• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

[Bitch vs Bitch] Xia Suay vs Sulky Greta

AhMeng

Alfrescian (Inf- Comp)
Asset
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
26,183
Points
113
Xiaxue receives flak for saying 16-year-old Greta Thunberg’s actions are ‘so damn cringe’ – Mothership.SG
mothership.sg

Queen of controversy Xiaxue is back.

The influencer is now in the limelight for describing 16-year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg’s actions as cringey.

Who is Greta Thunberg?

Thunberg, who is from Sweden, is a “climate activist” who skipped school in favour of sitting outside the parliament house in protest of carbon emissions.

You might remember her as the girl who sulked furiously at Trump.
Or you might remember her as the girl who declared to world leaders at the 2019 UN Climate Action Summit, “You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words.”

But Xiaxue was not impressed.

In an Instagram story on Sep. 23, 2019, the influencer criticised Thunberg for being “one-dimensional” in her views, and argues that climate change isn’t going to stop just because of Thunberg’s crying.

2019-09-25-10.58.19.jpg


Here is the video in question, if you wanna watch:

Backlash

A day later, one Twitter user @bryandamien_ expressed his disapproval for the influencer.
twitter-2.jpg
Other users chimed in with similar sentiments.
twitter-1.jpg
twitter-3.jpg
twitter-4.jpg

On Sep. 25 morning, Xiaxue acknowledged the number of people she upset with her previous story.

The influencer, however, was not apologetic, and put up another paragraph in sharp rebuke.

What some might find particularly contentious is her hyperbolic advice for one to “get rid of [them]self” in order to reduce carbon emissions.

71319197_2160567014242069_7453580069038981120_n.jpg

Xiaxue also shared an angry message from a walking thesaurus:

71213186_1338669416288696_1868572496182116352_n-1.jpg

This is not the first time Xiaxue has incited backlash for her blunt views.
One might even argue that she built a career on it.
Top image via Xiaxue’s Instagram

If you like what you read, follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitterand Telegram to get the latest updates.
 
If you told me 10 years ago that in 2019 I'd be agreeing with Wendy Cheng one day my answer would have been "not in a thousand years".

Today I have to eat my words. When it comes to climate change I agree with her 100%!
 
April 21, 2014

Commentary
The Global Warming Apocalypses That Didn’t Happen

By Richard W. Rahn
This article appeared on The Washington Times on April 21, 2014.
Share
TwitterLinkedInRedditFacebook
"The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer, and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable." — from an Associated Press report published in The Washington Post on Nov. 2, 1922.
You may have noticed that the predicted disaster 92 years ago did not happen, nor have other predicted catastrophes from the global-warming crowd.
On July 5, 1989, Noel Brown, then the director of the New York office of the United Nations Environment Program, warned of a "10-year window of opportunity to solve" global warming "entire nations could be wiped off the face of Earth by rising sea levels if the global-warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of 'eco-refugees,' threatening political chaos."

The reason we have a global warming crisis is because crisis sells.
The U.N.-forecast disaster never occurred. However, thanks must be given to Mother Nature for the unexpected 17-year pause in global warming rather than the actions of mankind, which have continued to spew out carbon dioxide at record levels. This little error has not stopped the doomsayers at the U.N.
In 2007, the chief of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said, "If there's no action before 2012, that's too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment." It is now 2014 and nothing was done before 2012, so, since it is "too late," why spend any more time and money fighting global warming?
On Jan. 19, 2009, James Hansen, climate expert who until last year was head of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, firmly declared that President Obama "has only four years to save the Earth" which you might have noticed he failed to do. Back in 2006, Al Gore told us that we had only "10 years" to solve the global-warming problem.
Since his recommendations are most unlikely to be accepted and acted on in the next two years, and since there has been no statistically significant warming since the former vice president received his vision, what do you think he will say two years from now?
"The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climate change once the results have become grim reality." This is from an article in Newsweek on April 28, 1975, warning us of the dangers of global cooling. (You can find most of these and many more quotes on the Climate Depot website, collected by Marc Morano, illustrating how little the experts really know about climate change.)
The just-released report by the IPCC toned down much of the rhetoric from its previous reports because its predictive models failed to anticipate the 17-year pause in warming and the increasing disagreements among the many "experts" who were involved in drafting the report. For years, knowledgeable and thoughtful critics of the earlier IPCC reports, such as the United Kingdom's Nigel Lawson, former chancellor of the Exchequer, have been arguing that it made far more economic sense to concentrate on adaptation rather than mitigation, which is probably impossible with existing technologies as well as the political reality.
For instance, sea levels have been slowly rising since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850. Coastal cities have not disappeared, though, because in the normal course of constantly rebuilding structures and infrastructures, we have been elevating them. For the most part, this is not a piece of some grand master plan (other than building codes for new structures), but the basic fact is that "new" cities are constantly being built on top of "old cities," a practice that has gone on for at least a few thousand years.
The good news is that mankind will probably adapt to climate change just fine, as we have been adapting since the end of the Ice Age. New studies show that to date, the benefits of global warming have been greater than the costs, and are likely to remain so for many more decades. More carbon dioxide, warmer temperatures and more rainfall benefit farming. Shipping costs are reduced as ports, roads and rails have more ice- and snow-free days. Cold weather kills more people than warm weather, and most people enjoy longer warm seasons for sports and other recreation.
The reason we have a global warming crisis is because crisis sells. It allows politicians to tax, spend and assert more control. Undoubtedly, more people would have read this column, if the headline had been, "World to end." So ignore the "experts" and enjoy the summer, which most of us will find is too short.
https://www.cato.org/people/richard-rahn
 
Doomsdays That Didn’t Happen: 50 Years Of Failed Climate Predictions
earth on fire


The conservative-leaning Competitive Enterprise Institute has put together a lengthy compilation of apocalyptic predictions dating back decades that did not come to pass, timed as Democratic presidential candidates and climate activists refocus attention on the issue.
The dire predictions, often repeated in the media, warned of a variety of impending disasters – famine, drought, an ice age, and even disappearing nations – if the world failed to act on climate change.

An Associated Press headline from 1989 read “Rising seas could obliterate nations: U.N. officials.” The article detailed a U.N. environmental official warning that entire nations would be eliminated if the world failed to reverse warming by 2000.


Source: Associated Press, June 30, 1989

Then there were the fears that the world would experience a never-ending “cooling trend in the Northern Hemisphere.” That claim came from an “international team of specialists” cited by The New York Times in 1978.

Just years prior, Time magazine echoed other media outlets in suggesting that “another ice age” was imminent.

“Telltale signs are everywhere — from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest,” the magazine warned in 1974.

The Guardian similarly warned in 1974 that “Space satellites show new Ice Age coming fast.”

In 1970, The Boston Globe ran the headline, “Scientist predicts a new ice age by 21st century.” The Washington Post, for its part, published a Columbia University scientist’s claim that the world could be “as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age.”


Source: Boston Globe, April 16, 1970

Some of the more dire predictions came from Paul Ehrlich, a biologist who famously urged population control to mitigate the impacts of humans on the environment.
Ehrlich, in 1969, warned that “everybody” would “disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years,” The New York Times reported.

According to The Salt Lake Tribune, Ehrlich, warning of a “disastrous” famine,” urged placing “sterilizing agents into staple foods and drinking water.”

Those predictions were made around the time former President Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency. Since then, the U.S. has adopted a series of environmental reforms aimed at limiting emissions.

Years after those initial predictions, media outlets and politicians continue to teem with claims of apocalyptic scenarios resulting from climate change.

Earlier this month, leading Democratic presidential candidates held a town hall on the issue and warned about the “existential” threat posed by a changing climate. Before the end of the month, 2020 candidates are expected to have another climate forum at Georgetown University.

CEI’s report came just before the U.N. Climate Action Summit on Sept. 23, an event that promises to “spark the transformation that is urgently needed and propel action that will benefit everyone.”

It also came a week after Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., warned that Miami would be gone in a “few years” because of climate change. She was responding to critics of her ambitious “Green New Deal,” which seeks to reach net-zero emissions within just decades.

Ocasio-Cortez, whose plan has been endorsed by leading presidential candidates, previously joked that the world would end in 12 years if it didn’t address climate change.

But short-term predictions weren’t a laughing matter in the years following “An Inconvenient Truth,” a documentary produced by former Vice President Al Gore.

In 2008, ABC released an ominous video about what the world would look like in 2015. As the video warned about rising sea levels, a graphic showed significant portions of New York City engulfed by water.


Gore himself famously predicted in the early 2000s that Arctic ice could be gone within seven years. At the end of seven years, Arctic ice had undergone a period of expansion, though recently it has been melting at a quicker pace.
 
Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions
Myron Ebell, Steven J. Milloy • September 18, 2019

Thanks go to Tony Heller, who first collected many of these news clips and posted them on RealClimateScience.
SUMMARY
Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today.
None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true.
What follows is a collection of notably wild predictions from notable people in government and science.
More than merely spotlighting the failed predictions, this collection shows that the makers of failed apocalyptic predictions often are individuals holding respected positions in government and science.
While such predictions have been and continue to be enthusiastically reported by a media eager for sensational headlines, the failures are typically not revisited.
1967: ‘Dire famine by 1975.’
1_2.png

Source: Salt Lake Tribune, November 17, 1967
1969: ‘Everyone will disappear in a cloud of blue steam by 1989.’

2_2.png

Source: New York Times, August 10 1969
1970: Ice age by 2000

3_2.png

Source: Boston Globe, April 16, 1970
1970: ‘America subject to water rationing by 1974 and food rationing by 1980.’

4_1.jpg

Source: Redlands Daily Facts, October 6, 1970
1971: ‘New Ice Age Coming’

5_0.png

Source: Washington Post, July 9, 1971
1972: New ice age by 2070

6.png


7.png

Source: NOAA, October 2015
1974: ‘New Ice Age Coming Fast’

8.png

Source: The Guardian, January 29, 1974
1974: ‘Another Ice Age?’

9.png

Source: TIME, June 24, 1974
1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life’

10.png

But no such ‘great peril to life’ has been observed as the so-called ‘ozone hole’ remains:

11.png


Sources: Headline
NASA Data | Graph
1976: ‘The Cooling’

12.png

Source: New York Times Book Review, July 18, 1976
1980: ‘Acid Rain Kills Life in Lakes’

13_1.jpg

Noblesville Ledger (Noblesville, IN) April 9, 1980
But 10 years later, the US government program formed to study acid rain concluded:

14.png

Associated Press, September 6, 1990
1978: ‘No End in Sight’ to 30-Year Cooling Trend

15.png

Source: New York Times, January 5, 1978
But according to NASA satellite data there is a slight warming trend since 1979.

16.jpg

Source: DrRoySpencer.com
1988: James Hansen forecasts increase regional drought in 1990s

17.jpg

But the last really dry year in the Midwest was 1988, and recent years have been record wet.

18.jpg

Source: RealClimateScience.com
1988: Washington DC days over 90F to from 35 to 85

19.gif

But the number of hot days in the DC area peaked in 1911, and have been declining ever since.

20.png

Source: RealClimateScience.com
1988: Maldives completely under water in 30 years

21.png

Source: Agence France Press, September 26, 1988
1989: Rising seas to ‘obliterate’ nations by 2000

22.png

Source: Associated Press, June 30, 1989
1989: New York City’s West Side Highway underwater by 2019

23.gif

Source: Salon.com, October 23, 2001
1995 to Present: Climate Model Failure

24.jpg

Source: CEI.org
2000: ‘Children won’t know what snow is.’

25.png


26.png

Source: The Independent, March 20, 2000
2002: Famine in 10 years

27.png

Source: The Guardian, December 23, 2002
2004: Britain to have Siberian climate by 2020

29.png

Source: The Guardian, February 21, 2004
2008: Arctic will be ice-free by 2018

30.gif

Source: Associated Press, June 24, 2008
2008: Al Gore warns of ice-free Arctic by 2013

31.png

But… it’s still there:

32.png

Source: WattsUpWithThat.com, December 16, 2018
2009: Prince Charles says only 8 years to save the planet

33.png

Source: The Independent, July 9, 2009
2009: UK prime minister says 50 days to ‘save the planet from catastrophe’

34.png

Source: The Independent: October 20, 2009
2009: Arctic ice-free by 2014

35.png

Source: USA Today, December 14, 2009
2013: Arctic ice-free by 2015

36.png

Source: The Guardian, July 24, 2013
The paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02550-9 (open access)
Gas hydrate dissociation off Svalbard induced by isostatic rebound rather than global warming
Abstract
Methane seepage from the upper continental slopes of Western Svalbard has previously been attributed to gas hydrate dissociation induced by anthropogenic warming of ambient bottom waters. Here we show that sediment cores drilled off Prins Karls Foreland contain freshwater from dissociating hydrates. However, our modeling indicates that the observed pore water freshening began around 8 ka BP when the rate of isostatic uplift outpaced eustatic sea-level rise. The resultant local shallowing and lowering of hydrostatic pressure forced gas hydrate dissociation and dissolved chloride depletions consistent with our geochemical analysis. Hence, we propose that hydrate dissociation was triggered by postglacial isostatic rebound rather than anthropogenic warming. Furthermore, we show that methane fluxes from dissociating hydrates were considerably smaller than present methane seepage rates implying that gas hydrates were not a major source of methane to the oceans, but rather acted as a dynamic seal, regulating methane release from deep geological reservoirs.

2013: Arctic ice-free by 2016

37.png

Source: The Guardian, December 9, 2013
2014: Only 500 days before ‘climate chaos’

38.png

But…

39.png
 
Unless Greta and her family live off the power grid, they are just a bunch of hypocrites. And if they dare use wood to keep warm in winter, they are adding to the carbon output and chopping down the precious technology that sucks up CO2. Do they eat meat? I certainly hope they are vegans to further reduce their carbon footprint. What concrete steps has her family taken to lead a zero carbon footprint life? Change never starts at the top but from the bottom. She should lead by example rather than talk about it.

Billionaire LVMH Chief Bernard Arnault Calls Out Greta Thunberg For ‘Demoralizing’ Young People

EMMANUEL Macron and his government have warned teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg’s “radical” stance risks “depressing a generation”.
 
I only know one thing. Its definitely getting hotter and more humid.in the old days, you can walk without sweating. And its very cool in the morning.
 
I hate Xiaxue but she's spot on about the autist Greta.

Those climate warriors are disgusting.
 
I only know one thing. Its definitely getting hotter and more humid.in the old days, you can walk without sweating. And its very cool in the morning.

Concrete absorbs heat and retain it so the temperatures no longer drop when the sun goes down. That's what happens when you pack too many people in one small space and house them in concrete jungles.
 
Gwyn Morgan: Climate-change myths and utter hypocrisy



Gwyn Morgan/ .
AUGUST 4, 2019 05:10 AM

set2009---trecho-de-flore01.jpg


A forest in the Amazon is illegally burned in the northern Brazilian state of Para. Deforestation is one of the primary causes of climate change, Gwyn Morgan writes, but most of the blame tends to fall on the burning of fossil fuels.

Photograph By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

With energy and the environment playing an important role in the fall election, Canadians face starkly different policy positions from political parties, together with a bewildering array of information and disinformation.
Here is my rather eclectic list of little-known facts, head-scratching paradoxes and utter hypocrisy:

article continues below


TRENDING STORIES

Climate Emergency: On June 17, the House of Commons passed a motion declaring a National Climate Emergency.


Firstly, there is no such thing as a “national” climate emergency. Climate change is global, not national, and Canada’s contribution to global CO2 emissions is a minuscule 1.6 per cent.

Here are the answers to some questions that will help you assess whether there’s really a “climate emergency.”

How much CO2 is in the atmosphere, and how fast is it growing? A 2018 report from the U.S. National Oceans and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) gives the answer.

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is now one molecule per 2,500 molecules, compared with one molecule per 3,000 molecules 50 years ago. That’s an average growth rate of just 10 molecules per year.

Apocalyptic projections of rapid sea-level rises are driving municipal and provincial governments on both our east and west coasts to implement “sea level rise plans” that include sterilizing waterfront from development, building sea barriers and even buying out and destroying homes that are deemed vulnerable.

So just how fast are sea levels rising? Here again, the NOAA provides the answer.

Despite all the calamitous rhetoric, the NOAA states that sea levels “continue to rise at the rate of about one-eighth of an inch (3.2 mm) per year.” At that rate, a house built 10 feet above sea level today would still be nine feet, seven inches above sea level in 40 years.

Climate Change Hypocrisy: South Africa, India, the Philippines, South Korea, Japan and China, all signatories to the Paris climate accord, are building a combined 1,800 new coal-fired power plants.

