Oh geeze, everyone is a spoilsport. I think this video is a great political comment (intentional or not) about how things are at the moment. IT IS SO TRUE! And it is not supposed to get taken seriously... geeze. Clearly no-one against this has a sense of humour.
...And also, Sony was DIEING to find an excuse to not have to cut their emissions by 10%, something they only agreed to do for PR. "Victory"... WTF?!
Only clueless fools would fail to comprehend that "fun" in the explicit and gruesome fictional murdering of those who disagree is an obvious step in the dehumanization of the targets.
If the "right" was doing the exact same kind of thing to the "left," I would be even more outraged, since I expect better from conservatives. This kind of vile "entertainment" from the left is just their standard way of operating. That's why none of them thought to stop it.
I find this claim outrageous in itself. Especially, with the exception of this film, the left have usually been very docile. Now consider the conservatives. They strove to dehumanise the blacks in the fifties, and now they demand laws aiming to do the same to homosexuals ("keep marriage between couples" like gays don't count as couples) and Muslims ("How DARE they build a culture centre a hundred feet from Ground Zero). Frankly, I expect better from the left than the right anytime.
this is clearly a very cynical and sarcastic video intended for humor. the ignorance of some of the republicans out there is fucking disgusting. i could care less if you do not believe in global warming, although i think that the concept of it not being a reality is fucking stupid. Any gun hugging, bible toting republican who takes this literally is a fucking idiot and that is the end of discussion.
If this IS intended to be a humourous, fictional film (which I hope it is-any person or organisation advocating murder is clearly insane), is it really the best platform for raising awareness for a cause? Most causes are supported by intelligent, rational argument, not "boom, hehehe"...
@Lenin200488 But, as can be seen in the responses here, very rarely do they respond positively. I would far rather have an intelligent debate on a subject than reduce it to a series of comic events. Imagine if that were how our nations were run...
Agreed, as would I, but I have found that the target audience, the people who actually do intend to reduce carbon emmision but don't know how, mostly do see it as a tongue-in-cheek, albeit severely over the top, piss-take on the ones who have no intention whatsoever. It seems that the majority of negative responses have come from the deniers. Therefore, if it has had this much controversy and publicity (notice that it's the disgusted ones posting this vid), then they may have succeeded
Tell me more about what they believe they have succeeded in doing, because this ad only makes me distrust the green movement more than I already did, even though I like some of the things that OTHER greens support
One response I had to this ad was to trash (hazardous waste, btw) the five flourescents I had. I already disliked them because they put out miserable light, and this ad makes me suspect AGW is one part science and a million parts propaganda and manipulation for power.
Well, they succeeded in bringing it to the public attention, which, according to the apology, was their initial intention. You can plainly see that it's been given a lot of attention by many people and for that reason only, they have succeeded. However I totally agree that it completely backfired, but personally I just saw it as silly entertainment. It didn't come across as "REDUCE YOUR CARBON FOOTPRINT OR DIE!" to me at least. I think that was blown out of proportion.
Fair enough, they went about their message in a completely inappropriate way, but is it also right to slam the group and tag them as Eco-fascists for one video? Why must they become outcasts and burnt at the stake? Many right-wingers have done far worse than this to get their own way.
You say this video that says murder people who don't believe in global warming is simply comedy to grab people's attention, yet you say that the complaints - from people who feel physically threatened by this suggesting and saying stop this bullshit - are "burning the makers of the video at the stake". Your side is encouraging murder, not mine. Murder in fiction can be free expression, but suggesting the murder of political opponents is vile and hateful.
As I said before, the point wasn't to say that we advocate the murder of anyone, but rather and nowhere in the video does it say this. If the caption at the end actually said "apathetic people need to be killed" in some indirect way, you would be right. There is no outright suggestion of the murder of political opponents. You are skimming the surface. The point they make is that if you do nothing, and global warming does exist (I don't actually believe it exists), then the planet will...
it couldn't be any more clear that the video is suggesting murder of political opponents. I have no idea what they stand to gain from that, I'm just telling you the about the video they made.
I understand your disgust at the content of the movie, and I agree with you on most of the points, Yes, it should have at least been censored and, yes, it was inappropriate for an informational video. But, as a supporter of free speech, I feel I should defend their actions. I highly doubt that they were suggesting murder of political opponents, but that's my opinion. It just seems ridiculous to me that a group who's main goal is to make earth a safer place for the future would support...
...such an idea. That's all I meant to say. I was just being naive, I suppose. I don't, however think they should apologise, as they, deluded as they were, thought that this would inspire people, not frighten them. Or perhaps I'm being naive again... :P
I don't say it should be censored. I say they should behave like adults and not suggest something so extremely foolish.
How do you know that is the goal of all the people in the movement? Because the creation and broadcast of this video can reasonably be interpreted to be evidence of alternate goals by some within the movement.
I never said you did. This was my opinion. I said it should AT LEAST be censored. And, you're right, I don't know the goal of the people, but again, this is how I interpreted it. I did also say that I understand where you're coming from.
If you follow the movement, what's your judgment on how serious they are about reducing the planet's population and the means they would be willing to use to do so? This video makes me really wonder about what's going on in the movement - sure that's a big stretch, but it bolsters other things I've heard.
I don't follow the movement. I just support their right to make this video. Not as enivronmentalists, but as human beings. And if their ultimate goal is to protect the planet, then good luck to them, but in regards to the video, clearly the end does not justify the means. In my innocence, I saw an attempt at comedy with an important moral. I know that I am in the minority, but I'm still not convinced that they are eco-fascists. I believe that they just had a lapse of common sense.
And I'm inclined to agree with you. And, of course, I would also defend your right to say that, if the situation calls for it. And if I'm blown up for it, so be it!
Murdering people who don't believe global warming IS the main content of this video. Actions speak louder than words. And Market Research would have told them so. I'm not skimming the surface, you are glossing over the content. Please, be honest, or if you choose not to be, at least try not to be so insultingly transparent. If you would like me to translate this comment from english into your native tongue (I'm guessing disinformationist), suggest a method to do so.
Here we have a video which is making it clear that we need to reduce "carbon emissions by 10%" and that anyone who doesn't want to reduce carbon will not only be killed,but killed in a shocking,disgusting vomit inducing way for everyone to see.
So it's like "you adhere to the propaganda, follow the Big Brother, or else we won't consider you a person, we'll kill you, and nobody will move a finger about it".
Yeah, same old leftist crap. "We're right, you're wrong, and if you dare to argue: gulag/gas/paredón"
Eco-Terrorism...plain and simple. Even those who go along with them are splattered with blood and guts, to remind them of what will happen the moment they step out of line..."no pressure"...so long as you do precisely as you are told by the eco-fascists.
.."money"...i.e slavery. Nice little obedient citizen's believe that this thing called money will stop the planet's climate from changing even though it's not their fault,but these groups,supported by the media and ultimately bankers want us all to beLIEve that the natural cycle of climate change on this planet is the fault of human beings in order to get more control over all of us through guilt and the slavery of the belief that "money" is essential to life.
Yeah what sort of thing are we supposed to reduce? Oh yeah,it's something called "carbon".
What sort of carbon are we supposed reduce by 10%? I am a carbon based lifeform.
Do i stop breathing to reduce carbon dioxide that i exhale? Do i cut my leg off so that there is less carbon of me?
This whole "carbon footprint" bollocks is a crock of shit,its created to make Human Being's feel guilty somehow about existing and trying to get this thing called "money" from us.
The burden is on us both, becuase we're proposing two conflicitng arguments, and if you want yours to have any impact, you need to back them up. The requirement for evidence in a well written article is taught from high school.
@lonewolf2399: "I am claiming there is proof for AGW"
We mentioned evolution earlier.
Evolution is accepted exactly because it was, and continues to be, subjected to vicious attacks, which had to be rigorously countered. That made the theory of evolution robust.
AGW has not been tested in the same skeptical fires. Indeed, it's being claimed that such testing has been strongly resisted by green political factions, in academia, the press, and politics.
So you want to wait a few hundred years for arguments to be refined? Time is not a luxury we have. If you want to wait that long to act, fine. It'll just mean a few hundred million more refugees displaced by rising sea level in the meantime. The continued loss of polar ice will cause temperature to increase at a geometric rates. But lets argue for a while until people realise that they have to make hard choices that should have been made decades ago.
I feel bad posting this, as I had intended to make my last post the last one, but please. Do NOT base any of your arguments from ''wiki''. Maybe its right, maybe its wrong. But find a proper reference next time.
Also, we're affecting levels of co2 much more than water vapour
@lonewolf2399: "Do NOT base any of your arguments from 'wiki'."
I used wiki as a reference for an easily verifiable fact, which I found to be consistent with other sources, and for which the wiki itself provides outside references.
Was I substantively wrong about the relative influence of CO2 and water? Post a conflicting reference; don't just impugn mine.
Are we affecting CO2 enough to overcome the difference? Back up your claim. Burden of proof is on you, completely.
As i said, we control co2 more than water vapour, which is naturally maintained at a fairly standard level. We have however, made big changes to co2 concentrations.
''Burden of proof is on me completely?'' How convienient foir you to argue. But you need evidence of your own if you want a leg to stand on. Which you don't have. Also, i've been giving proof on this page for like 4 days, or references to places where proof can be found. I'm guna send 1 more link, with references
@lonewolf2399: "'Burden of proof is on me completely?' How convienient foir you to argue"
Burden of proof is on you because you're making the extraordinary claim, and wanting people to change their lives, pass laws, and assess taxes based on it.
