Remember, we’re supposed to take this seriously, because this Science!
It’s hard to enjoy “Up in the Air” while wondering who is offsetting George Clooney’s carbon emissions. https://t.co/hnVtivd7lI
— The New Yorker (@NewYorker) September 27, 2019
Climate doom derangement syndrome. From the screed we get a list of these movies, such as
“When Harry Met Sallyâ€: It is unfair that Billy Crystal and Meg Ryan had twenty-plus years to figure out their relationship, but the United Nations gives my generation only eleven years to systematically change everything about society.
“Project Xâ€: All the red plastic Solo cups are a trigger for me, especially now that China has stopped purchasing our garbage.
“Some Like It Hotâ€: I have never seen this film, but, unless “some†refers to greedy oil executives, the title does not hold up.
“Interstellarâ€: This is a spoiler, but I wish that a grassroots social revolution had saved humanity, not the last-minute introduction of a futuristic technology.
“Transformersâ€: I don’t like kids thinking that gas-burning vehicles are ever on our side.
“Finding Nemoâ€: Lulls us into a false sense of complacency. Just because Nemo is safe now doesn’t mean that the rest of the ocean does not need saving. What about all that coral?
“The Fate of the Furiousâ€: Too many cars.
“Cars 3â€: Too many “Cars.†Why does everything have to be a franchise?
“Sorry to Bother Youâ€: Very glad it ended with a socialist revolution, but when I saw this in theatres it was a hundred and ten degrees outside, so for personal reasons it will always be a trigger for me.
No one explain the carbon footprint of the New Yorker, as it uses lots of energy and fossil fuels to make and distribute it’s magazine.
https://twitter.com/solitaryrider/status/1177701808694681600
It is in the humor section, but, does anyone think this isn’t dead on serious for Warmists?
May I suggest Fort Apache or The Magnificent Seven.