Climate-Change Meatheads Going After Meat

      354 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.


If you enjoy my posts, please consider a small donation to the Fat Head Kids GoFundMe campaign.
Share

354 thoughts on “Climate-Change Meatheads Going After Meat

      1. Tom Naughton

        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

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

        Reply
    1. Tom Naughton

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

      Reply
      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
  3. 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
  4. 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

      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
  5. 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
    1. Tom Naughton

      It’s her burger and my incandescent bulbs. Both warming — er, changing — the climate.

      Reply
  6. 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

      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
      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
  7. 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

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

      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
  8. 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

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

      Reply
      1. T33CH

        Is it fair for an industry to use taxpayer funds to clean up their mistake? Isn’t that equally loony?

        Reply
    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

        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
  9. 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

      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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. Firebird

    Great lecture from a Nobel Prize winner on the Global Warming Hoax.

    BTW…what do you think President Obama was using to get around Paris during the conferences? Tesla? Prius? Segue?

    Reply
        1. Sonya

          If they were really really serious, they would use the available technology and do it by teleconference. …

          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
  14. 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
  15. 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

      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
  16. 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
  17. 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

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

      Reply
      1. JillOz

        It’s not about information, it’s about gathering supporters, pressure groups and garnering money.

        Reply
  18. 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
        1. Gilana

          Really? Squid has become so expensive that cow butts are more cost effective? I learned something new today.

          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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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.

  22. 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

      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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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

      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

          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
  32. 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

      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

          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. JillOz

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

          Reply
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. 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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.