Gotta love this story:
Never before have so many people converged to try to save the planet from global warming, with more than 10,000 jetting into this Indonesian resort island, from government ministers to Nobel laureates to drought-stricken farmers.But critics say they are contributing to the very problem they aim to solve.
It's bad enough those that supposedly care so much for the environment burn countless tons of carbon into the atmosphere, but then it's "critics" who point out this most salient fact. Be sure to read the whole thing; in the meantime, you can be sure boneheads like Perry and the microcephalics over at Delaware Numbskull will be making excuses for these folks, along the lines of "Oh, but it's their message that really matters."
Elsewhere, even the celebration of Hanukkah isn't safe from enviro-nuts:
In a campaign that has spread like wildfire across the Internet, a group of Israeli environmentalists is encouraging Jews around the world to light at least one less candle this Hanukka to help the environment.The founders of the Green Hanukkia campaign found that every candle that burns completely produces 15 grams of carbon dioxide. If an estimated one million Israeli households light for eight days, they said, it would do significant damage to the atmosphere.
Oooooh! A whole 15 grams! This is small potatoes, even considering the total number of Jews around the world who will celebrate Hanukkah and let all the candles burn completely ... and especially when compared to the total carbon emitted by the myriad enviro-hypocrites jet-setting around the globe to environment "conferences."
That, and at least Jews -- one of the world's oldest religions -- are celebrating a time-honored holiday. They're not like that new religion composed of granola-eating, totally hypocritical hippies that worship "Gaia."
Hube:
How long do you think it will be til global warming (if it is occurring) is recognized as an uncontrollable, cyclical event?
Would you bet anyone that the seas will NOT rise enough to disrupt life on our coastal areas within the next 25 years? I would.
Posted by: AJ Lynch at December 5, 2007 03:35 PMI'll take that bet if we keep the amount under a dollar. Sorry for the low bet, but the chance to prove me wrong on something should be priceless?
If I read your wording correctly: should life in our coastal areas be disrupted within the next 25 years, ...I win?
Posted by: kavips at December 6, 2007 01:16 AMI guess the point of your article is that enviromentalists shouldn't ride in planes? Actually, I have no idea what your point is other that to try and ridicule those who are attempting to do something to reverse or halt ever-worsening damage to our environment. As you note, the carbon pumped into the atmosphere by the Hanukah candles is small on a global scale as is the amount that will be added by "...10,000 people jetting into this Indonesian resort island..." The goal is to shape the future by making changes to policy and lifestyles that WILL matter on the global scale. Even without the issue of global warming, there is no denying that air quality in the U.S. suffers and there are several regions that have such poor air quality that it reaches the level of "unhealthy" every weekday. Your ridicule does nothing for anyone. Your postion sounds like that of someone completely uneducated on the topic or simply inconvenienced by the truth and thus you live in denial. If you actually want to educate those who would read your blog, try finding out the facts first and writing second.
Posted by: Robert at December 6, 2007 03:13 AMKavips:
You interpreted correctly and I would limit "our coastal areas" to the United States only as presently defined (50 states).
We will trust Hube to hold the money - let's make it for four bits (50 cents). OK?
Posted by: AJ Lynch at December 6, 2007 11:24 AMIf I can't afford to fly to Indonesia, is it okay if I just burn a couple styrofoam coolers? And how many carbon credits did those eco-tourists have to buy when their cruise ship sank in Antarctica?
Posted by: G Rex at December 6, 2007 01:37 PMRobert:
That's precisely my point. You mean to tell me that it is necessary for 10K+ people to burn tons of jet fuel to discuss global warming? What ridiculous conceit. They can't take a ship? What about teleconferencing? You are making ridiculous excuses for something that can easily be avoided. (BTW, the 40,700 tons of gas created by the conference is equivalent to the annual emissions of 20,350 mid-sized cars.)
I am sure, based on your comments here, that you likewise feel politicians who dally in extra-marital affairs should be immune from criticism when they then speak about family values and morals, no?
Please don't tell me that I need to be "educated" on this topic when you've just made yourself to look like a total fop.
Bet is on....sorry it took so long to reply....
50 cents it is...Hube can hold the money...
And keep the interest if he wants, I don't care...