The Green Police gave her grief about this.

Enter Jennifer Aniston, the former Friends star who has successfully transitioned from TV to motion picture fame and cares deeply about conservation. In her contribution to a 2007 book about “saving the planet one simple step at a time,” Aniston reveals she takes three-minute showers and brushes her teeth in the shower. “Every two minutes in the shower uses as much water as a person in Africa uses for everything in their life for a whole day!” she explains.

Well, it’s good to know that Aniston has been consuming less water than the rest of us climate change deniers… in a $42 million Beverly Hills mansion. No cognitive dissonance there! Except, apparently, Aniston has recently decided that the lavish crib is “too much” for her, and she will be downgrading to a “wooden box” a la Mad Men’s Vincent Katheiser trailer a la director Tom Shadyac $4.95 million Manhattan luxury apartment. Now, I’m no expert on New York’s housing market, but that doesn’t quite sound like the kind of humble life that, say, we middle-cass flyover troglodytes already live, right?

The story’s been getting legs in the press (coincidentally, around the same time as her own legs showed up in a trailer for her next film) because she bought the place using a trust fund that was set up in her dog’s name. Eh, let people have their inside jokes, I say; this is a more illuminating detail: “As well as the penthouse, she snapped up two other small units in the building.” So, not only is she buying more expensive housing than a person in Africa can afford over an entire lifetime with the apartment itself, but she needs even more space–all for her and little Norman, the corgi-terrier mix.

It’s been almost half a decade since An Inconvenient Truth came out. I’m no scientist, but the fact that I can count the number of true climate change alarmists who have actually scaled down their standard of living (even though they still work in one of the most unnecessary wasteful industries in the country) on one hand is all I need to know about that documentary’s warnings. Note to Jenn: since neither you nor your peers are exemplifying a real solution for global climate catastrophe, does it really make sense to move to a city that will become the Ground Zero of rising ocean levels?

But these great Americans are generally not members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and they don’t get to vote for who takes home the Oscar.  People like Sean Penn do.  And Tim Robbins.   And tranny vomit recipient Susan Sarandon.  

—–

These are the kind of folks who make up the majority of Oscar voters, so it’s no wonder that the Academy Awards show is so often a festival of nitwittery that leaves normal Americans scratching their heads wondering, “Um, what the hell was that?” 

Oscar has more than its share of astonishing failures, of crazy-uncle-locked-in-the-attic nods that the Academy sorely regretted about the time the after-party coke bowls ran dry.  The terrible Oscar choices listed here are only from the last few decades since the sting of choosing How Green Is My Valley over Citizen Kane and The Maltese Falcon has presumably faded since 1941– well, for some of us.  Oh, and you won’t find Marisa Tomei on this list – she rocks.  Deal with that, haters. 

So, in no particular order of insanity, here are Oscar’s 10 biggest recent screw-ups: ]

1. Crash: Best Picture 2006: Before Paul Haggis annoyed the Scientologists, he annoyed most of the rest of the world with Crash, a ponderous stew of liberal guilt and condescension that lucked into a Best Picture Oscar through a combination of pinko button pushing and the pure dumb luck of having an equally tiresome raft of competing nominees.  

—–

With fellow nominees Brokeback Mountain, Munich, Capote, and Good Night and Good Luck, Crash was up against sodomy, moral equivalence, more sodomy and George Clooney.  Apparently, the voters found Crash the lesser of five mediocrities. 

2. Shakespeare In Love: Best Picture 1999:  Well, I guess I’m just being petty.  I mean, Saving Private Ryan was merely a stirring, technically magnificent tribute to the unbelievable bravery of the heroes who stormed the beaches at Normandy and freed Europe from the grip of Nazi tyranny.  But Shakespeare In Love was about show business and it also displayed Gwyneth Paltrow’s epically unimpressive rack.  So I guess it was an easy choice for the Academy – they got to pick a flick about Actors and Acting while also dissing those dirty brutes who do Army stuff.  To pat themselves on their collective backs and diss the proles – how could they pass up that opportunity?  Well, they couldn’t, and they didn’t. 

