US Journalist Lays Out His Vision of Climate Change Totalitarianism

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Another green sneer at Democracy; According to US Journalist David Wallace-Wells, author of The Uninhabitable Earth, future systems of government will replace concern for human rights, peace and prosperity with a focus on CO2 emissions.

Can liberal democracy survive climate change? 

Mar 29th 2019
by N.B.

A book excerpt and interview with David Wallace-Wells, author of “The Uninhabitable Earth”

The Economist: Are the political and economic systems that have facilitated global warming capable of fixing it? 

Mr Wallace-Wells: Certainly not without some significant renovation and reformation, I think. But I’m not sure it will take a total revolution, either. I may be too much a child of the 1990s—an “End of History” kid, trained by that experience even as I no longer regard those intuitions about markets and globalisation and neoliberalism as wise. But I do see a way that something like the post-Cold War international order could, conceivably, address the issue, by placing carbon and climate change at the center of its value set, in much the same way that human rights, peace and prosperity were put there—in name at least—in the aftermath of the second world war. 

I also see the early returns from the Paris accords as pretty discouraging on that point. It is, after just a few years, a real failure. No major industrial nation is on track to honour its commitments, which if honoured perfectly, would still land us north of 3°C this century. But certainly other approaches are possible, too—ranging from left-wing forms of quasi-eco-socialism to right-wing forms of authoritarian nationalism and self-interest. And many more, too. 

I’m not sure just what form our answer to climate change will take, and probably it won’t be just one form. But I do know that our politics and culture will be shaped by the force of warming in very profound ways, whether or not we take aggressive action soon, so that the systems of the 21st century will almost certainly be defined by climate change, in the same way that previous systems were defined, say, by the interests of financial capitalism. 

Read more:

When future historians look back on the failed climate movement, they will rightly see green fanaticism as yet another of a long line of attempts by selfish elitists to overthrow Democracy and Freedom.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 29, 2019 10:19 pm

“future systems of government will replace concern for human rights, peace and prosperity with a focus on CO2 emissions.”

In one day, the average person breathes out around 500 litres of the greenhouse gas CO2 – which amounts to around 1kg in mass. This doesn’t sound much until you take into account the fact that the world’s population is around 7.5 billion, collectively breathing out around 3 Billion tonnes of the stuff each year – which is around 8%-9% per cent of the annual CO2 tonnage churned out by the burning of fossil fuel around the world.

I see the carbon tax being applied to humans directly, just for breathing out and exhaling the wretched stuff, and also apply an Oxygen tax for all the O2 we consume. Can’t pay? Then you don’t breath. This is the future of Socialist Marxists wanting to control humanity. This is the final end result of leftist socialism.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Earthling2
March 30, 2019 4:46 am

That is wrong. We are merely recycling CO2 by our breathing, some of which obviously is already in the air, and some which comes from our food intake, which is also part of the recycling process.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 30, 2019 5:20 am

“That is wrong. We are merely recycling CO2 by our breathing, some of which obviously is already in the air, and some which comes from our food intake, which is also part of the recycling process.“ – and you think that the people trying to take your money, control your life, and eliminate your children care about the biochemical facts… why?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Cube
March 30, 2019 5:43 am

That isn’t the issue. The issue is that we skeptics need to present logical, factual arguments based on science, not myths or straw men.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 31, 2019 8:48 am

Logical factual arguments would only work when debating logical factual people. The alarmist camp ignores the logical factual data it knows because the facts are an impediment to achieving the goal: control. Only illogical emotional arguments have a chance.

Richard Patton
Reply to  Richard
April 1, 2019 10:45 am

I wonder if that is the reason that Logic was dropped from required high school and college courses over a century. If you can’t recognize illogic you are doomed for fall for it.

Reply to  Earthling2
March 30, 2019 7:53 am

Of course it is wrong…I never said that the breathed out CO2 hadn’t just been sourced by our bodies from our local environment and atmosphere. And it is actually a moot point in the scheme of things, just like wood pellets don’t add back any real net CO2 cause they too accumulated the ‘carbon’ from the earth/atmosphere and were destined to rot back into the ground and atmosphere anyway. My point was that just breathing out CO2 would become an issue of the socialist/Marxists to just collect more carbon tax revenue because they are fixated on CO2 being the root of all weather/climate problems now and the control knob for the future climate. And I threw in they will probably tax us to breath oxygen too, just to be a little sarcastic where all this carbon nonsense has taken us. So I am being a bit facetious about this, as I hope everyone noticed.

But one thing should be noticed here, that the total human breath exhalation of CO2 is 8% of all fossil fuel emissions, (not an insignificant amount) which goes to show that CO2 is a normal part of the very cycle we need to live on Planet Earth (just breathing) and that everything we ever do, we are always going to have some type of CO2 footprint even if we are cycling it back and forth in the atmosphere and terrestrial planetary biological resources. We are recycling ‘carbon’ from last nights dinner, and every breath we take, directly from the immediate environment.

We need to cancel the belief that fossil CO2 is a pollutant and is going to wreck havoc on humankind with out of control global warming and climate change. There has been very little warming with what fossil CO2 we have added the last 150 years, so the sensitivity of atmospheric CO2 is obviously very low otherwise we would have seen the predicted result already. There is probably an optimum amount of CO2 the atmosphere can utilize when it is the most beneficial for life..much higher than it is presently and it will be responsible for the massive greening of the good Earth that will feed and shelter humans for the next 1000 years. More CO2 is a blessing, not a pollutant.

William Wallace
Reply to  Earthling2
March 31, 2019 3:14 pm

Your point is well founded. Our environmentally conscience friends have been talking about over population for decades. They seek to limit human life and at times have referred to mankind as a pathogen. I’ve seen the number of around a billion mentioned a few times as their idea of a sustainable population of people. Once the AI robots are fully functional there will be no need for about 6 billion of our neighbors, friends or family.

Bill Powers
Reply to  Earthling2
March 30, 2019 11:13 am

This haranguing over CAGW is and has always been about reducing and then controlling global population.

The elitists, those in control, need us, in “free” countries, to turn over all power to them that control our governance so they can, in unison with those in government controlled socialist/communist countries, begin the global process of population reduction and management. Along with the apportionment of limited energy resources.

Richard Patton
Reply to  Bill Powers
March 30, 2019 11:28 am

This haranguing over CAGW is and has always been about reducing and then controlling global population.

True! I discovered in `95 while doing a research paper that the ‘greens’ believe that the optimum human population is 97% less than what is is currently (gee-where have we seen that number?)-about 200 million people max. My instructor said “I had never seen that before.” I was given an A. Of course today I would probably have been given an D at the best.

Zig Zag Wanderer
March 29, 2019 10:21 pm

3C by 2100? Given that we have, at least supposedly, increased temperatures by at most 1C in 150 years (depending on which set you trust, if any), another 2C in 80 in half that time would require some drastic acceleration. This is not in any way evident. In fact, alarm is forced to be generated by a fre paltry hundredths of a degree each year.

Zig Zag Wanderer
March 29, 2019 10:29 pm

I think we’re likely to see the opposite impulse, as well, towards forms of communitarianism

It’s ok, folks, he’s not advocating communism, it’s only communitarianism. I was worried for a minute!

old construction worker
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
March 30, 2019 3:21 am

‘it’s only communitarianism’ Is that the new name for government X? Right now main land China reminds me of an ant colony with elites controlling the hive. Their elites past down power to their off-springs.

Reply to  old construction worker
March 30, 2019 5:22 am

“That is wrong. We are merely recycling CO2 by our breathing, some of which obviously is already in the air, and some which comes from our food intake, which is also part of the recycling process.“ – and you think that the people trying to take your money, control your life, and eliminate your children care about the biochemical facts… why?

Reply to  Cube
March 30, 2019 5:25 am

Oops sorry about the double post. Meant to post:

“Their elites pass down power to their off-springs”

Just as ours are trying to do aka Chelsea Clinton.

March 29, 2019 10:45 pm

Without exactly describing it the writer calls for ending capitalism and replacing it with something else. In order to ease his personal concerns about “climate change”.
In 1865 a leading British economist, Stanley Jevons, had a personal revelation that the civilized world would soon run out of coal. And society would drop back to subsistence living.
The recent buzz is that capitalism has caused global warming, therefore it has to go.
Others have called for ending democracy to ease personal concerns about climate.
The “Sumpter Daily” on January 26, 1971 published the personal concerns of Dr. Arnold Reitze. He was so stressed that he stated “We will be forced to sacrifice democracy.”
The article’s headline was “New Ice Age”.
Dr. Reitze was convinced that particles of carbon in the atmosphere would screen out the heat from the sun.
Speclfically, he wanted to “outlaw” internal combustion engines in vehicles and those used in industry.
At about this time Rasool was going on about particulate carbon causing cooling. He might have used some “modelling” by James Hansen.
Very versatile stuff, this carbon thing.
Jevons implied that running out of coal would end capitalism.
Reitze stated that capitalism had to be ended to reduce carbon in the air to prevent cooling.
More recently James Hansen touts that carbon in the air cause warming.
And far too many are claiming that only a totalitarian society can save us from carbon.

March 29, 2019 10:55 pm

Should have added the Jevon’s book “The Coal Question” is on the internet and worth reading.

March 29, 2019 10:56 pm

Shades of Lovelock!!

James Lovelock: Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change
One of the main obstructions to meaningful action is “modern democracy”, he added. “Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”

Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change” Lovelock
Since it is Lovelock’s comment about human ignorance that is our subject today, it is well to point out that Lovelock himself lacks the mental capacity to see the inconsistencies in his theory, despite being given plenty of time to notice them, and being given the able assistance of many critics.

Even after the Gaian Prophet Lovelock has recanted somewhat (but not repented )
we keep hearing the same hysteria that Lovelock was instrumental in initiating.

R Shearer
Reply to  brent
March 30, 2019 6:09 am

James Lovelock is 99 and his best intellectual days are far behind. I met him long ago and respected his intelligence in developing laboratory test and measurement instrumentation, but also his quirky Gaia hypothesis. He is also a gentleman. Like all of us humans, he is wrong about a lot of things.

Reply to  R Shearer
March 30, 2019 7:49 am

I thought Lovelock recently walked back a lot of his alarmist claims.

James Clarke
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
March 30, 2019 6:24 pm

Imagine you are a reporter who decides to explore the question of what would happen if Republicans controlled all 3 branches of the US Government for the next 40 years, and you only asked Democrats for your research? You would certainly get the impression that the world would end in a horrible holocaust. You would get the same impression if you reversed the political parties.

The problem with Lovelock and David Wallace-Wells (the author of this nonsense), is not their ability to think, but that they have no knowledge of the primary subject and ask only one side for information. If James Hansen and his ideological off-spring were my only source of information on the subject of climate change, I would probably have the same stupid ideas as James and David!

That’s why it is so critical to shut down the skeptical voice.

Reply to  R Shearer
March 30, 2019 2:46 pm

Unfortunately, Lovelock misled a whole generation of people. I certainly don’t know his motives, but I don’t think we should rule out that he deliberately misled people from the start.(wrt Global Warming)
Here’s another example where one simply cannot trust based on reputation. Many people tended to believe him because he was a “Scientist” (chemist?). That gives a reputation for objectivity.
Was he objective? Not!. He was an utter hysteric who has done immense harm to science. (perhaps second only to Paul Ehrlich).
Lovelock should have stuck to science and not engaged in Activism/Prophesy. Or alternately let him Prophesize openly but do not do so under guise of “science”.
I think perhaps his Gaia hypothesis provided a substitute Religion to devout “non-believers” who had some spiritual cravings that they didn’t really realise or admit to.
(As common religious terms are understood, I’m agnostic)


1975 ‘Endangered Atmosphere’ Conference
Where the Global Warming Hoax Was Born

On Mead’s team was also prominent environmentalist, Dr. James Lovelock, best known as the creator of the Gaia thesis, which views the Earth as a whole as a living biological being. But Lovelock famously jumped ship in an interview with MSNBC in which he admitted he and his colleagues had been “alarmist.”

Reply to  brent
March 30, 2019 7:52 am

Even if ‘they’ somehow eliminate democracy, what guarantees ‘they’ will reduce CO2? ‘They’ will most like, and very quickly, run the world economy into the ground and every problem, including CO2 (if it is one) will get worse.
No thanks

Reply to  brent
March 30, 2019 11:49 am

I don’t recall anyone giving up democracy in order to fight WWI or WWII.
Germany gave up democracy, but that was prior to starting WWII.

Reply to  brent
March 30, 2019 2:49 pm

The Gaian Prophet Lovelock recanted, but did not repent, so should not be forgiven the immense harm he has caused to the practice of science, by trying to turn Science into a Religion, and Scientists into a new Priesthood
Lovelock at 97
James Lovelock on Climate Prediction: “I’ve grown up a bit since then.”

“Well, it’s a religion, really, you see. It’s totally unscientific. “

We’ve lost our fear of hellfire, but put climate change in its place

Monday 16 January 2006
James Lovelock: The Earth is about to catch a morbid fever that may last as long as 100,000 years
We are in a fool’s climate, accidentally kept cool by smoke, and before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.

Reply to  brent
March 31, 2019 10:44 am

Before the end of this century almost all of us will die. And our children will be in charge. That’s how the world works.

Reply to  F.LEGHORN
March 31, 2019 1:24 pm

This is what Lovelock meant

The Gaian Prophet Lovelock!

Hardtalk – James Lovelock – Population reduction (max 1 billion)

Reply to  brent
March 30, 2019 2:51 pm

At 99, Lovelock won’t be around too much longer. No doubt, shortly after passing he will be Lionized by Hollywood. I predict Leonardo DiCaprio in the role of the Gaian Prophet Lovelock.
Seems Leo is practicing for the role already : )

DiCaprio can’t get over that chinook!
GUNTER – Leo, Leo, Leo. It was a chinook for crying out loud, not a sign from the earth goddess Gaia. Get over it.
Leonardo DiCaprio witnesses a ‘terrifying’ sign of climate change in Calgary — a Chinook

Leonardo DiCaprio’s chinook climate change comments mocked by Alberta politicos on Twitter

Now DiCaprio of all things is lecturing us about “Sin” !!
Leonardo DiCaprio: ‘It’s a sin to destroy our planet’

Aynsley Kellow
March 29, 2019 11:25 pm

I think we have reached Peak Stupid.

Reply to  Aynsley Kellow
March 29, 2019 11:36 pm

Nope. There is no limit to stupidity

R Shearer
Reply to  SMC
March 30, 2019 6:13 am

Yeah, and how would you know that we’ve reached peak stupid?

Like CAGW, I don’t think it is falsifiable. Just when you think it can’t get any worse…along comes AOC.

Reply to  SMC
March 30, 2019 7:54 am

What effect will the doubling of stupidity have on the environment? Lol

Richard Patton
Reply to  SMC
March 30, 2019 11:32 am

Einstein: “there are only two things that are infinite. The universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the universe.”

Brian Jackson
Reply to  SMC
April 2, 2019 6:31 am

If stupidity was money, we’d all be billionaires.

William Everett
March 29, 2019 11:38 pm

If the temperature change pattern present since 1880 continues then the only warming ahead in this century will occur from about 2034 until 2064 and again from 2094 through 2100. This will probably result in less than 1 degree C of warming. It will not be caused by a rising level of atmospheric CO2 because the warming is the cause of the CO2 increase not the reverse (because of the increased amount of trees and plants resulting from the warming).

March 29, 2019 11:44 pm

Look to Venezuela ! They made it happen. This is actually what the world seems to want right now. Oil is no guarantee for prosperity. Oil is no blessing, – but a blight, it seems. Steer to the left…

R Shearer
Reply to  Martin Hovland
March 30, 2019 6:19 am

The fundamental problem I saw in Venezuela was the abandonment of property rights. The government began stealing or taking property and wealth from its “rich” (unconnected) citizens and re-distributed it. A lot of the smart people saw what was and would happen and left many years ago.

The system destroyed incentives to work and to produce.

Reply to  R Shearer
March 30, 2019 12:50 pm

Maduro needs Putin to keep downfall from not coming. It is Der Untergang all over. The grid went down already.

Reminds me of Romania in 1989. Ceausescu did not avoid a coop that removed him as the head of the state. ‘Decapitated’ the totalitarian, capitalized the communism.

Note: East Europeans are much less blinded by cultural marxism than the West and see through the policies of the ‘people’s’ ‘democratic’ commissars err ‘commissioners’ of the EU commission. Communists did teach Romanians a lesson that will be remembered for good decades to come.

Coeur de Lion
March 29, 2019 11:53 pm

Is there a note of desperation around? I think so.

March 30, 2019 12:09 am

“The Uninhabitable Earth, future systems of government will replace concern for human rights, peace and prosperity with a focus on CO2 emissions”

The better option is mass suicide. If the problem is our species then the solution is its removal. Let us begin with the most vocal proponents of the theory that “humans are a plague upon the earth”. There will be plenty of koolaid to go around.

March 30, 2019 12:11 am

To all the useful idiots falling for this: What exactly has happened in the last 20 years that makes you believe in this ridiculous theory? A hurricane? An earthquake? a wildfire? You really believe these didnt’t happen before? Have you actually looked at the data, or are you just listening to your keepers? It’s really sad how stupid humanity has become.

I was a huge Civilization fan (the computer game), but the last expansion was basically a climate change indoctrination simulation. Nope. I’m done.

Reply to  WR2
March 30, 2019 7:42 am

Another point for the useful idiots: do you really think that if you succeed in eliminating fossil fuels that you won’t have hurricanes, wildfires, and earthquakes. They happened before and will always happen again.

Reply to  Roger Caiazza
March 30, 2019 1:42 pm

(question to ) “the useful idiots: do you really think ..”

short answer: no

That’s their great value to the left.

Reply to  WR2
March 30, 2019 7:53 am

Civ III I think it was had a lot of that crap. Once you reached the industrial era you’d have random events “Global warming occurs near Aachen!” or something like that. Subsequent versions dropped that nonsense. I play Civ VI regularly, and haven’t seen any references to CC. Though I’m still trying to figure out how a trireme can do any damage to a battleship.

Richard Patton
Reply to  WR2
March 30, 2019 11:35 am

A question to ask them: What evidence would it take for you to change your mind about CO2? Most of them would either not know, or would say no evidence would change their minds.

March 30, 2019 12:18 am

I have no data but suspect that there is one major nation on track to near-zero CO2 emissions – Venezuela. And the green new deal promises to bring us all there within 10 years!

March 30, 2019 12:22 am

“…ranging from left-wing forms of quasi-eco-socialism to right-wing forms of authoritarian nationalism and self-interest.”

No!! Dammit! Both are on the Left.
Any critical intellectual analysis will inform that “authoritarian nationalism” is on the Left. The Left is Big Government and the demands of the State overrides the individual rights. Yes, self-interest is on the Right. But a government that allows both authoritarianism and “self interest” is a unicorn, it doesn’t exit, it is an oxymoron.

Those continuing to call authoritarian Nationalism as a “Right-Wing movement”, the same Right-wing in the US that embraces the US constitution originalism, faithful adherance to the Bill of Rights as written, and conservative ideas of small government, are out of their freakin’ mind.
It is a lie perpetrated by the Left to hide that authoritarianism and Big government control of is always “on the Left.”

Mussolini’s National Socialism for 1930 Italy was “from the Left”, a hybrid of Marxism with a nod to the profit motivated industrialists who owned the production for a profit and Mussolini needed their allegiance. Mussolini took what he saw as fashionable about Communism (the authoritarian aspect to assure an insecure population) but kept the economic engine of private corporate governance to run Italy’s industries as long as the Industrialists pledged allegiance to him and his party. This is essentially the Mob-organized crime model. The Italian mafia doesn’t want to own every business, but it wants loyalty and payment of “protection money.” That is National Socialism, an authoritarian system modeled on the Mafia where if you cross the Don or a Capo, you disappear and/or your business gets burnt down.
And Hitler took Mussolini’s National Socialism and integrated his genocidal racist ideology to form his Nazi party. Still Germany’s industrialists ran industrial output on orders from the government and most joined the Nazi Party to gain favor for factory orders from the military. Germany’s industrialists still had a profit motive, and would still retain local control of their industry’s operations, and thus could make decisions without interference from Berlin and still make a profit and live large. This insured the efficiency of on-site management and control rather than distant bureaucrats controlling production as in the Lenin-Stalin model of Marxist communism with top-down control and rigid 5 year plans. No one in 1945 would have called Nazi Germany a “Right wing” model. Socialism in any flavor has always been on the Left.

And it is authoritarian Nationalism that is the modern-day Chinese political-economic model.
Does anyone really think today’s Red China, with its authoritarian control and chinese Nationalism (think of Tibet or the Urygurs), is “on the right?” Of course not. The Chinese government is openly communist.
Everyone today recognizes China is a communist political model “on the Left”, BUT with a big heaping of capitalism since the 1980’s that has spawned the Chinese Miracle.

While Beijing and the Chinese central Communist party still calls the shots, its capitalisms encourages innovation and allow a profit motive for owners, as long as those business leaders remain loyal to Beijing’s central control and censorship.

The best way to understand this dichotomy is that the Left is pro Big Government control and the needs of the State comes before the rights of individuals. While the Right advocates for small government, individual liberties, and freedom from government control in most matters concerning individual property ownership, both real and intellectual property.
Free market capitalism then is just an emergent behavior from a diverse people using a political system of small government and limited regulations.

So next time someone tries to tell you Nazis and National Socialism “are from the Right,” ask them whether such authoritarian nationalism in China today is on the Left or the Right?
Remind them that “on the Right” in the US are conservatives with ideas of small government and individual liberties and individual property rights.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
March 30, 2019 5:15 am

A cogent and succinct explanation of the left vs right. We are too far from 20’s and 30’s for many to remember that Hitler and Mussolini were outgrowths of leftist memes, not right memes.

Reply to  Tim Gorman
March 30, 2019 6:29 am

Reminding a Leftist of the Socialist origins of Nazism usually results in a gratifying bout of Cognitive Dissonance in said person.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Tim Gorman
March 30, 2019 10:13 am

Well of course there are not too many 115-year olds who were old enough to understand from personal experience what was going on in the 1920s, but I think that the real issue is that the Left made a concerted effort for generations to mis-characterize fascism as the extreme Right as they did even as soon as the fascists came on the scene. Once fascism was known to have engaged in death camp genocide, it became even more important in western countries for the Left to disassociate themselves from the true Left-wing nature of the fascists. So, even if there were 115-year olds around to remember it, they would likely recall hearing (all their lives) that the fascists are extreme right enemies of the Communists. (Despite that the Nazis were the National-sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or National-socialist German Workers’ Party).

A communist is an internationalist socialist who rejects private property whereas a fascist is essentially a socialist who clings to their connection to their own race and nation and may accept some crony capitalism as long as it is well-coordinated by the ruling elites. (viz. Gleichschaltung (social coordination in Nazi Germany) or 中国特色社会主义 (socialism with Chinese characteristics), or for that matter, early 20th century American Progressives). It is only right-wing in comparison to pure communism, in the same sense that Nevada is East from the perspective of Pasadena, but if you’re comparing Pittsburgh and New York, you don’t say ‘New York is in the East but not the far East like Nevada’.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
March 30, 2019 7:07 am

Who knew that The Founding Fathers were conservative revolutionaries!

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,

No wonder “the Left” hates them so!

Richard Patton
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
March 30, 2019 11:50 am

We in the US, came awfully close to going that way in the `30’s. Roosevelt was an admirer of Hitler until Hitler started getting rowdy. Many of the policies he advocated were outright socialist. Earlier, Wilson advocated eliminating both the supreme court and congress and institute an “executive form of government.” Hitler admitted he got many of his ideas for constricting the rights of the Jews from the Southern Democrats Jim Crow laws. Eugenics (the elimination of unwanted races) was very popular here in the US before Hitler gave it a bad name. (BTW race is itself a bigoted term, invented after Darwin to prove there were peoples who weren’t fully human.)

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 1, 2019 4:58 am

Well said Joel! Thank you.

March 30, 2019 12:50 am

For at least the last 2000 years our various faiths have had the same basic message, “Repent before it is too late”. And “You are all sinners, so in one way or another you will pay”.

After Emperor Constantine gave the Christian faith the green light they soon became a power over all who accepted that faith. The fear of ex–communication and going to Hell kept even Kings in line.

Today with the slow decline of Christianity in the Western Countries, peoples desire and need for some meaning in life has created another God, GAIA with its High Priests in positions of power.


Reply to  Michael
March 30, 2019 11:54 am

Many credit the fact that the church was a power center that served as a counter measure to the power of kings with preventing either from gaining the kind of total governmental dominance that was scene in other areas of the world.

Reply to  MarkW
March 30, 2019 5:24 pm

Well that could potentially be the case. However if they work together sort of like a tag-team?

In fact, this was rarely a problem as both kings and popes tended to act together as both wanted to remain powerful

The stress on science among many radical intellectuals also derived from their hostility to the regime’s religious self-justifications: if a higher authority blessed Tsarism, scientific rationality had to challenge it.

In any case, Nazi ruling authority was maintained in the name of the higher biological principle.

Reply to  Michael
March 30, 2019 5:37 pm

Religion also abhors a vacuum?

The CAGW agenda went public in 1988 with James Hansen’s testimony to Congress and shortly thereafter Thatcher made a famous speech at the behest of Tickell.
If instead of a Carbophobia Apocalypse, the Politicians had insisted that it was absolutely urgent to take a Political Position on and prepare for a Biblical Apocalypse, and had lavished bazillions of dollars on the “experts” to study the issue, everyone would have understood what was going on, and it would have been clear that this agenda was in violation of the US 1st amendment. : )
The Carbo- Apocalypse provides a pretext to institute a single world culture(read Religion) that just co-incidentally or not : ) was exactly what was advocated by Julian Huxley, first director General of UNESCO, and Tickell’s older cousin. He called it Scientific or Evolutionary Humanism.
Michael Ruse provides some very useful analysis in an article I’ve sublinked.

Crispin Tickell (CAGW Godfather) and Cousin Julian Huxley
Nigel Lawson: Global warming has turned into religion

Mark Pawelek
March 30, 2019 1:35 am

As their ideas are die, more, and more, serious people realize what a joke they are, yet these pessimists continue to make one last grand play; as if mere force of will can win a scientific debate. Give up warmists. It’s the sun; it’s always been the sun.

michael hart
Reply to  Mark Pawelek
March 30, 2019 3:03 pm

Always the sun.

March 30, 2019 2:50 am

It seems she is popular within he own head.

Reply to  Julian
March 30, 2019 2:51 am


mike macray
March 30, 2019 3:09 am

Lesson One:
Leadership is about taking RESPONSIBILITY; for your actions, their consequences and for those of your subordinates. The allocation of BLAME is the lowest form of management and the primary indicator of Incompetence.

March 30, 2019 3:28 am

‘I may be too much a child of the 1990s—an “End of History” kid, trained by that experience’

There is no may about it kid.

John the Econ
March 30, 2019 4:13 am

We really do owe a debt of gratitude to these Progressives for succumbing to temptation and finally becoming transparent as to what the AGW agenda was all about from the very beginning.

Bruce Cobb
March 30, 2019 4:55 am

David Wallace-Wells sez:
“I come to climate change primarily as a journalist, with an imperative to simply tell the truth.”
Heh. Haha. Snicker snicker. Chortle. Full-on, rip-snorting belly laugh.
Good one.

March 30, 2019 5:04 am

AOC reminds me of the girl you wish you hadn’t started a conversation with at a party

George Daddis
Reply to  icisil
March 30, 2019 6:40 am

That was too close for comfort!!

Could that be the the model Justice Democrats were striving for?
And she is now in the US House of Representatives!!!!

March 30, 2019 5:35 am

Good summary.
If one criticizes the “Left”, they will call you “Right Wing”.
“Right” worked in the first part of the 1900s to distinguish the difference between International Socialists and National Socialists.
One can criticize the movement of big government from an academic or apolitical stance. Which is not “Right Wing”.
Of course, the best description of a totalitarian system has been by Murray Gell-Mann:

That which is not compulsory is prohibited.

Which places every political “ism” in perspective.

Peta of Newark
March 30, 2019 6:28 am

The first paragraph of Joel’s comment is all you need.

What’s described there is the difference between a nomadic lifestyle and a settled (read= civilised as we know it) lifestyle. We started as Nomads, folowing herds of animals as they move North/South following the sun and the seasons. Some folks still do that.
(As an aside, innit funny how those people don’t know what Cardio Vascular Disease, cancer, strokes, hypertension, asthma, dementia etc etc are. Wonder why that is)

The left wing (Socialism) requires tax and it is impossible to tax Nomads – they simply up stix and clear off when the tax-collector comes round.
Hence we’re left/stuck with a ‘settled’ (in one place) society.

How many messenger-shooting bullets are gonna come my way when I assert that we “really are just animals” especially when it comes to food.
So, on the ‘animal’ theme, what happens if you have a one-acre patch of dirt and you keep one horse on it constantly. Basically, you ‘civilise’ the horse.

Maybe some folks will have experience of that and they will back me up (gonna need more bullets) when I assert that the one horse on the one acre will create a minor desert.
It will turn its one-acre patch of dirt into a barren & bare wasteland – the soil of which will either blow away in the wind or wash away with the rain.
Compare that situation to having 365 horses and 365 acres = one horse per acre as before BUT, you put all the horses onto just one acre for one day then move them onto the next acre. Leave that first acre untouched for 364 days. Repeat all around your 365 acres all round the year.
Almost everyone will envision how the one acre fields will look different under that regime.

There is our problem – we cannot rotate the horses (read= ourselves) around those individual one acre fields, not least as they could be 10 miles each apart.
Wither the hapless tax collector.

IOW. Tax creates deserts.

Now we see the inherent insanity presently going on, ALL the solutions to this ‘problem’ require greater taxation.

It is a problem that has befallen many civilisations.
But but but, the contemporary tax collectors in the guise of universities and ‘science’ claim that where those civilisations fell, it was Climate Change that killed them.
Yet they have no coherent explanations of how/why The Climate Changed.
I’d assert that they do actually know but to admit it is simply too horrible for any of them even think about. – it throws them out of their Ivory Towers if for no other reason.

Skeptics know of course……
Sunspots did it.
NO wait..
Cosmic rays did it
No wait a bit more…
Volcanoes did it
No wait some more..
Meteors did it..
No hang on, I’ve got it this time…
Jupiter did it on the 43rd day of the 97th hour of the cycle of Mercunius during the 2.718th week of Octoviber.
Yes. That’s it.
And just look, my supercomputer agrees AND it has a P so it MUST be true!

