“WE’VE got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy,” said Former Colorado Senator Tim Wirth.
There are more quotes along these lines, including from Al Gore promoting the idea that the fear of global warming can result in beneficial social change, in the following piece from Marc Morano at Climate Depot: http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1893/Gore-US-Climate-Bill-Will-Help-Bring-About-Global-Governance
The photograph was taken by Neil Hewett, from Cooper Creek Wilderness, earlier this year at Matilda Way, Queensland, Australia.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Marc Morano addressing the world governance/socialist aims of the AGW hoax.
He could have added this quote from James “Robbing Hood” Hansen.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/01/scentist-letter-hansen-barack-obama
Second, he proposes a “carbon tax and 100% dividend”: a mechanism for putting a price on carbon without raising money for government coffers. The idea is to tax carbon at source, then redistribute the revenue equally among taxpayers, so high carbon users are penalised while low carbon users are rewarded.
While we’re on this subject, don’t forget the protest in Melbourne on Monday Morning against Al “CarbonCreditMillionaire” Gore.
For details, click on my name to get to the Climate Sceptics web-site
Years ago I came to the conclusion that AGW is all about social power. Climate science was just a useful lever.
If enough people realize this in time, a great deal of harm may be avoided.
Well, I am writing an article on this very topic for Henry Thornton today, and one revealing reference is http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=FinalWarn05-1
I don’t think we can do much about it either as the Fabians have achieved their goal in controlling the western government bureaucracies, though I suspect not totally, but enough to implement their goal. Remember that the Fabian stated goal is to evolve socialism by stealth and gradualism.
One particular quote from the reference: The Fabians were working towards a new world by indoctrinating young scholars who would eventually rise to power in various policy-making positions throughout the world by infiltrating educational institutions, government agencies, and political parties. Their strategy was called the “doctrine of inevitability of gradualism,” which meant that their goals would be gradually achieved. So gradual, that nobody would notice, or “without breach of continuity or abrupt change of the entire social issue.” The secret was evolution, not revolution, or what Webb called “permeation.” George Bernard Shaw (whose mistress, Florence Farr, was a witch in the Order of the Golden Dawn), revealed that their goal was to be achieved by “stealth, intrigue, subversion, and the deception of never calling Socialism by its right name.” In fact, that’s how they got their name. The name originated from the Roman Consul, General Quintus Fabius Maximus, the Cunctator (‘Delayer’), who through patient, cautious, delaying and elusive tactics during the early phases of the Second Punic War (218-201 BC) enabled the Roman army to regroup and defeat Hannibal’s stronger Carthaginian army.
As noticed at the AIG Debate on Thursday night, the Warmenists did not deploy science in their argument for mitigation of global warming.
In case no one realises – the Fabians are running the global warming issue as the means to establish global governance. The Fabians actually set up the UN in the first place.
I am agnostic on AGM. My instincts tell me the theory is wrong, but I am not a scientist or even able to understand the science.
So, I guess, I do what I do with GM foods and trust the scientific consensus.
But attitudes like those referred to by JM are dangerous. If the actions proposed to reduce greenhouse gases are the right things to do, for other reasons, justify them according to those reasons.
The attitude referred to is close to “we can lie and exaggerate because it’s all in a good cause”.
Dangerous as hell.
The advent or evolution of global governance really will be the end of humane civilisation. It hardly matters if our politicians are chosen through elections under these conditions. They will be totally unresponsive to their constitutents. Their real constituents will be a heirachy of international taxeaters. We cannot keep control of our own thieves. The last thing we want is these people getting together. Whenever they do it will be to cook up schemes against the local sovereignty and property rights and interests of the people paying all their bills.
We already have a preview of what global governance means. The preview I”m thinking of is the centralization of malaria control. Just a disaster and no way to correct mistakes, with the iron law being that mistakes are ruthlessly reinforced and justified after the fact.
The idea of global governance would seem to be the best candidate for explaining Fermis paradox right there. The idea of nuclear war being a tame threat in comparison. At least there are ways to adapt to the threat of nuclear war. But global governance takes away all the means by which millions of people would be able to adapt.
out if context quotes again, eh?
“But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.”
yes, global agreements are a horrible thing. the end of human civilisation. sure thing.
SOD,
Fabian you are.
A just released book nails this: Air Con by Ian Wishart. Marc Morano referred to it a couple of weeks ago and Angus and Robertson are carrying it here in Australia.
The first part of the book deals with the science of global warming, the second part deals with the political agenda. Contains some of the quotes above and much more.
Highly recommended. Warwick Hughes reviewed it and loved it
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=222
“yes, global agreements are a horrible thing. the end of human civilisation. sure thing.”
Multinational agreement may not be the end of humane civilisation. But global governance is without any doubt at all. If there was some sort of reason to co-operate on some problem we ought to go with the motto “activities not organisations”. The decision to set up the IPCC for example was the death knell of rational discussion in the area of climate. ACTIVITIES NOT ORGANISATIONS. Say it sod. Say it out loud.
Also its got to be ACTIVITIES NOT TREATIES. Every international agreement bids away our sovereignty. Its dribbles away our ability to deal with problems in a way both decent and effective. Take for example all these undertakings we have to do with refugees. They are disastrous to the way we find ourselves treating refugees. Since they place obligations on us, that in order to avoid, we have to act legalistically.
So all these treaties are a disaster and the politicians of the day had no right to lock us in like that. I’d pull out of nearly all treaties and international agreements. Its imperative that we do so and that we also stop funding all these outfits.
“Seems there are different levels of credibility within “scepticism”, like the climate zones in Dante’s Hell :-)”
As in http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2009/07/singer-refrains-from-environmental.html hahahahahahaha
Al Gore Lied reports there is a to do brewing, that skeptics are massing to give Al a hassle. I’m all for that. This crank has been given the free pass for far too long.
The story says Australia’s climate sceptic party was founded by Leon Ashby.
Shisha’s Dad maybe?
Take it to ’em LEON! Shisha made a great song (maybe the party anthem?) But Leon rocks.
Will Jennifer be on hand? They’re going to need a learned someone to speak for ken n and the other folks who are being bamboozled by the puedoscientific double talk. The people who know by instinct they are getting conned but don’t have the language or the knowhow to point when the fraud happens. They need a voice.
That’s one hell of an opportunity for you Jen. Gift wrapped and delivered by air mail from the Goracle himself.
Don’t let it slip by.
For the people who are thinking “but carbon legislation will be good for us even if the science is wrong”, I live in the cauldron.
California is the test tube where Al Gore’s experiment has been ruthlessly imposed by those unresponsive politicians Bird is speaking about.
It hasn’t been pretty. Unemployment at rust belt levels – two percentage points above the national average. This in what was up until 2006 the most diverse economy in the Country.
Freshly graduated kids being forced to migrate in order to find work. Companies up and moving their operation to more livable climates – we’re not talking about weather here, political climates. Usually Texas Arizona and Nevada.
Think about the irony. People being forced out of the Golden State into the Great America Desert, all for the sake of an imagined shift in the climate. It’s like moving from Brisbane to Alice Springs to find some shade.
For the first time in history, sizable portions of 49’ers are moving to Oklahoma to become Sooners.
My grandmother Bessie, God Rest Her Soul, trundled up her four girls in the model T and evacuated from the Dust Bowl in 1938, just like the proverbial Ma Jode in The Grapes of Waith.
She has to be looking down in shock at what the Gorites have done to California.
Don’t let it happen to you.
Fight it.
Tooth and nail. Boot and claw.
Neville, you are correct about Ian Wishart’s excellent book. Folk may not know however that the crucial Chapter 16, “The Real Agenda” is avialable on-line through the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) site – scroll to June 18; but I do encourage purchase!
Louis Hissink: I have just followed that intriguing link of yours through to its final chapter. Of course there are no conspiracies, are there? Not in the “real” world. There are no elite and clandestine campaigns to foster supranational governance on the the unsuspecting citizens of the world? So it is nothing more than a chilling paranoia to realize that the alarmist author of the governments’ Garnaut Review just happens to be one of Australia’s very few Trilateralists ?! ( Wikipedia ). What were the odds against that, do you think?
Anyone interested in an important and riveting case-study of how supranationalist agendas can be imposed on erstwhile sovereign states is strongly urged to read, “The great Deception: can the European Union survive,” by Christopher Booker and Richard North. There is not a word about AGW in it, but the mischief at Copenhagen in December will be be spawned out of the same process.
Luke and sod,
Barack Obama has recently appointed John Holdren Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Check out
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/
for his views about global governance. Are these views in line with your thinking?
“Are these views in line with your thinking?” Lovely bit of dogshit propaganda. You really are a worse than usual piece of denialist scum aren’t you. Go fuck yourself.
No no. You are the denialist Department-Luke. Remember the new Mott-inspired mantra. 50ppm 270 gigatonnes 30 years. No warming. Get used to your collective status as known stooge.
On global governance: Its a tough gig. Because the dynamic and innovative times in human history its all been about small competing states. So the Greek city-states were dynamic. And yet when they weren’t threatened from the outside they were pretty much always in a condition of active or in-principle war with each-other. Same goes for the dynamism of Europe with its many dozens of principalities. The dynamism of America before the Feds got too imposing would be another case. You want as many small principalities as you can get. But on the other hand you don’t want them fighting with each-other or becoming satrapy’s of larger states.
This is a problem but nothing good can come out of this current global governance idiocy. And it hardly matters if it is coming from conspiracies, natural progression, or the pack-instinct of tax-eaters. I respect all these positions but it has to be stopped regardless.
You know there has been some short-term successes with this way of doing things. Early progress came with these “free-trade treaties” and the world trade organisation. But short term gains aside the long-term effect will be pernicious. Afterall the EU started off as an alleged common market and now its turned Orwellian-Bonapartist on us. ‘Unrepresentative swill.’
Peredur,
I have some experience with the views of the ALP people here in Perth and was thus somewhat bemused that while they considered the AGW science to be a crock, they fully supported the policies behind AGW mitigation because we have to be forced to live a more sustainable lifestyle. This view came out also at the Plimer debate when the AGW position was totally based on environmental concerns. No criticism of Plimer’s science occurred – confirming again that the AGW issue is really nothing to do with science but is using science to push an agenda that, given the link I gave, has quite a history. I don’t think it’s a sinister plot to enslave us, rather these Fabians really believe they are acting in our best interests, and would we only be as intelligent as them, then we would see the necessity as well. I’ve also been concerned about the belief in having a world government based in the UN and if you look closely at the various treaties and protocols nations have signed, this seems to be the case. Conspiracy? No political fact though the Rhodes connection is interesting, given that I worked for the De Beers company for some years.
Paul Keating, former ALP prime minister and a Fabian no less, steamrolled the native title legislation into the Australian Parliament during 1990 – but when I remarked to my ALP mates that this legislation seemed to be more about diminishing the concept of private property than native title, I was met with total silence, which means that I was right.
Another fact is the ever increasing regulation of our behavior at work – ostensibly under the flag of occupation safety and health regulations – it’s quite draconian, and in the larger companies the HR departments basically call the shots. Workers now have to wear highly visible clothing, loose clothing is not permitted, short sleeves are not allowed, shorts are not allowed anymore, all in order for us not to expose ourselves to skin cancer and all sorts of other, usually imagined, heath threats. Toolbox meetings are obligatory each week, and all incidents have to be reported into a register kept in the office by government regulation and if you don’t, it’s an offence.
This is nothing other than Fascism where government intrusion into the workplace governs just about all activity. It’s readily identified as creeping socialism which Hayek warned us about. Well, like it or not, it’s arrived but the alarming thing about it is that the younger generation find it normal.
I had not realized how pervasive the Fabians were in society but true to their stated goals, they are achieving those goals by the means they advertised.
As John Ray remarked today on his dissectleft blog, it’s like the 1930’s all over again. Given the politicisation of history in our educational systems, ignorance of what happened then seems well entrenched.
Oh, I see Luke is his usual convivial and polite self.
Luke
Ask a question and !!!!!!!!!!
Did you smash your computer keyboard again?
The term global warming was coined as far back as 1975. Scientists originally were far less certain than now that it was happening because of human activity, they tried to make their findings known because so much is at stake, but have had them consistently downplayed by a government in bed with the oil industry.
In the early eighties it was being widely discussed on the Sunday news programs long before Al Gore was known.
The idea that the world coming together under one government is a danger is about as real as Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. About all the UN can generally do is wring its hands and deplore situations – because that’s how the nations want it, especially the most powerful ones. They don’t want a global organization with real power.
