What about his ass? He sounds fat.

I like farking goats

Oh FFS, take your carbon footprint and shove it up your ass.

This article makes somewhere around half a million assumptions in calculating Santa's carbon footprint. One thing oddly absent from this article is the failure to factor in all the Xmas-freaking-magic required to make this legend even remotely plausible.

/is the fail tag still on vay-cay?

/the tards have won

the bigger your carbon footprint is the bigger your carbon dick is

Black Peter is happy to see it stuck to The Man for once over his carbon footprint.

Wow, the science behind this article is amazing.

I especially like how they just threw out a bunch of "facts" and "calculated" a "carbon footprint".

Kind of like every other climate change calculation ever made.

So... reindeer farts are as bad for the ozone as a cow's?

santa just loves plant life, that's why he emits so much carbon dioxide

This is why Krampus is the superior fictitious winter figure.

No presents, he walks everywhere and kills off a lot of kids.

It's a good thing people put time into this shiat.

Now, did you know... that it is estimated that Santa's sleigh weighs 353 thousand tons. So... traveling at 650 miles per second would create such an enormous friction, that Santa and his reindeers would burst into flames. You understand? Like the meteor entering the atmosphere. This is a scientific fact.

Give me a platter of Buffalo hot wings and a case of Bud Light and my "carbon footprint" will make Santa look cleaner than a Prius.

Next up: Unicorn farts will ultimately cause the apocalypse. Here comes the science:

pppppppfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffttttttttttttttttttttt

/I'd hate to see how much methane was created as a byproduct of all the cow shiat used to create this "article."

Ambivalence: Wow. I'd hate to be the one to mention to the author of that fine article that Santa Claus doesn't actually exist.

He might spontaneously implode.

/someone bring a camera.

Neither does man made global warming, so I'd say the author is right on track.

My favorite part is where they made up a bunch of numbers

gerrymander: danpanic77: This article makes somewhere around half a million assumptions in calculating Santa's carbon footprint. One thing oddly absent from this article is the failure to factor in all the Xmas-freaking-magic required to make this legend even remotely plausible.

/is the fail tag still on vay-cay?

Now, now. No need for that. Everyone knows that appropriation of mythological figures and repurposing of holidays are two practical methods by which a new religion can assert dominance over the old.

So the climatechangeoligists will be pitching us a new frontman soon, Freezus Christ.

Ambivalence: Wow. I'd hate to be the one to mention to the author of that fine article that Santa Claus doesn't actually exist.

He might spontaneously implode.

/someone bring a camera.

erm. Yeah, right. The article is entirely serious in every way...

Some people just don't give up on the hatin' of Santa, do they?

I think I remember reading that the amount of energy it would take for Santa to successfully visit every child's home in one night would vaporize each house...

Why the "sad" tag? It's just CO2... nothing to be sad about.

Wait, there are still people biatching about carbon footprints? I'm more concerned about industrial facilities putting out lead and mercury in the air than seeing average temperatures going up 1 or 2 degrees over several decades. It's not like the money from the purchase of carbon credits really does anything to counteract CO2 emissions anyway.

notsureifserious.jpg

I wonder how much energy the glass elevator puts out too.

Or Jesus' Wine to Water mechanism (measured in kJ)
Or James' Giant Peach.