than a government of these fools that does not allow all of us to freely express ourselves


Well said!

Good thing they are content to merely express themselves.

I agree. In a hundred years or two, Darwin will take care of it. One long cold winter …

Bob Diaz

That pesky democracy, always getting in the way of radical tyrants who want to enslave the masses !!!


Here is the problem of democracy in a nutshell.

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
Winston Churchill
(from a House of Commons speech on Nov. 11, 1947)

Greens are far from democratically minded when they don’t get YOU to do what THEY want.
Here they are in action – a dangerous lot.


Marxism masquerading as environmentalism.
Australian Greens have become the nesting place of many former marxists and socialists.


and aunty ABC is in full and vocal support of them! and Labor.
this isnt the first mention of this harebrained idea.
reckon it was their Big Ideas? show this was broached also.
they are the ones in denial:-)
they deny that the people of Aus voted the Labor /green coalition OUT! landslide
and Carbon Tax was THE big issue,
along with the rest of the green scams n rorts.

James (Aus.)

Indeed, KJ.
One only needs to look at Stalinist Lee Rhiannon/Brown/Gorman/O’Gorman and her association with the ratbag Lenin School in Moscow, not to mention the execrable Communist Party of Australia.

Gary Pearse

At one time, they felt the need mask their Marxism. Now they parade it. Until a few years ago, you would never see such a thing as a call for suspending democracy or singing the virtues of China and North Korea’s ability to shepherd their people. Having seen many times in a long life soci-ial-isters eventually shoot themselves in the foot, exactly what is happening now.
They have the advantage of a more compelling advertising campaign than is possible for free enterprise/democracy. Standing up against the ‘monied class’ and the exploiters of the ordinary person’s labor at subsistence wages. “You have nothing to lose but your chains!” yada, yada, yada , while marching through the forest hand in hand with belalaikas twanging. This measured against, rising early and ‘seizing the day’, industry and effort, engage in the competition, pressing advantage, grabbing the brass ring.
The only thing is the duplicity of the anti-demo bunch is such that before they reach their goal, they reveal their contemptuous elitist selves and it falls apart. They are always in a hurry – act fast or were doomed. Then with resistance, “we know who you are; we know where you live;…. you be few and we be many” – this threat from the benevolent Greenpeace folks. WUWT carried this news but here’s another blog reference.
They’ve called for Nuremburg-type trials for skeptics, called for banning interviews of sceptics, barring publication of sceptic scientists’ papers, execution of sceptics…Finally it all out: suspension of democracy, which has been the real goal of these neurotics from the beginning (not that of their minions of gullible useful idiots in the press and social sciences and their probably unwitting, paid-for support from scientist lites). The game is in overtime.


Hey Naomi I believe China is now producing more cars than the U.S.

And they don’t meet California emission standard, either.


Like Venuzela, North Korea, China or any other toltaliterian government really cares about anything other than itself?


The One and Only priority is to stay in Power. / Of course for the Benefit of the People / Sarc
(From inside China).


Venuzela, wether or not you like or agree with their politics, is a democracy but nearly wasn’t when a right wing coup imprissioned Chavez.
A popular uprising restored him to power and he was very popular and was later re-elected.
That is democracy.


You make a very important point. It is important that people be able to chose their oppressors for only by doing so will they value democracy. Of course democracy is not only about the vote. It is about freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of information flow and the absence of fear of retribution if they don’t chose as required.
Venezuela and Zimbabwe spring to mind as being pseudo democracies where functioning countries were torn apart so that on voting day the right box was ticked.


And this is the way in which democracy can be subverted from within. I believe the first master of this art was Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte. Chavez was certainly doing a good job of this, too.

Was that before or after he started imprisoning the media?

Brian H

Ugly writing.
its politics
4 boners in one short sentence!

I would not give up democracy for anything he could dream up. My Father killed a bunch of Nazis and almost died so that this SOB could have the freedom to propose this BS. I did not kill anybody but was in RVN for the same reason. I hope he is not too disappointed that I am sure he is full of ****. Where did this idiot go to school? Did they teach history there? If so, did he pay attention? Very irritating, also, that the press would print anything about this guy but his obit, which cannot happen soon enough.

