I read this a few weeks ago and appreciated the uncommon honesty exhibited by the interviewee. It appeared in The Guardian and the interviewee was one James Lovelock. The topic was climate change and the impact of the scandals on the movement. Near the end of the interview was this exchange:
On how humans will ever manage to tackle climate change:
We need a more authoritative world. We've become a sort of cheeky, egalitarian world where everyone can have their say. It's all very well, but there are certain circumstances – a war is a typical example – where you can't do that. You've got to have a few people with authority who you trust who are running it. And they should be very accountable too, of course.
But it can't happen in a modern democracy. This is one of the problems. What's the alternative to democracy? There isn't one. But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.
Ah, so there it is and I appreciate Mr. Lovelock having the courage to say it. Granted he is kind of a kook but in a prophetic kind of way, saying what others are thinking in the movement. In order to battle "climate change" people are going to have to give up their freedom and turn the governments and economies of the world over to self-appointed prophets of environmental doom based on dubious science. Mr. Lovelock is about the only one saying it out loud but it is clearly the goal of the climate change folks, people who see the bogeyman of global warming as a convenient cover to get rid of old-fashioned notions like freedom and liberty and replace them with a theocracy of scientists. I wish more environmentalists would be more open about saying this so we could see where there motivation really lies.