Who doesn’t? Nations don’t have wants or desires. Only individuals do. And its pretty clear that a lot of taxeaters like the idea of getting together with other taxeaters and having international careers. They like the idea of these endless junkets where they drink heaps of cocktails, do no actual work and commit their taxpaying benefactors to new deprivations. People want to be like Garnaut. Or be promoted from Canberra to head up the world bank or the IPCC. As long as these organisations exist they will exert a pull towards more resources and spending power. The idea of promoting the carbon tax to avoid a cap and kill is a very dangerous and stupid idea. For many reasons not the least of which is the carbon taxes appalling effect on economic development. But also its a bad idea to promote a carbon tax to avoid a cap and kill …………. precisely because globalists will see their opportunity and try and make it an international tax.
Comment from: Paul Maurice Martin July 12th, 2009 at 10:29 am
From 1975 to the early eighties you say? Lets do the math then compare and contrast with this chart.
That would be about 7 and a half years? Eight maybe? Eight years before scientists tried to make their findings known because so much is at stake.
Started banging the gong “The end is neigh”.
We have had that long and longer of planetary cooling, by everyone’s measure.
Maybe it’s time to bang the gong, “The ice age is coming”?
Transcript of the address from Representative Tom McClintock (R-CA) on the passage of the Waxman Markey bill through the House
Anyone persuaded by the review of Plimer’s Heaven+Earth in this weekend SMH should google to see that the author of the review has a commercial interest in the company carbonscape. They do biochar, which they say could be a billion $ industry. So much for Big Oil, couldn’t afford him. Oh, and the SMH didn’t have the space to note this conflict of interest.
ken,
Before you trust the experts think about the experts who work for Big Pharma. What do you think they would do if they
1. weren’t regulated by governments (because they get a large part of their income from governments, and because governments can be seen to be protecting citizens against evil exploitation) and
2. weren’t criticised by the media ?
Now, in the case of climate scientists there is
1. No regulation by governments. In fact, in practice pretty much the opposite as climate scientists need to pursue a catastrophist agenda to keep their jobs and get funding. With carbon taxes/trade governments can get hold of amuch bigger slice of our incomes.
2. negligible scrutiny by the media who have presumably decided that panic is good for business.
From what I see climate scientists do exactly what scientists in Big Pharma would do if they thought they could get away with it.
davidc,
The main difference between big pharma scientists and climate scientists is that the latter are government scientists and thus don’t need regulation. Big Pharma is private enterprise and thought to require regulation by government.
“Anyone persuaded by the review of Plimer’s Heaven+Earth in this weekend SMH should google to see that the author of the review has a commercial interest in the company carbonscape. They do biochar, which they say could be a billion $ industry. So much for Big Oil, couldn’t afford him. Oh, and the SMH didn’t have the space to note this conflict of interest.”
What has that got to do with anything idiot? Supposing its even true in the first place?
Obviously the Plimer review on the SMH website is not meant to be easily found.
louis,
What I have in mind are things like making public adverse findings. Big Pharma can’t get away with burying adverse toxicity data or the results of clinical trials that show lack of efficacy. But that is just the kind of thing that goes on in climate science. Governments don’t “need” to regulate because climate science is implementing governments’ agenda. Not through conspiracy but through the grants system.
Davidc,
That is the whole problem – the sceptics are up against state sponsored science – of course anything the state does is not in need of regulation, but who is to oversee the state? This is the issue which our friends here just don’t seem to understand – mind you if one has been indoctrinated politically, the police state need not be intrusive – but it’s the ones which don’t respond to education, who remain a problem for the state.
In any case the Fabians have basically taken possession of the bureaucracy and the education system, and while one has admire their sheer persistence in staying on the message all these years, the voters do tend to upset their plans.
But with Realclimate now notig a stasis in global temperatures plus the just released paper dealing with the PETM (which I, in my heretical style link to the K-T event, and hence the sudden increase in CO2 is easily explained by the global eruption of kimberlites at that time, releasing billions of tonnes of CO2 via these eruptions, and it is the physical cause of that kimberlite eruption which will explain the associated thermal anomaly – and the CO2 followed the thermal anomaly by the way).
These are going to be fun times I think.