It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Prominent Scientists Call for Social Engineering by Forcing People to Accept their Environmental Pol

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 08:34 AM

Prominent Scientists Call for Social Engineering by Forcing People to Accept their Environmental Policies.

Much of the political debate on particular policy instruments
is focused on their near-term efficacy or popularity.
In light of the above discussion, however, it is clear that
structural changes need to be made that would allow society
and policymakers to more effectively assess the longer-term
implications of policy proposals. Initially unpopular or only
modestly popular measures may gain wider acceptance
if they prompt reinforcing changes in how people define
themselves and their society, particularly if the changes
are aided by innovations that make their implementation
easier or
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 08:34 AM
This is a peer-reviewed paper which has not been published yet by the American Institute of Biological Sciences but which will appear in their March 2013 edition of the journal Bioscience.

In this paper several prominent scientists are calling for the forceful implementation of environmental policies by governments but which a mayority of the people in the world would not accept willingly, such as a carbon tax.

In the paper these same scientists explain that since these policies will be implemented by force people will have to accept them eventually even when a mayority will be against them.

I told you this would come.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 08:40 AM
I'm not sure I'm understanding the issue here.

Every law the government passes is done by force. Try and not following the rule of law and see how long it takes them to force you into a jail cell.

Perhaps if you could explain how this is different I would better understand the particular issue your trying to raise.

posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 08:47 AM
Here is another gem found in this peer-reviewed paper which explains part of what they have in mind.

Scientists have made significant contributions to the
literature on collective action, elucidating the conditions
under which it can emerge, spread, and persist. Additional
are needed to evaluate the ways in which
higher-level institutions—such as governments—can alter
the environments in which agents make decisions and
potentially alter behaviors and social norms. Government
policies intended to alter choices and behaviors include
active norm management, changing the conditions influencing
behaviors, financial interventions, and regulatory
measures. Each of these policy instruments potentially
influences personal and social norms in different ways and
through different mechanisms. Each also carries the danger
of backfiring, which is often called a boomerang effect in the
literature (e.g., Schultz et al. 2007)—eroding compliance
and reducing the prevalence of the desired behaviors and the
social norms that support those behaviors (see table 1).

Found on page 2.

On page 3 you find this.

Active norm management

Governments can actively manage (i.e., try to influence)
norms through such things as advertising campaigns, information
blitzes, or appeals from respected figures. “Give a
Hoot, Don’t Pollute” television ads, distribution of information
on the hazards of secondhand smoke, or President Carter exhorting the nation’s residents to turn down the
thermostat in the midst of an energy crisis are all examples.
This type of social norms management is often seen as less
coercive and less expensive than other regulatory measures
(Ela 2009).

Since more and more people have been waking up to the reality that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a hoax, now they want to force people to accept the regulations they had in mind all along.

posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 08:53 AM
reply to post by Hopechest

Anthropogenic Global Warming has been shown to be a farce, and since a mayority of the people did not fall for the hoax, now they want to force these policies, such as a carbon tax, on people, and they expect a mayority of people to do nothing about the forceful implementation of these policies. They think even when a mayority of people are against these policies, that eventually people will get used to them.

In reality all that a carbon tax, among other policies they have in mind including agenda 21, will do is make certain people richer and more powerful, meanwhile further destroying the middle classes in the world.
edit on 22-2-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 09:00 AM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Ahhh, that explains it better than if its referring to the push for a global AGW policy.

Well they are losing the argument so I imagine this is their last recourse, I don't think they will have the support of many politicians however since they are accountable to the voters and don't want to have to defend this in public.

posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 09:06 AM
The following you will find on page 1.

We agree that social norms are important, but social
norms and values shift in complicated and often unexpected
ways (Ehrlich and Levin 2005) and respond to myriad
forces at both lower and higher levels of social organization
(Ostrom et al. 2002). If no tipping point is reached, a minority
of the population potentially shoulders the burdens of
proenvironment behavior; moreover, their efforts alone are
unlikely to have a sufficient impact on the types of emerging
environmental challenges that the world faces. Substantial
numbers of people will have to alter their existing behaviors
to address this new class of global environmental problems.
Alternative approaches are needed when education and persuasion
alone are insufficient.

Policy instruments such as penalties, regulations, and
incentives may therefore be required to achieve significant
behavior modification (Carlson 2001, House of Lords 2011).
Policies apply to everyone in a particular jurisdiction and, as
a result, ensure that the burdens of proenvironment behavior
are widely shared, which increases the probability of
measurable positive outcomes.


posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 09:57 AM
haven't read the full thing but this rather jumped out at me off the first page.

Some have argued that progress on these problems can be made only through a concerted effort to change personal and social norms. They contend that we must, through education and persuasion, ensure that certain behaviors (e.g., controlling fertility, reducing material consumption, biking to work, eating locally grown foods) become ingrained as a matter of personal ethics. If enough people or certain people (e.g., those with disproportionate social influence; see Christakis and Fowler 2009) adopt these norms, there may be a tipping point (Levin et al. 1998, Gladwell 2000) such that the proenvironment norms become widely shared and environmentally friendly behaviors become pervasive

cute trick slipping that into "behaviors for bettering the environment". agenda 21 anyone? so much for a woman's "right to choose" i guess. nothing like wanting to control who can, and when have children. i guess they want to copy china in the way they do things. want a child (note can ONLY have one), you must FIRST get state permission. that means if you are disliked for whatever reason by the authorities, chances are you will NOT be allowed to have a kid. rather nice way to make people toe the line. not to mention that they could "decide" that you "genes are undesirable". i would also suspect that it would also end up including "fetus screening" for undesirable traits like downs syndrome or other mental/physical handicaps, and deciding to terminate any pregnancies that COULD result with problems such as these, no mater what the parents think. another possibility would be to decide on the actual parentage, in other words governmental matchmaking. all in the name of "protecting" the environment.

i have to agree with the comments that since people didn't fall for the global warming BS that they STILL want to inflict these rules on everybody. guess they have realized they need to work harder at indoctrination to get what they want since mass media hype and scare tactics haven't worked.

posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 10:11 AM

Anthropogenic Global Warming has been shown to be a farce

Really? Would you like to provide a source?

Have you seen the pollution levels in china or the nasty smog in l.a.? These layers of pollution have direct effect on temp, weather, health, etc

posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 10:11 AM
Lets just lay out a few terminological in-exactitudes for a moment here. For a start, this article does not suggest or endorse the use of what I call force. Being forced to be ecologically minded, would be something like getting your cars engine shot out with a sniper rifle, every time you go less than a mile before coming to a stop and turning off the engine (which I for one agree with largely speaking... very lazy and irresponsible to drive such a short distance in anything except a serious emergancy). When the firearms officers kick down your door and force you at gun point to put your thermostat down by five degrees and stop being such an un-utterable pansy when it gets cold, thats force. What we have here is legislation, and that is different.

And heres another knife in the tyre of this idea...

Using pathetic court action will not work, because the numbers of voilations will be so great that no court system on this whole mess of rock and water could EVER hope to process it all, never mind the fact that the government could never possibly afford all those hours of "skilled" work by the lawyers and judges required to process these legalities, in the volumes in which they would undoubtedly come up.

And just when you thought it was safe to go back into the lobby group...

Fact is that these laws will be costly, not to mention damn near impossible to enforce. That fact, and the fact that as mentioned by the OP, the cause of global warming has yet to be confirmed, means that the politicians who would have to vote this in, will NEVER back it, because if they did so, they would never be re-elected. The only way this piece of crap will ever enter a statute book, is if the bioscientists actually gain power somehow, threaten the goverment with anthrax death or something perhaps. And even then, not a single one of these academics would be able to back up the law themselves, and they would likely as not have no effective support if they tried to start an eco-tyranny. The resistance would be lead by Jeremy Clarkson, involve the rest of the country, and end with an awful lot of dead folks in lab coats.

posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 10:14 AM
The facts show global warming to be a scam.
The same forces which have tried to corner the financial and govermental aspectsof humans are still at work here.
The so called Illuminatti or shadow goverment,(the same OWNERS in other words.)
They will stop at nothing less than TOTAL CONTROL of humanity......
I see an anti elite revolution comming, in which these people, along with many so called scientists will be eliminated wherever they may be found.
This will plunge us into another long dark age, but hopefully the next civilisation will spring forth in truth and justice for all......

posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 10:21 AM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Global warming a hoax? Are you kidding me? In what universe do you live in? Proof or it didnt happen!

posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 10:24 AM
It would be interesting to know the background of the people pushing this.

Wouldn't it be a bit ironic if they were former 60's radicals that urged their fellow students to fight the establishment?

posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 10:29 AM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Sooo. . . . um, we're too smart to take their BS policies. Therefore, this is a recommendation to brainwash us into accepting their potty-poo-poo policies.

At least their open about manipulating the masses!

posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 11:05 AM
Sigh, it's called Climate Change these days... It's called that for a reason, primarily because when they called it Global Warming some hick in Arkansas had a cold snap and decided that scientists were wrong.

Like it or not climate patterns are changing. What causes this is almost a moot point as there are simply way to many factors involved to quantify the exact reason for the changes.

I can tell you this. Humans do have an effect of weather patterns. Being a soaring pilot (as is Phage) I can say without a doubt that a something as simple as a large parking lot can have a very noticeable effect on local weather patterns. What effect does a huge city have? What effect does a huge city with no pollution controls have?

People have contributed to climate change. It does not take a rocket scientist to know this.

posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 12:26 PM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Proving despots can come from anywhere.

posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 12:40 PM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

The carbon tax is really about making yet another speculative market aimed at creating funny money being passed from poor hands to rich ones, based on "points". These points will get rewarded based on how awesome you are and how awesome your friends are. To the rest of the population, the points allotted to normal people wont cover an average household, so the excess carbon production will be taxed. That is why all the smart meters are being forced down our collective throats. We will need to live in little rooms where our carbon points will yield less debt generation. No cars, no high technology, no nothing. We will be peasants in fear of the end of the month when taxes are due. Oh yeah, tax cycles will be more frequent and more insane.

Now think about this. We emit carbon dioxide by living....we will be taxed for our carbon emissions. You will be taxed for breathing......

Everything from how long you run a computer, to a lamp, to the mileage of your car will be factored in. EVERYTHING you do will be monitored, calculated and then taxed.

In essence a total state of perpetual debt only the ultra rich will escape.

If you need a visual aid, a mix between the movie "in time" and "hunger games". THAT is the future of the little understood Agenda 21.....

A world of zones with ultra monitoring (smart meter life style), restricted access to other areas and resources needed to escape the system of complete taxation from birth to death of a completely defeated population.

This crap is why I will not even entertain ecologists, and really liberals in general with even good intentions and naive mindsets. It is freaking dangerous to give an inch on this subject. It is forceful and ultimately the future reason for revolutions and social stress....

Not an inch.

edit on 22-2-2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 01:05 PM
This is Pharaoh talking. Make more bricks but you get less straw.

posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 02:22 PM
When people are crying about the cost of products across the boards this moment what the hell are they going to say when the carbon tax increases those prices even more, puts more people out of work, and outsources more jobs who don't give a flyin fig about global warming/climate change.

Let's be perfectly clear here no one disputes clmate change happens that is a well known fact the issue is when poltiical agenda marry with so called science to push totalitarianism.

Global warming/climate change is social engineering using propaganda as a means of manipulation for complete control of the people.

It is the epitome of redistributing the wealth see Soros/carbon tax/credits, what the world government are doing with them.
edit on 22-2-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 02:28 PM
reply to post by generik

That is not what that is saying at all.

That part of the proposal is already happening in most, if not all, industrialized countries.

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in