If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   Forget atheists and other non-believers, the real war on Christmas is climate change   (motherjones.com) divider line 189
    More: Interesting, climate change, liturgical year, War on Christmas  
•       •       •

4473 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Dec 2012 at 9:53 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



189 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-24 12:51:54 PM  
Shame it was warmer when christmas was invented.
 
2012-12-24 12:55:12 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: make the tree part of the family


I made my tree my wife.
 
2012-12-24 12:58:07 PM  

durbnpoisn: LazarusLong42: iwatts: So. Just so we're clear....any drought now is due to Climate Change?

Christmas Trees are a fairly wasteful thing anyway, Grow a tree for seven years so you can cut it down at let it dry out in your house for a few days. I'm not a Grinch, but the artificial ones look better, and are WAY more environmentally conscious if that is indeed the type of thing that you worry about.

Four words for you: carbon neutral renewable resource.

And if you recycle it, it can become paper or mulch afterward.

Locally grown is even better, since the transport cost and pollution are negligible.


Besides that, the carbon footprint really doesn't change in any meanful way because they immediately replant the forests after the trees are taken down. It may upset the balance for a couple of years, but it's been going on like that since we started tree farms.

And, yeah the recycling this is very important too... In my area, we have an ecological center. If you don't drop you tree there yourself, the township will come but with a chipper and take it for you. Then the pile all the shaving up and let them ferment for a few years. Free mulch for whoever wants it.


Obviously you are not well read on the subject. Trees growing are now a problem because they pull carbon from the ground and release it. It's not enough that they sequester co2 anymore
 
2012-12-24 12:58:32 PM  

unyon: THE GREAT NAME: fYou appear unable to debate the issues, instead resorting to personal attacks. I wonder why?

Wait... That was your actual argument before?  That was you 'debating the issue'?

Wow.


"Can't win on the issues, resulting to ad hominem attacks." That's so tired it's not even used as troll boilerplate anymore and it was his Boobiese. Where did this guy come from, 1998?
 
2012-12-24 01:14:53 PM  

Curse of the Goth Kids: unyon: THE GREAT NAME: fYou appear unable to debate the issues, instead resorting to personal attacks. I wonder why?

Wait... That was your actual argument before?  That was you 'debating the issue'?

Wow.

"Can't win on the issues, resulting to ad hominem attacks." That's so tired it's not even used as troll boilerplate anymore and it was his Boobiese. Where did this guy come from, 1998?


More global warming alarmism sheep who cannot debate the issues. Anything to divert from the topic. Climatism mind-slaves can never win the argument because their beliefs are based on shabby un-truths.
 
2012-12-24 01:26:43 PM  

LazarusLong42: Four words for you: carbon neutral renewable resource.


If it's cut down and refined(for wood in general) by hand. If it's cut down and transported via burned fossil fuels.

Maybe better than plastic manufacturing, but still.

This "carbon neutral" is tossed around a lot and it's not necessarily accurate.
 
2012-12-24 01:33:20 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: Curse of the Goth Kids: unyon: THE GREAT NAME: fYou appear unable to debate the issues, instead resorting to personal attacks. I wonder why?

Wait... That was your actual argument before?  That was you 'debating the issue'?

Wow.

"Can't win on the issues, resulting to ad hominem attacks." That's so tired it's not even used as troll boilerplate anymore and it was his Boobiese. Where did this guy come from, 1998?

More global warming alarmism sheep who cannot debate the issues. Anything to divert from the topic. Climatism mind-slaves can never win the argument because their beliefs are based on shabby un-truths.


If you don't respond to their personal attacks in the same manner they do using all kinds of verbal masturbation to make yourself feel superior they somehow feel justified in ridiculing you for being lazy. There are a lot of overly articulate yet insecure little men on fark who enjoy ganging up on someone who won't resort to insults like them. I assume they were bullied a great deal in school. Call them on their bullshiat like you did and then wait for someone more interested in conversation without hostility to respond because the more they yark at you the more pathetic they appear.
 
2012-12-24 01:35:05 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: THE GREAT NAME: climate change... is not real.

THE GREAT NAME: Climatology IS EXACTLY THE SAME as Scientology.

THE GREAT NAME: Climate change isn't real.

THE GREAT NAME: There is NO DIFFERENCE between climatology and intelligent design.

[images4.wikia.nocookie.net image 593x338]

Trying too hard


I am so stealing that. A perfect response to these lazy trolls that can't even put minimal effort into the intellectual hairballs they hock into our midst.
 
2012-12-24 01:38:16 PM  

jso2897: Ctrl-Alt-Del: THE GREAT NAME: climate change... is not real.

THE GREAT NAME: Climatology IS EXACTLY THE SAME as Scientology.

THE GREAT NAME: Climate change isn't real.

THE GREAT NAME: There is NO DIFFERENCE between climatology and intelligent design.

[images4.wikia.nocookie.net image 593x338]

Trying too hard

I am so stealing that. A perfect response to these lazy trolls that can't even put minimal effort into the intellectual hairballs they hock into our midst.


So... somebody who is lazy is trying to hard? With logic like yours I'm sure you'd believe any mumbo-jumbo.
 
2012-12-24 01:40:59 PM  
Obviously you are not well read on the subject. Trees growing are now a problem because they pull carbon from the ground and release it. It's not enough that they sequester co2 anymore

lol, wut? I hope you are joking.
Plants get their carbon from the air not the ground. It is where the C goes when they breathe in C02 and out O2.
 
2012-12-24 01:42:25 PM  
www.chinadaily.com.cn

Meanwhile, the land down under has had summer Christmas technology for ages. WHY IS AMERICA FALLING BEHIND
 
2012-12-24 01:44:47 PM  

abb3w: Jim from Saint Paul:When I went to work this morning it was 17 degrees Faren. The Wind chill was 5 degrees and it was snowing.
Pretty sure that's what everyone EXPECTS from my state.

Actually, (positive) double digits before windchill sounds like it might be a bit warm for Minnesota this time of year, depending on what part of the state you're in.


Well, I like to keep my whearabouts secret, so I guess you'll never truly know what part of the state I am in.
 
2012-12-24 01:46:05 PM  

NotARocketScientist: Obviously you are not well read on the subject. Trees growing are now a problem because they pull carbon from the ground and release it. It's not enough that they sequester co2 anymore

lol, wut? I hope you are joking.
Plants get their carbon from the air not the ground. It is where the C goes when they breathe in C02 and out O2.


User stirfrybry should back his claim up by citing the relevant research papers. He should not simply expect people to believe such claims. Why do climate alarmists think they can repeatedly appeal to their own (non-existant) authority?
 
2012-12-24 02:00:53 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: jso2897: Ctrl-Alt-Del: THE GREAT NAME: climate change... is not real.

THE GREAT NAME: Climatology IS EXACTLY THE SAME as Scientology.

THE GREAT NAME: Climate change isn't real.

THE GREAT NAME: There is NO DIFFERENCE between climatology and intelligent design.

[images4.wikia.nocookie.net image 593x338]

Trying too hard

I am so stealing that. A perfect response to these lazy trolls that can't even put minimal effort into the intellectual hairballs they hock into our midst.

So... somebody who is lazy is trying to hard? With logic like yours I'm sure you'd believe any mumbo-jumbo.


i18.photobucket.com

Black-Nosed Buddha

A nun who was searching for enlightenment made a statue of Buddha and covered it with gold leaf. Wherever she went she carried this golden Buddha with her.

Years passed and, still carrying her Buddha, the nun came to live in a small temple in a country where there were many Buddhas, each one with its own particular shrine.

The nun wished to burn incense before her golden Buddha. Not liking the idea of the perfume straying to the others, she devised a funnel through which the smoke would ascend only to her statue. This blackened the nose of the golden Buddha, making it especially ugly.
 
2012-12-24 02:08:08 PM  
www.desmogblog.com
 
2012-12-24 02:13:17 PM  

Mayhem_2006: [www.desmogblog.com image 798x542]


Do you have a source for that info? It's fair to say that without proof, we can discard such a ridiculously extreme claim.
 
2012-12-24 02:17:47 PM  
Do you know what the best part of Climate Change is? That it looks like the red states are going to burn first!

/deny, deny, deny ... delay action as long as you can for your corporate masters
 
2012-12-24 02:23:41 PM  
Crazy warm winter down here in Florida this year, whatever the reason. Usually we'd be in the 40's or even 30's here in the Tampa Bay area for Christmas... it's currently 70+ and the coolest it's been all year.
 
2012-12-24 02:26:02 PM  

Farking Canuck: Do you know what the best part of Climate Change is? That it looks like the red states are going to burn first!

/deny, deny, deny ... delay action as long as you can for your corporate masters


Those corporations you love to hate are all profiting from green tech, renewable energy, carbon trading etc. Did you think the established energy companies would pass over first call on a tonne of government-subsidised cash? In a recession? Yes they initially argued against AGW (because AGW is BS) but now they're at the front of the queue for eco-dollars, closely followed by corrupt land owners, corrupt new "consultancies" and corrupt fake-charities like WWF that pays its CEO over $400,000 salary.

Welcome to corporatism Canuck. Read your 20th century history books a little more carefully this time.
 
2012-12-24 02:30:19 PM  
Your picture says "13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles 1991-2012. 24 reject global warming."

Wow. Considering that climate (and weather) are mathematically chaotic systems in which the basic systems are STILL being investigate, it is MOST impressive that that high a percentage of articles do not question AGW. If you will check, you will find MORE articles on gravity which question the basics, by percentage. I guess that means that climate science is WAY more certain than gravity.

Either that, or any articles skeptical of AGW were kept from publication. Oh, but scientists are infallible!
 
2012-12-24 02:30:51 PM  
img268.imageshack.us
 
2012-12-24 02:31:48 PM  
How am I supposed to celebrate the birth of Christ without an affordable dead tree in my house? Jesus is the way to everlasting life! Unless you're a tree!
 
2012-12-24 02:34:46 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: Those corporations you love to hate are all profiting from green tech, renewable energy, carbon trading etc.


Yes ... they are very smart people. They know that this denial campaign can only last so long before the facts are too obvious. Just like their mentors in the '70s, Big Tobacco, who knew they were going to lose the lawsuits but were able to delay it by about a decade to keep profits high for as long as possible.

They know that eventually their primary source of revenue will be hit so they are making inroads into future tech.

A brilliant strategy: delay action as long as possible to keep the billions of $$$ of profit flowing while buying time to get a strong foothold into the new fields.

Brilliant for their bottom line ... we will pay the price for the actions of these people and their willing puppets (like yourself).
 
2012-12-24 02:35:02 PM  

stirfrybry: Obviously you are not well read on the subject. Trees growing are now a problem because they pull carbon from the ground and release it. It's not enough that they sequester co2 anymore


Uhh.... trees get their carbon from the air. Almost nothing comes from the ground, except water.
 
2012-12-24 02:35:53 PM  
Damn ... the green threadshiatter is back.

Here come the lies ...
 
2012-12-24 02:36:06 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: Mayhem_2006: [www.desmogblog.com image 798x542]

Do you have a source for that info? It's fair to say that without proof, we can discard such a ridiculously extreme claim.


Here are some details: http://www.jamespowell.org/index.html

And the methodology: http://www.jamespowell.org/methodology/method.html
 
2012-12-24 02:38:05 PM  
www.blingdomofgod.com

www.christmasisalie.com
 
2012-12-24 02:46:08 PM  

Farking Canuck: THE GREAT NAME: Those corporations you love to hate are all profiting from green tech, renewable energy, carbon trading etc.

Yes ... they are very smart people. They know that this denial campaign can only last so long before the facts are too obvious. Just like their mentors in the '70s, Big Tobacco, who knew they were going to lose the lawsuits but were able to delay it by about a decade to keep profits high for as long as possible.

They know that eventually their primary source of revenue will be hit so they are making inroads into future tech.


No you don't get it. They are making *more* money now, because so much cash is flowing into green industry, a mixture of direct tax-payer subsidy and investors who expect to get rich off of current and future legislation that controls how people can generate and use energy. They are raking it in.

If you don't believe me, try contacting one of those companies, under two assumed names, one as a green lobbyist and another as a sceptical lobbyist. They will want to talk to the green one.

None of the people on here that you rudely call "deiners" is on a bung.
 
2012-12-24 02:49:40 PM  
Yayyy! we can derp about climate change and religion all in one place.
 
2012-12-24 02:52:14 PM  

rkane1: THE GREAT NAME: Mayhem_2006: [www.desmogblog.com image 798x542]

Do you have a source for that info? It's fair to say that without proof, we can discard such a ridiculously extreme claim.

Here are some details: http://www.jamespowell.org/index.html

And the methodology: http://www.jamespowell.org/methodology/method.html


Did you even read the links you supplied?

He's a script kiddie. He's used scripts to filter for anti-AGW articles using very strict textual conditions. He's then lumped everything else into the pro- bucket. Articles that are ambiguous are counted as pro- as well as ones that express strong doubts about AGW without flatly contradicting it. And many of those will be counted as pro- if their wording does not match his filter terms. Utter BS.

Why do you waste everybody's time posting such blatant rubbish on public forums?
 
2012-12-24 02:53:48 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: There is NO DIFFERENCE between climatology and intelligent design.


Ooooh, that's a good one, and I'm taking it to use on AGW believers later. :)
 
2012-12-24 02:56:24 PM  
Fapinator:
img28.imageshack.us


They won`t get a good chromakey with all those creases...

It will increase their post production costs for a start. Also the trees will ghost.

Bad santa!
 
2012-12-24 02:57:22 PM  

RedVentrue: THE GREAT NAME: There is NO DIFFERENCE between climatology and intelligent design.

Ooooh, that's a good one, and I'm taking it to use on AGW believers later. :)


In that, "We can`t think of an alternative so GOD/AGW!"?
 
2012-12-24 03:02:58 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: jso2897:
Black-Nosed Buddha

A nun who was searching for enlightenment made a statue of Buddha and covered it with gold leaf. Wherever she went she carried this golden Buddha with her.

Years passed and, still carrying her Buddha, the nun came to live in a small temple in a country where there were many Buddhas, each one with its own particular shrine.

The nun wished to burn incense before her golden Buddha. Not liking the idea of the perfume straying to the others, she devised a funnel through which the smoke would ascend only to her statue. This blackened the nose of the golden Buddha, making it especially ugly.

A nun who was searching for enlightenment walked straight past user jso2897. Because he is a twat.


Well, bless your heart.
 
2012-12-24 03:04:32 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: rkane1: THE GREAT NAME: Mayhem_2006: [www.desmogblog.com image 798x542]

Do you have a source for that info? It's fair to say that without proof, we can discard such a ridiculously extreme claim.

Here are some details: http://www.jamespowell.org/index.html

And the methodology: http://www.jamespowell.org/methodology/method.html

Did you even read the links you supplied?

He's a script kiddie. He's used scripts to filter for anti-AGW articles using very strict textual conditions. He's then lumped everything else into the pro- bucket. Articles that are ambiguous are counted as pro- as well as ones that express strong doubts about AGW without flatly contradicting it. And many of those will be counted as pro- if their wording does not match his filter terms. Utter BS.

Why do you waste everybody's time posting such blatant rubbish on public forums?


Er...I didn't originally post the image, I just supplied you with the source, as you requested. You just assumed I made the original post without checking the facts.

Also, nowhere in the image does it state that the remaining 13950 ambiguous articles were counted as 'pro'. You just assumed that to be the case, again without checking the facts.

Based on how quickly you're ready to jump down someone's throat who might be presenting a world view that's in opposition to yours, I'd bet there are a whole lot of things that you just assume without checking the facts.
 
2012-12-24 03:07:35 PM  

dready zim: RedVentrue: THE GREAT NAME: There is NO DIFFERENCE between climatology and intelligent design.

Ooooh, that's a good one, and I'm taking it to use on AGW believers later. :)

In that, "We can`t think of an alternative so GOD/AGW!"?


Yes, but there's more to it than that. Regular "vanilla" Christianity works with faith as something separate from science. I have my reservations, but can co-exist with that (atheist myself). What ID and AGW are doing is trying to define themselves as science when they're really just belief systems.

Their attack vector is mainly one of post-modernism, with ideas like the subjective on a level with the objective, everything really just introspection, truth relative to the speaker, and so on. These ideas have been gaining ground since the mid 20th century, possibly as part of a "head-in-the-sand" response to certain difficult realities of WW2.

Both ID and AGW are debasements and threaten to destroy science. AGW, being more successful, is the bigger threat.
 
2012-12-24 03:07:39 PM  

Pitabred: stirfrybry: Obviously you are not well read on the subject. Trees growing are now a problem because they pull carbon from the ground and release it. It's not enough that they sequester co2 anymore

Uhh.... trees get their carbon from the air. Almost nothing comes from the ground, except water.


You should have stopped with that first bit and left off the bold part.
 
2012-12-24 03:10:54 PM  

dready zim: RedVentrue: THE GREAT NAME: There is NO DIFFERENCE between climatology and intelligent design.

Ooooh, that's a good one, and I'm taking it to use on AGW believers later. :)

In that, "We can`t think of an alternative so GOD/AGW!"?


Both have a HEAVY dose of confirmation bias.
 
2012-12-24 03:11:56 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: More global warming alarmism sheep who cannot debate the issues. Anything to divert from the topic. Climatism mind-slaves can never win the argument because their beliefs are based on shabby un-truths.


Oh I get it now.  It's performance art.
 
2012-12-24 03:13:47 PM  

rkane1: THE GREAT NAME: rkane1: THE GREAT NAME: Mayhem_2006: [www.desmogblog.com image 798x542]

Do you have a source for that info? It's fair to say that without proof, we can discard such a ridiculously extreme claim.

Here are some details: http://www.jamespowell.org/index.html

And the methodology: http://www.jamespowell.org/methodology/method.html

Did you even read the links you supplied?

He's a script kiddie. He's used scripts to filter for anti-AGW articles using very strict textual conditions. He's then lumped everything else into the pro- bucket. Articles that are ambiguous are counted as pro- as well as ones that express strong doubts about AGW without flatly contradicting it. And many of those will be counted as pro- if their wording does not match his filter terms. Utter BS.

Why do you waste everybody's time posting such blatant rubbish on public forums?

Er...I didn't originally post the image, I just supplied you with the source, as you requested. You just assumed I made the original post without checking the facts.

Also, nowhere in the image does it state that the remaining 13950 ambiguous articles were counted as 'pro'. You just assumed that to be the case, again without checking the facts.

Based on how quickly you're ready to jump down someone's throat who might be presenting a world view that's in opposition to yours, I'd bet there are a whole lot of things that you just assume without checking the facts.


My point stands that, once you read the methodology, the graph is extremely misleading in several ways, and that by posting documentary support, you are attempting to fool other users into believing that there is good support for the graph when there is not. After checking your past posts, I can see you have a tendency to lie in favour of AGW alarmism, so don't bother pretending otherwise.
 
2012-12-24 03:23:18 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: dready zim: RedVentrue: THE GREAT NAME: There is NO DIFFERENCE between climatology and intelligent design.

Ooooh, that's a good one, and I'm taking it to use on AGW believers later. :)

In that, "We can`t think of an alternative so GOD/AGW!"?

Yes, but there's more to it than that. Regular "vanilla" Christianity works with faith as something separate from science. I have my reservations, but can co-exist with that (atheist myself). What ID and AGW are doing is trying to define themselves as science when they're really just belief systems.

Their attack vector is mainly one of post-modernism, with ideas like the subjective on a level with the objective, everything really just introspection, truth relative to the speaker, and so on. These ideas have been gaining ground since the mid 20th century, possibly as part of a "head-in-the-sand" response to certain difficult realities of WW2.

Both ID and AGW are debasements and threaten to destroy science. AGW, being more successful, is the bigger threat.


This always happens when science and the politics of power are mixed.
 
2012-12-24 03:24:58 PM  
Farking Canuck:
Brilliant for their bottom line ... we will pay the price for the actions of these people and their willing puppets (like yourself).

Stupid knee-jerk green... Oil companies WANT carbon taxes... Their lobbyists WROTE the legislation, you dumbass. Who do you think paid for the Kancun Klimate Konference? Yep, oil companies.

So, you just keep doing the legwork for the oil companies, you brain-damaged greenie, you. You, and the rest of the green "army" are saving the oil companies a LOT of money.

40748
 
2012-12-24 03:39:29 PM  

GeneralJim: Farking Canuck: Brilliant for their bottom line ... we will pay the price for the actions of these people and their willing puppets (like yourself).
Stupid knee-jerk green... Oil companies WANT carbon taxes... Their lobbyists WROTE the legislation, you dumbass. Who do you think paid for the Kancun Klimate Konference? Yep, oil companies.

So, you just keep doing the legwork for the oil companies, you brain-damaged greenie, you. You, and the rest of the green "army" are saving the oil companies a LOT of money.
40748


One of the most important messages we have to get through to the greenist-alarmists is that science is the LOSER in all this while corporations are the WINNERS.

And we should remind them that history shows that when science gets subverted and corporations get too close to governments, totalitarianism and genocides are the result.

