Al Gore on a congressional climate bill:
“But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.”
OMG! He said “global governance”! You know what that means for Andrew Bolt -
The same old dream
Once world government was the obsession of Jew-haters, Illuminati-obessives, the Comintern and the odd dictator. But now it’s mainstreaming:
And he illustrates it with a picture of maniacal old-school Bond villain, Blofeld:
Bolt has skipped over the Godwin overdrive (eg Hitler was a vegetarian; therefore vegetarians are TOTALITARIAN DESPOTS WHO WANT TO ANNEXE THE SUDETENLAND) and developed the same fatuous illogic into – anyone who wants some kind of global decision making body must want a DIABOLICAL FASCIST ONE. Al Gore wants a form of international governance, eh? So did Stalin!
It’s true – anyone who proposes a democratically-elected constitutionally secure international “government” is probably the antichrist.
Note, it doesn’t matter what sort of global government – it’s the reach of it that makes all such proposals exactly the same. The specifics don’t matter – just like a totalitarian country is indistinguishable from a democratic one, a totalitarian One World Government is little different to a democratic One World Government. Carbon reduction targets are just like gulags (for the poor, innocent profits of polluting industries).
So, although Andrew Bolt’s attempt to compare Al Gore with Bond villains and dictators might look like the most absurd and far-fetched drivel to issue from his keyboard since that fevered Peter Costello worship, perhaps we shouldn’t mock too hard.
Remember – first they came for the industrial-scale carbon emissions, and I did not speak up, because I was not an industrial-scale emitter of carbon…
38 Comments
LOL he just keeps getting more and more hysterical.
You’re right, Jeremy. Bolt was silly to compare Gore to a Bond foe because the twit mentioned global governance. He should have rightly compared to this guy:
http://www.mercurycatfish.com/Graphics/AssClown.gif
Or better still this guy:
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/img/large_m1735744.jpg
for an even more hysterical effect.
What is it with Conservatives and personal insults?
Aww. Poor tee. All his heroes are out of power, and all his ideas and theories are in the toilet bowl of history. Poor thing. Here’s a tissue.
Of course, if it had been Bush or Costello suggesting we needed a World Government, Bolt would have been completely in favour….
Bolt’s crumbling at the edges on climate change these days. His hero Plimer gets his arse whipped by George Monbiot here.
He hasn’t referred to the NSIDC website since March, when the Arctic ice extent looked like it was heading upwards: almost the moment he linked to it, the extent headed down to previous record lows as if by magic.
His other great quote, Roger Pjelke, has had his graphs ripped to bits on RealClimate.org.
His foolishness is coming home to roost.
Worm, you incredibly silly person. The blog you’re commenting on exists to allow commenters such as yourself the opportunity to throw hissy fits at Blot and Blair. What a complete hypocrite and/or dummy you are to to even make that comment here. It’s like fish in barrel with you.
In any event my comment wasn’t an insult, dummy. It was mockery, which is showing contempt for Gore through derision as he is one mighty contemptible and despicable person.
You’re really not that bright, worm… as though I needed reminding from the stupid comments you post at LP.
And as for abuse, you hypocritical twerp, you’re the last one to talk.
Bert.
You really shouldn’t assume my heroes are out of power. Unlike you I don’t have political heroes, dumphy. They’re all blood suckers, however some are much, much worse than others. (Putting out your hand for another 900 bucks like a beggar?).
Monkey:
Explain in your own words the math in that climate science discussion and why Roger P is wrong. I’m not saying he’s right, however I would like to see you explain it in a way that shows you really do understand the arguments and why one party is wrong or right. I’m not suggesting a summary either or going to wiki and lifting an explanation what linear regression is for example. Just demonstrate that you appreciate and understand the math. I bet you can’t and I’d lay odds you have no idea whatsoever as you probably didn’t get through 9 grade remedial math. You tribalist numbnut.
Jeremy – re post no 7. Does “man not ball” only apply to us Leftys? Are right-wingers free to come in here and fling (totally irrelevant and childish) insults about with complete immunity?
tee – genuinely curious. Why are all the right-wingers so convinced that AGW is a furphy? Is it not possible to be a conservative AND be concerned about the health of the planet?
Bolt’s crumbling at the edges on climate change these days
he certainly is, and you don’t have to look any further for proof than his boosters getting more and more aggro and desperate in defence of their hero. LOL.
What’s with the obsession with Guy Rundle, tee?
“I bet you can’t and I’d lay odds you have no idea whatsoever as you probably didn’t get through 9 grade remedial math. You tribalist numbnut.”
good to see you avoiding the personal insults. I’m yet to see one of your comments add anything constuctive to the discussion. keep it up.
Bertus – it applies to everyone, but we try to be easygoing.
Tee, everyone, calm down. I’m going to have to start moderating any comments on this thread that are abusive.
Hey, isn’t paranoia about ‘One World Government’ a lunar Right theme? And by lunar Right I mean the people who were too extreme even for the Hansonites—the LaRouchite ‘Citizen’s Electoral Council’ for instance, not wussy ‘I don’t take sides, I’m rooly trooly Independent’ folk like t**.
Is AB a LaRouchite? Enquiring minds wish to know.
Okay Bert let’s start on another footing for a while, until at least Jeremy forgets, there’s no complaints and we can go back to the old way of doing things. LOL
This is gunna be a little long so please be patient as you asked the question and I need to give you an honest answer.
tee – genuinely curious. Why are all the right-wingers so convinced that AGW is a furphy?
Dunno, Bert. I can’t answer for conservatives, as I really don’t know, I’m not one. However I’ll speculate. I actually don’t think it’s just them that are skeptical as there are lefties that are so too.
Take a look the Strangetimes blog and you’ll find Marxists that are absolutely vocal about their skepticism even more so than rightwingers in certain ways. Not all the senior cabinet officials in the Rudd government are buyers either I might add but they’re staying quiet as it’s government policy now.
Some people honestly don’t think it’s happening. I do, but I’m very uncomfortable sitting on the same side as people like Ken Livingston, the former London mayor, as I don’t even want to be sharing the same planet as he does.
Is it not possible to be a conservative AND be concerned about the health of the planet?
I also think you’re confusing various groups. There are people like Bolt who think it’s total bullshit and look for anything to justify their view. There are others like me, who believe it’s real enough and a potentially big freaking problem, that it exemplifies that “tragedy of the commons” (look it up) argument and that clearer property rights would clean things up. However I do concede the property rights issue is hard to deal with seeing it’s to do with the atmosphere. How do you confer property rights up there? Perhaps people should have ownership of land “from the core to the heavens”? I also concede that won’t be happening any time soon.
Okay, there is also the group that thinks the current proposals are a total crock of shit and that the cap and trade is the biggest rent-seeking racket in history.
Here’s what I think about it all.
So far the warming we’re talking about has actually been quite benign, as the world has warmed about .65 degrees over the past century. Of course, people argue, we need to worry about what happens 50-100 years from now.
That may be true however it also ignores startling things like technological innovation.
There is also the fact that the US would be possibly 80% nuclear like France and Sweden by now if the environmental movement hadn’t frightened the shit out of people in the 80’s and stopped development/technical advancement dead in its tracks. I would bet we could well be nearer a 5th or 6th generation reactor by now if things weren’t stopped.
Ok now we get to the real point. The science is actually quite easy to understand; or rather the scientists are telling us that a certain amount of Co2 will produce so much heating in a logarithmic scale. In other words moving from 380 parts per million to 580 may not produce the same heating as we’ve seen from 280 to 380 (the difference is attributable to AGW). Going from best estimates, which is the IPCC report, the expected warming is about 2 degs by 2100 and this will cause about a meter of water rise. This is a problem but it will be hardly a disaster.
This is where the science leaves us and we then have to decide how to best organize ourselves, which is where economics and economists come in the picture. I really believe the science is the easy bit; it’s the economics that’s the hard part.
The most publicized report we’ve seen is the Stern Report that discusses the economics. Stern has been heavily criticized for not using commonly accepted economics principles in his report as he understated the cost of capital and used a very low discount rate. You can go to the web to read the criticisms.
Stern applied the science and then factored what he thought were the costs of AGW by 2100. He thought that the cost to GDP would be about 20% by 2100 if we didn’t mitigate. In other words that’s how much it would cost the world if we didn’t do anything.
Stern said we should spend 1% of GDP as an insurance policy
Here’s my issue. Now this is quite rough by it gives a reasonable picture of whether we should mitigate or not.
Current world GDP is $65 trillion.
World GDP in the long term has been growing at around 3.5% per annum and that trajectory has actually been accelerating, so it could be understating things a little, which is really important.
If world GDP is now $65 trillion and we leave the growth rate unmolested, that is we don’t mitigate global GDP in 2100 will be $1,487 trillion by 2100 … growing at 3.5%. If don’t mitigate Stern says we will lose 20% of GDP by that time.
So unmolested and unmitigated GDP in 2100 after lopping off 20% for the cost of AGW will be :
$1,487 trillion * (100%-20%)= $1,190 trillion
Now if we take Sterns assumption that it will cost us 1% per annum to take out insurance, that is we mitigate, the growth rate drops to only 2.5% as the potential and perhaps even lower, but lets use 2.5%.
So the GDP molested for mitigation (by 1%) becomes $614 trillion.
So Bert, the case is actually not for mitigation at the present time or it isn’t until we know more about the science or the science tells us it is really going to be really bad and not as benign as the IPCC says.
The reason is that growth rates over oceans of time really do matter.
The difference is $1,190- 614 = $575 trillion
So the world will lose $575 in GDP growth potential over that period of time when we may not really have to anything at all. Rather we could adopt better options that could actually help us and improve our economic growth potential rather than reduce it.
Perhaps the world should remove all trade barriers, as it would immediately create efficiencies in all sorts of areas. Take agriculture for instance. Agriculture would move to places that could best produce our food supplies in the most intensive + efficient manner and take out those producers that can’t. This would allow for a vast amount of land reclamation.
We should also remove height restrictions in cities so that you bring people inside a certain parameter, which obviously helps with public transport use for commuting purposes.
Remove the silly barrier to nuclear energy.
Impose a graduated carbon tax rather than a cap and trade and have the carbon tax offset income taxes as all you want is to change behavior.
Those are the sorts of things you could do.
Let me tell you though that the present cap&trade will create enormous rent seeking and will do little to mitigate with the overall effect that it will end up being so hated that it will be scrapped and put mitigation efforts back by decades. In other words Rudd’s plan will do little at huge cost to our economic well-being and become so unpopular that people will/may simply want to scrap it.
The best way forward would be to create polices that aren’t potentially hugely controversial with a sizable majority of people. A carbon tax with income tax offsets would be ideal.
That’s my position; Bert .
Note I didn’t proof read so please forgive typos.
Andrew of course as ever has selective hearing, we have Global governance on Global agreements and they are the ones that protect against the excesses of dictators. Agreements against trade in endangered species, slavery, chemical and biological wepons to name a few. The last named were used by Bush and Howard to invade Irqa, so is global agreement wrong?
And why do we keep getting disruptive commentors using short names like Tee, they keep trying to make an impression but allways fail.
re:Bertus@7:29pm, Bolt alluded to this idea (www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/innovations/data/000035) in both his constant critiquees of the UN and during the Pres campaign last year.
But seriously, listening to Bolt on foreign and security policy, environment policy, in fact, anything (he has no serious qualifications to back his over-prominent place in the public debate on any issue that I am aware of) is pointless.
His ability to get his mug in as many places as possible merely speaks to the paucity of conservative thought and commentary in this country.
Perhaps Bolt advocates a pre-emptive strike on the sun. That’s how I understand he prefers to get things done.
Note I didn’t proof read so please forgive typos.
Until reading that last line I had been pondering if our urbane friend Abu was visiting under another guise.
Surlyman:
I’m not trying to make any sort of impression. That’s a stupid comment to make.
You don’t seem to understand the difference between global governance, that the oxygen thief, Gore, was making and international agreements.
When you’ve learned the difference come back and talk.
tee – thanks for the thoughtful response. I think the searchlight-like obsession with CO2 and AGW is a furphy however. The problem is far broader; it’s only Bolt and his cronies who keep obsessing about CO2.
It seem to me that underlying all you say above is an assumption that the risks will be downside; that it won’t as bad as the pessimists forecast, even if the worst does come to pass. This is what I thought up until a few years ago. Ralph Nader was wrong about the population bomb, the Club of Rome were wrong about everything running out, Rachel Carson was wrong about there being a Silent Spring, so these AGW alarmists would end up being wrong too. We’d muddle through like we always do.
Then I began to think, well actually, the Club of Rome CAN’T be wrong in the end. The only thing they got wrong (badly, and perhaps deliberately) was the timeline. If we persist with this semi-circular economy of digging stuff up, elaborately transforming it, then dumping it into landfill, or even worse in the case of oil, burning it and dumping the exhaust products into the atmosphere where it’s not recoverable at all, eventually the Club of Rome have to be right. And so probably do Nader and Carson.
The only way this can’t be true is if you believe the Earth is connected by some Dr Who quantum tunnel to a benevolent entity in a higher dimension which is helpfully replenishing the oil, etc.
This doesn’t appear to be the case, though appearances can be deceptive.
So CO2 and AGW are only one small corner of the challenge, and the Boltards obsess on it for the express purpose of producing more heat than light. You’d have to ask them why they think that’s a good idea. Karl Marx said about 150 years ago that Capitalism contains the seeds of it’s own destruction. Even old Karl didn’t dare prophesy though, that Capitalism would take the whole planet down with it.
“Karl Marx said about 150 years ago that Capitalism contains the seeds of it’s own destruction. Even old Karl didn’t dare prophesy though, that Capitalism would take the whole planet down with it.”
Its all that nasty West’s fault again — of course none of the Communist nations’ industries pollute the atmosphere do they Bertus…
tee, needs something to calm him down.
Bolt has painted himself into a corner on climate change but it doesn’t really matter for him. As long as he makes heaps and the HUN has a healthy circulation, Bolt will continue to do well. My advice is don’t read his articles and go to realclimate.org for excellent coverage of the climate change issue.
http://www.realclimate.org/
Rust:
I’m usually calm until I see or read rank stupidity and unfortunately there’s a truck load of rank stupidity at this site.
My advice is don’t read his articles and go to realclimate.org for excellent coverage of the climate change issue.
Exhibit A in rank stupidity.
Gavin Schmidt runs a propaganda site over there. It’s nothing more than a collection of alarmists propagandizing alarmist nonsense and catastrophe.
In any event Schmidt is not even fully qualified as a climate scientist and the site was actually set up by a far left-wing PR. firm.
WTF? What do you define as a ‘disaster’ then – the obliteration of the earth by a meteor??
Firstly, any rise in temperature globally increases the occurence of extreme weather events (there is actuarial evidence that this is already happening, which is why insurance companies were amongst the first to take cc seriously). This means an increase in cyclones, tornadoes, floods, droughts, extreme frost, bushfires etc etc and also means that these extreme events will follow each other quickly upon each other, making it more difficult for impacted communities to recover.
Secondly, a metre rise is huge and will have corresponding impacts on human populations. The most densely populated regions on earth are almost all below the metre line. This means there will be massive – in the billions- dislocation of populations. We think a few hundred refugees is a problem.
All of this is complicated by the continued increase in human population. We are already exploiting as much of the planet as can reasonably be exploited – if even a portion of land becomes unviable due to increases in temperature/rising water levels/extreme weather then people starve.
The heightened population levels also mean that there’s nowhere (relatively speaking) for people to move to.
Anyway, it’s obvious that tee’s definition of ‘disaster’ and that of your average punter as vastly different things.
OK tee, tell us which articles are “stupid” and why?
That is if you have really read much of the material at real climate.
Have you examined the latest IPCC report, tee?
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/11/andrew_bolt_clueless_and_disho.php
Bolt gets hammered at Deltoid. Can’t understand why people like tee desperately defend Bolt. {Sorry, assertions about personal character had to be removed – Toby.} He writes for the HUN. They don’t care about climate change, just outselling more papers than the Age.
Tee
you really are just trying to avoid the facts, how is a Global Agreement on climate change and different than the ones we already have you silly man. Bush used the global ban on chemical weapons to remove a soveriegn govt, and never found a single weapon. You are obviously blind to the facts and for you to call Gore a waste of oxygen just shows how biased you really are. What it is with the right and paranoia?
Sorry for the delay but I’m in Barcelona so a different time zone
zoomster:
I’ll repeat, this is a big problem but hardly a disaster.
WTF? What do you define as a ‘disaster’ then – the obliteration of the earth by a meteor??
No, of course not, that’s an idiotic statement to make.
Firstly, any rise in temperature globally increases the occurence of extreme weather events (there is actuarial evidence that this is already happening, which is why insurance companies were amongst the first to take cc seriously).
Insurance companies are working on estimates and predictions like we are, so of course they factor that into their actuarials. We’ve had a rise in temps of about .65 degrees and global GDP has risen for the past 100 years since that event has occurred. I think you’re watching far too many disaster movies.
This means an increase in cyclones, tornadoes, floods, droughts, extreme frost, bushfires etc etc and also means that these extreme events will follow each other quickly upon each other, making it more difficult for impacted communities to recover.
Perhaps it does although extreme weather patterns at this stage are not certain.
Secondly, a metre rise is huge and will have corresponding impacts on human populations.
Move back from the beach about a meter then.
The most densely populated regions on earth are almost all below the metre line.
Dumphy, one of the most densely populated countries on earth is Holland. They’ve been below the water line for a couple of hundred years and they manage quite well. In fact they’re one of the richest countries on earth on per cap basis. The reason they’ve been able to manage is because they’ve been able to build dykes etc to keep the water out. Smart Suckers, hey?
This means there will be massive – in the billions- dislocation of populations. We think a few hundred refugees is a problem.
Depends on the rate of warming and also out ability to adapt. Holland has been able to, so why assume that as other nations become wealthier they won’t be able to achieve the same thing? Ummm?
All of this is complicated by the continued increase in human population.
Bullshit.
We are already exploiting as much of the planet as can reasonably be exploited – if even a portion of land becomes unviable due to increases in temperature/rising water levels/extreme weather then people starve.
And you know this because you say so. What’s your evidence other than a stupid assertion?
The heightened population levels also mean that there’s nowhere (relatively speaking) for people to move to.
In 1998 or thereabouts the Economist ran a story that at the time you could fit the entire world’s population in the state of Texas in a multi family home set up. You’re over egging your assertion again
Anyway, it’s obvious that tee’s definition of ‘disaster’ and that of your average punter as vastly different things.
Do you wake up each morning, expecting water to be swirling around your bed?
It’s the rate of warming that is the big issue, not the degree of warming that’s important if we assume the IPCC ‘s estimate to be reasonable and so far that’s the best estimate.
Rust:
Why are you saying I’m defending Bolt? What have I said to specifically defend him. Asserting there’s some real weird stuff being said here is not a defense of Bolt at all, {name-calling removed – Toby}.
You’re wrong again…. is this becoming a habit for you?
Surly says:
you really are just trying to avoid the facts, how is a Global Agreement on climate change and different than the ones we already have you silly man.
Agreements does not constitute global governance, dude. That’s two different things. look up the definitions.
Bush used the global ban on chemical weapons to remove a soveriegn govt, and never found a single weapon.
So AGW is Bush’s fault?
You are obviously blind to the facts and for you to call Gore a waste of oxygen just shows how biased you really are.
Not really. I followed his career for a long time.. even in the 80’s. He was a scumbag then and is a scumbag now. Nothing’s changed.
Sorry for the delay but I’m in Barcelona so a different time zone
I thought so, as you’re sounding awfully like Manuel from Barcelona outta Faulty Towers.
Tee where did I say Bush caused GW? Global agreements required Global Governance to be effective. Clearly here the one being obtuse is you. And just because you think Gore isn’t to your taste we should all be against him. Where’s you evidence? And name calling is something most of us stopped using to win arguments in primary school, but not you I see.
I begin to suspect a Jay clone
How about discussing an article from realclimate?
Which do you have a problem with?
tee, read the following
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/#more-686
“I begin to suspect a Jay clone”
Good call, same smartarsery, similar style… I don’t believe for a minute that he /she doesn’t visit Bolt after the pathetic effort regarding David Hicks arrest, he got it straight from a post at Bolt’s yesterday. You know when somebody is copying, they copy the mistakes too. LOL
Avoiding the question? What would you see as a disaster, then?
No, talking to too many experts in the field, including insurance actuaries.
Extreme weather events, not weather patterns. (Comprehension is good). The increase in extreme weather events was one of the trends identified through insurance claim figures and verified by climate scientists.
Trite.
There are many areas of the world which are densely inhabited and which are below a metre from sea level but are not close to the beach at all.
We’re not talking about innundating St Kilda here, or housing their desperate refugees.
Smarter than you.
Try telling the Bangladeshi that all they need to do is build dykes. Their whole country is basically one vast river delta.
Bangaladesh is one of the poorest countries in the world as well, so they don’t have the same options as Holland.
You can throw a couple of the steamier Asian countries into the mix as well and a lot of the Pacific islands.
Again, all too poor to take effective measures against flooding and in many cases it would be useless anyway.
Places like Bangladesh are so far behind the eightball they won’t get there in time. We don’t have hundreds of years here. If we’re lucky, we’ve got decades.
And yours is?
Did it also say that Texas could feed them, provide clean drinking water and find them a job?
You could probably fit all the atoms of all the people on earth on the head of a pin if you really tried, but it wouldn’t do them much good.
No, but it did happen once.
And the IPCC, unlike you, see this as a disaster. If you agree with their estimates then I can’t see why you’re disagreeing with their predictions (on which most of my staements are based).