—–

Now, there’s nothing really wrong with Shakespeare In Love.  It’s a perfectly serviceable film if you happen not to have testes, or merely hate all they stand for.  Sure, there are some guys out there who think a topless Gwyneth from 14 years ago is sexy, but movies need to appeal to more than just lonely shut-ins whose life partners are manufactured by the Kleenex Corporation.  This condescending, anti-American snob is to hot women what her husband’s band Coldplay is to cool music,and she needs to stick to her goop.com blog where she comments on the everyday problems that real moms face, like uppity butlers and “tiara hair.”  Enough said about her.  

In ambition and execution, Private Ryan – a film I have my problems with – was so manifestly superior artistically and technically that to overlook it could not simply be a mistake.  The electrifying initial landing scene is so unforgettable that it alone justified a Best Picture award regardless of what came after.  No, there had to be an agenda.  And that’s what makes this choice more than just risible – it was despicable. 

3. Al Pacino in Scent of a Woman: Best Actor 1993:  Oh, how the mighty have fallen.  From his iconic roles in the 70’s like Michael Corleone to the bizarrely over-the-top but unforgettable Tony Montana in the 80’s, you could always count on Al to deliver.  But this?  It’s bad enough that it came to this; it’s worse that the Academy acted as an enabler to Pacino’s sad decline into tedious caricature. 

—–

Hooah?  I don’t think so. 

4. Roberto Begnini in Life Is Beautiful: Best Actor 1999:  This award was so manifestly undeserved that it made President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize seem as underwhelming as a third place middle school science fair ribbon tossed at Albert Einstein.  Let me put this out there – Life Is Beautiful is perhaps the stupidest, most offensive major motion picture ever made.  When the Nazis came looking for Begnini, this holocaust comedy literally had people in the audience yelling, “Hey, he’s hiding in the alley!” 

—–

Someone told Roberto Begnini a terrible lie – that he was amusing.  In fact, he is the most annoying performer in the entire history of cinema, a history that includes Matt Damon and Channing Tatum.  What takes him to a whole new level of suck is that he thinks he’s hilarious, which he is – in the same way a giant herpetic lesion is hilarious.  

The “wacky” English-mangling acceptance speech he offered when presented with this award was brilliant…to those who hit the sauce in their limos beforehand.  For the rest of the audience, it was like a root canal sans anesthetic, but without the fun.  Fortunately, Begnini has faded into well-deserved obscurity and his movies are today largely forgotten, a tribute to the collective human mind’s ability to block out traumatic experiences. 

5. Alan Arkin in Little Miss Sunshine: Best Supporting Actor 2007:  “Let’s honor a trangressive indie comedy where the grandpa swears and drinks and does drugs – yeah, that’ll blow the collective minds of those squares out there in Jesusland!”  Such was no doubt the thought process that went into handing the little gold naked guy to veteran Alan Arkin for what was essentially playing the same curmudgeonly character he’d been essaying since the great Freebie and the Bean.  Now, that was an amusing, truly un-PC movie: 

—–

So rent Freebie and let Little Miss Sunshine fade into a vague, unpleasant memory. 

6. Diablo Cody for Juno: Best Original Screenplay 2008:  Once again, the Academy experienced the equivalent of a “double bagger,” where it wakes up in the morning, looks at what it brought home, and asks “What the hell was I thinking?” 

—–

Juno is not the most horrible movie of all time, despite the presence of the spirit-killing Michael Cera and Ellen Page and a soundtrack full of crappy, waify hipster alt-folk songs that are so twee they make Justin Beiber seem like Megadeth.  It’s just that Juno is embarrassingly pretentious, with the precocious heroine’s vocabulary packed with painfully cutesy words like “shenanigans.”  And when Rainn Wilson’s character calls her “home skillet,” well, you just want to slap him. 

