“So the sceptics might be right: Branson’s various climate adventures may indeed prove to have all been a spectacle, a Virgin production, with everyone’s favourite bearded billionaire playing the part of planetary saviour to build his brand, land on late night TV, fend off regulators, and feel good about doing bad,”
7 comments:
And this is different from Gore, how?
What of it all is not about "building a brand" or "fending off regulators" or somehow doing this "thing" that makes it okay to be bad.
I'm sure that Gore thinks that he's done enough "good" to make up for a jet setting lifestyle and bi-coastal mansions and that endangered sea bass? Well, those particular sea bass were *legal*, so encouraging the demand for it wasn't immoral after all.
So when is Naomi Klein going to go after the *non-capitalists* plying the same trade?
Branson and Gore look as though they might be lustfully imagining a little tea bag action. Gore imagines himself a top.
Hey bahoh, are you implying homoeroticism?..cism...cism...cism
That's what I sensed too.
Or it might only be Branson admiring a giant blue Gorefart.
Is the need to exert power over others so great, such an aphrodisiac, that they would try to parley their collective bullshitism as a means to generate profit so they can fund their megalomaniacal dreams? Survey says, OH YEAH!!!
Lenny Bruce is not afraid.
Why pay $3bn, when the promise of global warming has never been kept?
Heh.
In class the other day the prof showed us a chart of CO2 levels various people/organizations had measured/inferred/determined for 500 million years, from the Cambrian to now. She put it up there and then asked if anyone wanted to say anything about it. I wasn't about to touch that one under threat of death. I'm not a dummy.
Apparently no one else in the class is either. Finally someone asked what was up with Rothman (one set of data showed no difference to speak of), but no one said, "But why, if CO2 is so bad, did there used to be so much of it?"
She said that the data had been somewhat adjusted from the chart and that the "times Quaternary average" metric was probably half of what it was, so... instead of 20 times more CO2 in the Cambrian than now, it was probably only 10 times more CO2 then than now, and only 5 times more CO2 for the dinosaurs instead of almost 10.
The obvious conclusion would be that if the Cambrian Explosion of Life happened with 10 or 20 times higher CO2 and the corresponding higher temperatures (NO polar ice), and the development of large animals and complex vascular plants leading up to and during the Triassic to Cretaceous happened with 5 to 10 times higher CO2 and corresponding higher temperatures (NO polar ice) then what's the problem?
But anyone thinking that knew better than to say it, but she told us anyway...
Humans evolved during this extremely low CO2 ice age (points to the Paleogene) and back there (points to the high parts of the graph) there were not cities like New York on coast lines.
Whaaaa????? Uh, okay then.
Post a Comment