Jump to content

Takeover By The State: Global Warming Alert From Britain


nivek
 Share

Recommended Posts

Like or hate this young man, feel free to follow link to his blog and further writings, his post below notes the new_worshipfullness of the State.

 

Posted FWIMBW, this poster cannot argue the conclusions brought forth.

 

k, ebbile_non_recyling, ungreen, meat_eating_carnivore_gun_owning_son_of_a_bitchFL

**************

 

 

Takeover by the State: Global Warming Alert From Britain

By Vasko Kohlmayer

Human Events

Posted 03/26/2007 ET

http://vasko.wordpress.com/

 

 

Something disturbing and ominous is happening in Great Britain as the country embarks on an all-out fight against the threat of global warming. Intent on making Britain the world’s first "green" economy, the government will soon introduce legislation designed to take SUVs and other "gas guzzling" vehicles off the road. By sharply increasing driving levies, the authorities intend to force car owners into making "more sustainable travel choices, including greater use of public transport, walking and cycling."

 

At the same time, homeowners will be asked to make their homes "carbon neutral" and required to draw their energy primarily from low or zero carbon sources such as wave, tide, solar or nuclear power. To ensure compliance, the government will send out inspectors to scrutinize everything from how a home is insulated to the kind of appliances it uses. Those who fail to meet the decreed standards will be fined and penalized. Just how serious the government is about enforcement can be sensed from the words of Environment Secretary David Miliband who stated -- while unveiling the program -- that it would be "painful" for home owners to continue to have an "energy inefficient home."

 

These sentiments were echoed by a group of cabinet ministers who said that complying with the new regulations will necessitate sweeping changes in lifestyle across the board. Everybody in Britain, they concurred, will have to "live, work and travel differently."

 

It is essential that we see these developments for what they really are: A thinly-veiled attempt by devotees of the state to take over a western society the like of which has not been seen since the Soviet-sponsored revolutions of the late 1940s.

 

The practical consequence of these plans -- should they succeed -- will be a radical empowerment of the state which will end up with virtually unlimited powers to regulate nearly every facet of life. Everything from the way people travel to the manner in which they furnish and maintain their homes will now be subject to governmental decree and oversight. Those who refuse to comply will be punished -- and severely so -- if the words of Miliband are anything to go by.

 

This is precisely why the idea of man-made global warming so appeals to those on the political left. Being ideological cousins of erstwhile socialists, they share a desire to expand government regardless of the cause or issue they ostensibly espouse. In global warming they have sensed the perfect opportunity, for if the underlying claim is true and the planet is indeed headed for destruction, then the impending catastrophe can only be averted by united action on a grand scale. And such action can only be taken by a strong state which has been granted a wide range of powers to deal with this life-or-death crisis.

 

What makes the global warming scenario even more appealing is that the chief perpetrator is none other than the left’s perennial villain -- the business establishment. After all, most of the pollutants are emitted into the atmosphere by unscrupulous businesses as a by-product of their relentless pursuit of ever greater profits. Close second on the list of culprits are us the people whose excessive consumption, runaway appetites and outright recklessness further exacerbate the already critical situation.

 

The way to safeguard our survival, then, is for government to exercise strict control over both business and the masses. This will be done through taxation and regulation, which, admittedly, will have to be severe at times. But no one should object or complain, since it is only to be expected that this extreme emergency calls for extreme measures. Thus the alleged threat of man-made global warming is used as a means of realizing the left’s perennial dream of society administered by a powerful state.

 

Those on the left have sought to affect this state of affairs for many decades, but until now their efforts have met with vigorous resistance throughout much of the Western world. Not surprisingly, given that it is a world built on the ideals of economic and individual freedom and the principle of limited government.

 

But by invoking the specter of global warming, the left no longer has to fight tooth and nail for every tax increase or additional regulation. Alarmed by apocalyptic predictions, the frightened populations will now voluntarily and even eagerly turn over their money, freedoms and rights. Fearing for our lives, no tax will seem too excessive or regulatory burden too intrusive. After all, no decree or law can seem too extreme if our very survival is at stake. Believing we face an imminent doom, we shall readily submit to a governmentally mandated compact we would never agree to under normal circumstances.

