The Answer Is Obvious

So I'm reading this piece about how ridiculous all of the global warming, er, climate change nonsense has become, when the following thought blossoms in my mind. "Why," I ask myself, "If the human race is doomed in such a short timespan, are the main proponents of global climate alterification not living as they suggest the rest of us do? They're breeding, building excessive houses for themselves, holding conferences at lavish resorts in exotic locales.  If they were really aware of the threat, why have kids when the world is doomed?  Why contribute to this imminent threat with a big house or a fleet of cars?  Why not be eco-friendly and teleconference all of these major climate summits?  After all, bribe money (and grant money, which in this case is the same thing) can be wire-transferred if needed."

Why not judge for yourself?

Because it's all malarkey.  It's pure, enviro-socialist whining combined with a concerted stomping of feet.  All over nothing.  These loons had their own Wikileaks scandal, and it rocked them back.  Now as the public learns more about what their so called "eco-friendly future" looks like (hint: think about the last Superbowl, and that Green Police commercial), we're beginning to recoil in horror and reject the notion that our lifestyles have become too excessive.  As a society, are we okay with this?  I am personally, but that's my own philosophy.  There are some so-called "green" technologies I can deal with - though it will suck to not have incandescent bulbs anymore.  I don't mind the twisty, mercury-laden CFL bulbs they have now, but there are some things I damn well want to have an incandescent bulb for.  Maybe LED bulbs will be better, but I haven't tried one yet, and I still believe it's wrong in principle for the government to be able to ban something as harmless as light bulbs.

Then again, we're talking about people who think the Constitution allows them to force you to buy products, even if you don't need them, so I'm not surprised.  Just kinda pissed.