Climate Change: Flatulence in the Wind.

Climate change people are fervently religious. The main confession of the climate change religion is this: “Mankind’s industrial activity will destroy the world unless we have socialism.” They will not say the second part out loud, but it is the implication of their policy in action. I have discussed this before.

Climate change people are some of the loudest voices out there. Their confession of faith is inserted into all sorts of media. In fact, belief in climate change is now orthodoxy in many academic and business circles. Questioning belief in man-made catastrophic climate change can cost you your career, especially if you’re an untenured science professor in a university somewhere.

But the climate change movement – which I refer to derisively as “The Green Mafia” – has a big problem: the public doesn’t care. How can we tell? The answer is very simple: no comprehensive climate change legislation has ever been passed in America. The Kyoto Protocols pushed forward by the UN in 1992 were never ratified by the United States. They languished in Congress until 2012, when the treaty died. Did you care? Probably not. Neither did I. If the public really cared about climate change, there would be significant political support for specific programs meant to fight climate change.

Yes, we have bureaucracies that issue environmental directives. But bureaucrats have wide latitude to do a lot of stupid things. And these directives only amount to interference in private life, not full-on revolutionary transformation. They are side-shows. I’m talking about major bills to fight climate change passing through the elected members of Congress. This does not happen; such bills are swiftly killed when presented.


This scholarly article appeared in the Washington Post: “Ranch Dressing is What’s Wrong with America.” It sounds like a thought-provoking piece of work. The exact thoughts it might provoke will be left to your discretion.

I have never minded ranch. When I was a kid, it made salad-eating bearable. It’s still great for pizza and buffalo wing-dipping.

The writer of this article does not see things the same way:

…It’s disgusting. It tastes like exactly what it is, which is milk that’s halfway rotten. Why would anyone want to take something that they would throw out if they unexpectedly smelled it in their fridge and put that on their salad?

I suppose the public has simply not realized yet that ranch tastes like disgusting rotten milk. Perhaps when they read the article, they will awaken from the long nightmare and get rid of all their ranch dressing. They will realize that this author knows what people like better than they themselves know.

The article is filled with nonsense not worth repeating. But I’ll skip ahead to this telling segment:

Finally, our vulgar extravagance is going to destroy the planet and starve the global poor. Like meat, dairy produces more local and climate pollution than most plant-based foods. Dairy cows also require more land, water and other resources than grains and vegetables. Unless we moderate our habits, we will run out of resources to feed the Earth’s 7 billion-and-growing population and cause massive climate disruption.

I see. If we “moderate our habits.” Alright. How moderate is “moderate”? Is there any conceivable metric or measurement the author can present for understanding what constitutes “moderate”, and how to know if we are “moderating” successfully? No, there isn’t. And he can’t think of one, either.

I could pick apart the entire article. In this instance, I do not feel the need. Let me ask you this, instead: Are you moved by the quoted excerpt above? Do you feel called to take environmental action? Are you going to go dump out your ranch right now and call for a mass killing of all farm cattle in the USA in order to protect the environment from their obscene amounts of flatulence?

The answer, in all likelihood, is “no.” If your answer is “yes”, then don’t let me stop you; go get to work right away. But the vast majority of people will not care. Most will roll their eyes at this drama queen. Nobody is swayed by this article. Why waste valuable carbon dioxide on discussing it too much?

We have heard all of this before. My dad, as a child in the 1970s, heard these apocalyptic predictions all the time. Back then, the hard limit was the year 2000. By the year 2000, we’d be living on a burnt-out coal unless we had green socialism (an unspoken conclusion). Why the year 2000? What data supported this conclusion? No data. 2000 was just a nice round number. It looks nice in writing.

Of course, this prediction did not work out so well. For a while, the year 2050 was thrown around. Nowadays, I think the Green Mafia has wised up a little bit and no longer uses firm dates. Good idea. You look incomparably stupid when you predict the apocalypse by a specific date and it doesn’t work out.

The article mentioned above is a classic example of wasted effort. Does the author really believe that anyone who is not already a Green Mafia nut will be swayed by this article? I sincerely doubt it. He wrote the article on the basis of a different kind of green, the type of green with pictures of dead presidents on it. If he actually thinks that anyone will be swayed by this article, then writing it was a waste of his carbon dioxide.


The Green Mafia has always suffered from rotten epistemology. It has never been made clear to the public that man-made catastrophic Climate Change exists. And even if it does exist, it is not clear how we can do anything about it. The Green Mafia cannot prove anything.

Voters respond to costs. The Green Mafia claims that climate change will cost voters the world. Voters do not feel this to be true, otherwise it would be a politically active issue. But they do feel the cost of environmental legislation, which most consider both irritating and unnecessary.  Various bureaucratic agencies can annoy voters with environmental directives, but voters will not tolerate this from elected politicians. The politicians understand that, which is why the issue is a political dead horse.

Besides, the other major industrial nations of the world – China, Russia, and India – have never agreed to any binding environmental legislation. If these nations do not play along, then there is nothing the Green Mafia can do that would have any meaningful impact on the Earth’s climate. All effort would be lost, like a cow’s fart in the wind.

Tags: , , , ,

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: