RSS Feed
March 23rd, 2012 
FAKE NEWS for the Zionist agenda 
Gary Stix
Scientific American
March 22, 2012
[…] I’ve come to the conclusion that the technical details are the easy part. It’s the social engineering that’s the killer. Moon shots and Manhattan Projects are child’s play compared to needed changes in the way we behave.
[…] This requires fundamental reorientation and restructuring of national and international institutions toward more effective Earth system governance and planetary stewardship.”
[…]
Unfortunately, far more is needed. To be effective, a new set of institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational enforcement powers. There would have to be consideration of some way of embracing head-in-the-cloud answers to social problems that are usually dismissed by policymakers as academic naivete. 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. Some of the things that would need to be contemplated: How do we overcome our hard-wired tendency to “discount” the future: valuing what we have today more than what we might receive tomorrow? Would any institution be capable of instilling a permanent crisis mentality lasting decades, if not centuries? How do we create new institutions with enforcement powers way beyond the current mandate of the U.N.? Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?
Share this article:
5 Responses to “Effective World Government Will Be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Posted in 
Tags: 
It took ten years for one country to put a man on the moon. What if a dozen countries, or even four, decided that in ten years they would rely solely on clean energy? What if, and go ahead and bill this as stimulus since it would actually work, our government gave wages to a 500,000 or so to rebuild our power infrastructure and a network of power stations to refuel electric vehicles? Then auction all of it off to small, local companies capable of micromanagement?
Nah, half a billion to a single company is the better route I suppose.
How is it the Globalists are going to save humanity from a global climate catastrophe, when they are helping to create one in the first place? Has anyone here ever read Report From Iron Mountain, in which an unofficial hand-picked committee of 15 men arbitrarily decided that it was actually “desireable” to “degrade” the environment the economic terrain? And now these same people are portending to want to save the world. What hypocritical posturing! Same old cynical game plan… create the problem offer the “solution” — a “solution” which conveniently happened to exist long before the problem arrived. Indeed, if the Globalusts would cease trying to “save” everyone, when they can’t even save themselves, the world would be a much better place for it. STOP SAVING US let us save ourselves. In the duplicitous surreptitious realm of Globalust “problem solving,” the “solution” most often exists long before the problem is even conceived. Need a “solution?” They’ll come up with a problem. It’s a Doctrine of Credible Threat.
This kind of headline w/o an Infowars editors’ note will fool newbies to the site that Infowars is a believer in climate change and world govt.
“Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?”
Yes, arm every person on Earth. Oops, but then forcing them to give up their freedom becomes impossible. Thus they will have to be disarmed. But then, the malevolent dictator – as opposed to the benevolent dictator who doesn’t mass murder nearly as much – can have his way. Sooo, me Gary Stix thinks we must accept the risk of a malevolent dictator – the one who mass murders real big – abusing world-reaching powers. Me Gary Stix wants a malevolent dictator but me tries not to show I’m a pos.
This article has more to do with giving the UN more executive power over the sovereignty of the US than it has to do with science. Scientific American looks like they have been totally co-opted by the government. I’ll let somebody else lambaste the science. Oh yeah…first.