This is the problem with a novelty act movie – the Academy is amused for a few minutes, votes it an Oscar, then spends the rest of eternity shaking its collective head after figuratively sobering up.  

7. An Inconvenient Truth: Best Documentary 2007:  It’s hard to believe that it was only four years ago that people actually believed in global warming.  But it’s not hard at all to believe that among the biggest suckers were the pampered quarter-wits who do most of the Academy Award voting.  Al Gore’s ridiculous exercise in propaganda, delivered with the subtlety of a sledgehammer, was a natural choice for the Oscar voters, but they were probably pretty disappointed they couldn’t also vote for the nominated documentary that dissed Christians or the other one that trashed America over Iraq.  Whoever said that Hollywood doesn’t embrace a diversity of thought?  

—–

In any case, An Inconvenient Truth is destined to be the Reefer Madness of 2007, with stoned UC Berkeley students from the Class of 2032 laying around their dorms laughing at how stupid people were back in the mid-aughts.  Well, some people. 

8. The English Patient: Best Picture 1997:  Perhaps the Academy wanted some balance after properly awarding the magnificent Schindler’s List Best Picture in 1994, which is the only possible explanation for why this over-praised, under-interesting celluloid atrocity could have won.  After all, this is the film that seriously posits that collaborating with the Nazis is perfectly cool if it will help you score with a mediocre chick who happens to be married to some other dude.  

—–

Sure, we can’t expect the film’s mere utter moral bankruptcy to dissuade the Academy voters – these are the folks who think Roman Polanski is the real victim.  But couldn’t they at least notice that this soapy melodrama is about the most boring way to spend nearly three hours outside of a Meet the Press marathon?  

9. Kate Winslet in The Reader: Best Actress 2009:  What the hell is it with Hollywood and Nazi sympathizers?  Well, admittedly Kate Winslet’s character had more going for her than just cavorting with brownshirts – she was illiterate and liked to do underage boys.  In Hollywood, that’s like an acting trifeca, and Kate went the full fascist-illiterate-pedo. 

—–

Oh, the performance itself?  Um, I have a question:  How did Kate Winslet get tagged as some sort of great thespian revelation?  In every movie she is in, she always seems to bear the same furrowed-brow, vaguely troubled expression, as if she was suffering from mild indigestion.  It must be something else – perhaps her willingness to doff her clothes and display her chubby charms in pretty much everything she’s been in.  Whatever.  

10. 3-6 Mafia’s “Hard Out here For A Pimp”: Best Song 2006:  Perhaps the most hilarious pick of all time, the Academy’s choice of the year’s Best Song from the rap/hooker extravaganza Hustle & Flow was just awesome.  For once, the saccharine Disney ditties and the generic pop hits were thrust aside in favor of a gritty urban tune that finally dared to musically explore the difficulties that industrious entrepreneurs face in their daily lives.  Yeah, nothing like a song we can all relate to. 

Most amazing were the hip hop stylings of those past and future unknowns, 3-6 Mafia, cavorting on stage while a bunch of dancers dressed like Hollywood’s idea of “hos” gyrated and frolicked before the bejeweled and bewildered audience: 

—–

Simply spectacular.  Yeah, it sure is hard out here for a pimp who’s trying to get his money for the rent.  Who can’t identify with that?  Especially in Hollywood.  

And this year, Oscar, don’t forget to keep your pimp hand strong!

—–

Quoth the Raffi:

In a well known Greek myth, the very rich King Midas, who loves gold above all else, is granted his singular wish that everything he touches turn into gold. The gift becomes a curse when his golden touch kills plants, food, and even his daughter, who is turned into a statue. Bereft and repentant, forsaking greed, the king begs for deliverance. His curse is lifted by a wash in the river. All he holds truly precious is restored.

