Logic v/s environuttery

Visit the link to read  Scott Vrooman's delightful rebuttals to all the usual nonsense thrown at you  by the environuts.

.....I now provide you with a concise list of rebuttals to the more prevalent nonsense peddled by Kent’s critics. Use my canister of logic to pepper-spray those profit-deniers wherever they dare to raise their voices...........

.......Argument: The tar sands have been identified as the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions growth in Canada. Powerful vested interests are outweighing the interests of most Canadians, who believe we need to do more to combat climate change.

Rebuttal: First of all, I think you mean “ethical sands.” Secondly, whatever buddy! And third, if we stop using fossil fuels we’ll be forced to stop working when the sun goes down and be reduced to slithering around on our bellies all day like our savage ancestors.

Argument: I didn’t suggest to stop using all fossil fuels immediately, I –

Rebuttal: NEXT QUESTION

Argument: Okay, then what about a national carbon tax? Doesn’t it make sense to put a price on carbon, since it has a very large cost to our environment?

Rebuttal: Why not just release a virus that takes over our brains and forces us to eat our own wallets because that would have the exact same effect. In any case, how can you put a price on carbon? Can you put a price on love? Show me your love-pricing model, then we’ll talk............



h/t: MF