Sheep & goats did it. Occasionally slave labour was called in.
Every Single Time.
This time we have tractors, combine harvesters, paddy fields and nitrogen fertiliser.

We’re all going to Mars – on The Fast Lane too.
Slightly O/T – Did you see that, they think there were rivers on Mars that were twice as big as anything we presently have or have probably ever had here on Earth. Wicked eh
Where did it all go?
Don’t tell me, The Climate Changed and made all the Martian water disappear.
Pretty epic I’d say

And where’s NASA on this….
Oh look, there’s a Sigourney struggling with her spacesuit

March 30, 2019 7:45 am

When I look outside my window this morning here in Whidbey Island in the Pacific Northwest, I see a pleasant spring morning. Cloudless sky, the sun peeking over the trees to the east, my 2.5 acres of lawn will need its first mowing this weekend.

I get the impression that when people like Wallace-Wells or AOC look outside, they see Damnation Alley.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
March 30, 2019 11:55 am

Similar story here in Victoria BC. Pleasant day, nothing out of the ordinary. Winter felt colder than usual. Snow capped peaks on the Olympic Mountains. The black tail deer that haunt our suburb look well enough.

Damnation alley must have moved this year. If it’s only in Washington DC, they’re welcome to it.

Tom Abbott
March 30, 2019 8:05 am

From the article: “No major industrial nation is on track to honour its commitments, which if honoured perfectly, would still land us north of 3°C this century.”

He says, without even knowing how much heat CO2 adds to the atmosphere.

The fact is nobody knows that number and people who are making claims like “3C this century” have no evidence to back up these claims, yet they make them with such certainty. Certainty is not evidence of anything.

I’ll be kind and assume this person is just sadly misinformed, and that’s why he is making these unsupported claims.

March 30, 2019 9:38 am

It’s imperative that we pound home the fact that the US emits 14% of the CO2 total and dropping fast. No matter the merits of the theory, there’s little to nothing we could do about it even if it were true. It would be irrational to destroy our economy and sacrifice our freedom for nothing.

Stop arguing the merits of the case against AGW, and start pointing out that we are powerless to change the outcome. In this way, you’re presenting established facts. 14% and dropping is fact They can’t call you a denialist if you’ve got facts.

Robert of Ottawa
March 30, 2019 9:38 am

Don’t people see that this is socialism by the back door, the Watermelon approach. Completely totalitarian in its goals and impulses.

March 30, 2019 10:19 am

Here is an imaginary headline:


The approved line will be a direct connection to feed Maine’s rapid growth and will not connect to the Massachusetts grid…

Now here is the real story:

Linda Goodman
March 30, 2019 11:42 am

I’m no bible thumper but what do you make of the fact that carbon is 6 protons, 6 neutrons & 6 electrons, the human body is mostly carbon and these totalitarian psychopaths intend to replace cash with a carbon card, then a chip? Is prophecy staring us in the face as Science? Ironic since JUNK scientists aim to create a future so horrible the bible includes a dire warning. Do we heed the warning and get tough or indulge the idiocy with polite debate until it’s too late?

March 30, 2019 4:34 pm

-What about you Hosey?

-What about me?…sir

-Oh well, what did you do for your wife, any gifts, Hosey, for this woman’s day festivity and celebration?

-Oh well, you see sir, I am not wealthy sir, like you and your friends here.
That is why I am serving barbecue you and your friends today here, in this woman’s celebrity day.
Can’t afford things like you just have talked about earlier among you and your friends here, sir, like expensive travel packages for your wife and like same for this other high class gentleman’s woman, like trips to Caribbean or to Japan, or Australia, or sea cruising, or a week in Cabul, sir.
Simple people like me, sir,simple hoseys, we got to bear the burden, bite the bullet so to speak, in such as occasions.

-Hosey… what are you talking about, what burden, what burden to bear, or bullet to bite for you Hosey?!

-Oh well sir, The burden of having to frack my wife my self, sir…even in such given occasions of celebrations.
Sorry if this off line or off topic…
Not really sure why I had to do this comment!
But fun intended.


March 31, 2019 3:57 am

If humans survive long enough, after all the fossil fuel has been burned, I predict that the day will come when humans start using energy from nuclear and other advanced sources, for the sole purpose of converting carbonate rocks into CO2. The current obsession is not just wrong, it is the opposite of the truth. CO2 is necessary for life and, within limits, the more the better.

%d bloggers like this: