democracy

Gaia’s creator in The Guardian — science scandals, skeptics, and “a more authoritarian world”

by Fran Smith on March 30, 2010

in Environment, Global Warming, Precaution & Risk

In a lengthy interview in The Guardian yesterday, James Lovelock, scientist and inventor, prominent global warming advocate, and originator of the Gaia theory, has some startling comments on recent scandals relating to the science of anthropogenic global warming, AGW skeptics, adaptation and global governance.

His view on the scandals:

“Fudging the data in any way whatsoever is quite literally a sin against the holy ghost of science. I’m not religious, but I put it that way because I feel so strongly. It’s the one thing you do not ever do.”

Lovelock has some surprisingly good words to say about climate skeptics – the good ones, of course:

Lovelock says the events of the past few months have seen him warm to the efforts of some climate sceptics: “What I like about sceptics is that in good science you need critics that make you think: ‘Crumbs, have I made a mistake here?’ If you don’t have that continuously, you really are up the creek.

“The good sceptics have done a good service – but some of the mad ones, I think, have not done anyone any favours. Some, of course, are corrupted and employed by oil companies and things like that. Some even work for governments. For example, I wouldn’t put it past the Russians to be behind some of the disinformation to help further their energy interests. But you need sceptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic.”

What probably is most startling in the interview is Lovelock’s call for a “more authoritative world” to deal with what he sees as the consequences of global warming:

“We need a more authoritative world,” he says resolutely. “We’ve become a sort of cheeky, egalitarian world where everyone can have their say. It’s all very well, but there are certain circumstances – a war is a typical example – where you can’t do that. You’ve got to have a few people with authority who you trust who are running it. They should be very accountable too, of course – but it can’t happen in a modern democracy. This is one of the problems.

“What’s the alternative to democracy? There isn’t one. But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”

It’s clear that Lovelock — in his nineties now — hasn’t changed his dystopian views, as were expressed in his book, “The Revenge of Gaia” and in an interview a few years ago – in 2006 – when the book was published:

“We are in a fool’s climate, accidentally kept cool by smoke, and before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.”

See what CEI has previously written about Lovelock here and in an extensive and thoughtful article by Myron Ebell here.

Turn out the lights, the party’s over… and tomorrow start the same old thing again.

by Anthony Atchison on August 3, 2009

in International, Personal Liberty

Cuba has become more and more destitute since the revolution and has fallen on hard times since the collapse of the Soviet Union, a period also known as the “Special Period”. ( Efrén Córdova)

A recent Economist article entitled “Flickering lights” describes how the current economic slump has forced the Cuban government to ration electricity in a new austerity program for businesses. One cause of the Cuban budget deficit is falling price of nickel. The price of this important Cuban export has fallen from about US$23.00 in May 2007 to around US$7.15 in late June 2009 (Kitcometals.com), which in a state controlled economy means that Cuba is facing a budget shortfall. The brownouts occurring are caused directly by Cuba’s inability to pay for government programs enacted by President Raul Castro.

I had written earlier, in the blog post, ¿Can We Be Amigos?, that there will be no meaningful change in Cuba’s attitude towards the U.S. until real democratic progress is made in that country. President Obama extended the olive branch at the Summit of the Americas, and more recently the Organization of American States  voted to lift Cuba’s 47-year suspension from the regional bloc, with the U.S. requiring Democratic reform. The economist article stated that,

Fidel Castro, reiterated his country’s long-held line that it did not want to be in what it calls an imperialist grouping.

This confirms that the Castro brothers are not interested in promoting Cuba in the Latin American community, but instead their own ideology. I would like to think that the Cuban people would want to participate in the OAS meetings and discussing, making progress, and promoting causes for all of Latin America. Until the Cuban government allows its people’s voices to be heard each summer and each economic downturn they will unfortunately have these same shortages.

Will Obama Blackmail Honduras Into Installing Would-Be Dictator?

by Hans Bader on July 5, 2009 · 3 comments

in Features, International, Legal, Politics as Usual, Sanctimony, Zeitgeist

Last Sunday, Honduras removed its would-be dictator, Mel Zelaya, who flouted court rulings by using intimidation to try to get Hondurans to change their constitution to allow him to extend his tenure in office. The country’s Supreme Court issued a warrant for Zelaya’s arrest, which the military enforced by removing Zelaya from office. The country’s legislature then voted almost unanimously to replace him with a legislative speaker, in accord with the country’s constitution.

Now, Obama, who knows nothing about Honduran law, is ignorantly claiming that Zelaya’s removal was “illegal,” and demanding that Zelaya be reinstated as president. His demand is joined in by the Organization of American States, many of whose leaders, like Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, have either violated their own countries’ constitutions, or likewise seek to eliminate term limits contained in their own countries’ constitutions. (“A senior Obama administration official said the United States would probably move to suspend economic development and military assistance” to Honduras, one of the poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere).

Obama is quite wrong to claim that the removal of Zelaya was “illegal.” The Honduran president forfeited his right to rule under Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution, which bans presidents from holding office if they even propose to alter the constitutional term limits for presidents. And the Honduran military, which acted on orders of the Honduran supreme court, expressly had the right to remove the president for seeking to alter the constitutional term limit, under Article 272 of the Honduran Constitution, as even left-leaning commentators have now admitted. The Honduran military’s role in enforcing the court order does not make it a “coup” anymore than federal troops’ role in enforcing the court-ordered integration of the Little Rock public schools in 1957 constituted a military occupation or takeover.

(Zelaya was a corrupt ruler who so mismanaged his country’s finances so badly that it recently failed to pay many of its bills. His violations of his country’s constitution were criticized by human rights groups and the Catholic Church as well as the legislature and judiciary).

What happened in Honduras was not illegal, much less a coup, agrees the Honduran lawyer and former Minister of Culture Octavio Sanchez in his July 2 column in the Christian Science Monitor. He notes that under Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution, the President automatically lost his right to remain in office by seeking to extend his term in office: “According to Article 239: ‘No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis added], as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.’ Notice that the article speaks about intent and that it also says ‘immediately’ – as in ‘instant,’ as in ‘no trial required,’ as in ‘no impeachment needed.’ Continuismo – the tendency of heads of state to extend their rule indefinitely – has been the lifeblood of Latin America’s authoritarian tradition. The Constitution’s provision of instant sanction might sound draconian, but every Latin American democrat knows how much of a threat to our fragile democracies continuismo presents. In Latin America, chiefs of state have often been above the law. The instant sanction of the supreme law has successfully prevented the possibility of a new Honduran continuismo. The Supreme Court and the attorney general ordered Zelaya’s arrest for disobeying several court orders compelling him to obey the Constitution. He was detained and taken to Costa Rica. Why? Congress needed time to convene and remove him from office. With him inside the country that would have been impossible. This decision was taken by the 123 (of the 128) members of Congress present that day. Don’t believe the coup myth. The Honduran military acted entirely within the bounds of the Constitution. The military gained nothing but the respect of the nation by its actions.”

If Richard Nixon had been impeached and convicted for Watergate, and then refused to leave office, until being forced out by the military, would that have been a “military coup”? Of course not. But Obama and many in the press are taking essentially that position in demanding the reinstatement of Honduras’s would-be dictator.

The fact that the military carried out the Honduran Supreme Court’s orders in removing a would-be dictator, after he flouted the court’s rulings, does not make it a “military coup.” When court orders are defied by powerful government officials, troops are sometimes called out to enforce them, as happened in the U.S. in 1957 when federal troops forced Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus to stop blocking the court-ordered integration of Little Rock’s public schools.

Indeed, Article 272 of the Honduran Constitution gives the military the power to remove a president even without a court order, if he seeks to violate the term limits prescribed in the Honduran Constitution. Even a legal commentator, Litho, at the leading liberal blog Daily Kos, which is run by a leftist Latin American immigrant, admits that the military’s action was “legal” in a “technical sense” under the Honduran Constitution.

A Tide Turning?

by Iain Murray on January 20, 2009 · 1 comment

in Energy, Environment, Global Warming

Very interesting new poll from Rasmussen that suggests a significant reversal in public opinion over the causes of global warming.

Forty-four percent (44%) of U.S. voters now say long-term planetary trends are the cause of global warming, compared to 41% who blame it on human activity.

Seven percent (7%) attribute global warming to some other reason, and nine percent (9%) are unsure in a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Democrats blame global warming on human activity, compared to 21% percent of Republicans. Two-thirds of GOP voters (67%) see long-term planetary trends as the cause versus 23% of Democrats. Voters not affiliated with either party by eight points put the blame on planetary trends.

In July 2006, 46% of voters said global warming is caused primarily by human activities, while 35% said it is due to long-term planetary trends.

In April of last year, 47% of Americans blamed human activity versus 34% who viewed long-term planetary trends as the culprit. But the numbers have been moving in the direction of planetary trends since then.

I must put in the obligatory disclaimer here: I believe that the weight of the scientific evidence points towards human activity having an effect on climate. However, I also believe that this effect is minor and that it is likely to remain minor. Which means that I believe these 44% are wrong. But what is and isn’t true actually isn’t the case here.

The truth is that political action in a democracy depends on what people believe, not on what actually is fact. This significant reversal trend suggests that it will be much harder to justify significant costs – particularly at household level – to combat global warming.

The new Administration and Congress would therefore be wise to step away from expensive anti-energy measures and concentrate instead on improving the resiliency and adaptive capacity of those who are most vulnerable should global warming turn out to be a problem. Otherwise, they run the risk of the electorate reacting like Batman.

Krugman is No Liberal

by Iain Murray on January 6, 2009 · 12 comments

in Features, Personal Liberty, Sanctimony, Zeitgeist

Further to Cord’s post below, a real liberal, not a statist claiming to be one, would be familiar with John Stuart Mill’s argument that minorities need small government to protect them from the “tyranny of the majority“:

The “people” who exercise the power, are not always the same people with those over whom it is exercised, and the “self-government” spoken of, is not the government of each by himself, but of each by all the rest. The will of the people, moreover, practically means, the will of the most numerous or the most active part of the people; the majority, or those who succeed in making themselves accepted as the majority; the people, consequently, may desire to oppress a part of their number; and precautions are as much needed against this, as against any other abuse of power. The limitation, therefore, of the power of government over individuals, loses none of its importance when the holders of power are regularly accountable to the community, that is, to the strongest party therein. This view of things, recommending itself equally to the intelligence of thinkers and to the inclination of those important classes in European society to whose real or supposed interests democracy is adverse, has had no difficulty in establishing itself; and in political speculations “the tyranny of the majority” is now generally included among the evils against which society requires to be on its guard.

Mill goes on to warn that limits on government are not enough, for the tyranny of the majority can also operate through convention – and this is what distinguishes the liberal Mill from the conservative. However, in a world where the liberal victory over convention is well-nigh complete, it is the limitation of the power of government over individuals that is more important. That is where liberalism has failed, because people who presumptuously call themselves liberals have been seduced by the power of the state and seek to use it to impose their own view of the world on everyone. The fatal conceit that Hayek, another great liberal who despised the idea that he might be thought of as conservative, warned against as leading down the road to serfdom has so completely infected modern liberalism that it has become the establishment that Mill warned against (perhaps Nobel laureates form the new aristocracy of this establishment).

It is perhaps a jape by history that conservatives have become the prime guardians of real liberty, but once liberty becomes a tradition, conservatives are bound to uphold it. Mill would recognize this, and approve heartily. If he does not know this, Krugman is not only no liberal, but he is no intellectual either.