It’s always interesting how they tell us that the climate scam is about Science!!!!!, yet their solutions tend to focus on bigger and bigger, stronger and stronger, more controlling government, eh? Climate Depot links to this article, which, when translated, reads
Jørgen Randers, professor of climate strategy at BI Norwegian Business School: “If people don’t want my preferred solution, then people are stupid, shouldn’t be allowed to decide their fate, and we should install a climate dictatorship instead.†– “The advantage is that once decision is made, everything goes quickly. There is no opposition fighting back†is representative of Jørgen Randers’ argument, but actually comes from the same article from Anders Wijkman, who’s spokesperson for the Club of Rome, of which Randers is member of their executive committee.
Climate Depot links to Bjorn Lomborg, who writes
Now Professor Randers — correctly – tells us that democracy is unwilling and unable to pay the exorbitant amounts that he and many other environmentalists are asking us to pay. Surveys of willingness to pay for climate policies show most people in the US are willing to pay $180 per household or $70 per person. In China, the average willingness to pay is $30 per person per year. (They would all rather use it on education, health, poverty alleviation etc.)
Yet, the current Paris promises will cost each American $500 per year, each European $600 and each Chinese $170. Of course, most Americans and Europeans are unlikely to elect leaders that will actually incur a much larger cost than most people are willing to pay.
Moreover, these promises will not *solve* global warming – indeed, they will together achieve almost nothing: By the UN’s own estimate, the Paris Treaty will reduce emissions by less than 1% of what would be needed to keep temperature rises under 2°C and yet cost $1-2 trillion per year by 2030, mostly in reduced GDP growth. So Paris will deliver far less than what most people expect, yet will cost much more than most people are willing to pay. (snip)
But Randers instead takes this unwillingness to spend fortunes on little benefits as an argument for ending democracy. ‘if people don’t want my preferred solution, then people are stupid, shouldn’t be allowed to decide their fate, and we should install a climate dictatorship instead.’ The argument literally seems to be: If I can’t have my way in a democracy, I want my way with a dictatorship.
Loborg notes that people have asked for forms of dictatorship in the past, and it generally doesn’t work out very well. Most Warmists aren’t going as far as Randers, but, they certainly do want to enable government that is extremely controlling, one that will dictate what we do, what we buy, how many kids we can have, what we eat, what forms of transportation we may use and where we may travel, where we live, what we think, all while taking more and more money from us while raising our cost of living. Interestingly, Warmists never think these things will affect themselves negatively. They also mostly refuse to live the carbon neutral life they want everyone else to live.
Not even merely a dictatorship, but a theocracy ruled by a priesthood of “science” that hates the methods and principles of actual scientific inquiry.
I cleared out some silver maple scrub growing near the barn today, and burned it, releasing all sorts of carbon dioxide and other combustion products into the atmosphere. The job is not finished; I have several days more work cleaning up and burning stuff.
In another sense, they are getting what they expect for that price, though they could not see it. What they want is to feel better about having “done something,” which will help save us all. Following the Paris Accords will solve that, anyway.
Or perhaps not. The game may not ever end.
Amusing, isn’t it, that they’d be fine with limiting the number of kids you can have, while at the same time they continue to subsidize bastardy. What, when you consider all the factors I did not mention, does that tell you?