Thursday, May 18, 2006
Humour of the Day
The retarded irony factor knows absolutely no bounds - how not to advertise mini case study: so inauthentic, it's ironic.
Nothing like proving how evil you really are (MeFi).
In fact, check this out:
"...Josh mentioned he remembered that CEI�s founder, Fred Smith, was on Crossfire years ago talking about how �global warming was actually a good thing because of all the cool new crops we could grow.�
Here�s the transcript from Crossfire, 3/27/92:
Mr. SMITH: Look, the point- what we do know and don�t know, we know that carbon dioxide is increasing. We know carbon dioxide is a plant fertilizer which is a positive benefit to the peoples of the world. We know that there are these elaborate computer models that have never been right before, may be right this time, that suggest climate changes, possibly good, possibly bad. Most of the indications right now are it looks pretty good. Warmer winters, warmer nights, no effects during the day because of clouding, sounds to me like we�re moving to a more benign planet, more rain, richer, easier productivity to agriculture-
KINSLEY: Wait a minute.
Mr. SMITH: We�re basically to a world now that�s a lot closer to heaven than hell.
Ah, the big lie technique strikes again (and don't miss the combination of a very nice culturally specific trigger for fundamentalists who are the least likely to believe in global warming anyways = "heaven").
what's evil about those vids?
You're kidding, right?
Reality, global warming, profiteering, blah, blah, blah...
"Bullshit... some call it pollution... we call it truth"
I find this a little comic. The CEI streaming media page has two videos advancing the argument the CO2 isn't bad (in fact "it's life"--whatever that means), but right below those two, likely blinded by their desire to "ding" Al Gore for his carbon footprint, they post a video tacitly acknowledging that CO2 isn't all that great, citing Gore's air travel to spread his global warming message.
Based on the first two videos, I shouldn't care about the last one. Based on the argument advanced in the last one, it makes me question the first two. Umair, help me. Which of these [irony] well-researched, purely-objective, public service announcments [/irony>]should I believe.
Should you or I send them an email helping them with their inconsistent arguments? I nominate you.