Never talk about a new world order.
We’re on flak-watch tonight, and pop-guns are going off at the ABC. Jeff Sparrow is firing at Maurice Newman, feeling very superior, and doing namecalling, namecalling, all the way down. Get ready for the Sparrow-personality-test based on tenuous speculative associations with random three-word-phrases. This is the best of ABC-big-gov-lovin’ intelligensia.
The fireworks over Maurice Newman’s opinion on how the UN are using climate for their own powerhungry agenda continues. He not only spoke of “world government” he used the words “order”, “new”, and “world”. You and I thought these were simple words in the Oxford Dictionary, but lo, dumb punters, there is a special secret meaning Jeff Sparrow can reveal. Anyone who uses these words in the correct order is probably also a conspiracy theorist, paranoiac, gun nut, religious fanatic, and survivalist. All that psychoanalysis, and in just three words.
Maurice Newman raised a valid topic, but Sparrow ignores the issue, drops a smoke-bomb to distract loaded with namecalling. As mindless as it is, the ABC editors lapped it up. This is the way the big important issues of national importance get treated at the ABC. What is a geopolitical issue of the times becomes a chance to mock televangelists and books from 1987. Bread and circuses. Whatever you do, don’t talk about “World Government”.
Apparently Jeff Sparrow spends hours trawling the dark recesses of conspiracy-land on the Internet, since he’s so familiar with the terms. His mistake is to think that other people do that too. Is Maurice Newman that type? He has been the chair of the ASX, Chairman of Deutsche Bank (Australia), Chancellor of Macquarie Uni, Director of the ABC, Chairman of the Federal Treasurer’s Financial Sector Advisory Council, and the titles go on and on. Perhaps in his spare time at the Stock Exchange, or CHOGM and what not he was checking out Illuminati-Red-Alert sites, and watching UFO’s? Could be, or then again, he might just have been speaking English.
Check the evidence. When Newman spoke the magical phrase “new world order” he was talking about the possibility of the UN using the climate change scare to increase their power, transform economies, and establish an order that was “better than democracy”.
Maurice Newman, The Australian:
Figueres is on record saying democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model. This is not about facts or logic. It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN.
In strict English, this is definitely a potential “world” arrangement, and “new” . It’s an “order” in nearly every transitive and intransitive sense of the word — and several types of noun as well. But Sparrow is so deep into the conspiracy sites himself, he fantasizes the magic code phrase, *New World Order*, and the light goes off (and everything gets dark).
The real question (apart from “which ABC editor could possibly have approved this article?”) is whether Sparrow has read even one of the main skeptic sites. It appears his only news source is probably the ABC, which explains why he gets almost nothing right.
He thinks skeptics should all speak with One Voice, and argue the same arguments, just like unskeptical people do.
You can see those tropes play out today in the propaganda of today’s so-called climate sceptics, who cheerily embrace an array of mutually contradictory arguments against environmental action.
Climate change isn’t happening; it’s happening but it’s not caused by humans; it’s happening and it’s caused by humans but we should just adapt to it.
The God of Groupthink does not like individuality.
And as for “climate change isn’t happening” — the only people who say that are the ones interpreting UN-Speak the way the UN wants them too — their “climate change” does not mean climate change but “man-made global warming”.
Sparrow talks funding but is far behind the data. He only had to use google for something other than a “paranoiac” pursuit. (Go on, Jeff, search for “Climate Money” instead.)
… if scientists are being bribed to spout green rhetoric, where does that money come from?
Where indeed? The money comes from the DoE, ARC, RCUK, NRC, and the Science Board, and it rolls in by the billions, 3500 times more than skeptics ever got. The EU have so much money, they don’t just fund unskeptical scientists, they fund unskeptical activists as well. As if they don’t already waste enough, they can also waste money from fossil fuels, and bankers too.
And the dismal 97% consensus studies should not have been done in the first place, and having been done so ineptly they should be withdrawn. In any case, counting heads in science is just another proxy for funding. It isn’t science. No one asks if there is a consensus on gravity.
After all, the shemozzle around Lomborg’s outfit highlights the resources available to those who buck the climate consensus.
What resources? Lomborg doesn’t buck the climate consensus. He believes it — he just wants to spend their enviro-dollars more wisely, which is why they hate him.
Does anyone seriously believe that researchers definitively proving that polluters could continue burning up coal without any ill effects wouldn’t be deluged with grants and prizes and awards, both from industry and from government?
Sure, see Lomborg, Bjorn, and UWA. How easy is it for a believer to get funds to do skeptical sums about climate economics? As easy as finding bikini’s at the South Pole. White ones.