Climate Bureaucracies Are The Choice Because They Perpetuate Problems

by Dr. Tim Ball on February 7, 2011

in Government,Politics

The power behind Obama doesn’t care if he is a one-term President. He would prefer it otherwise and an interesting battle looms as the Democratic Party rejects the incumbent African-American President. Total government control is a far more important agenda than any individual political career. Many think it’s good that Obama is showing his left wing agenda too quickly and too openly. They argue it will arouse reaction and this will cause a dramatic shift to the right in the November elections and beyond. It will, but it doesn’t matter. While the pundits are distracted by political battles, Obama and the gang are bypassing elected officials and thereby the people by putting all the power in bureaucracies. They will guarantee the agenda and prevent any future politicians rescinding or reversing the major pattern.

CO2 was the vehicle chosen to destroy the industrialized nations by ‘proving’ this byproduct was causing catastrophic global warming and climate change. Cap and trade has evolved as the ideal legislation because it controls energy and industry while creating revenue. It has survived exposure of the corrupt science; however, it isn’t necessary because it likely won’t get Senate approval. It doesn’t matter because of the administrative power given to the EPA by the Supreme Court ruling that CO2 is a pollutant. This gives them complete control of energy and industry. Growth of bureaucracies is a hallmark of totalitarianism and the death of freedom. As Mary McCarthy said, “Bureaucracy, the rule of no one, has become the modern form of despotism.”

Bureaucratic Frankensteins

A politician explained that he opposed projects he defined as “Frankenstein”. An example explains the difference between these and other projects. He would consider funding to write a book because it was finite, ending when the book was published. He would reject money to start a monthly journal – because once started the funding requirements don’t end. Attempts to stop funding trigger charges of ending a “tradition”. You have to keep feeding the monster. This is part of the pattern in which today’s privilege becomes tomorrows right and entitlements never end.

Once you assign a problem to a bureaucracy, either by creating a new one or giving it to an existing one, you are guaranteeing the problem will not be resolved. Worse, the bureaucracy will expand and costs will grow. Much of the increased cost will go to preparing arguments for perpetuating the bureaucracy. This is done by claiming the problem has expanded and was far worse than previously understood. They are paid to confirm what is already established, not determine the truth.

Turf Wars

There are very few examples of bureaucracies being shut down. Often they’re absorbed by another agency but this is not usually to improve resolution of the problem. It occurs because part of self-perpetuation of a bureaucracy involves not impinging on other bureaucracies. Turf wars are a constant part of bureaucracies. They don’t prove anything, inhibit resolution of problems, and create further problems. A classic example was the problems and failures of turf conflicts identified after the 9/11 air attacks.

Maurice Strong knew what he was doing when he bypassed politics to achieve his goal of causing the collapse of the industrialized nations. He knew bureaucracies were the answer because they remain as politicians come and go. Within the bureaucracies of the United Nations, he had the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) that gave direct access to the climate bureaucracies of every nation. It was these people that controlled the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), supporting and promoting scientists such as those from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), who provided the science required for the objective.

It is no surprise John Houghton was the first Co-Chairman of the IPCC from 1988 to 2002. This overlapped with his bureaucratic role as Director General of the United Kingdom Meteorological Office (UKMO) from 1983 to 1991. However, as Phil Jones notes in a May 5, 2005 email to Kevin Trenberth, “IPCC has a lot of clout – much more than GCOS (Global Climate Observing System) and/or WMO.” He makes this argument to suggest IPCC should push for more weather stations and better determination of global temperature. A good idea but doing so would undermine the certainty of IPCC claims. Steve McIntyre reports on this ironic event because it involved another influential bureaucrat, Susan Solomon, National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) representative on the IPCC. Solomon, as Co-chair of Working Group I of the Science Report, illogically opposed Jones’ proposal.

Meaningless Codes Of Ethics

How do you control bureaucrats? It’s an issue of concern as attempts at legislation attest, but they are all vague and apparently unenforceable. For example, the US has the Hatch Act, which relates to political activity of Federal Employees. But is that different from a code of ethics? NASA has ethical rules that involve misuse of position – but neither has inhibited the activities of NASA GISS Director James Hansen.

Apparently there are no codes or guidelines for IPCC members. The UN has general guidelines as follows:

Conflict of interest includes circumstances in which international civil servants, directly or indirectly, would appear to benefit improperly, or allow a third party to benefit improperly, from their association in the management or the holding of a financial interest in an enterprise that engages in any business or transaction with the organization.

Do they apply to IPCC? Does this mean they are guilty because they allowed Al Gore and others to benefit from carbon credits? It’s unlikely because individual governments pay for the IPCC.

World Meteorological Organization (WMO) code of ethics likely don’t apply either. They say in part B,

Refrain from acting in the course of their duties with respect to a matter in which they or someone with whom they have a close relationship, or from whom they are seeking employment or other benefit or favour, has a special interest.

Who then determines the appropriateness of the behavior and ethics of James Hansen, Phil Jones or Rajendra Pauchari? The answer is nobody and that is the advantage of bureaucracies. They are not accountable to anyone and if they get in trouble it’s easy to set up whitewash investigations. Individuals, including Obama, will come and go; but the totally unaccountable bureaucracy will persist. They will mindlessly pursue and expand the agenda they were ostensibly established to resolve: they are the cancer of the body politic.