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.
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.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/18/hansen-would-rather-have-us-ruled-by-china/
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.
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.”
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!
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
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/premiers-endorse-climate-change-plan/article20285527/
46/54 in Australia:
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/09/46-of-70000-australians-say-they-dont-believe-humans-cause-global-warming/
Clean up on Aisle McIntyre.
=======
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.
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.
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.”
http://beijing2016.org/
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.
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?
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.”
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock-climate-change
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.
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=2156
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.
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.
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.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/211608/sir-david-kings-queenie-fit/iain-murray
“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.
Illarionov Attacks Britain, Vows to Bury Kyoto
Jul. 12 2004
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1169510/posts
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/05/16/the-ipcc-the-uk-and-climate-censorship/
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.
snip
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.
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/climate-policy/politics/illarionov2004-5.php
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.
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.
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..