The Environmental Sting

R. E. Smith Jr.

Writings by environmentalists working to have government take more money from us to enrich their agenda, remind me of the movie titled, “The Sting.” That clever scam to get money from a gambler anxious to cash in on a sure-bet had much of the story elements connecting it with “global warming.”

Those who have seen the movie will recall the main character (appropriately played by environmentalist Robert Redford) operating with a gang of con artists. They targeted a “mark,” got him to trust them, and set him up to swindle his cash through a fraudulent horse race scheme. It was elaborately concocted, complex and had the illusion of reality. The poor mark, although skeptical at first, bought into their racket and forfeited his money to the shakedown.

And so it is with the environmental flimflam.

Much of this hustle has come from academia that Americans generally believe to be trustworthy. But liberal arts studies and recently established “environmental science” courses offer numerous homes for politically discredited leftists—still anxious to impose worldwide socialism. “The environment” is the perfect ploy. How could anyone be suspicious of those who promote our natural surroundings; nature is so innocent, so benign—so essential.

But in just the past two generations, the American Left has succeeded in establishing the Marxist doctrine of socialist realism: promoting socialism through excessively moralizing in literature, art, and now environmental science instruction. Young children, especially, are vulnerable.

It’s been relatively easy for socialist utopians to indoctrinate our children to believe that we must “protect” and “preserve” the environment (based often on child-like reasoning), without question and at all costs. And any activity perceived to change an assumed natural static condition (nature is not static) results in condemnation; because “the environment”—the Left’s new religion—has become sacred and dogmatically fixed in time and space.

Here’s the setup for the global warming scam:

Certain “data show quite convincingly that humans have changed the composition of the atmosphere, driving the concentration of carbon dioxide” to higher levels, according to one biologist. “The real scientific question about global warming,” he poses, “is: How can we hope to slow it down?” (He doesn’t know, nor does anyone else.) He goes on to admit we don’t have the ability even to forecast changes in precipitation, but leaps ahead to suggested threats of a “moldier world” for agriculture. With abandon, he disdainfully tries to discredit the arguments of “skeptics” and concludes that they “lie a lot.”

Environmental socialists criticize humanity for using resources extracted from the earth. They censure skeptics who doubt their questionable and exaggerated predictions about terrible consequences if government doesn’t impose more regulation and cost on us. A classic leftist technique stifles dissent; the first step to imposing their agenda.

The biologist cited above is Lawrence B. Cahoon, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington. The Wilmington Star-News published his long article titled, “Getting Warmer.” In it, with typical academic arrogance, he admonishes us about climate change: to “get the facts straight and move the public discussion forward.” His view of moving toward what he calls a “grander enterprise” (reminiscent of the grand plans of failed socialist regimes) requires that the federal government in general, and the president in particular, lead us and the world on a “host of measures” including mandated vehicle mileage reductions, “cap and trade” on carbon emissions, subsidized alternative energy research, and “implementation.” Much of this the Bush administration currently supports and promotes—unfortunately.

Prof. Cahoon goes beyond the “science” of climate and his schemes to manipulate world economies, to call President Bush a liar and a moral coward. He wants those of us with quite convincing skepticism about predicted future manmade climate disasters and the imperative for massive regulation and government spending to crawl back in our “burrows.” What does that say about his inquiring scientific mind, compared with the inherently skeptical and objective mentality of true scientists?

Cahoon rests his case largely on a United Nation’s panel of “scientists, peer reviewers, editors (editors?) and government representatives”—many with anti-American views and who stand to profit from distributing our money. Another credible source for him is five judges on the U. S. Supreme Court (the same gang that ruled local governments could take private property and give it to other private enterprises they favor). They decreed that C02 is a “pollutant”—four judges were skeptical.

The global warming scam has been proclaimed by its operators to be irrefutable—no more debate necessary. They have all the evidence they need to force government policies on us; the unsuspecting marks.

After reading this article by Prof. Cahoon, I, a skeptic about the hype over global warming, am even more skeptical. I’m not willing to wager money in the phony betting parlor set up by environmentalists to perpetuate this scam. Odds are, I’d lose.