but not in the way you might think. This morning I wanted to glance through Facebook and then work on decluttering the house. What I found on Facebook just amazed me. I spent way too much time here because I kept digging thinking the posts were a joke but they aren’t! I discovered these articles about dealing with climate change visiting one of my favorite blogs, Chicks on the Right.
A post titled Do You Doubt Man’s Influence on Climate Change? YOU ARE MENTALLY ILL got my attention. The original article, Climate Change Skepticism a Sickness That Must be “Treated,” Says Professor, quotes Professor Kari Norgaard: “’cultural resistance’ to accepting the premise that humans are responsible for climate change “must be recognized and treated” as an aberrant sociological behavior.”
In her paper, Norgaard equates skepticism of climate change alarmists with racism, noting that overcoming such viewpoints poses a similar challenge “to racism or slavery in the U.S. South.” At the ‘Planet Under Pressure’ conference where Norgaard is pushing this craziness, Yale University professor Karen Seto said the global population was increasing and "we certainly don't want them (humans) strolling about the entire countryside. We want them to save land for nature by living closely [together]." I like how the Chicks said it, “the wackjobs responsible for putting on this conference say that humans should be packed into dense cities, and the rest of the planet should be “surrendered to mother nature.” The source article finished up with these thoughts:
The effort to re-brand legitimate scientific dissent as a mental disorder that requires pharmacological or psychological treatment is a frightening glimpse into the Brave New World society climate change alarmists see themselves as ruling over.
Professor Kari Norgaard
Due to the fact that skepticism towards man-made global warming is running at an all time high, and with good reason, rather than admit they have lost the debate, climate change alarmists are instead advocating that their ideological opponents simply be drugged or brainwashed into compliance.
Norgaard’s effort to equate climate skepticism with racism as a disorder that requires “treatment” also serves as a reminder of the story we covered earlier this month about the establishment’s efforts to push the pharmaceutical heart drug Propranolol as a “cure” for racist thoughts.
The other post on climate change, Holy Mother of WACK has more crazy ideas.
The source article is about How Engineering the Human Body Could Combat Climate Change. It contains some of the craziest ideas I’ve heard. This paper will be published in Ethics, Policy & Environment and proposes a series of biomedical modifications that could help humans consume less. Some of the modifications are simple and would be noninvasive. Crave a steak but know you should give it up for mankind? The paper authors suggest that we take a pill that would make us nauseous if we eat meat. The theory is that we’d come to associate nausea with meat and develop the willpower to stop eating it. How would giving up meat save us from climate change? A U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization report estimates that 18% (and another report suggests that up to 51%) of the world's greenhouse gas emissions and CO2 equivalents come from livestock farming. That’s more than transportation contributes. Add in that as much as 9% of human emissions occur when pastures are expanded and some trees are cut. There’s also the emissions that arise from manure, or from the livestock directly. They feel that since a large portion of these cows and other grazing animals are raised for consumption, it seems obvious that reducing the consumption of these meats could have considerable environmental benefits.
They suggest other ideas that are even more insane. Size reduction could be one way to reduce a person's ecological footprint. Couples wanting children could use genetic engineering or hormone therapy to have small babies who would require fewer resources. Reducing the size of humans would reduce their ecological foot print because smaller people eat less. (While you’re making people smaller lets genetically engineer cat-like eyes to reduce the need for lighting! Yes, I’m serious. Follow the link to the source article.)
The theory is that if you reduce the average U.S. height by just 15cm, you could reduce body mass by 21% for men and 25% for women, with a corresponding reduction in metabolic rates by some 15% to 18%, because less tissue means lower energy and nutrient needs. According to this paper, smaller people also use less energy in other ways. A car uses less gas to carry a smaller person, it takes less fabric to make their clothes, and they don’t wear out shoes, carpets, and furniture as quickly as a heavy person.
|S. Matthew Liao|
I no longer argue religion and politics to the degree I did before Fibromyalgia and its accompanying illness dulled my mind and took away my short term memory. I do the research on issues and candidates and make an informed decision on what or who I support. Sadly, often I can’t remember why I made that decision or I can’t come up with the words to express it so that someone can understand my reasons. So I’m not looking to start a debate. However, I feel strong enough about this subject to say that I feel it’s just one more reason that we need to get Bible believing people with common sense back in charge of our country.
When supposedly intelligent, well educated people come up with ideas like cramming everyone into cities and not allowing the use of all of God’s creation, we need to be alarmed.
When they want to use genetic engineering or hormone therapy to make people smaller, we need to be alarmed.
When they want to modify our eyesight so we can see better at night and not need so much electricity, we need to be alarmed.
When they want us to take empathy increasing drugs so that we can “see” that we need to do what’s best for our planet, it’s not only time to be alarmed, It’s time to do something to stop these crazy ideas from becoming reality.
What do you think?