Burden of proof is on you because there is plausible evidence that the science has been hijacked by politics.
I'm not asserting, as a fact, that AGW is NOT taking place, just that I'm skeptical of the claim that it is.
@50srefugee Also, wiki can be edited by anyone, so is less reliable. Don't be so quick to use it. If ou tried to reference wiki in any academic article, it would be immediately discredited. now for a good base of research, see IPCC REPORT 2007 THE HOT TOPIC BY WALKER AND KING,2007 An inconvienient truth Then search for climate change, from any geo. field from these journals, which will have THOUSANDS of references between them: New scientist National geographic Science Nature
@lonewolf2399: "If ou tried to reference wiki in any academic article, it would be immediately discredited."
HAHAHA! These are Youtube comments, not academic articles.
If we were carrying on a debate in, say, a peer-reviewed journal letters column, your letters would be rejected based on your poor copy editing. We're not. Don't impose those standards here.
Yeah, water vapour changes constantly. So does temperature (weather), so does body temperature. But I can still tell you a healthy body temp average is 37.5 degres C. I can tell you 280ppm of co2 in the atmosphere was regular in 1850. Today is 380ppm. Its not about these little squiggles that change every few hours. Its about the recorded changes over decades, centuries and millenia
''AGW is not a fundamental principle, like evolution''
INSERT L M F A O , RIGHT ABOUT HERE
NO WONDER YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING, YOU DON'T EVEN ACCEPT EVOLUTION? WHAT ELSE IS IN YOUR ARSENAL OF ABSURDITIES? THE EARTH IS A CUBE?
As far as i'm concerned you just lost all credibility in a argument related to scientific fields. Please go away, maybe go through a high school education and learn some really basic stuff.
Ahem. I was asserting that evolution is a fundamental principle, unlike AGW. I absolutely accept evolution. The whole of biology only makes sense through its organizing lens.
Global warming does not organize all of climatology; rather, it is asserted to arise from the particular circumstances of the current climate.
You want me to accept AGW and act on it? Present something like the body of evidence for evolution.
@lonewolf2399: "Yes, 'Generally accpeted theory...Your counter argument seems to be the opinion of one person'"
There are many climatologists who do not accept AGW as a theory, and who are asserting that it has not been properly tested, and even that counter arguments have been actively suppressed.
Talk to them, not to me. I'm not a climatologist. I'm simply not persuaded, as a layman, that the arguments for AGW are strong enough to justify the laws being pushed on its behalf.
Gore didn't falisfy the hockey curve graph. But, there may have been errors in Mann's data collection process, but the hockey stick curve in An Inconv. truth (Mann et al, 1998/1999), has also been produced by studies by many different INDEPENDENT research groups across the WORLD, studying different areas of PALEOCLIMATE. IT IS A GENERALLY PROVEN, AND ACCEPTED TREND.
Also, consider that destroyed rainforest area is largely converted to farmland. NOT BEING ALLOWED TO REGROW!!!
Lewis also describes how the APS violated its own Constitution to silently refuse to convene a Topical Group aimed at airing out the scientific objections to the AGW agenda.
This refusal to engage opposing views is profoundly unscientific. There is legitimate AGW science out there, but this is not it.
The science is not settled, only suppressed. Wolfie, stop pretending that it is.
In the face of protests like this, the No Pressure ad is revealed as an abomination.
You need to remember the at symbol if yo want me to be sure of seeing this stuff. Also, why do people keep doing this? giving me some sort of nickname? Is it your way of making yourself feel like you're putting me down? Btw, its seems like the science may be being supressed by you. You've used lots of quotes, but I haven't seen you putting up any stats, or hard proof to support your claims.
@lonewolf2399: "You need to remember the at symbol if yo want me to be sure of seeing this stuff."
Not everything I post here is directed at you, you self-centered, spoiled little watermelon.
"nickname" Look up "Beck's razor". I feel no need to be polite to people who support a video calling for the execution, or even the shunning, of dissenters and skeptics like me.
"support your claims" I'm not making a claim, I'm skeptical of your claim. The burden of proof is entirely on you.
"This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it.... I think it is the money.... There are indeed trillions of dollars involved... that go with being a member of the club. ... As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. ...[A] careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question."
More from Hal Lewis' resignation letter to the APS:
"[When] the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news... the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work."
@mjs48130 The point is that eco-wienies don't have to carry out any final solution. The planet has a solution for species that don't learn physics and it's called extinction. Now, if you think your particular locale can survive 35 inches of rainfall in a day or six months with no rain you have no worries. Of course, I'm curious as to where that place might be.......
Ask the people of Pakistan if Climate Change is important. Ask the citizens of Nashville Tennessee. Ask the resident of Moscow. These places will likely recover from their local disasters but if the frequency of disasters is climbing then who will be available to fly in the aid shipments? Where will the emergency shelters, medicines and building materials come from? I'm sure the residents of New Orleans weren't in much shape to aid the residents of Nashville. No Pressure.
Tyndall and Fourier proved back in 1827 that CO2, Methane, and water vapour are all capable of trapping heat from the suns radiation within the earth's atmosphere. (see Walker. G, & King. D's ''The Hot Topic'' 2007, pgs 14-18 ). The increase from 280ppm co2 in the atmosphere in 1850 (pre industrial rev.) to 380ppm today. Plotted against temperature change on a graph, the two show undeniably similar shapes.
Uhhhh... No one would consider killing over the environment!?!?! Hello.... Can you say, Discovery Channel Psycho!?!?!?! Oh, and BTW- Hitler was an eco nut... Look it up...
@Jeepman1289 yea and Hitler decided to kill 6 million jews becauyse he was worried about their effect on the environment right? VERY very very good point.
and where is Hitler now? What happened to him? and discovery channel guy? 1 or 2 nutjobs might try something like that, but my point is it will never become an enforced law, as some people here seem to ACTUALLY fear!
...and my point is lonewolf2399 that Carbon Dioxide CO2 is not a problem..and will never be a problem and certainly never ever will be a problem.Certainly not something which Humanity should be ashamed of and Certainly should not be something that we should coerced into feeling guilty about and "pay" for in some way.
Well that is a piss-poor point. CO2 is a problem now, and all projections indicate it will become a much more severe problem over time. The science indicates a link between co2 and climate change. These changes include increasenatural disaster rates (and size), harsher environments, poverty, famine We should feel guilty, and we should try to neutralise our own impacts., before its too late
Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant to our atmosphere. Nor is Carbon Dioxide a "greenhouse gas".
Interaction's between the Sun,the Earth and Water are what controls our climate,not Carbon Dioxide which we all breath out daily and is a gas that our water oceans and plant life scrub out daily giving us human beings the oxygen we need to exist.
Carbon guilt is an evil construct to justify the killing of human beings just for being alive.(as above video)
The thing is, carbon isn't the bloody cause of climate change in the first place. The science behind this theory is by no means conclusive. People have failed to take into account variations in the Earth's orbit and the strength of the sun. It just so happens that in 1998, the Earth was at its closest point, and the sun is currently very active. Carbon is not the problem, there's not enough space in this box to explain it fully, but it isn't
The kids blowing up was the most offensive but also the most effective. After that, the effect kinda wore off. This would make a great 1min commercial though.
What are you on? A fight to the death? This video did no such thing. Its dark humor, with a metaphor. Its not saying ''people who don't act should die''. Its ''If you don't act, you're condemming yourself''
It IS a breath of fresh air. Most environmentally orientated ads focus on doom and gloom with stats, and generally unimagiative ideas. This was funny, the ad took an unexpected turn, and it makes you think deeper into what it means.
@lonewolf2399: "Its not saying ''people who don't act should die'. Its 'If you don't act, you're condemming yourself'"
It says, directly and brutally, 'Conform or die'. And it identifies people like me as legitimate targets.
Otherwise, it would show people suffering the natural consequences of their actions: Sweltering in desert heat, drowning in rising oceans, starving among wilted crops.
Still incorrect, but not objectionable.
If there's such a thing as hate speech, this is it.
Its been a generally accepted theory since the 60's amongst scientists (Yes, in the last few years lots of skeptics have emerged, but most have been discredited in the overwhelming stream of data coming from glaciologists, climatologists and meterorologists. Basically every geographical field dealing with the environment has a wide range of data and phenomenon supporting climate change.
See IPCC 2007 report for an overview of the fields
@lonewolf2399: "Its been a generally accepted theory...."
Note: "generally accepted" doesn't mean "right". AGW is not a fundamental principle, like evolution; it's an attempt to extract a weak signal from a noisy source using spotty data and dodgy statistics.
"[Skeptics] have been discredited"
Yes, by a heavily politicized priesthood, not by rigorous science.
Skepticism -- and that's all science is, really: organized skepticism -- has flowered since the CRUtape scandal.
Everyone needs to read Hal Lewis' resignation letter to the American Physical Society.
It's being called "a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door. " That letter sparked the Protestant Reformation.
Lewis to APS: "I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff [the AGW scam] without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist."
@50srefugee Also, your science seems confused. In your ''simples'' comment, you basically described the water cycle, as opposed to the carbon cycle and subsequent greenhouse effect.
@lonewolf2399: "Also, your science seems confused. In your 'simples' comment"
That wasn't mine. It was a bit confused, but note that water vapor is regarded by many as a stronger GHG than CO2. Per Wiki, for instance, H2O is 36 – 72 % of the total effect, while CO2 is 9 – 26 %.
No harm, no foul: Youtube's comment mechanism was never intended to handle complex threads like this one, and it is sometimes hard to keep track of who said what.
I do not see it as a failure on Curtis's part, but a failure by those who didn't comprehend it. Anyone should know that no-one would consider killing to protect the environment. That seems basic enough.
@lonewolf2399 In that case, we must agree to disagree on this point. I regard this film as a clumsily executed, poorly concieved attempt at humour which failed due to its fatal flaws: failing to recognize that the human psyche always sides with the underdog, and never with the figure of cruel authority; failing to see that some might feel bullied by the distinctly violent delivery of the message; and failing to give it any sort of constructive, useful or relevant content on climate change.
- I disagree about the underdog - most people jump big bandwagons.
I find this film to be a breath of fresh air, cleverly implicating the effects of ignoring our carbon emissions. The images are shocking, but thats necessary if you want to beat the apathy people feel towards env. change.
People don't want science, they want a memorable advert
Ah, I misread the thread. I see "agree to disagree" came from ComradeMorshu, not lonewolf.
Nevertheless, lonewolf has chosen sides, and thinking a call to violence like this a "breath of fresh air" does indeed clearly identify wolfie as rabid.
agree to disagree originated from ''ComradeMorshu'', I assume because it was a very long, and time consuming thred for us both, and it went a long way.
Now, i'm sorry, but don't you see that failure to act on carbon emissions has the same end result? Deaths in millions will occur if we fail to act. Poverty, famine, increased natural disasters, heatwaves, flooding. If we do not act, we are killing ourselves. Its not about violence onto one another, which I do not condone.
If there is a side which will help reduce the impacts of our emissions
(I mean through environmental management, renewable energy, emissions cutting, carbon taxing and trading, carbon sequestration, public transport promotion
NOT the murder of those who fail to act and take persoanl responsibility )
Then I would gladly join it
''Wolfie'' is not rabid. This ad isn't ''a call to violence'' Its a call to cut carbon emissions by 10%.
@lonewolf2399 Have you ever read any books by George Orwell? Animal Farm comes to mind. You slowly loose your rights over time until you conform or die. 10-10 is another organization trying to bludgeon its will over the people.
Env. not ''single issue''. But determines so many others on a massive scale.
A nuclear war would be devastating, but mutual fear of such weapons makes it such a low risk. Environmental change is happening now. It affects poverty, economy, healthcare. And the apathy people feel towards it is scary.
I'm not saying ''everybody didn't get it''. But to not get it, you'd have to have a very skewed view of reality. Not to see this as a joke? Then it would be offensive
@lonewolf2399 I see this as a failed attempt at black humour, whose results are offensive; not because of the author's intentions, but because of the results. You see, human creations have a nasty tendency to have a life and will of their own; they are subject to vast and diverse interpretations beyond the creator's scope. In this case, Curtis failed to take into account basic notions of human psychology and storywriting, causing the movie to backfire.
Well those people need convicing if its going to get solved. Its not my ''vision'' either. Its the outcome based on the best science available to us. Maybe people have other priorites or moral objections. But by 2100, 100 million of the poorest people in Calcutta and shanghai will be made homeless by rising sea levels. In the last 14 years, we've seen the 10 hottest ever. Environmental issues trump any others in the long term. But the lack or urgency has bred apathy, which needs to stop
@lonewolf2399 There are many alarming situations in the world which require attention. When the governments of this world have the potential to wreck the planet even faster than global warming ever could, one realizes that, whilst an important issue, environment does not "trump all". For instance, economy -- poverty breeds wars, and, in an age of nuclear warheads, wars carry the promise of eradication of human life. To fight poverty is also to prevent wars.
@lonewolf2399 What I mean is that, whereas the environment is an important issue, you mustn't fall into the trap of believing in "the" single issue. I respect and appreciate your concern for the environment, which makes you a decent person in my book, but you mustn't let this concern cloud your judgement on the complexity of world issues. Things aren't black and white.
Comradey (doesn't really work with your name) - they can't defend it , they're not that big an organisation, and there are lots of angry people who don't get it.
I don't think i'm the only one who ''got it''. But I do think there are a lot of people who need to wake up to what they're responsible for. I know I myself need to make more of an effort to reduce my impact. The movie was fine. Just misinterpreted
@lonewolf2399 It was misinterpreted because it was poorly executed. You are too keen to defend it by claiming that everybody "didn't get it", but this is akin to a poor artist calling others philistines for not being able to appreciate his "masterpieces". If the film had been made less clumsily, people WOULD have found it funny, but at the moment, for many, it is crass, disturbing, prone to misinterpretations, and thoroughly unfunny.
@lonewolf2399 People who loved much of Curtis' earlier work (myself included) are not finding this funny at all. Were they "clever" then, and "stupid" now? No; it is simply that, this time, Curtis has delivered a clearly sub-par product which has had consequences entirely adverse to its admitted function.
Me ''They (people not acting on CO2) might as well be pushing their own buttons!'' (as env.change will create multiple threats)
You: ''It is more than enough to understand that our moral compasses do not point in the same direction. ''
You don't think that people not reducing their environmental damage, will not therefore be potentially endangering the quality of life for themselves or future generations? Also, this seems more a factual, rather than a moral question
@lonewolf2399 I don't think that reducing environmental damage is the only worthwhile thing one can do on this Earth. There are thousands of people saving lives in hospitals, from fires, or in charities; there are thousands educating our children; there are thousands making our lives easier and more comfortable by growing the food we eat and making the computers we use.
The only people who should press their own buttons are those who think others deserve to.
I agree, not the only worthwhile thing. But poor environmental conditions yield low crops, inducing poverty. Air pollution create casulties for those hospitals. Poor land management has caused an increase in forest fires, and in some areas climate will also further this. Preseving our planet is the solution to prevent some of those issues, instead of repairing them afterwards
I did not imply others should push their own buttons, but failure to act amounts to the same thing
@lonewolf2399 It is therefore, indeed, a question of morals: you are claiming that some lives (specifically, those of people acting on carbon) are worth more than those of people who aren't. If this is what you believe, then our moral compasses are indeed radically different and any debate on the matter would be sterile.
@lonewolf2399 The key concept here is "presumed". There are people who are more or less convinced; some who don't believe in it; some who believe there are more important priorities and some who have moral objections to some of the steps to be taken. Just because you happen to be strongly convinced about the urgency (and I can certainly respect that) doesn't mean others share your "repent or succumb to the fires of hell" (or in this case, the button :P) vision.
@lonewolf2399 Of course, lonewolf, this joke is funny and in excellent taste, and everybody who doesn't get it is a "moron". And Sega and Kyocera, two large corporations, have pulled out to cater exclusively to morons, much to the detriment of geniuses like you.
They're not ''catering'' to anyone else because they've pulled out. They just don't want to be associated with an organisation taking backlash for a piece of media that some people simply didn't understand.
Also what ''fantasy world''? My guess is you're losing your temper, so now you're trying to just use meaningless insults instead of reasoned arguments
@lonewolf2399 Losing my temper? Why, when confronted to a genius like yourself, who wouldn't? /sarcasm
Wolfy -- not even 10:10 is defending its movie anymore. It was in bad taste, and it was unfunny to the vast majority of its audience. I respect the fact that you found it funny, but it really is pointless for you to consistently insult others whilst you delude yourself thinking you're the only intelligent man in the world because you "got it". The movie failed -- that's why it was taken down.
She lies: She sais "That's absolutely fine...", but then she presses the button and their parts dispose all over the class. That is much worse than facism.
I really do not get the reason why any normal human being should laugh with this phucho-shit.
Maybe those who laugh are just maniacs, that have been brainwashed after watching a great deal of Hollywood thrillers and "scary movies". After all, death should have become their (probably) hidden passion...
Well, 10:10 state that their aim is to ''reduce carbon emissions''. They do not specify which type of waste gas they mean. However, both carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide are pollutants. reducing either would be a positive action.
Yes it is funny. its intneded as dark humor. I pity the place you live in if its so messed up you'd consider this to be an actual plan. Just read the aplogy note from 10:10
"... Britain's leading Comedy writer, Richard Curtis, agreed to write a short film for the 10:10 campaign.
"Many found the resulting film extremely funny, unfortunately some didn't and we apologise to anybody we have offended. ''
@lonewolf2399 Yes, "many" have found it "extremely funny", but somehow Sony and Kyocera, among many others, have withdrawn their support from the campaign, and the backlash has been overwhelmingly negative.
Oh well, I'm sure that it doesn't matter that 10:10's main corporate sponsors and supporters are turning away from it, as long as the select few who "get it" find it "extremely funny", right?
I'm a bit happier seeing that 90% of people commenting agree that this is sick and wrong, and liberals will be the end of America. Yay for those with brains! :)
These 31,487 scientists are convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.
Read the petition, study the scientific facts, grow a brain, vomit on Hollywood Liberals.
Congratulations for counting all those scientists. The use of that number somehow makes it seem like you know some facts. Sadly you don't. There is a scientific basis, and using climate models, projections, extreme weather event records you see it
Saving energy also saves us money. To the individual paying the bills, reducing emissions would involve using less power, or switching to green energy. Admittedly, there are high start costs, but they pay for themselves over time.
Please remove the text that appears for the entire video.... people need to get the full effect of what these scum bag eco-terrorists are trying to do.
That's about par for the course...anyone who does not go along with far-left liberal ways will be killed. somehow, this isn't as far-fetched as it seems. Do what we say or die. All the more reason to get the liberals out of office NOW!!
This is disgusting. I literally feel ill. I cannot see how this could be considered humorous? If anything I think it alienates people rather than inspiring them.
Yeah, great, reduce those who don't agree with you to insignificant chattel, fit for elimination. Not worthy of debate. What if 'carbon footprint' were substituted by 'abortion'? And those that those that thought 'Eh, I'm not going to do anything to reduce abortion' were the ones getting blown up? How loud would the outcry be? "CRAZY RELGIOUS NUTS!!!".
I'm all for exploding people, but this is just untasteful. It's over the line, but I guess that's what one can expect from a bunch of tree-hugging liberals....
This video is great!It captures people attention in a funny way, and conveys a positive message ( Reduce your carbon footprint). And to be frank, the people who fail to act are basically condemming themselves and the future generations. They might as well be pushing their own buttons.
and to people who find it offensive : No-ones going to start killing each other because they fail to act (though obviously such a threat would yield much faster reductions in Carbon footprints)
Can you please explain what is meant by "(Reduce your carbon footprint)" the thing that you put in brackets and in which that i quoted from your original post type thing.
What Carbon are we personally asked to reduce?
It's either Carbon Dioxide gas Co2,or Carbon Monoxide gas Co.
@lonewolf2399 You are INSANE... this is not funny.... it's freaking eco-terrorism.... and if you don't think Libs will go off the handle.... let's see... Crazy liberal dude flies his airplane into the IRS building here in Austin... then another crazy liberal goes into the discovery channel and tries to kill people because they aren't doing enough. These videos are a disturbing looking to just what enviro-wackos are willing to do for their misguided cause.... instead of LEARNING THE REAL SCIENCE
HAHAHA this made me laugh so hard.... i dont actually believe all the hype about carbon foot prints, i dont not believe some of it either though... regardless this was funny and people that dont get the joke should just not watch it? i mean sure as a republican i would love to have a red button for when i run into all those stupid uber left liberals (personal opinion) but! as an american i gotta respect there voice and opinion... so this is hilarious cause its what we all want to do but cant!
@TheThando13 can you enlighten me? I do not understand what is funny about blowing up and and killing innocents who do not agree with you. Is that not terrorism?
The dark fantasies of the left.
corncat 1 month ago
yea this sum up the hardline eco lot pretty well.
allways28 2 months ago
the simple fact that the makers thought this was cute should tell you everything you need to know about the real soul of the environmental movement.
LeathanL 4 months ago
Oh geeze, everyone is a spoilsport. I think this video is a great political comment (intentional or not) about how things are at the moment. IT IS SO TRUE! And it is not supposed to get taken seriously... geeze. Clearly no-one against this has a sense of humour.
...And also, Sony was DIEING to find an excuse to not have to cut their emissions by 10%, something they only agreed to do for PR. "Victory"... WTF?!
TiffTopz 7 months ago
Even if I was arsed to save the whole fakkin' planet, I sure as hell wouldn't agree to people blowing up if they disagreed.
(It's all bullsh anyway)
Eddshere17 8 months ago
Yes I'm terribly offennded by this. By how darn boring it was! Made to watch it by someone who thought it was funny and almost fell asleep.
paige9214 8 months ago
I said no - HOw come i didnt blow up?
KyzerPowerz 10 months ago
Unbelievable! utterly unbelievable!
Maleincornwall 11 months ago
WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS
NonRandomUser 1 year ago
Comment removed
SuperPresidentDead 1 year ago
ott
mamaafricaforever 1 year ago
Only clueless fools would fail to comprehend that "fun" in the explicit and gruesome fictional murdering of those who disagree is an obvious step in the dehumanization of the targets.
If the "right" was doing the exact same kind of thing to the "left," I would be even more outraged, since I expect better from conservatives. This kind of vile "entertainment" from the left is just their standard way of operating. That's why none of them thought to stop it.
jmy2c 1 year ago
@jmy2c
I find this claim outrageous in itself. Especially, with the exception of this film, the left have usually been very docile. Now consider the conservatives. They strove to dehumanise the blacks in the fifties, and now they demand laws aiming to do the same to homosexuals ("keep marriage between couples" like gays don't count as couples) and Muslims ("How DARE they build a culture centre a hundred feet from Ground Zero). Frankly, I expect better from the left than the right anytime.
Lenin200488 1 year ago
this is clearly a very cynical and sarcastic video intended for humor. the ignorance of some of the republicans out there is fucking disgusting. i could care less if you do not believe in global warming, although i think that the concept of it not being a reality is fucking stupid. Any gun hugging, bible toting republican who takes this literally is a fucking idiot and that is the end of discussion.
institution12 1 year ago
Comment removed
institution12 1 year ago
Hey 10:10, no need to apologize for broadcasting this video, totally up to you Greens to do something like this.
Your choice, no pressure...
7Hook 1 year ago
it would be good if they acctually did this
moleman9000 1 year ago
If this IS intended to be a humourous, fictional film (which I hope it is-any person or organisation advocating murder is clearly insane), is it really the best platform for raising awareness for a cause? Most causes are supported by intelligent, rational argument, not "boom, hehehe"...
derkylos 1 year ago
@derkylos
True, most causes are supported by intelligent, rational argument. However, almost everyone responds to "boom. LOLOLOLOL“
Lenin200488 1 year ago
@Lenin200488 But, as can be seen in the responses here, very rarely do they respond positively. I would far rather have an intelligent debate on a subject than reduce it to a series of comic events. Imagine if that were how our nations were run...
derkylos 1 year ago
@derkylos
Agreed, as would I, but I have found that the target audience, the people who actually do intend to reduce carbon emmision but don't know how, mostly do see it as a tongue-in-cheek, albeit severely over the top, piss-take on the ones who have no intention whatsoever. It seems that the majority of negative responses have come from the deniers. Therefore, if it has had this much controversy and publicity (notice that it's the disgusted ones posting this vid), then they may have succeeded
Lenin200488 1 year ago
@Lenin200488
Tell me more about what they believe they have succeeded in doing, because this ad only makes me distrust the green movement more than I already did, even though I like some of the things that OTHER greens support
One response I had to this ad was to trash (hazardous waste, btw) the five flourescents I had. I already disliked them because they put out miserable light, and this ad makes me suspect AGW is one part science and a million parts propaganda and manipulation for power.
7Hook 1 year ago
@7Hook
Well, they succeeded in bringing it to the public attention, which, according to the apology, was their initial intention. You can plainly see that it's been given a lot of attention by many people and for that reason only, they have succeeded. However I totally agree that it completely backfired, but personally I just saw it as silly entertainment. It didn't come across as "REDUCE YOUR CARBON FOOTPRINT OR DIE!" to me at least. I think that was blown out of proportion.
Lenin200488 1 year ago
@Lenin200488
Fair enough, they went about their message in a completely inappropriate way, but is it also right to slam the group and tag them as Eco-fascists for one video? Why must they become outcasts and burnt at the stake? Many right-wingers have done far worse than this to get their own way.
Lenin200488 1 year ago
@Lenin200488
You say this video that says murder people who don't believe in global warming is simply comedy to grab people's attention, yet you say that the complaints - from people who feel physically threatened by this suggesting and saying stop this bullshit - are "burning the makers of the video at the stake". Your side is encouraging murder, not mine. Murder in fiction can be free expression, but suggesting the murder of political opponents is vile and hateful.
7Hook 1 year ago
@7Hook
As I said before, the point wasn't to say that we advocate the murder of anyone, but rather and nowhere in the video does it say this. If the caption at the end actually said "apathetic people need to be killed" in some indirect way, you would be right. There is no outright suggestion of the murder of political opponents. You are skimming the surface. The point they make is that if you do nothing, and global warming does exist (I don't actually believe it exists), then the planet will...
Lenin200488 1 year ago
@Lenin200488
...suffer and them with it. I have to stress, the message was not to murder opponents. What would they stand to gain from that?
Lenin200488 1 year ago
@Lenin200488
it couldn't be any more clear that the video is suggesting murder of political opponents. I have no idea what they stand to gain from that, I'm just telling you the about the video they made.
7Hook 1 year ago
@7Hook
I understand your disgust at the content of the movie, and I agree with you on most of the points, Yes, it should have at least been censored and, yes, it was inappropriate for an informational video. But, as a supporter of free speech, I feel I should defend their actions. I highly doubt that they were suggesting murder of political opponents, but that's my opinion. It just seems ridiculous to me that a group who's main goal is to make earth a safer place for the future would support...
Lenin200488 1 year ago
@Lenin200488
...such an idea. That's all I meant to say. I was just being naive, I suppose. I don't, however think they should apologise, as they, deluded as they were, thought that this would inspire people, not frighten them. Or perhaps I'm being naive again... :P
Lenin200488 1 year ago
@Lenin200488
it wasn't much of an apology really.
7Hook 1 year ago
@Lenin200488
I don't say it should be censored. I say they should behave like adults and not suggest something so extremely foolish.
How do you know that is the goal of all the people in the movement? Because the creation and broadcast of this video can reasonably be interpreted to be evidence of alternate goals by some within the movement.
7Hook 1 year ago
@7Hook
I never said you did. This was my opinion. I said it should AT LEAST be censored. And, you're right, I don't know the goal of the people, but again, this is how I interpreted it. I did also say that I understand where you're coming from.
Lenin200488 1 year ago
@Lenin200488
If you follow the movement, what's your judgment on how serious they are about reducing the planet's population and the means they would be willing to use to do so? This video makes me really wonder about what's going on in the movement - sure that's a big stretch, but it bolsters other things I've heard.
7Hook 1 year ago
@7Hook
I don't follow the movement. I just support their right to make this video. Not as enivronmentalists, but as human beings. And if their ultimate goal is to protect the planet, then good luck to them, but in regards to the video, clearly the end does not justify the means. In my innocence, I saw an attempt at comedy with an important moral. I know that I am in the minority, but I'm still not convinced that they are eco-fascists. I believe that they just had a lapse of common sense.
Lenin200488 1 year ago
@Lenin200488
Well, Ok, but I don't think this video reflects how human beings should act, its more like how apes would act - kill your enemy.
7Hook 1 year ago
@7Hook
And I'm inclined to agree with you. And, of course, I would also defend your right to say that, if the situation calls for it. And if I'm blown up for it, so be it!
Lenin200488 1 year ago
Comment removed
7Hook 1 year ago
Comment removed
Lenin200488 1 year ago
@Lenin200488
Murdering people who don't believe global warming IS the main content of this video. Actions speak louder than words. And Market Research would have told them so. I'm not skimming the surface, you are glossing over the content. Please, be honest, or if you choose not to be, at least try not to be so insultingly transparent. If you would like me to translate this comment from english into your native tongue (I'm guessing disinformationist), suggest a method to do so.
7Hook 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I am really starting to get fed up!
Here we have a video which is making it clear that we need to reduce "carbon emissions by 10%" and that anyone who doesn't want to reduce carbon will not only be killed,but killed in a shocking,disgusting vomit inducing way for everyone to see.
What the hell is going on?
nikamota 1 year ago
So it's like "you adhere to the propaganda, follow the Big Brother, or else we won't consider you a person, we'll kill you, and nobody will move a finger about it".
Yeah, same old leftist crap. "We're right, you're wrong, and if you dare to argue: gulag/gas/paredón"
No wonder the button is red.
Tirodinossauro 1 year ago
Eco-Terrorism...plain and simple. Even those who go along with them are splattered with blood and guts, to remind them of what will happen the moment they step out of line..."no pressure"...so long as you do precisely as you are told by the eco-fascists.
wideawake123 1 year ago 9
.."money"...i.e slavery. Nice little obedient citizen's believe that this thing called money will stop the planet's climate from changing even though it's not their fault,but these groups,supported by the media and ultimately bankers want us all to beLIEve that the natural cycle of climate change on this planet is the fault of human beings in order to get more control over all of us through guilt and the slavery of the belief that "money" is essential to life.
Which of course,it is not
nikamota 1 year ago 5
"What sort of thing miss?"
Yeah what sort of thing are we supposed to reduce? Oh yeah,it's something called "carbon".
What sort of carbon are we supposed reduce by 10%? I am a carbon based lifeform.
Do i stop breathing to reduce carbon dioxide that i exhale? Do i cut my leg off so that there is less carbon of me?
This whole "carbon footprint" bollocks is a crock of shit,its created to make Human Being's feel guilty somehow about existing and trying to get this thing called "money" from us.
nikamota 1 year ago 2
@50srefugee
the other difference between our arguments is that if i'm wrong, nothing bad will happen
If you are, we'll be in real trouble
lonewolf2399 1 year ago
@lonewolf2399: "if i'm wrong, nothing bad will happen"
See Pascal's Wager and Opportunity Cost.
You want science corrupted in the name of religious belief. That's not bad?
You want the economy hobbled. TNB?
You want skeptics silenced and shunned. TNB?
You want AGW, an unproven risk, to take precedence over other, clearer risks, risks that might be cheaper to fix with greater results. TNB?
You assume an anti-AGW agenda will not have unintended climactic effects. TNB?
50srefugee 1 year ago
@50srefugee
Religion? where? I'm talking science!
OH NO, NOT THE ECONOMY! ITS IN SUCH GOOD SHAPE RIGHT NOW, god forbid the oil industry took a hit to fuel renewable energy sources
The skeptics can keep talking, but I want them to show some good evidence to support their claims
and what other risks pose such problems across so many fields with such extended consequences? Climate change feeds into everything
lonewolf2399 1 year ago
@50srefugee
I am claiming there is proof for AGW
You are claiming that you don't believe it
I am proposing the need for action
you are proposing inaction
I am providing evidence to support my claims
You are not
The burden is on us both, becuase we're proposing two conflicitng arguments, and if you want yours to have any impact, you need to back them up. The requirement for evidence in a well written article is taught from high school.
lonewolf2399 1 year ago
@lonewolf2399: "I am proposing the need for action
you are proposing inaction"
You want to live a green life? Please do. I'm not proposing to pass laws forcing or prohibiting a change in your behavior.
That's the difference. You want to force people to live in accordance with your beliefs.
I'm not remotely trying to make a scientific case. You are asserting the case has been made.
The way science works is, you make a claim, you back it up. Skeptics get to niggle. You must be rigorous.
50srefugee 1 year ago
@lonewolf2399: "I am claiming there is proof for AGW"
We mentioned evolution earlier.
Evolution is accepted exactly because it was, and continues to be, subjected to vicious attacks, which had to be rigorously countered. That made the theory of evolution robust.
AGW has not been tested in the same skeptical fires. Indeed, it's being claimed that such testing has been strongly resisted by green political factions, in academia, the press, and politics.
It is now being tested. We'll see.
50srefugee 1 year ago
@50srefugee
So you want to wait a few hundred years for arguments to be refined? Time is not a luxury we have. If you want to wait that long to act, fine. It'll just mean a few hundred million more refugees displaced by rising sea level in the meantime. The continued loss of polar ice will cause temperature to increase at a geometric rates. But lets argue for a while until people realise that they have to make hard choices that should have been made decades ago.
btw evolution not threat2life
lonewolf2399 1 year ago
@50srefugee
I feel bad posting this, as I had intended to make my last post the last one, but please. Do NOT base any of your arguments from ''wiki''. Maybe its right, maybe its wrong. But find a proper reference next time.
Also, we're affecting levels of co2 much more than water vapour
lonewolf2399 1 year ago
@lonewolf2399: "Do NOT base any of your arguments from 'wiki'."
I used wiki as a reference for an easily verifiable fact, which I found to be consistent with other sources, and for which the wiki itself provides outside references.
Was I substantively wrong about the relative influence of CO2 and water? Post a conflicting reference; don't just impugn mine.
Are we affecting CO2 enough to overcome the difference? Back up your claim. Burden of proof is on you, completely.
50srefugee 1 year ago
@50srefugee
As i said, we control co2 more than water vapour, which is naturally maintained at a fairly standard level. We have however, made big changes to co2 concentrations.
''Burden of proof is on me completely?'' How convienient foir you to argue. But you need evidence of your own if you want a leg to stand on. Which you don't have. Also, i've been giving proof on this page for like 4 days, or references to places where proof can be found. I'm guna send 1 more link, with references
lonewolf2399 1 year ago
@lonewolf2399: "'Burden of proof is on me completely?' How convienient foir you to argue"
Burden of proof is on you because you're making the extraordinary claim, and wanting people to change their lives, pass laws, and assess taxes based on it.
Burden of proof is on you because there is plausible evidence that the science has been hijacked by politics.
I'm not asserting, as a fact, that AGW is NOT taking place, just that I'm skeptical of the claim that it is.
50srefugee 1 year ago
@lonewolf2399: "which is naturally maintained at a fairly standard level"
The water vapor level, aka "humidity", is so variable that it's part of the daily weather report.
"i've been giving proof"
You've been giving vague supporting evidence, which is not the same. C'mon, you claim to be scientific, you should know the difference.
Yeah, I know what you mean, but please: don't hand me a cream pie and then bend over.
"Big changes"
How big? How big relative to the influence of water vapor?
50srefugee 1 year ago
lonewolf2399 1 year ago
@lonewolf2399: "If ou tried to reference wiki in any academic article, it would be immediately discredited."
HAHAHA! These are Youtube comments, not academic articles.
If we were carrying on a debate in, say, a peer-reviewed journal letters column, your letters would be rejected based on your poor copy editing. We're not. Don't impose those standards here.
50srefugee 1 year ago
@50srefugee
True, but for this argument, mine is based on more reliable sources than yours
lonewolf2399 1 year ago
@50srefugee
Yeah, water vapour changes constantly. So does temperature (weather), so does body temperature. But I can still tell you a healthy body temp average is 37.5 degres C. I can tell you 280ppm of co2 in the atmosphere was regular in 1850. Today is 380ppm. Its not about these little squiggles that change every few hours. Its about the recorded changes over decades, centuries and millenia
lonewolf2399 1 year ago
@50srefugee
''AGW is not a fundamental principle, like evolution''
INSERT L M F A O , RIGHT ABOUT HERE
NO WONDER YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING, YOU DON'T EVEN ACCEPT EVOLUTION? WHAT ELSE IS IN YOUR ARSENAL OF ABSURDITIES? THE EARTH IS A CUBE?
