bravenrace wrote:
I don't get it.
That's because my link didn't show up. 
I prefer to think of her in Aliens, and then retiring quietly to a remote island. Not cashing in any good will on a questionable theory.
Dana Barrett: [reading from the printout] "Zuul was the minion of Gozer." What's Gozer?
Dr. Peter Venkman: Gozer was very big in Sumeria.
Dana Barrett: Well, what's he doing in my ice box?
Dr. Peter Venkman: I'm working on that.
Dana Barrett: That's the bedroom, but nothing ever happened in there.
Dr. Peter Venkman: What a crime.
OK, I actually read it. The important point that the reviewer totally misses is:
"Two groundbreaking studies, one from the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research and one from the Futures Group, found that simply by meeting women's existing needs for voluntary family planning, we could reduce carbon emissions by between 8 and 15 percent."
What she is talking about is BIRTH CONTROL. Birth control = fewer babies. Fewer babies = fewer people using energy / resources. Less energy = less global worming.
Simple. Not really wacky at all. (Except for the fact that you could get a lot of people around to the world to go along with it)
Yeah, more simple math than some sort of deep reaching feminist conspiracy.
The "annotated version" linked in the OP is so stupid I actually got two headaches. I don't like being told what to think of something by an imbecile. Somebody tell "Noel Sheppard" that dictating the attitudes you want your readers to have only works when they're dumber than you.
Sigh.
If you go over to the original article (yes I know "Huffington Post" is hardly any better, but at least they're printing what she actually wrote without telling you what you're supposed to think of it) - it says nothing like the stupid inflammatory headline in the first commentary. It's a lot more reasonably worded, whether or not you agree. A bit rhetoric-y, but I'd say she has a fair point.
I'll repost the link here so that no one has to go to the numb-tarded site in the OP and give them any more traffic (revenue): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sigourney-weaver/women-climate-change_b_870401.html
Honestly I think the best way we could fight global warming is to duct tape over the mouths of 99% of the media. The reduction in hot-air emissions would be instant!
Otto Maddox wrote: Yeah, more simple math than some sort of deep reaching feminist conspiracy.
Jay wrote: ........ A bit rhetoric-y, but I'd say she has a fair point. I'll repost the link here so that no one has to go to the numb-tarded site in the OP and give them any more traffic (revenue): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sigourney-weaver/women-climate-change_b_870401.html
The link to Weaver's original article is just a bit less 'tarded. She obviously recognizes the horrible repressive and oppressive state of women in many/most third-world societies, but somehow thinks climate change legislation is a linchpin in facilitating massive cultural change.
Short version - Weaver offers a weak idea that struggles to grasp a straw of relevance.
You'll need to log in to post.
