I understand scientists looking to protect their grants and the patronage of George Soros and Jane Fonda. But its a venal impulse, isn’t it? Hypocritical, dishonest. Me, I’m into it to encourage the collapse of capitalism and then grounding the world economy in tie-dye shirts, hand dipped candles and weed. Groovy.
I bet we could solve coastal flooding if everyone who cared about the issue took a few sandbags down to the beach.
It’s not required but if you do, remember the rule is “Fuck a cactus, plant a cactus.”
We could solve the drought if everyone who cared enough spit at california.
And that’s how cactuses are made.
And I don’t agree that is the main message.
And I don’t agree that is what the article is claiming.
I don’t speak for the OP, but if a person wanted to repeal Obamacare while simultaneously USING Obamacare, then yes, they are a hypocrite who doesn’t deserve to be listened to.
Sort of like someone receiving Social Security disability while simultaneously complaining about all those people “freeloading” off of the government.
Then you are trapped in a delusion. It’s obvious in the article itself, and even more obvious knowing the author’s history. Don’t feel too bad about it though, it’s normal to be impervious to solid contrary evidence when you’ve wedded your self worth to a false belief.
Did you read the article?
That wasn’t just the main message, that was the headline.
Then on several occasions throughout the article, he calls them hypocrites and liars, and he shows doubt as to the science of global climate change.
The article is painful to read, as it is just a constant barrage of word salad and invective, but just re-read the last paragraph, or even just the last sentence. " I have faith that you are merely disingenuous hypocrites. Let’s hope I’m right."
What do you think the article is claiming?
Once one knows what Matt Walsh thinks about the issue it is easier to see that that is his message. Sorry, but accusing others of being “climate alarmists” already shows that he is just one of the climate science deniers that thinks he is clever by ignoring the context.
Yup, the sun is bigger and hotter than anything on the earth, therefore it has the biggest influence on our climate. Solid science.
[/QUOTE]
Indeed, not solid as the blog against Walsh mentions sarcastically.
Me and many others that have looked at the issue have noticed that there is a lot of climate science deniers like Matt Walsh that besides being crank magnets (that is that they believe more than one unfounded conspiracy theory or unsavory belief) one of the main bad crank beliefs they go for is bigotry.
http://gawker.com/jesus-would-hate-this-christian-blogger-just-as-much-as-1707080093
You just described about half of republican voters.
I don’t know the author’s history, and I don’t care. I’m talking about that article. I don’t claim that Climate Change isn’t real. I don’t claim that denying climate change is a valid position to take.
I claim that a person who feels strongly about an issue should act like they feel strongly about this issue in their lifestyle and if they do that, I will take them more seriously. I claim that is what the article is saying.
Look at it this way. Climate change is real, right? You know it, I know it, 97% of scientists know it. There are dangers associated with it. Dangers that will manifest unless governments across the world do something. Have you changed your life in order to lesson those dangers? No? Then why should I? Perhaps you say “Nothing I personally do will lesson the dangers” Ok then fine. Why should I do anything then?
Better yet, what would you like me to do about it? Any answer you give better be something you have already done, or else I’m not going to take you seriously.
I never claimed that half of republican voters are NOT hypocrites 
So if I’ve done something about it, then you will? Great! I recycle, use public transportation, use low-energy lightbulbs, take the stairs instead of elevators, and a whole raft of other things. Your turn. (Or did you mean that every person who wants action on climate change must do something before you’ll do something yourself? Because if you did, I’m not going to take you seriously.)
And you know what? None of those things will have more than the tiniest fraction of an impact on the environment compared to the effect of government action on climate change. So really the most significant thing all those people demanding the government do something about climate change are doing personally…is demanding the government do something about climate change. Because that will actually have a significant mitigating effect. Everything else is just spitting on California.
How much do they have to change their lifestyle in order for you to take them seriously?
If they reduce their footprint by 25%, in ways that you do not see as all that obvious, (they reduce their car trips, they carpool to/from work, they turn down their thermostat, they improve their insulation, they use more fuel efficient cars, they grow a small garden to be less reliant on transportation of food, they switch to led lighting and other small things that we can all do), is that enough? Or do they have to abject themselves, and destroy their lives, and (if everyone, or even a significant minority did it), wreck the economy to eak out another 25%?
If someone is burning tires in their backyard, it is safe to say that are not worried about climate change. But just because they haven’t taken the steps that some idiot thinks (completely wrongly) would be necessary to reduce their carbon footprint, does not mean that their concerns should not be addressed by those who are in a position to make a much bigger difference.
Once again . . . from the article itself:
Are you deliberately choosing not to see this? Who do you think this article is intended for?
What do you think the takeaway message is meant to be for the typical Blaze reader?*****
. . . But OK, if I’m somehow misinterpreting what the article is saying, perhapse you could explain to the OP how he also is misinterpreting what the article is saying? [My bolding]
Or will you now tell me that I’m misinterpreting what the OP is saying?
You claim to accept that climate change is obviously a real problem. (“You know it, I know it, 97% of scientists know it.”)
And yet you act as if you can’t believe that there really are climate change denialists.
*****Pst! It’s “don’t believe the climate hoaxers and don’t feel bad about the government letting industry fuck over the planet, because climate alarmists are just a bunch of lying hypocrites who don’t even believe their own tales.”
For reals. It’s right there. But the message is so large you might need to step back a little to see it.
Not naita, but First: since the weakest link nowadays are the elected Republican congress critters, it is important to vote for the Democratic party. So I do.
Second: I do use light rail and carpool. Turned my garden to a very low water use. Support nuclear power that is one of our power sources in Phoenix. Adding solar power this year to the house. Of course the point still stands anyhow: What Matt Walsh is demanding is a red herring. Just like in old England, one will have to ignore the nattering nabobs of negativism that oppose the most significant changes with red herrings like that one.
Is it warmer in New Hampshire now?
If you believe climate change is a problem, you’d ditch your air conditioner … oh, you still use your air conditioner? … there’s no better way to solve a problem than to be an active part of the problem … indulge yourself …
Great! Good for you. If these statements are true, then I would take you seriously. And no, not every person who wants action on climate change must do something. Only those who bother me about it.
So then I DON’T have to do anything different? Since it doesn’t matter what I do anyway, why would I give up my 1 MPG car and take public transportation?
Getting close to avoid that false dilemma anyhow…
Not sure. They can tell me and I can judge whether or not it is sufficient for me to take them seriously.
“I watch the Nature Channel on TV” not so much
“I recycle my own urine for drinking water” Maybe
Think about the example of old England and the contamination of the Thames. The early adopters of flushing toilets and pipes in their homes had less costs and less issues dealing with the changes once the big waterworks and sewage systems were completed.