Climate policies invariably totalitarian

It's for your own good

It’s for your own good

This truth is revealed in an excellent and very entertaining article at American Thinker, in which author Daren Jonescu asks why there isn’t a single climate policy advanced by the headbangers that does not require despotic, undemocratic and tyrannical impositions on the lives of the population.

It’s all about climate change being too big a problem for democracy to handle (where have we heard that before? Clive Hamilton), so they demand the right to do whatever they like:

Global warming “admitters” — to distinguish you from those of us you call “deniers” — I have a question for you: Do any of you have an answer to the cataclysm your settled science has proven beyond any possible doubt is coming which does not require totalitarian measures?

Let me rephrase that, in case the connotations of the phrase “totalitarian measures” have not yet passed peer review, in which case their meaning may not be able to reach minds occupying the rarefied atmosphere of pure science. My question, then, is: Do you, or any of your gods of peer review, propose solutions to anthropogenic global climate change which do not involve the violation of property rights, the restraint of individual liberty regarding matters of self-preservation (i.e., jobs and wealth-creation), the weakening of every nation’s sovereignty in favor of increased “global governance,” and the expanded empowerment of thousands of bureaucrats, think-tankers, and advisors accountable to no one?

I ask this only because it has become apparent that you admitters, who are undoubtedly on the right side of history — at least compared with the anti-science Neanderthals over on this side of the fence — are absolutely at wit’s end (or even a little beyond that) in seeking to understand how anyone could possibly continue in ignorance, when both Leonardo DiCaprio and Scarlett Johansson are on the side of Truth. Concerned about your shattered (but scientifically settled!) nerves, I propose to help you out with a little inside baseball concerning the intellectual (yeah, I know, silly word choice) reticence of the unbelievers to join in your celebration of the revealed religion.

Read it all.

(h/t Junk Science)


  1. You cannot argue the facts with the idiots as they just don’t understand facts, all they understand is how to get big fat grants, grants are the world that the true believers live in and without AGW then there will be no more grants, and they know it. N

  2. That was well worth reading. My guess is that the alarmists won’t even look, they won’t want to be challenged. They have already been brainwashed and are programmed not to think outside their limits, never mind ask awkward questions of their leaders.

    That article will, however, get more heads nodding in the middle bracket where the ordinary citizen stands.

    • AD I had a conversation with a rabid believer so I asked him what he thought about James Lovelock recanting? He said ‘who’s he?’ I said he coined the term ‘Gaia’ or ‘Mother Earth’, he said ‘what” I said he also said that by 2020 then the only humans who could still breed would have to live in the Ant-arctic, be said ‘crap, no one said that’ the thing that astonished me what that this fool did not know anything about AGW. he just believed, and he also yelled as loud as he could when ever I spoke. so how can you even talk to such a moron, I worked out it was a waste of time so I told him to ‘piss off’ it seemed to be the proper thing to do. N

      • 11 As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly.

      • OMG – I’m amazed you could stand it. The only good thing about a shouter is that he shows himself up. Would anybody take such a person seriously? Good on you for trying, but I agree, “piss off” is probably your best bet. Sooner or later such people will look around themselves and realize they are alone.

  3. I find it intersting we are seeing the mask of acceptability being discarded now and the true dictatorial heart of the green movement baring its teeth at tyhose who would come against it and expose it.

    I think this is ages old wisdom, at its best :

    4 When arguing with fools, don’t answer their foolish arguments, or you will become as foolish as they are.
    5 When arguing with fools, be sure to answer their foolish arguments, or they will become wise in their own estimation.
    6 Trusting a fool to convey a message is as foolish as cutting off one’s feet or drinking poison!
    7 In the mouth of a fool, a proverb becomes as limp as a paralyzed leg.
    8 Honoring a fool is as foolish as tying a stone to a slingshot.
    9 A proverb in a fool’s mouth is as dangerous as a thornbush brandished by a drunkard.
    10 An employer who hires a fool or a bystander is like an archer who shoots recklessly.
    11 As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly.
    12 There is more hope for fools than for people who think they are wise.

    ( Proverbs 26:4-14)

    We just have to keep repeating the science patiently to people. It will sink in….

  4. When I observe the rich and famous “admitters” of global warming reduce to owning and living in only one mansion, fly commercial instead of private jet, swap their fuel guzzling yachts for a rowboat, their luxury cars for a hybrid, and overall indulge in a less extravagant lifestyle then maybe, just maybe I will put some thought into what they say concerning global warming.

    • I think a lot of them are “got at” and brought aboard through guilt. That said, though, they could do the basics and look up some of this stuff before they commit. I totally agree with you, you don’t see any one of the rich and famous, nor the “scientists”, nor heads and leaders of CAGW actually living as though they believe it. I guess they don’t.

      • The Rich and Famous are kept that way by building and maintaining a bandwagon. It’s only natural that they will join another bandwagon for support. I suggest that the implications of their support for the CAGW narrative is drowned by the need for money-grubbing to maintain their champagne socialist lifestyles.

  5. Glenn Steiner says:

    When will they start using the gas chambers on us skeptics?

  6. What did you expect? The scare was kicked off by Thatcher (who probably didn’t believe it, but found it a useful weapon) and peddled by Enron and BP. No concern for the lives of the population there.

%d bloggers like this: