dreamland stuff.

"Perhaps most importantly we need a global organisation where sustained debate can occur and national leaders be made to answer to each other. This was supposed to be what the UN, and before that the League of Nations, was for. We could revitalise the UN, or create some new body (the voting system in the UN is unfair to large population countries like India, China and Indonesia)".

This will probbaly never happen.

i also think criticising the past in hindsight is far too easy, and not really a contribution by serious academics.

While there are always critics of emerging policy trends, few ever offer any realistic alternatives that prove successful with regard to our liberal democratic experience.

change in recent decades, imo, reflects the reality that there was always going to be limitations in terms of the development of the liberal democratic state in this world of very different states seeking to prosper from trade and capitalism.

For liberal democracies, our policy options are now much harder

"Global warming threatens to destroy civilisation"

Rubbish. Global warming is probably net beneficial. Here are two recent paper on this subject:

Economic impact of energy consumption change caused by global warming

Abstract
This paper tests the validity of the FUND model’s energy impact functions, and the hypothesis that global warming of 2 °C or more above pre-industrial times would negatively impact the global economy. Empirical data of energy expenditure and average temperatures of the US states and census divisions are compared with projections using the energy impact functions with non-temperature drivers held constant at their 2010 values. The empirical data indicates that energy expenditure decreases as temperatures increase, suggesting that global warming, by itself, may reduce US energy expenditure and thereby have a positive impact on US economic growth. These findings are then compared with FUND energy impact projections for the world at 3 °C of global warming from 2000. The comparisons suggest that warming, by itself, may reduce global energy consumption. If these findings are correct, and if FUND projections for the non-energy impact sectors are valid, 3 °C of global warming from 2000 would increase global economic growth. In this case, the hypothesis is false and policies to reduce global warming are detrimental to the global economy. We recommend the FUND energy impact functions be modified and recalibrated against best available empirical data. Our analysis and conclusions warrant further investigation.

Lang, P.A.; Gregory, K.B. Economic impact of energy consumption change caused by global warming. Energies 2019, 12, 3575. https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/18/3575

Climate sensitivity, agricultural productivity and the social cost of carbon in FUND

Abstract
We explore the implications of recent empirical findings about CO2 fertilization and climate sensitivity on the social cost of carbon (SCC) in the FUND model. New compilations of satellite and experimental evidence suggest larger agricultural productivity gains due to CO2 growth are being experienced than are reflected in FUND parameterization. We also discuss recent studies applying empirical constraints to the probability distribution of equilibrium climate sensitivity and we argue that previous Monte Carlo analyses in IAMs have not adequately reflected the findings of this literature. Updating the distributions of these parameters under varying discount rates is influential on SCC estimates. The lower bound of the social cost of carbon is likely negative and the upper bound is much lower than previously claimed, at least through the mid-twenty-first century. Also the choice of discount rate becomes much less important under the updated parameter distributions.

Dayaratna, K.D.; McKitrick, R.; Michaels, P.J. Climate sensitivity, agricultural productivity and the social cost of carbon in FUND. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies 2020,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-020-00263-w

"Perhaps most importantly we need a global organisation where sustained debate can occur and national leaders be made to answer to each other."
Funny how I knew this was where it was going when I started reading the opinion piece.

And No, the computer modelling didn't get it right.

Its examples like this naïve view of the world that makes a mockery of Economics. Before Global Climate Modelling gave us the AGW movement, economists were the world's worst modellers. Like the AGW brigade, they believe their models over reality.

How anyone can ask for another go at a global body after the corruption and bloating found with the UN and its sub branches (including IPCC) is beyond me.

Looking to the past in this sphere of human endeavour is pointless. The world is a far more complex place than ever, and another elite, bureaucratic monster is the last thing we need. The world needs good clear flexible leadership, the total opposite of the likes of the UN.

It is not global warming that "threatens to destroy civilisation" nor "runaway technology", and there is no serious threat of "nuclear war" - or any sort of war.

The real threat is scaremongers like Peter McMahon and other drama queens suffering from recognition deprivation and serious personality disorders. It's people like him who want to "take over (your) lives" by spreading fear and stress.

'Beware of false prophets' might sound a bit religious for some, but it does apply when assessing people like Peter McMahon.

These references confirm Peter's apprehension re the present state and future of the humanly created world-mummery:
http://fearnomore.vision/world/integrity-of-the-whole
http://www.dabase.org/not2p1.htm
http://www.da-peace.org/excerpt-two-is-not-peace
See the essays Everybody-All-At-Once , and Reality Humanity on the da-peace website too
http://www.beezone.com/da_publications/coopcomm.html

Also on the collective universal scapegoating mind set that has created the situation
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/Aletheon/ontranscendingtheinsubordinatemind.html

Academia writing this sort of rot and even worse teaching our kids is far more dangerous than the so called global warming threat. Anyway get with the program Peter it is now 'climate change'.

ttbn: On rare occasions, I'm forced to agree with you. Anyone can have wonderful 20-20 hindsight! That fixes what? The Sargent Shulz Syndrome that most pollies seem to be afflicted with nowadays as they pretend to give a rat's?

If here's too much carbon in our atmosphere! Stop pumping it in! And transition to a carbon-free form of energy, that's, reliable, dispatchable and vastly cheaper than coal, i.e. nuclear!

Not conventional nuclear like, Chernobyl or Fukushima! Or Fukushima or Chernobyl. Or Chernobyl or Fukushima! We all know the sky will fall if we adopt nuclear power!

After all, we know what happened to France, Germany, the UK, the U.S. Russia and Canada when they did! The sky fell and they are now no more!

