Posted on November 30, 2009

by

Daniel Clark

If you grew up watching The Little Rascals, you probably remember those breakfast table scenes in which one of the grownups would say, "Meat is not good for little boys. Now be quiet and eat your mush." It wasn't true, of course. That was just a convenient bit of junk science, to help the adults hoard all the bacon and sausages with a clear conscience.

At least in those days, it was the scarcity of goods that was the impetus for the junk science. Today, those roles are reversed. Great Britain's leading global warming alarmist, Lord Nicholas Stern of Brentford, says he hopes the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen will produce a measure to diminish meat consumption worldwide, by dramatically increasing the cost. "Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases," he told the London Times. "It puts enormous pressure on the world's resources. A vegetarian diet is better."

The punchline is that Lord Stern is not himself a vegetarian, nor is he pledging to become one. If he really believed that the consumption of meat was destroying the earth, one would expect him to have adopted a strict vegetarian diet the instant he arrived at that conclusion, just as one would expect Al Gore to ground his private jet, or President Obama to stop heating the White House like an incubator. No such expectations exist, however, because hypocrisy has been so blithely accepted within the global warming movement since its inception.

The truth be known, the theory of global warming has never been anything more than a hollow sphere of swirling ulterior motives. If it were scientifically legitimate, any evidence casting doubt on its conclusions would be met with relief, not hostility. Instead, its adherents become perversely enraged at any suggestion that the world is capable of withstanding human prosperity.

A cover-up was recently exposed at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, which had contributed data to a 2007 report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. E-mails within the unit reveal a conspiracy to suppress and destroy evidence that contradicts the scientists' assumptions. The media have tried to spin this as an isolated incident, but it's merely the most egregious example of the scientific malpractice that has defined the movement.

Seldom have any of the self-appointed guardians of science denounced their allies' transgressions. From the lie that the polar bear is endangered, to absurd warnings that Greenland will disappear, to Gore's cartoon of Manhattan sinking underwater, global warming fairy tales have been actively promoted by the so-called "scientific community."

The real purpose to much of this phony science is manifested in the prescribed solutions. The UN has been using that IPCC report to promote a global "carbon tax," which would be used to transfer wealth from developed Western nations to third-world despotisms. In this same vein, global warming's demands on us at a personal level are uniformly socialist in nature. It is not by coincidence that every "solution" to global warming seeks to pull our standard of living down toward the lowest common denominator. If it becomes known that the inhabitants of an island dictatorship eat beetles and walk everywhere on stilts, that's what the Al Gores and Lord Sterns of the world will say we need to do.

These socialist elites exempt themselves from the same restrictions they invent for the rest of us, by making the forbidden item or behavior so expensive that only they can afford it. This helps to explain why global warming is such a popular cause among celebrities. Regardless of whether or not the Democrats pass their "cap and trade" carbon tax through the Senate, George Clooney will never have to worry about how to pay his utility bills. Likewise, Lord Stern will still be able to have prime rib when he wants it, no matter what the cost.

For appearances' sake, these would-be members of the ruling class can even purchase "carbon credits" as a superficial means of counteracting the damage they're supposedly doing to the environment. That way, they can burn all the fuel, use all the electricity, and eat all the steaks they want, and still declare themselves to be "carbon neutral."

Lacking that option, the rest of us have only two ways to avoid becoming carbon criminals. Either we can reject the whole fraudulent concept, along with any politicians who would impose it on us, or else we can simply be quiet and eat our mush.

Return to Shinbone

 The Shinbone: The Frontier of the Free Press 

 Mailbag . Issue Index . Politimals