Global Warming: Man or Myth?

Scientists can also wear their citizen hats

A Modest Carbon Proposal by Jonathan Swifthack

with 18 comments

I have posted this on behalf of my close friend, Jonathan Swifthack:

On Friday, October 1, 2010, a British “green group” known as 10:10 uploaded a video advertisement called No Pressure.  In the opening scene, a school teacher explains that 10:10 wishes us all to reduce our carbon footprint by 10%.  When a few children are hesitant to join the movement, they are blown to pieces and the blood and gore fly.  The ad was pulled within hours.  Of course, those on both sides of the global warming debate expressed their shock and outrage.  I agree.  I am SHOCKED, just SHOCKED that 10:10 suggests that we blow up our children!  What a dumb idea. 

Instead, we should be EATING OUR CHILDREN.

10:10 compounded their mistake by letting the deniers of AGW in on the secret- just about every scientist is driving the doomsday global warming agenda in order to get rich and to force a global world government that will tax our pants off and tell us what we can and cannot do with our lives.  Those that wish we continue to do business as usual now see what they are up to.  They want to kill people to reduce carbon emissions.  People use carbon, especially those pesky Americans, Canadians, and Australians, so fewer people means those that are left behind will be dealing with less global warming and a smaller chance of that world government.

Well, now that the cat is out of the carbon bag, I have a modest proposal.  I agree with 10:10 that people need to be killed and it must be the children.  If you consider a world without children it becomes obvious.

There would be no more driving every day back and forth to sporting events and practices.  No more driving to music lessons or to those weekend sleepovers.  We would not even have to take those family trips anymore.  Disney World?  Save that flying!  Do you know how much carbon is emitted by driving and flying those children?  Families without children would save several tons of carbon per year.  A trip to Disney from New York for a family of four emits 3500 lb of CO2.  We need to eat the kids.

So what does a father and mother do when the kids all move out?  They sell that big house and get a smaller one.  We need to save time and eat the kids now.  We can get that smaller house much sooner.  A smaller home is so much less energy intensive.  On top of that, how many parents keep the thermostat warmer in the winter and cooler in the summer “so the children are comfortable.”  Imagine that thermostat in your house with no children.  Less winter heating and less summer A/C.  A dream, right?  I know.  Just like you are, I am calculating the savings in my head right now.  Ka-ching!

Children need things all the time.  All those plastic toys?  Yep.  Carbon.  Clothes do not make themselves and kids go through them rapidly.  And those clothes are constantly getting dirty.  How much electricity do you think you are using to keep Junior’s clothes the right size and clean?  Shoes?  Forget about it. Shoes can have a carbon footprint of up to 200 lb.   Much electricity is involved in getting those toys and clothes made and where do they mostly come from?  If you said China, you win the cupie doll.  What fuel does China use?  Dirty coal that emits massive amounts of CO2.  We need to eat the children.

So you may be wondering why eating the children is a better solution than 10:10’s blowing them apart.  Food.  If they are in a million pieces we cannot eat them so they go to waste.

The figure below from Christopher Weber and Scott Matthews of Carnegie Mellon University shows the GHG footprint of various foods.  Weber and Matthews conducted a life-cycle assessment of greenhouse gases emitted during all stages of growing and transporting food. They found transportation creates only 11% of the 8.1 metric tons of greenhouse gases that an average U.S. household generates annually from food consumption. The agricultural and industrial practices that go into growing and harvesting food create 83%.

GHG footprint of various foods

GHG footprint of various foods

If we eat our children, we get the best of both worlds.  We remove those little feet that have large carbon footprints by replacing beef with our children, thus saving the huge carbon footprint of eating beef instead.  Kids Meal takes on a whole new meaning, does it not?  Furthermore, kids eat burgers and hot dogs and they drink milk.  Try to get them to switch out that hot dog or burger for vegetables.  Good luck!  Of course, adults are happy to eat vegetables to save the planet.  We get the most carbon saving bang for the buck by eating our kids.  Think of eating a child as planting a tree. 

There is the little yellow bus now.  I need to go.  I have a few “problems” to take care of and my stomach is really starting to growl.

