The political implications of the Global Warming debate are major. Environmental author David Shearman suggest that the global warming crisis is so acute that democratic government should be set-aside and we should join the world authoritarianism movement and demand that nations comply with “scientific consensus” – and of course, there is no consensus – on global warming and other so-called world emergencies.
The “world authoritarianism movement” sounds like a warm-up call for global goverment and every Christian sees behind such a move, the opportunity for a global anti-christ kingdom.

Shearman’s upside down values cause him to hold up China as a noble example for the rest of the world. The reason? They banned plastic bags. Of course, they force abortions, infanticide, kill prisoners for organs and repress dissent. Everyone remembers Tiananmen Square, except the liberals. But those are minor inconveniences to liberals who have already embraced elements of socialism paired with totalitarianism.

Morality is being redefined – in cosmic and planetary ways, in terms of the survival of the whole with the individual sacrificed. The noble ban of plastic bags in China will save five million tons of oil used in bag manufacture – hardly significant in terms of the ocean of world oil. What is impressive to Shearman and his liberal friends is that China did this – by decree. No negotiations. No backtalk by corporations. No concern about employment impact or political implications.

Shearman says, “… democracy is sweet and addictive …” but not effective. He believes that democracy allows “unbridled individual liberty [which] overwhelms many of the collective needs of the citizens …” Of course, Shearman recognizes the that he and his peers are likely to be “labeled as Marxists, socialists, fundamentalists and worse. These labels,” he says, “are used because alternatives to democracy cannot be perceived! …”

It is the efficiency of the communist decision that enamors the liberals. They have a system that is authoritarian in contrast with the voluntary non-effective solutions of Western democracies. The liberals want to find a way to impose authoritarian decisions based on what they conceive as scientific consensus.

The choice according to these people is liberty – a democratic form of government – or planetary life.

We have been at this place before, though over other issues. By “this place” I mean a scientocracy in which scientists are empowered and the rights and views of the simple commoner are ignored. The liberals will not limit authoritarianism to global warming. They will extend it to human cloning, creating animal/human hybrids, imposing futile care theory. They will require eugenic abortion of disabled fetuses. Discussions have taken place about limiting or denying medical treatment to smokers or to the obese and has already been called for in the UK. Democracy is to these people optional – a luxury that is not nearly as important as scientific triumphalism. Common people think that human freedom is foundational for survival – of really authentic humans.

Adapted from (Great resource of bio-ethical issues)