Greenpeace is calling for the head of Pachauri, the IPCC chairman.
As Mencius Moldbug says, this will not make the patient healthy, it will make the cancer healthy.
The call is not for a replacement who can more impartially discover the truth about anthropogenic global warming, but for a replacement who can more convincingly persuade the public of the truth of anthropogenic global warming, and the terrible harm it will do.
Since commanding us for the good of the proletariat turned out to be a bummer, they will command us for the good of the trees.
The basic strategy is to find that every human act has a vital global externality, so that every human act requires global supervision and centralized permission – for example building a house or choosing a school.
Sorry, you must send your children to the school we choose for you, since if you send them to the school you want, you are wasting carbon.
Sorry, we are not giving you permission to build your house, for it is insufficiently carbon efficient.
And since carbon dioxide is a world wide externality, permissions will ultimately have to come from a world wide organization, the climate treaty organization. We will have a theocracy monitoring us for our sins against the earth, with one world wide papacy and cathedral.
In the end, there will be war, and if we lose that war we shall be slaves, and if we win that war, will need to proscribe environmentalists and diversicrats the way Nazis were proscribed after World War II. You can never compromise with those who would rule you. Appeasement and compromise only works with those whose objectives are limited. With those whose objectives are total and limitless, each concession is merely a stepping stone to the destruction of those who concede.
Both the anti warmist blogs and the pro warmist blogs agree in calling for the replacement of the head of the IPCC. Watts Up With That, Dark Politics, Hot Air, The Right Cup of Tea, The American Interest
Whenever you find yourself on the same side as evil, you should look a little more carefully. The IPCC needs to imprisoned, not fixed, and the ill gotten wealth of its members and contributors confiscated.
Official science is not going to be healed. The scientific method is no more going to be permitted in the pages of “Nature” or “Science” than Jews and Muslims are going to share the middle east peacefully. The stakes are too high, the desires of our enemies too great.
Related to the theme of corruption in science, the Lancet has finally retracted its publication of the Wakefield autism study.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/02/lancet.retraction.autism/index.html
The underlying story here is that there was an attempt to shake down the vaccine companies, after the style of silicone scam, and the attempt failed, because the vaccine companies threatened to fold their tents and go out of business, unless the government gave them special protection against lawsuits, which the government did, elevating vaccine companies above the unjust and capricious law that affects all other businesses, which action would have been a massive violation of the rule of law, were it not for the fact that judges and lawyers have already destroyed the rule of law. Because the vaccine companies were elevated above lawsuits, then it became possible for science to function. If shaking down vaccine companies was still a possibility, the externality would remain salted, and science would remain forbidden in the pages of the Lancet.
Science is not self correcting when money and power depend on it. Science was not corrected by the Lancet. It was corrected by government intervening to shield the assets of vaccine companies.
Isn’t this call to arms a bit like the class warrior who says he is not causing division but responding to it?
A call to war is apt to alarm the onlooker, and most people consider themselves “environmentalists”. I am not saying that such a call is unwarranted–environmentalism is a tailor-made justification for the meglomaniacs among us (YOU’RE KILLING MOTHER EARTH. YOU DON’T DESERVE TO LIVE)–but such a call is apt to be problematic.
Aside from that, calling for imprisonment and confiscation on the basis of fraud sound like fun.
Isn’t someone who in 1938 says the Nazis intend to rule the world a bit like someone in 1938 who says the Jews intend to rule the world?
No.
If you salt an ore body, you are likely to go to jail and lose your house. Salting an externality is a similar fraud, with similar, and often enormously greater, rewards, so should have similar penalties.
Incentives matter. If the rules are that if they win, they get to rule a theocratic world state, and if they lose, it is business is normal, then science has absolutely no chance of prevailing against fraud. If there was no penalty for salting an ore body, all ore bodies would be salted. Because there is no penalty for salting an externality, all externalities get salted, which destroys science, thereby greatly slowing technological progress.