How the Global Warming Cult Devalues Humanity

by Daniel Mallock, BookFolks

The controversy over global warming recently got more traction with the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to former vice president Al Gore. This did little however to advance the legitimacy of Mr. Gore’s climate change claims as the very same “Peace Prize” was cynically awarded to Yassir Arafat, a terrorist and killer.

That the Nobel Peace Prize is now therefore little more than a very expensive joke there seems little cause for discussion. Arafat was by no means a man of peace and was in no way interested in peace. The so-called Oslo Accords and the Camp David Peace “Process” both derailed by Arafat were nothing more than a pause in the war against Israel, warfare by other means, a hudnah. Hudnah is nothing more than a pause in jihad, a hunkering down by Islamic forces to acquire more weapons, increase their strength and prepare for the next battle all while pretending to their enemies that peace has been achieved. It’s a false front, a sham peace that leads only to the next battle. In similar ways, the Global Warming cult is a sham “green” movement led by the high priest Al Gore and his agitprop machine. While the parallels suggested above may seem excessive, they are not for the unstated foundation of the cult of Global Warming is the purposeful undermining of the value of humanity in comparison with the earth.

The details of the debate are now widely known with Gorites widely proclaiming the impending doom of the planet due to green house gases, burning of fossil fuels, etc. all the folly of mankind. Many dissenting scientists, often at great risk to their professional futures and reputations, find much to challenge and many reasons to doubt the GW  theories.

There are two important reasons to doubt the veracity of Global Warming and the core tenets of the cult:

• the high priest is a hypocrite having one set of rules for adherents and another for him
• the purported purposes of the cult/movement/pr machine/political campaign/money-making-venture mask an until recently unstated but hinted at foundational purpose and bizarre set of ideas.

In an article posted on USA Today, 12/07/06 Al Gore’s conspicuous consumption of energy and exhorbitant lifestyle was displayed for the world to consume: “Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.”

For folks in Nashville, Tennessee this comes as hardly a surprise. The emperor hasn’t any clothes rather, in this case, has far too many clothes and lots of other “stuff”. The Tennessee Center for Policy Research wrote, “‘We hope the Nobel Peace Prize goes to someone who truly deserves it,’ Johnson said.  ‘Making Al Gore a Nobel Laureate would forever tarnish the Nobel Prize.’” It’s too late for the Nobel Peace Prize – it’s tarnished, trashed, ruined. But it’s not too late for Global Warming cultists and a brow-beaten public to wake up and see the naked emperor!

Even some folks at that bastion of hard-left politics and utopian idealism Harvard University can see the hypocrisy of the loudest and most public of the Global Warming Cult – making the obvious observation that Gore and his powerful Global Warming wealthy elite are complete hypocrites, preaching austerity for the cult followers and ostentation and consumption for the high priests. “Hypocritical enviro-advocates abound these days, constantly reminding us to make sacrifices in the interest of the earth while forgoing few comforts themselves.”

We know that the foundations of Global Warming are built on questionable and shoddy science and unsubstantiated speculation. We know that Global Warming is a cult led by leftist hypocrites. Now, due to a recent article in the Medical Journal of Australia (MJA) we know one of the secret foundation ideas of the Global Warming cult – it is not the products of humanity, its industry and refuse, and consumption of resources that is the great threat to the future of the earth rather it is humanity itself!

A Mr. Barry N. J. Walters (“Clinical Associate Professor of Obstetric Medicine
Department of Women’s and Infants’ Health, University of Western Australia, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Perth, WA.”) in an inoccuously titled letter to the editor of MJA “Personal carbon trading: a potential ‘stealth intervention’ for obesity reduction?” suggests that due to the “…potent source of greenhouse gas emissions for an average of 80 years…” that each Australian baby represents, parents should be assessed a “Baby Levy” in the form of a “carbon tax”. In another era or a more rational intellectual environment this individual could readily be dismissed as a crank, or an hysteric. But he is in fact quite serious. “Every family choosing to have more than a defined number of children (‘Sustainable Population Australia’ suggests a maximum of two) should be charged a carbon tax that would fund the planting of enough trees to offset the carbon cost generated by a new human being”. After demonstrating his strange calculus Mr. Barry recommends a $5000 tax assessment at birth, and an annual tax of $400-800 for the life of the child. The purpose of the annual component of this anti-child/anti-birth tax is for “maintenance of the afforestation project”.

This penalization of parents for having children, and a lifetime tax upon the child for as long as the child lives (who will pay the annual tax upon the death of the parents if not the child him/herself), is the worst kind of moral confusion and science gone utterly haywire and wrong. This bizarre suggestion of excessive taxation and over-involvement by the government of Australia, a democracy, in the institution of the family itself is nothing less than an undermining of the family unit.

Such notions of penalizing parents for giving birth, penalizing children for existing are utterly bizarre and counter human. These are authoritarian ideas masquerading as environmentalism and Global Warming reaction. This proposal is reprehensible and sick as it suggests a greater value to trees, and “nature” than it does to humanity. It diminishes a human child to its “green house gas emissions” and suggests that such emissions are a direct threat to the earth and our global survival. It does not penalize parents for having children because the society cannot support them, as does China (a very controversial policy that requires a post of its own). Mr Walters suggests that human children are a burden to the earth and parents are to be discouraged from having them by disuading them via cruel taxes.

This bizarre proposal publicly made in an Australian medical journal by an apparently respectable medical professional in that country exposes the true dark nature of the Global Warming cult.

Fundamentally, Global Warming hysterics place more value on “our planet” than they do on human beings. For them, humanity is a parasite on “mother earth”, consumers of resources, wasters, polluters. This grotesque uber-care for “the earth” at the expense of humans has more than several ugly antecedents in history.

Today, 12/12/07, Pope Benedict XVI weighed in. He condemned the cultists of Global Warming and rightly identified the core dark ugliness of “the global warming movement”. He said, “Respecting the environment does not mean considering material or animal nature more important than man.”

When we hold other humans of one group of greater inherent value than others, when we hold “the earth” of more value than humans, when we characterize humanity as despoilers of the earth rather than its caretakers and conceive a philosophy and pseudo-religion that purports to protect the planet from a parasytical species (humanity) that is destructive by nature (in their estimation) - we have slid down far on the slippery slope of moral and ethical confusion.

It is our responsibility as a species to protect this planet, to care for it, and to ensure that it is there in good health for future generations. I do not believe that the earth/human relationship is parasytic as the cult of Global Warming suggests. I believe that there are weather cycles and global changes that happen regardless of any action or non-action/involvement” such as Global Warming theories postulate. Any movement constructed upon agitprop, hysteria, and pseudo-science that suggests increasing the tax burden as a measure to punish parents, larger government to enforce the taxes and plant more trees as carbon off-sets, centralized control, and a diminishment of the value of humanity itself is a dangerous and ugly thing.