Scientists have to be stopped before they kill us all trying to “save the planet.”
The planet does not need saving. It is in no danger. We are in danger. Not from “climate change”. From over-certain, over-confident, hubris-filled Experts.
Our latest demonstration is the peer-reviewed paper “Rationing and Climate Change Mitigation” by Nathan Wood, Rob Lawlor, and Josie Freear and others in Ethics, Policy & Environment.
The nervous wrecks of authors “argue that rationing has been neglected as a policy option for mitigating climate change.”
And, yes, nervous wrecks. They must be nervous wrecks if they think the climate is so bad rationing is needed. Do they never look out their own windows? Never mind.
Before we get to it, let’s remind ourselves how Big Science like this works. Experts, like academic ethicists, look to the work of other Experts, perhaps sustainability Experts, who in turn look to others, Expert calling to Expert, here bottoming out on Experts in climatology.
Every step in the chain is seen as certain by those higher up. That is, academic ethicists will take for granted what was told them by academic sustainabilityists, and they in turn will take for granted what is told to them by climatologists or whomever.
The whole chain, two steps or twenty, is meant to be taken as certain by you, the paper reader. We are at the Multiplication of Uncertainties, which never happens. I mean, what should happen is that you, the reader, must grasp that each step in the chain has uncertainties, and that each uncertainty must be “multiplied” together, so that the chain as a whole is highly unlikely.
This, of course, rarely happens. Especially in the minds of grasping politicians seeking a “solution” they can promote.
Anyway, these guys, Wood and others, want to take your food so that they feel less stress about the “climate.”
The begin their argument badly: with bad writing (emphasis theirs):
As noted in the abstract, although this paper is primarily based on philosophical and ethical argument and policy analysis, particularly highlighting the normative assumptions behind policy choices, there is also an empirical element, drawing on historical research.
Nearly every academic writes that way, so don’t judge them harshly here. They could have just started with “We think we’re going to die from climate change. We need mandatory fasting now and forever overseen by us. Amen.”
To prove they accept without question what the Experts earlier in the chain said:
The IPCC (Citation2018) report concluded that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would have to be cut by 45% by 2030 to meet the Paris Agreement’s 1.5-degree target (IPCC, Citation2018). Meeting this target by 2030 could mean the reduction of sea level rise, fewer severe weather events, reduced species loss, lower impacts on terrestrial freshwater and coastal ecosystems and the benefits they provide to humanity, reduced climate related risks to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply and human security (IPCC, Citation2018).
Then: “Rationing is often seen as unattractive, and therefore not a viable option for policy makers”. Yet, say our authors, where there was wartime scarcity, “rationing was accepted, even welcomed, or demanded.” Not by everybody, boys.
Here is my favorite “discovery”:
Furthermore, the evidence clearly indicates that rationing was successful: despite the reduced quantity of food over all, during the period of rationing in the Second World War, cases of malnutrition went down, rather than up (Cox, Citation2013, pp. 34–35).
Brilliant. There must be a wee p in there.
What about people hating rationing when food scarcity is not the reason? Well, those fools forget the scarcity of “carbon sinks.” So there. And what about the children!? Yes: they go there.
And hey, what about what Daniel Aldana Cohen says? “As Daniel Aldana Cohen emphasizes, ‘We’re only doomed if we change nothing’.” So there’s that.
Daniel Aldana Cohen? No idea. You tell me.
Have we mentioned “distributive justice” yet? No? They do, but let’s not. Maybe we’ll just mention they plan to award the slaves who toil in the mines an extra daily carrot because of the “principle of equality: that of supplying equal calories for equal needs”.
In the end, they argue for “rejection of markets”, but curiously say these “may seem alien and radical.” Radical they are, but alien they are not. Community of property managed by Expert rulers, a.k.a. communism, a grand Twentieth Century scheme, failed.
These authors long to be the ones deciding how much bread to dole out. They are dangerous maniacs ignorant of not only what they speak, but the scientific arguments upon which they rely.
They ought to be removed and put in place they could do no harm to anyone.
Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. For Zelle, use my email: firstname.lastname@example.org, and please include yours so I know who to thank.