Posted on 03/19/2012 11:26:35 AM PDT by Mount Athos
Almost six years ago, I was the editor of a single-topic issue on energy for Scientific American that set out a plan for how to keep atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations below a planet-livable threshold of 560 ppm.
If I had it to do over, I would scale back on the nuclear fusion and clean coal, instead devoting at least half of the available space for feature articles on psychology, sociology, economics and political science. Since doing that issue, I’ve come to the conclusion that the technical details are the easy part. It’s the social engineering that’s the killer. Moon shots and Manhattan Projects are child’s play compared to needed changes in the way we behave.
A policy article authored by several dozen scientists appeared online March 15 in Science to acknowledge this point: “Human societies must now change course and steer away from critical tipping points in the Earth system that might lead to rapid and irreversible change. This requires fundamental reorientation and restructuring of national and international institutions toward more effective Earth system governance and planetary stewardship.”
The report summarized 10 years of research evaluating the capability of international institutions to deal with climate and other environmental issues, an assessment that found existing capabilities to effect change sorely lacking. The authors called for a “constitutional moment” at the upcoming 2012 U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio in June to reform world politics and government. Among the proposals: a call to replace the largely ineffective U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development with a council that reports to the U.N. General Assembly, at attempt to better handle emerging issues related to water, climate, energy and food security. The report advocates a similar revamping of other international environmental institutions.
Unfortunately, far more is needed. To be effective, a new set of institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational enforcement powers. There would have to be consideration of some way of embracing head-in-the-cloud answers to social problems that are usually dismissed by policymakers as academic naivete. In principle, species-wide alteration in basic human behaviors would be a sine qua non, but that kind of pronouncement also profoundly strains credibility in the chaos of the political sphere. Some of the things that would need to be contemplated: How do we overcome our hard-wired tendency to “discount” the future: valuing what we have today more than what we might receive tomorrow? Would any institution be capable of instilling a permanent crisis mentality lasting decades, if not centuries? How do we create new institutions with enforcement powers way beyond the current mandate of the U.N.? Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?
Behavioral economics and other forward-looking disciplines in the social sciences try to grapple with weighty questions. But they have never taken on a challenge of this scale, recruiting all seven billion of us to act in unison. The ability to sustain change globally across the entire human population over periods far beyond anything ever attempted would appear to push the relevant objectives well beyond the realm of the attainable. If we are ever to cope with climate change in any fundamental way, radical solutions on the social side are where we must focus, though. The relative efficiency of the next generation of solar cells is trivial by comparison.
[I]It’s the social engineering that’s the killer. Moon shots and Manhattan Projects are child’s play compared to needed changes in the way we behave.[/I]
Social engineering was a killer for Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler, and assorted other dictators, too. They had to kill millions and millions of people to enforce their perverse visions of the future.
I think we can probably cross anthropogenic global warning off the list of live threats, though there’s plenty of inhumane legislation still on the books in countries the world over. Some of that may never go away: money is to government as heroin to addicts.
I have a hunch the Marxists have learned their lessons from the failure of this scheme. The first lesson, of course, is to cook up a fake impending disaster very few people can understand. Lots of people understand carbon dioxide. It’s not a topic of exotic science, but a naturally occurring chemical found everywhere. So-called “climate science” was too accessible, too readily comprehensible by too many people. If you’re going to fake data, you need to do two things: 1.) do it persuasively, and 2.) do it with data people can’t question and examine themselves. They should [I]never[/I] have let damning correspondence be exposed.
They’ll probably cook up a much more exotic disaster next time. Instead of terrible effects over decades, it will require a concerted global response within a year or two. Maybe a rapidly approaching imaginary asteroid will do the trick, and we’ll need to spend trillions to disintegrate it with nuclear weapons. Maybe an imaginary disease will break out, and the only way to save our species will be to halt all travel immediately, shut down the internet, cancel elections, and pour trillions into innoculation. Maybe... Well, I’m no science fiction writer, but I’m sure they’ll come up with something horrible that will happen in very short order if drastic measures aren’t taken.
Whatever it’ll be, the smartest Marxists in the world are already working on it.
Curious last name.
Isn’t there a river someplace of the same name ?
I’d flip this over -
the GOAL is a heavy-handed transnational government.
“Climate Catastrophe” is simply an excuse to get there.
Setting things up for the anti-Christ.
Maranatha. Indeed, Lord, come quickly.
At last, the truth in print.
Thank you Scientific American finally confirming in black and white what we knew was the goal of all this from the start.
At least he convinced me. It’s time to cancel my Scientific American subscription.
That's usually the way it's done.
Trees breathe carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen.
Each new government regulation generates enough paperwork to kill 100,000,000 trees for paper and regulatory updates kill 10,000,000 more.
I think I know a way to reduce CO2.....but Obama won’t do it.
The magazine has gone from a paragon of scientific investigation to the absolute epitome of egghead leftist advocacy.
Critical Race Theory (Critical Academia Theory) recognizes that racism (elitism) is engrained in the fabric and system of the American (intellectual) society. The individual racist (elitist) need not exist to note that institutional racism (authoritarianism) is pervasive in the dominant (intelligentsia) culture. This is the analytical lens that CRT (CAT) uses in examining existing power structures. CRT (CAT) identifies that these power structures are based on white privilege and white supremacy, (appeals to authority and deference to experts) and which perpetuates the marginalization of people of color (character).[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory
'Junk Scientiftic World Citizen' is the new title.
Water vapor accounts for 95.000% of all global warming.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) accounts for only 3.618% of all gw.
CO2, being at roughly 380ppm, has a natural and human contribution.
Natural CO2 contribution is about 97%.
Human CO2 contribution is about 3%, or, about 11% of the 380ppm.
CO2 makes up only about .038% of the mix of gases in the atmosphere.
CO2 human contribution is only about .0042% of the mix of gases in the atmosphere.
Water vapor is the big buggaboo here, amplifying all the other Greenhouse gases.
Human contribution, for water vapor, is .001%.
Natural contribution, for water vapor, is 99.999%.
Human contribution to global warming is akin to a grain of sand in the desert.
However, plants like it.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0530earthgreen.html
Bottom line.....water vapor, an amplifier, and it’s affects, are out of our collective control.
So is the climate.
I’ve written science fiction on this topic, but the real world sometimes moves faster in weirder directions than I can write.
There was an idiot ethicist last week proposing we genetically engineer people to be smaller (use less resources) and use medicine to create an aversion to meat (less meat consumption, save resources).
Missed seeing this before....pinging others.
We all knew that was the intention behind the AGW claism from teh start.
They won’t give up.
I think lots of explosives might help
The terrible scam is not going to go away any time soon. To much money involved.
Thanks Ernest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.