Via Bishop Hill, as Nico Stehr and Hans von Storch helpfully point out it seems that many AGW alarmists simply don't agree: after all, democracy is so very inconvenient because a lot of the time people won't do what you tell them, eh? [Emphasis mine.]
...the times are changing. Within the broad field of climatology and climate policy one is able to discern growing concerns about the virtues of democracy... it is an inconvenient democracy, which is identified as the culprit holding back action on climate change. As Mike Hulme has noted, it can be frustrating to learn that citizens have minds of their own.
Leading climate scientists insist that humanity is at a crossroads. A continuation of present economic and political trends leads to disaster if not collapse. To create a globally sustainable way of life, we immediately need in the words of German climate scientist Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, a "great transformation." What exactly is meant by the statement is vague. Part, if not the heart of this great transformation is in the eyes of some climate scientists as well as other scientists part of the great debate about climate change a new political regime and forms of governance: "We need an authoritarian form of government in order to implement the scientific consensus on greenhouse gas emissions" according to the Australian scholars David Shearman and Joseph Wayne Smith their book The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy. The well-known climate researcher James Hansen adds resignedly and frustrated as well as vaguely, "the democratic process does not work". In The Vanishing Face of Gaia, James Lovelock emphasizes that we need to abandon democracy in order to meet the challenges of climate change head on. We are in a state of war. In order to pull the world out of its state of lethargy, the equivalent of a global warming "nothing but blood, toil, tears and sweat" speech is urgently needed.
If I were the AGW alarmists, I wouldn't worry about it too much: democracy is little more than a fig-leaf these days anyway, especially since a fucking court ruling decided that manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation.
P.S. The above article was written by Nico Stehr and Hans von Storch; the latter was one of those mentioned in the CRU emails—specifically this one, written by Andy Revkin to Tim Osborn.
by the way, von storch doesn't concur with osborn/briffa on the idea that
higher past variability would mean there'd likley be high future
variability as well (bigger response to ghg forcing).
he simply says it's time to toss hockeystick and start again, doesn't take
it further than that.
Von Storch was also one of those who called for Mann and Jones to be banned from making any contribution to future IPCC reviews.