Claim: Democracy creates climate change paralysis

A new model for a greener democracy?

A new model for a greener democracy?

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The Conversation has published yet another green attack on liberal democracy. According to The Conversation, Liberal democracy is old fashioned – it’s antiquated institutions produce climate change “paralysis”, which the authors suggest can be resolved, by transferring democratic powers to unelected panels of national and trans-national bureaucrats.

According to The Conversation;

… Specifically, the failure to tackle climate change speaks to an overall failure of our liberal democratic system…

… Successfully tackling climate change and other big policy challenges depends on making tangible the intangible crisis of liberal democracy.

It means understanding that liberal democracy’s governance machinery – and the static, siloed policy responses generated by such democracies – is no longer fit for purpose.

Read more: http://theconversation.com/hidden-crisis-of-liberal-democracy-creates-climate-change-paralysis-39851

Naturally The Conversation has a solution for this crisis. My favourite from their list of suggestions, is their idea that democratic powers should be transferred to unelected bureaucrats, who would still somehow be “accountable” to parliament, despite having “staying power” beyond individual political cycles.

Granting more decision-making power to institutions independent of the government of the day, but still accountable to parliaments (such as the Parliamentary Budget Office or Infrastructure Australia). This would increase the capacity of policy planning and decision processes to have staying power beyond individual political cycles.

The authors of this critique of democratic freedom, are Mark Triffitt (Lecturer, Public Policy at University of Melbourne), and Travers McLeod, Honorary Fellow in the School of Social and Political Sciences at University of Melbourne.

Advertisements

251 thoughts on “Claim: Democracy creates climate change paralysis

  1. I am an alumni of Melbourne University (Physics – which is thankfully not overtaken by the dogma.. yet). I refuse to participate in any University funding campaigns as a result of the attitudes expressed by these impostors.

    • Good for you. I did the same thing with my undergraduate university and because they are quasi communist, I refuse even to list their name here.

      • Just an additional note, this is the same sort of system that is being pushed in the central bank in the US currently, as we can all see how that is working out for the US and the rest of the world

    • I have a degree in environmental engineering and work as an engineer…after reviewing all the data it’s hard to believe that climate scientists are buying into this dogma. After just looking at the theory of CAGW it doesn’t make sense. If the atmosphere just contained n2 and O2 it would be difficult to emit radiation to space. Those gases are poor emitters. Add just a little co2 (a better emitter) and this allows the energy to go to space. Therefore co2 should provide cooling not heating. You can see this effect in the experiment by Anthony watts on this site where he catches bill nye being a fraud. The pure co2 ran slightly cooler air. I think he should run this again using n2 and O2 alone the again adding a little co2.

      • I think that the reason the pure CO2 ran cooler is because it was contained in a glass container. Glass absorbs the same frequency of IR radiation that CO2 does so none of the radiation that CO2 radiates makes it to the CO2 in that experiment. It’s not the same as the atmosphere. There is no glass container between here and the sun. Correct me if I am wrong.

      • I would like to know why experiments are not being conducted in a specially built stadium or larger sized construct to collect some empirical data on such things.
        Billions spent every year, for what?
        Hand waving, guesswork, informed speculation by nitwits….pathetic!

      • In that experiment the co2 transferred the heat via conduction. But it gave the heat up more freely….in the new experiment I would have a material transparent to olr …..place a blackbody in the container. Shine light similar to sunlight. It would be nice if the container where big enough to saturate the the co2 with the olr.

      • Scott Scarborough
        The glass will absorb and re-radiate as a non grey body. A really tricky experiment

      • @Alex
        and a tribute to the genius of pointing to CO2 for anything
        hey, credit where credit is due

      • Well Jamie, those gases don’t have to be good radiators. The earth surfaces ARE good radiators and can cool the planet by themselves, especially where the tropical deserts are.

        The earth as seen from space has a spectrum that is deficient in the 15 micron LWIR band where CO2 absorbs, so the CO2 isn’t doing much radiating either.

        And Bill Nye’s fraud is in using a 2800 K IR source; half of the sun Temperature, and 10 times the Temperature of the earth so that at its radiating peak , which is 1.0 microns, instead of 10.0 microns, it is 100,000 times as bright as the earth surface in the infrared.

        And everything in Bill Nye’s experiment would absorb a lot of the source radiation and heat up, so if you are going to do an honest LWIR atmospheric absorption experiment, you need to use a source that is like a 288 K black body radiator, like an ordinary bottle of water, instead of a 100 watt incandescent lamp.

      • Bubba Cow

        I could design a reasonable experiment but I couldn’t be bothered. The powers that be would label me a crank anyway. Unless they could find ‘the proof’ that they wanted.

      • Alex

        Remember this is the experiment that bill nye wanted to prove CAGW….Personally I woulld like to see how this pans out. Post the experiment on YouTube. The whole CAGW theory got started with just a few cranks back in the 80s

      • George

        Yes. The co2 absorbs some of the radiation at a few wavelengths. But then emits at lower frequencies…. That goes directly to space. Without co2 in atmosphere most radiation goes directly to space. But conduction does not. That energy needs to be converted to lwir to get to space. …so what effect would be greater….the energy captured by co2 or the additional energy that the n2 and O2 transfer to co2 through conduction which would be lost to space.

        You need a blackbody inside the container and simulated sunlight onto it. If the container is transparent to lwir. It would be a reasonable simulation of this effect.

      • Radiation could be emitted directly to space by infrared radiation directly from the earth’s surface with no CO2 ( or H20 or clouds) in the atmosphere

      • Instead of all the silly non-sensible quibbling ….. why doesn’t someone execute/perform an actual, factual, legitimate scientific experiment to determine the per say “warming” effects of atmospheric CO2?

        Just build two (2) identical size frameworks, ……. outside in an area where each will receive the same amount of Sunshine, ……. say 20′ x 10′ x 8′ square, …. out of 1/2″ plastic pipe, …. place temperature sensors (thermocouples) inside of them, ………cover them, top, bottom & sides, “air tight” with 4 mil clear plastic sheeting …… and when the night time temperatures in both stabilizes and reads the same, …….. then at say 3 AM inject enough CO2 in one of them to increase its current 400+- ppm of CO2 to say 700 ppm.

        Then record the temperatures in each structure …… and again every hour on the hour (or every half hour, or every ten minutes) ……. for the next 24 hours, 48 hours, whatever.

        And if CO2 is the “global warming” gas that all the proponents of CAGW claims it is, then when the Sun rises in the morning and starts shining on the structures, …… the temperature in the structure containing 700 ppm CO2 ……. should start increasing sooner and faster and reach a greater temperature than in the other structure ….. and when the Sun starts setting the temperature inside the structure with 700 ppm CO2 should remain higher than it is in the other structure up until and past the 3 AM starting point.

        And if it doesn’t, then the CO2 causing AGW claims are totally FUBAR.

        And if the temperature in the two structures do vary ….. then one should be capable of calculating a “CO2 sensitivity figure” via the recorded data.

        It takes less time to do something right … than it does to explain why you did it wrong.

      • Sam

        I don’t believe you’d be able to recreate what’s actually happening. The basic theory is that the heating is occurring in the upper troposphere (not really shown by radiosondes)…where there is little water to absorb the LWIR. Whole thing is that most of the LWIR at spectrum is absorbed by the atmosphere in the first 200 feet. then it’s converted to heat energy and convected to the upper troposphere. All the while it’s emitting LWIR radiation at various frequencies (why it’s -60c up there). when it gets to the upper troposphere it then emits radiation at which point the atmosphere is pretty transparent to all LWIR radiation and an easy ride to space. above the upper troposphere convection starts to shut down.
        so recreating this whole scenario is nearly impossible….

        the problem is that with only a small amount of CO2 about 40 ppm this net heating or cooling is near maximum. You don’t need a whole bunch of CO2 to make this happen. This is why it’s so hard to determine what actually is happening.

        the only thing the experiment would show is that CO2 has the ability to cool if that happens at all. It would just be something else the warmists would have to contend with.

      • The whole problem is none of these experiments scale out to a planetary size. Tyndall’s experiment is repeatable on a micro level but it eliminates all the planetary scale variables.

        The contradiction is that this is one of the tenets of experimental design, to eliminate uncontrollable factors to demonstrate a specific effect.

        So I don’t think more experimentation is the answer. What is left is observation. If the observations don’t support the theory we can say it might be true. If they don’t we can say it might be false.

        The problem is the scale and accuracy of observation don’t currently have the acuity to confirm or refute climate theory to any degree of certainty. The effects are too small and the construct of a global average temperature is just not workable with the data collection methods out there. Which is why we have a polarised vituperative argument.

        And there is too much investment in the “C02 is the major factor” theory. It is quite literally to big to fail.

        Saying “we don’t know” because the effect is smaller than the data acuity is also unacceptable though.

        Perhaps the $$$ spent strangling and straining inadequate date should be aimed at improving it at source but that is investment in hardware and not putting cash into the pockets of the scientists. And the improved data might not be what the funders want it to be.

      • Well Jamie, give us some specifics.

        We all know that CO2 absorbs LWIR radiation in the 13.5 to 16.5 micron band, which is on the long wavelength side of the 10 micron peak wavelength corresponding to the earth surface Temperature of 288 K.

        So ok, that explains the extra terrestrial view dip around 15 microns.

        So put some specific numbers to these “lower frequencies” that you assert that CO2 emits. And we know that the 15 micron absorption excites the two elbow bending modes of the CO2 molecule.

        So just what is this excited state of the CO2 molecule that corresponds to these “lower frequencies.” ??

        Now I don’t have a problem with believing that CO2 near the surface, at just 400 ppmm in the atmosphere can absorb a good bit of the 13.5 to 16.5 micron region of the surface gray body radiation; 98% of which should lie between 5.0 microns, and 80.0 microns wavelengths.
        Now Trenberth asserts that only 40 Wm^-2 out of the total of 390 Wm^-2 is emitted directly to space. The rest is captured in the atmosphere, and heats it.

        A whole lot of conduction convection and evaporation also transfers large amounts of “heat” (noun) to the atmosphere, which raises its Temperature.

        So then we are asked to believe that the rest of this energy in the form of heat can only be removed by radiation from a very small number of CO2 molecules in the stratosphere at way sub zero Temperatures.

        Seems highly implausible to me

        And the only way I know of whereby “heat” can be 100% converted to radiation is in a heat engine whose exhaust Temperature is zero K.

        The heat itself can’t escape without some real particulate material, so only radiation can leave the earth.

        And of course I am taking for granted the commonly claimed assertion that ordinary mono or diatomic molecules cannot radiate thermal (BB like) radiation; only solids and liquids can radiate thermally.

        Well in case I don’t make myself clear; I don’t believe that mantra for a second; but that is the backdrop against which CO2 has to do all of the radiant cooling. (no water at those high elevations.)

        But we are being

      • @ Jamie April 24, 2015 at 8:52 am

        the problem is that with only a small amount of CO2 about 40 ppm this net heating or cooling is near maximum.

        Jamie,

        Me thinks you are mimicking tripe & piffle that sounds really great but makes no logical sense.

        Who the ell cares if it’s -60c in the upper troposphere? Ells bells, its -120f in the lower troposphere over Antarctica. And neither one of those “cold spots” affect the lower troposphere air temperatures around my house n’ garden. But now iffen a Polar Vortex comes a rushing south out of the Arctic then I’ll feel the effects of it.

        Iffen you don’t have a clue what the near-surface “warming” effect is for CO2 ….. how can you possibly claim that 40 ppm of CO2 is the maximum or minimum of anything?

      • I too, am an engineer — and after analyzing data realized that AGW is a fraud.

        Why has it got legs? It doesn’t matter that it is false. AGW is just a political vehicle to justify ending democracies, capitalism, and nationalism. When full throated it will lead to de-population efforts that will make the Nazis look like angels.

        There will be a Uber-class flitting about in private jets and living extravagant lives in extravagant homes and eating extravagant meals. The rest of the world will be reduced to the minimum population necessary for a servant class to do things robots can’t do.

    • We don’t have any Liberal Democracy system. Our Constitution guarantees to each State a Republican form of Government.

      What’s more it INSTRUCTS the Federal Government that that is something they MUST do (guarantee it). That’s in Article IV section 4.

      This differentiates it from Article I section 8, which delineates the 17 or 18 things that the CONGRESS is authorized to do; but doesn’t say they must do them.

      • Read a book “And not a shot fired” by Jan Kozak, a Czech communist bureaucrat in the early fifties about the infiltration of our western culture by using the behind the scenes bureaucrats to destroy us.It is happening today. I was never one of those into the “Conspiracy” theories but after reading and checking the book out, the way things are happening these last 10 years, I pay a lot more attention to it.

      • You have the right to bare arms in the US. But in the UK this right has been taken away, nio right to own a hand gun.
        Take the arms from the people and the people get walked over.

      • ” democratic powers should be transferred to unelected bureaucrats, who would still somehow be “accountable” to parliament, despite having “staying power” beyond individual political cycles”

        That is far better than the situation in the EU where the unelected bureaucrats are NOT accountable to the European Parliament. The European Commission of 28 unelected bureaucrats is solely responsible for deciding on and writing the thousands of laws that govern every aspect of life in EU countries. These laws are then presented to the MEPs in the European Parliament who rubber stamp them at a rate of about one every forty five seconds. The laws are seldom if ever amended, never mind thrown out. Democracy has slowly been phased out of Europe since the nineteen seventies.

    • It just so happens that an editorial in the Times today starts thus:

      ‘A free people requires a safeguard against the destructive power of factions. This argument, advanced by James Madison in the federalist papers of the emerging American republic, remains one of the finest justifications of representative democracy.’

      Just about says it all.

  2. Yes, tyranny by faceless bureaucrats has been shown to work so well in totalitarian states.

    Does every generation (or decade) have to relearn the same lessons in liberty? It appears so.

    I’m hoping that another American generation has been inoculated against socialism by the Obama regime, but am probably hoping against hope.

    • Unfortunately, I think Obama, and the last few administrations as well, have done a wonderful job indoctrinating the young to the joys of socialism. I just hope the revolution holds off until well after I am gone.

      • The revolution will come when these “expletive deleteds” run out of other people’s money, to borrow a timeworn phrase.

      • The Social/Cultural Pendulum has done swung too far off center to the left …… to ever swing back in our lifetime ….. unless we live long enough to witness the “end” of the civil unrest, deaths and destruction initiated by the anarchy “triggered” revolution.

        You can not re-nurture (re-educate) a majority of the current population via just one (1) generation at a time (the children) being nurtured …… simply because the parents, guardians and current Educators will insure that will never happen.

        The only solution is, ….. “iffen you won’t listen …. then you will have to feel” …. and that “feeling” part is really going to be painful.

    • Be reasonable. They only want a little tyranny. Only just enough to get what they otherwise cannot get if put to a vote. A kinder, gentler tyranny. What’s your problem?

      • Oh, is that all? Well, no problem then. Please cut of my electricity immediately and take away my vehicles, modern appliances and other conveniences and medical care. I’ll go cut some trees down to build a shack, heat it (maybe burn it down a time or two) and kill the tyrants deer to feed my family. I will be happy to watch many of my grandchildren die before they’re 5 and my daughter die in childbirth. That sounds wonderful in the new kinder, gentler green tyranny.

      • “I’ll go cut some trees down to build a shack, heat it (maybe burn it down a time or two) and kill the tyrants deer to feed my family.” No you wont. That’s the bureaucrat’s tree and deer.

      • Oh, the stupid, how it BURNS! At some point the pain becomes unbearable. Over my dead body. Hear that man-bear-pig? Go ahead. Do it.

      • I think there are some who were unable to detect the mordant sarcasm inherent the phrase “kinder, gentler tyranny.” #B^)

    • Socialists are by nature tyrannical. Here’s what an Australian Labor senator called Nick Bolkus thought free speech was: “Real freedom of speech is about resourcing durable institutions within society that can present alternative views, critique government policy, and review government decisions.”

  3. Democracy works just fine, thank you. All they have to do is present a cogent argument to the voters. Obviously the warmists have failed to do so, despite decades of lobbying and spending. Normal people can see through their swindle.

    • Absolutely. If you can’t convince the voters, and you start talking about democracy not working, my first reaction is ‘do we have a left-wing or right-wing extremist here?’

  4. Democracy is the guard against incompetent pseudo-scientists. The days for “Believe as I do or else” is over long ago, dear CO2-believers. Consensus is a political term and those who speaks against democracy acually believe that All people are equal but some are more equal. The step from that to fascism isn’t far.

      • The ends of communism and fascism are the same. They just go about it differently (or so they think).

      • Agreed. It’s just a matter of what flavor of socialism you prefer. Kind of like the difference between Coke and Pepsi.

      • The communists have a two-stage programme:
        1) Nationalise everything.
        2) Tell everyone what to do.

        The fascists have a single stage programme:
        2) Tell everyone what to do…

      • Like the difference between Coke and Pepsi? Heresy! If you can’t tell the difference you must be a northerner.

    • Can we be clear on something that even presidents don’t understand? The Founding Fathers abhorred democracy. The United States of America was founded as a Republic-not a democracy. Democracy is the first step toward dictatorship and is in essence mob rule. So please, stop with the democracy garbage.

    • Just call it statism and you’re covered whether they are fascists like Mussolini and Hitler, communists like Stalin, Mao, and Castro, or Jihadists like Khomeini or ISIS, or the confused like Barry. They are all the same in that they believe their beliefs exist in a one-to-one correspondence with reality. You agree, that confirms it. You disagree, that also confirms it.

      • “Barry” is not “confused.” He studied well at the feet of Alinsky and other American leftist revolutionaries, while for twenty years attending a church with as much anti-Americanism as your average madrassah in Iran.

        He’s about as confused as to his direction as Lenin was.

  5. They are confidant that these “independent” institutions will be staffed by strong left people so their aims will be met and democracy can go to hell.
    No taxation without representation.

    • They are too stupid to realize that they are the “useful idiots” who will be the first to be eliminated under the new dictatorship.
      The brown shirts of our time.

    • The sad thing is that all revolutions are initially led by intellectuals, who end up being the first stood up against the wall when the revolution comes. Why would new rulers want to keep people around who wanted to throw out rulers?

      It’s like the old semi-joke that “If you marry a woman who cheats on her husband, you’ve married a woman who cheats on her husband.” Or man/wife. All the same.

  6. That is a feature, not a bug.

    Consider the historical context of how the framers regarded the importance of an informed citizenry as a restraint on excessive government power, and its applicability to efforts such as the one discussed above.

    According to historian Richard D. Brown, in his
    volume, The Strength of a People: The Idea of an Informed Citizenry
    in America, 1650-1870, (1996), John Adams’; “Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law,” written in 1765, was one of the first American arguments
    in favor of an informed citizenry as a check on governmental power.
    Early in the essay, Adams correlates the rise of knowledge with a
    decline in oppression: “But the fact is certain; and wherever a
    general knowledge and sensibility have prevailed among the people,
    arbitrary government and every kind of oppression have lessened and
    disappeared in proportion.”

    After describing the tendency of both canon law
    and feudal law towards oppression, Adams lauded the early
    settlers’ determination to avoid the perils of both by providing
    for the broad diffusion of knowledge among the population:

    They were convinced, by their
    knowledge of human nature, derived from history and their own
    experience, that nothing could preserve their posterity from the
    encroachments of the two systems of tyranny, in opposition to which,
    as has been observed already, they erected their government in church
    and state, but knowledge diffused generally through the whole body of
    the people. Their civil and religious principles, therefore,
    conspired to prompt them to use every measure and take every
    precaution in their power to propagate and perpetuate knowledge. For
    this purpose they laid very early the foundations of colleges.

    The most important body of knowledge, said Adams,
    was knowledge of the character and conduct of the rulers:

    And liberty cannot be preserved
    without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right, from
    the frame of their nature, to knowledge, as their great Creator, who
    does nothing in vain, has given them understandings, and a desire to
    know; but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable,
    unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and
    envied kind of knowledge, I mean, of the characters and conduct of
    their rulers. Rulers are no more than attorneys, agents, and trustees
    for the people; and if the cause, the interest and trust, is
    insidiously betrayed, or wantonly trifled away, the people have a
    right to revoke the authority that they themselves have deputed, and
    to constitute abler and better agents, attorneys, and trustees. And
    the preservation of the means of knowledge among the lowest ranks, is
    of more importance to the public than all the property of all the
    rich men in the country.

    Adams then discusses the means and methods of
    disseminating knowledge to the public so as to preserve
    liberty:

    Care has been taken that the art of
    printing should be encouraged, and that it should be easy and cheap
    and safe for any person to communicate his thoughts to the public.
    And you, Messieurs printers, whatever the tyrants of the earth may
    say of your paper, have done important service to your country by
    your readiness and freedom in publishing the speculations of the
    curious. The stale, impudent insinuations of slander and sedition,
    with which the gormandizers of power have endeavored to discredit
    your paper, are so much the more to your honor; for the jaws of power
    are always opened to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if
    possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing.
    And if the public interest, liberty, and happiness have been in
    danger from the ambition or avarice of any great man, whatever may be
    his politeness, address, learning, ingenuity, and, in other respects,
    integrity and humanity, you have done yourselves honor and your
    country service by publishing and pointing out that avarice and
    ambition

    Little did Adams know how well his words would fit the internets in general, and the AGW government power grab in particular.

    • Yes, a free press is essential to preserve the freedoms of the people. Little did the Founders envision that the free press would give up their duties as watchmen of liberty just for more sales.

      • The funny thing is that they don’t do it for more sales, as evidenced in their ratings and losses. They do it for the “cause”

      • ‘Sales’ is really a form of Canon. It has become a quasi religion because through various agencies, the businesses that run media are not veiwed by their ability to make a profit, pay their stafff and survive but by their market capitalisation, their PE ratio and their earnings multiple when absorbed into a larger organisation.

        This uber commercialisation, is what is twisting the background ‘free enterprise system’ that Adams et al assumed would persevere like the night sky on a clear noght into the vicious, predatory, voracious and utterly egotistical, frenzy of collateralised wolf pack lunacy it is today.

  7. They propose the same solution that all leftists propose for society’s problems: enlightened bureaucrats that are never corrupted and always act impartially on the facts. I’d like to know where you these “philosopher kings” exist – I’ve never met one.

    • They do exist. George Washington could have made himself king, but he chose to be a president. One of the former presidents of Colombia was also such a man, he assumed absolut power to crush the communist insurgents, then returned the power to parliament, when the job was done.

      People like are very rare though, most of the giving someone absolute power does not work out well.

      • Eric, can we go back to giant rabbits and spiders, please.
        This is not helping my blood pressure, but you are having a good run
        of troll free posts.

      • I am sure that monarchs can be very good rulers.
        According to Mr Edward (teddy) Bear, King Luis So and So (nicknamed the handsome) was a very kind man. I am pretty sure that Edward Bear had his name changed to Winnie The Pooh, and if you can’t believe Winnie The Pooh, who can you believe.

  8. Nobody has a better record of protecting the environment than dictatorships. Take the Soviet Union, for example. Wait, no, East Germany. Wait, not them — The Peoples Republic of China. No? How about North Korea? How about the fresh air and pristine beauty of North Korea? Anybody want to live there? Anybody? Anybody? Bueller? Ferris Bueller?

  9. To get things done, you need a Mussolini or worse.

    They will achieve a lot, good or otherwise.

  10. And to think, people roll their eyes and groan whenever anyone says that the *Real* goal of the climate change movement is to do away with democracy, and re-institute totalitarian governance systems over all of humanity.

    But every once in a while, the mask slips and you see the true goal shining forth, just like it has here.

    • Exactly so.
      Let’s hear more bright ideas from them “… when the enemy is making a false movement we must take good care not to interrupt him …” Napoleon.

    • “But every once in a while, the mask slips and you see the true goal shining forth, just like it has here.”
      Yup.
      Here at about 2:15, the truth accidently escaped his lips: Walk the walk? Hell no… It is not what you do, it is who you vote for:

      • Michele, you go girl!

        Watch her posture: she never flinches, and she holds the mic rock-steady.

        (I would have snapped off those index fingers by 1:30.)

      • That basically sums up the movement right there. It isn’t about their own personal choices or responsibilities, it’s about changing the laws so that you have no choice or responsibility.

      • Well that piece shows just what a dingbat that joker actually is. And with his money, that makes him a dangerous dingbat.

      • How far we have fallen, if this is now what passes for leadership.

        I’ll have to go back and listen to a JFK speech on NASA or something to restore my faith in in the US.

  11. It’s all I can do to just shake my head in bewilderment. With people like this no wonder Jim Jones and David Koresh were able to control their followers. Totally lacking in constructive thought and free will.

    • I wonder, if Obama’s team really tried, how many members of Obama For America and other followers of The Cause would actually drink the poisoned Kool-Aid themselves (ala Jim Jones’ group of wackos) because their leader told them it would save the earth if they drank it.
      How many ignorant fools would just do what they were told?

  12. Here in the US, I frequently encounter people who reach into their golf-bag for the #5 cliche: “With all the gridlock, Congress can’t get anything done.”

    EXACTLY! JUST AS IT’S SUPPOSED TO BE!

    The US’s system of checks and balances is designed put a straight-jacket on hare-brained schemes, which are in unlimited supply.

    That sound of grinding gears in government? That’s the music of the Constitution playing.

    The last thing we want are politicians who can “get things done.”

    • Hear, hear, Max Photon!

      (a chorus of hearty voices from above to the sound of enthusiastic clapping…. John Adams…. John Marshall…. Abraham Lincoln …. Ronald Reagan …. )

      • We have John Marshall to thank for every activist court since him. Lincoln was a statist who trashed the Constitution.

      • There was a civil war. Different constitutional rules apply, are in the constitution, and are constitutional.

      • A civil war? You mean the War of Northern Aggression? If it wasn’t for Lincoln and the suppression of States Rights, we would be much better off today.

        (ummm…../sarc)

      • Janice,

        The US war from 1861-1865 was definitely not fought to abolish slavery. It was a case of the federal government asserting itself over states’ rights.

      • Janice, our families at that time all voted for Lincoln, and were Yankees. Baumgartners, Nugents, Scotts and Webbers. Lots of women had both brothers and husbands off to war. Thank God they did, and the lands West were settled by both blacks and whites. They were all free states thanks to that generation settling it.

        Here’s a Nebraska sodhouse, the same as my folks had to build.

        Freedom is hard work! (:

      • Hi, Zeke — thank you, so much, for sharing. What a fine heritage you have! Glad that pluck and perseverance your ancestors demonstrated was passed on to you as you keep on keepin’ on here at WUWT with your many fine comments in support of TRUTH!

        Janice

      • The English Royal Navy started suppressing the slave trade in 1807. Maybe that was a bit late, but if they’d interdicted all nations’ ships as well as British slave traders, perhaps history might be a bit different.

      • Boogie Wonderland
        by Earth, Wind and Fire
        1979

        Oh the memories!

        Guys, play this for the gal in your life, and there is a 97% chance she’ll be shaking her bootie all over the living room with a huge smile on her face :-)

      • Lincoln was a statist who trashed the Constitution.

        Right, Lincoln violated the COTUS when issued a mandate to cede part of the State of Virginia to become a new State in the Union …. simply because he wanted control of the Rail Road.

    • Doubtless you’ve encountered BuSab and Jorge McKie. It is set in a future where communiciation is rapid and legislation can go from bad idea to law in days, hours or even minutes. His job is to slow government down so a bit of thinking can take place and reconsider bad ideas.

    • You would think after 230 years, all the laws that were needed would have been thought up by now

    • Unfortunately it also works in reverse. Stopping bad ideas entering the system can be effected because of gridlock, but then trying get rid of bad ideas when they have become deeply entrenched in the system CANT be effected because of the very same gridlock. Maybe this was what Jefferson meant when he talked about the slow encroachment of tyranny.

  13. The argument is ironically self-refuting, a demonstration of the falsehood of their thesis. In fact no reasonable person of epistemic humility and dedication to science believes that he knows that CAGW is coming or even believes that he knows that the risk of CAGW is high. At this point in time the only kind of person asking for this power can be one who is unreasonable, lacking in epistemic humility, or lacking in dedication to science – exactly the kind of person into whose hands it would be disastrous to concentrate power. Yet here you have two guys asking for technocratic power because they believe they know these things. Anyone who makes this argument is a living and breathing demonstration of its invalidity.

    • Thar’s lots of 5 dollar words in thar. I had to look a few of dem up.
      “epistemic humility” and “dedication to science” strikes me as redundant.
      So does “epistemic humility” and “dedication to science”

  14. The leader of Canada’s Liberal Party, Justin Trudeau, famously said that he admired “China’s basic dictatorship” because it allows them to get things done. I look forward to Le Dauphin’s impending reign and Canada’s descent into cultural revolution, complete with mass starvation, a one-child policy buttressed by forced abortions, cancer cities, and the St. Lawrence turning the same chromatic yellow as, well, the Yellow River. Executions of ideological heretics (with the family billed for the bullet), smog you can cut with a chainsaw, crowd control by main battle tank…can’t wait for Canada’s very own great leap forward!

    Communist China – every Liberal’s ideal state. Democracy just gums up the works. P.J. O’Rourke put it best when he said of the Kennedys:

    “They were demagogues of oligarchy. Disguised as populists, they championed the definitely privileged and supposedly enlightened few. These few, when ensconced in the offices of government, would decide what was best for the many. The Kennedys saw political office as the source, rather than the result, of social order. They held government to be the fountainhead of all privilege, responsibility, benefit, and constraint. They did not know and probably couldn’t understand the idea of a free people chartering a government for the sake of convenience and paved roads. It never occurred to a Kennedy that the proper role of federal administration might be to guard the coasts and let UPS deliver the mail. And only in the vaguest, election-fixing way did any Kennedy realize that public officials serve at the peoples’ sufferance.”

    “…There is something more horrible than hoodlums, churls and vipers, and this is knaves with moral justification for their cause.”

    That last line should serve as the epitaph for all of the shrieking bien-pensants responsible for the moral panic that has provided fertile societal soil for the greatest and most costly scientific fraud in modern memory.

    • Donald Mao’s china was one thing but the true representation of environmental Eden was Pol Pot’s Kampuchea and he did so while garnering an observer seat at the UN!

  15. Smacks a bit of Plato’s Republic “Plato divides his just society into three classes: the producers, the auxiliaries, and the guardians. The guardians are responsible for ruling the city. They are chosen from among the ranks of the auxiliaries, and are also known as philosopher-kings. ”

    And we know who the “Guardians” will be :-)

  16. this is the most ‘terrorizing’ thing I’ve ever read here at WUWT ! Once we’ve gone to this level …

  17. Rules of Bureaucracy

    Rule #1: Maintain the problem at all costs! The problem is the basis of power, perks, privileges, and security.
    Rule #2: Use crisis and perceived crisis to increase your power and control.
    Rule 2a. Force 11th-hour decisions, threaten the loss of options and opportunities, and limit the opposition’s opportunity to review and critique.
    Rule #3: If there are not enough crises, manufacture them, even from nature, where none exist.
    Rule #4: Control the flow and release of information while feigning openness.
    Rule 4a: Deny, delay, obfuscate, spin, and lie.
    Rule #5: Maximize public-relations exposure by creating a cover story that appeals to the universal need to help people.
    Rule #6: Create vested support groups by distributing concentrated benefits and/or entitlements to these special interests, while distributing the costs broadly to one’s political opponents.
    Rule #7: Demonize the truth tellers who have the temerity to say, “The emperor has no clothes.”

  18. “the past is the key to the future”
    Yeah, it would be nice to get rid of this pesky democracy. These clones don’t seem to know that the concept of “the environment” came from democracies. Here is a picture of the environment in the former Soviet Union under just such an unelected bureaucracy. There was no government – all were bureaucrats. I ve never heard of a tougher idea to sell than this.

    http://www.gerdludwig.com/stories/soviet-pollution-a-lethal-legacy/#id=album-37&num=content-308

  19. Sounds familiar…

    There was another hideous excuse for tyranny: Eugenics.

    {substituting “climate change” for “eugenic”}

    “Political unification in some sort of world government will be required…
    Even though… any radical {climate change} policy will be
    for many years politically and psychologically impossible,
    it will be important for UNESCO to see that the
    {climate change} problem is examined with the greatest care,
    and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake
    so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”

    – Sir Julian Huxley, UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy.

    Source: http://www.infowars.com/eugenics-quotes-from-lofty-ideals-to-highly-centralized-population-control-run-by-psychopathic-maniacs/

    **************************

    Actually, Enviroprofiteers, motivated as they are by cold-hearted greed, worry one much less than a certain religion ….. (which some uninformed WUWT commenters will, bizarrely, defend — eye roll) whose motivation for totalitarianism is hot-blooded fanaticism. Certainly, the Isl@mofascist leaders are also motivated largely by greed, however…. their followers, whom the leaders use like rabid hyenas, unlike the majority of the AGW Cult members, are zealous and will k1ll for their beliefs.

    Wait — a — minute. Come to think if it… it’s not reassuring at all. Soc1ialism/Envirostalinism (the necessary political structure necessary to ensure the Enviroprofiteers’ profits) is, in the end, enforced out of the barrel of a gun… .

    Now, who said that?

    I think he was a Commun1st…

    from a country where real (not imaginary CO2) pollution is providing yet one more case of the failure of soc1alism to ever be truly “green.” {As More Soylent Green! ably points out, here}

    *************************

    Thank you, Eric Worrall, for the heads up! I’m not worried. There are too many clear-thinking Australians (who love liberty!) for this to be a real concern. GO, AUSTRALIA!

    *******************

    And, Eric Worrall, THANK YOU, so much, for all your efforts, week after week, to keep WUWT an excellent site for truth in science! You are one of WUWT’s giants.

  20. I think jut about everything is, in the end, enforced out of a barrel of a gun. (Including our freedoms.)

    • Good point, Mr. Jones. And that is why (not informing you, I realize you agree with this) we must maintain the U.S. Constitution’s checks and balances on just who gets to pull the trigger.

      • … and natural law… as in the right to: “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”
        with which ALL {humans} are “endowed by their Creator {or “Higher Power” or “The Universe” or whatever “force” you believe in}.”

      • To hear these southerners tell it, the north was just sitting quietly wondering what it was all about. But the fact is, the number one national pass time in America was then, and always has been, arguing. Any one who thinks Northerners didn’t have deeply held opinions and convictions about slavery in the US is playing fast and loose with the facts.

        To illustrate, I shall regale and delight all of you with the story of the time my Uncle Jack, the circuit preacher, offered to come and speak about slavery to a town known for its southern sympathies:

        “It was taken for granted, of course, that he was an Abolitionist and would denounce the south. The blood of those southern sympathizers at once began to boil. Everyone anticipated a lively time, and interest became intense. All felt that the foolhardy young fellow did not realize the danger to which he was exposing himself. An old gentlemen, the village blacksmith, felt it was his duty to warn the reverend…As usual Newgent was firm. He told the gentleman, however, that he wanted to be fair to both sides, so if those who disagreed with him desired, they might get a man to follow him and present the other side of the question.

        This they were only too anxious to do. When the time came they had their man. By the time Newgent and his wife arrived at the little schoolhouse that evening, it was completely packed and an immense crowd was gathered on the outside. It was with the greatest difficulty that they forced their way through the anxious throng and made their way to the front of the building. The opponent was on hand, ready to take his measure and smash all of his arguments….If he could not demolish the frail Abolitionist, there were enough present who were ready to lend all the assistance he needed. The smell of brimstone was in the air, indicating the presence of that commodity in unlimited quantities. All that was lacking for a real conflagration was something to touch it off. And that something was momentarily expected.

        After a brief preliminary exercise, the preacher opened the discussion. Like the great apostle on Mars Hill, he complimented his hearers on their seeming interest in the subject at hand. “As the subject of slavery,” he said, “is stirring our country from one end to the other, and as it is a subject of such vital importance, I take pleasure at this time in presenting one phase of it.”

        “I wish to observe in my remarks, First, the slave; Second, his master; Third, the law by which he is held in bondage; Fourth, how he is to be liberated; Fifth, where he is to be colonized.” Thus far, well and good. These were familiar topics and had been discussed pro- and con- even by the school children. Hence, his opening remarks were according to expectations, and breathlessly they awaited what was to follow.

        Their consternation and chagrin can only be imagined when he proceeded to state that the slave was the sinner; his master is the devil; the law by which he is held in bondage is sinful lusts and habits; he is to be liberated through the blood of Christ; and heaven is the place of his colonization. Around these propositions he built his discourse without any reference to slavery as a civil institution…and his antagonist had no disposition to reply.

        “Well, we are beat,” said the old blacksmith after the service was dismissed, “but the boy is the sharpest fellow that ever struck this town.” And he was not alone in his conclusion. [In his previous visit he had tricked both saloon owners to close for one day so that he could have a meeting at the schoolhouse.]

        I hope this anecdote goes a way to demonstrate by lively description that all were fixed on the subject of slavery and they knew exactly what they were doing when they elected Abraham Lincoln. +Janice, thank you for your welcomed wuwt presence too!

      • When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them to another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate but equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Natures God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

        We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights just Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of he governed.

        Janice, your version leaves a little something to be desired.

      • When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

        We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

        Janice, your version leaves a little something to be desired.

    • I respectfully disagree. I believe our freedoms are inalienable, but that they may have to be DEFENDED out of the barrel of a gun.

  21. Upon failing to convince the people that CAGW is true despite countless alarmist claims, falsifying records, half truths, downright falsehoods, and muzzling of any dissension they desperately say the only answer is to turn over all control to them. Elections only get in the way. In America the first step would be to rid the government of that pesky Constitution….good luck with that.

  22. Interesting to watch the socialists try to get rid of democracy in the name of a vague threat (climate change) and make it look like they are saving the world. They tried back in the 1970s and it failed as it will fail this time.

  23. Well, more and more, they show their teeth. These bozos think they are “guarding the flock” of poor, stupid, uninformed gets. Really, they are just wolves waiting to ravage the flock. They won’t go quietly into the night, folks, especially now that they are being challenged, both by men and by nature. The next election may be the second most important in American history (the third election – where Geo. Washington acceded power – was probably the most important, at least to date).

  24. Just imagine the trouble we’d be in if these people weren’t so stupid as to let the cat out of the bag so often about their hatred of Democracy, or more precisely, representative republics.

    • James Ard commented: “Just imagine the trouble we’d be in if these people weren’t so stupid as to let the cat out of the bag so often about their hatred of Democracy, or more precisely, representative republics.”
      You forgot to add Capitalism to the list. They are being more and more overt about “one world government”. The only thing that may be saving America is the immigrants that have come here to escape!

  25. I read through their article. The patina of reasonableness does not hide the underlying tyrannical wet-dream. They forgot something that their fellow-travellers at the UN were smart enough not to overlook. Their non-elected fix-it agencies need to have immunity from prosecution. Although that won’t be enough if they do too much damage.

  26. Because socialism doesn’t work, And fear mongering about climate change has been shown a lie, the answer is bigger and more powerful socialism… to force their failed agenda…

    Politicians will do or say anything to keep power…

  27. Why would we resolve this by??

    transferring democratic powers to unelected panels of national and trans-national bureaucrats

    I mean think of those health care costs.

    when we could just cede all choice and resources to the Deity:

    pic from The Conversation – don’t go there – nothing to see, move on

  28. What they are proposing is already underway in most democratic countries only by stealth.

  29. The assertions that these poor people make is similar to United Nations Agenda 21 aims and actions. The un-elected Bureaucrats are the un-elected UN officials who, if all the current treaties are ratified by foolish national governments, will achieve exactly what these people are asserting.

    Agenda 21 is gaining ground because people either do not know about it or are lulled by the reasonable sounding propaganda it exudes.
    In my city, their tentacles are starting to show. My blog at http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com shows how the UN is already in our Government, Local Government and education an example http://thedemiseofchristchurch.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/exemplar-3-2008-exam.pdf

    Climate change is simply a contrived crisis which is expected to make people think we need an un-elected global government that will save the world.

    Like Hitler who took over the education of Germany for barely 10 years to train little Nazi fighters and administrators, (and succeeded), the UN is well into training our young.

    Check your national, state and local governments for the same symptoms!

    Cheers

    Roger

  30. Great in theory, like all far left ideology, but terrifying in practice. I know exactly what is good for me so I won’t be dictated to by anyone who I can’t get rid of at a forthcoming election. Democracy has its inefficiencies but nothing galvanizes a person’s attention like the prospect of being held accountable and run off. And once again, their philsophy is based on the presumption that there is a climate crisis.

  31. Isabel Paterson (she said her husband was too cheap to use two ‘t’s instead of one) was Ayn Rand’s mentor until they had a falling out over their disagreements. (Ayn Rand was a crusading atheist and Isabel was a deist: The religion of the Enlightenment and the Founding Fathers.)

    Isabel Paterson’s most triumphant book was ‘The God of the Machine’, which she wrote in the 1940s.

    In that book she wrote how political systems had evolved throughout history to accommodate the way human beings actually worked and existed. She compared the problem to that of engineering and government to a mechanism that had to be appropriate to its purpose. (You can’t run an IC engined car on water: the engine must be designed for combustible fuel.)

    The part in her book that still bowls me over, 30 years after I read it, was where she described the Roman system. The city was divided into sectors in which the tribunals of the plebeians were organized. These tribunals could not initiate legislation but they had veto power over legislation originated in the Senate. For three years these tribunals stopped the works; vetoing every single piece of legislation until their grievances were heard.

    Isabel Paterson noted this and, using it as an example, wrote that nothing was more essential for the welfare of a nation than a counter check on government by legitimate means.

    And here is her analogy, “a mechanism without a brake, a motor without a cutoff, is built for self destruction.”

    Words fail me in condemning what these people propose. And, in this day and age, after our continuing experiences of the horrors of aggressive government, these people persist in being so utterly stupid. They have no idea where true danger lies.

    BTW: They need to meet my sister, my older sister, my vampiric older sister, to recognize demonic power run amok. (I had to put this in.)

    • thanks for the information – good

      Hey, my sisters have a brother . . . but we would not want to get them together, unless the goal is implosion.

  32. Sounds like the statism of 1930s Europe … wonder how that worked out for the people of Europe, once they solved the problem of institutional paralysis …

  33. OK, I gotta ask the stupid question.

    If they can’t get enough democratic support to do something about climate change, how, exactly, do they expect to get enough democratic support to create an un-elected authority to do something about climate change?

    • They don’t expect it. That’s why they have to lie about their motives, or hire Grubers to lie for them, to win over public opinion. They know the majority of the public doesn’t really want what they’re selling. But they also know that the public is easily deceived.

      • But they aren’t lying. They are saying it straight out:

        It means understanding that liberal democracy’s governance machinery – and the static, siloed policy responses generated by such democracies – is no longer fit for purpose.

        So, again; If they can’t get enough democratic support to do something about climate change, how are they going to get enough democratic support to suspend democracy in order to do something about climate change?

      • You’re right, David, but they are only brainstorming now. If they ever get around to proposing actual legislation, that’s when they will lie about it to get it passed. They don’t have to lie now because it’s just an idea they’re floating to see how much support they have and to plant the seeds for future action.

      • @ davidmhoffer

        no one is answering my question either, and of course they can’t be answered – but to yours – of course they won’t, they can only vote themselves raises and provide governmental health care coverage.

        I will persist on my question:
        What is the goal of the war on climate change?

      • David m, …. HA, …. they have been getting enough Democrat (and Republican) support to do something about climate change, …. haven’t they? Why else would this discussion be on-going.

    • and even stupider – what exactly are they going to do about climate change?
      Just what is the objective of the war on climate change?
      I think it is obvious and I ask that as often as I can of all alarmists.

      • Davidmhoffer and others

        “So, again; If they can’t get enough democratic support to do something about climate change, how are they going to get enough democratic support to suspend democracy in order to do something about climate change?”

        Please read my comment above.

        Cheers

        Roger
        http;//www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com

    • davidmhoffer:

      OK, I gotta ask the stupid question.

      If they can’t get enough democratic support to do something about climate change, how, exactly, do they expect to get enough democratic support to create an un-elected authority to do something about climate change?

      They don’t need “democratic support.” They just need the creation of bureaucracies with the power to create enforceable regulations, which become de facto laws. We are already far down this road in the United States, with the EPA and other agencies that ride roughshod over individuals and even businesses, with no concern for or interest in the liberties they are trampling.

      And where is the legislature? Asleep at the switch, obsessed with petty quarrels and campaign fund-raising, happy to let the bureaucratic Leviathan run rampant over the quaint idea of a Constitutional Republic. The Bureaucracies heed only the Executive, which they aid and abet in an orgy of self-aggrandizement and insidious tyranny.

      The hour is late, but we still can stop them. Read Mark Levin, The Liberty Amendments.

      /Mr Lynn

      • But isn’t this the idea of Agenda 21, to bypass legislatures by going through regional and local council entities?

  34. You mean these people want to be able to tell everyone else what to do without the burden of having to first convince them it’s for their good? No wonder these people adore Stalin, Mao, and Castro. They, too, would like to rule with an iron fist. White House Communications Director Anita Dunn told high school students in May 2009 that one of her favorite political philosophers was Mao Tse Tung, the Communist dictator responsible for the death of millions of people. What’s not to like?

    “I should be honest. As president of the United States, there are times where I wish information didn’t flow so freely, because then I wouldn’t have to listen to people criticizing me all the time.”
    — President Obama in Shanghai, China, Nov 16, 2009

    • Maybe if that rat eared, radio voiced, bloviating, narcissist stopped doing things all the time that are so worthy of criticism he wouldn’t have to listen to people criticizing him all the time.

  35. Jello Biafra had the measure of such people when he mocked

    “It’s nice and quick and clean and gets things done.”

    He was singing about killing the poor with neutron bombs, but the analogy transfers very well to the despotic Malthusian global warmers.

  36. Yes. Democracy — or a representative republic, as you prefer — saves us from our unelected “betters” deciding what should be done “in our best interests.”

    That’s the plan.

    Next question.

  37. Now we are getting down to the crux of it, aren’t we?
    Democracy is the real problem.
    We need a dictator to save us from this (fake) catastrophe.
    It has always worked out so well in the past, why would we not go that route?

  38. So democratic government is stopping us from controlling the climate?
    That means all those dictatorships must be working hard on climate mitigation, unhampered by pesky voters.
    Hmm…

    • Yes, Margaret.
      The dictators are hard at work reducing the opposition populations in their countries and their neighboring territories.
      They fight climate change by destroying some of the changers. On the other hand, they jet across the world to conspire.

  39. The “Expert and citizen panels” will be called “Soviets” while the leading burocrats will have the title “Gauleiter”.

  40. “… Specifically, the failure to tackle climate change speaks to an overall failure of our liberal democratic system…”

    Having failed to convince the people that what they want to do is the right thing to do, the right to choose must be taken from the people. They failed, so the people must be punished.

  41. ‘Granting more decision-making power to institutions independent of the government of the day, but still accountable to parliaments’

    Independent of government or not?

  42. First of all, the STATISTs stole the word “liberal”.. The term “liberal” means a free and open society, where individual natural rights of: life, liberty and property (both tangible and intellectual property) are strictly protected.

    Moreover, the US is NOT a “democracy” (US Founding Fathers called it mobocracy), which is simply the tyranny of the majority over the minority.

    Under the Constitution, the federal government has NO authority or power to regulate environmental policy. Environmental policies reside SOLEY with the individual states under the rights granted under the 9th and 10th Amendments.

    If California wishes to implement unnecessary, expensive and ineffective CO2 sequestration policies, they’re perfectly within their rights to do so. Accordingly, companies and individuals that don’t wish to pay the high taxes and utilities, or suffer the devastating economic consequences of such unwarranted acts, are perfectly free to move to another state that has not gone insane….

    Constitutional Republics are designed to minimize the damage and tyranny governments can inflict on its citizens. What little of our Constitution that does still does exist has prevented some of the worst aspects of Gloooobal Waaaarming initiatives from being enacted, but still too much has slipped through.

    Since Republicans have majorities in both the House and Senate, they have the ability to pass laws and withhold funding to the EPA that could derail much of the CO2 legislation that exists, even with Presidential veto powers. However, since the current Republican leadership are wimps, not all that CAN be done IS being done to end the Global Warming madness, despite 83% of Republicans believe Gloooobal Waaaarming is not a problem..

    Statist tyrants (not “liberals”) don’t like individual freedom. As this article suggests, Statists want a tiny minority of elites to enslave the masses as they see fit, regardless of what the citizens actually feel or think…

    Hopefully, the 2016 elections will give the GOP (terribly flawed though they be) control of both Houses and the Executive branch. If either Cruz or Paul are elected, there is even the chance the EPA could be rescinded entirely. How cool would that be?

    It would be worth the price of admission just to see Statists’ heads collectively explode over THAT one! I know I’m dreaming a bit, but, as they say in New Orleans, “Ya neva know.”

    • Hate to get pedantic, but the ninth and tenth amendments don’t grant any kind of rights to the States or to anybody else. Nothing in the Constitution does that.

      Have you already forgotten that in the Declaration of Independence it is asserted that everybody already has all of their rights granted if you wish by “god”, or maybe just by the fact of being born.

      What the Constitution does is to tell the federal government what they can and what they must do, and in the case of article 9 and 10 of the Bill of Rights, what they cannot do, because those are the State’s or the people’s rights already endowed under the declaration of independence.

      The Ninth amendment (the most important one) says that the people retain ALL of their rights UNLESS in the Constitution it is curtailed by powers granted to the government (in order to form a more perfect union).

      So if your favorite “right” is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, then the ninth amendment says it is yours to keep.

      That would include a right to privacy, although would be supreme justice Robert Bork asserted that there was no such right. Ninth amendment says there is.

      A right to privacy is absolutely essential to freedom. You ain’t free if you don’t have privacy.

      • George– Under the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 enumerates a very short list of just 16 powers the federal government has the power and authority to control (man an army, build ports/roads, deliver the mail, pass laws pursuant to authorized powers, protect the border, coin money, collect taxes, make international treaties, issue patents, etc.).

        Any task not specifically listed in Article 1 Section 8 cannot be done by the federal government and is left to the individual states or individual citizens to control… 75% of the federal bureaucracy is unconstitutional: Commerce, Agriculture, HUD, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Labor, VA (should be part of Defense Dept) etc, and should all these tasks should be handled by the individual states as granted in Amendments 9 & 10.

        Neither the Constitution nor the government grant ANY rights… Individual rights exist naturally in situ and a priori. We The People agreed to give up SOME of our natural rights (namely SOME property rights), and granted some power to elected officials to act on our behalf to protect our natural rights. We The People are not obligated in anyway to adhere to ANY federal laws that are NOT expressly granted to the Federal government in Article 1 Section 8.

        Unfortunately, most Americans are not aware of these facts of Constitutional law…

      • Samurai – you should probably spend a little more time studying the history of Art.1, Sec. 8, Clause 1.

        “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

        While there was some disagreement among the founders, providing for “…general Welfare” is currently used and supported by the SCOTUS to justify broad legislative powers. While you may personally disagree with that position, it doesn’t make it wrong.

    • And you believe in the accuracy and tamper-free inviolability of your corporate-designed electronic voting systems?
      Good luck with that.

    • Brian– During the Constitution’s ratification process, the “General Welfare” clause inane Article 1, Section 8 PREAMBLE, terrified state legislatures as they feared it WOULD be used by the Federal government to impose any kind tyrannous law they felt was for the “general welfare”.

      The state legislators were always assured that the “general welfare” clause would NEVER be misinterpreted in that manner because just after this PREAMBLE, the specific 16 tasks that constituted “general welfare” were specifically enumerated…

      Of course the state legislatures were all lied to and federal statists soon used the “general welfare” clause to shred the enumerated powers and pretty much do whatever they wanted.

      The “interstate commerce clause” was perhaps the most abused innumerate power, especially after the 1942 Wickard v. Filburn SCOTUS ruling…

      Thomas Jefferson defined the Constitution as a CAGE designed to confine the state leviathan from imposing tyranny. The door of that cage has long since been kicked in and explains why the U.S. federal government now wastes $4 TRILLION/yr, has $18 TRILLION in national debt, has about $100 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities and why none of our Bill of Rights are being protected.

      The Constitution is now just a meaningless relic that only exists in some hermetically sealed case in the Library of Congress.

  43. I have always believed that the most efficient form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. Just one problem: the only person I would trust as dictator is me.

  44. Like The Federal Reserve and other Central Banks. Like the CIA and other intelligence agencies. Yes we know how well these guys serve society. Only natural to hand over Energy planning and Environmental control to similar people of good character!

  45. These couple of ‘Conversational’ clowns have their heads where the sun don’t shine.

    The reason democracy has some problems responding to certain issues rationally is not because of the elected representatives, it is because of the cadre of self important, politically or commercially biased ‘experts’ and ‘administrators’ as well as barely elected and self appointed representatives of ‘lobby groups’ of all persuations.

