Let us for a minute forget that the militant environmentalists and animal rights activists lack any provable hypothesis related to global warming – and that their religion-like emotionalism is nothing more than the pursuit of the ultimate goal of international socialism: totalitarian government, population control, and a ruling elite – explain to me how hamburgers or any dietary restriction can outweigh the real drivers of climate change.

First, let us realize that science tells us that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, is a necessary component of life, and that greater atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide actually promote plant growth, increased oxygen levels and general well-being.

Second, let us realize that science tells us that carbon dioxide is not a cause of global climate change as it lacks the rise in temperatures by 800 – 1,000 years (depending on the dataset that you select). And, that there is a simple explanation for the observable increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Namely, as the Planet warms (a natural occurance having emerged from the Little Ice Age), the oceans warm and the dissolved carbon dioxide outgasses into the atmosphere – increasing the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. Conversely, as oceans begin to cool, the atmospheric carbon dioxide will decrease and the oceans will allow more carbon dioxide to enter into solution. Sort of like opening a cold beer on a warm day and watching the bubbles outgas from the beer and into the atmosphere.

Third, let us realize that the main drivers of global climate change are: the energy output of the Sun’ the Earth’s position relative to the Sun; the rotational dynamics of the Earth; vulcanology and plate tectonics (which can cause a rise in ocean levels as the plates shift); deep ocean currents (note the  El Niño–Southern Oscillation or El Niño/La Niña–Southern Oscillation is responsible for major weather shifts and storm patterns); the largest greenhouse gas of all, water vapor; and other factors. Not animal farts or what we eat.

Fourth, let us realize that the entire purpose of so-called global warming remedies is to bring about international socialism in the form of larger governments, increased taxes, and the reduction of your personal freedoms. Population control and the political power that comes from man-made scarcity and rationing. Lest you haven’t noticed, many of the old-time socialists and communists have infiltrated the environmental movement to gain both funding and political control. And, considering the level of political corruption, it appears to be succeeding to the point where they have hijacked the democrat party.

And, fifth, let us realize that atmospheric carbon dioxide does not increase the total energy impinging on Earth – and that re-radiation only slows the rate of cooling. Much in the same manner as tropical moisture produces hot nights as the heat absorbed by the surface more slowly cools. Think of a blanket instead of a heater.

So, I ask you …

Would You Give Up Eating Hamburgers to Stop Climate Change?

In case you missed the news, humanity spent the Earth Day week reaching another sad milestone in the history of catastrophic climate change: For the first time, measurements of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere surpassed 400 parts per million, aka way above what our current ecosystem can handle.

I can’t help myself: I call bullshit!  First, the planet has experienced higher and lower global temperatures, less and more atmospheric carbon dioxide – all before man’s influence in the form of the industrial revolution. So nobody – including the scientists and high-priests of the climate movement – know what our ecosystem can handle. There are no significant milestones in climate change other than those marked by ice ages and warming periods. All involving periods of thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Second, if man stopped the production of all carbon dioxide now, there would be no measurable effect against the normal variability of nature for at least 1,000 years. The perfect scam as nobody can be held accountable for waste, fraud and abuse of the political system. Not to mention that our planet seems to be cooling this decade while the atmospheric carbon dioxide appears to be rising.

Actually, you probably did miss the news because most major media outlets didn’t cover it in a serious way, if at all. Instead, they and their audiences evidently view such information as far less news-, buzz- and tweet-worthy than (among other things) the opening of George W. Bush’s library and President Obama’s jokes at the White House Correspondents Dinner. Such an appetite for distraction, no doubt, comes from both those who deny the problem of climate change and those who acknowledge the crisis but nonetheless look away from what feels like an unsolvable mess.

Deniers? Science has not proven the hypothesis of “man-made” global warming, nor is the output of computer models with flawed or incomplete assumptions and highly-massaged data accepted as scientific fact. Crisis? A crisis is immediate with potentially disastrous consequences, not something that may or may not occur a thousand or ten thousand years from now. Unsolvable? Yes, the scale of nature precludes a man-made solution other than mitigation of climate effects using proper zoning in storm areas, stronger shelters, and relocation to less dangerous areas.

That sense of hopelessness is understandable. After all, some of the most hyped ways to reduce carbon emissions — electric cars, mass-scale renewable energy power plants, etc. — require the kind of technological transformations that can seem impossibly unrealistic at a time when Congress can’t even pass a budget.

