So, Matt Walsh should take in all the homeless people, that should solve the climate change alarmist hypocrisy issue. There, done.
I suppose, if all other recipes start with “Go to the store” or “Head out to your garden”. 
My post was more about the link than the recipe. 
First congrats as your ignorance appears to be great you have a very well picked username.
We can solve the climate change issue without living like the Amish. It is quite doable and in doing so we can also reduce air and water pollution as a bonus.
Increased power from easy renewable resources like Solar & Wind
Scrubbers on the stacks of coal plants and incinerators
Low emission cars (which usually save gas and reduce dependence on foreign oil)
More fuel efficient aircraft (see note for cars),
Improved electrical distribution system that reduce waste and improve the electric grid to reduce down time like the 11-15 days many of us suffered in Sandy.
Increase in power plants using Nuclear, Natural Gas and Hydroelectric power
Increasing the efficiency of appliances (saving owners money in the long run)
Increasing insulation of houses (saving home owner money in the long run)
Switching to LED lighting. (saving owners money in the long run)
Planting Trees!
and there is more, but this was off the top of my head.
Myself, I am 95% LED lighting, my lightly used workshop is mainly use Florescent work lights with some LEDs, I have nearly 10k watts of solar panels on my roof and I drive a Prius which I’ve had for 7 years now. I compost my yard clippings, etc.
OK, here it is, the first step in the Amish butter recipe:
We have. The kid and his friends walked out with about four grand worth of DVDs and of CDs.
You found that cactus yet?
Does Matt Walsh believe in God? If so, why doesn’t he kill himself to meet God sooner?
At least the OP didn’t say that environmentalists should join the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.
One could extract a decent debate from this about the role of so called ethical consumerism versus government action in tackling various social ills, whether it’s poverty, pollution, or capitalism itself. The problem with breaking everyone down into individuals is it’s not particularly efficient, these are systemic problems of large scale. It’s difficult and time consuming for individuals to analyze every piece in the supply chain, and the people who would even try would be a small percent of the population. There’s also some obvious class problems here, as the rich can splurge on more expensive products to peacock their righteousness or salve their guilt. Voting with your dollar isn’t actually democracy, given widespread inequality.
If you’re interested in protecting the environment you should take steps to be energy efficient to the extent you’re able, especially if you’re a well off, but individual action isn’t the whole story.
Why is this mistaken? Practically, sure, but morally? Seems like the golden rule to me. If a war is so important you’re willing to send other people’s kids to die, you should be comfortable having your own sent. Or even yourself, personally. That’s collective sacrifice. It’s not the best anti-war argument, especially given the amount of militarism in some cultures, but it can out a lot of hypocrites and maybe spark some empathy or make the person calculate how much they really support the conflict.
This is like the argument that you can only support immigration if you would let a bunch of Mexicans and Syrians live in your house. It’s confusing individual and systemic solutions again. One could be against abortion and for expanded childcare, welfare, contraception, sex education, and all the rest. That these rarely combine in American political life is a cultural quirk.
This isn’t really a recipe, but I just have to recommend this French country terrine I’m having with a glass of wine. I usually have something like cheese or a fine-textured paté, but this stuff is rough-textured with discrete blobs of different flavors and textures and is really quite wonderful. So is the Château du Bois Chantant Cabernet I’m having with it.
The bonus is that the paté was flown in from France on a jet that, like, emits emissions, and the wine (also from France) probably came in by ship which also emits, like, emissions. I understand that the rustic French emit a good deal of emissions all by themselves. As someone who frequently posts about climate change, the hypocrisy makes it all taste so much better. 
C’mon, manson1972, you can see he’s got you wriggling in the crushing grip of reason and logic.
Well that’s true. I’m drinking Bud Lite now to try to restore some sanity after an anonymous message board poster called me names!
Yes, that does suck. And I’m sorry that happened to you.
I still don’t understand the cactus reference though.
Ya’ just don’t care, do ya’?
Water off a duck’s back and all that.
*You *are smart enough to know that the OP is a crock of shit and **manson1972 **is being a disingenuous arsehole.
But you may be just *lawyerly *enough to not get past the imperfections in Tranquilis’s analogy or the unapologetic ire in Skywatcher’s insult. A pity that you’re choosing to let that make you side with an idiot.
Do I care what an anonymous person on a message board says about me? No, not really. Do you?
Why would you say I am being a disingenuous asshole? An asshole I can understand, but disingenuous?
I dunno, you simpering fuckstick.
That seems weak. Better than “hoser” I suppose.
So does anonymity matter to you or not?
This is definitely an example of the not very elusive* cameronus incogitatus*. DerekMichaels is the sock currently posting that women find men’s junk disgusting.
Compare the two OP’s quoted below. Both begin with some tweet-driven nonsense about someone identified as a liberal who nobody’s heard of tweeting something and continues with a series of links about internet RO about it, and ends with a challenge for SDMB liberals to speak up about it.
Notice the introductory phrase “As I’m sure those of you who haven’t been living under a cave are aware…” in post A and “Those of you over the age of, oh, 16 months will immediately recognize…” in post B.
At the end of each, the ravenous cameronus pleads for the food he craves: “But why are we hearing crickets from the feminist Left on this issue? Seriously? … To anyone who disagrees with me, I’d love to hear your arguments on this.”, and: “Are there any liberals here willing to stand up and call out this shameful race-baiting…”
In summary, he is asking for Amish recipes.
We’ve established that asking scientists to adhere to their crucial, deeply-held, planet-sustaining, humanity-sustaining beliefs is asking for far too much.
What about one of Matt’s other points, the history of failed predictions and hysterics from climate change alarmists?
When the preacher stands on the street corner shouting out “the end is near!,” only to proven wrong, time and time again, we call him nuts. When the climate alarmist does it? We call it science.
Why is that? Shouldn’t scientists be held to much higher standards, not lower, which is what we’ve seen.
Keep in mind, too, that the argument against climate change alarmism isn’t but a single piece of evidence, but a whole mountain of evidence, all pointing decidedly in one direction: Climate change being politically-motivated power-and-money grab masquerading as science.
[ul]
[li]Alarmists living like they don’t believe their own claims.[/li][li]Alarmists with a sordid history of failed predictions.[/li][li]Alarmists now claiming everything is a result of climate change: floods, droughts, more natural disasters, less natural disasters, heatwaves, cold fronts, etc. Climate change “predicts” every possible outcome, a hallmark of pseudoscience.[/li][li]The Climategate scandal, which showed peer review corruption, data manipulation, etc.[/li][/ul]
I mean, come on . . . climate change alarmism is every bit as dubious as those silly TV psychics, you just can’t accept it because deep down inside you have a political commitment to the idea. It’s a core tenet of modern leftist ideology.
Let’s not kid ourselves here, people.
All right, if you hold this point, it should be no problem for you to point to peer-reviewed literature making predictions you consider “hysterical” that ended up being wrong. Hell, if you want, you can even include the IPCC, even though it isn’t peer-reviewed.
(Discounting, of course, ones where the prediction in question was wrong because we specifically took action to mitigate it - such as the “global cooling” papers from the 1970s, whose predictions were wrong because we took a concerted, global effort to tamp down the aerosol pollution responsible for the predicted cooling.)
Similarly, I welcome you to cite the emails from the Climategate “scandal” which you feel show “peer review corruption” or “data manipulation”. I assume you can provide them in context, with your explanation of what you think the emails mean, so as to avoid the kind of stupid mistake FOX News made where they saw “hide the decline” and thought the climatologists were talking about a decline in global temperatures, rather than a decline in proxy data due to a well-known problem with dendrochronology; and that they were trying to hide something from us, rather than publicly and openly discussing their methods in the publicly-available peer-reviewed paper they were discussing in private.