Gunga Din

What is the “RVN”?
(I’m an American. RAF, RAN etc. I’m familiar with, but RVN is a new one.)
PS And a thank you to you and your Dad for defending all of our freedom to choose.

George Turner

I would think RVN is the Republic of Viet Nam

Republic of Vietnam Nam is correct. I didn’t do much,

You served your country. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of any particular conflict, regardless of whether you actually saw combat, I respect and feel gratitude towards those brave individuals who are prepared to place their bodies between my family, and a bad guy armed with a machine gun.

del boy

In the dictionary green means unripe-immature and undeveloped so true. I would say they are a bunch of plonkers.


The world is full of cranks. That is not surprising and they will always be there. What is surprising is how these cranks groups have overrun certain major media organisations.

Not surprising at all, willnitschke, they are bankster & govt/taxpayer funded & massively funded through most expensive TV campaigns like the WWF.
” Behemoth Big Green outstrips Big Oil by orders of magnitude — if you know how to follow the money.”
The push for One World Totalitarian Govt is most well funded. It is the Banksters deepest desire.

And the mainstream media are 1%s owned : google : 6 corporations own the media.
We hear what the 1%s want us to hear, & see what they want us to see. It’s called the Matrix.


Then how did you escape it, wunderkind?
Speaking of “banksters” wanting a totalitarian order, does this include John Allison (author of “The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure”)?


And if the “banksters” are behind it all, what do you make of the Wall St. Journal’s consistent skepticism regarding AGW? Don’t banksters read that journal any more? Don’t they have any control over their editorial page? But I thought they controlled practically everything.

Try Googling : Bill Still Money Masters
A masterly 3.5 hr history of Banking.
Boring, it’s not.
Example : Napoleonic wars : one Rothschild brother finances the Frogs, while another finances Les Rosbifs.
Whoever wins. the Banksters win.
Google : All Wars are Bankers Wars. ~ 45 mins
Q : How did I escape the matrix, rt ?
A : I like to read. 🙂


Sorry jdseanjd. All you example shows is that one side will win and benefit while the other side will lose. Now if you example showed that both the Frogs financer AND the Les Robifs financers would win no matter who won the actual war. That would support your claim. The fact that the winning sides financial backers would benefit isn’t surprising.

Sorry, ddpalmer, I did not make my point clearly enough. When the losing sides bankers are guaranteed repayment through war reparations, that represents a win/win situation for the banksters.
This is directly akin to the 2008 World financial crisis : the fool banks overgambled & lost, were deemed “Too Big to Fail” & their debts were loaded onto the mug small taxpayers backs.
Iceland was the exception. The Icelanders stormed parliament & demanded the Banksters be put on trial, which they were. This was in the face of extremely stiff opposition from every European leader, in particular that of our own most traitorous Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, the One World Govt fanatic.
Iceland broke out of the Rothschild central banking matrix & is now prospering. The UK & USA are not.
A 28 mins interview with the President of Iceland :
Or, put in search box :
How Iceland defeated the Anglo – American Bankster Mafia.
Saddam Hussein & Gaddafi were on the path to breaking out of the Rothschild central banking cartel, which would have broken the hegemony of the US petrodollar as World reserve currency. Both were demonised in the presstitute Western media, invaded on the basis of lies & eliminated.
Other countries not in the cartel?
Russia, Iran, N Korea, Hungary.
Prime targets for the mad US Empire?
The RC Church v Rothschilds.
The two biggest robbers on the planet.

My reference below should be not .com.

Gary Pearse

The hateful anti-everything that is successful and productive is here to stay. It is a tax we have to pay. It is like the Ebola virus or the tornado, it has to be paid for. I wish we could just push these destructive people out of the way (gently) and keep moving forward. For some reason, we give these people too much sway, too much patience. For some reason, we pay the way of the huge anti-American bureaucracy of the UN, which once used to be a meeting place to prevent wars (Reagan stopped funding them for a while – why didn’t that take on a life). One has to also undo a measure of the miseducation our children receive (yeah, kid, that’s what they say but it’s baloney – make sure you give them the answer they want, though and get through it all with your critical faculties ticking over) Let them rant and march – give them a 100 mile parade license. You can be sure though that they wouldn’t accept a free one way ticket to China.

