Something has started over on the suggestions page with a comment by Doug Proctor. Seem like a good opportunity for a grouse about the state of things, since the UK local elections are just around the corner, so come ye all.
Martin Cohen says:
April 27, 2012 at 4:06 pm
The concept of power used to be, “I can force you to do this, so you must do it.” The concept is now, “I know, while you do not, so you must do it.”
In the Western democracies of the 1st century, authority rides on the assumption of superior knowledge in those at the top, not their ability to use brute force. General education and the internet have eroded this and with it, the claim to power by our “leaders”. This applies to Greenpeace and the WWF as much as to Hansen, the IPCC, Obama in the US, and Gillard in Australia.
If we can stop the ability of the IPCC and its supporters from instituting their economic, social and political agendas, we will have set a precedent for all further attempts at governmental regulation based on orchestrating our agreement. When Tony Blair said that bringing in FOI legislation was the biggest mistake in his career, and said that it hindered “good government”, he meant the ability to act in the determined “best” manner when the electorate would, the facts be known, not agree it was a good, manner, not just the best. The public disapproval would then block whatever the governors wanted to do. If the IPCC, with all its money and political investment, cannot give the politicians the support they need to do what they want, what are they going to do about all the other, smaller things that they want to do but they know we will not agree to if given a voice?
In essence, the Climate Wars are a type of political mutiny. Military mutinies don’t just end the war in a “loss” but they bring down the governments who started the war. That is the threat, as Inhofe has always known it. Discredit CAGW, and you discredit governmental leadership all around the world.
Why, then, with such a risk, did the governments support the IPCC and CAGW? CO2 may be the proximal “cause”, but the desire for social re-engineering, including keeping the 3rd world at a lower level, is the true cause for all of the so-called carbon reduction strategies. The urgent belief that we must change our consumerist behavior is much more important than preventing a couple of degrees of global temperature and its consequential sea-level rise. The threat is to the greater agenda, just as resistance to conscription during a war is resistance to waging the war, not just being conscripted.
Moreover, a defeat for IPCC causes is a defeat by unofficial referendum. It is referendum by free-thinkers like Watts and Roger, facilitated by the internet. No political system wants to rule by referendum. It should come as no surprise that efforts are underway to both censure internet information and silence, by legal threats, those who host sites where “incorrect” opinions are displayed. The opinion of the people is an impediment to most rulings, and here the implications of a societal “no thanks” are severe, indeed.
The current fight about CO2 is truly important. And at this stage,I suggest, its outcome is not yet clear.