The modern version of the story is about a gold rush called globalization, a monetized world order that commodifies everything and poisons all that it touches: air, water, soil, whales, indigenous cultures, mothers’ milk, and babies, now born with a body burden of toxic chemicals. Money, as symbolic reward for goods and services, when elevated above all else, becomes a curse. The symbol turns tyrant and casts a plague on the living. We’re currently in the atonement chapter of the tragedy, praying we have time to write a happier ending.

Just… where does one begin?

Short answer:  penguins. They’re not worried about global warming.  Just take a look at this little guy…!

Longer answer:  poor Raffi is feeling victory slip through his fingers.  It’s 2011, and if he hasn’t heard of Climategate by now (which puts to rest the lie that climate scientists are impartial and objective),  he’s probably noticed how many more people are becoming skeptics puppets of Big Oil as more and more information comes out about climate change, the bullying and apocalyptic exaggeration of its prominent researchers, and the massive profits that cap and trade proponents stand to gain if they get their way.  As the number of studies contesting the conclusions of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) alarmists increases, true believers like Raffi see the vindication for their vain self-righteousness slipping away, and with their backs against the wall, their true colors begin to show.

Raffi continues:

We need a new lens and lexicon for conveying climate change as the greatest threat on Earth, a tragedy of epic proportions, especially for the world’s young. … It’s best addressed with systems change, beginning with belief systems learned very early. To cut pollution and GHG emissions for good, change personal belief systems. Start young.  To grow Earth stewards, steward the children and youth. This is where the restoration must focus–strategically and morally. Not only do kids get sustainability, they have the most to lose or gain. [emphasis mine]

So it’s pretty obvious that he’s watched “Barack Hussein Obama! Mmm mmm mmm,” then.  What’s most disturbing about this is that he’s not necessarily calling for parents to teach their children to care about global warming.  It would make sense that if they’re concerned for their and their children’s futures, they’ve already taught their children, even at an early age, the long-term benefits of not using electricity or water and not driving in cars that can actually protect them in a crash.

So if it stands to reason that parents who believe in AGW will teach their children about AGW, who else but the children of climate skeptics or agnostics is he talking about reaching?  And if these children won’t be reached by their thick-headed carbon-guzzling parents, how else can we teach them but through their education and the media they consume?  The real goal here is to get to the parents through the children, not vice-versa:

It’s the same principle as what I call the Disney Pop Star Combine.  The only way to get a mass audience in music these days is to target kids; there is no “alternative media” nor a demand for one in the children’s entertainment market.  Thus, by holding a monopoly on children’s attention, Disney can convince the kids that so-and-so is cool and awesome and attractive, and those kids will get their parents to shell out money that they otherwise would not have spent on absolute dreck.  This is the last, desperate gasp of AGW alarmism; we can’t reason with adults, so we must indoctrinate the youth so they can manipulate adults into doing what we want.

There’s just one problem.  With the Disney business model, since there’s such a short shelf life for these poor kids who get thrown into showbiz way too early, they’re constantly replaced by new “stars” to make the next wave of elementary schoolers think they’re getting something new and fresh when it’s just a repackaging of what their big brothers and sisters have already wised up to.  I was a child of the late ’80s, and I remember seeing all sorts of PSAs on PBS about saving the environment.  Heck, we received a magazine at school called Time for Kids that showed Planet Earth frying like an egg on a skillet.  Scaring kids about AGW is nothing new.  The youngest generation of climate skeptics are the very children who were targeted by the likes of Raffi over the past two decades; any receptiveness we had to his message died the moment we discovered we could research these issues for ourselves.  His “new lens and lexicon” can only have a short-term effect, while our side is gaining permanent ground by sticking with conclusions reached through the actual scientific method (evidence, not conclusions, first).

It saddens me more than anything to see aging celebrities try to create a positive legacy for themselves by jumping on the eco-awareness bandwagon, thinking they’re virtuous crusaders for a cleaner planet.  It saddens me even more that when they implicitly admit that they don’t have convincing proof for their pet cause, instead of reevaluating which side of history they want to be on, they decide to grasp for vindication even harder by preying on the one demographic that can’t challenge them.  When you’re ready to talk to us adults, Raffi, we’ll still be here… especially if those cold weather ever lets up.

I speak of the U.N Framework Convention on Climate Change that annoyed Cancun, Mexico earlier this month. Mind you, over ten thousand people have been murdered over drugs in that country this year -so this confab seemed about as relevant as a pimple on a griffen’s butt.

It was only a year ago that the Copenhagen Summit was kind of a big deal, but that faded faster than my Ed Hardy denim underwear. So it’s no surprise that the experts here have turned to the gods for help. Christian Figuera, the executive secretary, desperately invoked the ancient jaguar goddess Ixchel – for she’s not only goddess of the moon, but also “reason, creativity and weaving.”

Yes, weaving. Because, “you are gathered in Cancun to weave together the elements of a solid response to climate change…” blah blah..time for a break:

Uganda’s First Action Movie Trailer – Watch more Funny Videos

—–

So anyway, what was once almost policy is now parody. You’ve got every climate change model in dispute – thanks to the climategate emails, lies about hockey stick graphs and phony Himalayan glacier meltdowns. As someone willing to seriously discuss global warming – it’s a relief to see the hysteria die, but it’s also sad to think that maybe some of the science might have had merit. They screwed the pooch. And the planet.

Still, our American climate ambassador (yeah, there’s such a thing) Jonathan Pershing has pledged billions of our tax money to help promote provisions that won’t do crap after all that money has been spent.

Me, I’d rather spend it on an ancient jaguar goddess. She could weave me a Navajo blanket. My houseboy has to sleep somewhere.

And if you disagree with me, you’re a racist, homophobic Cancunophobe.

Which, I always thought, was to scare the hell out of us.

Yep, according to Cal-Berkeley shrinks, dire predictions about global warming can “backfire if presented too negatively.” Of course that raises one question: how to do present dire predictions, positively?

“Hey, were all gunna die. LOL.”

Which leads me to a theory: these Berkeley researchers are dopes.

Look the fact is, people like me questioned global warming evidence because we’d seen this hysteria before – with emotional warnings about the coming ice age, the dangers of nuclear power, artificial sweeteners and DDT.

And this caused us to grow cold to such crap, and overlook real threats like terrorism, the resurgence of malaria, and of course, the rise of Ed Hardy t-shirts.

Worse, with global warming, we saw that anyone who dare to question the hysteria would be labeled a “skeptic,” and treated like a “leper.”

And never get “laid.”

But the climategate scandal proved that inevitably, these cocky GW experts would overstep the science, get humbled, retreat into therapy. (Have you seen Gore lately?)

So now, finally, shrinks are saying these experts should rethink their messaging.

Of course, this is still not tackling the real problem. Note that the shrinks aren’t telling experts to stop exaggerating consequences – instead, they say, “present solutions to global warming.”

Meaning: just assume your lies were right all along and push the curly light bulbs.

That ain’t gunna work either.

And if you disagree with me you’re a racist homophobic globalphobe.

TONIGHT:

Brooke Goldstein!

Jill Dobson!

Nick Di Paolo!

and my mom (i believe, though not sure yet)

To which I say, “Stop—you’re both wrong!”

This, in a nutshell, is the message of the new documentary about me and my work that opens nationwide on Nov. 12. It’s called “Cool It” and, yes, the title is meant to be clever. The idea is that we do need to cool down the planet, but in order to do it sensibly we first need to cool it ourselves. That is, we need to dispense with both the anti-scientific denialism and the Al Gore-ish fear-mongering. Instead, what we should be doing is facing facts—and responding to them not with rhetoric but with smarter, more rational policies.

The first fact we need to acknowledge is the reality of global warming. Like it or not, the data is abundantly clear that man-made greenhouse gases have been building up in the atmosphere for decades if not centuries, with the result that global temperatures are rising. Yes, the “Climate-gate” emails and the disclosure of funny business at the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change exposed some deeply disturbing academic chicanery and prejudice at some supposedly prestigious institutions. However, these revelations did nothing to undermine the fundamental scientific basis of global warming. What they did call into question were many of the more extreme predictions about global warming’s likely impact—such as the idea that all the Himalayan glaciers were about to disappear (they’re not) or that half the Amazon rain forest would soon be destroyed (not likely).

Of course, these extreme predictions are at the heart of the mainstream environmental movement’s position on climate policy. And this brings us to another set of facts we need to face: that while global warming is real, it is not quite the imminent catastrophe so many climate activists would have us believe. There may be some truth to the notion that in order to get people to focus on a problem, you need to scare the pants off them. But while worst-case scenarios may be a great way to get the public’s attention, they are a terrible basis for making public policy. If you believe that the southwest U.S. is about to become another dustbowl (as Paul Krugman has insisted) or that Greenland and Antarctica are on the verge of becoming huge piles of slush (as Al Gore would have us believe), of course you’re going to argue that we should do everything we can to eliminate carbon emissions as quickly as possible—even if that means amazingly costly and ineffective government policies.

And make no mistake about it—the kind of carbon cuts called for in the Kyoto Protocols and the European Union’s recently adopted 20/20 policy (under which carbon emissions are supposed to be cut to 20% below 1990 levels by 2020) are hardly a recipe for success. Not only would they rob us of trillions of dollars worth of economic output—the EU effort alone would cost an estimated $250 billion a year in lost GDP—but they would do astonishingly little to solve global warming. According to the DICE climate-economic model, if the EU plan were to be implemented every year for the next 90 years, the resulting reduction in temperatures would be too small to measure. (To be precise, the figure is a miniscule 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit.)

The good news is that there is another, better way to deal with global warming—a cure that is most assuredly not worse than the disease. As I have noted elsewhere, the big problem with the Al Gore approach to global warming is that it ignores the fact that despite all the hopeful talk about solar, wind, and other green energy technologies, we are still overwhelmingly dependent for our energy needs on carbon-emitting fuels like coal and oil. Why? Because coal and oil are far cheaper and more efficient energy sources than the alternatives. For two decades now, we have been putting the cart before the horse, pretending we could cut carbon emissions now (by taxing them) and solve the efficiency problem later. Unfortunately, this makes neither economic nor political sense. What we should be doing isn’t trying to make carbon-emitting fuels too expensive to use, but rather figuring out how to make green energy cheaper. If we could do that, we wouldn’t have to force (or subsidize) anyone to stop burning coal and oil. Everyone, including the Chinese and the Indians, would shift to the cheaper and cleaner alternatives.

This of course is a big if. But it’s not impossible. As the Breakthrough Institute has pointed out, we didn’t promote the digital revolution by taxing slide rules or restricting the supply of typewriters. We did it by investing massively in R&D. We could—and should—do the same with green energy technology. As we point out in “Cool It,” devoting roughly $100 billion a year to green energy R&D would likely produce the kind of game-changing breakthroughs needed to fuel a carbon-free future. Not only would this be a much less expensive fix than trying to cut carbon emissions directly, it would also reduce global warming far more quickly.

So why aren’t we doing this? I blame polarization. What’s keeping us from getting anywhere is the lack of any middle ground in the climate debate. As far as the alarmists are concerned, you either believe global warming poses an imminent threat to our continued existence or you are a denier. Deniers can be just as bad: in their view, if you don’t believe global warming is a nefarious hoax, you must be an empty-headed “warmist.” It’s time to retire the old shibboleths of both left and right—and stop branding anyone who dares question them a crackpot or worse.

Tackling global warming smartly is not (or at least it shouldn’t be) a political issue. Being smart is something we ought to be able to find bipartisan agreement on. For the politically conservative, the attraction of this approach is that it is a clear-headed, fiscally responsible response – and one that would actually fix the problem it is meant to solve.