Absurd, you think?  Well, just as absurd as the denialospere (Climate Depot, Reference Frame, WUWT, etc.) using the ridiculous 10:10 ad as a poster child of some New World Order run by eco-Fascists/terrorists that is targeting our children (Tom Fuller at WUWT) along with the science-deniers.  Please.  You are so transparent.

Written by Scott Mandia

October 2, 2010 at 8:00 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

18 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. i do not think your proposal sound. if you look careful at the total carbon cycle i believe to find that children are an invaluable carbon sink whose adorable ecofeetprints can be reduced much effectively.

    also it is of fact to say that to feed adults w/ young adults is of greater resource usage of the water & the land growing than when adults to eat mostly plants and footprintless fish.


    October 2, 2010 at 9:01 pm

  2. You have this whole thing so backwards! Our children are going to eat US.


    October 2, 2010 at 9:29 pm

  3. If you tie the kiddywinks up for most of the week, or maybe lock them in a room to aid blood flow, then surely that would help offset the extra carbon emissions caused by the little tinkers? Hmmm… maybe not enough, though. Oh well, they had their chance.

    I’ve often seen deniers bang on about how it’s all a population problem, and the human race needs to up the ante on birth control. Scott, I predict they’ll find fault with your suggestion, regardless. Some people are never satisfied.

    J Bowers

    October 2, 2010 at 9:33 pm

  4. Hmmm, children.
    I prefer ’em Irish but I will take what I can get.


    Cedric Katesby

    October 3, 2010 at 1:01 am

  5. The obvious flaw in the argument is if we get rid of the little blighters, who do we send up the chimneys to scrape off the soot from all those hearty coal fires raging in the fireplaces of every room?

    The Victorians had it right: children should be neither seen nor heard (apart from the slight muffled scraping coming down the chimney breast).


    October 3, 2010 at 9:04 am

  6. What nonsese. Eating children clearly violates the second law of thermodynamics.


    October 3, 2010 at 9:01 pm

  7. Off-topic, yet again. (I will stop this if someone can tell me where to put my queries.)

    Does anyone happen to know what is being done, now (if anything), to deal with rising sea levels in the Thames estuary?

    Hunt Janin

    October 4, 2010 at 3:23 am

  8. Hunt. Google is your friend, I found this and heaps more by searching Thames Estuary flood

    Click to access flood_essay.pdf


    October 4, 2010 at 3:50 am

  9. How can you post this article? won’t Anthony Watts and others find out about the plan to eat children, this is no way to take over the Planet.


    October 4, 2010 at 7:59 am

  10. Not sure about this plan. If world domination is the aim, surely more troops would fit into each black helicopter if they were all kiddie size.

    Pilot training? Probably plenty of 12 year olds would volunteer, it’d be great fun swooping over unsuspecting grown-ups’ heads.


    October 4, 2010 at 9:45 am

  11. Scientists are only 90-99% certain this would work. Therefore it is an obvious conspiracy to commit socialism.


    October 4, 2010 at 12:31 pm

  12. […] Related Post: A Modest Carbon Proposal by Jonathan Swifthack […]

  13. Many thanks, Adelady. I am again in your debt.

    Hunt Janin

    October 5, 2010 at 6:35 am

  14. This column reminds me of the old joke about the Mafioso who says,”Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes.”

    Pretending that the mindset which created that incredibly “funny” snuff film is benevolent is useless.
    The misanthropic cat is out of the bag….totally!

    Judy Cross

    October 5, 2010 at 6:06 pm

    • So, Judy believes the guys from Monthy Python are mass murderers. Telling…


      October 6, 2010 at 1:21 am

    • Judy, I hate to disappoint with the news that a “snuff film” depicts people really being killed for real. A “snuff film” films real murder where someone actually dies in reality. Unless you have some new information about the 10:10 film, I doubt there’s any need to contact the police.

      I must say that there seem to be a number of persons posting in the blogosphere and MSM with this misunderstanding of the difference between reality and fiction. It explains much about the differences in the climate debate when it comes to preferred scientific conclusions.

      J Bowers

      October 6, 2010 at 4:56 am

  15. […] [Update 3, 5/10/10: A Modest Carbon Proposal by Jonathan Swifthack] […]

  16. Soylent Green is made of children. Anyone for seconds?

    Dwight Towers

    December 28, 2010 at 2:48 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: