The hijacking has begun.
Remember back in April I wrote a blog called What is regenerative grazing? In that I warned: "The fact people are talking about the term regenerative agriculture should serve as an early warning ... As soon as a terminology makes it into the American lexicon, it essentially will become meaningless.
"The word 'sustainable' serves as a great example. Originally it meant all the parts were in place to help a ranch or farm stay in business and pass from generation to generation. Now it has been hijacked by the so-called environmental movement, by government agencies and now by corporations. Beware! Sustainability is now being organized as a set of requirements for you to obey in order to do business. Already I see signs the same will happen to the term regenerative."
According to the social media groupies, Rep. Tim Ryan, Ohio, in the Democratic party presidential debates this week brought up "regenerative" agriculture. (Yikes, there it is!) He named some names of a few intelligent people in the regenerative movement and suddenly the gadflies swarmed upon him and he became lord of the flies.
Guess what else? Please, take one guess on the foremost reason Ryan says we need "sustainable and regenerative" agriculture. To combat "climate change."
Oh, sure, he mentioned it sequesters carbon in the soil and produces better food, which are true statements. But the overarching context is the key. That perspective is the ongoing diatribe about CO2-caused climate change. And don't be confused by Ryan's talk. He is a believer in this fake-science version of climate change. Read his webpage statement here to see what I mean.
I also have a problem with Ryan's plan to continue taxing (robbing) the majority to pay farmers to do something he deems valuable, as outlined in this New York Times article.
But enough about Ryan or any other single political candidate.
Instead, I want to recall for you the evils of the greenhouse-gas-caused climate-change junk science and point out this is the underlying (lying) basis for the anti-meat, anti-beef diatribes being pushed all around.
So I'm going to keep this short. There is no question for me that our climate is being changed by the poor management of mankind. The overgrazing and the monoculture, high-tillage farming all over the world on a majority of acres have been very destructive to life in the soil, then caused erosion, and finally damaged evapotranspirative rates that help build and recycle rainfall. Cities and golf courses and river damning and channeling have caused additional problems, but not on the scale of worldwide agriculture.
Fully disproven at this point, for me at least, is the junk science that keeps changing its name to confuse the young, the fools, and those uninitiated in the real ways of ecology. Once known as global cooling, then global warming, and now various versions of the words "climate change," the concept is constantly being redefined to try to stay ahead of the understanding of the masses, in my opinion. It is switch and bait, and all the while the game plan remains the same: Gain more control through taxation and regulation.
Here it is from the horse's mouth, Wikipedia: "In 2013, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report concluded, 'It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.' The largest human influence has been the emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide."
That has always been the story, and if you do your research instead of believing the talking heads of the boob tube and the "reports" masquerading as science, you will see what I mean. I have done so before, but let me give you the foundations of my research on the topic:
1. Climate science probably is the least reputable of the sciences because it can never be adequately measured because it can never be replicated. It is always speculation, therefore always hypothesis.
2. "Climategate" is the ongoing exposure of bought-and-paid-for scientists cooking the books on temperature records and getting caught, or emailing each other and worrying about not meeting their quotas for temperature increases and getting caught, or similar.
3. Solar science, the study of the sun and its activity, at least suggests strongly that all major weather patterns are driven by solar activity.
4. Ice core science suggests that any past warm periods on the earth have been followed by, not preceded by, increases in carbon dioxide and similar gases.
5. All the climate change entities and reports as I mentioned above have ties to the United Nations and the European Union, both unelected tools of the elitist globalists.
6. We humans can do plenty of damage by killing the soil and letting it erode. We can't know all the effects, but the ones we can see are plenty. However, we can change that, and the more people wake up to that concept, the more we will see politicians putting forth more tax-and-spend "solutions" they can control.
Incidentally, the problem I have with paying people for correcting bad behavior is it only creates another layer of market-bending forces, it reinforces the government's "right" to take money from the winners and give to the losers, and the rewards are already in place for those who want to change. Stop subsidizing the bad behavior and you won't need to subsidize the good behavior.
Obviously, you can choose to agree with me or to disagree. But I'd say if you refuse to study the leads I've given you, I'm not interested in your uninformed opinion. There is no longer any question in my mind.
In addition, let me propose that when you agree with these people, you are putting a pistol in their hands and if you are in the agriculture industry, especially the beef industry, that gun is aimed at your face.
Here are a couple of the latest articles I picked out yesterday from social media and news feeds. Both of these, and all the others of this ilk, use climate change as the reason meat is bad.