Walt Kelly’s propaganda poster premiered on Earth Day I, 1970. 

It now conjures a circular firing squad of misanthropes in light of Franny Armstrong & co’s radical environmentalist 10:10 campaign’s evil, child-snuff fantasy film “No Pressure.” 

Revealed by the film is the wicked heart beating within the apocalyptic religion of environmentalism; a self-loathing, anti-capitalist, anti-Western-civilization political haven for deracinated communists, anarchists and their useful idiots after the fall of the Bolshevik utopia. 

The anti-scientific wave of contempt and rage cresting within these totalitarians since the revelation of the infamous East Anglia University Climate Research Unit’s “Hide the Decline” e-mails now crashes, Humpty-Dumpty, shattered and exposed on the rocks of their great Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change fraud.  

Unable to contain their emotions, environmentalists have apparently abandoned all hope and entered an intellectual hell, in which they demonize their fellow man, not just as polar bear exterminators but child-killers. 

Of course, it can’t be kindly teachers’ fault for Pushing Junk Science on Children, no. She’s just exploding her dissenting students because “climate denier” parents, of Fox News have alienated the little malcontents from Green partiinost orthodoxy. 

Another indication of the depths to which collective salvation environmentalists have sunk to fulfill their destructive ends is an Act-Responsible advertisement, also promoted on Discovery Company’s Treehugger subsidiary in 2009:

Act-Responsible agitators preached: 

“Humankind is at the center of our planet’s equilibrium.
By protecting our planet, we protect ourselves. The Expo mobilizes each of us to ACT to preserve our future.” — Isabel Kurata 

“The ads featured, in majority new to the public, were produced for NGOs and public institutions, as well as for companies committed to corporate social responsibility. The Expo allows the general public and professionals to grasp the complexity and vast issues of Sustainable Development, making it accessible to all and giving keys to start acting and adopting behaviors respectful of future generations.” — Sophie Guerinet 

“Sustainable Development,” a.k.a., “responsible development,” is a UN wealth redistribution boondoggle designed to destroy American sovereignty. 

Writing this week about 10:10’s “No Pressure,” Treehugger’s Sami Grover: “found the whole thing kind of funny.” 

On the other hand, “Look at this ad and ask yourself… What Kind Of Person Thought This Was A Good Idea? — The Environmental Movement: Pro-Environment, Or Anti-Human?” 

Still others take the crisis of faith deadly serious: 

“Speaking about climate change is not a matter of intellectual luxury – the phenomenon is an actual fact. All of the industrialized countries, especially the big ones, bear responsibility for the global warming crisis.” – Osama bin Laden, October, 2010 

Saul Alinsky would of course denounce and reject rhetorical radicals such as the producers of this film, its ideological defender-apologists and creators of like-minded, hanging-children ads because their clumsy hubris — with its slash & burn tactics — hurts the revolution’s progress. 

Facetious gallows humor relativism: “TreeHugger / ChildStrangler, to-may-to / to-mah-to“. 

During his latest Weekly Address, President Obama, in true believer Alinsky realistic radical form, stated: 

We’re putting Americans to work producing clean, home-grown American energy that will help lower our reliance on foreign oil and protect our planet for future generations… We know the choice that’s right for America.  We need to do what we’ve always done – put our ingenuity and can do spirit to work to fight for a brighter future.  

Pictures are worth thousands of words, or even thousands of unread legislative pages. 

So, perhaps a debt of gratitude is owed Franny Armstrong, et ilk for their unintentional failure to carefully toe environmentalism’s one party line. They have unwittingly provided powerful imagery to recall whenever self-anointed world savior politicians, judges, bureaucrats, or propagandists with their celebrity spokesmen advocate or attempt draconian legislation like “Cap & Trade/Tax”, EPA policies and regulations designed to kill American jobs and economy, or dangerously unscientific rulings that CO2 is a “pollutant.” 

Even if the Supreme Court was correct ruling that CO2 is a pollutant, Lord Monkton places in stark reality the demands of the AGW agenda:

To mitigate just 1 C (2 F) of warming, one must forego the emission of 2 trillion tons of CO2. The world emits just 30 billion tons a year. So the analyst, as a thought-experiment, would shut down the entire world economy, emitting no CO2 at all. Even then, and even on the incorrect assumption that the UN’s exaggerated projections of the effect of CO2 on temperature are correct, it would take 67 years to mitigate 1 C warming.

Do the math.

“A brighter future,” Mr. President… at what cost? 

Ready! Aim! Fire!

—– 

Okay, fine. But then why is he trying to kill us all off with his own lifestyle? Forget about the mansion he currently resides in, look at how his work contributes to the extinction of all life on Earth.

1. The energy consumed to make films.
2. The energy consumed to distribute his films worldwide.
3. The energy consumed to promote them.
4. The energy consumed by those going to see them.
5. The energy consumed to create, distribute and promote DVDs
6. The inevitable landfill waste that comes with millions and millions of DVDs produced all over the world.

If you take Cameron at his word regarding his fevered belief that Climate Change is real and man made, the next logical question can only be: James, why then are you so aggressively engaging in the kind of behavior you yourself believe will destroy Mother Earth?

Does Chris Matthews bother to ask him that?  If there was even a chance, Cameron wouldn’t have shown up. Regardless, someone has to stop James Cameron, and stop him now. He’s intentionally working to kill us all. Let’s throw him in jail for depraved indifference to human life … before it’s too late.

Chris Matthews is also a hardcore Climate Change believer, and he’s actually worse than Cameron in the genocidal maniac department.. Twice a day, five days a week he consumes untold amounts of energy to broadcast a television show no one watches.

Both of these genocidal maniacs spent a lot of time singling Glenn Beck out as ”dangerous,” but like most rational people Beck doesn’t believe in Climate Change. I guess he could be wrong. But he’s not dangerous.

On the other hand, even though Cameron and Matthews are wrong, they are most certainly quite dangerous. They believe a certain kind of behavior will wipe out the planet and yet they continue to indulge in that behavior in ways few people do.

Both have moved way beyond the realm of hypocrisy — both are stone cold sociopaths.

Or they’re lying about Climate Change.

Tonight!

Kimberly Guilfoyle!
GOP analyst Mary Smith!
John Devore!
and Michael Waltrip!

Now, this would be hilarious, if it wasn’t for the fact that quadrillions of dollars are at stake. (And just so you know: quadrillions can buy a lot of unicorn porn.) I’m not going to use this latest revelation to hammer these “experts,” even though they’d do that to a “skeptic” like me, if they had the chance. I just want to nail two key points:

*this news shows exactly why climate change researchers must release data and reveal methods. If they have nothing to hide, then their work’s credibility will only increase. The fact that they’re trying to avoid that makes me think they’re basing their data on articles from Cosmo. FYI: global warming can and does make it harder to find your g-spot, says Darla, age 23, data analyst.

*There are few real experts on climate change – only pawns used to justify policies that will inevitably sodomize our economy. By the way, I include myself as a non-expert. I was an English major, who spent the last twenty years drunk, shirtless and weeping. But this is a good thing: whether you think humans cause global warming or not, we’re all in this boat of ignorance together, and therefore should be more tolerant of opposing views. If so-called experts are culling mountain ice data from Penthouse Letters (apparently melting glaciers totally cause chicks to remove their tops faster, says Vic, 25, a pizza deliveryman), then we are all so-called experts.

That should make you happy.

And if it doesn’t, then you’re probably a planet-hating racist homophobe who eats polar bears for breakfast.

Tonight, the yummerific S.E. Cupp! 

the yowzawoza Jim Norton!

the yuckywucky Dr. Michael Baden! 

and someone else!