Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

A Distracting Doctrine

—

by

James A. Bacon
in , , ,

agenda21Instead of fixating on the United Nation’s Agenda 21 as a threat to American liberties, conservatives should articulate fiscally responsible, market-driven policies to address the very real challenges facing local governments in the United States.by James A. Bacon

The anti-Agenda 21 movement, which views the United Nations as the prime mover behind local sustainability initiatives, is a growing force in many states and local governments across the United States. While anti-Agenda 21 theorists share some of the same language and principles as mainstream conservatives, they have little meaningful to contribute to the debate over environmental, transportation, land-use and property-rights issues. Their ill-documented conspiracy talk distracts from the kind of discussions that conservatives should be having. To govern effectively, conservative elected officials need to re-frame the debate over growth and development in a way that is forward-looking, grounded in hard facts and in line with conservative values.

The Anti-Agenda 21 Movement

Over the past few years, the anti-Agenda 21 cause has emerged from obscurity into a force capable of pushing resolutions through state legislatures. The movement is populist and decentralized — many adherents are ordinary citizens whose passions have been inflamed in local land-use disputes — although it does have the backing of the John Birch Society and talk show personality Glen Beck. In some states, Anti-Agenda 21 partisans have leveraged their influence by co-opting local Tea Parties and other groups sympathetic to property rights and limited government. Sometimes they find a sympathetic ear among conservative elected officials. But they also use aggressive means – packing public meetings, singling out politicians for vocal criticism – to intimidate local officials with more moderate views into going along.

Activists disseminate their views by means of speeches, books, websites, fliers, YouTube videos and social media. There is no definitive source for the anti-Agenda 21 movement. Most writing is impressionistic and scattershot. However, several themes do appear repeatedly in the literature.

(1) The Agenda 21 agreement adopted at the 1992 United Nations conference in Rio de Janeiro is the fountainhead of the global sustainability movement. The document provides a comprehensive plan for achieving “environmental sustainability” and “social justice” at the expense of property rights and individual liberties.

(2) Agenda 21 provides a blueprint for a radical restructuring of the American way of life. Social-engineering goals include returning much of North America back to a wild and natural state, herding Americans into dense urban centers, replacing single family dwellings with multifamily housing and phasing out the automobile in favor of bicycles and mass transit.

To read the full white paper, click here.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

39 responses to “A Distracting Doctrine”

  1. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    An interesting, well-argued paper. However, are there any more concrete examples of how the anti-Agenda 21 activists are becoming a force? I’ve nly heard of them sporadically.

    1. James A. Bacon Avatar
      James A. Bacon

      The anti-Agenda 21 crowd has been fairly quiescent in Virginia in the last year from what I can tell, but they still erupt periodically in other states.

      1. larryg Avatar
        larryg

        http://fredvapats.org/forum/topics/sustainable-development-and

        these folks have always been around.. but the internet is what gave them voice and enabled them to “find” each other – and then organize.

        I think the founding fathers probably never anticipated the creation and power of the internet but then again – most of these groups believe that the founding fathers are the ones whose principles they now advocate for.

        there is absolutely no question though that getting out to vote is more important than ever because if these groups prevail – we’ll be living in a very different country than right now – and things like Smart Growth, Mass Transit and Medicare, Social Security, the EPA, OSHA, Commerce and Energy and Education will totally go away.

        Our cities were morph into versions of what we see in non-OECD countries.. Cairo, Mogadishu, Kathmandu etc..

      2. TMT Avatar
        TMT

        Smart Growth and it’s “overwhelming environmental benefits” are being touted regularly by landowners and developers who want to put density where is not intended.

        Fairfax County agreed to put heavy density in Tysons and lesser density at other Metrorail stations. OK. But we are also seeing proposals to put Tysons-style density well away from any rail transit. For example, WRIT has proposed to double the size of the Ashby apartments with a FAR above what Capital One is planning for its property at the McLean Silver Line station in Tysons. The WRIT proposal is papered with Smart Growth and environmental BS. “We want to get rid of a parking lot, but need huge increases in density to pay for the high costs of underground parking.” The Comp Plan recommends no major changes for the block on which the Ashby sits.

        It doesn’t seem unreasonable to me for people to attack Smart Growth when it has been hijacked and when local elected officials are silent about the hijacking as is the case in McLean.

        1. James A. Bacon Avatar
          James A. Bacon

          The rhetoric of Smart Growth (and its cousin New Urbanism) is routinely hijacked by developers looking for special treatment. It’s incumbent upon citizens, politicians and proponents of Smart Growth to scrutinize projects like the one you describe especially closely. We don’t give someone a pass just because he says he’s for “smart growth.”

          On the other hand, back to my white paper… The anti-Agenda 21 people don’t engage in that kind of analysis. They’re in a fantastical conspiracy world.

          1. larryg Avatar
            larryg

            ” On the other hand, back to my white paper… The anti-Agenda 21 people don’t engage in that kind of analysis. They’re in a fantastical conspiracy world.”

            Actually the Agenda 21 folks down this way are saying places like NoVa create externalities for others – like spreading sewage sludge, but also using remote power plants instead of producing power inside their boundaries.. ditto food….ditto not properly treating storm water runoff and polluting rivers that people downstream are impacted by… etc.

            The Agenda 21 folks directly question the claim of “sustainability” for Smart Growth and urban areas in general.

            what about that?

            are urban areas subsidized by non-urban areas who have to take their sewage, their trash, storm water, power plant pollution and even agricultural runoff from crops and livestock being grown to provide food to the urbanized places?

          2. TMT Avatar
            TMT

            The concept of “sustainability” is pretty mushy. Probably the only people who sustain their selves are the subsistence hunters living in a cabin off the grid in Alaska. Any many of them aren’t doing that because they have a TV crew following them.

            Civilization is based on specialization. Not everyone needs to survive on subsistence hunting and gathering. Humankind went from families to small communities to villages to cities to states to countries. So the idea that electric power plants must be located in every jurisdiction, which must also contain farms for food consumed by the residents in the same jurisdiction, is pure foolishness. If that were the case, then the tax revenue generated by Fairfax County residents should also stay 100% in Fairfax County. Aren’t these tax dollars an externality as well?

        2. larryg Avatar
          larryg

          Isn’t there a tradition of density in NoVa? Wasn’t Reston that kind of development?

          In terms of density in general and urban areas in general – is there something particularly unique about efforts to densify in Fairfax than any other urban and urbanizing areas?

          speaking of anti-urban… we have a proposal down our way to put waste-water sludge from Blue Plains on 5000 (more) acres of Spotsylvania and some folks down this way who do not believe the EPA and DEQ when they say it’s safe are saying that this amounts to a subsidy for NoVa and that NoVa should be responsible for processing the sludge into inert by-products instead of trucking it down our way to spread on fields where adjacent neighbors will have to smell it and worry about it’s affect on groundwater and surface runoff in their nearby streams.

          I wonder what the price of water/sewer would look like in a place like Fairfax if they had to process it within their borders and not export it other jurisdictions?

          1. TMT Avatar
            TMT

            With the exception of the Reston Towne Center, the original covenants limit density in Reston to a specific number (13 persons – as I recall) per acre. A lot of homeowners like this limit. A lot of people who want to make money from denser development are upset.

            The real issue in Fairfax County is that, absent a radical change to the character of the county, we are about built out. Most public facilities are at or beyond their limits. And raising taxes for development is harder to do. The proposed county budget for FY15 results in an average real estate tax increase for residents of 6.54%, while average income went up c. 2.1% in 2013. The county retains its AAA bond rating, but cautions have been raised. More low-income people are moving to Fairfax County, while more higher-income people are moving out. People ask the question: What’s in it for me if we have more development in the county? -Not much.

            Also, despite the rah-rah rhetoric, all the commercial development in Fairfax County has not helped to stem residential tax increases. It was good that Fairfax County has attracted Hilton, VW and soon, Intelsat. But those companies bring nothing directly to residents of the county. This is not Prudhoe Bay oil revenues. Moreover, Fairfax County’s commercial real estate taxes revenues are flat to slightly lower, and the office vacancy rate is the highest since 1991. The average Joe and Jane don’t get squat from further development.

            And what would Spottsy real estate taxes look like if it did not get to import state tax dollars at a rate above the percentage of tax dollars sent from Spotsylvania County to Richmond?

  2. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    It’s really not just Agenda 21. It’s a variety of groups that all have “problems” with governance – real and imagined and yes conspiracy theories now run rampant not only on climate but even things like local zoning … it’s almost like a legion of Luddite warriors..

    these groups will generally align themselves with Conservatives at elections – and even play a role in just how “conservative” a given candidate can be – or not – and still get elected.

    But there is a problem – and that is these various amalgamated groups, cannot themselves, agree on agenda on what we should do.

    And you can see this now with the GOP in terms of the problems they are having – coming up with – for instance – a united position of immigration.

    It all works according to how the founding fathers set up our governance and I suppose they felt that if there was not agreement – that gridlock was acceptable Things we cannot agree on – we don’t do …and the status-quo continues..

    so the big divide wedge issues are becoming contests of “principles” versus “compromise” where “compromise” has become the enemy of “good” as well as “perfect”.

    If we cannot agree on immigration, same-sex marriage, health care, minimum wage, what spending to cut and what to not cut we just let them fester.

    We’re seeing a state version of this now with the MedicAid Expansion.

    there is no acceptable solution in the middle. It’s yet another litmus test and any Conservative who seeks the middle ground will be challenged in the next primary.

    so – to reiterate – we have a bunch of groups that are opposed and will vote against anyone who agrees with enough of their “anti” positions – but the groups as a whole cannot agree on how to go forward – on a wide variety of issues so the result is virtual gridlock in the legislative process.

    is this really what the Founding Fathers intended?

  3. TMT Avatar
    TMT

    The US should push for a 50% reduction in UN jobs.

    When people vote for people who don’t agree on key issues, they are voting for gridlock. And that’s not always bad as fewer never-unfundable programs get started. That’s why I’d like to see a supermajority be required to approve budgets or changes in tax rates. We’d have fewer legislative accomplishments, but the ones that passed would have broad support. Government would float somewhere in the middle.

    Terry McAuliffe ran on a pro-expand Medicaid agenda and won. Most GOP delegates ran on an anti-expand Medicaid agenda and won. The recent 100th district delegate race was somewhat of a referendum on Medicaid expansion. The GOP won. I don’t expect the Democrats to rollover and play dead. Nor do I expect the GOP to do that. So we will have a stalemate on lots of issues. Is that so bad? If it is, why did we vote that way?

    1. larryg Avatar
      larryg

      re: ” why did we vote that way?”

      well I did not vote for gridlock.

      I voted for compromise on what we could not agree on – meet in the middle – half loaf – etc, and all that rot.

      did the folks on the other side vote instead for gridlock if they could not get their way 100%?

      1. TMT Avatar
        TMT

        Larry, the voters elected three Democrats to the statewide constitutional offices and a heavy GOP majority in the House. The Senate, as you know, was not up for election, but special elections and the win for the Democrats for the Lt. Governor’s seat gave control to the Democrats despite a 20-20 tie. If that’s not a purposeful split of power and a likelihood of gridlock, what is?

        Of course, some people voted a straight ticket, but there must have been many who split their votes between the two Parties.

        Do you expect one side or the other to roll over? If so, which side; and why? I see a lot of status quo and a number of negotiated compromises.

        1. larryg Avatar
          larryg

          re: ” Do you expect one side or the other to roll over? If so, which side; and why? I see a lot of status quo and a number of negotiated compromises.”

          no .. I expect BOTH of them to give a little and find some middle ground.

          do you think that compromise and reaching a middle ground as “rolling over”?

          I see compromise as the goal. surely we can both give a little to move forward.

        2. larryg Avatar
          larryg

          Part of the problem TMT is that even among the Conservatives – they cannot even agree as a group on what they support so how would those on the other side know how to make a proposal – like on immigration?

          It says something about Conservatives in general when they themselves cannot agree on what a principled Conservative position is or is not much less compromise with the Dems, because they cannot find compromise among themselves. What hope is there for an agreement that can legislatively move forward?

          Perhaps this is what the Founding Fathers actually intended – that the country not make changes when there is not real consensus to do so even if it means issues are going to fester.. and not get better.

          Perhaps this is normal and actually is the intended outcome from the Founding Fathers – when the country is not just divided, but splintered.

        3. LifeOnTheFallLine Avatar
          LifeOnTheFallLine

          It’s not a purposeful anything. You have a majority of Virginians voting for the Democratic agenda in the elections that everyone in the state is allowed to vote in and then you have whatever is going on in the open Senate and Representative seats. Virginians en masse supported the Democratic platform over the Republican platform, but pockets of Virginians did not, and the delegates in those pockets can either decide to let the will of the mass of Virginians sway their minds or they can appeal directly to their constituents.

          Since every seat wasn’t up for grabs all at once you can’t call the results a purposeful anything. And the question isn’t one of rolling over, the question is one of who a delegate wants to listen to.

    2. LifeOnTheFallLine Avatar
      LifeOnTheFallLine

      Broad support is overrated, especially since people are irrational and can be convinced to vote against theirs and the greater interest for any number of reasons (race, class, gender, orientation, religion, etc.). 50+1 is a fine enough way to get governance done.

  4. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    Speaking of Founding Fathers – I was a bit taken aback when I discovered that Thomas Jefferson was bankrupt when he died. What-the….

    Somehow I thought all this Founding Father stuff was based on fiscal conservative principles.. i.e. don’t spend what you cannot afford, etc, …

    and of course Founding fathers got into this big war and had to levy taxes to pay for it!

  5. salz Avatar
    salz

    The anti-conspiracy conspiracy “white paper?”

    In a bold move, two years ago our three Republican supervisors voted to remove the $1,500 the county paid to hear some environmental thoughts through an association, perhaps connected to the U.N. but no one really knows…

    Of course, these same three Republican supervisors also voted to waste $300+ million taxpayer dollars on “The Road to Wealth Destruction.”

    Please remember, it was Dick Cheney who told us, “Deficits don’t matter.”

    The great Republican conservatives of the past, from Teddy Roosevelt to Henry Cabot Lodge to Everett Dirksen to George Bush, the dad, must all be appalled at what’s happened to fiscal conservatives. The political party that once was famous for bringing brains to the table has become “knee jerk” against.

    1. larryg Avatar
      larryg

      re: the Great Republican Conservatives of the past – and I’d include Reagan in that group – for the purpose of illustrating where such past Conservative leaders, including Reagan would stand today in their own party!

      We keep hearing how the progressives want to do this or that like it some new outrageous far left “idea” but the vast majority of it is what they have usually advocated for – for decades – not really “far left” from their historic positions – they’ve just been relabeled as “far left”for continuing to hold their traditional views. If fact some now-departed life-long GOP outted as RINOs are now called “left”. So the standard itself has changed.

      Those GOP who supported the TARP are now RINOs.

      Those GOP who refused to shut down government over the debt limit are RINO – which would include all the GOP under Reagan that voted to extend the debt, and all the following GOP, who voted more 18 more times to do the same, up through George Bush’s term

      People say the GOP does not have a big enough tent that is more inclusive of blacks, Hispanics, Gays and Lesbians, women, etc but I disagree. They have a very big tent, a HUGE tent for any and every 2-bit racist like Nugent and wacko bird Agenda 21 folks that darken their doors – they’re not only welcomed. they occupy leadership positions themselves.

      I think it is undeniable that the GOP has moved far to the right – and in a historic way that we’ve never seen before.

      And that, in and of itself , would not be such a terrible thing if they, as a party, were willing to negotiate middle ground compromise that would move the country forward even if in unpalatable for some on the left, but they’ve become such a splintered party that cannot even arrive at unified positions themselves as a party and when they end up splitting their votes – the “no” folks threaten to “primary” those who voted yes.

      The thing is – that TMT is totally correct when he asks how we end up voting these folks into office . They must truly reflect the sentiment of the voters now days. The country itself is in turmoil on so many issues where compromise is no longer acceptable. In their minds, we’ve reached lines we no longer cross – things we’ve already compromised on and there is no room left for more compromise.

  6. mbaldwin Avatar
    mbaldwin

    Excuse my going back to the white paper (farm chores being done).

    Kudos to Jim for having the stomach to address and decisively squelch the silliness of the anti-Agenda 21 forces. A few thoughts:

    “Sustainability” remains a weak, albeit understandable concept to apply against the unremitting human stresses on the global environment — oceans, atmosphere (CO2 and GHG), species extinction, deforestation, desertification and so forth. These are all changes and trends that so-called “conservatives” dispute, Burkean concepts of inter generational links and responsibilities to the contrary; so long as we must endure the fact-denying self-satisfied, and pseudo-intellectual preaching of the likes of George Will, there’s little hope.

    National and international regulations and management — environmental assessments, pollution controls and so forth — remain indispensable. But taxing and other market mechanisms should be used to far greater advantage — carbon taxes etc — but neither party has adequately embraced them. (After a career since mid 60s at federal and in international arena I see insufficient conceptual or educational progress, Jim’s perspective being an exception.)

    Meanwhile, at the local level — state and often particularly at the town and county level — we surely over regulate with zoning and so forth. (Lots of personal experience here seeking approval for a small business in town.)

    So, we badly need to reshape the debate, or at least try hard to do it.

    1. TMT Avatar
      TMT

      I don’t believe global warming is necessarily false or that humankind is not affecting climate, but I sure have a lot of questions that no one will answer. My questions include the following.

      Why was the earth’s temperature much higher and much lower in the past without the same level of carbon emissions we have today? How do we know climate is not cyclical or it’s prime cause cycles of sun activity?

      What is the normal temperature for earth? Are we trying to achieve an unnatural result?

      Wall Street lies regularly to make more money. Real estate developers lie about environmental issues to get permission to build more densely to make more money. Government contractors are often accused of fraud. Dominion Power will fib to get or retain more money. Why should people believe that university professors and government bureaucrats won’t like about climate change to make more money? How do we know we aren’t being scammed?

      How did the scientific community move from predicting a new ice age in the 1970s to predicting global warming now?

      I don’t know about zoning in most of Virginia outside NoVA, but in Fairfax County it usually comes down to traffic and working with the immediate neighbors.

      1. larryg Avatar
        larryg

        “Why was the earth’s temperature much higher and much lower in the past without the same level of carbon emissions we have today? How do we know climate is not cyclical or it’s prime cause cycles of sun activity?”

        What is the normal temperature for earth? Are we trying to achieve an unnatural result?

        are these graphs wrong:

        http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

        “Wall Street lies regularly to make more money. Real estate developers lie about environmental issues to get permission to build more densely to make more money. Government contractors are often accused of fraud. Dominion Power will fib to get or retain more money. Why should people believe that university professors and government bureaucrats won’t like about climate change to make more money? How do we know we aren’t being scammed?”

        on SCIENCE in toto? using your criteria – couldn’t you claim that all science like Cancer, or the Humane Genome or asteroids, etc are all subject to the same questions?

        why do we focus on SOME science to suspect wrong doing and not other science?

        do we think the folks who run the weather satellites and predict hurricanes are also seeking money by nefarious means?

        what part of “conspiracy” appeals and what part is not a conspiracy?

        How did the scientific community move from predicting a new ice age in the 1970s to predicting global warming now?

        the same way we said cigarettes did not cause cancer and then it did…???

        re: specialization verses regional subsidies.

        If NoVa/Fairfax had to pay their true costs – would it total up less than what they now contribute to RoVa? Does the fact that NoVa economy is powered by Federal deficit spending.. figure into the “true cost” calculation?

        Should Jim use his ROI approach to Smart Growth and Urbanization?

        1. TMT Avatar
          TMT

          Yes, Larry, I think some scientists lie. http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/31346/title/Case-of-Massive-Scientific-Fraud/
          http://explorable.com/scientific-falsification
          http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not99-111.html
          http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not93-177.html

          NIH certainly seems to have thought non-climate scientists can lie. But you effectively argue climate scientists are different. None of them lie or falsify information.

          Why is wrong to be skeptical of people seeking taxpayer money? I’m skeptical of the government contactors who will be battling DoD’s proposed cutbacks. I’m skeptical of Wall Street, infomercials and telemarketers. I’m skeptical of climate scientists. I don’t necessarily disagree with all they have to say, but I believe they are conditioned to find results that are consistent with the funding.

          I have a friend who is a real (retired) rocket scientist. He lives in Herndon and is active in community affairs in Fairfax County. He told me that, when he was working on US space and rocket projects, he always assigned someone to play devil’s advocate. He wanted someone to try to tear apart the proposal at hand. That makes sense to me. But we don’t seem to have anyone playing devil’s advocate on climate change. Does NOAA have staff that are paid to pick at projects?

          And one more time, how do scientists explain the major changes in climate change that have occurred without the concomitant high levels of carbon emissions? I’m not arguing it’s good or bad to have carbon emissions. I just want to know why they explain warmer temperatures now, but not warmer temperatures earlier.

          I think you let the scientific community off too easy on its earlier prediction of a new ice age. Applying your rule suggests that any scientist or science itself has no obligation to explain why a different conclusion now is perfectly fine. We made a mistake before, but don’t question the correctness of what we say now.

          1. larryg Avatar
            larryg

            re: ” Why is wrong to be skeptical of people seeking taxpayer money?”

            why are you selective about it to only certain things and on a worldwide conspiratorial basis for only certain things?

            Scientists do lie .. they’re human and they do it for a variety of reasons including personal avarice..

            why not be skeptical of all cancer scientists -around the world or vaccines?

            I don’t let scientists off easy. they are human but I get skeptical when someone is saying world-wide conspiracy…of all scientists in one field.

            and I showed you some temperature charts.

            do you disbelieve these charts? do you think that NASA and NOAA are involved in a world-wide conspiracy in cahoots with lying scientists around the world?

  7. TMT Avatar
    TMT

    More on Europe forgetting about global warming in favor of reasonably priced electricity. Damn Americans, taking business and jobs from the Green Europeans. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-27/in-europe-dirty-coal-makes-a-comeback

    1. larryg Avatar
      larryg

      re: ” market-driven policies to address the very real challenges facing local governments “…

      how do local governments get connected to global warming and the price of electricity in Europe?

      😉

      1. TMT Avatar
        TMT

        Most European governments signed on to the Kyoto targets. Burning lignite coal is inconsistent with that policy decision.

        What about this chart from the UK? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html

        Or this one? http://notrickszone.com/2014/03/03/german-meteorology-professor-dont-expect-warming-until-mid-century-co2-models-have-a-fundamental-problem/

        Does NASA have any staff to play devil’s advocate? If not, why not? It paid my friend to use a devil’s advocate on rocketry and space projects.

        There’s money in global warming. That means we will find more of it. I’m not arguing there is no global warming or that humankind is not contributing to changes in the climate. I’m arguing that, given the realities of funding and keeping funding, scientists will tend to find evidence of global warming, rather than evidence of no global warming. I don’t think scientists are any more or less dishonest than Wall Street.

        And what about the NIH scientific fraud?

        1. larryg Avatar
          larryg

          TMT – are you saying the Daily Mail is more credible in Climate Science than NOAA and NASA?

          do you believe non-scientists on other scientific data like cancer research of hurricane modelling?

          devil’s advocate inside of NASA? the folks who say NASA is lying would then believe them?

          science uses peer review and consensus.. from other scientists.

          what we have is people who have no degree in Science much less a PHD and have never worked as a scientists much less for decades – telling you that NASA is wrong and part of a global conspiracy to falsify data.

          If NOAA or other scientific organizations replicate what NASA produces, then all who concur – prove – it’s a massive worldwide conspiracy – all of them are lying.

          where does it end TMT?

          1. TMT Avatar
            TMT

            Larry, if you look at the background of many climate scientists, you will find quite a few with degrees in social science. And no, I don’t believe NASA or NOAA or NIH is always right. I’ve prepared budgets for a state agency and one budgets to the Governor’s programs.

            And again, Larry, how did we have climate extremes before the current carbon emissions. You don’t seem to want to answer that one. 🙂

          2. larryg Avatar
            larryg

            re: ” Larry, if you look at the background of many climate scientists, you will find quite a few with degrees in social science.”

            really? you’re going have to show a cite guy.. I think the vast majority of climate scientists are PHDs that are true hard science guys.

            “And no, I don’t believe NASA or NOAA or NIH is always right.”

            I don’t believe they are either – but we’re talking about both of them a dozens of other similar groups around the globe guy – about 98% of credentialed climate scientists and that’s not really disputed.

            the claim is that they know they are wrong and that they are purposely engaging in a world wide conspiracy and that’s why they are not believed.

            ” I’ve prepared budgets for a state agency and one budgets to the Governor’s programs.

            And again, Larry, how did we have climate extremes before the current carbon emissions. You don’t seem to want to answer that one. :-)”

            we had climate extremes.. and still do – there is no real correlation between weather and climate.. directly.

            if you look at the charts that NOAA and NASA have produced you’ll see that the temperature chart is not a straight lines.

            it shows 5 and 10 year spans where temperature dipped .. but when it came, it went up higher that the previous high .. dipped again.. then increased – again higher than before..

            look at those charts guy.

            I’m as much a skeptic as you are but I think trying to explain worldwide concurrence among credentialed scientists as all of them colluding and lying – a global conspiracy – as beyond the pale.

  8. mbaldwin Avatar
    mbaldwin

    For the record, by the later 1970s the weight of science pointed toward fairly rapid global warming largely due to CO2, with predictions that its likely doubling by 2100 would increase temperatures by 2-3 degrees C in middle latitudes. See “Energy and Climate,” National Academy of Sciences, 1977; Stanford Research Institute, “The Jason Report,” 1979, and others I can name. An earlier contrary view in 1976, that CO2 might cloud the atmosphere and hold off warming, by Bryson and Dittberner, in the Journal of Atmospheric Science, didn’t hold water.

    What ecologist George Woodwell observed in 1978 holds true in spades today: “If we wait until we have absolute proof that the increase in CO2 is causing a warming of the earth it will be 20 years too late to do anything about it.” By now, of course, the scientific consensus is overwhelming, and weekly reinforced. But doubters persist, regardless, in part because the truth really hurts. My sense is that it’s already too late, with the tropics suffering first and most severely within our children’s lifetime.

    1. larryg Avatar
      larryg

      re: ” My sense, reinforced by this discussion, is that it’s already too late, with the tropics suffering first and most severely within our children’s lifetime”

      yes.. the time to act was probably about the time the ozone holes were opening up.. we may have had a chance then but we probably are now just spectators …with the deniers.. claiming they knew all along that it was true..they were just playing ‘devils advocate”.

  9. mbaldwin Avatar
    mbaldwin

    One error in my previous message: The studies referred to the middle of THIS century — 2050, not 21oo. Worse, and more accurate!

    But, Larry, things can always get worse, so not to give up sane reductions in CO2, energy efficiency and so forth, which can bring countless other benefits.

    1. larryg Avatar
      larryg

      re: ” But, Larry, things can always get worse, so not to give up sane reductions in CO2, energy efficiency and so forth, which can bring countless other benefits”

      they can and the likely will but the thing is the skeptics are never going to admit it – even when it becomes more and more obvious. the’re sorta like the folks who were overt racists in the 60’s but climbed into the closet when it became not cool….

      by the time Global Warming gets to full bloom – the skeptics will be saying “see, I told you so”.

      😉

  10. Jason Poblete Avatar
    Jason Poblete

    James, while I agree with you that a lot of what is out there on this issue is, or borders on, conspiracy theory, not all of the criticism can or should be ignored. Whether the UN is behind it (doubtful) or not, the reality is that there are people who abuse our regulatory systems (local, state, and federal), as well as non-profit tax laws, to engage in politicking to implement the non-market based policy silliness of what is contained in Agenda 21.

    One of the core tenets of the Agenda 21 document is “go local”. The radical environmental movement (via non-profits mostly) use these international documents as a basis to set up initiatives right here in the United States to implement by regulation, especially local regulations, themes found in the Agenda 21 working plan.

    Bottom line is that whether tied to Agenda 21 or not, bad laws and regulations are on the books, some of it unconstitutional, that can be linked to Agenda 21 themes are impacting sectors of our society.

    The UN system, including just about everything that comes from it, is flawed and broken. Agenda 21 is a symptom of a disease that requires federal Congressional oversight, but for reasons other than those highlighted by most critics of the Agenda 21 movement.

    1. larryg Avatar
      larryg

      the problem with Agenda 21 is the same problem with other whacko birds these days and that is …

      for instance.. we have “bad laws” or regulations in many places…

      always have and always will.. it’s a human flaw…

      to them.. though – all these bad laws around the world, it constitutes a conspiracy… an massive group of evil-doers dedicated to “regulation”

      same deal with climate science ..

      if a good number of scientists around the world concur – and you don’t believe them – then it becomes a global conspiracy…

      it’s okay to be opposed to laws and regulations or science that you disagree with… that’s why we have elections.

      it’s not okay to attribute your own minority status on a massive number of issues to a global conspiracy.

      that’s a problem.

      if there is any doubt – google “Agenda 21” and go read some of their web sites

    2. James A. Bacon Avatar
      James A. Bacon

      Agreed, there is a lot of bad regulatory policy in the United States. However, conservatives need to focus on the bad regulatory policy… not Agenda 21. Conservatives need to explain why those policies are bad, not try to discredit them with a conspiracy theory.

      As for the principles articulated in Agenda 21, some are pernicious, but some are entirely reasonable. Local action is good — far preferable to the federal government applying blanket rules for the entire country. Environmental sustainability is a desirable reasonable goal — as long as it is balanced by other goals.

      1. larryg Avatar
        larryg

        the changes that are most likely to be effected – are local.

        locally, we see Agenda 21 folks step up to the podium from time to time or some issues and we even have a Planning Commission right now that is in large agreement with some of the Agenda 21 issues.

        We just got our Comp Plan totally re-written – and the marching orders to Planning Staff was to completely start over – and the first draft was to have nothing in it except what the state requires.

        and it was not long before they got their first meaty issue – chicken coops!

        There were a good number of folks who felt that rules forbidding chicken coops in their back yards was an outrageous government limitation of their God-given property rights and a prime example of do-gooder regulation that needed to be rolled back.

        without going into a long song and dance here, the short version of this story is that neighbors found out and were not happy with the idea of their next door neighbors having pooping chickens running around or some of them being dispatched for Sunday dinner or having a Rooster to ride herd on the hens

        the resulting kerfuffle was a vivid example of how citizens view regulation and property rights.

        .. and yes.. we did get chickens in our backyards.. but no roosters, no slaughtering, a good number of feet away from others yards… AND a FEE – yes a FEE to have their coop inspected and to pay for enforcement efforts!

        and in case you missed – at the end of the day – we not only got chickens, we got REGULATION… that the Agenda 21 folks continue to blather about being – overreach of government.. “bad” regulation – as in the eyes of the beholder – but not others who want it.

        I’m not sure the chicken issue is over yet either.. I’m waiting to see what happens in an HOA community … 😉

Leave a Reply

Read More