Climate-Change Meatheads Going After Meat

      224 Comments on Climate-Change Meatheads Going After Meat

Decades ago, The Older Brother opined that when the loony lefties want to violate someone’s constitutional rights, they just claim it’s to save the children. Then if you oppose the loony lefties, they claim you don’t care about children.

Apparently that strategy was limited in its usefulness, because eventually the loony lefties replaced “it’s to save the children!” with “it’s to save the planet!” That’s why Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, eventually quit the organization. He saw environmentalism being hijacked (as he put it) by the political and social causes of the left.  Science took a back seat to politics.  As Dr. Moore put it in an essay he wrote back in March:

There is a powerful convergence of interests among key elites that support the climate “narrative.” Environmentalists spread fear and raise donations; politicians appear to be saving the Earth from doom; the media has a field day with sensation and conflict; science institutions raise billions in grants, create whole new departments, and stoke a feeding frenzy of scary scenarios; business wants to look green, and get huge public subsidies for projects that would otherwise be economic losers, such as wind farms and solar arrays. Fourth, the Left sees climate change as a perfect means to redistribute wealth from industrial countries to the developing world and the UN bureaucracy.

You’ve got to hand it to the loons; they know a useful weapon when they see it. I mean, heck, it’s one thing not to care about children, but who wants to be accused of not caring about THE ENTIRE PLANET?!

Want to achieve your lifelong goal of transferring wealth from rich countries to poor countries? No problem. Just claim the rich countries are damaging the poor countries by warming the planet, then demand compensation. The U.N. will happily back you on the idea. Want to use the power of government to discourage people from eating meat? Again, no problem. Just claim that the meat-eaters are causing global warmi—er, climate change.

If you’ve read any of my posts about The Anointed, you’ve likely already spotted the pattern. But as a refresher, here’s how The Anointed go about their business (as described by Thomas Sowell in his terrific book The Vision of the Anointed):

  • The Anointed identify a problem. This is now THE BAD.
  • The Anointed propose a Grand Plan to fix the problem. This is now automatically THE GOOD. (By sheer coincidence, the Grand Plan almost always involves restricting other people’s freedoms and/or confiscating more of their money.)
  • Because they are so supremely confident in their own theories, The Anointed don’t believe they should be required to provide evidence that the Grand Plan will work.  In fact, The Anointed are always so sure the Grand Plan will work, they will happily impose it on other people — for their own good, of course.
  • Because the Grand Plan is THE GOOD, The Anointed are sure anyone who opposes it is either evil or stupid.
  • When the Grand Plan fails, it can’t possibly mean The Anointed were wrong, because The Anointed are never wrong. Failure can only mean the Grand Plan didn’t go far enough — so we need to do the same thing again, only bigger.

So with that in mind, let’s take a peek at an article on the BBC News site titled Can eating less meat help reduce climate change?

As the Paris Conference of the Parties (COP21) draws near, the international spotlight is more focused on climate change than at any time since the Copenhagen talks of 2009.

But amid all the talk of decarbonising energy and transport systems, one crucial area remains in the shadows. The livestock sector produces about 15% of global greenhouse gases, roughly equivalent to all the exhaust emissions of every car, train, ship and aircraft on the planet.

Wait a second … that would mean every car, train, ship and aircraft on the planet combined produce just 15% of greenhouses gases, right? And yet you people expect me to believe if you force me to buy fluorescent bulbs for my house, we’ll stop global warmi— er, climate change?

Who is eating all this meat?

Bad people, no doubt.

The US has one of the highest levels of meat consumption in the world at about 250g per person per day, almost four times the amount deemed healthy by experts.

That would explain why Native Americans who lived primarily on buffalo meat were always dropping dead of heart disease and cancer.

At the other end of the scale, Indians average less than 10g of meat per day.

They also have one of the highest rates of heart disease in the world. Somebody should inform those health experts of yours.

Left unchecked, shifting diets, coupled with a growing population, would see global consumption increase by more than 75% by 2050. What is being done about it? Very little.

Mean consumption is unchecked?!  You mean nobody is applying force to stop it?!  Oh, nooooooo! Please, tell me somebody in government is going to do something!!

Why not? Governments fear a backlash from voters over interference in such a personal choice as diet.

Naww, they shouldn’t fear a backlash if they try to take away our meat. Armed revolution, maybe, but not a simple backlash.  But what would be really cool is if governments left this whole thing “unchecked” not out of fear, but because they decided it’s none of their business how much meat we eat.

And because public awareness of the link between diet and climate change is so low, there is very little pressure on governments to do anything about it.

Boy, I just don’t know what’s wrong with the voters these days. You’d think they’d stop worrying about high unemployment, runaway government debts, runaway college costs, insurance premiums being doubled because of the “Affordable” Care Act, terrorism, etc., etc., and put that whole meat-causes-global-warmi-er-climate-change issue at the top of their “government needs to do something!!” list.

Are there any grounds for optimism? Yes.

You mean governments are going to finally admit they’re generally incompetent and stop mucking around in our lives?

Even though COP21 is highlighting the need for climate action and, though a deal seems likely, the pledges made in advance of the summit would put us on a path to warming of about 3C by the end of the century, leaving much work to be done if we are to get to 2C.

Riiiiiiiight. Because those models that predict worldwide temperatures decades into the future have turned out to be so darned accurate.

But reining in excessive meat consumption could close the gap by as much as a quarter and will represent an attractive strategy for governments in need of credible and affordable solutions.

I’m sorry, but for a second there, I thought you put the words credible and affordable in the same sentence with governments – you know, like the government that gave us the Food Pyramid and the “Affordable” Care Act.  Surely I was mistaken.

But reining in excessive meat consumption could close the gap by as much as a quarter and will represent an attractive strategy for governments in need of credible and affordable solutions.

Head. Bang. On. Desk.

Governments should seize this opportunity.

If seizing the opportunity means seizing more taxpayer money, you’ll have no problem selling them on the idea.

The first priority is to increase public awareness – both to allow people to make informed choices about what they eat and to build support for further action.

Ah, I see.  So you’re not advocating for the use of force.  You’re all about allowing us to make our own choices. Well, no problem, then.

But it is clear that information campaigns alone will not suffice.

Uh … meaning?

Governments should use the full range of policy levers available to them.

Doncha just love the Orwellian rhetoric of the loony left? We need information campaigns so people can make informed choices – and then we need to force them to make the decisions we know are best.

Changing the food served in public organisations – to offer a greater share of vegetarian and vegan options – would provide a boost to sustainable suppliers and issue a powerful signal to the millions of people who eat in public offices, schools, the armed forces, hospitals and prisons.

And when the “powerful signal” doesn’t do the trick …

Price reform will also be needed to reflect environmental costs and incentivise behaviour change at the scale needed.

In other words: @#$% FREE CHOICE! WE NEED TO TAX THE @#$% OUT OF MEAT SO PEOPLE WILL EAT LESS OF IT.

Will the public accept government intervention in our food choices? Focus groups carried out by Chatham House in four countries suggested that as long as the public could see a strong rationale for change, they would come to accept government intervention on diets.

Great. Fabulous. Awesome. Individual rights? Naww, who the heck needs those? Ya see, if we can convince most people that taxing the @#$% out of meat is a good idea, then it’s okay … even if it means people who don’t want to eat less meat have to cut back because they can’t afford it anymore. Remember, folks, when The Anointed impose their will on you, it’s for your own good – and the good of the planet, of course.

What’s more, the public appears to expect that governments will take action in the public good.

Excuse me while I go laugh my ass off at that one ….

HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!

… Okay, I’m back.

With a strong enough signal from governments and the media about why we need to change our eating habits, the public is likely to come to accept initially unpopular policies.

Riiiiiiight. Once The Anointed in government and The Anointed in the media convince enough people that eating meat is bad, they’ll want you to use force to make them eat less of it. I mean, it’s not as if they’d just make that informed decision for themselves.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to make an informed decision and choose to eat a burger for dinner.

Share

224 thoughts on “Climate-Change Meatheads Going After Meat

      1. Tom Naughton Post author

        Maybe they want us to be mentally ill. Then we’re less likely to notice when they’re lying to us.

        Reply
  1. John

    So if we reduce emissions (ie take away plant food – CO2), how are we going to grow all the extra vegetables and wheat that will be needed to feed all the new vegetarians?

    Reply
    1. Bryan Harris

      Some gifted individual at some company will find a way to solve that problem. At which point the government will have something new to regulate and blame for everything.

      Reply
  2. Tanny O'Haley

    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

    ― C.S. Lewis

    Reply
    1. JillOz

      Here are some quotes for you:

      “The common enemy of humanity is man.
      In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
      with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
      water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
      dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
      changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
      The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
      – Club of Rome,
      premier environmental think-tank,
      consultants to the United Nations

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      “We need to get some broad based support,
      to capture the public’s imagination…
      So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
      make simplified, dramatic statements
      and make little mention of any doubts…
      Each of us has to decide what the right balance
      is between being effective and being honest.”
      – Prof. Stephen Schneider,
      Stanford Professor of Climatology,
      lead author of many IPCC reports

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
      Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
      we will be doing the right thing in terms of
      economic and environmental policy.”
      – Timothy Wirth,
      President of the UN Foundation

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
      climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
      bring about justice and equality in the world.”
      – Christine Stewart,
      former Canadian Minister of the Environment

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
      on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
      – Prof. Chris Folland,
      Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      “The models are convenient fictions
      that provide something very useful.”
      – Dr David Frame,
      climate modeler, Oxford University

      http://green-agenda.com/index.html

      And some factual stuff here:
      https://climatism.wordpress.com/2015/12/05/cfact-presents-four-inconvenient-facts-about-global-warming-at-cop21-display/

      Reply
      1. Tom Naughton Post author

        From the horse’s mouth … or in this case, from the mouths of the jackasses promoting this nonsense.

        Reply
    1. Tom Naughton Post author

      Penn & Teller got hundreds of people at a environmental conference to sign a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide — including the “science” information officer.

      Reply
  3. Mark

    On the subject of “Climate Change”, does anyone else remember the ‘Ozone Layer Depletion’ scare of the 90’s. Or ‘The Big Freeze’ of the 70’s. Huh, what ever happened to that?

    Reply
    1. Tom Naughton Post author

      I still remember the Newsweek article in 1975 or so warning of global freezing. One suggested solution was to use nuclear weapons to blow up the ice caps.

      Reply
  4. Sheena

    What made me look twice at the original article was the picture alongside the tagline.. A large lady looking at a burger. Like, the tiny amount of meat in that is the source of all our woes.
    Head bang on desk… Yep.
    Gotta love the BBC. It’s for our own good, of course…

    Reply
  5. Tom Welsh

    “Want to achieve your lifelong goal of transferring wealth from rich countries to poor countries?”

    It’s unusual that I disagree with any of your opinions, Tom, but I must object to this one. As a historian with a deep interest in global politics, what I see is the exact opposite. There is a “wealth pump” in operation which systematically transfers wealth from poor countries to rich ones – and, within each country, from the poor to the rich.

    Now there is a great deal of roaring, screaming and trumpeting about the need to “do good”: human rights, feeding the hungry, etc. But if you look closely and follow the money, you’ll notice an odd thing: almost exclusively, it’s flowing in the opposite direction.

    Reply
    1. Tom Naughton Post author

      You’d have to describe that wealth pump for me. In the meantime, surely you don’t deny that the U.N. and other organizations are attempting to useg climate change as a means to transfer wealth to poor countries.

      Reply
      1. tw

        It may go to poor countries, and subsequently returns to a country like Switzerland via a bank account in the name of a government cleptocrat.

        Reply
      2. T33CH

        Remember colonial times – that’s an example of the wealth pump. Countries weren’t investing more than they were getting into their colonies, and if they did, they would be abandoned. But yea, you can argue that the wealthier countries contribute the most and that it is directed to poorer nations. Unfortunately, a lot of the reason many of these poor countries are in chaos is because of colonialism.

        When it comes to the environment, I just focus on pollution and keeping our country clean for my kids. We have to figure out who bears the cost of pollution. Will it be the industry that creates the pollution, or will the cost of clean up be socialized? I prefer that the industry bear the cost instead of me or my kids.

        When the general population bears the cost of an industry’s mistake, it is another example of the wealth pump where money is siphoned to pay for something that someone else doesn’t want to pay for.

        Reply
        1. Tom Naughton Post author

          If you think the poor countries are poor because of colonialism, I’d suggest you read “Conquests and Cultures” by Thomas Sowell. There are colonies that became wealthy (the U.S. among them) and colonies that became poor — some became much poorer after they became independent and embraced Marxist economic theories.

          Again, CO2 is not a pollutant and expecting industry to pay for this non-pollutant is ridiculous. I totally agree that industries should pay to clean up the true messes they create.

          Reply
      3. Karen A.

        I believe you are both correct. Having worked in the energy industry for 30+ yrs (now retired), Tom N. is correct concerning the intent of the leftist propaganda’s agenda. However Tom W. is correct concerning the result. The subtlety is that it is a rich country’s middle/working class transfer of “wealth”/”acceptance of less” to a poorer country’s middle class population, that the Anointed want.

        The result is, to paraphrase from Eddie Muphy in Trading Places, “y’all are bookies!”. The ultra-rich (including Obama) were thrwarted in their carbon tax efforts by the housing bubble bust, when the moderates realized hedge fund operators were going to get a cut of the billions of $’s that would go through the program. Translation: Al Gore and friends. Or, am I the only one who remembers Obama originally ran on a health care program that was to be funded by the carbon tax?

        So, long response, but short message: those in a uber-rich positions will be able to make more money off of COP21 recommendations because they are able to architect the details.

        Reply
    2. The Older Brother

      Let’s not confuse stated intent and actual results.

      There is absolutely nothing incongruous with the idea that these Grand Plans are sold and embraced on the left with the argument that “the rich” need to shoulder the responsibility of paying for “the poor”; then are in fact supported, marketed, and mined by Big Business.

      The “wealth pump” is government and its ability to compel behavior, extract money from its citizens, and distribute it to those it favors. This pump, and the resulting revenue stream, is indirectly owned by Big Business; while most of the pumping is energetically supplied by the left and assorted other economic ignoramuses.

      It’s a beautiful system.

      Cheers!

      Reply
    1. Tom Naughton Post author

      Global warming … climate change … climate disruption. I suppose next it will be climate microaggression.

      Reply
      1. Elenor

        !! You’ve just triggered me (what? no warning?!) by your macro-aggression of making it seem as if such a heinous micro-aggression isn’t hugely important! I’m going to my comfort-room! (The seas are rising! It’s getting hotter! The sun is getting closer! Nibiru is coming!) (Er. Um. that is, never mind…)

        (By the way, let me strongly recommend Vox Day’s book “SJWs Always Lie” — which provides a very well-done (and tested!) ‘defense’ against the left and their attack micro-dogs!) (I read it LAST time I was driven by all-y’all evil deniers’ cruelty to retreat to my comfort room… I’ve got some really great books in there! Oh, and I love the new definition: SJW = “social justice whiner.”)

        Reply
        1. Tom Naughton Post author

          Just ordered a copy of the book. We can discuss it someday when you emerge from your safe space.

          Reply
        2. JillOz

          Talk about a safe space! I found that book on Kindle and downloaded it. You should warn people of the high level od references to science fiction/fantasy/gaming in there!

          Too many micro-harassments to list here!

          By the way Tom, it’s 72 cents on Kindle.