But unconventional like Oak Ridge, Tenessee and as MSR ( molten salt reactor) Which was successfully field trialled between the 50 and 70s without accident or incident, until that paragon of political virtue, Richard Nixon fulled the funding on the eve of commissioning it as a power generator.

After which he couldn't have!

And the world would now be powered by MSR thorium and MSR deployed to burn nuclear waste, reducing the half-life to 300 years. And power the cheapest in the world. And energy for the world for thousands of years.

The other pieces of the jigsaw are, genuine reform and massive simplification of our two-tiered tax system as a one-tier flat tax of 15%!

And cooperative capitalism as the preferred, prospered and facilitated model. On the clear understanding that, co-ops were the only private enterprise, free-market business model that alone mostly survive the Great Depression largely intact! And because they have no peer in either efficiency or productivity! just need to move with the times and update/modernise at regular intervals!

If dairy Farmers had the sense to stay the course as part of self-owned co-ops? Guess what, none would be moaning about the price structure or their returns. Ditto sugar!

Lesson? You don't fix what ain't broke!
Alan B.

Talk about glass half empty! Or is today April 1? Either way, the world and humanity are in excellent shape with a few minor issues needing to be resolved. The author should read Empty Planet: The Shock of Global Population Decline by Darrell Bricker and John Ibbitson and hopefully he'll realise that climate change and over-use of natural resources are temporary problems that will be rsolved by the turn of the century as human population plateaus and then reduces.

Correction, fulled the funding should read pulled the funding!


Thank you, Grammarly!

Wouldn't recommend you to my worst enemies! Way too much time-wasting vexatious mischief and after posting alterations!? After you've disabled my bought and paid for Microsoft word autocorrect? Which I would recommend!

But then that's what Grammarly is programmed to do as your marketing model? Can't say, or infer blackmail marketing model as that would be libellous, so I won't.
Alan B.

On the climate/bushfire/emergency furore, it has been announced that the main focus of the enquiry into bushfires will be hazard reduction and fuel loads. Back to common sense in one area at least.

My god, a 3 page fact free political whinge!

There are a number of articles telling us about the real state of the planet. They are realistic and show quite clearly we're in a better world than the one we inherited from our parents. Here's just one such article: https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=2435&utm_source=feedotorg&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=fee_partners

Bernie,

Another example on the same theme....

Best decade in human history.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/12/weve-just-had-the-best-decade-in-human-history-seriously/

great decade because of mindless cheap credit, even the UK Spectator should know that

'“FACT you will NEVER see on the 6 o’clock news: U.S. emissions FELL 2.9%, or by 140 million tons, continuing the trend of the United States LEADING THE WORLD IN TOTAL EMISSIONS DECLINE since 2000.”' Ted Cruz

US has cut coal use by 50% since 2005, including 18% in 2019.

however, i don't agree planet is in great shape.

One World Government ? e.g. one government over both Australia and New Zealand ? Tell that to the Kiwis and listen to the frantic paddling.

One government ruling over both India and Pakistan ? Over both Iran and Saudi Arabia ? Turkey and Greece ? Serbia and Croatia ? India and China ? China and Japan ? Or even Britain and the rest of Europe ?

The US and Canada ? The US and Mexico ?

It's a left-fascist fantasy, an extension of Stalin's Socialism in One Country to the rest of the world, only more repressive.

Joe

'One government ruling over both India and Pakistan ? Over both Iran and Saudi Arabia ? Turkey and Greece ? Serbia and Croatia ? India and China ? China and Japan ? Or even Britain and the rest of Europe ?

The US and Canada ? The US and Mexico ?'

agree to an extent Joe. No one could of predicted that an 'educated' group of people could be so dumbed down to believe the gw foolishness. Now we have uneducated 16 year old girls lecturing uni professors. It did not seem to long back that people at least tried to reason.

Well, If all monument BS and shovelled by the shipload by fearmongering, modern-day Luddites has any substance in fact?

Then use it and the world's cheapest ever energy (carbon-free, nuclear waste burning MSR) to resuscitate and rebuild a self-sufficient, major manufacturing economy exporting to the rest of the world! I've laid it out chapter and verse.

And an egalitarian Australia where there are no losers! One, thousands of diggers made the ultimate sacrifice to preserve!

Surely even folk as intellectually challenged as @#%&*^!) Mr Moribund? Will get it!?

Think about it and understand, we were once the third wealthiest nation on the planet and a creditor one at that. where housing was still affordable and for everyone!

WE CAN DO SO MUCH BETTER IF WE STUPIDLY STOP RULING OUR BEST POSSIBLE OPTIONS OUT! To support and suit, tax-avoiding, price gouging, debt-laden, profit repatriating, foreign entities/nationals?

You know, those our pollies suck up to for post-politics advantages/income. Etc/etc/etc!
Alan B.

Well this writer certainly got his come-uppance here lol!
Richly deserved after all he thinks he can teach some green nonsense he gets all he deserves.
Alan B yes those co-ops we destroyed as they were so bad do not seem quite so bad now but there is still the rice monopoly, thank goodness.

'Limits To Growth':
He's just parroting talking points from The Club of Rome who have a global depopulation agenda.

Amidst all the nonsense, the author did identify four true problems:
1) "runaway technology is taking over our lives"
2) "a transnational corporate sector that does what it likes"
3) "a financial system constantly teetering on collapse"
4) "popular culture that recycles the same mindless pap" (of which the author is an example)

Pity that apart from this brief mention, instead of expanding these points, the article only deals with popular nonsense and suggests "solutions" that are even worse than the imaginary problems, even if they were true.

a global depopulation agenda.
Armchair critic,
That sounds ok to me !