Ice Cream Climate Justice

Ben and Jerrys are going to stop the planet from melting. They will achieve climate justice by reducing cow burps.

Climate Justice | Ben & Jerry’s

Our Plan to Reduce Dairy Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fight Climate Change | Ben & Jerry’s

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Ice Cream Climate Justice

  1. Petit_Barde says:

    That’s a climate clown show parody, right ?

  2. Why wasn’t there a climate catastrophe due to methane in the Jurassic? Does anybody know the volume of a brontosaurus fart?

    • Petit_Barde says:

      Yes, but there was no brontosaurus breeding by white supremacists back then, so that doesn’t count.

    • arn says:

      People outside the realm of climate supremacy simply don’t know
      that methan,just like co2,was harmless during the dinosaur era.

  3. Gamecock says:

    ‘The cruel irony of the climate crisis is that people in the developing world will pay the steepest price’

    [citation needed]

    This is Mommy’s argument: “Finish your broccoli, to save the poor, starving kids in China.”

  4. MGJ says:

    As with modern Art, which is worse? That they actually believe this nonsense or that they don’t but feel the need to say it anyway?

  5. Disillusioned says:

    The consensus of the global scientific community….

    ” I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

    Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

    In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no.

    In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.

    In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

    There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory.

    Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra.

    The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

    Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

    And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.

    Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. ”

    — Michael Crichton, 2003

    • Solar Mutant Ninjaneer says:

      Good post.
      Consensus is what you get when integrity is completely distilled from the scientific community.

    • Conrad Ziefle says:

      Pasteur and the consensus of spontaneous generation is a very interesting one. The discovery of the microscope only reinforced their theory that dead flesh spontaneously generated little living things. They further reinforced the theory by running an experiment that isolated dead flesh from the outside world- and showed that it still generated living things! Pasteur came along and showed them how they screwed up the experiment and then created a way to do it right, and suddenly the dead flesh didn’t generate living things. Living things only came with contamination of the flesh, i.e. bacteria were landing on the flesh and reproducing; they were not being spontaneously spawned by the flesh.

  6. Think Freeer says:

    I don’t know about you, but I’m not going to buy any ice cream from liars.

  7. Conrad Ziefle says:

    They couldn’t be full of _hit, because they use innocent, childish lettering in their message. It must be heartfelt and turd. Sorry, my fingers hit the wrong keys, as usual.

  8. paul courtney says:

    I predict that one day we’ll learn Ben knew that the new feed cost 10x more and created more methane in the manufacturing than it saves, but he tricked Jerry. (jerry’s version).

  9. M says:

    I agree with them doing all of those things, because they are better for farms and farmers. But not because I think it will “stop climate change”.

    It’s always a little amusing when Tony’s agenda comes through, always against anything that speaks about climate change. Definitely a blindspot he needs to work on if he wanted to impact a wider audience.

    • tonyheller says:

      Always amusing when anonymous posters pretend they have good intentions.

    • arn says:

      Can you elaborate how the hell a pseudo hippie ice cream manufacturer
      is the one who knows better what’s good for farms and farmers?

      Just reading the shit ” innovative food additives ” from a company like Unilever that is leading in the destructive palmoilbusiness and poisoning hindhus with mercury make me puke.

      And btw,isn’t it superstrange that this company solved so many “problems” ?

    • David Walker says:

      You don’t know the first thing about farming, do you?

    • Conrad Ziefle says:

      Yeah, odd thought, use food that causes less gas. I think the farmer is interested in food that makes the cow healthy and productive. By the way, do Ben and Jerry have degrees in agriculture? ag engineering? Many of the farmers do. As do the ag agents that help them. And the vets, etc.

  10. Mary says:

    Let’s start with a campaign to eliminate needless hot air gases coming out of the mouths and minds of digbat politicians.

  11. Daniel Smeal says:

    Very funny. Must be a story from the Onion or BabBee, no? Next, they’ll be wanting to ban beer. Burp!

  12. Mac says:

    Even if I loved Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, I’d have stopped buying it by now. Fortunately, I’ve never bought it. The last time I had their ice cream it was somewhere around 1987, and I thought it was just terrible. It has no flavor, and simply tastes sweet. The fact is, Turkey Hill or Blue Bunny ice cream is far superior. There are so many brands that taste better than Ben & Jerry’s ucky, gunky, woke ice cream. You don’t have to support a couple of delusional aging hippies who, despite their phony socialist blatherings, are multi-millionaires.

    Want a prediction? Very soon, the nutjobs on the left are going to start insisting that people take fewer breaths per day in order to cut down on CO2. It will happen, believe me. They’ll have some sing-song infantile slogan such as “Hold your breath for life”, or something similarly childish. They’re all absolutely insane, and they’re getting worse. The severity of their commie obsessive-compulsive disorder cannot even be gauged.

  13. Lynne Balzer says:

    Somebody should break it to these well-meaning people that there is only 1/200 as much methane in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide…and that water vapor is the main “greenhouse gas”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *