Bruce Wearne initiates an Exchange on Public Justice and Emerging World Society

Introduction to an exchange: Dr Bruce Wearne is a sociological theorist who has been working for decades toward a new approach that would encompass an overall historical/critical communal sociology, the philosophy of society, and a sociological-philosophical introduction to the various social sciences, including diverse and often-contradictory special-science methodologies. All this preoccupies Dr Wearne in linking the ensemble of his specialist concerns, to the best directions discerned thru a dialogical reformational-Christian philosophy as such.

As an Australian with such a vocation, among Wearne's related endeavours have been some promising efforts to offer advisory comment (articles, interviews with leading refChristian thinkers, and editorials)--a number of which have seen publication in the public press, not only in Australia but elsewhere also in the SouthWest Pacific--notably most recently in the Republic of Fiji press, where a military coup has eroded democratic parliamentary and electoral process. Along with his avenue of articulation in the press and his more fully academic studies, Dr Wearne aims to help the reformational intellectual community clarify the key idea of public justice, and help cultivate more widely a sense of normative direction for Christian-democratic sentiment wherever it appears around the globe and for the far-flung small groups now existing and emerging in the future, around the philosophically-rich reformational version of Christian Democracy.--Owlb

Some Ideas toward a Clearer Christian Democracy contributive to Emerging World Society by Bruce Wearne, PhD

We are ... confronted with cumulative problems that derive from how we typically understand the world in which we live - so we have to find a path that will allow us to make a contribution to public justice while also critically uncovering the taken-for-granted political dogmas that we have inherited and by which we, in repentant retrospect, confess we have been compromised and would still be content with that compromise if God Himself hadn't spoken into our lives His love and reassurance.

The perspectives that have been proffered in recent years by such colleagues as Jon Chaplin, Jim Skillen, Bob Goudzwaard and Paul Marshall [all with earned doctorates, the first two in political studies, the third in economics, and the fourth in political theory - Owlb] are important but I think we'd agree with them and say that such work is but a beginning. The main thrust of their many critical questions raises for me from the prior question of how we are to develop social political analysis from a normative perspective, that is from a standpoint that accepts our God-given stewardship. I'm not so sure that we can say that reformational social-political theory has made much of an advance in this regard, even though I think the "beginning" is itself extraordinarily profound.

Bob Goudzwaard made this comment back in 1978 regarding "Norms for the International Economic Order" :

Thinking from the perspective of norms creates the greatest certainty concerning the steps which ought to be made at the beginning; the thinking from the perspective of future goals renders uncertain precisely those first steps which ought to be taken. However, in thinking and acting from the perspective of norms, the final future remains considerably more vague than in thinking from the perspective of goals. (This holds at least on paper; after all, how many goals that were set have ever been achieved?) Yet if we should begin with turning in these concrete directions, and comparable ones; the question arises whether anything at all can then be said about the possible structure of world society.

The best characterization of such a world society that might possibly emerge - whose more specific content we shall consciously omit - would be that of a decentralized responsibility. To clarify that characterization it may be meaningful to contrast it with two other possible types of constructing the world society - decentralized freedom and centralized responsibility.

As I read our situation, that approach 30 years on is still only barely developed. Part of that is due to the lack of engagement with social-science thinking that has burgeoned since that time. But though our movement may have big ideas, we are still a small and slender outfit.

Jim Skillen made this comment in 2000. "Politics in One World" (Philosophia Reformata 2001):

In contrast to liberalism, Christians should view the state as a genuine community of public-legal solidarity that ought to protect the diversity of non-political responsibilities and organizations through which the image of God also expresses and develops its capacities of service to God. In contrast to socialism, Christians should see the state as a differentiated, public-legal institution, which exists to recognize and uphold human freedom and responsibility to the God who always transcends the limits of political solidarity.

Jon Chaplin's recent Cambridge inaugural is another discussion which would allow us to put such questions into a framework where meaningful answers can be sought.
----

Notes

1.) Jonathan Chaplin "Speaking from faith in democracy"
URL: [ http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/KLICE/pdfs/Inaugural.doc ]

2.) Bob Goudzwaard and John van Baars "Norms for the International Economic Order" in Justice in the International Economic Order - Proceedings of the Second International Conference of Reformed Institutions for Christian Higher Education; Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan (Aug13-19,1978: pp. 223-253) with replies by J D van der Vyver (pp 254-267); and James Skillen (pp.268-271). My cited text of Gouzwaard, at p.247. Skillen refers to the same material at p.268 (it is slightly different and gives strong indication that Goudzwaard's Dutch English was edited from an earlier version - but then the editing was somewhat uneven).

4.) James W Skillen "Politics in One World" Philosophia Reformata [66:1 2001 pp.117-131); with replies by Turaki (pp. 132-138); Jeong-Kii Min (pp. 139-141). Quote at p.121.

5.) Paul A. Marshall. Essay > "Liberalism, Pluralism and Christianity" in Marshall and Chaplin eds Political Theory and Christian Vision: Essays in Memory of Bernard Zylstra (University Press of America: Maryland, 1994; pp. 153-162). Book > Thine is the Kingdom: A Biblical Perspective on the Nature of Government Politics Today (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1986). Address > "Human Rights Theories in Christian Perspective" (ICS Inaugural, Toronto, Ontario; 1983). See also his more recent material on Islam, Christian life-style.

----------

A reply from Albert Gedraitis, publisher, refWrite blogs (Apr28,2k7)

The idea of an international economic order is a welcome one to me, because to my mind it brings into a single concept several structures and dynamics that have been present in the world for a long time, but which already have undergone such extensive restructuration (without an inner reformation of humanity's communal economic life) that we must think in terms of something newly arrived, yet of which we "ain't seen nuthin' yet." The dynamics hurtle on, thresholds appear and are surpassed, and structures are impelled to further change, further restructurations.

But coming to that conclusion as a student of the Vollenhoven-Dooyeweerd Cosmonomic Philosophy and the expansive explication of its value for economics by Dr Bob Goudzwaard puts one in the awkward position of looking at other "totality" terms in Herman Dooyeweerd's New Critique of Theoretical Thought. My caution on this score arises from a longtime struggle with the NCTT's text in regard to Dooyeweerd's apparent rejection of both the term "society" and the term "universe" as indicative of totality-concepts. Compared to the totality-concept of, say, Marxism regarding "society," Dooyeweerd can look momentarily much like a nominalist. However, of course, Dooyeweerd in regard to a normative concept of society is neither a conservative (organic society) nor a liberal (each human individual is real but everything else societal is only nominally so, except insofar as group words denote contracts between sovereign individuals). "International economic order" or, as I prefer, "global economic order" would have similar problems in the V-D's Cosmonomic framework. The key to their difference of conceputalization--different from Marxism, conservatism, and liberalism all at once--is the two philosopher's idea of sphere specificity (with sphere universality and sphere sovereignty).

Our concept then is one of an economy as a specific differentiated sphere still underoging development in the 21st century, a universal sphere that pervades all of life without defining the whole of that life (as there are other spheres with which it must interact without destroying them), and a sovereign sphere with its own internal but not absolutely autonomous law, governance, and decision-making by responsible persons.

How do we get to a normative concept of "the economy" (or, in order to avoid any tendency toward reification or platonizing, perhaps we should prefer to speak simply of "an economy." Until now it has been easiest to conceive of each national economy as "an economy" (tho in external relation, perhaps formatively so, with other national economies). One important reason for that priortization of national economies has to do with the determinative power of a modern state by various means to constitute the leading formative power in constituting a national economy within its territorial jurisdiction (contra reformational political philosopher Jonathan Chaplin, I still think along with Dooyeweerd of a national state as territorially specific at any given time, normatively speaking ... but contra Dooyeweerd, I think of its specific territoriality as a good candidate for indicating the "foundational function" of a state, despite Chaplin's suggestion that Dooyeweerd's entire line of thinking about "foundational fuctions" is obsolescent). A national economy has tended for a long time to receive prioritization among economic levels, with a specific national state as the leading formative power over each such economy--yet without any exclusion within a national economy of subeconomies, or regional economies, and/or local economies. You gather my drift I'm sure.

Local economies, regional economies and/or subeconomies, national economies, the global economy. You will also understand from the very starkness of the term "the global economy" that national economies under constraint of one or another nation-state, do not entirely control the h+er reaches of our present constantly restructurating global institutions of economic qualification (here I'm using V-D's notion of qualifying function typifying each societal sphere). In theorizing this way, of course, no judgment is implied that "everything is in order" in the continually emerging and restructuring global economic order. "Order" here does not imply normative realization of what could and should be an empirically normative global economic order, God willing.

Can we get there from here? In turning both "norms" and "goals" into technical terms in the language of christianly-motivated economic theorizing, and then assigning "goals" to Enl+tenment-originated conceptualizations (could this be a case of what Dr Albert Wolters has called "the genetic fallacy"?), I tend to wonder just how I may use that word at all in expressions like "economic goals." The immediate concern for Goudzwaard, you, and myself is how best to take a communal stance vis a vis the UN's Millenium Development Goals, which were adopted to move humanity toward a more just global economic order, in part by making sure every human being has clean air, clean water, and poverty is reduced by one half by the year 2025, let's say.

If I understand Goudzwaard correctly, he is uncomfortable with prioritizing, in our economic discussions and theorizing, human-set goals that we (all the people and institutions of earth) may or may not meet, or be able to meet. He insists that we stress what should be: breathable air, drinkable water, enuff food and adequate shelter for all humans, and sufficient income to enable functioning adequately in our contemporary monetized economy/ies. From the standpoint of the coming of the Kingdom of God, the summum bonum of a Christian ethos, according to Herman Bavinck, that's what starting with norms, rather than goals, in economics, is all about: simple justice due to each human person by way of communal caring.

Beyond that, when I look at this stance--this principial stance in regard to the global economic order--I find myself faltering in regard to the shouldness of Goudzwaard's formulation. I have no problem with deontological ethics as such. But what about the road from should to will, do, achieve. Don't we need to translate our ins+ts into all-embracing norms of simply economic justice for all, translate them into some kind of goals, with a lesser standing perhaps than norms in our economics systematics, but with some sort of standing somewhere? I note in passing that Paul Marshall presented a lecture a decade ago on the difference between norms and goals in the task of the state, and he did not find the norms of/for the state to include elimination of poverty. For him, that could become a state's main goal, but its normative task was more purely juridical and swordful. (Sorry, but I can't document this lecture-text at present and haven't begun to do justice to Dr Marshall's thinking at the time in these regards. Here's a guess at the source > Paul Marshall, "Two Types of Rights" Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique, Vol. 25, No. 4 (Dec., 1992), pp. 661-676; 16 pages.)

Having outlined some of my questions on the subject matter of your initial mini-essay, I now must mention my strong doubt about the normativity of raising the hopes of the 2/3s world living in poverty by campaigning to end poverty by such-and-such a date. Rather, the mentioned agenda is a perfect example to me of goalism--whether of the UN's MDG variety, the Make Poverty History variety, or the Micah Challenge variety. I find myself bewildered as to whether these are designed to whip middleclass people into activism with delusional schemes, or to offer soporific hope to those multiplied millions who are living at death's edge each day for lack of food, or are simply designed to salve the consciences of those who create these programs and the people they hire to man their activistic campaign-and-propaganda institutions, thus qualifying to name themselves a "movement." Other than such presumably subconscious motives, I don't want to call into question the good intentions of any.

But a problem leads me to such bewilderment: The number of poor grows daily and exponentially. Those with the least means, or even with no means, to feed, clothe, shelter, and educate offspring, these are the most fecund segment of the human population as to reproduction of our species. It seems to me that the best activism would teach people in dire straits to restrict the number of offspring they bring into the world of guaranteed misery, humanly speakingm and remaining respectful of those who make it out of the morass into an economically participative life, with help or without.

My other sense of a program and the utility of proximal goals would have to do with creating an economic non-charity non-state movement of enterprises that can help influence the global economic order from the inside, toward its more normative structuration. There are many forms of enterprise that could be created or could be renewed thru inner reformation of already-existing enterprises. Such enterprises, when committed to working together, could link to do what can be done to provide education for work and income also in the 2/3s world, and jobs. A whole host of questions of development would then have to be answered in regard to each and every particular, as is the case for every other notion of global economic order. But when businesses and corporations of christian-motivation are competently qualified for economic leadership (as aside from political leadership as such), some of the millions of souls in poverty's miseries can "move on up" to participate in expanding opportunities for others born into poverty.

But not all. Very far from all of those born into poverty can be drawn into productive economic life, however modest. Besides greed, demographic realities also play their anti-normative roles. Sad to say. And campaigns offering false hope must be confronted, and hopefully re-directed.


Another round in the discussion: Bruce to Albert (May1,2k7)

Thanks for your extensive comments on my reflection - I hope we can stimulate some further comment from any readers who pass by.

The issue of economics in a needy world immediately raises questions about the "leisure" we have to do the kind of work we are now discussing. Pierre Bourdieu has developed a concerted sociological critique of the assumptions of the scholarly leisure basic to 20th century social science (skholè) and when we consider the momentous problems you have outlined we begin to sense how certain ideas about scholarly "leisure" undermine a "normative" social scientific calling in service to all our neighbours. "Academic freedom" becomes a goal we want to preserve (see Bourdieu Méditations pascalienne 1997; Pascalian Meditations 2000). This is right at the heart of the topic at hand when we realise that ours is now a scholarly stewardship which has been internationalized and globalized and even if we remain a tiny fragment - let alone remnant - of helpful scholarship, we still need each other to prod us into good works with the hope of our calling in Christ. So thanks for your efforts and your prognostications.

But to specifically comment on your reply:

1. Totality Concepts

Dooyeweerd's 1950 address on the concept of sovereignty (a good candidate for a totalizing concept I'd think) discusses how the UN functions in relation to "the law of nations". He writes (my pidgin translation) "The realization of the idea of a civitas maxima would have entailed the termination of international law. The latter displays, as soon as it has developed, like all law, a correlation of coordinational and communal functions." Now here is one totality concept - civitas maxima - that Dooyeweerd suggests is purely speculative. His critical route around that scholastic doorway involves his preliminary transcendental "structural distinction between communal and interindividual or inter-communal relationships." (New Critique III pp.176-177). In this sense the global economic market-place - whatever that structure is - coincides with an incredible diversity of communal social relationships and inter-relationships at many levels. It will take much research and careful analysis to identify trends and to understand the issues before us in any one locale.

2. You are right to observe that so much of this builds historically upon the intense post-industrial revolution nation-building via the strengthening of national/ regional economies by national governments. And I would suggest that any attempt to identify the leading characteristics of the international or global economic order, not only has to also give an account of how international law is formed, and how it functions in national polities and international organisations, with their rich fabric of international "cross-stitching" but also rediscover the norm of stewardship in that context. If I read you right you seem to be asking, "OK how then should we interpret the normative demands that arise because of a globalised economic order and what are our responsibilities within that?" I'm not sure I have the thorough grasp of what is actually going on - in terms of financial investment, investment, trade agreements, the policies of WTO and WB and other such institutions, how banks and other financial institutions are locked into the system of "touring capital" (as Zygmunt Bauman refers to it) - to give much more than merely reiterate how we should begin such analysis. (As I pour myself a cup of PNG "Fair Trade" coffee).

3. The distinction between a goal-oriented and a normative approach to social science. You are right to suggest that a normative analysis of goal-setting (in organisations, by governments, at a personal level) is indeed part of the (reformational) scientific task. In that sense we wouldn't want to deny that the development of such an analysis is indeed a valid goal for Christian social science. As to the UN's Millenium Development Goals, I suppose that the problematic managerial goal-oriented ideology has worked its way into what is, after all, a highly commendable effort to reduce world poverty. But it is not only a matter of setting a goal to change the "global economic order" but also implies a reorientation (repentance!) in our "comprehensive economic responsibility"? According to Calvin it is not the Pope and certainly not Christian Philosophy, no matter how purged of pagan notions, that is Christ's representative on earth. No, it is the poor and needy who have that role, he says. It is with them that Christ identifies Himself in his lowly standing among us. That leaves us well and truly exposed with our trousers around our shoes, doesn't it! But then the prophets enjoin us to gird up our loins and get to work with deeds of righteousness.

4. I'd say the distinction between norms and goals - as formulated by Bob Goudzwaard - should be understood in terms of where we start the goal-setting process. If goal-setting is autonomous then norms are simply stuck in that autonomous treadmill we have decided for them. Then they become a kind of meta-goal, don't they? But then we need also to address that kind of perfectionism that gets obsessive about starting right, and instead undertake the kind of research that needs to be done to understand the situation we are claiming to address .... In A Christian Political Option Goudzwaard makes a plea for thorough and comprehensive research before political program formulation. In other words what was needed was "basic research of needs" in the political landscape.

5. Where you find yourself faltering with regard to Goudzwaard's "shouldness" I still would suggest that criticism of the neo-Kantian basis for contemporary economic theory needs to be done in a more thorough and complete fashion as well as ongoing thorough immanent critical analysis of J K Galbraith's theory of countervailing powers (and other prominent economic theorists as well).

6. I agree with you with regard to the UN Millenium Development Goals and the various efforts by our evangelical brothers and sisters and other Christians to wake up their fellow church members to their God-given global responsibilities. They confront the spiritual lethargy that results from "possessive individualism" having such a hold on churches but even such worthy efforts need careful and sustained understanding and analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of debt forgiveness and the Grameen Bank initiatives and the theories of Joseph Stiglitz.

I think Bob Goudzwaard got it right in the Preface to Capitalism and Progress: "Perhaps we are afraid of a genuine reflection because that would inevitably lead to a confrontation with ourselves" - ie the complexity we dare not confront is made impenetrable by the progressive hardness of "our" own hearts ... with our own makeshift solutions ...

Bruce

-----------

Albert will reply in this second round, in due course.

Is global warming an absolute truth, now that an apparent preponderance of scientists and movie stars say so?

A new orthodoxy has emerged to be widely treated as an absolute truth, itself a truth brawt home to me as I watched a chirpy super-enthusiast former politician argue in her irrepressibly-ditzy manner that climate change = global warming can not now be denied by anyone but nuts. There's a holocaust coming that will burn alive all life on Earth, except critters like those that may survive on Mars.

Obscure obscurantists like Marilyn Churley NDP, former Toronto Councillor, former Member of the Ontario Legislative Assembly, and now general gadabout, has received the final revelation--apparently. But hold! Just yesterday I noted that climate change in the direction of global warming (they are not quite the same thing) has already tken place on Mars, and that some astrophysicists now claim similarity for both the Earth's present problems and those of Mars in times past. The patterns of changes on the two planets are part of a macro-effect of changes on the Sun, at the center of our solar/planetary system.

This latter eventuality would bracket how we weit the factor of our human species' own contribution to climate change, regional warming and simultaneous regional freezing in patterns contrary to what has long obtained, etc. Among scientists, there remain those who claim that global warming and global freezing are mixed together in a simultaneous overall shift in weather changes generally on our planet, that are altering climates in several directions at the same time. Some bring in at this point, or independently, the shift of the magnetic North Pole from its location in polar Canada to a new place in Siberia.

Being quite interested in these developments and viewpoints, refWrite is committed to the much more sure point, distressing and literally sickening as it be, that pollution of the air and water must be addressed massively by society, economy, businesses, government. each family, and each individual. Pollution of air and water makes the air of my city unbreathable, in season makes taking a walk impossible. Maybe the same thing holds in all its debilitating effects also for you. Carbon-emissive transportation in all its forms, and factories which massively discharge carbon into the atmosphere are key offenders in stealing our clean air and water. Maybe that too includes you.

But what of all the rhetoric and competing activists who make the issue one greater than pollution (which is huge enuff), who ask us to dismiss counter-intuitively all of the increased cold, snow, ice, and winter wind in favour of a one-way doctrine of global warming? What of the intuition that climate change does not equal global warming? They are importantly different concepts. A sustained counter-discourse, both scientific and lay, is developing to the full-load scientistic doctrinalism now trying to stifle the critical spirit on all these issues. More within the laity's grasp, however, are the arguments that Christopher Horner brings forward in his recent dissenting tract, published below with permission of Human Events, where Horner's piece originally appeared. Horner is author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism (Regnery, 1957).-- Owlb

Christopher Horner, "Top 10 Global Warming Myths" (Feb20,2k7) Human Events:

10. The U.S. is going it alone on Kyoto and global warming.

Nonsense. The U.S. rejects the Kyoto Protocol’s energy-rationing scheme, along with 155 other countries, representing most of the world’s population, economic activity and projected future growth. Kyoto is a European treaty with one dozen others, none of whom is in fact presently reducing its emissions. Similarly, claims that Bush refused to sign Kyoto, and/or he withdrew, not only are mutually exclusive but also false. We signed it, Nov. 11, 1998. The Senate won’t vote on it. Ergo, the (Democratic) Senate is blocking Kyoto. Gosh.


Don’t demand they behave otherwise, however. Since Kyoto was agreed, Europe’s CO2 emissions are rising twice as fast as those of the climate-criminal United States, a gap that is widening in more recent years. So we should jump on a sinking ship?

Given Al Gore’s proclivity for invoking Winston Churchill in this drama, it is only appropriate to summarize his claims as such: Never in the field of political conflict has so much been asked by so few of so many ... for so little.

9. Global-warming proposals are about the environment.

Only if this means that they would make things worse, given that “wealthier is healthier and cleaner.” Even accepting every underlying economic and alarmist environmentalist assumption, no one dares say that the expensive Kyoto Protocol would detectably affect climate. Imagine how expensive a pact must be -- in both financial and human costs -- to so severely ration energy use as the greens demand. Instead, proponents candidly admit desires to control others’ lifestyles, and supportive industries all hope to make millions off the deal. Europe’s former environment commissioner admitted that Kyoto is “about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide” (in other words, bailing them out).

8. Climate change is the greatest threat to the world's poor.

Climate -- or more accurately, weather -- remains one of the greatest challenges facing the poor. Climate change adds nothing to that calculus, however. Climate and weather patterns have always changed, as they always will. Man has always best dealt with this through wealth creation and technological advance -- a.k.a. adaptation -- and most poorly through superstitious casting of blame, such as burning “witches.” The wealthiest societies have always adapted best. One would prefer to face a similar storm in Florida than Bangladesh. Institutions, infrastructure and affordable energy are key to dealing with an ever-changing climate, not rationing energy.

7. Global warming means more frequent, more severe storms.

Here again the alarmists cannot even turn to the wildly distorted and politicized “Summary for Policy Makers” of the UN’s IPCC to support this favorite chestnut of the press.

6. Global warming has doomed the polar bears!

For some reason, Al Gore’s computerized polar bear can’t swim, unlike the real kind, as one might expect of an animal named Ursa Maritimus. On the whole, these bears are thriving, if a little less well in those areas of the Arctic that are cooling (yes, cooling). Their biggest threat seems to be computer models that air-brush them from the future, the same models that tell us it is much warmer now than it is. As usual in this context, you must answer the question: Who are you going to believe -- me or your lying eyes?

5. Climate change is raising the sea levels.

Sea levels rise during interglacial periods such as that in which we (happily) find ourselves. Even the distorted United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports refute the hysteria, finding no statistically significant change in the rate of increase over the past century of man’s greatest influence, despite green claims of massive melting already occurring. Small island nations seeking welfare and asylum for their citizens such as in socially generous New Zealand and Australia have no sea-level rise at all and in some cases see instead a drop. These societies’ real problem is typically that they have made a mess of their own situation. One archipelago nation is even spending lavishly to lobby the European Union for development money to build beachfront hotel resorts, at the same time it shrieks about a watery and imminent grave. So, which time are they lying?

4. The glaciers are melting!

As good fortune has it, frozen things do in fact melt or at least recede after cooling periods mercifully end. The glacial retreat we read about is selective, however. Glaciers are also advancing all over, including lonely glaciers nearby their more popular retreating neighbors. If retreating glaciers were proof of global warming, then advancing glaciers are evidence of global cooling. They cannot both be true, and in fact, neither is. Also, retreat often seems to be unrelated to warming. For example, the snow cap on Mount Kilimanjaro is receding -- despite decades of cooling in Kenya -- due to regional land use and atmospheric moisture.

3. Climate was stable until man came along.

Swallowing this whopper requires burning every basic history and science text, just as “witches” were burned in retaliation for changing climates in ages (we had thought) long past. The “hockey stick” chart -- poster child for this concept -- has been disgraced and airbrushed from the UN’s alarmist repertoire.

2. The science is settled -- CO2 causes global warming.

Al Gore shows his audience a slide of CO2 concentrations, and a slide of historical temperatures. But for very good reason he does not combine them in one overlaid slide: Historically, atmospheric CO2, as often as not, increases after warming. This is typical in the campaign of claiming “consensus” to avoid debate (consensus about what being left unspoken or distorted).

What scientists do agree on is little and says nothing about man-made global warming, to wit: (1) that global average temperature is probably about 0.6 degree Celsius -- or 1 degree Fahrenheit -- higher than a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen by about 30% over the past 200 years; and (3) that CO2 is one greenhouse gas, some level of an increase of which presumably would warm the Earth’s atmosphere were all else equal, which it demonstrably is not.

Until scientists are willing to save the U.S. taxpayer more than $5 billion per year thrown at researching climate, it is fair to presume the science is not settled.

1. It’s hot in here!

In fact, “It’s the baseline, stupid.” Claiming that present temperatures are warm requires a starting point at, say, the 1970s, or around the Little Ice Age (approximately 1200 A.D to the end of the 19th Century), or thousands of years ago. Select many other baselines, for example, compared o the 1930s, or 1000 A.D. -- or 1998 -- and it is presently cool. Cooling does paint a far more frightening picture, given that another ice age would be truly catastrophic, while throughout history, warming periods have always ushered in prosperity. Maybe that’s why the greens tried “global cooling” first.

The claim that the 1990s were the hottest decade on record specifically targets the intellectually lazy and easily frightened, ignoring numerous obvious factors. “On record” obviously means a very short period, typically the past 100+ years, or since the end of the Little Ice Age. The National Academies of Science debunked this claim in 2006. Previously rural measuring stations register warmer temps after decades of “sprawl” (growth), cement being warmer than a pasture.

It isn't necessary to endorse the positions implied by Horner's line of argument on the several issues being contested in his article. But the idea that science has spoken definitively by some massive majority of its qualifed practioners just does not hold; it's contrary to the nature of science ever to finalize the mass of evidence which is never complete, contrary to the mandate of science to stop the argument so that activists can have a full endorsement beyond question. Activists should not try to stop science's argument, which is basically with itself, with the schools and pools of practionarers in all their diversity of disciplines, new ones constantly emerging.

The role of activists is different. When they absolutize a course of action, and try to prevent all deviation, as was the case of the imbecility of the Kyoto Protocols which gave Communist China a carte blance to become the world worst unrestrained polluter, activism displays its own limitations. At the same time, this may be a moment for a united effort of many societal-spheres in concert to reduce drastically the pollution that violates our lungs with health-destructive particles and emissions, the pollution that poisons our drinking water, the pollution that makes both air and water expensive commodities that many of us can't afford any longer. -- Owlb

Fiji Today -- Two Infosources

Special Feature on the Military Coup in Fiji Today

For the materials below, I thank Dr Bruce Wearne, a sociologist of Christian-democratic political outlook, based in Australia. The first item is a note from him, while the second is a legal document filed in the Fiji courts by the Prime Minister who was ousted by the military coup that is proving so destructive to all aspects of life in the Republic of Fiji. -- Owlb

Bruce writes:

Phew. It must be pretty humid in the Suva Court Precincts. I think that Laisenia Qarase is acting on the assumption that it is possible to resolve this matter through the courts and hence bring about some kind of stable constitutional resolution.

