The team is confused. Half of the team is calling for a huge increase in world poverty – to stop global warming, while the other half says that we must stop global warming from hurting the poor.
Meanwhile, The Guardian (who calls for airline executives to be “dragged out of their office and drowned” to stop global warming) is offended by Heartland’s suggestion that climate alarmists support mass murder.
The team needs to get their story straight. Are they for or against mass murder? Are they for or against mass poverty?
Perhaps it depends on the particular narcotic which they have most recently placed in their bloodstream.
They’re all for Murder and Poverty for the unbelievers. But they would rather we didn’t publicize it.
I assume they are only ok with murder if it hits business executives but have no preference on numbers.
Genghis Khan, all round nice guy, greenie.
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/stories/was-genghis-khan-historys-greenest-conqueror
And how is that different from green groups who simultaneously want to downsize capitalism while increasing government spending on hand outs?