Mike Smith

Yup, and we can make the trains run on time too. Support fascism!


The ABC has a real track record of lying about Climate Change matters. Their handling of Professor Turney’s unfortunate expedition to the Antarctic was a disgrace!


Expedition? i thought the word was “jaunt”


I want my 8 or whatever it is now.cents a day refunded!
we taxpayers fund this mob of lying a$$holes to the tune of many millions a year
anyone else curious why theyve also seemingly done deals with gaurdian and apple.
id like to send first dog on the moon right back, sans oxygen.


Quote by Robert Muller, former UN Assistant Secretary General: “In my view, after fifty years of service in the United National system, I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper Earth government. There is no shadow of a doubt that the present political and economic systems are no longer appropriate and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet. We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways.”
Source: C3

I can think of one new way: get back in your hole and don’t come out.

That’s United Nations-speak. The UN System is set up to create one world governance. Already its International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) has offices all over the world and they are, in fact, controlling cities and regions whose elected officials have been brainwashed by activist organizations, funded by billionaire foundations and others, into accepting the word of ‘experts’ about what is and is not sustainable.
Renewables are, of course, part of the grand scheme of things. They will help lead us back to something like a neolithic world in which red meat, appliances, automobiles and private ownership of land are “not sustainable”. They call it communitarianism. It is totalitarianism.


Quote by Louis Proyect, Columbia University: “The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property and production for human need. A socialist world would place an enormous priority on alternative energy sources. This is what ecologically-minded socialists have been exploring for quite some time now.”
Source: C3

Joseph Shaw

Sure. Everyone knows what a high priority China and Russia/former USSR place on environmental issues and the interests and concerns of “the people”. How else could they have achieved such pristine air, water, and land. What’s not to like?

Nick in Vancouver

Hayek predicted that Socialism will always end in Totalitarianism and published his ideas in 1945 – he saw what Prussian statism had done to ferment war in Europe and predicted where Nazism and Marxism were going. His short book “The Road to Serfdom” is as relevant now as it was then.
The “statists” in government since 1945 have given us a false choice between “the right” – fascists/oligarchs and “the left” – Marxists/socialists. The main stream media perpetuates the idea that political parties in the West are opposites when they are essentially the same and operate through a revolving door of self-serving appointments – looking at you Goldman Sachs – subsidies, entitlements, nepotism and anti-competition regulation. This means we are sleeping into a future where individual freedoms and rights will (are) being eroded by successive governments. Read your Bill of Rights where the idea of individual rights – true Liberalism – is enshrined. Witness the doublespeak of modern politicians where “Liberalism” now means Socialism. This is a good example of how politicians have shifted discourse to the point where we have all forgotten the ideals of true Liberalism, where the inviolability of the person, the individual, is paramount and any attempt by elites to put “a community” above an individual must be resisted. We forget these truths at our peril. It is 70 years since the end of WW2. Freedoms lost are always regained at terrible cost.
The alarmists pushing their “war on terror”, “war on drugs”, “war on carbon” are all statist who would subvert us all and enslave us to their totalitarian nightmare.

Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
Their gold is Very Strong Central Governments such as exist in China and Russia controlled by one party that is little different then a medieval kingdom, and we know how good that was!

Jim B

You did think that was the plan all along?

Here in California, professors at taxpayer-supported universities have the gall to campaign for political causes citing their university affiliations in support of their anti-public interested positions. The taxpayer supported Public Broadcasting Service reports only the Green side of the global warming issue. An appropriate response would be to deny taxpayer subsidies to universities and broadcasting services.

PBS gets lots of its money from billionaire lefty foundations. Check the “brought to you by” announcements before and after programs. They are a program in themselves.

Gunga Din

Ditch the will of the governed because the hockey stick hasn’t been a strong enough lever to make people willingly surrender their freedoms to the will of the elite who desire to govern?

Mike H.

Actually we’re not the governed. Under the Constitution the governed are the duly elected representatives of the people. They make law based on the will of the people who hired them. Under the Constitution.

Gunga Din

Interesting insight. Thanks!


Yeah, that’ll work. Let’s just have a one-world totalitarian government with and handful of elites running the show and living large off the labor of the proles. (Of course we all understand that everyone is equal except, naturally, a few are a little more equal than the rest of us.) Heck, I’ll even share my one daily meal of lawn clippings with them… if I’m lucky and I can get lawn clippings to eat. Kumbaya, ya’ll.

You might, if you’re lucky, get bug biscuits or cockroach salads. Because red meat is not sustainable, the UN has a suggestion for getting protein from insects. The idea is being hyped now in newspapers and on llne as sophisticated dining. Chefs in San Francisco are reported as going gaga for it. But the UN also has rationing in mind so maybe some days all you’ll get really are lawn clippings. Of course lawns will not be cut with electric mowers, according to their truly wicked schemes.
[The latest National Geographic has an insect menu already chosen inside. Planned release? .mod]


Good point regarding rationing, imoira. I’ll probably have to give up half my lawn clipping coupons just to get two crickets and 1/2 a rat’s tail… the skinny end, not the fat end… if they’re not out of rat tails by the time my place in line comes up. They’ll go fast, don’t you know.


After they run out of rat tails guess what the next part of the rat is , and they don’t give a rat’s …

The Hunger games is what the 1%s & their green dupes have in mind for The Proles.


Much of the appeal of environmentalism in the first place is the claim of superior motives.
“Because I am altruistic and you are greedy and selfish, I DESERVE power, and you do not. That arrangement of status is more important than trivialities like the vote.”

Ditch democracy?
Let’s ditch the government instead.


Not surprising that the ABC has cut off comments to this article. As far as I got down the list, there seemed to be about 50% supporting CAGW, and appealing to authority – although most did not use that label, and 50% supporting democracy.

a happy little debunker

Nah, they posted late on Friday, then took off for the weekend.
The ABC staff don’t do weekends!

Pat Frank

I just finished reading Norman Naimark’s “Stalin’s Genocides.” He points out the violent intolerance inherent in apocalyptic utopianism, which exactly describes the green vision.
Naimark accounts for Stalin’s millions of murders (p. 129) as due to charismatic revolutionary leadership, “dictatorial powers, ideological motivations, and Promethean transformative aspirations [that] led them to use mass killings … to achieve the impossible future that defined their very essence.”
Does that not sound like the green dream? Do they not yearn for an impossible Promethean transformation? Does not Naomi Orestes long for exactly that dictatorial power? Can anyone imagine that cheering greens would not join en masse a charismatic leader who galvanized their utopia through violent revolution?
Godwin’s Law notwithstanding, Naimark equates Stalin and Hitler as two of a kind as regards their promises, their vision, their violent intolerance, and their mass murdering methods. There isn’t a 20th century social utopian movement that did not gestate these traits and, once in power, indulge mass murder to eliminate political opponents and anyone else opportunistically defined as not with the program.
Environmental radicals are not getting their way. They have become terminally frustrated because reality continues to slip away from their vision. Apocalyptic utopianism justifies extreme measures.
This is what we contemplate in Naomi Oreskes and her like. They lubricate the recrudescence of a monstrous evil in the name of a utopian good.
In the ABC, we have an example of their success. So reasonable-seeming have they made their obviously foolish ideas, that a major organ of a free press calmly countenances its own enslavement. And ours.


If you read about the Moscow Processes, the extermination of all real and imagined opposition to Stalin in the 1930s, you will see that several leading Bolsheviks would agree to all accusations against them, no matter how absurd, even without torture, simply because they could not mentally accept that their precious theory could be wrong. They might fail as individuals, but the system could not fail, that was impossible for them to wrap their minds around. For these disturbed persons, it was better to admit guilt -even to themselves- rather than to raise painful questions about the dream around which they had built their lives.
It seems that present-day alarmists have a bit of the same mindset; the system can not be wrong, therefore I must be right. We saw the same warped ideaologies in the radical 70s, which culminated in the truly crazy ideas of the German terrorist Bader-Meinhof group. The overpowering need to believe in a cause, in a Western world which is predominately secularized, diverts these souls into political extremism, where in earlier days they might have been gently and harmlessly steered towards a more benign religious devotion.
As for Churchill, another of his wonderful quips goes like this: “Democracy is the worst of political systems. Except for all the others.”
Although he, like any statesman, might have yearned a bit for the luxury of unfettered power:
“All I ever wanted was compliance with my wishes, after reasonable discussion.”


I’m not sure they weren’t tortured or at least thoroughly cowed – see “Moscow 1937” for a recent (excellent) summary of that amazing year.


Bollocks !

Pat Frank

I have plenty of experience with editors, Peter. They choose which to publish from among available essays. The ABC editor chose to publish totalitarian advocacy.
You could have chosen, but didn’t, to include such as The Nation or Mother Jones as examples of those famous for extreme views. An unbiased observer would have provided a distribution of political exemplars.

Pat Frank

Connor Duffy did not present the “dominant science,” Peter, but merely the dominant view.
There is no science supporting the AGW position. I can demonstrate that and have done before trained audiences, some of which included climate scientists. I very much doubt that Connor Duffy understands anything of the science, so his views on presenting it fairly will not be informed by actual knowledge.
Mr. Duffy’s article, for example, refers sympathetically to the CSIRO’s “careful” presentation of Australian temperatures, whereas Jennifer Morahasy has shown that the CSIRO adjusted Rutherglen data so as to turn a 0.4 C cooling trend into a 1.7 C warming trend. Their ultimate excuse was that they’re using known algorithms that have produced a temperature trend for Australia consistent with trends found elsewhere.
Mr. Duffy is also sympathetic to the IPCC, which has presided over a thoroughly corrupted process that has long countenanced lies, such as Ben Santer’s 1995 self-admitted lie (pdf) about a discernible human influence on climate, and has modified its reports to suit the politicized demands of governments and NGOs.
Why wouldn’t non-bias in a journalist be predicated on a willingness to report on that?
When pressed, AGW asserters’ final tack is to say that, well, after all, CO2 *is* a greenhouse gas, as though that’s enough by itself to validate the whole climate warming claim. It’s not.

3 more. Then take a break, until one of us catches up with your threadjacking. And keep in mind that my comments are replies to your specious nonsense. So they cannot be called threadjacking. Yours are. Stop it.

Have you seen pictures of the ghost cities in China? They were part of the building frenzy there. The plan is to move the peasant farmers into dense vertical housing in the sustainable cities – planned with bicycle paths and streets too narrow and winding for regular vehicular traffic. The design is similar to what ICLEI and one its sister organizations, the American Planning Association are using in American and Canadian cities. The farm holdings in China will be take over by government corporations.
In rural parts of America, Canada and Australia, governments are taking over private property to be used as wild lands and wet lands or heritage lands that will be off limits to citizens. The government breaks up the asphalt leading to the once private properties and puts locked gates to previous road access. In some places, the wild lands are being stocked with wolves to make sure people won’t trespass. The wolves, however, trespass on farming land and attack sheep and, I guess, other livestock. All of this is being done to move people from the rural areas – and to save Earth from man.
Am I making this up? Talk to friends and relatives in your state – except Alabama where Agenda 21 has been de-agended by the state.


You are not making it up, it was tried here in our small community about ten years ago. But thankfully it was stopped but I also see (as the current old timers pass on, and they were the ones that stopped it) the new generation will cave.


The original article was written by a regular lefty academic contributor to the ABC (who I won’t bother naming) from a lefty University in South Australia. Why does he get air space on the publicly funded ABC? Probably some deal done when the former Gillard government dished out extra largess to it. Coincidently Gillard was offered a cushy “academic” job at the same university when she was ousted from office.

Not original. Tom Friedman of the NYTimes made the same play about 2 years ago.
I guess that it would not be sporting to point out that the real Chinese government (not the fantasy one in their heads) has no use for AGW hysteria, and has systematically torpedoed every effort to reach an international carbon control treaty.

Greens regularly express disdain for democracy, but something doesn’t have to be original to be newsworthy.

Once is an accident. Twice is a coincidence. Three times is enemy action. They are outing themselves as the enemy.

China already has the totalitarian govt system the ‘green’ movement slavers for.
There, they are opening up China to enterprise, to prevent revolution.
They are afraid of the pitchforks.
Here in the West, the 1%s are busy shutting down enterprise & progress, & dragging what remnants of mankind they allow to survive, back to some pre-industrial nightmare where ‘they’ dream of clinging to power & riches forever.
Madness, of course.
‘They’ are afraid of the pitchforks also.
The mad “Green” troops are just dupes.
Control freak cowards, the lot of them, the 1%s dream of an impossible situation of pre 1789 power, privilege & wealth without the coming turmoil, while the ‘dupe troops’ dream of their equally impossible religion, or political philosophy, or whatever they want to call it, their Communist Nirvana.
Running away from the future, I call it, back to an impossible past.
And both wings of the “progressive” (what an Orwellian term) movement willing to slaughter untold millions of their fellows to gain their unspeakable ends.
Still, the word spreads, there is hope.
We live in the most interesting times.

michael hart

They really should be more careful what they wish for.

The Brave New World …

Isn’t it sad that they have to lie
To make things sound bad, they’ll see what can slip by
The “87% of Australians” they quote
Is just 57 — it’s “greenhouse gas bloat.”

“For example, 86 per cent of people in Canada and 87 per cent of people in Australia believe in human-caused climate change (even in America where the climate denial movement is strongest, this belief is still at 57 per cent).”

I’ve not tracked down the other claims yet
But they lie here so [often], more lie’s the safe bet
In this case, this number appears in linked words,
But it’s just 87 percent — of two-thirds.
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle


Where did you get the “86% of Canadians believe in human-caused climate change” number from?Down Town Office of the NDP? or their Ottawa affiliate? WHOAAAH. That is not correct! Go check in Edmonton Alberta!

Shawn from High River Alberta

Agreed! 86% certainly sounds like a number pulled outta their rear!


You’d probably find more than 86% of posters here ‘believe in human-caused climate change’. We just don’t think the human race should go back to the caves because CO2 might have a tiny impact on the weather.
So those polls are just typical Leftist-speak, where they take the answer to one question and use it to imply something completely different.
What puzzles me is why governments continue to send taxpayers’ money to these Regressive left-wing national broadcasters? What possible benefit is there?


Unfortunately all our Provincial Premiers are onside with the Climate Conn
Premiers endorse climate change plan

spangled drongo

Clean up on Aisle McIntyre.

mark l

And the CAGW crowd still proclaim that their decisions are scientific and not political based.

We’ll have WordPress editing ‘ere I find my coffin
Please change above “after” to be instead “often”
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
[not “ever-after”, as in a fairy tall? 8<) .mod]


I bet you even talk in rhyme at the dinner table. ( To youself ).
Very irritating.


Nobody forces you to read this, or reply to it. You can take you irritation and stuff it.

Jeff L

If you ever had a doubt CAGW was all about politics & not science, this should post should convince you that you should have no doubt CAGW is all about left wing politics, full stop.

China’s ability to weather disastrous climate change vindicated the necessity of centralised government
If dear Naomi would learn to use Google she would have noticed China’s coal consumption has increased from 1.5 billion tonnes per year in 2000 through 2.0 billion tonnes in 2004, 3.0 billion tonnes in 2009 to 4.0 billion tonnes in 2012.
in one way she is right, centralised authoritarian regimes can achieve things democratic government cannot, usually by “re-educating” their opponents or just plain shooting them.


Yes, and the Soviet State made everything simple and rational: One shoe factory, one shoe model. Who needs two types of shoes? It just makes you waste potentially productive time choosing between them.
Oh wait, maybe there were two factories; one for right foot shoes in Utopinsk, and one for left foot shoes in Brutograd. Using the blueprint of the first factory of course. Only problem was, the Central Committee order to mirror image the blueprint of the right foot shoe design, in order to make left foot shoes, never percolated down to the local level.


I’ve heard a true story along these lines. Apparently there was a standard lift (elevator) built in Russia. It only had 7 floor buttons, and was just blocked if the building was less than 7 floors tall. As buildings became taller, they still had to use the same lift. What they had to do was move the lift a multiple of floors for each button, and you then get off above your floor and walk down (or up if you wish). You had to know how many floors were in the building, calculate the correct lift button to reach your destination, and hope you got it right.
That is communism action, the ‘one size fits all’ approach. I hate that approach. In my experience, it is ‘one size fits everyone except me’, although I suspect I am in the majority.

Mike McMillan

The article quotes one of our old favorites, Naomi Oreskes, who celebrates China’s authoritarian political process; “China’s ability to weather disastrous climate change vindicated the necessity of centralised government … inspiring similar structures in other, reformulated nations.”


Yup, and we can make the trains run on time too.
Actually they allege, contrary to all evidence, that it would be a simple matter to have us all use public transport to get around, rather than individual cars.
That it would be immensely impractical, taking twice as long to do anything, does not concern them. We have to be uncomfortable, so that we can wallow in our guilt for wanting nice things.

Funny how these fake environmentalists, love democracy, until the majority reject their stupid schemes.
Just like our oh so progressive folk are all about their rights, until other peoples rights get in their way.
These Greens, low life, deluded do-gooders one and all.


So what they’re admitting is that “Climate Change” is a communist plot all along.
They have to get rid of democracy to implement it.
They’re finally cutting to the chase.

Leo G

Dr Burdon recommends an end to Australia’s present system of representative democracy in favour of representation by people chosen in the manner of Athenian demos of the 5th century BC- effectively representation by individuals selected by soviets.


Leftist ideology always ends up in the same place. Sooner or later totalitarianism takes the stage. Like clockwork.

Wow. So Naomi the village idiot wants to move to China? She actually uses China as a “good example” when talking about the environment?

James Bull

I thought the same when I read her quote, isn’t China one of the “developing” nations that is supposedly poisoning the planet with all the nasty coal fired power stations it’s building.
James Bull

Well, it is clear that China has the CAPABILITY to implement the effective “climate change policy”. That they (and any other totalitarian regimes like them) have absolutely no desire to do so is completely irrelevant to her and those like here.

…ditch Democracy to ensure a climate change response
It’s already happening in the United States.


James Lovelock: Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change
The Guardian, Monday 29 March 2010 13.15 BST
One of the main obstructions to meaningful action is “modern democracy”, he added. “Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”
Matt Briggs deconstructs the Prophet Lovelock
Since it is Lovelock’s comment about human ignorance that is our subject today, it is well to point out that Lovelock himself lacks the mental capacity to see the inconsistencies in his theory, despite being given plenty of time to notice them, and being given the able assistance of many critics.

Defund the ABC.


Canada’s CBC is reluctantly “restructuring” (i.e., downsizing) in response to economic realities. I’m not sure if “Kooks go first” is the policy though.

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia

The ABC. *Sigh*. Biting the hand that feeds it as usual. Their sense of entitlement is sickening.

German TV show mocks green policies of grand coalition
You may think this is just a parody, but …It really is a religion. Still, it is hilarious.


German imitation of the “Daily Show”; but not produced by a (crony) capitalist broadcaster, but by the state media. In terms of badness, I can discern little difference to the original.


Oreskes:“China’s ability to weather disastrous climate change vindicated the necessity of centralised government … inspiring similar structures in other, reformulated nations.”
Chinese Totalitarians burning as much coal as possible in order to overcome disastrous underdevelopment inspired other, now “reformulated” into Totalitarian nations to do the same? No doubt this ends up lessening the”obscene inequality between the rich and poor nations” and thus appeases Gaia, who then backs off on the CO2 Apocalypse! However, it’s still back to the Stone Age under Obama Justice for us here in the USA according to the principles of Activist Justice to achieve Climate Justice via Social Justice. After all, it’s only Fair according to the principles of Justice Gibberish:means=ends=Thought Control Justice.

Doug Proctor

Perhaps Putin could provide an expert opinion on this subject.


It’s embarrassing to admit, but at least Putin would have valid scientific advice on climate:
Sir David King’s Queenie Fit
Sir David apparently walked out with his delegation in mid-answer to one question. Commenting on this display, Illarionov said, “It is not for us to give an assessment to what happened, but in our opinion the reputation of British science, the reputation of the British government, and the reputation of the title ‘Sir’ has sustained heavy damage.”


“The Times’s economics editor has written that the environmentalists pushing these policies “are like the medieval monks who favored self-flagellation as the road to virtue. ”
Horsehair shirts are a good, natural “low carbon” clothing option.


Worth revisiting in full Andrei Illarionov comments linked from Donna’s article:
July 8 Press Conference with Andrei Illarionov (Presidential Economic Adviser)
The next point brings us directly to the Kyoto Protocol, or more specifically, to the ideological and philosophical basis on which it is built. That ideological base can be juxtaposed and compared, as Professor Reiter has done just now, with man-hating totalitarian ideology with which we had the bad fortune to deal during the 20th century, such as National Socialism, Marxism, Eugenics, Lysenkovism and so on. All methods of distorting information existing in the world have been committed to prove the alleged validity of these theories. Misinformation, falsification, fabrication, mythology, propaganda. Because what is offered cannot be qualified in any other way than myth, nonsense and absurdity.
And maybe the last touch. During the discussion of the economic impact of the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and of when Russia will achieve the 1990 emission level, one of the representatives of this official British team of scientists and government officials said quite bluntly: Russia cannot expect an increase in the population, on the contrary, the population will decrease. And as long as you reduce your population, you can meet the Kyoto Protocol requirements.


Unfortunately I missed the opportunity to comment on this at the ABC site. I suggest we sack the lot of them and introduce a taxpayer funded broadcasting agency that is representative of the people in this country. Even their lying attempt to suggest that 87% of Australian believe in climate change is a gross misrepresentation of the facts taken from the self-appointed know nothings at the Climate Institute – yes that’s right the people who were sacked by the current democratically elected government. Don’t stop there Tony sack the ABC too! They are a total liability and have gone out of their way to bad mouth Australia and Australians around the world to the detriment of Australia and its interests.


This is quite a misleading take on what was published and by whom.
Sure it was published on the ABC “Drum” site. This is not an endorsement by the public broadcaster as it accepts pieces from all sides for publication which are open for comment.
The author is:
Dr Peter D Burdon is a senior lecturer at the Adelaide Law School. He is currently a visiting Scholar at the University of California Berkeley.
More apropos is his comment:
“Put more directly, I contend that it is not democracy that stands in the way, but the dominance of money and corporate interests in politics.”
He may be a Greenie and lean to Bob Brown’s (retired Green Party leader) aspirations to a World Govt but his article hardly endorses the misleading interpretation posited here.

Michael in Sydney

The Drum is a sounding board for all the ABC’s favorite ideologues with a smattering of conservative commentators to give the bleeding hearts in Newtown and Balmain something to be shocked about. This is not a misleading take on the what was published and it is an endorsement. Anybody who didn’t think so is a fool or a liar.


Michael in Sydney:
I meant to post here.
Michael, before you label others of being liars or fools first look to yourself more closely if you can be sufficiently introspective. Judging by your remarks I certainly doubt that.
The title “The Australian Government Broadcaster asks if we should ditch Democracy to ensure a climate change response” is a sad and sorry deception of a private article in an Opinion section of the ABC (Drum) which is open for comment.

Berényi Péter

Comrades, I trust that every animal here appreciates the sacrifice that Comrade Napoleon has made in taking this extra labour upon himself. Do not imagine, comrades, that leadership is a pleasure! On the contrary, it is a deep and heavy responsibility. No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?

The ABC and the Greens in Australia have now reached terminal stupidity. Instead of asking : “Is it democracy that is blocking progress on climate change or the current limited version of it that pervades Western society?”, they should be asking, “Is it the intelligence and clear thinking of the general population in Australia, that is rejecting progress on climate change”.
People are not as stupid as the ABC or the Greens and can see that there has been no ‘Climate Change” for about twenty years. Certainly there has been weather change and climate change, but people know that this is not the same as “Climate Change” as caused by CO2. Farmers, especially, are delighted with the extra CO2 as it boost their crops..