My reading is that any genuine Christian-democratic CD movement in Fiji is hedged in not least by interpretations that regard Christian as nationalist (ie ethno-nationalist). [There are nearly 500,000 Fijians whose ethnic origins are located in India, a demographic that is ethno-religiously connected chiefly to Hinduism. -- Owlb]

I take it that the CD seed is planted in the SDL [main political party of the govt coalition, Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua] but is actually slow growth with lots of other hybrids etc etc. [A knowledgeable correspondent] has said to me that his advice over the last three years to [SDL leader] Lesenia Qarase and his advisors on just this matter has been ignored, and [my correspondent's] piece which asserted that the SDL had betrayed the trust of the Fijian people and is going to need a decade to rebuild themselves as an authentic party for good, should be read in that light.

The second item of this refWrite page 3 Special Feature on Fiji Today, as mentioned, is a legal document the concerns of which are currently being tried in court.

AFFIDAVIT - Qarase’s challenge to the Interim govt: 2
Affidavit of Laisenia Qarase in support of an Originating Summons.

I, Laisenia Qarase of Mavana Village, Vanuabalavu, Lau, Prime Minister of the Republic of Fiji Islands make oath and say as follows:-

1. That I am the lawful and democratically elected Prime Minister of the Republic of Fiji Islands.

2. That I make this affidavit on behalf of myself as Prime Minister of the democratically elected and lawful Government of the Republic of the Fiji Islands, and I am able to depose as follows –

(a) on the basis of personal knowledge of the matters contained herein, correspondence exchanged between the First and the Second Defendants and me or other members of my Government; or,

(b) where matters are not known to me personally, from information derived from the various forms of mass media and from sources specified.

3. That I make this affidavit in support of an Originating Summons filed by the Plaintiffs seeking this Court’s declaration that:

(a) the removal of the democratically-elected and constitutionally appointed Prime Minister, his Cabinet, other Minister, and members of Parliament by the First and Second Defendants by force of arms on or about the 5th December, 2006 was and is unconstitutional and unlawful;

(b) the usurpation of executive authority and power by the First Defendant on or about 5th December 2006 was unconstitutional and unlawful;

(c) the decisions and actions taken by the First Defendant in the purported exercise of executive authority, including the dissolution of the Parliament, the dismissal of a number of senior Government officials, the dismissal or termination of senior executives of statutory boards, the dismissal of members of statutory boards and Boards of some Government Commercial Companies; the suspension of the Chief Justice and the placing of the Chief Magistrate on forced indefinite leave are unlawful and unconstitutional, null, void and of no effect;

(d) the reliance by the First and Second Defendants on the doctrine of necessity to justify their removal of the lawful and democratically elected Government of the Republic of Fiji when and in the manner they did were, in all the circumstances prevailing in the country at the time, constitutionally and legally misconceived and unjustified, and therefore contrary to law and the Constitution;

(e) the actions taken by the First and Second Defendants in the purported exercise of their powers and roles contained in the repealed provisions of Section 94(3) of the 1990 Constitution is legally and constitutionally misconceived and inconsistent with the Constitution;

(f) the appointment of the first Interim Prime Minister, Dr Jona Senilagakali,, made by the First Defendant in the purported exercise of executive powers and authority of the President, along with the appointments by the first Interim Prime Minister of various persons to certain senior positions in the Public Service were and are unlawful and unconstitutional;

(g) the appointment by the President on the advice of the First Defendant of the First Defendant as the second Interim Prime Minister and other persons as members of the Cabinet of the Interim Government was an is unconstitutional;

(h) the declaration by the First Defendant of a state of emergency effective from 5 December 2006 and the subsequent promulgation of the Emergency Regulations in the purported exercise of the powers contained in Chapter 14 of the Constitution and the application and continuing application by the Second Defendant of the special emergency powers contained in the said Regulations were and are misconceived in law and fact given the circumstances prevailing immediately prior to the coup and are therefore contrary to law and the Constitution;

(i) the First-named Plaintiff remains the lawful and constitutional Prime Minister of the Republic of the Fiji Islands, and the members of his Cabinet, other Ministers and his Government remain the lawful and constitutionally constituted Government of the Republic of the Fiji Islands;

(j) any legislation proposed or promulgated by or under the unlawful Interim Government to grant immunity from all criminal or civil liability to the First and Second Defendants and any person who can be proven to have been accessory before or after their treasonous acts, is made contrary to law and unconstitutional, and is null, void and of no effect; and,

