04 Feb 2008 Global Warming Alarmists Question the Value of Liberal Democracy
I thought your article “Global Warming Statists Threaten Our Liberty” was a satire, at first. I chuckled at the insistent defense of your unalienable right to CHOOSE an SUV rather than think of the welfare of the world. Risable, really, as was the rest of the article. Alas, it is an earnest, albeit astonishingly misguided, attempt to justify continued selfishness. I’ve come across much contentious material online, but never felt compelled to respond to any author’s opinions. It’s crushingly disappointing to know that since you are part of a bigger “project”, there are others who think similarly and come to the same absurd conclusions. Enjoy your Expedition whilst you can.
An Appalled Scientist,
Critics of Deneen Borelli’s New Visions Commentary (which said “critics of the global warming agenda are motivated… by a love of freedom and civil liberties”) like the writer above remind me of a Prometheus blog post I saw last week about a new environmentalist call for a replacement of our liberal democratic form of government with a more authoritarian one.
Writes Roger Pielke, Jr. on Prometheus, in part:
Have you ever heard anyone make the argument that we must take a certain course of action because the experts tell us we must? The issue might be the threat of another country or an environmental risk, but increasingly we see appeals to authority used as the basis for arguing for this or that action.
In a new book, David Shearman and Joseph Wayne Smith take the appeal to experts somewhat further and argue that in order to deal with climate change we need to replace liberal democracy with an authoritarianism of scientific expertise. They write in a recent op-ed:
Liberal democracy is sweet and addictive and indeed in the most extreme case, the USA, unbridled individual liberty overwhelms many of the collective needs of the citizens…
There must be open minds to look critically at liberal democracy. Reform must involve the adoption of structures to act quickly regardless of some perceived liberties…
We are going to have to look how authoritarian decisions based on consensus science can be implemented to contain greenhouse emissions.
On their book page they write:
[T]he authors conclude that an authoritarian form of government is necessary, but this will be governance by experts and not by those who seek power.
(Read the rest of Roger Pielke’s post and comments to it here.)
Do global warming statists threaten our liberty, as Deneen believes?
Apparently they not only do, some of them are saying so in plain English.