By Ian Wishart
What was once a hidden agenda has now become an open secret: as efforts to browbeat the public into believing in climate change fail, scientists are now openly calling for a new World Government to force people to make changes and accept new climate taxes.
The 2009 edition of my book Air Con was the first mainstream publication to directly link the climate change scare to globalisation and world government agendas, the specifics of which you can read a brief extract of in more detail here.
However, now increasingly-pressured climate scientists have broken cover and openly called for an authoritarian world government to be implemented to force climate change acceptance on the world’s population.
Where persuasion has failed because the evidence doesn’t stack up, the global forces hoping to make a financial killing from climate change laws have convinced their scientific sock-puppets to make a political case for global governance.
Last week, 32 scientists published just such a call in the journal Science, and now, Under the heading “Effective World Government will be needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe, the journal Scientific American also makes the case:
Almost six years ago, I was the editor of a single-topic issue on energy for Scientific American that included an article by Princeton University’s Robert Socolow that set out a well-reasoned plan for how to keep atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations below a planet-livable threshold of 560 ppm. The issue came replete with technical solutions that ranged from a hydrogen economy to space-based solar.
If I had it to do over, I’d approach the issue planning differently, my fellow editors permitting. 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.
To put this in context, see the work Investigate magazine did three years ago to see how this latest call, and the approach of Rio 2012, dovetails almost perfectly with an agenda document published by Socialist International as a high-level briefing document for the United Nations.
This is not about the theme from “Twilight Zone”, this is simply about following the power and the money and the old adage, cui bono – who benefits? The push for World Government is no longer a ‘conspiracy theory’ but a ‘conspiracy fact’. The only question now is how much input into the debate the public would like to have.