Coal plants emit twice as much CO2 as natural gas plants. Meanwhile, international environmental groups campaign against sending Canadian LNG to those countries.
Here at home, the Trudeau Liberals have just introduced a tax specifically designed to discourage the building of new cleaner-burning gas-fired power plants as they continue to pursue the fantasy that wind and solar will keep the lights on.

Good luck with that. After hundreds of billions of dollars invested, wind and solar contribute just two per cent of global energy supply. And that’s only when the wind is blowing, and the sun is shining.

Climate Change Monovision: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) would have us believe that fossil-fuel emissions are the sole reason for climate change.

But what about urbanization and deforestation? A study by the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs states that the urban population rose from 750 million in 1950 to 4.2 billion in 2018.

We don’t need the IPCC’s hugely complex computer models to know that cities are hotter. All we have to do is walk from a paved sun-heated street lined with concrete buildings to a grassy park.

Rather than reflecting the sun’s rays back to outer space, all that concrete and pavement absorbs the sun’s rays, creating a giant heat sink.

Likewise, deforestation is turning vast tracts of cool African and South American jungles into heat-absorbing barrens. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency summarizes the combined effect: “Processes such as deforestation and urbanization … contribute to changes in climate.”

Trying to deal with any problem without considering all possible causes is both a foolish and dangerous strategy.

First, do no harm: The Liberal government’s proposed “national clean fuel standard” requires increased biofuel content in motor fuels.

Government-mandated biofuel content requirements in North America and the EU have driven the burning of critically important jungle habitat to make way for palm oil plantations.

On the islands of Borneo and Sumatra, more than 50,000 orangutans have died because of palm oil deforestation.

Who burns the stuff anyway?: Several municipal councils, including Toronto and Victoria, are looking to sue fossil-fuel producers for causing climate change, but 70 per cent of emissions come from their own constituents. And imagine their outcry if fuel producers failed to deliver!

B.C. Green Schizophrenia: B.C. Premier John Horgan, a champion of carbon taxes, called an inquiry to investigate high gasoline prices, but prohibited the inquiry panel from considering the price impact of provincial taxes. He also wants Alberta to build a new refinery to supply his province, but he’s against the pipeline that’s needed to carry it.

Sorry, only foreign tankers allowed: The Trudeau government implemented a tanker ban prohibiting movement of Canadian oil on the northern B.C. coast.

Meanwhile, hundreds of tankers churn through the delicate and much more enclosed St. Lawrence estuaries carrying oil from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia, Iraq, Nigeria, Angola and Algeria.

And while ship/whale collisions are virtually unheard-of on B.C.’s northern coast, those foreign oil tankers move through waters where a critically endangered northern right whale was killed in a ship collision just last month.

The great anti-oil industry warrior is back: Gerald Butts, former personal secretary to the prime minister, is back to help the Liberals win re-election.

Before joining the Prime Minster’s Office, Butts was CEO of World Wildlife Canada (WWF), an organization dedicated to “landlocking” the oilsands by stopping new pipelines.

In his role as head honcho of the PMO, he was the mastermind behind policies that crippled our country’s oil industry.

Butts has admitted via his Twitter account to receiving $361,642 from WWF during his first two years at the PMO. He claims it was severance, but how many Canadians have ever received severance for quitting their job?

Butts resigned from the PMO after being accused of ethical transgressions surrounding the SNC Lavalin scandal, but why hasn’t this more direct and personal ethical transgression been reported by news media?

So there you have it, my list of points to ponder through those long and balmy mid-summer evenings that “we the north” enjoy.

Gwyn Morgan is a retired business leader who has been a director of five global corporations, including the founding CEO of Encana Corp.
 
The hypocrisy of climate change advocates
BY JULIE KELLY, CONTRIBUTOR - 01/06/17 04:20 PM EST 1,302
1,223




The hypocrisy of climate change advocates

© Getty Images
So according to all the hysterical people, President-elect Donald Trump has appointed the most climate denier cabinet ever. As cabinet confirmation hearings get underway, expect to hear the charge “climate denier!” a lot.