Not unrealistic, unreliable and costly. Wind and solar cannot provide the enormous amounts of reliable, sustainable and cost-effective energy needed by an industrial nation. Almost all of the government-experiments in alternative energy require government subsidies, loan-guarantees and mandated usage to generate a profit for the private politician-friendly investors. And, yet nuclear energy sees to be vilified by the same socialist and communists that were anti-nuke “peaceniks” in the early sixties.

Back to cow farts (methane) as a driver of global warming …

Here’s the good news, though: The fastest way to reduce climate change shouldn’t seem impossible, because it requires no massive new investments, technological breakthroughs or long-term infrastructure projects. According to data compiled by former World Bank advisers Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang, it just requires us all to eat fewer animal products.

In their report, Goodland and Anhang note that when you account for feed production, deforestation and animal waste, the livestock industry produces between 18 percent and 51 percent of all global greenhouse gas emissions. Add to this the fact that producing animal protein involves up to eight times more fossil fuel than what’s needed to produce an equivalent amount of non-animal protein, and you see that climate change isn’t intensified only by necessities like transportation and electricity. It is also driven in large part by subjective food preferences — more precisely, by American consumers’ unnecessary desire to eat, on average, 200 pounds of meat every year.

Demoralizing? Incinerating the Planet? Dooming Future Generations? 

If you find it demoralizing that we are incinerating the planet and dooming future generations simply because too many of us like to eat cheeseburgers, here’s that good news I promised: In their report, Goodland and Anhang found that most of what we need to do to mitigate the climate crisis can be achieved “by replacing just one quarter of today’s least eco-friendly food products” — read: animal products — “with better alternatives.” That’s right; essentially, if every fourth time someone craved, say, beef, chicken or cow milk they instead opted for a veggie burger, a bean burrito or water, we have a chance to halt the emergency.

Alternatives? Laughable bull-pucky! In fact, one might note that this appears to be the same “activist” crowd screaming about genetically-altered food. Not for health reasons, but to prevent “abundance” and sufficient food in growing populations. It’s all about the socialists and their “population control.” Not to mention that this same crowd is complicit in the agonizing deaths and suffering of hundreds of millions of people with their junk science DDT pronouncements – now rejected by even the United Nations.

Politicized? You mean politically exploited for political advantage by socialists and communists who do not wish us, or humanity, well …

The trouble, of course, is that environmentalism and conservation — like everything else — have been unduly politicized. Consequently, opposing those once-universal values now seems to be viewed by many on the right as a constructive expression of patriotic defiance. Indeed, according to one recent study, many self-described conservatives will refuse to buy a green product once they see it marketed as being environmentally responsible. Similarly, another study shows that conservatives are prone to consume more energy when warned that they are already using a lot.

Green products – you mean like those products labeled “organic” and sold for significantly higher prices, even though there are no labeling standards for what is actually considered “organic.” In many cases, more energy is required to produce so-called “green products” than “regular” products – with the energy costs being masked by selective disclosure.

Speaking of freedom …

In light of that, I’m sure some conservatives will read this column and send me email smugly pledging to eat even more meat than they already do, just to make some incoherent point about freedom. What they will really be proving, though, is that no matter how straightforward a climate change solution may be, we will never be able to combat the crisis until everyone is willing to sacrifice just a little bit, and nobody pretends ecological survival is anything other than what is: an apolitical, transpartisan priority. Source: Would You Give Up Eating Hamburgers to Stop Climate Change?

Yes, it is all about freedom! With the global warming crowd telling you how to live your life, what products to buy, what medical treatment you might be eligible for, and so on. All with the goal of securing perpetual political power for their enlightened ruling elite. Using junk science as justification to turn you into unexceptional population units to be manipulated for the collective good – as determined by them. There never has been a collectivist, socialist, or communist society where the leadership was not corrupt or that required significant state security troops to maintain order in the face of centrally-planned famines and other disasters.

Bottom line …

If you have an “In-and-Out,” “Tommys” or other favorite burger joint – have at it. Screw these democrat socialists and communists who want to perpetuate their toxic political agenda. Yes, it is all about freedom – something that they want to control in order to achieve their worker’s paradise. Like Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, and of course, North Korea.

-- steve

Related articles

Global Warming: Cancel the Ice Melt Crisis -- Computer Glitch?

Weather Service Chief Playing Global Warming Politics?

Global Warming: Are Politicians, Institutions and Scientists Worried About Funding in Face of REAL Science Disclosures? Prepared to Perpetuate the BIG LIE or simply say they dont know what is happening to a scientific certainty?

So Much for 350: The Atmosphere's Carbon Dioxide Tops 400

Chart of the Century: The Keeling Curve Edges Up to 400 ppm