The cult of global warming wants all your money.  The more enthusiastically you pay for skyrocketing food and fuel costs — part and parcel of the World Economic Forum's dreams for a centrally controlled economy — the more piously you can demonstrate that the good "green" spirit has filled you to the brim with virtue.  Are you worthy of Mother Earth's blessings?  That depends!  Do you drive an electric vehicle?  Are you committed to the eternal gospel that all hydrocarbon molecules are evil and that free market economies cause inclement weather?  Do you regularly condemn "climate skeptics" as charlatans deserving of censorship, persecution, and even death for their lies?  You don't doubt the prophecies of Klaus Schwab, Barack Obama, George Soros, Al Gore, or any of the other church elders, do you?  To question the climate change prophets is to blaspheme!  To question man-made global warming is to sin!  To question that the "science is settled" is to invite an apocalyptic hell dooming the planet!  Disciples, commit yourself to the climate change church, do what you're told, preach the "green" dogma to wayward doubters, and without exception, always...penitently...obey!

Climate change zealotry is a scam.  That so many hundreds of millions of human beings around the world have allowed themselves to get caught up in the greatest, most diabolical con game of all time is endlessly vexing.  There is no better example of how dangerous a mind virus can be.  When people are shamed into turning off their critical thinking skills and blindly accepting an idea on faith alone, the damage is never less than immense.  

I don't know how many times I've had some version of this conversation with otherwise rationally thinking people: So you agree that power corrupts and that governments routinely lie?  Oh, of course.  And you recognize that the U.S. government, like all others, has spread waves of propaganda at different points in history to affect public opinion, justify wars, win elections, increase budgets, avoid responsibility for heinous crimes, etc.?  Isn't that obvious?  Right, okay, but on this one issue — that man's use of cheap and abundant supplies of hydrocarbon energy, which has raised the global standard of living exponentially over the last century like no other time in human history, is coincidentally so dangerous that it must be regulated and controlled by a handful of wealthy global economic elites who promise to save the planet only if we do as they say and obey — you believe that those same liars are telling the truth?  Of course!  Who could make up such a lie?  It's backed up by science!  Right. 

There's a political cartoon I've seen with a stern-looking "scientist," and the caption reads, "97% of scientists believe whatever will secure their future financial grants."  "Science" has a funny way of losing its objectivity when billionaires with agendas, venal politicians, and a global elite with sights on world domination provide its funding.  As much as they are regularly regarded as a priestly caste whose dedication to knowledge renders their pronouncements holy truths, scientists are just people — as corruptible and self-interested as the rest.  If you want to use scientists to push an agenda that benefits those at the top while destroying those at the bottom, it helps a lot if they are seen as some sort of holier-than-thou religious order that would never dare tell a lie.  You might not trust the billionaires or bureaucrats, but the scientists — well, their word is unimpeachable!

Whatever one believes about the "science" behind so-called anthropogenic climate change — I find it absolute pseudo-scientific bunk, since its predictions have been persistently wrong for nearly a century and its public relations agents have had to shamelessly rebrand its faulty prognostications from global cooling to global warming to climate change and finally just to bad weather like a criminal changing aliases through the decades in order to keep the shell game alive while snookering its most devoted followers — the whole "green" religion has never remotely attempted to answer two fundamental questions:

(1) Even if mankind were changing the global climate, why is that a bad thing?

(2) If the social and economic costs of ending hydrocarbon energy outweigh the benefits, then why should we do so?

Though the church of climate change demeans all skeptics as "climate deniers," it seems as if the "green" religious fanatics are vacuously unaware that planet Earth's climate is constantly changing quite naturally on its own.  Middle East deserts were once lush grasslands.  A land bridge existed between Asia and North America.  Large parts of the continental United States have been at times under water or covered in ice.  Just what is the ideal climate for the third rock from the sun, then?  Since "global warming" is the go-to bogeyman for the "green" clergy, you'd think we must sacrifice anything to keep the temperature from rising.  Historically, however, it is cold weather that kills far more humans than hot.  Similarly, just because one spot on the planet becomes less fertile at any given time doesn't mean areas that were once too hot or too cold aren't now ideal for growing crops.  Which climate pope gets to decide what global temperature works best when the complex system that is the global climate remains in constant flux?

As for the second question, what's the point of "saving the planet" if the economic consequences for obeying the "climate gods" unleash runaway inflation, currency collapse, worldwide war, disease, famine, and starvation?  If 99% of us perish from Big Government's Green New Deal (here's the deal: we all die for Mother Earth's honor), will the last tribe of humans still standing feel vindicated?  Will the World Economic Forum's ruling offspring walk around chummily in Birkenstocks and t-shirts emblazoned with green recycling vectors, smoking dope, listening to Marley, and feeling smugly self-assured that killing off humanity was worth it?  As much as I love our planet, it is still just a spectacularly built spaceship sailing us through the universe.  I will not sacrifice human life for rocks, even if those rocks happen to be as majestic as the Matterhorn.  Mankind, after all, is just as organic as anything else in nature.  If a beaver building a dam in order to survive is natural, then humans building transportation networks and factories are, too.

The truth is that the "green" religion is really about power.  Climate Marxists believe that only a select few are fit to rule, and everyone else is either servant or serf.  And once you have enough humans for those roles, all the rest are, well, expendable.  Who needs billions and billions of extra passengers flying through space all demanding political equality, economic self-sufficiency, and personal freedom?  For the WEF's global elites, getting rid of the riffraff just makes sense.

Yet there are signs that more people are becoming hip to the global elite's nefarious little "green" tune.  After two years of COVID-1984 insanity, Establishment Science doesn't look quite so trustworthy.  Runaway inflation doesn't look quite so under control.  Economic collapse doesn't look quite so far away.  And the global "elites" who have put all this "green" nonsense into motion no longer look quite so competent.

If enough people begin to see through the climate change church, then the globalist gospel looks pretty bare.  If it's not about "saving the planet," after all, then it's nothing more than a dogma used by those with great power to assert control over everyone else.  It's a con game created so the "woke" can play pope.  It's a false religion with false gods.  Should the scales finally fall from humanity's eyes, then the "green" doomsayers among us will look foolish and wicked with their signs still painted, "The End Is Nigh."

Image via Public Domain Pictures.