For those of you who don’t know what a climate denier is, it means you either challenge, question or flat-out reject the idea that the planet is warming due to human activity. In the scientific world and in the world of international liberal groupthink (but I repeat myself), this is blasphemy. Should you remotely doubt the dubious models, unrealized dire predictions, changing goal posts or flawed data related to climate science, you are not just stupid according to these folks, but you are on par with those who deny the Holocaust.

Even people who believe in manmade climate change (or AGW, anthropogenic global warming) have been excommunicated from the climate tribe for raising any concern about climate science. Last month, Roger Pielke, Jr. wrote a revealing op-ed in the Wall Street Journal about how he became a target of the climate junta for saying there was no connection between weather disasters and climate change. Although Pielke believes in AGW and even supports a carbon tax to mitigate its impact, his scrutiny made him a target of powerful folks in Congress, the media and even the White House.

The first time I was called a climate denier was a few years ago, after I started writing about agricultural biotechnology or GMOs. The charge was an attempt to undermine my credibility on supporting genetic engineering: the line of attack was, if you don’t believe the science and consensus about man-made global warming, you are a scientific illiterate who has no business speaking in defense of other scientific issues like biotechnology. This was often dished out by climate change pushers who also oppose GMOs because they are anti-capitalist, anti-corporate ideologues (Bernie Sanders could be the poster child for this).

As I did more research on climate change, I learned one important thing: being a climate change believer means never having to say you’re sorry, or at least never making any major sacrifice to your lifestyle that would mitigate the pending doom you are so preoccupied with (but, sea ice!). You can go along with climate change dogma and do virtually nothing about it except recycle your newspapers while self-righteously calling the other side names. From the Pope to the president to the smug suburban mom, climate adherents live in glass houses that function thanks to evil stuff like oil and gas while throwing rocks at us so-called deniers.

So who are the real deniers: those who are reasonably skeptical about climate change or those who give lots of lip service to it while living a lifestyle totally inimical to every tenet of the climate change creed?

To that end, you might be a climate change denier if:

You are the Holy Father of the largest denomination of the Christian faith who calls climate change “one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day” and that coal, oil and gas must be replaced “without delay” yet lives a palatial lifestyle powered by fossil fuels.

You are the president of the United States who tried to ban fracking on public land because it emits greenhouse gases but then takes credit for cutting “dependence on foreign oil by more than half” thanks to fracking.

You are a presidential candidate whose primary message is blasting big corporations from Exxon to Monsanto for destroying the planet but then demands a private jet to make meaningless campaign appearances on behalf of the woman who beat you so you can keep getting attention for yourself.

You are a movie star who works in one of the most energy-intensive and frivolous industries but now earns fame by leading protests against fracking and demands the country live on 100 percent renewables by 2050 then jets your family off from Manhattan to Australia on a jumbo jet to take pictures of the Great Barrier Reef.

You are Robert Kennedy, Jr.

You drive a Tesla but don’t know the electricity comes from a grid supported by fossil fuels.

You are a legislator who pushes solar panels and wind turbines without having the slightest clue how much energy and materials — like steel, concrete, diesel fuel, fiberglass and plastic — are needed to manufacture them.

You are Leonardo DiCaprio

You are a suburban mom who looks down at other moms who don’t care/know/believe in climate change but you spend the day driving your privileged kids around in a pricy SUV and have two air-conditioners in your 6,000 square-foot house,

You oppose nuclear energy and/or genetically engineered crops.

You eat meat because meat production allegedly emits about 14.5 percent of greenhouse gases or some made-up number according to the United Nations.

You eat any sort of food because agriculture uses all kinds of climate polluting energy not to mention the big carbon footprint to process, package, ship and deliver that food to your local Whole Foods.

You are John Kerry.

So if you live off the grid, never fly in an airplane and don’t eat, then you can call me a denier. For the rest of you, please zip it. You deny climate change by your actions because you contribute daily to the very greenhouse gases you contend are destroying the planet. I’d rather be a denier than a hypocrite any day.

Julie Kelly is a National Review Online contributor. Her work has also appeared in The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, The Hill and The Huffington Post.
The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.
 
If you told me 10 years ago that in 2019 I'd be agreeing with Wendy Cheng one day my answer would have been "not in a thousand years".

Today I have to eat my words. When it comes to climate change I agree with her 100%!

how about just suck more penis ?
 
Back
Top