Very short post.   On March 1st, I wrote a post , a little tongue-in-cheek, about Energy Secretary Chu’s dustup in his testimony before Congress regarding the Administration’s view of increasing gasoline prices.  I wrote:

“Why is anyone so surprised that this Administration’s Energy Secretary said what he said and then had to walk back his comments about the Administration wanting the price of gasoline to go high, stay high, and get higher?

And higher, and higher and higher…

And higher, until it is as high as it is in….Europe?  It’s not like it’s any SURPRISE or anything.  Which is probably why Chu said it in the first place.

I mean, that’s been a policy recommendation that you could have read in the pages of Scientific American 7 or 8 years ago, from Michael Shermer.”

People read that and  I guess they thought:  “Oh, this is just Kowalski spouting off again.  Besides, those egghead publications of his, you know, nobody reads them.”

Almost eerily confirming the gist of what I wrote is this March 17th blog post/article on SciAm’s website by Gary Stix (h/t: Drudge).

Am I clairvoyant?  I must be channeling people.   Or maybe I’m quantum tunneling them.  Or maybe it’s all because of too much Penn & Teller.

“Effective World Government Will Be Needed To Stave Off Climate Catastrophe”

When you say:  “This is the Plan” as a layman, people call you derogatory names and wave their hands dismissively.  When Gary Stix confirms it in the pages of Scientific American, it’s the reasonable sounding alternative.  I recommend everyone read the whole article, but here are some highlights:

I would scale back on the nuclear fusion and clean coal, instead devoting at least half of the available space for feature articles on psychology, sociology, economics and political science.

…”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.

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.?

And all seven billion of us must be “recruited” to “act in unison.”

Well, there you go.  Scientific American wants to scale back on the hard science, bring the soft sciences and global-government forces to the fore, so they can act in a “heavy-handed” way, to recruit all seven billion of us to “act in unison.”  The only thing he didn’t use was Eric Holder’s “brainwashing” term.  If I wrote that here on Redstate, people would call me a crazy right wing nutjob.  But luckily I didn’t have to:  Gary Stix at Scientific American just did.