          Reply
          1. Elenor

            Jill,
            The (triggeringly {wink}) high level of sci-fi/gamer references results from the ACTUAL success against the SJWhiners BY the gamers in GamerGate.

            Tom, I’ll look forward to your book review? If anything can draw me out of my safe space, that could be it!
            El

            Reply
  6. Justin

    You know that there are “loonies” on both sides, right? People too far in either direction often end up battling scientific progress.

    Reply
    1. Tom Naughton Post author

      Indeed, but in modern times it’s mostly the loony left that wants to use government to force its will on us.

      Reply
        1. Tom Naughton Post author

          No, industries should have to clean up their own messes. But global warmi– er, climate change and pollution are two separate issues. CO2 isn’t a pollutant.

          Reply
          1. S

            Of course C02 is a pollutant. It just depends on the concentration. If I pumped a house full of C02 the inhabitants would die. If I pumped the world full of C02… what happens?

            Reply
            1. Tom Naughton Post author

              Well, sure, but that in case we can call oxygen a pollutant. And water. And anything else, because anything in a high enough concentration will kill you.

              The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has been way, way higher than it is now in the past … and yet the world didn’t boil and life (including polar bears) didn’t die out.

            2. S

              Water is a pollutant of sorts… at least when it’s the sea and it rises by x metres, blah blah blah.

              You can exaggerate all you want (the world boiling), but there will be some pretty serious economic consequences of sea-level rises. I find it curious that you’re so concerned about good economics that you think investing in renewable energy is a waste of time, yet London sinking under the waves doesn’t register?

              http://www.johnenglander.net/420kyr-T-CO2-SL

            3. Tom Naughton Post author

              Perhaps you should do more research into those charts. Yes, CO2 and temperature have been correlated at times throughout history. But temperature rises first, then CO2. That’s what Al Gore doesn’t want you to know. And it makes perfect sense, because when water becomes warmer, it releases CO2.

              Yes, I am concerned about economics. That’s why I don’t support wasting trillions of dollars to avert non-existent future disasters based on poppycock theories.

              If London and Manhattan end up under water, feel free to come back and say “I told you so.”

            4. j

              Nothing wrong with investing in renewable energy..assuming it’s a private company (not the taxpayer) that’s doing it. Renewable energy is in no way good economics..the technology just isn’t there yet to make it a viable option for most people/economies. So let private industry figure it out ..they know how to do things efficiently.

              http://thebulletin.org/myth-renewable-energy

            5. Tom Naughton Post author

              That’s why I have great respect for Bjorn Lomborg. He believes humans are contributing to global warming. And yet I don’t call him a member of The Anointed (despite what our friend S thinks) because he’s against imposing expensive and unproven Grand Plans on others. He believes people will develop the technology to reduce warming or handle the effects of any warming long before some kind of climate disaster sets in.

            6. Tom Naughton Post author

              The economically feasible alternative to fossil fuels probably won’t come from a government program. Based on history, I’d say it’s more likely the answer will come from some genius tinkering in his garage lab. And the genius will come up with the solution because he wants to (egads!) become super-rich as a result.

            7. Joe

              Also, the funny thing about the free-market is that these “miraculous” interventions always happen just before we really need them. Why? Well, when everything is about to collapse, the solution becomes really high demand, which means it’s worth a lot. Therefore, billionaires are willing to invest billions to make it happen. I’m fairly confident given we already have the basic technology to generate renewable power that when the market truly demands it, somebody will crack the code.

            8. Tom Naughton Post author

              I agree. The list of predicted disasters over the centuries is long, but few of them came to pass.

            9. Craig Rich

              We need billions of dollars to clean up all that dihydrogen monoxide. It’s toxic in high amounts, even if it isn’t aspirated! The rich need to pay their fair share to clean up this pollutant to save the planet!

            10. Tom Naughton Post author

              Perhaps would should force some rich person to drink a glass of the stuff to prove our point.

            11. Eric from Belgium

              Just had a memory flash… One of the key ingredients in the middle ages to produce gunpowder was … weee weee
              And phosphorous was discovered by boiling down the mighty liquid.

              Science and technology must have been exciting in ’em good ole’ days

            12. Elenor

              I love (was it Christopher Monckton or Dr Don Easterbrook?) some debunker showing a several million year climate map (temps) — and as he’s just listing off the various ‘hot’ times’ he just throws in in passing, “and the polar bears went extinct here, and the polar bears went extinct here, and the polar bears went extinct here”…. as he pointed to the (way hotter than today). And at first your eye brows go up and “whaaaaa? They went exti… oh wait.. I get it!”

              Brilliantly done!

              (I also love to ‘buffalo’ the hysterics when they all are whinging-on about the “poor starving polar bears” (they’re not starving, by the way) by asking: “would you be okay if we started flying some big-old hogs up there and chuckin’ ’em out on the ice for the bears? Do you want to FEED the bears — or just mess about with politics? You know? Food drops? We do it all the time in disasters.” Their looks of astonishment are quite funny!) (New motto: Bacon for BEARS!)

            13. Tom Naughton Post author

              I believe it was professor Robert Carter who pointed out the times in history the polar bears must have gone extinct.

            14. Helen

              The alarmists avoid using graphs of any kind. They know how damaging actual data is to their cause. Imagine describing temperature over time and refusing to show the graphs. That alone should disqualify the entire bunch.

            15. Eric from Belgium

              Oxygen is nasty stuff. Above a certain concentration interesting things happens…
              Ever heard of oxidants and (one recent fad) antioxidants?

              Everything is toxic. Depends on the dose (LD 50) and concentration (LC50)

              Gosh, my toxicology courses were soooo long ago

              (tongue in cheek))
              E.

    2. Firebird

      The lunatic is on the grass
      The lunatic is on the grass
      Remembering games and daisy chains and laughs
      Got to keep the loonies on the path
      The lunatic is in the hall
      The lunatics are in my hall
      The paper holds their folded faces to the floor
      And every day the paper boy brings more

      ~ Pink Floyd, “Brain Damage”

      Reply
    3. Jo

      I’m inclined to agree with you. Both sides have been hijacked by vested interests and corporations. If there is a buck in it, they will encourage the left or right to promote ideas that make profit for someone. Americans seem to have a particular fear of government. Everyone else fears the power of American corporations who use their wealth and power to extract wealth from wherever they can, supported by the moral-free ideology of the free market.

      Reply
      1. Tom Naughton Post author

        Here’s the difference: without government getting involved, a corporation can’t take your money by force. They can only try to persuade you to buy the product. A lot of what’s blamed on “free market” capitalism is actually crony capitalism, where government provides the force.

        Reply
        1. Eric from Belgium

          Well… one can consider any form of government as a monopoly on violence and confiscation. Read up the latin origins of ‘fisc’ (that’s what in europe they call the tax man…..)

          As long as it’s done in moderation I guess it’s ok, but unfortunately….

          E.

          Reply
          1. Tom Naughton Post author

            That’s why our country’s founders called government a necessary evil. Yes, you need a government to protect you against those who would deprive you of life, liberty or property through violence or fraud. Once government steps beyond that function, things get dicey.

            Reply
  7. Heather Dreith

    Gosh, my head sure hurts from banging it on the desk! Thanks for sharing this rather bleak information and lightening it with your great sense of humor. Being a cattle raiser, I feel like crying when I think about this. My family things I’m crazy when I say that it’s possible meat eating will be illegal some day. Of course, the EPA is doing their best to get us out of business right now, so we can only look forward to more government agencies joining the attack. I find it discouraging that so many people these days are willing to give up their individual rights, along with the rights of those around them, for a “good” that isn’t even proven.

    Reply
    1. Tom Naughton Post author

      If people want to surrender their own rights, fine. It’s when they decide to surrender my rights that we have a problem.

      And let’s think about what will happen if these goofballs make meat prohibitively expensive: people will eat more cheap grains. That won’t produce a happy result.