 

This time there will be no resistance to this revolution as the state refashions almost all existing relations and usurps the rights and powers that properly belong to the private sphere. There will be no fierce street fighting such as accompanied the bloody revolutions of the past. This time around people will give up their freedoms willingly and even with gladness.

 

Even Karl Marx himself could not be wholly displeased with the state of affairs toward which the global warming alarmism is inexorably inclining: A vastly empowered state exercising tight oversight over virtually every dimension of life. The only departure from Marx’s original vision is the means by which this will be achieved. It will not come about as a result of bitter class struggle, but of a crusade by environmental activists to save the planet.

 

The tremendous efficacy of the global warming frenzy in advancing the left’s agenda can be seen in Britain where state zealots are in the process of taking over one of the world’s oldest democracies. Above all, no one should make the mistake of assuming that this is the work of environmental extremists who have somehow managed to worm their way into positions of power and influence. Rather it is the inevitable consequence of accepting the claim of man-made global warming. As such, it is a dire warning of what lies in store for all those who receive this left-induced hysteria as unassailable truth.

 

When similar measures are finally proposed in America -- as they inevitably will be -- we must be prepared to expose and call them for what they really are: A ruse to bring about the socialist dream of an all-powerful state in charge of every aspect of our lives.

 

Mr. Kohlmayer defected from Communist Czechoslovakia at the age of 19. He currently resides in London and can be contacted at vasko_kohlmayer@msn.com.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intent on making Britain the world’s first "green" economy, the government will soon introduce legislation designed to take SUVs and other "gas guzzling" vehicles off the road. By sharply increasing driving levies, the authorities intend to force car owners into making "more sustainable travel choices, including greater use of public transport, walking and cycling."

 

 

:clap::58::wub::woohoo:

'bout friggin' time. Now only if the if the US would follow suit we could mitigate a global catastrophe and stop wasting our sons and daughter and precious resources trying to squash anthills in the middle east.

 

Fact: Big Multinationals spend 25 times more developing ways to exploit fossil fuels than they do developing ways to exploit clean energy such as wind, solar, and hydroelectric. It's a sin.

 

It is essential that we see these developments for what they really are: A thinly-veiled attempt by devotees of the state to take over a western society the like of which has not been seen since the Soviet-sponsored revolutions of the late 1940s.

Tinfoil hats anyone?

:jerkit:

 

HD, green pot-smoking hippie living in pinko communist China which is gonna kick the USA's ass well within the next 50 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You understand of course that any draconian measures foisted upon the masses by the adherents to this new mantra of global warming will not be applied to the "elites". We plebeian workers might be taxed to the hilt to finance the new industries and government bureaucracies spawned by the global warming craze while huddling in underheated dwellings and foregoing leaving them due to ultra-high fuel costs, we might be forced to use mass transportation more or work in our (underheated) homes, and so forth. But you can bet that the rich, including Al Gore and his equally rich supporters in Hollywood and elsewhere won't be giving up a thing. They'll still have their private jets, Hummers, multi-room mansions and heated swimming pools. See if I'm wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You understand of course that any draconian measures foisted upon the masses by the adherents to this new mantra of global warming will not be applied to the "elites". We plebeian workers might be taxed to the hilt to finance the new industries and government bureaucracies spawned by the global warming craze while huddling in underheated dwellings and foregoing leaving them due to ultra-high fuel costs, we might be forced to use mass transportation more or work in our (underheated) homes, and so forth. But you can bet that the rich, including Al Gore and his equally rich supporters in Hollywood and elsewhere won't be giving up a thing. They'll still have their private jets, Hummers, multi-room mansions and heated swimming pools. See if I'm wrong.

 

Oh that's unquestionably true. But pointing out a complication with with the solution doesn't make the problem go away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HuaiDan wrote:

But pointing out a complication with with the solution doesn't make the problem go away.

There is no doubt that we could, and should be better stewards of our natural resources. But the fact remains we are in a warming period that will continue through its natural cycle, and then there will be global cooling. It has happened before, it's happening now, and it will happen again. And it will happen regardless of anything we do. What exactly is the human contribution to global warming? Probably not much, considering that one major volcanic eruption will load the atmosphere with more greenhouse gases than a century of fossil fuel burning. Change is inevitable, and humans adapt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the fact remains we are in a warming period that will continue through its natural cycle, and then there will be global cooling. It has happened before, it's happening now, and it will happen again. And it will happen regardless of anything we do.

 

Conjecture unsubstantiated by hard data.

 

What exactly is the human contribution to global warming? Probably not much, considering that one major volcanic eruption will load the atmosphere with more greenhouse gases than a century of fossil fuel burning. Change is inevitable, and humans adapt.

 

Misinformation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the fact remains we are in a warming period that will continue through its natural cycle, and then there will be global cooling. It has happened before, it's happening now, and it will happen again. And it will happen regardless of anything we do.

 

Conjecture unsubstantiated by hard data.

 

What exactly is the human contribution to global warming? Probably not much, considering that one major volcanic eruption will load the atmosphere with more greenhouse gases than a century of fossil fuel burning. Change is inevitable, and humans adapt.

 

Misinformation.

Perhaps so, HD. But right now, I'm not ready to buy into the program. While there are scientific types that agree with the Gore global warming scenario, there are quite a few who are saying "bullshit". So, I'll keep listening for a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not 100% sold on the idea either, truth be told. I made an analogy in a related topic between the GW debate and legal due process involving probable cause and conviction. We've got the probable cause, and with the stakes so high a thorough investigation is warranted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I don't see these measures so bad for the economy, taxes or such. I think what will happen is that there will be more jobs instead and more production. The car manufacturers will be forced to work harder on better cars, and house designers, engineers etc will have to come up with better houses.

 

I listened to a show recently where a researcher had looked into the whole recycling thing, and it can be made financially beneficial, only if the right incentives exists.

 

Overall, I don't know about the global warming either. Man made or not, it is definitely happening, and it's probably better we do something rather than nothing. Like they say about leadership, that sometimes is better to make a decision even if it isn't the best one or the absolutely correct one, instead of making no decision at all. Not doing something isn't a better option that doing something that doesn't hurt us. I'm standing quite in the middle of all these things, it can be good or bad, we're just too limited as humans to know what we're doing right now, so it's pretty much a guessing game. We just have to hope we're making the right guesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cripes...another thread on global warming? :twitch:

 

Naaaaaah EX-COG..

 

This one despite the talk about it, OP is on the politics and policies behind what the author sees happening.

 

I for one do not disagree with him on the use of the *new religion* making for "old control"....

 

kFL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tons of links and sidebar discussions at orignating URL.

 

kFL

**************

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2159164/?nav=navoa

science

You're Getting Warmer …

The new statistical rhetoric of climate change.

By Daniel Engber

Posted Tuesday, Feb. 6, 2007, at 5:44 PM ET

 

 

 

Global warming must be on a hot streak. Just a few months ago we watched polar bears drowning on the melting Arctic ice. In Washington, D.C., the cherry trees bloomed in January, and—wait, was Heaven boiling over?—the president himself warned Congress about the "serious challenge of climate change." But the biggest score came last Friday: A report from the United Nations' blue-ribbon international panel of climatologists declared global warming an "unequivocal" fact, "very likely" caused by human activity.

 

This upgrades the panel's previous assessment from 2001, which tagged our poor behavior as the "likely" culprit. The words are selected to correspond to precise numerical assessments of our guilt. Six years ago, the authors calculated a 66 percent chance that we were behind the recent warming trend; today they peg it at more than 90 percent. (At one point, they proposed going as high as 99 percent.)

 

This quantification of doubt is relatively new. For years, climate-change scientists relied on verbal expressions of chance instead of statistical ranges: Effects were "probable" or "possible"; they "could" or "might" be true. As a result, their language of uncertainty was easy to misinterpret, politicians threw up their hands, and skeptics seized on ambiguous phrases to argue that the science of climate change was based more on estimation than fact. But 10 years' worth of new data have emboldened the researchers, and now they've replaced their hazy equivocations with percentage values. This shift in rhetoric—at base, from words to numbers—has made their conclusions more comprehensible and compelling. It's also made them less honest.

 

The change in strategy began when Richard Moss and Stephen Schneider—a pair of researchers dubbed the "uncertainty cops" by their peers—urged the U.N. panel of climate scientists to fortify their language with hard numbers. The mapping of phrases to percentages, they argued, would make it easier for policy-makers to apply the science and harder for skeptics to spin it. A footnote in the new report explains how their ideas have been applied: If the report says something is "virtually certain," it means there's a 99 percent chance that it's true."Very likely" refers to any probability between 90 percent and 99 percent, "more likely than not" refers to a chance greater than 50 percent, and "unlikely" is somewhere between 10 percent and 33 percent. (Click here for a PDF of Moss and Schneider's recommendations.)

 

The new system makes it easier for policy-makers to think about global warming in terms of betting odds. You might determine the value of a card game by weighing the chance of winning against the potential payoff. Likewise, the politician can figure the risk of a global disaster by multiplying the chance of its occurrence by its potential costs. It might not be worth our time, for example, to hedge against the tiny possibility of a giant asteroid hitting the Earth, even though its effects would surely be catastrophic. (In gambling terms, betting on a deep impact would be like buying a lottery ticket.) Global warming, on the other hand, seems like a much safer bet.

 

From a policy perspective, this sounds like a great idea. But when Moss and Schneider first made their recommendations, many members of the climate-change panel were justifiably reluctant to go along. As scientists, they'd been trained to draw statistical conclusions from a repeated experiment, and use percentages to describe their certainty about the results.

 

But that kind of analysis doesn't work for global warming. You can't roll the Earth the way you can a pair of dice, testing it over and over again and tabulating up the results. At best, climate scientists can look at how the Earth changes over time and build simplified computer models to be tested in the lab. Those models may be excellent facsimiles of the real thing, and they may provide important, believable evidence for climate change. But the stats that come out of them—the percentages, the confidence intervals—don't apply directly to the real thing.

 

That's why the climatologists had been using vague language about probability—they didn't feel they could draw on the rigorous language of percentages to describe what were essentially subjective judgments. At issue was our intuitive distinction between two kinds of probability, which might be described as "statistical" and "subjective." We might say, in the statistical sense, that the chance of rolling snake eyes on a pair of dice is about 3 percent; subjective probabilities, by contrast, come into play whenever we make a personal judgment based on available evidence. On Sunday morning I used my marginal knowledge of football to determine that the Bears would win the Super Bowl. Jurors use courtroom testimony to decide how likely it is that a defendant is guilty of a crime. And climatologists use scientific evidence to decide how likely it is that we're heating up the Earth.

 

We haven't always been hung up on distinguishing between statistical judgments of chance and subjective ones. In the 18th century, magistrates were expected to assess the probability of a defendant's guilt by calculating the sum of the testimony against him. Meanwhile, a tribunal that convicted by a 2-to-1 margin could be taken to imply that the verdict had a 67 percent chance of being correct. The elements of probability weren't teased apart until 1837, when Siméon-Denis Poisson divided it into the dual concepts of statistical frequency (called "chance") and subjective judgment (sometimes referred to as "raison de croire").

 

Poisson's distinction has persisted, more or less, until today. In general, we use numbers and percentages when we're talking about statistical probability, and we use phrases like "doubtful" or "almost certain" when we're talking about subjective judgments. That doesn't mean you can't quantify belief. In fact, most of us have a pretty consistent intuition about how the language of uncertainty relates to numerical values. According to a famous study from 1990, if you ask people to translate the phrase likely or probable into a percentage, most will give a number between 63 percent and 78 percent. Very likely yields a rating of 80 percent to 90 percent. Something that's certain is 98 percent or 99 percent.

