Climate Change Watermlon Protection Kit
The insults levelled at me from the Loony Left after posting a single article on this blog…
…in which I neither deny, confirm or otherwise the reality or non reality of “Climate Change”, “Global Warming”, “Climate Disruption” or whatever pink flavoured slogan they have invented this week to terrify those who believe every single word uttered “‘cos Al Gore, the IPCC, East Anglia, Michael Mann (inventor of the Hokey Stick Climate Graph – misspelling intentional) and the media told me”…
…have reached new peaks.
I invite you to comment on the commentators, if you find their comments to be as sickening and abhorrent as I do, here:
Reprinted: Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society
In the meantime the image above – Climate Change Watermelon Protection Kit – and the headline of this post is for my amusement and pretty much sums up how I view these people who would seek to undermine and destroy what I believe to be the fairest, but not perfect, system of government and commerce the world has known to date.
That system being those the Western World governs and conducts itself on. A system that endorses and supports the right to free speech, free debate, free enterprise and freedom of the mind.
A complete opposite of what some commenting in the above thread would otherwise have us subservient too.
It’s a kit for Watermelons everywhere, that they might continue closing their ears, eyes and minds to anything that even remotely disagrees with the religion of the Green Forrest Furbies and Immaculate Germination of the Tall Eucalyptus.
Scott Kane
Quote:
“When a government takes over a people’s economic life it becomes absolute, and when it has become absolute it destroys the arts, the minds, the liberties and the meaning of the people it governs.”
Maxwell Anderson
I notice that the blindfold is coloured grey in some areas and black in others. From this I conclude that it’s made of carbon! This is a crime, under some law the name of which escapes me but it must be true because I read it from a watermelon elsewhere on your blog.
Shame!
At least the earplugs are green, but you must do more than that to redeem yourself.
The text on this page is also grey. It must be made of carbon. Perhaps that’s why the watermelons only use short words, to avoid using too much of it?
More shame!
Bloody Watermelons…
I doubt your non-Australian readers get the “watermelon” reference. It might be worth explaining that our former treasurer described the Australian Greens as watermelon’s because they green on the outside and red in the middle.
@Rich,
The term is used internationally now. In the USA in particular. Not sure of it’s original use, but I suspect it was already in vogue before he entered parliament. It was being used, already, in the early 90′s in Australia when the “green” element split from the Australian Democrats to form the “Greens”, You know, when they ripped their logo from the Democrats “No More Dams” for Tasmania campaign – and word for word their orignal “policies”, adapting them over the years to suit their own position.
The Americans also use “Moonbat” which works well for some members of the Australian Greens too. While the Greens use the environment to push socialism there are those in the Greens who use the Greens to push full blowm Marxism and in at least one case a Neo-Fascist ethos.
In Yugoslavia we have a saying about people who make stupid jokes about bad serious things like climate change.
“Everyone will sit on a little donkey.”
You need to think about that and perhaps reconsider your stand?
Hello Goran,
Interesting saying. Curious that donkeys eat vegetation and according to Watermelon 101 therefore contribute to global warming through their gas output of methane. Which is my way of asking you to perhaps consider – not getting to close to the rear end of that donkey!
The jokes being made aren’t about climate change. They’re about the watermelons, who don’t understand science, debate, democracy, the role of carbon in the universe, or anything else much.
so your solution is to mock the truth with this? LIAR!!
No, I rather think we’re mocking people like you. How does it feel to be a mockee?
is this a joke? oh yeah the guy who runs this site is the joke. i forgot.
funny very funny if you are a three year old getting their rocks off at the xpense of the worlds future.
BASTARD!!!
have you thought about the children – they are really what matters here
Let me quote Charlie Brown of Peanuts fame – “Oh Brother.”
Children are 18% carbon. So they’re henceforth banned.
If only you were all right. The polar bears would still have their ice.Big oil could not access their quarry.No one would be fighting over their rights to all the minerals deep underneath the arctic. It was all a nasty dream and we will wake up to mountaineers in France still able to find snow everywhere also Austria. The nepalese would not need to worry about their farms flooding with the everest melts. Peru would also benefit from waking up from their nightmares and discovering that they were running out of snow melt. Oh and Bugger !Greenland could not grow fruit and veggies on the permafrost which would not have melted.
Sorry i meant NOT running out of snow melt
Liz,
You need to check the ice cutter stat’s – an accurate way to determine ice-flows in the Arctic waters.
“Greenland could not grow fruit and veggies on the permafrost which would not have melted.”
Do some research on Greenland, farming and Erik the Red. It’s enlightening.
oh yeah?
LIAR!!!
greenpeace has proven polar bears will be extinct in twenty years due to climate disruption. lost ice is drowning millions of polar bears and they have the evidence to prove it carbon criminal!
Are you *sure* of those figures?
See – this is the problem with Watermelons quoting “science”. They in fact don’t. First – I’m betting you can’t produce evidence Greenpeace – who are activists and not scientists – ever made that statement.
Most importantly – the September 1965 consensus on polar bear numbers worldwide (including zoos I expect) was in fact from 5,000 to 19,000. The current consensus is a population of about 20,000–25,000 polar bears worldwide. You can Google that and check for yourself – you know “Google”? It’s a search engine. Search for the figures and confirm it yourself, “Real scientists” have published the estimates. Because I know you won’t here’s a pedestrian “link” for you to get you started:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear#Population_and_distribution
Now – given that – and please do check the data – how could “millions” of polar bears be drowning?
To have any semblance of credibility on any subject – impossible for you guys I know – you could try starting with fact and reality for once and not make things up to suit yourselves.
you have not point your figures are not relevant. splitting hairs. the point is there would be MILLIONS IF NOT FOR GLOBAL CLIMATE DISRUPTION CAUSE BY HUMANS!!
only people who are corrupt and perverted think otherwise. only criminals try to argue against the facts.
what does that make you?
a criminal. i rest my case.
You can’t ‘rest your case’ Sonia. You haven’t made a case.
You said “greenpeace has proven”, and it was amply demonstrated that nothing has been proven.
So you have neither facts nor a case at hand. Just empty invective.
You lose. Bye.
That has got to be the lamest response from a Watermelon to date. The only “science” you view as relevant is “science” you spout. The latter invariably either being completely fabricated or untested psuedo science.
Every one of you who have argued in this and other comments to posts on this blog (and elsewhere) always resort to conclusions that play the ad hominem attack card when it’s shown your argument is based on ad ignorantiam.
When arguing “from authority” and if and when that “authority” is challenged with logic you conclude, again, with the ad hominem. To top it off you argue the cause is due to the effect, confusing association with causation.
You then “rest your case” without having made one in the first instance.
Try again – and try not to embarass yourself so completely.