      Reply
      1. Bryan Harris

        “And let’s think about what will happen if these goofballs make meat prohibitively expensive: people will eat more cheap grains. That won’t produce a happy result.”

        All the talk of what might happen… this is really reminding me of your blog post where you talk about your kids vs the other kids in the class. The theme was something like “Thanks for giving my kids an advantage.”

        So this has all got me wondering. If there is a tax on meat… will that give a huge advantage to people willing to pay the premium for the extra meaty goodness? I mean, let’s say that whoever keeps eating meat is going to save a TON of money in health care costs down the line.

        In this very untested thought experiment, the meat eating of the low-carb and paleo folks are still among the winners.

        Reply
      2. j

        Speaking of prohibitively expensive…beef already is…cant get anything under $4/lb unless it’s greasy ground beef..Fish is also expensive..aside from the canned (bland) stuff
        Chicken is still affordable but gets tiring everyday..

        Reply
        1. Galina L.

          What is wrong with a greasy ground beef? Unfortunately, when I buy a grass-fed ground meat from our local Earth Fare (it regularly goes on sale), it is always way too lean. The store is actually proud their meats are lean – they cut away extra fat and put it in a garbage. So much for saving environment. I already convinced our local Native Sun to start selling their extra fat. The Earth Fare is a recently opened store with great sales. I feel by now a little bit tired to fight all food and diet stupidity. I am buying a fat in one store and ground it to add to a lean meat bought elsewhere. The change in a right direction has already started(and you, Tom, was among the people who greatly contributed to it with your movie and the blog), and the time should take care of it.

          Reply
          1. j

            “What is wrong with a greasy ground beef?”

            Nothing..it’s more of a texture, flavor, and quality preference…i.e. On most occasions, I would rather have filet mignon than the greasy ground beef that comes in a roll..

            Reply
            1. Galina L.

              Filet mignon is a great piece of meat which is naturally lean. When it comes to a ground beef, a greasy one is more flavorful and juicy. Each meat has own state of perfection. So far I never saw a roll of a grass-fed beef, may be in a future Wallmart will make it a realty.

            2. j

              Yea would be great if everything was grass-fed. But even non grass-fed beef is expensive, which was really the point I was making.

  8. tw

    These claims and proposals are always made without cost to the issuer. Right there is the issue. That is, there is 0 accountability for being wrong….unlike the real world.

    I was always taught that there was a relationship between privileges and responsibility. A balance. These guys are all privilege no responsibility.

    If you tout a position and create a kefuffle and are wrong, that should cost you. But first, it would be nice if these guys had some actual verifiable proof to support their bogus claims. I amazed in this day and age that they continue to get away with so much BS.

    Reply
    1. Tom Naughton Post author

      Sowell makes that point in The Vision of The Anointed. They propose theories and plans that where failure isn’t evident for years or decades. By contrast, if an engineer or a programmer is wrong, the failure is evident rather quickly — and nobody cares how eloquently the engineer or programmer defends the plan. If it fails, it fails, period.

      Reply
  9. Firebird

    FYI folks and a touch off topic. Aldi’s is carrying Kerry Gold Butter. I saw it @ $2.80 per 8 oz. stick. It is almost $1 cheaper than Walmart.

    Reply
          1. Woalter Bushell

            The actual work that gets done in conferences is done outside the sessions, in bars, walks, meals and causal contact as any diplomate can tell you. There is nothing like meat space to sniff out the other attendees.

            Reply
  10. Nick

    I for one think climate change is something to be concerned about. However I think the argument that going veg is the answer is wrong. Factory farms using oil to grow grains are bad no matter whether we eat it or livestock does. The answer is to let the livestock do what they are supposed to do.

    Here is a TED talk explaining how this can actually help reverse desertification and thereby climate change- https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change?language=en

    So not eating meat isn’t the answer. Eating meat raised the way it should be is.

    Reply
    1. Tom Naughton Post author

      Yup, and all these goofs who think they’re saving the planet by eating soybean burgers have no idea how much environmental damage is done by monocrop farming.

      Reply
  11. Tanny O'Haley

    The anointed told us that margarine was good for the heart, a high carb low fat diet was good for our heart and would cause us to loose weight, that statins were good for us and that there were no side effects. Boy were they really wrong.

    The anointed told us global warming would bring about the apocalypse, that costal cities like Los Angeles would be under water, we’d have more hurricanes and other climate events. That by now it would be 2C hotter and that we would all be starving. The temperature has “paused” for 18 years. They were wrong again. I’m still waiting for my desert property to become beachfront property.

    Centralized government programs always FAIL. Eat meat! Viva la revolution!

    Reply
    1. Tom Naughton Post author

      But as Sowell points out, no matter often The Anointed turn out to be wrong, it never seems to shake their confidence.

      Reply
  12. Firebird

    I sent this to a blogger I know who published it on his website. His response:

    “I Didn’t Claw My Way To The Top Of The Food Chain To Eat Leaves!!
    Find A Cow, Knock Off The Horns, Wipe Its Butt, AND SERVE IT UP!”

    Reply
  13. TomH

    Here’s a wacky thought – let’s stop feeding livestock grain and making them fart out all that greenhouse gassy stuff. Let them eat grass, like they’re supposed to.
    Then maybe we can figure out a use for all the livestock poop. There’s got to be something it can be used for…

    Reply
  14. bobmaginnis

    Guess why Americans have so much heart disease?

    Nov. 7, 2014 — Saturated fat in red meat has long been linked to heart disease. But new research suggests it might not be the only culprit.

    Bacteria in the intestines convert carnitine, a protein building block that’s especially plentiful in beef, lamb, and venison, into compounds that speed up hardening and thickening of artery walls, according to a new study.

    And don’t forget the dead zones outside of the Mississippi from growing all the animal feed.

    Reply
    1. Tom Naughton Post author

      Naaawww, I still don’t buy it. I’ve seen too many studies in which vegetarians weren’t shown to have lower rates of heart disease once other lifestyle factors were balanced. And if meat causes heart disease, members of hunting tribes all over the world should have dropped dead of heart disease. But they didn’t.

      Reply
      1. S

        I’ve heard a theory that, since paleolithic times, humans may have lost certain bacterial species in their gut that helped process red meat in a ‘safe’ way. It seems like speculation to me, but it does add an interesting extra dimension into what is considered ‘paleo’.

        Reply
        1. Tom Naughton Post author

          If so, it’s been a very recent change. In “The Big Fat Surprise,” Nina Teichholz cites figures she dug up on how much meat Americans ate just 100 years ago. The short answer is “a lot.” A yet we didn’t start serious spikes in heart disease until Americans took up smoking, ate more sugar and refined flour, and substituted vegetable oils for lard and butter.

          Reply
  15. Joe Breen

    Great article Tom, meanwhile in Paris well they are having this stupid climate change crap, there are real concerns with the attack, but is that a concern no, instead they are concerned about this climate crap. By the way “Fathead’ was great and I e-mailed you one of my fitness articles a few years ago, if you are ever looking for articles on high-fat low-carb dieting let me know I would live to contribute.

    Reply
      1. JillOz

        Much of UN Agenda 21 is about herding people into cities to be controlled, and getting them out of the rural areas. The resources in those rural areas will then be sold by the rich council/developer public/private corporate identities.
        This (and some of the links in that article) is what it looks like.

        Reply
  16. lemoutongris

    Fun fact: only FR and DE still put Moore as a co-founder of Greenpeace. All other languages have gone down the “memory hole.”

    For the rest, you confirmed my initial hypothesis that one should do the opposite of what government says. It recommends less meat? Eat more!

    Besides, considering that the US government is the worst polluter on the planet, I would get a little more humble

    Reply
    1. Tom Naughton Post author

      I was curious where the figure that the U.S. is worst polluter came from, so I did a Google search. Depending on the source, China or India is ranked #1. But I also saw several examples of the nonsense that has become “climate change” (ahem) science: in several articles purporting to list the worst polluters, they went by which country emits the most CO2. CO2 is not a pollutant. It’s one the most common substances on the planet, and through earth’s history its concentration in the atmosphere has been much higher than it is now — and that was long before humans came along.

      Reply
      1. Mark

        Hehe, Australia has a population of 24 million (to put that into perspective – that’s LESS than HALF of the city of London). The Anointed are putting us into panic mode about “climate change” by saying we’re the biggest polluters in the world. Per capita. Which is meaningless. The best analogy i can come up with is polluting by cigarette smoking. Lets say 10 people each smoke 1 pack of cigarettes a day (we’ll say they’re Indians). I, an Australian, smoke 4 packets a day (I’m per capita the heaviest smoker, quadrupling the amount of the next heaviest smoker). If every one of those Indians cut down their consumption by half, they would still be smoking 5 packets to my four. So I’m still putting out less pollution. Simplistic I know, but I hope it’s a neat little illustration.

        Reply
        1. Tom Naughton Post author

          I had no idea the population of Australia is that small. You have fewer people than the state of Texas, so I’m going step out on a limb and declare that Aussies aren’t responsible for warming the planet.

          Reply
          1. Mark

            Yes, you’re absolutely correct. It is England that has the number close to 60 million but it’ss only 53 million. My mistake. Still, a much greater population concentration than Australia.

            Reply
      2. Woalter Bushell

        Ah, but the USA has exported the industrial jobs and CO[2] production. Follow the products we
        import from China and from India no doubt including customer support.

        Also rice production is a bigger source of methane production than beef. All those rice paddies.
        Iffy you believe in Climate Change, then rice is an unsafe starch.

        Probably a bummer for my semi vegan friends.

        Reply
  17. S

    Not the best blog post. Would you be as frothing-at-the-mouth if the talk was about taxing sugar for national health? Probably not.

    Keep the blog about nutrition, not politics. At least nutritional health is testable (which gives you credibility), whereas climate change is not.

    Reply
    1. Tom Naughton Post author

      I’ve made it clear several times that I am very much opposed to taxes on sugar.

      We’ve got people claiming we need to tax meat because the meat industry is responsible for emissions that will cause climate change and ruin the planet … and you think I’M THE ONE harming my credibility by pushing un-testable theories?!!

      Reply
      1. S

        Yes, you are harming your credibility. Not because you disagree with a meat tax (which is very reasonable), but because you appear irrationally opposed to anything ‘left’. It’s stupid, and you’re alienating half your audience.

        Reply
        1. Tom Naughton Post author

          I’ve made it clear from the very beginning that I’m a libertarian. I’ve made it clear from the very beginning that I oppose government intervention in our diets and in our lives. So no, that’s not harming my credibility. That’s being consistent.

          Sorry if your lefty nose got out of joint, but I really don’t care. The “half the audience” that favors big-government action to “fix” things can take a hike and I won’t miss them. They’re part of the problem. They’re the ones who vote these busybodies and nanny-staters into office.

          And if you can point to where my opposition to leftist policies is irrational, please do so. In fact, my opposition is entirely rational. That’s why I’m not a leftist. Leftism is based on emotions and has zip to do with logic.

          Reply
          1. Firebird

            “They’re the ones who vote these busybodies and nanny-staters into office.”

            I blame the hippies of the 1960s. It is them, their kids and grand-kids who are to blame. They wanted to change the world, but to do it their way because they know better than we do how to run our lives.

            Reply
            1. Tom Naughton Post author

              Here’s what blows my mind about the ’60s radical types: they constantly talked about being anti-authority, standing up for the little guy, etc., etc. Now they consistently vote to grant more power to government authorities, and they consistently side with the biggest guy of all (the government) vs. individuals.

            2. j

              Lefties..aka What can I get from someone else.. as opposed to what can I get from myself. Funny thing is I’m convinced their policies only hurt the poor..the rich stay rich; theyre not stupid (most cases)..

            3. Tom Naughton Post author

              That’s why a lot of big corporations loooove government regulations. Great tool for stifling the smaller competition.

            4. Craig Rich

              It’s sad that most people don’t understand this simple fact: big corporations lobby for more regulation. Since they are already established and have money, more regulation barely affects them. However, their smaller competition doesn’t have the resources to follow all the onerous regulations created by big corporations. They get to use the gov’t to fight their competition and make their gov’t cronies look like good guys fighting against big business.

            5. Tom Naughton Post author

              Yup, people who don’t better (and there are lot of those) assume big corporations are all run by free-market capitalists.

          2. Joe

            My favorite part of about debating lefties is that they usually assume your a right-wing Republican. They can’t play the inconsistency card since Libertarians are pretty much the only major political sub-group that actually opposes major government involvement in just about anything. I’ve talked to so many people that don’t have a clue how to talk to libertarians without the usual talking points they learned from Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olberman ha ha.

            Typical economic conversation:
            Me: We really ought to cut spending, reduce regulations and let the free market work it’s magic.

            Leftist: That’s ridiculous! The free market has to be managed! If you want to cut government spending, why don’t we start with all that corporate welfare you greedy capitalist!

            Me: Agreed.

            Leftist: Huh?

            Me: Agreed. Companies should take care of themselves and their success should be on the basis of the value they provide to others. But if you’re so against corporate welfare I’m sure you must also be against subsidizing green energy, Planned Parenthood funding, and public supermarkets right?

            Leftist: What? No!

            Me: Okay.

            Reply
            1. Tom Naughton Post author

              Yeah, I get a lot of that. I guess most people think right wing/left wing are the only options.

        2. CNC

          Tom was always high on my credibility list. With this post he is up one more notch. Top 10 now. It comes down to to the real science, which Tom seem to understand quite well.

          Reply
        1. CNC

          No warming in the past 18+ years in the satellite record, RSS and UAH. The seem to make it testable.

          The surface temperature record keeps getting adjusted making the past cooler and the present warmer. The raw data shows very little warming. I do believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas and warms the planet but not much and not enough to be a problem. There have been no negative effects of this small warming so far, only positive. See DR. Moore’s most recent talks. The climate always changes, we will adapt to this small change quite well with no help needed form governments.

          Reply
        2. CNC

          Hi S.

          I just realized you do not know what an experiment is. In and experiment you state a hypothesis (guess) and predict the results based on your hypothesis then observe the results. It the results do not match your hypothesis you wrong, period, no if and or buts. The catastrophic global warming has not met this test.

          Any system you can observe you can run a experiment on. Make a prediction and see what happens.

          Reply
        3. JillOz

          Climate change is about atmosphere, weather, meteorology and a bunch of other ologies, all testable and measurable.
          You know nothing about science.

          Reply
          1. S

            Of course I know that.

            However, you can’t design a statistical experiment to prove the global predictions of climate science (for example that sea levels will rise by x metres). You can’t take 100 earths and ‘pollute’ each with different levels of C02 in a controlled way and measure outcomes.

            Because of this there is doubt, and doubt is all that is needed for many to totally reject the existence of climate change.

            Reply
            1. Tom Naughton Post author

              Well, there’s that and the fact that the climate models used by the hysterics have turned out to be worthless.

  18. JillOz

    Tom, if you want to know where this nonsense came from, see
    here: http://green-agenda.com/agenda21.html,

    Watch the youtube vid Behind the Green Mask by Rosa Koire and her book of the same name.
    There are many presenters on this topic, but she’s very good.

    In addition, know that this scam is being pushed by Gore, Gorbachev and many Lefty billionaires in a bid to control resources and humanity. Meat makes people strong so they want to limit it. Sounds crazy but then so does mass murder by Viet Cong and the Nazis.

    Reply
  19. Todd

    Being a leftist is a birth defect. Truth is not what they are about.

    But yep, the weather is a changing. Every day it seems like the temp goes up or down. LOL

    Reply
    1. Tom Naughton Post author

      Not sure it’s a birth defect. Some seem to catch it when they go to college and are indoctrinated by leftist professors. Then they enter the real world, which often provides a cure.

      Reply
      1. S

        Yeah, totally. Those damn smart-ass PROFESSORS. The scientific elite think they’re so damn smart! Why-I-oughta…

        You’re blaming leftism on the most intelligent people in the country. THE MOST INTELLIGENT PEOPLE. Oh, but we’re all a bunch of loons, right?

        This is all such a massive circlejerk.

        Reply
        1. Tom Naughton Post author

          You seriously think college professors are the most intelligent people in the country?!! Excuse while I go laugh my ass off for a moment …

          HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-!!!

          Okay, I’m back. Dude (or Dudette), I went to college and met plenty of professors. If I had to place bets on an IQ test between the average software programmer and the average professor of history, or political science, or women’s studies, or literature, or just about any subject besides mathematics and the hard sciences, I’d bet on the programmer every day and twice on Sundays. Same goes for betting on the average successful entrepreneur versus most college professors. Or the average engineer versus most college professors. Or the average doctor versus most college professors.

          If you truly believe college professors are THE MOST INTELLIGENT PEOPLE in the country, you are seriously deluded.

          In a couple of his books, Thomas Sowell (whose IQ would no doubt embarrass most professors) distinguishes between intellectuals and highly intelligent people working in other fields. The intellectuals (especially those working in academia) have the luxury of proposing theories that either can’t be proved wrong, or require decades to be proved wrong (like global warm– er, climate change). By contrast, a programmer or engineer who comes up with a poppycock theory will produce failure almost immediately. That’s why programmers and engineers are often more rigorous in their thinking than college professors with their pie-in-the-sky theories … such as leftist theories.

          And yes, you’re a bunch of loons.

          Reply
          1. S

            For the record I am a programmer with a backround in mathematics. So I guess the professors I’ve been engaged with in the past are on the higher end of your scale.

            Libertarianism is just as much potential “poppycock” as any other political theory.

            Reply
            1. Tom Naughton Post author

              Then here’s how you prove that, genius. Take one of my libertarian beliefs and demonstrate (using facts and logic) how wrong it is.

            2. S

              Let’s say someone managed to prove, without a doubt, that climate change is real and humans are causing it, and that (for example) sea levels are going to rise by x metres. (I know you think that’s crazy, but please use your imagination.) How would a libertarian society deal with that situation?

            3. Tom Naughton Post author

              First I’ll tell you what libertarians wouldn’t do: they wouldn’t spend trillions of dollars and institute draconian regulations that would make everyone poorer in order to reduce carbon levels a teeny bit and barely change the worldwide temperature, which is what the wacky Kyoto protocol would do. Nor would they engage in nonsense such as taxing the @#$% out of meat based on a goofy theory that this would somehow affect the climate.

              Would they likely would do is support the kind of technologies that Bjorn Lomborg highlighted in his film “Cool It.”

              http://www.lomborg.com/cool-it

            4. S

              Thanks for the link, I enjoyed the documentary. It totally makes sense.

              But really he is only substituting one grand plan for a smarter, cheaper grand plan. Granted, I can definitely see benefit for individuals/companies to invent alternative/greener energy sources that are cheaper than fossil fuels, so it’s very believable that this would happen without government involvement. But how do you suppose this would work for the other measures, such as geo-engineering? How would a company possibly make any profit at all by spraying seawater into the air? Wouldn’t this have to be a government initiative?

            5. Tom Naughton Post author

              You still don’t seem to have grasped the concept. The Anointed propose a Grand Plan that somehow always involves restricting people’s freedoms and confiscating their money. The Anointed happily force those plans on everyone, even when there’s no evidence the Grand Plan will work. Lomborg shows zero interest in forcing his plans on others.

              If (and it’s a huge IF) we could prove (as in your hypothetical scenario) that humans are warming the planet and it’s going to cause real damage, then it would be a problem of the commons — same as if we knew a volcano was going to erupt, that the eruption would cause major damage affecting humans, and we could stop that from happening by applying technology. In that case, even a lot of libertarians would support spending the public funds required.

            6. Craig Rich

              The concept of “do no harm” is one of the most important, but widely misunderstood, concepts I’ve ever heard. I used to think it meant we shouldn’t do anything that would harm another. However, it means if you have the choice between doing nothing, or doing something you don’t know beyond a reasonable doubt will help, then you do nothing. It’s a medical concept, but it should apply to everything. Do you know that this will help? If not, then don’t do it. Doesn’t matter if you hope it helps or you feel bad doing nothing.

              So when someone says “We’ve got to do something!”, but know that person is an idiot. No you don’t. If you don’t know that it will help, it’s better to do nothing. Otherwise, there’s a better than good shot that whatever you do will cause more damage.

            7. Tom Naughton Post author

              That’s another point Sowell makes in his books. The Anointed are 100% sure that if their intentions are good, the Grand Plan must be good.

            8. Tom Naughton Post author

              That’s what drives me up the wall about these people. They seem to think the earth has a “correct” temperature, that they know what it is, and that before industry came along, the earth maintained that temperature.

            9. S

              Well, it does have a “correct” temperature of sorts, which is the current temperature. But only because infrastructure and population reside in areas likely to be affected by a change in temperature.

            10. Tom Naughton Post author

              So you’re the one who knows what the correct temperature is. Thanks for sharing your expertise.

            11. Todd

              Looks like I missed some fun posts Tom. 🙂

              Speaking of intelligence. It would be great if, for your vote to count, you had to answer this (or almost any question) correctly: Which party controls the US Senate? US House? A study was done and many who voted for Obama couldn’t answer correctly. Most Dems are dumb, there’s no getting around it.

              When people question the free enterprise system I usually refer them to youtube and ask them to search for Milton Friedman. He presented things so well.

            12. Tom Naughton Post author

              To be fair, both parties have supporters who are idiots and supporters who are highly intelligent.

              We require people who want to become citizens to demonstrate basic knowledge of the U.S. government system. I think we should require the same of natural-born citizens before they’re allowed to vote. What is the justification for allowing people to vote if they can’t demonstrate that they understand at least a teensy bit about what they’re voting for or against?

            13. Catherine

              Hear, hear, JillOz – I’ve always felt that Earth has its own plan for everything, and that however important we humans think we are, and however much effect we think we might have, we won’t make one blind bit of difference to the planet’s scenario. Tom – your review of the BBC article was just brilliant!

        2. Woalter Bushell

          High intelligence is no sure guard against neither incorrect believes nor incorrect logic. The same intelligence that allows blasting others beliefs can also be used to defend indefensible positions.

          Don’t ask me how I know.

          Reply
  20. David

    Vegans believe that they are saving the planet by transferring flatulence from the pastures to the shopping malls.

    Reply
    1. Firebird

      You’ve read John Nicholson’s epic tale of IBS troubles near a museum and pleading with the security guard to let him use the facilities!

      Reply
  21. Linda

    Well, I’m with you all the way Tom. I’m opposed to government interfering in our diets and our lives! And on a not totally different subject, the “anointed of NYC” did not succeed in limiting the amount of sugary drinks New Yorkers could consume. Their grand plan did not work and New Yorkers did not magically become healthier and slimmer. BUT, it didn’t shake their confidence! So, their plan DIDN’T fail- they just needed to do it in another way- now it’s salt! Supposedly, making their citizens aware of how much salt they’re consuming by putting little salt shaker symbols on different foods in fast food restaurants signifying that particular food has more sodium than the government daily recommendation, this is going to cut down on heart disease and high blood pressure.

    Funny, since I went very low carb and high fat, I have been able to get off blood pressure medication totally and now I eat more salt than ever. Strange…. And I do wonder how much this new program in NYC is going to cost the tax payers???

    Reply
    1. Tom Naughton Post author

      It will cost the taxpayers by forcing restaurants to spend rather a lot to become compliant with the law (which won’t save a single life anywhere). Restaurants, of course, will recoup the expense by raising prices.

      The commenter who said I wouldn’t be nearly as angry over an attempt to force people to consume less sugar either hasn’t been a reader for long or wasn’t paying attention. I was 100% opposed to NYC’s attempted ban on large sodas, and said as much on the blog, even though I think drinking a 44 ounce sugary soda is stupid. We should be free to be stupid.

      Reply
        1. Tom Naughton Post author

          Exactly. If McDonald’s wants to sell a bucket of fries for 25 cents, that’s between them and their customers. It’s not anyone else’s business.

          Reply
          1. Mark

            My problem with that transaction is the background to it occuring. A generation ago, junk food was bad for you. You didn’t eat it if you wanted (or wanted your children) to be fit and healthy. However, nowadays, we have had it drilled into us by our “health experts” that potatoes are “a great source of carbs” and vegetable oil is “so good for your cholesterol and much healthier than saturated fat”. Therefore, someone overloading on chips thinking “they’re not so bad” is making a diet decision based on flawed information. Ha! Just like Vegans I guess.

            Reply
            1. j

              Hmm not sure most people think potato chips are healthy. The powers of self rationalization might be the bigger factor here, which is made clear when someone says to themselves “they’re not so bad”.

      1. S

        Ok, I did a search and finally found some comments on a sugar tax: http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2012/05/28/holiday-audio-video-stuff/

        “You probably won’t be surprised that I disagree with the idea of regulating sugar. Yes, obesity and diabetes are major problems, but the key to solving those problems is education. Most people simply don’t realize how bad sugar is for their health. They’re still being told dietary fat is the problem — by a government that subsidizes and promotes wheat (which may be as bad for us as sugar) and subsidizes corn, which makes high-fructose corn syrup dirt cheap.”

        Decidedly less mouth-froth there, don’t you think? If there’s more please let me know.

        In comparison, above, we have you head-banging away blaming The Anointed (which seems to be defined by anyone who disagrees with YOU) and anyone else with the gal to think human-induced climate change might actually be real. Where in reality the blame lies with the idiot who wrote the BBC article. It’s the media, what do you expect??? If you flip it around to the sugar tax again, the situation would be you having a hernia blaming YOURSELF because some idiot suggested a sugar tax! Do you get it?

        Reply
        1. Tom Naughton Post author

          I see. So your complaint is that while I’m consistent in my beliefs, you don’t believe I’m consistent in my frothiness when I attack The Anointed for pushing a meat tax versus The Anointed pushing a sugar tax. Well, perhaps you missed this one:

          http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2015/08/13/big-soda-fights-back/

          “Which is why New York’s attempted big-drink ban was another shining of example of a useless nanny-state regulation dreamed up by The Anointed.”

          Was that not sufficiently frothy for you? Not quite as frothy as my comments on the goofball who wants to use government force to discourage eating meat? I don’t know, perhaps I’m not as good at judging froth levels as you are.

          Your expertise in frothiness aside, you might want to consider a remedial course in reading and comprehension. I couldn’t be more clear in my definition of The Anointed, and it’s certainly NOT anyone who disagrees with me. It’s those who are so supremely confident in their untested theories and Grand Plans, they are willing to force those plans on other people — for their own good. Got it now?

          Your last two sentences make no sense whatsoever. If you had a point there, it’s as clear as mud.

          Reply
          1. S

            In your meat-tax post The Anointed appears to include anyone who believes climate change to be real, regardless of whether they think a meat-tax is a good idea. (I probably fall into this category, although I’m not as confident as you are in your assertions about climate change – with good reason.)

            In your sugar-tax post The Anointed only includes those trying to impose the tax, NOT those who believe sugar is unhealthy.

            Get it?

            Reply
            1. Tom Naughton Post author

              Each time you comment, my estimate of your intelligence drops further. Nothing in the post suggests everyone who believes humans are warming the planet is a loon or a member of what I call The Anointed. I referred quite specifically to The Anointed as people who are so supremely confident in their unproven theories that they will happily impose their Grand Plans on us. The goofball who wrote the BBC article floats a theory with zero evidence to support it (making meat more expensive will somehow stop climate change) and then calls for governments to apply force to impose her beliefs on the rest of us. That’s how The Anointed operate.

              Yes, my sugar-tax post refers specifically to those who would IMPOSE THEIR GRAND PLANS ON OTHERS as The Anointed. In other words, it’s not what you believe that makes you one of The Anointed. It’s the cocksure confidence in unproven Grand Plans and the willingness to impose them on others — such as banning large sodas.

              Now do you get it? Or are you even dumber than I currently think?

              (Thanks either way for providing further evidence for my statement that leftism is based on emotions instead of logic. I’ve yet to see a logical thought in your comments.)

            2. Woalter Bushell

              Better than a tax on meat would be a tax on rice. Rice paddies are a bigger source of methane than beef production, even the industrial grain finished kind.

              Make those people put that in their pipes and smoke it.

  22. Linda

    One more comment. In a recent post of yours about statins, another reader commented that the information was out there if anyone wanted to access it, or something to that effect. The same is true of this ridiculous NYC thing! The nutritional information is already out there for almost all fast food- if someone wants it, they can get it easily! I, too agree that 44 ounces of sugary soda is stupid to drink, and sometimes I bite my tongue when I see a relative with a big sugary drink from a fast food joint. But, that is their choice, not mine and certainly NOT government’s!

    Reply
    1. Tom Naughton Post author

      Bingo. Anyone concerned about sodium levels can look it up — or eat at home. This is just another case of The Anointed wanting to confront people with information in hopes of changing behavior. It will work just as well as those calorie-count laws, which have already failed.

      Reply
      1. Woalter Bushell

        In the case of salt misinformation. The recommended levels would raise the death rate.
        Butt puritans.

        @ about 51—57 minutes “Last Chance Diet” too little salt

        @55 minutes big study on risk ration vs. salt consumption

        Reply
  23. lollo

    The whole global warm… er cooli….er climate cha..er extreme weather events has been twisted and contorted to suit whatever event occurs ! we are told of temperature changes for the last 500 years and use that as a measure . what they dont tell you is 1000 years ago they grew grapes in London ! the earths temperature was higher than today . Its a con by successive governments to squeeze every last dime out of us for useless green products

    Reply
    1. Tom Naughton Post author

      Yup. If it’s hot, that’s man-made climate change. If it’s cold, that’s man-made climate change. If there’s too much rain and we have floods, it’s man-made climate change. If there’s no rain and there’s a drought, it’s man-made climate change. They’ve tried to rig the debate so that no matter what happens, it can’t be evidence that they’re wrong.

      Reply
  24. James

    Not sure if the former Greenpeace exec, Patrick Moore, is such a good example to be quoting.

    Moore is an unabashed apologist for Monsanto’s efforts to push GMOs, pesticides and mono-crop farming on the public.

    Based on his GMO/pesticides advocacy, one can assume he believes the public should be forced to eat GMO-based foods to improve their health; that he supports Monsanto’s positions against GMO-labeling and consumer choice over what the eat and drink; that he agrees with Monsanto that the FDA and Dept. of Agriculture should continue to approve GMOs and chemical pesticides as safe without any testing for long-term effects; and that Monsanto should be able to sue farmers when GMO crop pollen and/or seed from a bird’s turd inadvertently lands on a given farmer’s land.

    Although Patrick Moore is a skeptic versus the establishment’s consensus on CO2-caused climate change “catastrophe”, he remains an avid flag waver for GMO consensus science and Monsanto’s crony/thug methods of of business tactics. He is not a libertarian, and not a supporter of most readers here who prefer all-natural food versus the processed food garbage of major corporations.

    See this video of Patrick Moore being served up a slice of hypocrisy pie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWM_PgnoAtA

    And this article:http://www.newsweek.com/patrick-moore-scientist-who-offered-and-then-refused-drink-glyphosate-weed-317289

    Reply
    1. Tom Naughton Post author

      I didn’t see anything in your links suggesting he wants to force anyone to eat GMO foods. I disagree with his belief that Roundup in safe, but that has nothing to with his statement that he quit Greenpeace because it was hijacked by people more interested in left-wing social causes than science. He’s obviously correct on that front.

      Reply
      1. James

        Hello Tom,

        Actually agree with you and Moore 100% re: climate change science (or lack thereof). Also would agree with the statement that left-wing forces are pushing the climate change agenda for social causes. Good for him that he is fighting the good-fight on this issue.

        I should add that I certainly think the anti-meat crusade is bonkers, especially since I am into cooked flesh – good stuff.

        With that said, Moore is still a pusher of GMOs and pesticides – an establishment stance based on authoritarian proclamations from corp/govt sponsored scientists, not objective, due diligence science.

        And, of course, he doesn’t want to “force” everyone to eat GMO-based foods smothered in Roundup, but Monsanto does.

        And, of course, he doesn’t want to sue small farmers, but Monsanto does (and has: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZGueeao0tE).

        And, of course, he doesn’t want to force farmers to buy the crop seeds and pesticides from a single source, but Monsanto does. And so on, and so on…

        Moore once chose to keep company with the crazed anti-capitalism greens of Greenpeace for multiple years, and now he keeps company (in a figurative sense) with the crony-corrupt capitalists who are not exactly models of libertarian thinking and small government solutions.

        He pushes their products without regard to the potential damage to both the environment and humans (in any number of ways), which could lead to some dreadful outcomes down the road.

        As a result, I simply think the man’s beliefs and principles are somewhat suspect.

        That’s my cynical opinion only…..maybe some of your readers would agree (probably not many though).

        Reply
  25. Elenor

    Moore says in some video where he discusses why he had to leave Greenpeace: the “new owners” — watermelons they called them: “green on the outside, RED on the inside”! — decided one of their new important goals was to “remove chlorine from the earth”! You know — chlorine? — one of the ELEMENTS on the periodic table?

    Reply
    1. Woalter Bushell

      Not only dat, but chlorine is essential to life. It’s in bloody table salt which is essential to animal life.

      Reply
  26. js290

    These command and control tactics is not about wealth distribution. It’s about resource control.

    “Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well-warmed, and well-fed.” –Herman Melville

    The resource base of agricultural societies can only be degraded. We have to conquer and control other resource base to continue the charade of wealth.

    “Every culture that has depended on annual plants for their staple food crops has collapsed.” –Mark Shepard

    Reply
    1. Woalter Bushell

      The ancient Egyptians lasted for thousands pf years. America will not last that long. Of curse, they built the Aswan high damn and the Nile no longer floods and fertilizes the land, so they are doomed.

      Only exception that comes to mind and that due to special circumstance.

      And yes they fattened cattle on wheat.

      Reply
  27. Michael Steadman

    Doubtless if governments were to implement something on the order of a meat tax, there would be meat credits just as there are carbon credits–gotta give the anointed some way to opt out of their own plan, right?

    Reply
      1. Woalter Bushell

        I suspect the true force of the meat taxes will be to channel meat to the upper classes. They no doubt feel they should not have to compete with the proles.

        Reply
        1. Firebird

          It is my understanding that in Biblical times, Jews were forbidden from eating pork because it was unclean. Yet I have read that the rabbis themselves did eat pork. They also lived in mansions with walkways that were above the main streets so as not to intermingle with the common folk.

          I’m just guessing here but I suspect this is where we get the expression, “living high off the hog.”

          Reply
          1. Gilana

            I’m probably going to be sorry for replying, but what are you on about? Rabbis ate pork? Lived in mansions away from the huddled masses? Did you get a bootleg copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? I mean really? REALLY?

            Reply
  28. Woalter Bushell

    And remember rice is a bigger contributor to methane than beef. All those rice paddies are sources.

    I don’t think my vegan friends are going to like that idea.

    Of curse, there is also the arsenic question.

    Reply
  29. Becky D

    Government using taxes to influence the price of food? That would never happen…oh wait…corn subsidies. The same corn that turns up in anything you buy with more than one ingredient. I swear they put corn in products just for the hell of it. Want a pre-mixed spice blend? Check for corn starch!
    The idea of a tax on meat when the producers of statins get absurd tax breaks is really sickening.

    Reply
  30. Dianne

    Arsenic question?

    Well, if they take my meat away from me, or make it so expensive I can only eat it once a week, arsenic might seem like a good idea. I don’t WANT to be manipulated, legislated, or otherwise forced into being vegetarian. I tried that — several times — and each attempt left me fatter, weaker, and with an ever more broken metabolism. (Same thing happened with Weight Watchers, come to think of it.) And I couldn’t help noticing that a few of my vegetarian friends looked kinda pasty, as if they’d sprouted under a board. Maybe I did too.

    The longest I ever made it on a vegetarian diet was 90 days. On the evening of my last day as a vegetarian my husband picked me up from work, and as I got into the car I said, “Outback Steakhouse, and step on it.” Wow — I never knew our old Volvo could accelerate that fast.

    Reply
    1. Tom Naughton Post author

      I managed to remain a vegetarian (with occasional seafood) for several years. Too bad the negative effects crept up on me slowly, or I might have had the brains to give it up sooner.

      Reply
  31. Ulfric Douglas

    I was told by a university girlfriend that Patrick Moore played glockenschpiel with her mother.

    That is all.

    Reply
  32. Ulfric Douglas

    “And remember rice is a bigger contributor to methane than beef.”
    Yesterday rice gave me gas, so that’s a proven scientifish fact.

    Reply
  33. anonymous

    Ok, so let me get this straight: climate is not allowed to change, but diet must difinitely change. Or else.

    Or else, what?

    Exactly.

    ————

    If I promise to eat only raw lentil sprouts, will I cause an ice age? Just think of all the ice sculptures we could make.

    Right now we’ve seen people saying “Oh no, global cooling, Government must do something!” and also “Oh no, global warming, Government must do something!”. I know we will see eventually people going “Oh no, global stability, there is no more changes, Government must do something!”

    Really, you ecologists should say thinks clearly and upfront. You want world government. Ein volk, ein Reich, ein Führer. One race, one language, one diet. You guys are onenists.

    Reply
    1. Tom Naughton Post author

      I read a book called “Air Con” in which the author quotes from media articles going back 100+ years. We’ve had cycles of media hysteria warning of a coming ice age, then a warming age, then an ice age, then a warming age.

      Reply
  34. Amberly

    A while back I read a post and thought it was by Big Brother on your blog, but could be wrong. But basically, it said that while cows *do* release a lot of greenhouse gasses, they do not contribute to the problem. The reason is the carbon cycle. All the methane they produce is simply from carbon that was in the atmosphere a few weeks ago or months ago. (CO2 bound up in grass, the cows eat the grass, and then the carbon is released as methane.) There is no net change. If you do believe that greenhouse gasses are causing a problem, they would be causing that problem because carbon that has been stored in the earth in the form of fossil fuels for millions of years is now being released into the atmosphere.

    Reply
    1. Tom Naughton Post author

      Hmmm … I know I didn’t write that one. If the Older Brother did, I don’t remember it.

      (He’d probably prefer not to be referred to as Big Brother. He’s rather stridently anti-statist.)

      Reply
  35. Helen

    if you are going to lie, make sure it’s a really big lie. The bigger the lie, the more likely it will be believed! Move thee to the country, grow your own meat and try and get your neighbors to do the same so they won’t come after yours.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.