    In conjunction with the media they turn blowtorches on democratically elected representatives, they waterboard them with adverse media exposure, bully, threaten and abuse them into submission and if still non compliant, just cut their political toes off.

    It is not the democratic structures that are at fault it is the undemocratic ones and the intellectual jackboot culture that infest them like some vile STD due to their cadres all being so far up each other so often.

    Just for non Austtalians, ‘The Conversation’ is a government funded medium whereby the intolerant, narcissiitic leftard maniacs of monokultural ‘academia’ (‘academoniacs’) can spout their self righteous drivel in what amounts o an on line cadre course to a eco-politically correct einzatzgruppen ( look that one up). It is just a parasitic subsection of Australia’s intellectual life where the unit of currency is the LPU, the “Least Publishable Unit”, pal reviewed of course.

  46. I read something a while ago about the “tyranny of mustard.” The basic premise was that if we keep giving ourselves so many small choices to make, say 30 different brands of mustard, that we start to become worn out when we are forced to make major decisions… “decision fatigue.” This sounds like the same thing… only instead of intellectuals telling you which condiments you should be allowed to use, they are telling you not to worry your pretty little head about that global warming… since you are making the “wrong” choice anyway they want to take away any options they don’t like.

    • Tim W.
      April 24, 2015 at 12:13 am
      “I read something a while ago about the “tyranny of mustard.” The basic premise was that if we keep giving ourselves so many small choices to make, say 30 different brands of mustard, that we start to become worn out when we are forced to make major decisions… “decision fatigue.””

      Heard the same in one of the worst TED talks from a sociologist called Silbermann or Silberstein or the likes, only using jeans as example. He explained how it’s so hard for him to make up his mind and all the champaigne socialists paying top Dollares to sit in the audience rattled their jewels in agreement. It was despicable and one of the last TED talks I watched.

      • DirkH says, “Heard the same in one of the worst TED talks from a sociologist called Silbermann or Silberstein or the likes, only using jeans as example. He explained how it’s so hard for him to make up his mind and all the champaigne socialists paying top Dollares to sit in the audience rattled their jewels in agreement. It was despicable and one of the last TED talks I watched.”

        Great catch, DirkH. If the organic ag trends continue, slave labor will be required for many many hours in the field, weeding with hoes and protecting cotton. Yields will decrease, and prices will increase.

        This will cause cotton to become a luxury item, perhaps even forbidden for some to wear, as it was in some ancient cultures. I think this is the goal.

        I had my kids look at their jeans and t-shirts under a microscope recently. I said, “You should be thankful you don’t have to wait for your mom to weave flax or knit socks!” And they are very thankful for that :)

  47. I think that many of the comments are unduly harsh on the leaders and politicians of the West , and the US in particular . Taking the latter as an example , Obama is constrained in his policies by the Constitution and Congress ( I assume). The members of Congress have so far largely acquiesced to his policy of significant future impoverishment of the nation by high prices for utilities and some form of additional taxation to provide the give- away billions for the Paris summit.
    But the members of congress , and the president , were all elected , repeatedly, by free and fair elections , on manifestos well advertised , so the buck stops where it started with the American electorate. They have elected to impoverish themselves for reasons that require not a scientist , nor a constitutional lawyer, but a psychologist to explain.
    This is not an anti-American jibe , because exactly the same could be said of the UK Govts and electorate , the EU and certainly Canada and Australia , if what I have read here is a true guide.

    • Mike– Unfortunately, US’ primary problem isn’t with the electorate, but rather with the Supreme Court, which failed miserably in protecting the Constitution, and of course Supreme Court Justices are not elected officials.

      Once Supreme Court decisions destroyed the Constitution, the Exectutive and Leglislative Branches were allowed to pretty much pass any law they pleased.

      The easiest way to get re-elected is simply to promise voters to pass laws that will give them a huge amount of other people’s money. This works out pretty well for awhile, until a country runs out of other people’s to steal and then the country collapses… (See Greece).

      The U.S. Founding Fathers also didn’t believe in universal suffrage. Initially, only people that paid a certain amount of property taxes were allowed to vote, as it was their money the government was spending, which makes a lot of sense…

      This is a recurrent theme throught history, and is why our Founding Fathers hated the concept of mobacracies…

      • Samurai , thank you for the response . I was wondering why there was not more mention of the influence of the Supreme Court . I remember that in the 60s it seemed to have a crucial role in the social policies of the Kennedys and Johnson ,at least according to reports in the British media . In principle a Supreme Court should be a defence of the vulnerable citizen against reckless or evil leaders , but in practice?

      • I agree that the general problem is with the Supreme Court. But, of course, who you get on the Supreme Court is controlled entirely by who you elect president.

        Here is a brief history of the corruption of the Commerce Clause to allow the federal government to do any damn thing it wants to:

        https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause

        My personal belief is that The Framers did not intend for the Feds to have control over CONTENT of products. The intent of the Commerce Clause was to prevent states from unfair trade practices against goods from other states. Fascist mandates of content in goods is perverse. Additionally, OSHA, EEOC, NLRB, etc., are perverse.

      • You are right, SAMURAI, the US Supreme Court, as well as most State Supreme/highest Courts have become dysfunctional relative to what their original intent and purpose was founded for.

        As a matter of fact, the enforcement of the Rule of Law has pretty much become subservient to the “Politics Currently in Control”.

  48. As with Vostok data I think the cause and effect is the wrong way round here. Climate alarmism threatens democracy. The objective of the alarmists is to deny everyone the right to question their actions. What the alarmists want is to create a police state in which they cannot be criticised, but at the same time they, being the cultural police, can ignore democratically-made laws with impunity.

    We’ve already seen elements of this effect in the UK with illegal powerstation pickets not being prosecuted, and Robert Goodwill’s announcement that cyclists would not be ticketed for various specifically-illegal activities which motorists definitely would be fined for. Then, we have the flood of illegal telesales calls trying to sell solar panels. Which is now the number one nuisance call in the UK. I believe there has been a similar concern of Al Gore getting away with using spamming techniques to promote his projects. It is indeed worrying when government offices start giving out dispensations to commit crime.

  49. Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried from time to time.
    – Winston Churchill.
    I have seen it paraphrased as: “Democracy is a terrible form of government but it’s the best we’ve got.”

  50. The types of people who find democracy an inconvenient obstacle – they are themselves the strongest reasons for having democracy.

  51. When anyone can prove to me by calorimetry (it’s easy in principle, just use a water trough with a gold-sputtered mylar foil lower reflector, a clingfilm cover to prevent evaporation, and a data-logger to follow imaginary temperature change) that ‘back radiation’ is a real energy flux instead of the Atmosphere’s Radiant Exitance, I’ll be willing to accept the concept of the Enhanced GHE.

    Otherwise, wake me up when the last of these charlatans collects his or her P45 and a place on a McDonald’s Degree Course in chip frying…….:o)

    • They manage to do that quite well on their own without any instruction from me. Usually by getting the supply leads reversed.

  52. Are they really that stupid to think “transferring democratic powers” does not undermine democracies and lays the groundwork for a totalitarian state – or is that their wet dream?

    This quote is from Wiki but with three small changes.

    “Greens view Climate Change as having made liberal democracy obsolete and regard total mobilization of society led by a totalitarian single-party state as necessary for a nation to be prepared for climate change and to respond effectively to it’s economic difficulties; such a totalitarian state is led by a strong leader as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing Green party to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society.”

    Here is the original text from the Wiki article

    “Fascists view World War I as having made liberal democracy obsolete and regard total mobilization of society led by a totalitarian single-party state as necessary for a nation to be prepared for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties, such a totalitarian state is led by a strong leader as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society.”

    It is interesting how the authoritarian underpinnings of Facism align well with green attacks on democracy.

    • I believe it was that famous philosopher Dick Martin of laugh-In fame who said “What a co-wink-e-dink”.
      He may have been pointing out the unconstitutional actions ofour fascist government even way back then.

  53. Is on one else suspicious that da’ Convo carries these hysterics while seeking its notoriety? Follow the money, not their stench.

    About democracy, also from the Wikipedia, “It is accepted as democratic when public offices are allocated by lot; and as oligarchic when they are filled by election.” (Aristotle, Politics 4, §1294)

  54. I had a conversation with somebody recently and they told me that with political issues that it’s never the facts that are important. It’s the principle.. This is mostly true in history. The details aren’t important. Shouldn’t the facts be of up most importance for an issue based completely on science though? since this debate is completely political now, what can be done to let people get passed their ideologies to see the light of truth? The science is obviously of no importance at this point. It is not just secondary to their cause. it is completely invalid in this debate as far as the alarmists are concerned.

  55. Granting more decision-making power to institutions independent of the government of the day, but still accountable to parliaments (such as the Parliamentary Budget Office or Infrastructure Australia). This would increase the capacity of policy planning and decision processes to have staying power beyond individual political cycles.

    Government Bureaucrats being accountable, what a novel concept, we should try that for a change!

  56. Democracy and the more efficient republic were invented to prevent unelected people and bureaucracies, be it a single dictator or a massive organization the size of our federal bureaucracy from running everyone’s lives according to their whims. The idea was that if we’re all going to have to conform to a set of rules, at the very least the majority of us should agree to the rules (which automatically implies a very limited set of rules). Anyone who advocates the abolition of democracy clearly does so because he/she does not believe the majority of people would agree to the particular set of rules they want to enforce. For example democracies generally avoid efforts to fix the weather or climate by throwing virgins into a volcano (not good for virgins) or shutting down all fossil fuel based energy sources (not good for civilization). True, democracies are lousy for implementing ideas that most people don’t agree with. That’s what makes them better than all the other forms of government.

  57. There’s nothing more pathetic than Communists who are too stupid to realize that they’re Communists.

    • Or, to realise that if Communism did take over they would be the first to lose their much-valued freedom of speech, or the right to sit around all day smoking joints and strummeling a guitar at the taxpayer’s expense. Yes, I think they would be in for a short, sharp shock in finding out what life under real Communism is like.

      • Ian Macdonald April 24, 2015 at 8:52 am


        if Communism did take over they would be the first to lose their much-valued freedom of speech, or the right to sit around all day smoking joints and strummeling a guitar at the taxpayer’s expense.

        (my edit)

        As they say, there’s more than one way to skin a cat:

        On 21 October 1949, Huxley wrote to George Orwell, author of Nineteen Eighty-Four, congratulating him on “how fine and how profoundly important the book is”. In his letter to Orwell, he predicted:

        Within the next generation I believe that the world’s leaders will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience.

        –Wikipedia

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldous_Huxley

        “There will be in the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it.”

        ― Aldous Huxley

  58. Sorry ‘Conversation’, that your elitist rulers planned Global Governance deadline is being delayed by the pesky Democracy of the people.

    How inconvenient, comrades.

  59. An educated populace is a far better judge of what should be done in the name of society than a closet full of mal-informed fruitcakes. I think the concept of what is the proper decision process played out centuries ago after Marie-Antoinette said; in effect, if they can’t afford bread, then let them eat cake. That “decision” by the group of the few for the many is still trying to be force fed to us, and perhaps we should consider the same literal, not actual, response.

    And for those that would attack what I just said because I mentioned society versus environment, I love the outdoors and its variety as much as the next, but I don’t build nests, spawn, and rarely crap in the woods. In other words, yes, I consider humanity first with the hope that we have sense enough to remember the rest. A snail, toad, or fish that might go extinct is not more important to me than a child born to a poor family, anywhere in the world. And I won’t apologize for that position.

  60. We’re back to the 1920s, when progressives dreamed of a powerful enlightened leader unrestrained by democratic hand cuffs creating an ideal society. Everything within the state, nothing outside of the state, nothing against the state.

  61. When the power of love outweighs the love of power, the world will know peace and prosperity for all.

  62. Mark Triffitt
    Lecturer, Public Policy at University of Melbourne

    Travers McLeod
    Honorary Fellow in the School of Social and Political Sciences at University of Melbourne

    Political Science and Public Policy. Because real science is just too darn hard!

  63. Yep, the way to protect the environment is to get rid of democracy and empower leftist bureaucrats. The terrific environmental record of the Soviet Union and its eastern European client states proves that.

    Do I need to say “sarc off”?

  64. We have already started to lose democracy via stealth attack, the EPA and the EU governance.

    What will bring the CAGW madness to an end is when ever increasing job losses to Asia and the ever increasing cost of electricity becomes on acceptable to the general public.

  65. I think what they mean about democracy goes back to the failed vote on the U.S. carbon tax. It did not proceed because the switchboard lit up in way like no other issue before it. It was one over reach too far. They are still focused on getting that vote back and you can see that intent in the collective drum beat in every manipulated agency and institution out there today. So the EPA carbon regs initiative is just a stepping stone and not the end of the drive. It is your money and that carbon tax that drives them on and on and on. They seek that ring of power above all others.

  66. As for democracy, it depends on your definition of “is” as the Clintons would say. It is that flexible and erasable and shred-able.

  67. I am sure it is merely coincidence that such a seat of power was postulated and argued for well before co2 was a claimed issue. In fact in the 70s a few groups argued we needed similar so humanity could adapt to the coming iceage.

  68. It’s embarassing to see such stupid stuff coming out of Australian academic institutions, even if it is just from a political scientist.

  69. Yet more proof, not that it is needed, that post-modernism rules the universities post ‘Gen VW’ (outside perhaps of a few hard sciences). As for the articulation of democracy – haven’t we come a long way, mostly downhill, since Orwell.

  70. January 13th ,2014- IPCC chief Christiana Figueres stated- Democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming, Chinese Communism is the best model.

    Obviously the UN had no problem with this. The UN has no problem with the iron fist of totalitarianism to “fight” a non-existent “problem.”

    The people of the world should be up in arms over a comment like this.

  71. A test for extremism is whether or not they are willing to abide peaceably by elections or if they dismiss the entire concept of democracy unless they get their way.

  72. Yet more arrogant elitist nonsense that give academics a bad name. How anybody with two IQ points to rub together and any reading of 20th Century history could come out with this dangerous crap is beyond me.
    It buries AGW/man made climate change even further.

  73. Reblogged this on Daily Browse and commented:
    ‘Climate Change’ was never about science. Consensus is a political term, not a scientific principal. It’s all politics: anti-capitalist and anti-democracy. ‘Watermelons’: Green on the outside – red on the inside.

  74. The whole idea is… well let’s skip that part. Climate change is not political, I think that is the biggest place this article has gone wrong. Democracy or not, things are happening on our planet that have not occurred since humans lived on it and survived through it. Before we existed Earth was happy existing peacefully, having balance and compensating for any sudden changes it encountered. Here we are, adding co2, deforesting and taking away the natural way to balance it out, and not adding any other solutions to off put our co2 contributions. Truth of the matter is co2 happens, other greenhouse gases happen, they are naturally occurring things, but they are not naturally occurring at the levels where they are at now. Congrats to the genius creativity and hard work of those who have progressed humanity and inventions and sciences. But balance is a pretty important part of life. It is not that the rates have never existed before, but not with humans. Earth may be just fine, but people and other species is another story. Perhaps if we were rising our co2 levels slowly, at the normal rate rather than 2ppm per year compared to 1ppm every 100 years. Regardless of if you think its humans or not, it is a drastic change that happens to line up with the industrial revolution. It’s also a rate of change faster than any species can adapt.

    • Elissa Barnes
      April 25, 2015 at 12:28 pm
      “It’s also a rate of change faster than any species can adapt.”

      a) C3 plants ARE ADAPTED to high levels of CO2. That’s why plant growers ramp CO2 up to 1000+ ppm in greenhouses. Helps plants grow faster.

      b) When I go indoors and close the windows, I not only ramp up the CO2 level in the room faster than the last 70 years took to grow it from 300 to 400 ppm. I also adapt perfectly well to it. When leaving the house the next morning, I have no problem at all adapting to an instantaneous drop in CO2 levels again.

      So what’s wrong with you.

      • So far there have been 5 “mass extinctions” and although I personally was not present to tell you specifically how the climate was, scientists have suggested that abrupt and drastic changes in climate also took place.

        That being said, I am all for more plants, happily adapted plants and anything that grows and lives thriving. I think it would be naive to say that this is a simple issue or a black and white topic. Perhaps it is a coincidence that the co2 levels follow closely in sync with the timing of the industrial revolution and have increased rather steadily as we have increased our output rather steadily. Let’s say it is a coincidence. It’s not the most terrible thing ever, to consider and look into what will be affected and how things will be affected in the future.

    • Elissa Barnes commented: “…. things are happening on our planet that have not occurred since humans lived on it and survived through it.”

      Name one associated with climate.

      • CO2 levels. It is thought perhaps levels reached 1000ppm long before humans existed, but not since.

      • elissa barnes commented:

        “CO2 levels.”

        The last 20 years have produced empirical evidence that CO2 levels do not drive climate. If you go back further in time you can see where temperature and CO2 levels even diverge with decreases in temperature when CO2 levels increase, and vice versa. Temperature has risen, CO2 has risen, and man produces CO2 – therefore man is the cause of increased temperature is faulty logic from several perspectives and you don’t need to be a scientist to understand that. But also with proper evidence it could be proven true. Urban heat islands are anthropogenic and can be proven. What’s your evidence?

  75. It is siimply “democracy” not “liberal democracy”. The word liberal has too many and often contradictory meanings to be useful in almost any context and in this one it is simply a semantic glow which falsely infers that those who self-label as “liberal” have a monopolistic claim on democracy.

  76. You scratch a shiny green progressive, and underneath you will find a dark totalitarian. ALWAYS

  77. There is always some reason, excuse or belief that makes it essential to force everyone else to do what you think is “best”. Nothing seems to change and history repeats and, this thinking always, always turns out very bad for Mankind.
    Will we ever learn?

Comments are closed.