 

But further research revealed that these meanings are stable only when the words are presented without context. In a report on climate change, by contrast, there's no reliable way to know if one policy-maker will ascribe the same percentage to the word likely as another.

 

That's where the uncertainty cops come in. They tell the scientists to turn their opinions—as the best-informed experts in the world—into numbers. The process of mapping judgments to percentages has two immediate benefits. First, there's no ambiguity of meaning; politicians and journalists aren't left to make their own judgments about the state of the science on climate change. Second, a consistent use of terms makes it possible to see the uptick in scientific confidence from one report to the next; since 2001, we've gone from "likely" to "very likely," and from 66 percent to 90 percent.

 

But the new rhetoric of uncertainty has another effect—one that provides less clarity instead of more. By tagging subjective judgments with percent values, the climatologists erode the long-standing distinction between chance and raison de croire. As we read the report, we're likely to assume that a number represents a degree of statistical certainty, rather than an expert's confidence in his or her opinion. We're misled by our traditional understanding of percentages and their scientific meaning.

 

The uncertainty cops argue that in the face of global warming—and the spin campaign to discredit it—we must do whatever it takes to boost the credibility of the experts. If the public is more inclined to believe in percentages, then the experts should give them percentages. It's a reasonable argument and one that could help us to address the precipitous rise in greenhouse-gas emissions. But we have to acknowledge that the new headline-grabbing rhetoric of climate change has elements of propaganda. However valid its conclusions, the report toys with our intuitions about science—that a number is more precise than a word, that a statistic is more accurate than a belief.

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

sidebar

Return to article

 

A scientist might, for example, collect data from a pair of dice by rolling them over and over again in the lab. The results would form a frequency distribution; given enough data, it's possible to draw conclusions about which numbers are most likely to come up.

 

Daniel Engber is an associate editor at Slate. He can be reached at danengber@yahoo.com.

 

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2159164/

Copyright 2007 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the new rhetoric of uncertainty has another effect—one that provides less clarity instead of more. By tagging subjective judgments with percent values, the climatologists erode the long-standing distinction between chance and raison de croire. As we read the report, we're likely to assume that a number represents a degree of statistical certainty, rather than an expert's confidence in his or her opinion. We're misled by our traditional understanding of percentages and their scientific meaning.

 

My good friend, this totally smacks of bullshit by dictionary attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The practical consequence of these plans -- should they succeed -- will be a radical empowerment of the state which will end up with virtually unlimited powers to regulate nearly every facet of life. Everything from the way people travel to the manner in which they furnish and maintain their homes will now be subject to governmental decree and oversight. Those who refuse to comply will be punished -- and severely so -- if the words of Miliband are anything to go by.

 

When there is a problem at work, there is **always** one fucking moron who thinks that the solution to everything is severe punishment of those who don't follow procedure. Sometimes the moron is a boss and everybody gets on the punitive band wagon.

 

The solution **always** works in the short term. Of course, the smart employees begin migrating out of the department.

 

The proposals above are utterly retarded and the rantings (likely is also a mis-characterization by the author) of someone who is out of touch with society. This shit is no more realistic than Fahrenheit 451.

 

There are so many better ways to solve emissions problems than sending eco-squads from house to house arresting people.

 

This is precisely why the idea of man-made global warming so appeals to those on the political left. Being ideological cousins of erstwhile socialists, they share a desire to expand government regardless of the cause or issue they ostensibly espouse.

 

The idea that there is a significant force of left wing people whose dream is to have their lives run by the state is utterly out of sync with my perception of society.

 

There are always fascists who believe they should control the lives of others and will happily use force. Fascists don't however believe that *their* lives should be controlled.

 

As well, I find it hard to believe that facist forces in society are uniquely left wing. I believe they "sell" social reform but I see this more as political compromise.

 

Wikipedia:

Most scholars see fascism as on the political right or allied with right-wing movements. However, some scholars see fascism as the radicalization of the center or as a populist revolt of the middle classes. Fascist movements sometimes claim they represent a "Third Way between left and right, between Marxian socialism and capitalism."

 

There will be no fierce street fighting such as accompanied the bloody revolutions of the past. This time around people will give up their freedoms willingly and even with gladness.

 

This has the same "ring" as the foolishness in the Bible.

 

It is so fantastic that it takes on an air of genius insight.

 

Yet... when given serious thought, it is clearly a false characterization of human nature. This is exactly what clerics do; they mis-characterize human nature.

 

The only departure from Marx’s original vision is the means by which this will be achieved. It will not come about as a result of bitter class struggle, but of a crusade by environmental activists to save the planet.

 

Failure of the ruling class to respond to the will of the people can result in revolution. Fascist and totalitarian states are possible but considerable deterioration of society (and democracy) would need to occur first. The Patriot act makes a good first step towards allowing the ruling class to ignore the massess and disable democracy.

 

We are a long way off from that. Our votes still count and this won't change for at least another 20 years.

 

Massive crop loss world wide and/or a pandemic could seriously strain or break the system.

 

As such, it is a dire warning of what lies in store for all those who receive this left-induced hysteria as unassailable truth.

 

At any important social juncture, there will certainly be struggle and conflict. Well duh.

 

Conflict is not hysteria. Hysteria is low fact, high exaggeration and high fear rhetoric. I don't see that on the GW side.

 

Mongo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goddam, Mongo, I admire your patience. Seems to me when a writer, in this case Daniel Engber, has to use such flowery prose to get his point across, it's usually bullshit designed to mystify the less vigilant to the point of frustration. I can't be bothered until such bullshit starts gaining credibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

politicians always talk big when it comes to this sort of thing. If they want to encourage the use of public transport then they need to adress issues like the following. I was thinking of going up to visit my uni friends and even though its just half weay along england (a short distance for may nationalities) its actually far cheaper to fly than go by rail. This sort of ridiculous situation is what needs addressing. When it's cheaper to do it the harmful way then what do you expect people to do?

I'll not bother entering the debate about global warming again as it seems to just follow the pattern of sciencific evidense supporting global warming being discounted, in favour of the opinion of an out of work comedy writer, followed by the 99% scientific support for the concept of human aggrevated global warming being refered to as "doubt amongst the scientific community".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They want a fight, it will be war!!!

Aaahhhh more death threats from the clearly rationally thinking opposition to global warming.

 

I take pleasure in destroying people and groups who want to take my freedom, I've done it before and will GLADLY DO IT AGAIN!!!!

 

You know I'm pretty sure thats the bad guy says at the end of the action film when they come to arrest him.

 

 

As far as people who are radical about doing damage to honest business people, ie burning car dealerships, spiking trees, doing property damage, I would be willing to help hunt down and if it actually called for it, put a bullet in the head of the bastards who did it.....REALLY!!!!

 

You're right we should kill all people with extreme views. After all, burning cars and vandalism are definitely deserving of the death penalty. Will you be helping when the death squads round up half the teenagers in the world?

 

 

[side note] Tree spikers are morons, due to responsible companies and industry regulation there is as much forest in america now as there was when it was colonised by europeans. This is definitely one of the things wrong with the environmentals who don't actually know what they're talking about a lot of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They want a fight, it will be war!!! I am used to beating the shit out of political people and groups. I take pleasure in destroying people and groups who want to take my freedom, I've done it before and will GLADLY DO IT AGAIN!!!!

**snip**

As far as people who are radical about doing damage to honest business people, ie burning car dealerships, spiking trees, doing property damage, I would be willing to help hunt down and if it actually called for it, put a bullet in the head of the bastards who did it.....REALLY!!!!

 

BO,

 

Is that you? You're normally so plugged into the political landscape and you normally have a good read on the populace.

 

The environmentalists will not take your gass guzzlin', terrorist friendly, waste of gas truck away... no... it will be taxed to frickin' death at the pumps.

 

Like the fool who pisses the family house away at the horses, you can spend the family inheritance to drive the SUV that you so dearly cherish.

 

I love choice.

 

I'd rather have a big screen TV.

 

To each their own.

 

Mongo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.