Home > AGW, Catastrophism, Climate Change, Global Warming, Omniclimate, Policy, Skepticism > Harbingers Of A Climate Dictatorship

Harbingers Of A Climate Dictatorship

I am not referring to Paul Krugman, the best evidence that Alfred Nobel was right in NOT establishing a Nobel Prize in Economics at his (Nobel’s) time (what Krugman’s got is an afterthought sponsored by the Bank of Sweden).

The harbingers of the upcoming climate dictatorship are all those commenters to his NYT article, confirming Krugman’s totalitarian idea that political disagreement about global warming is akin to treason.

If there’s really many of them, there isn’t much hope in the future. Either the scary climate scenarios will happen, and a climate dictatorship will be founded. Or they will not, and thousands and thousands of very angry people will be looking for something else to base their thirst for dictatorship upon.

Advertisements
  1. 2009/07/02 at 23:02

    George, re the change in favour of nuclear, all I can think of is that some realism is starting to creep in, given the not-so-wonderful performance of renewables. Although there’s been plenty of fisticuffs among the Greens about nuclear, and for some its still unthinkable.

    Geoff, Maurizio, WordPress as an Axis of Evil – I like it. Count me in!

  2. geoff chambers
    2009/07/02 at 00:06

    I’d like to come back to George Carty’s question, which goes to the heart of the subject. But in the meantime, I’ve been blogging at Guardian Environment on an article by Leo Hickman referring to the Krugman article, and I got in a plug for omniclimate. My braindead interlocutors are incapable of doing more than quoting my posts, and adding their own comments, so the omniclimate link has now been posted three times on the same thread (with the accusation tht you are conspiratorially linked with Watts, because you share the same wordpress server (is that what it’s called?) (!)
    Expect some unfriendly comments from lost trolls

  3. 2009/07/01 at 16:10

    Re the comments on NYT, wow, I thought the stuff we normally read on The Guardian’s CiF pretty extreme. This will make for some fascinating documentaries and books in the years to come. Has the hysteria reached its peak yet, I wonder? What will it be like after another ten years of non-catastrophe?

    George Carty, I think your question can be answered by another question: who are in position to gain the most from “decarbonisation”, in terms of money and influence? I recall a quote from Nancy Pelosi: “Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory…” Being anti-plutocracy will pit you against Big Business. Being anti-imperialist will pit you against the hawks. Being anti-carbon will (potentially) allow you to dictate to – everyone.

    • George Carty
      2009/07/02 at 07:40

      George Carty, I think your question can be answered by another question: who are in position to gain the most from “decarbonisation”, in terms of money and influence? I recall a quote from Nancy Pelosi: “Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory…” Being anti-plutocracy will pit you against Big Business. Being anti-imperialist will pit you against the hawks. Being anti-carbon will (potentially) allow you to dictate to – everyone.
      Isn’t this just the American conservative conceit that anyone who opposed doctrinaire capitalism is motivated only by lust for control, rather than by an honest desire to help people?

      Opposing plutocracy helps non-rich people.
      Opposing imperialism helps non-Western people.
      Who benefits from opposition to CO2 emissions, if AGW is a hoax?

      I suppose there may be a selfish reason for some government employees to support AGW theory, as they hope for for carbon taxes which are supposedly to cut CO2 emissions, but in reality to raise revenue to contribute to their salaries. That’s probably why they opposed nuclear power too, because nuclear power would mean lower CO2 emissions in reality, but reduce the revenue raised by carbon taxes.

      But how do you explain the recent volte-face in favour of nuclear power made by many AGW alarmists in the past couple of years?

  4. George Carty
    2009/07/01 at 06:06

    Whay has AGW become such a central plank of the politics of American Liberals? (As opposed to – say – anti-plutocracy or anti-imperialism?)

  5. geoff chambers
    2009/06/30 at 20:59

    The comments on the Krugman article you link to are absolutely the most depressing thing I’ve ever read on AGW for ages.
    I’d read the Krugman article when it appeared and shrugged it off as a a bit of American Liberal rhetoric. I’m used to this kind of warmist Savonarola act from Monbiot and company on the British Guardian Environment page. The big difference is that on Guardian environment, we sceptics are as numerous as Monbiot’s warmist groupies, and the discussion, though rarely attaining the heights of a Platonic Dialogue, is free and wide-ranging. Whereas on the NYT comments page, I found just 2 sceptical comments among the first 50, with absolutely no-one questioning the identification of scepticism with treason. The weirdest were two people who suggested a museum of global warming, where the names of the deniers would be preserved for posterity. I can only imagine that the writers had in mind the many Holocaust Museums which exist in the USA. The association of ideas is terrifying …

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: