'Effective World Government Will Be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe' Says Sci Am Editor

March 18th, 2012 6:52 PM

"Effective World Government Will Be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe."

So read Saturday's headline to Senior Editor Gary Stix's piece at one of the nation's most popular science magazines Scientific American:

A policy article authored by several dozen scientists appeared online March 15 in Science to acknowledge this point: “Human societies must now change course and steer away from critical tipping points in the Earth system that might lead to rapid and irreversible change. This requires fundamental reorientation and restructuring of national and international institutions toward more effective Earth system governance and planetary stewardship.” [...]

The authors called for a “constitutional moment” at the upcoming 2012 U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio in June to reform world politics and government. Among the proposals: a call to replace the largely ineffective U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development with a council that reports to the U.N. General Assembly, at attempt to better handle emerging issues related to water, climate, energy and food security. The report advocates a similar revamping of other international environmental institutions.

Unfortunately, far more is needed. To be effective, a new set of institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational enforcement powers...In principle, species-wide alteration in basic human behaviors would be a sine qua non, but that kind of pronouncement also profoundly strains credibility in the chaos of the political sphere.

Scary stuff.

The senior editor of one of the nation's leading science publications is advocating America and its citizens cede all their economic and energy autonomy to international entities in order to solve a problem many scientists around the world believe either doesn't exist or is not that serious.

Stix's conclusion was even scarier: "If we are ever to cope with climate change in any fundamental way, radical solutions on the social side are where we must focus, though. The relative efficiency of the next generation of solar cells is trivial by comparison."

Keep in mind this is a science publication advocating that we should be less concerned with finding alternative energy sources than "radical solutions on the social side" to deal with a roughly one degree rise in global temperatures in the past 160 years.

If you needed any more evidence that this entire scam is about controlling behavior and really has nothing to do with climate, you got it on Saturday.

As far as this science editor is concerned, the holes that have been poked in the theory of anthropogenic global warming in the years since ClimateGate are totally irrelevant.

The fact that 1934 - when atmospheric CO2 levels were far lower than today - is still the warmest year on record in the United States - albeit a record that has only been in existence since 1850! - also means absolutely nothing to this science editor.

And apparently developing alternative energy sources is of little import as well.

No, the most important thing to this science editor is that an international government structure be created so that behavioral changes are mandated resulting in man producing less of what virtually every species on the planet needs to survive.

We've grown to expect this kind of unscientific hysteria from liberals, Democrats, and their media minions.

But to see this from the senior editor of one of our nation's leading science magazines has to evoke concern for the state of journalism.

Or is that industry really dead as so many on the Right claim?

What exactly is Stix's background to give him expertise in climatology and meteorology to make it acceptable for him to call for such drastic changes in our society?

Well, none really. His biography at World Science Fair reads as follows:

Gary Stix commissions, writes, and edits features, news articles and Web blogs for Scientific American. His area of coverage is neuroscience. He also has frequently been the issue or section editor for special issues or reports on topics ranging from nanotechnology to obesity. He has worked for nearly 20 years at Scientific American, following three years as a science journalist at IEEE Spectrum, the flagship publication for the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. He has an undergraduate degree in journalism from New York University.

So he has an undergraduate degree in journalism and mostly writes about neuroscience.

Does that give him more expertise on the subject of anthropogenic global warming than the thousands and thousands of scientists that have expressed their disbelief in this theory?

Maybe Stix should stick to articles about obesity and stop advocating the end of America as we know it in order to attempt to correct extraordinarily minor climate shifts the earth has managed quite well on its own for millions and millions of years.

That would look far more like science than this apocalyptic call for action.

(H/T Dan Gainor)