But pathetic young people on the internet are often the ones who got through education without ever realising their intellectual limitations and are having trouble keeping afloat in adult life. They are desperate for some simple bandwagon to cling to. This was also a factor in historical examples of totalitarianism.
 
2012-12-24 03:41:52 PM  
Tomflry7:
Yayyy! we can derp about climate change and religion all in one place.

Well, that's ALWAYS true, since the idea that mankind is dangerously altering the temperature through carbon dioxide release IS a religious tenet.

1.bp.blogspot.com

Al Gore wants to have his Second Chakra rubbed.
 
2012-12-24 03:47:14 PM  
Psychotic deniers are holding Christmas mass in this thread.
 
2012-12-24 03:49:11 PM  
THE GREAT NAME:
He's a script kiddie. He's used scripts to filter for anti-AGW articles using very strict textual conditions. He's then lumped everything else into the pro- bucket. Articles that are ambiguous are counted as pro- as well as ones that express strong doubts about AGW without flatly contradicting it. And many of those will be counted as pro- if their wording does not match his filter terms. Utter BS.

Exactly correct. It is the same with the Oreskes study, which certain morons here continue to quote after having it explained to them. I answered the questions on several surveys, and so far ALL of them find me to be a "supporter" of the AGW hypothesis.

 
2012-12-24 03:52:55 PM  

GeneralJim: THE GREAT NAME: He's a script kiddie. He's used scripts to filter for anti-AGW articles using very strict textual conditions. He's then lumped everything else into the pro- bucket. Articles that are ambiguous are counted as pro- as well as ones that express strong doubts about AGW without flatly contradicting it. And many of those will be counted as pro- if their wording does not match his filter terms. Utter BS.
Exactly correct. It is the same with the Oreskes study, which certain morons here continue to quote after having it explained to them. I answered the questions on several surveys, and so far ALL of them find me to be a "supporter" of the AGW hypothesis.


In fact the IPCC's own claims of overwhelming majority support have been based on similar manipulations.

Paint a labcoat on propaganda, and its still just propaganda.
 
2012-12-24 03:55:27 PM  

GeneralJim: Your picture says "13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles 1991-2012. 24 reject global warming."

Wow. Considering that climate (and weather) are mathematically chaotic systems in which the basic systems are STILL being investigate, it is MOST impressive that that high a percentage of articles do not question AGW. If you will check, you will find MORE articles on gravity which question the basics, by percentage. I guess that means that climate science is WAY more certain than gravity.

Either that, or any articles skeptical of AGW were kept from publication. Oh, but scientists are infallible!


This is entirely true. I'm not even a physicist, but I've read 50 scientific papers this year which question whether gravity really keeps the earth in orbit around the sun, and a good 30 of them definitively asserted that if an object is dropped it won't fall to the ground but instead will float upwards towards the moon - entirely consistent with hundred of other findings that people's common sense notions of physical phenomena are generally just flat out wrong.
 
2012-12-24 03:57:04 PM  
THE GREAT NAME:
One of the most important messages we have to get through to the greenist-alarmists is that science is the LOSER in all this while corporations are the WINNERS.

And we should remind them that history shows that when science gets subverted and corporations get too close to governments, totalitarianism and genocides are the result.

But pathetic young people on the internet are often the ones who got through education without ever realising their intellectual limitations and are having trouble keeping afloat in adult life. They are desperate for some simple bandwagon to cling to. This was also a factor in historical examples of totalitarianism.

You're preaching to the choir with me. You DO know who was the first "green" world leader, right?

Anyway, as one of the choir, I do very much appreciate your sermon. You manage to say good things with FAR fewer words than I generally use.
 
2012-12-24 03:59:56 PM  

GeneralJim: THE GREAT NAME: One of the most important messages we have to get through to the greenist-alarmists is that science is the LOSER in all this while corporations are the WINNERS.

And we should remind them that history shows that when science gets subverted and corporations get too close to governments, totalitarianism and genocides are the result.

But pathetic young people on the internet are often the ones who got through education without ever realising their intellectual limitations and are having trouble keeping afloat in adult life. They are desperate for some simple bandwagon to cling to. This was also a factor in historical examples of totalitarianism.
You're preaching to the choir with me. You DO know who was the first "green" world leader, right?

Anyway, as one of the choir, I do very much appreciate your sermon. You manage to say good things with FAR fewer words than I generally use.


Thank you.
 
Displayed 50 of 189 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report