(k) the current Interim Regime cannot rely on the doctrine of effectiveness to ensure its legitimacy, and it remains an illegal regime because its defacto control of the country was imposed and continues to be imposed on the people by force of arms and not by popular acceptance or voluntary acquiescence. Defects in affidavit

4. That since the events of 6 December 2006 detailed below, I have been confined to my home village of Mavana on Vanuabalavu in the Lau group. I have made various attempts to return to Suva by air but have been denied passage by Air Fiji. I know of no reason why Air Fiji has denied me passage from Vanuabalavu to Suva, and although Air Fiji has denied this, I believe that they have been threatened or ordered by the First and Second Defendants not to transport me to Suva. Moreover, I received a phone call on or about 4 January, 2007 in which a person who identified himself as a Major in the Second Defendant threatened that I would be arrested by the Second Defendant, if I returned to Suva.

5. That as a result of these difficulties –

(a) I do not have easy access to my lawyers in Suva;

(b) I do not have access to official papers which could or should be used as exhibits;

(c) It has been very difficult for me to provide my lawyers proper, clear and full instructions for the preparation of my affidavit as a Plaintiff in support of our Originating Summons;

(d) I have been informed by my lawyers and friends in Suva that the Second Defendant is monitoring closely various arrangements which may enable me to access assistance from Suva, including the possibility of any Commisisoner for Oaths traveling to Vanuabalavu; and it has not been possible to find any Commissioner for Oaths to bring the original form of my affidavit to Vanuabalavu to enable me to have the same property sworn before a Commissioner of Oaths, as they all fear reprisal by the First and Second Defendant;

(e) It is, therefore, logically extremely difficult for me to properly swear and deliver an original affidavit as, I am advised and I sincerely believe the advice to be true and correct, the form of the High Court Rules requires; therefore, this affidavit is declared before a Justice of the Peace (because there is no Commissioner for Oaths on Vanuabalavu) and delivered to my lawyers by facsimile, and I undertake to abide by any direction from the Court which will address any evidential or procedural issues arising from this or any other non-compliance with the rules of the Court on account of the restrictions imposed on me and my travels by the First and Second Defendants;

(f) I have requested my lawyer in Suva to make whatever arrangement he consider proper and acceptable under the Rules for regularizing the form of this affidavit for filing as soon as possible; and,

(g) I hereby notify the Court that it may be necessary for me to file supplementary affidavits once normal access has become available to me. Background A: Results of 2006 general election and my appointment as Prime Minister.

6. That on 18 May 2006, I was sworn in as the Prime Minister of Fiji by His Excellency, the President of Fiji, Ratu Josefa Iloilovatu Uluivuda pursuant to section 98 of the Constitution, following a general election held in Fiji between 6 and 13 May 2006 in accordance with the Constitution and the Electoral Act.

7. That the results of the general election saw my party, the Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua (SDL) winning 36 seats in the House of Representatives. Following the agreement of two independent candidates to join the SDLP as a coalition, the total number of seats in Parliament held by the SDL and its independent coalition partners came to 38 out of 71 seats.

8. That as required by section 99 of the Constitution, I invited the Fiji Labour Party (FLP) through its leader to join my Cabinet to form a multi-party Cabinet and government. Upon his acceptance of my offer, I formed the first multi-party Cabinet and Government formed under the Constitution.

B. RFMF long-standing opposition against Plaintiff’s Government

9. That the First Defendant in particular and other members of the Second Defendant’s hierarchy have on various occasions since 2003 publicly opposed the Plaintiff’s Government and a number of its policies. Their public utterances against Government and its policies have differed in subject matter, style and intensity as and when issues arose over the last five years, but I believe that it cannot be seriously disputed that the First Defendant in particular and certain members of the Second Defendant’s hierarchy have developed a clear pattern of deliberate and constant opposition against Government.

10. That I append hereto marked Annexure LQ 1 a summary of most of the principal events of opposition referred to herein, including copies of the various correspondence and records of oral communication in meetings between the First Defendant and me, and I understand that other persons named as Plaintiffs in this Action and others will be producing other relevant documents the contents of which they have personal knowledge of.

11. That the local media has also widely reported the First Defendant’s public utterances of his open criticism and opposition against my Government over the last five years or so. I append hereto marked as Annexure LQ 2 the copies of various articles, randomly selected, published by local daily newspapers, radio and television outlets published in the past five years which attribute comments made by the First and Second Defendants in opposition to my Government and its policies. Such information has not been subsequently rebutted or denied by the First or Second Defendant.

More Info:

Is Russia beginning a move on Fiji?

Politics: Military coup: More on the troubles of the Republic of Fiji in the southwest Pacific

Politics: Coup: SouthWest Pacific island-state of Fiji undergoes coup, dismissing constitutional government