As far as i'm concerned you just lost all credibility in a argument related to scientific fields. Please go away, maybe go through a high school education and learn some really basic stuff.
lonewolf2399 1 year ago
@lonewolf2399: "YOU DON'T EVEN ACCEPT EVOLUTION? "
Ahem. I was asserting that evolution is a fundamental principle, unlike AGW. I absolutely accept evolution. The whole of biology only makes sense through its organizing lens.
Global warming does not organize all of climatology; rather, it is asserted to arise from the particular circumstances of the current climate.
You want me to accept AGW and act on it? Present something like the body of evidence for evolution.
50srefugee 1 year ago
@50srefugee
Yes, ''Generally accpeted theory. It is. Your counter argument seems to be the opinion of one person, devoid of any figures to back up your point
lonewolf2399 1 year ago
@lonewolf2399: "Yes, 'Generally accpeted theory...Your counter argument seems to be the opinion of one person'"
There are many climatologists who do not accept AGW as a theory, and who are asserting that it has not been properly tested, and even that counter arguments have been actively suppressed.
Talk to them, not to me. I'm not a climatologist. I'm simply not persuaded, as a layman, that the arguments for AGW are strong enough to justify the laws being pushed on its behalf.
50srefugee 1 year ago
@mrspogadaeus
Gore didn't falisfy the hockey curve graph. But, there may have been errors in Mann's data collection process, but the hockey stick curve in An Inconv. truth (Mann et al, 1998/1999), has also been produced by studies by many different INDEPENDENT research groups across the WORLD, studying different areas of PALEOCLIMATE. IT IS A GENERALLY PROVEN, AND ACCEPTED TREND.
Also, consider that destroyed rainforest area is largely converted to farmland. NOT BEING ALLOWED TO REGROW!!!
lonewolf2399 1 year ago
Also, everyone needs to watch George Carlin's video on "Saving the Planet", at
watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw
"Saving endangered species is just one more arrogant attempt by humans to control nature."
Of course, saving endangered species is passe', so we've moved on to AGW instead.
Listen to his entire rant. Brilliant stuff, that clearly made his audience uneasy.
Carlin was a brave man, not afraid to take shots at idiots you might think were on his side.
50srefugee 1 year ago
Lewis also describes how the APS violated its own Constitution to silently refuse to convene a Topical Group aimed at airing out the scientific objections to the AGW agenda.
This refusal to engage opposing views is profoundly unscientific. There is legitimate AGW science out there, but this is not it.
The science is not settled, only suppressed. Wolfie, stop pretending that it is.
In the face of protests like this, the No Pressure ad is revealed as an abomination.
50srefugee 1 year ago
@50srefugee
You need to remember the at symbol if yo want me to be sure of seeing this stuff. Also, why do people keep doing this? giving me some sort of nickname? Is it your way of making yourself feel like you're putting me down? Btw, its seems like the science may be being supressed by you. You've used lots of quotes, but I haven't seen you putting up any stats, or hard proof to support your claims.
lonewolf2399 1 year ago
@lonewolf2399: "You need to remember the at symbol if yo want me to be sure of seeing this stuff."
Not everything I post here is directed at you, you self-centered, spoiled little watermelon.
"nickname" Look up "Beck's razor". I feel no need to be polite to people who support a video calling for the execution, or even the shunning, of dissenters and skeptics like me.
"support your claims" I'm not making a claim, I'm skeptical of your claim. The burden of proof is entirely on you.
50srefugee 1 year ago
More from Lewis:
"This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it.... I think it is the money.... There are indeed trillions of dollars involved... that go with being a member of the club. ... As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. ...[A] careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question."
50srefugee 1 year ago
More from Hal Lewis' resignation letter to the APS:
"[When] the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news... the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work."
50srefugee 1 year ago
Sorry, but this entire video is offensive and what is even more offensive is to think that if you are offended than by default you are an idiot.
Highbridge1957 1 year ago
@mjs48130 The point is that eco-wienies don't have to carry out any final solution. The planet has a solution for species that don't learn physics and it's called extinction. Now, if you think your particular locale can survive 35 inches of rainfall in a day or six months with no rain you have no worries. Of course, I'm curious as to where that place might be.......
Pangolinx1 1 year ago
Ask the people of Pakistan if Climate Change is important. Ask the citizens of Nashville Tennessee. Ask the resident of Moscow. These places will likely recover from their local disasters but if the frequency of disasters is climbing then who will be available to fly in the aid shipments? Where will the emergency shelters, medicines and building materials come from? I'm sure the residents of New Orleans weren't in much shape to aid the residents of Nashville. No Pressure.
Pangolinx1 1 year ago 2
@nikamota
Simples? very simples. Also unbelieveably wrong!
Tyndall and Fourier proved back in 1827 that CO2, Methane, and water vapour are all capable of trapping heat from the suns radiation within the earth's atmosphere. (see Walker. G, & King. D's ''The Hot Topic'' 2007, pgs 14-18 ). The increase from 280ppm co2 in the atmosphere in 1850 (pre industrial rev.) to 380ppm today. Plotted against temperature change on a graph, the two show undeniably similar shapes.
Not so simples, but true!
lonewolf2399 1 year ago
Uhhhh... No one would consider killing over the environment!?!?! Hello.... Can you say, Discovery Channel Psycho!?!?!?! Oh, and BTW- Hitler was an eco nut... Look it up...
Jeepman1289 1 year ago
@Jeepman1289 yea and Hitler decided to kill 6 million jews becauyse he was worried about their effect on the environment right? VERY very very good point.
apc467 1 year ago 2
@Jeepman1289
and where is Hitler now? What happened to him? and discovery channel guy? 1 or 2 nutjobs might try something like that, but my point is it will never become an enforced law, as some people here seem to ACTUALLY fear!
lonewolf2399 1 year ago
...and my point is lonewolf2399 that Carbon Dioxide CO2 is not a problem..and will never be a problem and certainly never ever will be a problem.Certainly not something which Humanity should be ashamed of and Certainly should not be something that we should coerced into feeling guilty about and "pay" for in some way.
nikamota 1 year ago
@nikamota
Well that is a piss-poor point. CO2 is a problem now, and all projections indicate it will become a much more severe problem over time. The science indicates a link between co2 and climate change. These changes include increasenatural disaster rates (and size), harsher environments, poverty, famine We should feel guilty, and we should try to neutralise our own impacts., before its too late
lonewolf2399 1 year ago
Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant to our atmosphere. Nor is Carbon Dioxide a "greenhouse gas".
Interaction's between the Sun,the Earth and Water are what controls our climate,not Carbon Dioxide which we all breath out daily and is a gas that our water oceans and plant life scrub out daily giving us human beings the oxygen we need to exist.
Carbon guilt is an evil construct to justify the killing of human beings just for being alive.(as above video)
And of course for them to make money.....
nikamota 1 year ago
@nikamota
CO2 controls climate through atmospheric interactions between the suns radiation and the earth's atmosphere
And killing people over pollution? that isn't happening, and never will
and for who to make money? Oil has been one of the worlds richest industries for decades, they've made billions more than those producing green tech.
lonewolf2399 1 year ago
This is freakin' twisted in my view. Black comedy that didn't come off, certainly not for me.
bargaincitizen 1 year ago
Freekin hilariousness!
chgo714 1 year ago
The thing is, carbon isn't the bloody cause of climate change in the first place. The science behind this theory is by no means conclusive. People have failed to take into account variations in the Earth's orbit and the strength of the sun. It just so happens that in 1998, the Earth was at its closest point, and the sun is currently very active. Carbon is not the problem, there's not enough space in this box to explain it fully, but it isn't
Cwarner7264 1 year ago
Eco- Terrorist video
chisoxfan1 1 year ago
The kids blowing up was the most offensive but also the most effective. After that, the effect kinda wore off. This would make a great 1min commercial though.
CollegeJoe 1 year ago
This is fucking ace!!! Seems to many sour-faced people with humour failure around these days...well, nothing to worry...no pressure....
8-P
TerraPosse 1 year ago
@50srefugee
What are you on? A fight to the death? This video did no such thing. Its dark humor, with a metaphor. Its not saying ''people who don't act should die''. Its ''If you don't act, you're condemming yourself''
It IS a breath of fresh air. Most environmentally orientated ads focus on doom and gloom with stats, and generally unimagiative ideas. This was funny, the ad took an unexpected turn, and it makes you think deeper into what it means.
Btw, don't burn ''tyres'', the carbon is bad!
lonewolf2399 1 year ago
@lonewolf2399: "Its not saying ''people who don't act should die'. Its 'If you don't act, you're condemming yourself'"
It says, directly and brutally, 'Conform or die'. And it identifies people like me as legitimate targets.
Otherwise, it would show people suffering the natural consequences of their actions: Sweltering in desert heat, drowning in rising oceans, starving among wilted crops.
Still incorrect, but not objectionable.
If there's such a thing as hate speech, this is it.
50srefugee 1 year ago
@50srefugee
Who are people like you exactly? what do you mean there?
And maybe its not clear, but its true that lack of action will cause our own destruction.
lonewolf2399 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lonewolf2399: "Who are people like you exactly?"
People who don't believe that "that lack of action will cause our own destruction."
People who think the science is far from settled.
People who think this video advocates violence against people like us.
50srefugee 1 year ago
@lonewolf2399:
(check you personal messages; some of my comments are getting lost.)
"Who are people like you?"
People who think the science is far from settled.
People who think global warming government policies are scams.
People who DON'T think "that lack of action will cause our own destruction." At least, not from global warming.
50srefugee 1 year ago
@50srefugee
So a skeptic of global warming basically?
Its been a generally accepted theory since the 60's amongst scientists (Yes, in the last few years lots of skeptics have emerged, but most have been discredited in the overwhelming stream of data coming from glaciologists, climatologists and meterorologists. Basically every geographical field dealing with the environment has a wide range of data and phenomenon supporting climate change.
See IPCC 2007 report for an overview of the fields
lonewolf2399 1 year ago
@lonewolf2399: "Its been a generally accepted theory...."
Note: "generally accepted" doesn't mean "right". AGW is not a fundamental principle, like evolution; it's an attempt to extract a weak signal from a noisy source using spotty data and dodgy statistics.
"[Skeptics] have been discredited"
Yes, by a heavily politicized priesthood, not by rigorous science.
Skepticism -- and that's all science is, really: organized skepticism -- has flowered since the CRUtape scandal.
Wake up.
50srefugee 1 year ago
@lonewolf2399: "generally accepted theory"
Everyone needs to read Hal Lewis' resignation letter to the American Physical Society.
It's being called "a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door. " That letter sparked the Protestant Reformation.
Lewis to APS: "I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff [the AGW scam] without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist."
50srefugee 1 year ago
@50srefugee Also, your science seems confused. In your ''simples'' comment, you basically described the water cycle, as opposed to the carbon cycle and subsequent greenhouse effect.
lonewolf2399 1 year ago
@lonewolf2399: "Also, your science seems confused. In your 'simples' comment"
That wasn't mine. It was a bit confused, but note that water vapor is regarded by many as a stronger GHG than CO2. Per Wiki, for instance, H2O is 36 – 72 % of the total effect, while CO2 is 9 – 26 %.
No harm, no foul: Youtube's comment mechanism was never intended to handle complex threads like this one, and it is sometimes hard to keep track of who said what.
50srefugee 1 year ago
@ComradeMorshu
I do not see it as a failure on Curtis's part, but a failure by those who didn't comprehend it. Anyone should know that no-one would consider killing to protect the environment. That seems basic enough.
lonewolf2399 1 year ago
@lonewolf2399 In that case, we must agree to disagree on this point. I regard this film as a clumsily executed, poorly concieved attempt at humour which failed due to its fatal flaws: failing to recognize that the human psyche always sides with the underdog, and never with the figure of cruel authority; failing to see that some might feel bullied by the distinctly violent delivery of the message; and failing to give it any sort of constructive, useful or relevant content on climate change.
ComradeMorshu 1 year ago
@ComradeMorshu
Agree to disagree, i'll reply and then stop.
- I disagree about the underdog - most people jump big bandwagons.
I find this film to be a breath of fresh air, cleverly implicating the effects of ignoring our carbon emissions. The images are shocking, but thats necessary if you want to beat the apathy people feel towards env. change.
People don't want science, they want a memorable advert
At/To anyone, whatever your moral standpoint,
What will you be doing for 10:10?
lonewolf2399 1 year ago
@lonewolf2399: "I find this film to be a breath of fresh air..."
"Thanking you for volunteering for the 10:10 death squads." -- Al Gore
"Agree to disagree"
How about no? How about this video declared a fight to the death, and you just chose sides?
"What will you be doing for 10:10?"
Necklacing people like you with gasoline-soaked tires.
Haha, just kidding. How does it feel to be on the receiving end?
"A breath of fresh air." Man, I don't know how to respond politely to evil like that.
50srefugee 1 year ago
Ah, I misread the thread. I see "agree to disagree" came from ComradeMorshu, not lonewolf.
Nevertheless, lonewolf has chosen sides, and thinking a call to violence like this a "breath of fresh air" does indeed clearly identify wolfie as rabid.
50srefugee 1 year ago
@50srefugee
agree to disagree originated from ''ComradeMorshu'', I assume because it was a very long, and time consuming thred for us both, and it went a long way.
Now, i'm sorry, but don't you see that failure to act on carbon emissions has the same end result? Deaths in millions will occur if we fail to act. Poverty, famine, increased natural disasters, heatwaves, flooding. If we do not act, we are killing ourselves. Its not about violence onto one another, which I do not condone.
lonewolf2399 1 year ago
@50srefugee
As for choosing sides,
If there is a side which will help reduce the impacts of our emissions
(I mean through environmental management, renewable energy, emissions cutting, carbon taxing and trading, carbon sequestration, public transport promotion
NOT the murder of those who fail to act and take persoanl responsibility )
Then I would gladly join it
''Wolfie'' is not rabid. This ad isn't ''a call to violence'' Its a call to cut carbon emissions by 10%.
lonewolf2399 1 year ago
@lonewolf2399 Have you ever read any books by George Orwell? Animal Farm comes to mind. You slowly loose your rights over time until you conform or die. 10-10 is another organization trying to bludgeon its will over the people.
marteny1984 1 year ago
@marteny1984
Yes, read it. But 10:10 is an organisation, not a government or elected official with the power to enforce this.
Also, this will be the first most people will ever have heard of 10:10. It hardly has the power to make that an actual fear
lonewolf2399 1 year ago
Env. not ''single issue''. But determines so many others on a massive scale.
A nuclear war would be devastating, but mutual fear of such weapons makes it such a low risk. Environmental change is happening now. It affects poverty, economy, healthcare. And the apathy people feel towards it is scary.
lonewolf2399 1 year ago
@ComradeMorshu
I'm not saying ''everybody didn't get it''. But to not get it, you'd have to have a very skewed view of reality. Not to see this as a joke? Then it would be offensive
lonewolf2399 1 year ago
@lonewolf2399 I see this as a failed attempt at black humour, whose results are offensive; not because of the author's intentions, but because of the results. You see, human creations have a nasty tendency to have a life and will of their own; they are subject to vast and diverse interpretations beyond the creator's scope. In this case, Curtis failed to take into account basic notions of human psychology and storywriting, causing the movie to backfire.
ComradeMorshu 1 year ago
Well those people need convicing if its going to get solved. Its not my ''vision'' either. Its the outcome based on the best science available to us. Maybe people have other priorites or moral objections. But by 2100, 100 million of the poorest people in Calcutta and shanghai will be made homeless by rising sea levels. In the last 14 years, we've seen the 10 hottest ever. Environmental issues trump any others in the long term. But the lack or urgency has bred apathy, which needs to stop
lonewolf2399 1 year ago
@lonewolf2399 There are many alarming situations in the world which require attention. When the governments of this world have the potential to wreck the planet even faster than global warming ever could, one realizes that, whilst an important issue, environment does not "trump all". For instance, economy -- poverty breeds wars, and, in an age of nuclear warheads, wars carry the promise of eradication of human life. To fight poverty is also to prevent wars.
ComradeMorshu 1 year ago
@lonewolf2399 What I mean is that, whereas the environment is an important issue, you mustn't fall into the trap of believing in "the" single issue. I respect and appreciate your concern for the environment, which makes you a decent person in my book, but you mustn't let this concern cloud your judgement on the complexity of world issues. Things aren't black and white.
ComradeMorshu 1 year ago
@ComradeMorshu
Comradey (doesn't really work with your name) - they can't defend it , they're not that big an organisation, and there are lots of angry people who don't get it.
I don't think i'm the only one who ''got it''. But I do think there are a lot of people who need to wake up to what they're responsible for. I know I myself need to make more of an effort to reduce my impact. The movie was fine. Just misinterpreted
lonewolf2399 1 year ago
@lonewolf2399 It was misinterpreted because it was poorly executed. You are too keen to defend it by claiming that everybody "didn't get it", but this is akin to a poor artist calling others philistines for not being able to appreciate his "masterpieces". If the film had been made less clumsily, people WOULD have found it funny, but at the moment, for many, it is crass, disturbing, prone to misinterpretations, and thoroughly unfunny.
ComradeMorshu 1 year ago
@lonewolf2399 People who loved much of Curtis' earlier work (myself included) are not finding this funny at all. Were they "clever" then, and "stupid" now? No; it is simply that, this time, Curtis has delivered a clearly sub-par product which has had consequences entirely adverse to its admitted function.
ComradeMorshu 1 year ago
@ComradeMorshu
Me ''They (people not acting on CO2) might as well be pushing their own buttons!'' (as env.change will create multiple threats)
You: ''It is more than enough to understand that our moral compasses do not point in the same direction. ''
You don't think that people not reducing their environmental damage, will not therefore be potentially endangering the quality of life for themselves or future generations? Also, this seems more a factual, rather than a moral question
lonewolf2399 1 year ago
@lonewolf2399 I don't think that reducing environmental damage is the only worthwhile thing one can do on this Earth. There are thousands of people saving lives in hospitals, from fires, or in charities; there are thousands educating our children; there are thousands making our lives easier and more comfortable by growing the food we eat and making the computers we use.
The only people who should press their own buttons are those who think others deserve to.
ComradeMorshu 1 year ago
@ComradeMorshu
I agree, not the only worthwhile thing. But poor environmental conditions yield low crops, inducing poverty. Air pollution create casulties for those hospitals. Poor land management has caused an increase in forest fires, and in some areas climate will also further this. Preseving our planet is the solution to prevent some of those issues, instead of repairing them afterwards
I did not imply others should push their own buttons, but failure to act amounts to the same thing
lonewolf2399 1 year ago
@lonewolf2399 It is therefore, indeed, a question of morals: you are claiming that some lives (specifically, those of people acting on carbon) are worth more than those of people who aren't. If this is what you believe, then our moral compasses are indeed radically different and any debate on the matter would be sterile.
ComradeMorshu 1 year ago
@ComradeMorshu
Not worth more or less, unless you define the 'worth' of a life based upon the quality of life it will have based upon the decisions it makes.
Bad choices make bad lives
Good choices make good lives
I'm not taking any moral stance, or judging anyone, i'm just commenting on the outcome of their decisions, based on presumed future trends.
lonewolf2399 1 year ago
@lonewolf2399 The key concept here is "presumed". There are people who are more or less convinced; some who don't believe in it; some who believe there are more important priorities and some who have moral objections to some of the steps to be taken. Just because you happen to be strongly convinced about the urgency (and I can certainly respect that) doesn't mean others share your "repent or succumb to the fires of hell" (or in this case, the button :P) vision.
ComradeMorshu 1 year ago
@ComradeMorshu
What if the sponsors are pulling out? All it means is that they're trying to avoid all the negative press generated by the morons who
A. Don't understand it, or
B. Can't take a joke
It is a shame that the sponsors are pulling out though, as such a creative, and good intentioned organisation will lose funding as a result
lonewolf2399 1 year ago
@lonewolf2399 Of course, lonewolf, this joke is funny and in excellent taste, and everybody who doesn't get it is a "moron". And Sega and Kyocera, two large corporations, have pulled out to cater exclusively to morons, much to the detriment of geniuses like you.
Have fun in fantasy world.
ComradeMorshu 1 year ago
@ComradeMorshu
They're not ''catering'' to anyone else because they've pulled out. They just don't want to be associated with an organisation taking backlash for a piece of media that some people simply didn't understand.
Also what ''fantasy world''? My guess is you're losing your temper, so now you're trying to just use meaningless insults instead of reasoned arguments
lonewolf2399 1 year ago
@lonewolf2399 Losing my temper? Why, when confronted to a genius like yourself, who wouldn't? /sarcasm
Wolfy -- not even 10:10 is defending its movie anymore. It was in bad taste, and it was unfunny to the vast majority of its audience. I respect the fact that you found it funny, but it really is pointless for you to consistently insult others whilst you delude yourself thinking you're the only intelligent man in the world because you "got it". The movie failed -- that's why it was taken down.
ComradeMorshu 1 year ago
She lies: She sais "That's absolutely fine...", but then she presses the button and their parts dispose all over the class. That is much worse than facism.
I really do not get the reason why any normal human being should laugh with this phucho-shit.
Maybe those who laugh are just maniacs, that have been brainwashed after watching a great deal of Hollywood thrillers and "scary movies". After all, death should have become their (probably) hidden passion...
OTTONUS 1 year ago
@nikamota
Well, 10:10 state that their aim is to ''reduce carbon emissions''. They do not specify which type of waste gas they mean. However, both carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide are pollutants. reducing either would be a positive action.
lonewolf2399 1 year ago
@lonewolf2399 I never received your reply in to my youtube inbox. I received a reply eventually from 50srefugee though.
I may respond to both your replies..but it seems others are doing that for me..but i will still respond...
nikamota 1 year ago
@StarbucksChunks
Yes it is funny. its intneded as dark humor. I pity the place you live in if its so messed up you'd consider this to be an actual plan. Just read the aplogy note from 10:10
"... Britain's leading Comedy writer, Richard Curtis, agreed to write a short film for the 10:10 campaign.
"Many found the resulting film extremely funny, unfortunately some didn't and we apologise to anybody we have offended. ''
lonewolf2399 1 year ago
@lonewolf2399 Yes, "many" have found it "extremely funny", but somehow Sony and Kyocera, among many others, have withdrawn their support from the campaign, and the backlash has been overwhelmingly negative.
Oh well, I'm sure that it doesn't matter that 10:10's main corporate sponsors and supporters are turning away from it, as long as the select few who "get it" find it "extremely funny", right?
ComradeMorshu 1 year ago
I'm a bit happier seeing that 90% of people commenting agree that this is sick and wrong, and liberals will be the end of America. Yay for those with brains! :)
Psalm990 1 year ago
petitionproject[dot]org
These 31,487 scientists are convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.
Read the petition, study the scientific facts, grow a brain, vomit on Hollywood Liberals.
rodandnathalie 1 year ago
@rodandnathalie
Congratulations for counting all those scientists. The use of that number somehow makes it seem like you know some facts. Sadly you don't. There is a scientific basis, and using climate models, projections, extreme weather event records you see it
Saving energy also saves us money. To the individual paying the bills, reducing emissions would involve using less power, or switching to green energy. Admittedly, there are high start costs, but they pay for themselves over time.
lonewolf2399 1 year ago
Please remove the text that appears for the entire video.... people need to get the full effect of what these scum bag eco-terrorists are trying to do.
StarbucksChunks 1 year ago
That's about par for the course...anyone who does not go along with far-left liberal ways will be killed. somehow, this isn't as far-fetched as it seems. Do what we say or die. All the more reason to get the liberals out of office NOW!!
marshauna2 1 year ago
This is disgusting. I literally feel ill. I cannot see how this could be considered humorous? If anything I think it alienates people rather than inspiring them.
hotwifey25 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
hotwifey25 1 year ago
Yeah, great, reduce those who don't agree with you to insignificant chattel, fit for elimination. Not worthy of debate. What if 'carbon footprint' were substituted by 'abortion'? And those that those that thought 'Eh, I'm not going to do anything to reduce abortion' were the ones getting blown up? How loud would the outcry be? "CRAZY RELGIOUS NUTS!!!".
Now substitute "Climate change nuts!"
unclscot 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Yes, support us or we will kill you...great motto there.
ThatBaranskiGuy 1 year ago
lolololol heard about this in glen beck XD
gameboyja 1 year ago
I'm all for exploding people, but this is just untasteful. It's over the line, but I guess that's what one can expect from a bunch of tree-hugging liberals....
winterschill858 1 year ago
@winterschill858 lol I hate liberals XD
gameboyja 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@winterschill858
Well......Thats your own choice...
:p
lonewolf2399 1 year ago
How could anyone think this crap is funny?
mclamped 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's not CO2 causing climate change, It's the sun!
Every planet in our solar system is going through 'extreme' climate change.
Corporations and Politicians are using the green movements and cap and trade to gain money and power for their own agendas.
This Video was made to be vulgar so it would spread across the Internet and get free advertising...
craig125 1 year ago
@ComradeMorshu
This video is great!It captures people attention in a funny way, and conveys a positive message ( Reduce your carbon footprint). And to be frank, the people who fail to act are basically condemming themselves and the future generations. They might as well be pushing their own buttons.
and to people who find it offensive : No-ones going to start killing each other because they fail to act (though obviously such a threat would yield much faster reductions in Carbon footprints)
lonewolf2399 1 year ago
@lonewolf2399 "They might as well be pushing their own buttons."
I stopped reading here.
ComradeMorshu 1 year ago
@ComradeMorshu
Well then you should go back and read the other 4 lines. Maybe it'll help your understanding.
lonewolf2399 1 year ago
@lonewolf2399 It is more than enough to understand that our moral compasses do not point in the same direction.
ComradeMorshu 1 year ago
@lonewolf2399 I ask you then Mr Wolf.
Can you please explain what is meant by "(Reduce your carbon footprint)" the thing that you put in brackets and in which that i quoted from your original post type thing.
What Carbon are we personally asked to reduce?
It's either Carbon Dioxide gas Co2,or Carbon Monoxide gas Co.
Which one is it?
nikamota 1 year ago
@lonewolf2399 You are INSANE... this is not funny.... it's freaking eco-terrorism.... and if you don't think Libs will go off the handle.... let's see... Crazy liberal dude flies his airplane into the IRS building here in Austin... then another crazy liberal goes into the discovery channel and tries to kill people because they aren't doing enough. These videos are a disturbing looking to just what enviro-wackos are willing to do for their misguided cause.... instead of LEARNING THE REAL SCIENCE
StarbucksChunks 1 year ago
@lonewolf2399 well they're not so much pushing their own buttons as their kids or possibly grandkids buttons.
Darkestaxe 1 year ago
@Darkestaxe
Thats why I also mentioned ''future generations''
lonewolf2399 1 year ago
I am still not understanding why this is offensive? :|
cazcazsmells 1 year ago
HAHAHA this made me laugh so hard.... i dont actually believe all the hype about carbon foot prints, i dont not believe some of it either though... regardless this was funny and people that dont get the joke should just not watch it? i mean sure as a republican i would love to have a red button for when i run into all those stupid uber left liberals (personal opinion) but! as an american i gotta respect there voice and opinion... so this is hilarious cause its what we all want to do but cant!
lo1lawl 1 year ago
Atleast it has a good message, those that actually have a sence of humour will get it!
TheThando13 1 year ago
@TheThando13 can you enlighten me? I do not understand what is funny about blowing up and and killing innocents who do not agree with you. Is that not terrorism?
kittencartman 1 year ago
@TheThando13 Someone sensible at last :)
TheBadgerboy1977 1 year ago