I thought I would write on a topic that we all could warm up to...climate change.

Now, I do not profess to have the meteorological skills of Bob Dylan (God bless whoever understands that reference), but as I understand from the creator of the internet (Al Gore in case you missed that memo), the cause of climate change (micro-aggression warning, I am going to use the word man) is none other than mankind.

With this revelation, it dawned on me that inevitably once it was realized that people (see, no need to have a micro-aggression warning) cause climate change, that one of those smart intellectual types you might typically find strolling the campuses of American academia would stumble on the idea that less people would mean less warming.

Now, before I go on to the more important part of this essay, let me pause here and point out that if you believe man (oops — forgot the micro-aggression warning) causes global warming and that less people would mean less warming, then the environmentalists and the anti-immigrant movement should find common ground here. In case you missed the point I was trying to make there — if there are less immigrants, then there are less people in the country, and suddenly this country, which is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the history of the world, is leading the way as a visionary in the reduction of global warming.

If anyone has been paying attention to a particularly sandy-haired politician in the American presidential race, you might notice an interesting irony here. The man who once claimed Global Warming was a hoax created by the Chinese (only to recently completely reverse that stance in the first of several upcoming comedy specials called “Presidential Debate”), could actually use this perfectly legitimate reasoning to justify his extreme stance on anti-immigration. He could satisfy both sides of the aisle. Incredible.

To take it one step further, one could use this argument to justify an annual purge of the world’s population in order to protect the earth (working title: ‘Purge 4: Mother Nature’s Culling’).

All one need do is google Travis Rieder and lo and behold, you have discovered not only an intellectual, but one who sees himself as a great moralist.

Why is that?

Because he has determined that less people is a moral imperative to, of course, save us from ourselves and the scourge of global warming. Did I just feel myself slipping down that slope the great moralists never seem to notice?

Now, to be fair to Mr. Rieder, he is not alone in the assertion that we need less people on the planet (I wonder if, like people who want a higher tax rate but refuse to voluntarily pay more, would he consider voluntarily removing his carbon foot print?). But of course, for those of us who Mr. Rieder would accuse of being amoral for having too many children, I would suggest such an action on his part would be, well... not heroic and quite frankly unnecessary.

After all, he may very well be a good drinking buddy but *spoiler alert* he will not take such an action. As with most intellectuals — all words and no actions.

So where does this leave us all? As the global warming supporters realize it is people (of course, not them) who cause the climate change they obsess about, they will look back in history and take up the mantle of the Khmer Rouge.

"Empty the cities," they will shout!

Reduce the population!

Engineer social policy to their dream of a purely agrarian society devoid of carbon producing machinery and demands for carbon emissions.

Capitalism caused us to be able to feed too many, to deliver health care to too many, to keep too many alive and permit them to (ick) procreate. By reverting to Rousseau’s state of nature, they believe all will be well.

The modern inquisition is soon upon us. Beware intellectuals with their desires, for those desires shall be the death of us all.