It is the growing belief among advocate-scientists that international law must set limits on how much carbon dioxide each person on the planet can emit.These people are dangerous and are making decisions that would drastically alter our lifestyle, yet if we object we're labeled as flat-earthers and deniers. And the Democrats stand around scratching their pointy heads wondering why they're going to be crushed at the ballot box next November.
Most Americans would see a massive reduction in their daily output: You drive to the grocery store once for every seven times you go now.
Or, you could take your kid to school once a week instead of every day.
As part of this new world order, industrialized nations such as the United States that have already so damaged the planet would be forced to pay the rest of the world for those damages.
In explaining the US role during the past two decades, Donald repeatedly refers to "criminal conduct" and describes our behavior as "morally corrupt."
And ultimately, he says with glee, international law will catch up with us and make us pay for our unconscionable crimes.
Still, Donald acknowledges without any sense of shock or irony that the climate-change predictions of the advocate-scientists so far have not panned out very well.
"People think that science is certain," he says with a hint of derision.
"We can't know what is going to happen. There will always be scientific uncertainty."
It is a moral matter, not a scientific one, Donald says, that requires us to take such drastic action now, even though the proof of actual damage remains hard to come by.
He is asked whether there is anything unethical revealed in the recent e-mails where fellow advocate-scientists discussed manipulating data and suppressing information that undermined their lucrative global-warming beliefs.
"On that I am agnostic," Donald says.
As far as he is concerned, he says with rising anger about the general indifference about climate change, the global-warming debate "will determine who lives and who dies."
Rich Lowry underscores the irony of those who say to question authority trying to silence debate.
In the climate debate, the self-professed advocates of "science" have done everything they can to silence adverse opinions, declaring important questions about the history and future of the climate "settled" even though they're shot through with uncertainty. The same people who tend to put "Question Authority" bumper stickers on their cars have made "skeptics" and "doubters" dirty words in the climate debate.To the climate-change goons, those countries are no doubt morally superior to us.
It's the vastness of the project "to transform the way we run the planet," in the words of The Associated Press, that makes the slightest questioning impermissible. Emissions in a developed country like the US, we're told, have to be 80 percent beneath 1990 levels by 2050 to avoid catastrophe. On a per-capita basis, Steve Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute writes, emissions were probably never that low, "even back in colonial days when the only fuel we burned was wood. The only nations . . . today that emit at this low level are all poor developing nations, such as Belize, Mauritius, Jordan, Haiti and Somalia."
Speaking of moral superiority, does it get any sillier than this?