This post may contain affiliate links. Please read our disclosure for more information.
When I was growing up, the Little Rascals were a big part of my television world. I loved Spanky, Alfalfa, Darla, and the rest of the Our Gang players. My brother and sister loved them too. And so did every kid in the neighborhood.
One of our favorite episodes was an episode called Moan and Groan. In this episode, Farina is tormented by a mental patient and forced to “eat” a turkey leg that only the mental patient sees. Here’s the scene from YouTube.
Our Mental, Knife-Happy Elites
I think about the “do you see a turkey leg?” scene a lot because it’s so apropos to our modern age. Our elites are mental patients, and we’re all just Farinas trying to stay clear of their delusions and their knife-backed intolerance. Nowhere is this more evident than when it comes to the subject of gender.
Elites: Hey, check out that beautiful woman.
Farina: Whataya takin’ about? I don’t see a woman. I see a guy in a dress.
Elites—after holding the knife of destroyed reputation and obliterated career prospects to Farina’s neck: Do you see a woman?
Farina: Yes. Definitely. I see a woman. And she’s strikingly beautiful. I think I’m gonna ask her out on a date.
A man can’t change his DNA by putting on a dress. Nor can he change his DNA by taking female hormones and undergoing surgery. He was born with XY chromosomes and he will die with XY chromosomes. But that doesn’t matter. Science be damned. Our elites see a guy in a dress as a woman and they have a big hairy Farina knife to make sure you see it too.
Frankly, I can’t fathom the totalitarian impulse to compel speech and thoughts. I’m just a schmuck blogger and I would never put a Farina knife to anyone’s throat. My ego can handle free speech and diversity of thought. Why are the egos of our all-powerful elites so fragile?
Okay, our elites are knife-happy mental patients. So what? What does this have to do with personal finance?
Well, if you believe that the rule of competency* and paycheck freedom** are essential to making money and building wealth, it has a lot to do with personal finance. For these two things are imperiled by another delusion of our mental elites: man-made global warming.
Quick aside: To make my writing a little easier to digest, I will be using “global warming” instead of “man-made global warming.” So from this point on, global warming will be synonymous with man-made global warming.
In the scheme of things, submitting to our elite’s Farina knife on gender is small beer compared to submitting to their Farina knife on global warming. If we submit to their Farina knife on global warming and pretend to see what isn’t there, we can kiss the rule of competency and paycheck freedom goodbye. You can’t “save” the planet with low taxes and a regulatory environment that respects competition. “Saving” the planet will require European-level tax rates (goodbye FIRE movement) and Soviet-like control of the economy (hello cronyism on steroids).
“Whoa! Whoa!! Whoa!!!” I hear you shouting from the rooftop. “What do you mean, ‘pretend to see what isn’t there.’ Global warming is real, dude. You’re the one who’s delusional.”
Maybe so. But here are the top five reasons why I think global warming is a scam.
Five Reasons Why I Need a Farina Knife Put to My Throat in Order to “See” Global Warming
Manhattan Real Estate Prices Are Still Trending Up
According to Douglas Elliman, a New York-based real estate firm, the price of Manhattan real estate went up nearly 42 percent from 2008 to 2017 ($1,251 per sq ft to $1,775 per sq ft). Why? Isn’t Manhattan pretty close to sea level? Shouldn’t real estate prices be going down? Shouldn’t our elites be leaving Manhattan in droves? After all, if global warming is as serious a threat as our elites say it is, won’t the rising seas and the proliferation of more intense storms and hurricanes make life in Manhattan pretty unbearable in the not-too-distant future? Well, our elites talk a good game when it comes to global warming, but their actions belie the notion that the science of global warming is “settled.”
There’s No Urgency on the Regulatory Front
One way to speed up the mainstreaming of electric cars is to make them lighter and thus eliminate the range-anxiety concerns of consumers (lighter cars = greater range on a single charge). But Tesla and other EV manufacturers can’t make super-light cars because safety regulations won’t allow it.
Safety is important, of course. But so is having a climate that is conducive to human beings thriving. If global warming is so grave, wouldn’t our elites be doing everything they could to reduce or eliminate the regulations that stand between us and an economy that belches much less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere?
There’s No Urgency on the Policy Front
The federal government, less interest payments on the debt, is going to spend $4.14 trillion in FY 2019. If every department spent just 10 percent less, the federal government would have $414 billion this year alone to reduce our carbon footprint. Think about that. With $414 billion, the feds could give 41.4 million adults $10,000 each toward the purchase of an electric car or a residential solar system. A married couple could get $20,000. Do that for four or five years straight and you could probably reduce America’s carbon footprint by a third.
But this will never happen. Yeah, global warming is an existential threat. But apparently, it’s not threaty enough to disturb the comfort of our crony socialist bureaucrats and our crony capitalist businesspeople.
Nuclear Power Is Still the Red-Headed Stepchild of Carbon-Free Energy Production
Again, I’m just a schmuck blogger. I’m not a scientist. But isn’t nuclear power capable of supplying all of our on-demand electricity needs and do so without emitting a single particle of CO2? I know nuclear power isn’t without faults. Dealing with nuclear waste ain’t easy. But it’s got to be a hell of a lot easier than dealing with a boiling planet. If our elites were really concerned about global warming, I think they’d be pushing nuclear power pretty hard. The fact that they’re not gives me some serious pause.
Climate “Science” Is Too Opaque
The law of gravity says that if I drop something, it will fall at an accelerating rate of 32 feet per second. Anyone can test this law, and if some scientist can’t replicate the established acceleration rate, the scientists who support the law of gravity will have some explaining to do.
That’s how science works. Hypothesis → experiment → results confirm hypothesis → independent scientists run the same experiment and see if they get the same results → if independent scientists get the same results, the hypothesis becomes law.
But we don’t see this kind of science when it comes to the climate. We have a hypothesis—more CO2 in the atmosphere means higher temperatures. But we aren’t told how high increased CO2 concentrations will push temperatures with any reasonable degree of precision. Nor are we allowed to inspect the data and computer models and independently verify that temperatures are indeed rising and that the cause of rising temperatures is indeed mankind’s affinity for fossil fuels. It’s all very black-boxy. All very, “We are the UN-appointed experts and you have no right to inspect what we do or question our conclusions. So piss off.”
Quick aside: For a much better explanation of how our climate scientists aren’t behaving like real scientists, check out this article.
Here’s the bottom line. Climate scientists are being very rude. In the name of global warming, they want us to hand over an unprecedented amount of power to the government and they aren’t being forthright with their data and their methodologies. That bothers me. I smell a rat.
Final Thoughts
Okay, groovy freedomist, that’s all I got. What say you? Are our elites mental patients? Do they use the Farina knives of name-calling (you’re a racist!), de-platforming (no social media for you!), and outrage mobs (i.e., Antifa, SJWs, Red-Guard college students, etc.) to compel obedience to their delusions? And what do you think about global warming? Do you think it’s legit? Or do you think it’s fishy and you’re only going along with it because you don’t want to be labeled a “science denier” by the cool people? Let me know what you think when you get a chance. Peace.
* The rule of competency: The rule of competency refers to a society in which talent is allowed to win out. Artificial barriers aren’t erected by the state to protect the politically connected from competition. There are laws and regulations to ensure a reasonable amount of safety and integrity, but no laws and regulations to stifle competition.
** Paycheck freedom: This is when you get to keep 80 to 85 percent of your paycheck or income. The state doesn’t have an unlimited right to tax you. Once the state gets its 15 to 20 percent cut, you can legally tell the state to lump it.
Too many elites have plenty to talk about but don’t walk the walk they expect from the rest of us. For climate change, one fundamental problem for many here in the U.S. is the ever increasing consumption of disposable goods. Cheap clothes from China are replaced every year. Cheap plastic toys and furniture from China can’t be passed down to a new generation and end up in the dump. Disposable this and that every way you turn. Every one of those products has to be manufactured, transported, used and then disposed of adding to a growing waste problem. This is something everyone can help solve with a little less buying of junk and invest in fewer things that will last a long time. Add to that the oversized houses and cars that take far more energy and resources to run than is needed by most families. I also think there isn’t nearly enough focus on reducing CO2 the natural way – planting trees. We can all use more trees. They reduce energy use by providing shade, provide natural habitat for wildlife, increase enjoyment in parks, and convert CO2 to oxygen.
I’m confused. You mean it isn’t environmental sound to have your clothes shipped in from halfway around the world and to use a two-ton vehicle to transport a 200-pound man? Haha! Great comment, my friend. If you want to save the planet, stop being a mindless consumer. That’s all it takes.
“The creature from Jekyll Island” by G. Edward Griffin talks about how whether it’s a hole in the ozone, cutting down the rain forest, climate warming now known as climate change the end goal is the same. Global government.
Ask Britain how that works out and how easy it was to get involved with. Next ask if they think their voice matters and if they will ever get out? It’s all about taking personal freedom away.
C’mon, man. You don’t want unelected officials from Brussels running your life? You must be one of those “don’t tread on me” yahoos that CNN tells me I should fear. LOL! All kidding aside, my friend. I couldn’t agree more with your comment. The idea of global government makes me shudder even more than the affront to liberty down in DC right now. Keep the powder dry, my friend.
i can just say the “elites” turn my stomach. i’m all for a message something like “we ought to pollute less.” the scare tactics and al gore i just find arrogant. bring back the crying indian from the 70’s for an environmental message.
have you ever seen what the continents used to look like when they were basically one land mass? they moved! would the same elites suggest we ought to take action now to stop all tectonic plate movement? then you have opinions being regarded from pseudo scientists like sociologists! they’re right there on the scale with the amoeba and the tow truck driver. who caused the ice age? dinosaur farts? i guess my point is that mother nature is a powerful beast and our 200 years of temp. measurements is nanoscopic in the age of the earth.
and i am a scientist.
“I’m all for a message something like ‘we ought to pollute less.’ The scare tactics and al gore I just find arrogant. Bring back the crying Indian from the 70’s for an environmental message.”
I love it, my friend. And couldn’t agree more. Why do we always have to set up a binary world of heroes and villains? It’s hard enough to change minds when money’s on the line. But when someone’s honor or integrity is challenged, they really dig in. Great comment. And thanks for the reminder about the “crying Indian.” I can see the litter hitting his moccasins now.
Also, love the Little Rascals!
You’re a wise man, my friend.
A friend told me about a young couple they know whose new baby was to be raised “genderless”, such that even the grandparents weren’t allowed to know the biological identity of the child. Insanity. If someone makes that choice for themselves, then I’ll certainly respect that. But the parents making a bizarre decison like this on behalf of a baby is ridiculous. And don’t get me started about preferred pronouns.
The term “elites” tends to mean academics and wild-eyed liberals. Not that you said that specifically, but in this post they are against nuclear power, loosening of safety standards on electric vehicles to improve range, and hand over freedoms to the government. All of which are arguably valid concerns and which demonstrate some level of hypocracy. You make an interesting point that real estate prices wouldn’t continue to ride in Manhattan of people were worried about being flooded out. But I think there’s a tendency among people to know or believe something, but not act consistently in support of that knowledge. Someone buying an ocean-front lot may not necessarily mean they don’t think the seas are rising.
But back to the elites: the aristocracy that runs the country now and in the past; Trump, of course, the Clintons, the Bushes, congress, and the corporate and banking money that buys all of that power spanning both sides of the aisle; have to be considered elites too, and maybe the worst of the lot.
But if the left elites are trying to centralize power and gobble our tax dollars on the basis of climate change and extreme political correctness, aren’t right-leaning elites seeking the same thing by justifying the expansion of the government’s surveillance powers via the NSA, cronyism and kickbacks to jusitify $35 billion jet fighters, religion and patriotism to attack those who oppose the America First agenda and ideology? My point is that the people who own the country (and it’s not us) are all feeding out of the same slop trough of money and power. By design or by accident, both sides benefit from a polarized and entrenched populus. (Did I spell that right? It looks weird. Populus. Oh well!)
I appreciate your thought-provoking posts, and my groovy freedom to be retired early and to present my rambling thoughts here.
“But if the left elites are trying to centralize power and gobble our tax dollars on the basis of climate change and extreme political correctness, aren’t right-leaning elites seeking the same thing by justifying the expansion of the government’s surveillance powers via the NSA, cronyism and kickbacks to jusitify $35 billion jet fighters, religion and patriotism to attack those who oppose the America First agenda and ideology?”
Could not agree more. Our elites as those who run big education, big journalism, and big entertainment. They also comprise those who run big business and big politics. Frankly, I don’t know why we have troops in Europe, South Korea, and the Middle East. Enough already. We have a $22 trillion national debt. We can’t be the world’s policeman. And we certainly can’t afford $35 billion jets. A pox on crony capitalism. Great comment, my friend.
My daughter’s undergrad is in Nuclear Engineering. Her senior thesis consisted of designing a walk-away-safe nuclear reactor. The problems with Three Mile Island and Fukushima were 1970s designs that depended upon active cooling after shutdown. So, the safety problem has been solved–as far as the technology is concerned.
PR is another issue, b/c nobody (in the public) knows what the radiation units mean. And the news people are just as clueless. XKCD has a pretty good infographic that shows radiation in “banana equivalent doses.” (Bananas are radioactive.)
Then there’s radioactive waste. The longest-lived transuranics are side-effects of fission reactions. There are a lot of useful fissionables in spent fuel rods, but they are prohibited from being reprocessed by executive order (thanks Jimmy Carter). And there are reactor designs that more completely burn their fuel. However, the people selling fuel aren’t interested in any of that.
If you’re serious about global warming, you have to be pro-nuclear. But as you can see from our elites’ actions (private jets, big houses, etc.), they aren’t serious about it.
Thanks for the info, Steve. Very informative. And Jimmy Carter’s executive order–was that in reference to the breeder reactor? My memory of that time is somewhat fuzzy and I vaguely remember the breeder reactor being a point of controversy.
No, it concerns spent fuel reprocessing. When you run a fission reactor certain fission products build up that absorb “thermal” neutrons and the rate of fission goes down and the reactor quits generating enough heat to run efficiently. However, not all the fissionable material has fissioned. Reprocessing subjects the HIGHLY RADIOACTIVE spent fuel rods to chemical processes that separate long-lived transuranic isotopes from the neutron poisoning fission products that are also radioactive, but with a much shorter half-life. Having separated the fissionable from non-fissionable, you can convert the long-lived nuclear waste into useful nuclear fuel.
The breeder reactor and “fast neutron” reactor designs work differently. By positioning non-fissionable uranium in the high neutron flux of the reactor (separate from the fuel rods), the non-fissionable material is transmuted into fissionable fuel. It can then be extracted and processed into fuel for later use.
Difficulty with this is that breeder reactors are a nuclear proliferation risk since they can generate bomb-grade fissionables that are shipped between reactors and processing facilities. Better to go with designs where you have more thorough fuel use and no reprocessing.
steve poling recently posted…Dave Ramsey Heresy
Yep! I hear ya. On all fronts. Thanks for being gutsy enough to tackle this truth head on. I’ve watched a few documentaries on the global warming subject. If the naysayers are right, we’ve got millions of years before the heat will actually affect the human race.
The kids and I had another thought on global warming last month: the people in this world are so consumed with selfishness, perversion and evil (i.e., if it makes me feel good, I should be allowed to have it/do it) that hell (supposedly in the center of the earth) is expanding, thus making the surface of the earth hotter. Sounds a lot more viable to me than the climate scientists’ theory on global warming. 🙂
Haha! I figure if my manifesto didn’t completely obliterate my blogging career, coming out as a global warming skeptic surely will. I just have absolutely no faith in our elites. I don’t think they’re honest, and I don’t think they’re competent. And I’ll never forget Climategate. That, in a nutshell, showed the true character of our climate scientists and our elites. And I love your hell-theory of global warming, by the way. Thanks for stopping by, Laurie. Always a pleasure hearing from you.