|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is "climate change" being used to bring in a global Govenment?
|
NJA
Shipmate
# 13022
|
Posted
Lord Monkton thinks so (video clip ).
I don't know but if someone can summarise the situation I'll happily listen.
[ 06. May 2010, 19:20: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posts: 1283 | From: near London | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
NJA
Shipmate
# 13022
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
No.
Thanks.
Your seminars must be amazing!
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 1283 | From: near London | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Do you have anything other than a video titled, "WARNING! Goodbye U.S Sovereignty... Hello One World Government !" for us to look at? This doesn't exactly make one think, "well-reasoned, dispassionate explication." Rather the word "nutcase" comes to mind.
[ 11. November 2009, 00:10: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
I don't know but if someone can summarise the situation I'll happily listen.
Nor do I but WTH we haven't had an ACC thread for a bit.
'Improbable but it surely is bringing a lot of gravy to no small number of trains.'
And the video reminds me of the principled stand W took refusing to participate in some bogus 'treaty' no one is adhering to anyway.
IMO the guy remains misunderestimated.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
The point of most of the climate-change discussion is that the changes will affect all countries, and that all countries will have some part in dealing with the changes or prevention of same.
That will mean that discussion must go on. If you feel that any one country can operate totally independently of what any or all other countries think, then I would suggest getting fitted for a tinfoil helmet. The country that tries to be totally free of any outside constraint is just as dangerous as the guy who brings his gun into the bar and demands the right to use it, regardless of what the other drinkers think.
If a small, lowlying country - the Maldives or Kiribati, for instance - finds that their land is simply disappearing as the waters rise or as erosion from changed wind patterns occurs, then all other countries have the problem of "where do these people go?" One alternative is to let them drown. Another is to find them a new home, either as immigrants to somewhere or as people moved to a new location en masse (as is being debated in one case)
Your solution, implicit in the OP, is to deny that the problem exists, so that there will be no reason to talk about it.
Talk is dangerous, you know - you might even change your mind on an issue, and that would obviously be the result of totalitarian thought control, because real minds don't get changed.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
NJA
Shipmate
# 13022
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
[QB] . . . If a small, lowlying country - the Maldives or Kiribati, for instance - finds that their land is simply disappearing as the waters rise or as erosion from changed wind patterns occurs, . . .
If you look at No.5 of the linked videos you might change your mind on who's thoughts are being manipulated.
Can you think of anything apart from carbon emissions that might cause the problems in these islands?
Posts: 1283 | From: near London | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
Setting aside the global warming debate, does this treaty lead to tyranny?
Reading the negotiating text, I'd have to agree with Lord Monkton on the one world government angle.
Here's the text starting on page 7.
From the "Shared Vision" section: quote:
[...]promote sustainable economic and social development and to reduce poverty, which are the first and overriding priorities of developing countries.
So any country that wants to claim developing status needs to put social rights ahead of classical rights. That means if my free speech rights get in the way of the government's policy it claims reduces poverty, I need to shut up and obey.
quote:
These adverse effects also undermine the equitable
development needs of present and future generations.
Under this vision, equitable (defined by whom?) needs of future generations outweigh my rights as well. Does this mean an over-government has the right to decide if I can have kids if it reduces poverty?
quote:
Developed country Parties must show leadership in mitigation commitments or actions, in supporting developing country Parties in undertaking adaptation measures and nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs)
This sounds fair until the footnote points out that NAMAs only count for developing countries. So developed country parties (that includes companies and private individuals) need to pay for the developing countries economies. Of course developed countries have their own plan detailed later in article II.
Section 19 lays out the new enforcement mechanism. It includes preparation of National Action Plans for the slow countries. It has the power to allocate resources to make sure these plans are followed. This does include "provisions for ensuring the compliance".
Section 30 suggests the full costs of NAMAs be born by a grant based system. Since these are paid for by the developed world and the overriding priorities are reduction in poverty, where's the climate change mitigation going to come from?
Section 42 contemplates programs to provide food security. Does that mean the new meta government gets to tell farmers what to plant? I think it does.
Section 45 makes all these plans, groups, and bureaucracies under the authority of a central group, the COP (Conference of Parties).
Section 52 allows for the monitoring of financial and technological resources of members. Remember members include nations and sub-units like corporations and citizens.
Section 77 contemplates making NAMAs voluntary!
This document still leaves some wiggle room and a lot depends on how it's implemented, but at it's core it allows for the suppression of freedom and the enslavement through taxation.
Lord Monkton is wrong about the U.S. being bound by it though. Currently it would override the constitution, but a simple amendment would eliminate that. Thus as a practical matter it might be used to limit the freedom of some minorities (uppity prison inmates), but if they become too oppressive, we would just leave.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crśsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
A decent blog analysis of this issue (albeit from the perspective of a column written about Monckton) seems to indicate that this is due to the word "government" appearing in the document, so not only must it be a global government, it will also be a Communist one as well.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
The way I look at it is that even if climate change rhetoric did bring in a single global government - why would that be a problem? Such a government can only have a limited shelf life. Sooner or later, there would be a revolution, then things would be back to the way they were before. Unless, of course, you think that everyone might be happy with the global government so that they wouldn't want to revolt - but if the global government might turn out for the better, then why is Lord Monkton talking about it as though it would be a bad thing?
These things go round in cycles. No worldly power is immortal.
Once a government in any part of the world has managed to convince you that their collapse would be a bad thing, then it means one of two things, either (a) you are economically, socially or politically privileged in comparison to the majority of the world's population, or (b) they have brainwashed you into putting their own interests ahead of yours.
I'm with Horseman Bree on this. If global warming is really happening, then it would be global. Otherwise, they would call it "regional warming" instead.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
Croesos, the treaty as currently proposed, does set up an organization that intends to hold nation states responsible for their actions. That's a fair definition of a world government.
Of course any global solution will need teeth or it's not going to work. It's a world wide problem, it needs a world wide solution.
The Shared Vision section spells out what the treaty is intended to do. It makes it clear that social rights are paramount and classic rights take a back seat. That's been a hallmark of Marxists for over a hundred years.
It's not clear to me why that part is in there. It does little to solve the problem, but it is legally binding on the signatories. If we sign it, it could be interpreted as signing away our bill of rights.
Yet that interpretation will be done by a U.S. judge in a U.S. court.
Or the courts could just read that as window dressing giving third world nations some sense of direction. It's hard to say until the final wording is in place.
Personally I think this is just more cannon fodder for the fair and balanced combat news network. It's certainly not the end of the world.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Croesos, the treaty as currently proposed, does set up an organization that intends to hold nation states responsible for their actions. That's a fair definition of a world government.
In what alternate universe? That's not like any definition of "government" I'm familiar with. The United Nations supposedly holds states responsible for their actions (not terribly well of course), but it's not anything like a government except in its ability to burn through money. I think you need a new dictionary.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr Clingford
Shipmate
# 7961
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
No.
Thanks.
Your seminars must be amazing!
You did want it summarised and that did it perfectly.
--------------------
Ne'er cast a clout till May be out.
If only.
Posts: 1660 | From: A Fleeting moment | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
This may help the discussions. [It's already contained in the helpful link from Croesos but I reckoned it was worth highlighting.]
I agree with those who are saying that the most likely outcome from Copenhagen will be another political document strong on aspiration but without much by way of teeth. Which is the usual way with international treaties.
I bet Lord Monckton goes down well with Fox News watchers. My summary of the video is "inaccurate, distorting, scare-mongering drivel". With the obligatory kick at Obama's gonads thrown in for good measure. IMO Lord Monckton was pandering to fear and distrust.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
... an organization that intends to hold nation states responsible for their actions. That's a fair definition of a world government.
No it isn't. It might be a fair definition of some kind of a court.
quote:
social rights are paramount and classic rights take a back seat. That's been a hallmark of Marxists for over a hundred years.
I strongly suspect that you don't actually know what Marxism is.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
My summary of the video is "inaccurate, distorting, scare-mongering drivel". With the obligatory kick at Obama's gonads thrown in for good measure. IMO Lord Monckton was pandering to fear and distrust.
Oh, much like 'An Incovenient Truth' then?
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I haven't seen "An Inconvenient Truth", Mudfrog. [Now there's a confession]. So my opinions re the reality of climate change and the effect of human activity on climate have not actually been affected by Al Gore's movie.
So far as International Treaties and affects on national sovereignty go in general, [and the likely outcome of this one in particular], Monckton's talk was nonsense.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I haven't seen "An Inconvenient Truth", Mudfrog. [Now there's a confession]. So my opinions re the reality of climate change and the effect of human activity on climate have not actually been affected by Al Gore's movie.
The first well-known politician to try to get something done about it was Margaret Thatcher, over twenty years ago. I doubt if she was infected by watching too many Al Gore movies either.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I remember it well, ken. I suppose for some folks that might also be an inconvenient truth.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I haven't seen "An Inconvenient Truth", Mudfrog. [Now there's a confession]. So my opinions re the reality of climate change and the effect of human activity on climate have not actually been affected by Al Gore's movie.
The first well-known politician to try to get something done about it was Margaret Thatcher, over twenty years ago. I doubt if she was infected by watching too many Al Gore movies either.
It was then tied up with trying to produce anti-coal propaganda as part of her battle with the National Union of Miners. Until that point the environmentalists had been mainly obsessed with nuclear power's environmental hazards and the greenhouse gas story was seen as a counter to that.
What is interesting is that in the past few years it has changed its name from Global Warming to Climate Change. Why would that be I wonder?
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
It was then tied up with trying to produce anti-coal propaganda as part of her battle with the National Union of Miners. Until that point the environmentalists had been mainly obsessed with nuclear power's environmental hazards and the greenhouse gas story was seen as a counter to that.
I don't know how old you are, but it seems you are not old enough to remember Vole magazine* which raised awareness of both CFCs and "the greenhouse effect". What was not then so clear, despite the use of the word 'greenhouse', was whether the changes would cause warming or cooling.
*There is a Wikipedia entry, but I couldn't link to it because it contains a parenthesis and, apparently, that's not allowed.
Eta: my guess is that 'climate change' has become the preferred term to try to educate all those idiots who say things like: "Britain a few degrees warmer? I can live with that!"
As has been repeated to the point of tedium, if the Gulf Stream stops, we may all get a lot colder on this small insignificant island, home to selfish idiots who apparently don't care about the effects of climate change that are already devastating vulnerable communities.
[ 11. November 2009, 13:03: Message edited by: QLib ]
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The impact of human activity is far more substantial than just increasing the global average temperature. 'Climate Change' is more accurately used for the larger picture, 'Global Warming' is the sub-set of that larger picture that is the ongoing increase in average temperatures around the globe.
In addition to average temperature increases (which, could in fact be temperature decreases in some locations) the other parts of climate change include sea level rises (directly linked to temperature through oceanic thermal expansion and melting of ice over land), increased strength and frequency of storm events, increased weather variation (eg: more droughts and more floods - just not in the same places, obviously), and changes to oceanic circulation patterns (with impacts on local weather, and fish stocks).
Most, if not all, of these climate impacts are the direct or indirect consequence of increasing temperatures due to very large increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. So, I suppose 'global warming' could cover them, it's just that 'climate change' is much more comprehensive.
Also, the experimental data predict both the current warming and past cooling events. So, when your data is applicable to both warming and cooling it's more accurate to refer to 'climate change' in that context.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The impact of human activity is far more substantial than just increasing the global average temperature. 'Climate Change' is more accurately used for the larger picture, 'Global Warming' is the sub-set of that larger picture that is the ongoing increase in average temperatures around the globe.
Global Warming is a specific aspect of Climate Change that is predicted by a fairly basic model of the incredibly complex global climate via the Greenhouse Effect.
As the models have become more advanced, it's become clear that the CO2 we're producing (and so on) is messing up the global climate, but its not entirely clear exactly how that works out in terms of effects. It is clear that the poor, especially in places where they are most vulnerable to climate change, are the people who are going to suffer most.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Most, if not all, of these climate impacts are the direct or indirect consequence of increasing temperatures due to very large increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. So, I suppose 'global warming' could cover them, it's just that 'climate change' is much more comprehensive.
Bullshit. Youze changed it to climate change because real science said climate changes and youze can't deal with it and keep funding going.
quote:
Also, the experimental data predict both the current warming and past cooling events. So, when your data is applicable to both warming and cooling it's more accurate to refer to 'climate change' in that context.
What experimental data? None of the models have matched the reality of actual climate change. The Hockey Schtick was the cherry on top which changed the reality of actual climate change as got by scientific observation to create a new imaginary base for manmade global warming to sit on.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
Is the Myrrh v Alan Cresswell debate on climate change becoming an annual Ship institution? It seems to come earlier every year. I hope it doesn't get all commercialised. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
The Hockey Schtick
Rumours of the death of the hockey stick (claim 2) appear to have been exaggerated.
Any comments on this?
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Bullshit. Youze changed it to climate change because real science said climate changes and youze can't deal with it and keep funding going.
This is one of the wackier conspiracy theories out there. "Climate change" isn't a new term - you'd think that the name of IPCC (established 1988) would be a major hint.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Most, if not all, of these climate impacts are the direct or indirect consequence of increasing temperatures due to very large increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. So, I suppose 'global warming' could cover them, it's just that 'climate change' is much more comprehensive.
Bullshit. Youze changed it to climate change because real science said climate changes and youze can't deal with it and keep funding going.
Eh? Care to run that by me again, because I simply don't understand what you're trying to say. You appear to be agreeing with me that science shows that the climate changes, and that it's not just increasing temperatures. But, if so I don't see the reason for the 'bullshit' or the 'you can't deal with it' ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:
quote:
Also, the experimental data predict both the current warming and past cooling events. So, when your data is applicable to both warming and cooling it's more accurate to refer to 'climate change' in that context.
What experimental data? None of the models have matched the reality of actual climate change.
There are dozens of groups around the world experimenting with the climate - what happens if we increase CO2 by 20%? what happens if increased ocenainc temperatures release more CO2? etc., and running those experiments for past, present and potential future conditions. Those experiments match the past pretty well, for a very complex system.
Or, are you just worried that the experiments are run inside computers? Perhaps waiting a century for the data from physical experimentation with the climate (with virtually no chance of controlling the variables) would be better ... but if the computational experiments are anything to go on (and, their results for past climates tend to suggest that they are) then if we did that we'd have waited far too long to actually do anything.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
I don't know how old you are, but it seems you are not old enough to remember Vole magazine* which raised awareness of both CFCs and "the greenhouse effect". What was not then so clear, despite the use of the word 'greenhouse', was whether the changes would cause warming or cooling.
*There is a Wikipedia entry, but I couldn't link to it because it contains a parenthesis and, apparently, that's not allowed.
Eta: my guess is that 'climate change' has become the preferred term to try to educate all those idiots who say things like: "Britain a few degrees warmer? I can live with that!"
As has been repeated to the point of tedium, if the Gulf Stream stops, we may all get a lot colder on this small insignificant island, home to selfish idiots who apparently don't care about the effects of climate change that are already devastating vulnerable communities. [/QB]
No you are quite right I have never heard of Vole Magazine.
And perhaps if some "environmentalists" were not so shrill we would be inclined to think a lot of the scaremongering was more scientific and less neurotic. It doesn't at all surprise me that some are holding their climate change beliefs to be a quasi-religion/philosopy.
Personally I am intrigued by the way that all this environmental doomsday stuff jumped out of the vole-hole and into the full light of day at about the same time as the Cold War and the threat of nuclear destruction receded.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Some "environmentalists" were not so shrill we would be inclined to think a lot of the scaremongering was more scientific and less neurotic.
If it was just hairy environmentalists I might agree. When a load of sober mainstream scientists and scientific organisations start to get worried, then I don't feel so confident.
The problem with the Climate Change Agenda is, whether it be Mrs Thatcher or Blair/Brown/Cameron it is tailormade for politicians who see it is as a way to increase control and to give a rationale to taxing the public. It is too frequently used to make extrapolations which are dubious to say the least e.g the turning off of the gulfstream. It has a danger of crowding out environmental concerns which should be faced up to such as deforestation and over-population and for which immediate positive progress could be made but which politicians can avoid with the climate change smokescreen. It also gives the politicians, Blair was a classic case of this, a stage on which to appear environmentally concerned but at the same time do next to nothing about environmental matters that could be fixed - anyone for a third airport at Heathrow?
It has also taken on the form of a quasi-religion in which any doubt will not be allowed and which is stamped upon as a heresy - a facet of the thing which makes me somewhat agnostic. To this extent it runs the risk of bringing all environmental concerns into question - should it, as I think seems quite possible - turns out to have been bigged up - a lot if its associated scare stories.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
As the models have become more advanced, it's become clear that the CO2 we're producing (and so on) is messing up the global climate, but its not entirely clear exactly how that works out in terms of effects.
It is clear that the poor, especially in places where they are most vulnerable to climate change, are the people who are going to suffer most.
My inserted space and bold.
This post perhaps best represents why ACC skeptics remain.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
It's always the poor who suffer most. Why should that make you skeptical about well-established science?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zwingli
Shipmate
# 4438
|
Posted
Not being a scientist I won't voice an opinion on the science of climate change* however it occurs to me that if people are concerned that climate change will be used to create a global government** then they should petition their respective national governments to act responsibly and intelligently with regard to climate change, and to voluntarily assist whichever countries and peoples are harmed by their actions, especially those who through poverty or other characteristics are unable to easily adjust. The greater and wider the harm done by climate change, the larger the proper scope of government to restrain it, and the longer the issue is effectively ignored, the higher the chance that its effects will be rapid and serious enough to require supernational or global government.
As those warning of global government appear to be a subset of those opposed to any and all voluntary restrictions by national governments, either "global government" is a scare story to taint those who warn of climate change, or they genuinely fear a global government will be instituted, and are so sure that climate change is not only a myth but will be proven to be a myth in a reasonable timeframe that they confidently sabotage national emissions reduction efforts, thus demonstrating that climate change, should it turn out to be as real and damaging as majority or median scientific consensus currently predicts, really does require global government. Belief in the latter would require extraordinary confidence, not just in the incorrectness of mainstream scientific predictions but in the ability of the scientific establishment to collectively realise its error; there are historical precedents for such changes in accepted science, but they are reasonably rare and very difficult to predict. So it appears more likely that "global government" is a scare story not a serious belief.
*I have tried to understand the issue, with limited success.
**whether that takes the form of a court which merely enforces agreed upon limits, or a more expansive court and bureaucracy which can set limits or prices, set costs for breaches and distribute recompense to those adversely affected
Posts: 4283 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
The problem with the Climate Change Agenda is, whether it be Mrs Thatcher or Blair/Brown/Cameron it is tailormade for politicians who see it is as a way to increase control and to give a rationale to taxing the public.
So, even if it's true, you'll reject it because you don't like the consequences?
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
It has a danger of crowding out environmental concerns which should be faced up to such as deforestation and over-population [...]
What about a 'both-and' response? Dealing with deforestation is hardly in conflict with responding to climate change. Some concerns about over-population may be legitimate; some of it seems to be about rich people blaming poor people.
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
It has also taken on the form of a quasi-religion in which any doubt will not be allowed and which is stamped upon as a heresy [...]
How many religions can honestly say that their truth claims are supported by an international consensus of scientists?
In what sense is doubt 'not allowed'? Some journalists are well-paid to publish 'pro-sceptic' articles, as I am about to show. Having scientists disagree with you is not censorship. Disagreeing with most scientists is not the moral equivalent of being the guy who stood in front of the tank in Tiananmen Square.
Climate change scepticism sounds a lot more like a quasi-religion to me... and its high priests are "journalists who have no background in science, and who appear to know less about the subject than the average 12-year old, have been filling the pages of the Mail, the Telegraph and the Times with articles claiming that manmade global warming is a fraud."
How consistent are sceptics in their scepticism? As RealClimate observed, "Absolute credence in one obscure publication while distrusting mountains of ‘mainstream’ papers is a sure sign of cherry picking data to support an agenda, not clear-thinking scepticism." That sounds 'quasi-religious to me - and not in a good way.
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
That's an interesting article on overpopulation and one that I mostly agree with.
I think there is truth to the idea that the current overpopulation rhetoric is framed in a way of blaming poor people. Given that one lower middle class adult American consumes more and produces more waste than a family of twelve in rural Sénégal or Burma simply "helping" poor people have fewer kids isn't going to fix the problem, nor is the notion that all we have to do is wait for poor countries to become rich for fertility rates to fall. Rising affluence will actually make things worse, not better. It isn't as much a matter of how many bodies there are on the planet but how much each body consumes.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
Hiro's Leap says
quote:
This is one of the wackier conspiracy theories out there. "Climate change" isn't a new term - you'd think that the name of IPCC (established 1988) would be a major hint.
I agree but I think Myrrh's point is that the balance of the proportion of usage of the expression "global warming" to the expression "climate change" in the mainstream press has recently been moving away from "global warming" towards "climate change".
It's not that climate change is a new expression; it's just that to a sceptic's way of thinking, environmentalists are embarrassed about the fact that the globe apparently hasn't warmed for about ten or fifteen years, which is why they are talking more about "climate change" rather than "global warming" these days.
Zwingli says
quote:
Not being a scientist I won't voice an opinion on the science of climate change* however it occurs to me that if people are concerned that climate change will be used to create a global government** then they should petition their respective national governments to act responsibly and intelligently with regard to climate change, and to voluntarily assist whichever countries and peoples are harmed by their actions, especially those who through poverty or other characteristics are unable to easily adjust.
Sounds like a good idea - but unfortunately it presupposes that people actually trust government in the first place. And this is the thing that both environmental activists and deniers seem to have in common. Generally speaking, neither of them trust their governments. The whole thing seems to be getting increasingly polarised.
But it's not just two sides. Generally speaking, governments have taken a fairly soft touch on this issue so far; granted, they've put out propaganda to try to encourage people to take personal responsibility for emissions, but authoritarian control mechanisms (such as meter throttling and petrol rationing) have not yet been put in place.
But what if governments do start putting such measures in place? Deniers will resent it - but both environmentalists and deniers alike will naturally wonder if the government is practising what it's preaching. The government's own emissions, including its transport infrastructure and its military, will come under close scrutiny. Sure as night follows day, sooner or later it's going to start looking like government organisations are being a bit profligate.
Once word gets out about this, you may find that the environmentalists and deniers - who were previously at each other's throats - now come together to fight the common enemy, namely, the government.
I can't see how state and national governments can avoid this happening. But on the other hand, that's also the reason why I think there's no risk of a single global government forming over this issue any time soon. You might be able to prevent localised revolutionary activity in just one country, but I don't see how you can prevent pockets of localised revolutionary activity springing up all over the world.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mr Clingford
Shipmate
# 7961
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
OP question: answer: Yes....
How? Please give details in your explanation so I may follow your steps of reasoning and evidence. Ta.
--------------------
Ne'er cast a clout till May be out.
If only.
Posts: 1660 | From: A Fleeting moment | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
The problem with the Climate Change Agenda is, whether it be Mrs Thatcher or Blair/Brown/Cameron it is tailormade for politicians who see it is as a way to increase control and to give a rationale to taxing the public.
It's also tailormade for the politicians to look like tools as they fail to reduce emissions. I don't see a strong incentive here - especially as the taxes raised need to be spent on carbon-cutting technologies, and most voters aren't terribly interested.
That said, I know a lot of people agree with you. It's why I believe all carbon taxes should be revenue neutral, giving the money raised straight back as dividends or tax breaks.
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
That's an interesting article on overpopulation and one that I mostly agree with.
IMO it misses the point because it looks at current third world carbon emissions, not future ones.
quote:
Originally posted by Zwingli:
The greater and wider the harm done by climate change, the larger the proper scope of government to restrain it, and the longer the issue is effectively ignored, the higher the chance that its effects will be rapid and serious enough to require supernational or global government.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) Absolutely spot on.
I remember one Shipmate being appalled at the idea of building codes with mandatory insulation standards: this represented too much government influence. But by rejecting relatively minor government actions like this now, it's going to make much more drastic ones inevitable a few decades further in. It's an entirely self-fulfilling prophecy.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
Alwyn responds to aumbry quote:
quote:
It has also taken on the form of a quasi-religion in which any doubt will not be allowed and which is stamped upon as a heresy [...]
How many religions can honestly say that their truth claims are supported by an international consensus of scientists?
It depends how you define "scientist" I suppose. And "consensus" for that matter. How hard can getting an international consensus of scientists actually be?
And how many scientists have to disagree with the consensus before it's no longer considered a "consensus"?
If there's one thing I've learnt from gay rights and anti-racism campaigning, it's that those in the majority aren't always in the right. See the Wikipedia article.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Bullshit. Youze changed it to climate change because real science said climate changes and youze can't deal with it and keep funding going.
If you want to insult Alan, and the rest of us here us and millions of other people, inclusing thousands of scientists, who are trying to save your arse along with our own, why not do it in a form where we are allowed to reply in kind?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
Is the Myrrh v Alan Cresswell debate on climate change becoming an annual Ship institution? It seems to come earlier every year. I hope it doesn't get all commercialised.
Hardly likely to. So far the score is Myrrh nil, Alan 42. Such an unequal contest makes poor TV. Its not even up to the feeble standards of recent series of Big Brother
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Personally I am intrigued by the way that all this environmental doomsday stuff jumped out of the vole-hole and into the full light of day at about the same time as the Cold War and the threat of nuclear destruction receded.
I think that must be when you started paying attention. People had been discussing it since the 1960s and it was reasonably clear that something was happehing in the late 1970s or early 1980s.
The trouble with both your contradictory conspiracy theories is that Thatcher got on the bandwagon in 1988 - at least three years after she'd stuffed the miners and killed the coal industry (so no reason to make any link there) but over a year before the events of 1989 (which she was probably the last major Western politician to see the significance of anyway)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
ken says
quote:
The trouble with both your contradictory conspiracy theories is that Thatcher got on the bandwagon in 1988 - at least three years after she'd stuffed the miners and killed the coal industry (so no reason to make any link there) but over a year before the events of 1989 (which she was probably the last major Western politician to see the significance of anyway)
In defence of aumbry, I don't think it's a conspiracy theory to say that environmentalism didn't really take off until after the Cuban Missile Crisis.
It's a matter of historical record that Rachel Carson's classic book "Silent Spring" was published in 1962 - and that the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. It seems to me that it wasn't until the A-bomb in 1945 that people started to take seriously the idea that Armageddon might be brought about by technological progress - and that's why I think it would have been unlikely for there to have been a serious environmentalist movement before 1945.
That's not to say there was no eschatological speculation at all. There was loads! Eschatological speculation has got a very long history. Whilst Joachim of Fiore certainly wasn't the first to pin an approximate date on the end of the current age, he certainly did a lot to popularise this kind of belief system in the middle ages onwards, being influential on the Franciscan Spirituals, Girolamo Savonarola, the Anabaptist movement, the Puritan movement, and William Miller's 1843 prediction.
Mainstream Christians often mock dispensationalists for saying that rapture theology has Biblical support, since it's a matter of historical record that rapture theology was only invented as recently as the 19th century, by John Nelson Darby. I'm certainly sympathetic to the idea that doctrines should stand the test of time, and that the older a doctrine that hasn't been proved false is, the more likely it is that the doctrine is true.
But it's disingenious to use this argument against dispensationalism, if you don't use it against environmentalism as well. Environmentalism is a lot younger than dispensationalism!!
I used to be a believer in man-made global warming myself; indeed, once of the reasons I previously thought that dispensationalism was so dangerous is because pre-tribulation rapture theology tends to make dispensationalists think that rising sea levels are (a) not their problem because they're going to be raptured soon anyway, and (b) part of the prophesied tribulation. Scaremongering rhetoric about global warming doesn't persuade people to abandon dispensationalist beliefs; on the contrary, it tends to reinforce those beliefs, because the environmentalist rhetoric tends to get re-interpreted in terms of the tribulation. Environmentalists usually don't understand this, though, because they tend to be clueless about the historical context of their end-times beliefs, and as a result they repeat the same mistakes of history.
Why did I stop believing in global warming? Well, because I tried to do my bit, I did replace all my lightbulbs with energy saving bulbs, I tried to make other efficiencies too - but to be honest I can't see any evidence that it's made any difference. The Guardian still bangs on about how much of a problem global warming is, just as they did before; indeed, if anything, they're getting more hysterical. Naturally, this sowed doubts in my mind.
But that's not the only reason. I also wanted to know why the dispensationalists and Christian Zionists believe what they do - and that made me look into the broader history of the interpretation of apocalyptic prophesy in general, and the book of Revelation in particular. And that's when I realised that environmentalist scaremongering and dispensationalism and the fundamentalist Islam that the Daily Mail thinks we should be so scared of, have all got the same historical root. It seems they can all trace their history, at least in part, back to late medieval apocalyptic thought, that started with Joachim of Fiore.
Now I'm not denying the fact that there are indeed some scientists involved in global warming research. However, science plays only a bit-part in the contemporary popular cultural phenomenon of environmentalism. The history of the interpretation of the book of Revelation plays a far far bigger part, in my opinion.
None of this proves that global warming isn't real. But then again, the plague of the Black Death in the 1340's was real too. Make no mistake, vast swathes of the population in Europe died out, and the population levels didn't recover until several centuries later. And unless I'm greatly mistaken, there is historical evidence of an apocalyptic cultural phenomenon that rode on the back of fears of the Black Death.
But it clearly didn't kill absolutely everyone on the planet in one go, did it? So even in the worst-case scenario, I find it hard to believe that global warming will be any different.
Point I'm trying to make is that if global warming is a real problem, then it deserves to get a calm, rational response. Witch-hunts against "deniers" and publicly hurling insults about simply won't do. No we are not all scientists - but then again, we're clearly not all historians either, as is evidenced by the fact that scientists seem to think that the historical context is irrelevant. It's unrealistic to expect everyone to become scientists - but, given that we're not all scientists, it's also unrealistic to expect everyone to sustain a belief that they are individually responsible for saving the world, if they don't understand the reasons why it matters. When people fail to see the evidence that their own change in personal emissions makes any difference, you can't blame them for being sceptical.
Still, that's my view.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
It seems to me that it wasn't until the A-bomb in 1945 that people started to take seriously the idea that Armageddon might be brought about by technological progress
Agreed. I'm reading Spencer Weart's fascinating Discovery of Global Warming at the moment and he repeatedly stresses how important the Cold War was for climate science. One reason was that the U.S. military had seen how vital science was in WWII, and were now prepared to fund blue sky research into many areas. These included atmospheric physics and oceanography, two key areas for understanding climate.
Also, there had previously been an assumption amongst scientists that humanity could never seriously alter the Earth's biosphere or atmosphere. The potential of large scale nuclear war changed that assumption.
There were even Soviet plans to deliberately modify climate to gain strategic advantage.
quote:
But it's disingenious to use this argument against dispensationalism, if you don't use it against environmentalism as well. Environmentalism is a lot younger than dispensationalism!!
I don't think this follows. Modern environmentalism isn't theology, and so why should its age matter? The Civil Rights Movement was new in many ways, but that didn't affect its legitimacy.
quote:
Scaremongering rhetoric about global warming doesn't persuade people to abandon dispensationalist beliefs; on the contrary, it tends to reinforce those beliefs
Very true. If things do get nasty (e.g. if the higher sensitivity models are right) I suspect that then we'll see a lot of doomsday cults, not just regular dispensationalism.
quote:
Why did I stop believing in global warming? Well, because I tried to do my bit, I did replace all my lightbulbs with energy saving bulbs, I tried to make other efficiencies too - but to be honest I can't see any evidence that it's made any difference. [...] Naturally, this sowed doubts in my mind.
Although I agree with a lot of what you write, this makes no sense to me at all. What did you expect to happen? Why should it naturally sow doubts?
quote:
So even in the worst-case scenario, I find it hard to believe that global warming will be any different.
One difference is that medieval Europe didn't have nukes. How will losing the Tibetan glaciers affect the stability of China and India? What about millions of flooded Bangladeshi refugees in Pakistan? I'm not predicting the end of humanity, but this has the potential to be very seriously destabilising.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glenn
Shipmate
# 6517
|
Posted
Climate doesn't stay the same from year to year. We knew that. So, what's all the fuss about?
CO2 has increased from zero-ish to zero-ish, while water remains the earth's favourite greenhouse gas. CO2 is zero-ish because of photosynthesis and other natural chemical processes that remove CO2 from the air.
I think we're being misled.
--------------------
We are interested in evidence to support that which we already believe.
Posts: 288 | From: The Universe | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Having been out doing that strange RL thing, I'm a little late responding. Whatever.
How is it that Al Gore is picked on as a lone voice crying doom in the wilderness, and He Must Be Absolutely Wrong, even if he has a significant factual base to work with, while Glenn Beck is treated as the authentic voice of all that is real and true, even if he doesn't have any significant factual base? It wouldn't have anything to do with mindless party affiliation, would it? Or is ANYTHING that doesn't suit your need to avoid thought automatically absolute trash?
It is possible to deal with a mild adjustment in a title ("global warming" to "climate change") if you can actually look at the reason for that change, instead of rushing about yelling about how scientists keep on changing their minds. Scientists process information, and adjust their thoughts when new information comes along - or, at least, most of then try to do this.
If that's too complicated for you, I would suggest you stop using electricity, which has only been understood for 150 years or so. That is obviously too much change too fast.
Probably means you shouldn't use a computer.
But at least you won't contribute that bit of heat to the changing climate.
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Care to run that by me again, because I simply don't understand what you're trying to say. You appear to be agreeing with me that science shows that the climate changes, and that it's not just increasing temperatures. But, if so I don't see the reason for the 'bullshit' or the 'you can't deal with it'
Because Alan, what was used to bash us all into this guilt trip was that climate didn't change, by any discernable amount. The whole soddin' agw is based on that!
Youze (for Ken's benefit, that refers to you all who promote manmade global warming and CO2 driving up temperature), sold the world that climate Didn't change. It was flat as a hockey stick for yonks until we came along with our industrial output and started driving up CO2 levels creating global warming which was going to melt all the ice caps and flood the world.
Those arguing that this was crap science pointed to the fact, from scientific observation, that climate changes, often and dramatically, and, neither CO2 nor man-made industrial output has anything to do with it.
quote:
Alan There are dozens of groups around the world experimenting with the climate - what happens if we increase CO2 by 20%? what happens if increased ocenainc temperatures release more CO2? etc., and running those experiments for past, present and potential future conditions. Those experiments match the past pretty well, for a very complex system.
And I'm quite sure that makes them very happy. But until they can prove that CO2 is even capable of driving the vast global temperature changes the earth has been through and ignoring that science has actually shown that it hasn't in the past, seems a mite pointless.
quote:
Or, are you just worried that the experiments are run inside computers? Perhaps waiting a century for the data from physical experimentation with the climate (with virtually no chance of controlling the variables) would be better ... but if the computational experiments are anything to go on (and, their results for past climates tend to suggest that they are) then if we did that we'd have waited far too long to actually do anything.
Garbage in, garbage out. What concerns me is the thinking that programmes the computers.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr Clingford
Shipmate
# 7961
|
Posted
Myrrh, I asked you a question on the eat your pet thread - would you answer it.
--------------------
Ne'er cast a clout till May be out.
If only.
Posts: 1660 | From: A Fleeting moment | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Glenn:
Climate doesn't stay the same from year to year. We knew that. So, what's all the fuss about?
CO2 has increased from zero-ish to zero-ish, while water remains the earth's favourite greenhouse gas. CO2 is zero-ish because of photosynthesis and other natural chemical processes that remove CO2 from the air.
I think we're being misled.
It strikes me that you would be a particularly easy person to mislead, since you seem (on the basis of the above) to have no grasp at all of the core of the scientific argument. If you don't want to engage with the science, fine - but you can hardly then expect that others will pay any attention to your views on the subject.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
