But of course the tornado victims are to blame.

Anthropogenic climate change deniers have it coming.  Yep, I can see how this makes perfect sense to people who think CO2 is the driver of global temperature even when CO2 rises and the temperature falls.

And of course they enjoy red staters being maimed and killed by nature.  It’s not something they could manage themselves.  Any slack-jawed trailer-trash yokel can kick a Starbuck’s worth of Think Progress ass. 

Hey, Think Progress, want to hear some actual poetic justice?  If the children you enslave with mounting federal debt turned and destroyed you.  Unlike you, I don’t take pleasure in the thought.  But I always root for slaves over slavers. 

The only thing in these wannabees’ favor is their pure patheticness.  When things finally get rough these spoiled tyrants will fold a lot faster than actual adult dictators of the past.

Think Progress chortles over tornado deaths.  Tornados are frightening and deadly.  A gaggle of leftists is about as menacing as a cold virus


Okay, not quite that menacing.

About wormme

I've accepted that all of you are socially superior to me. But no pretending that any of you are rational.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to But of course the tornado victims are to blame.

  1. Jon says:

    I can’t roll my eyes hard enough at this outrage at the left. Hah.

    >An outraged Tabitha Hale accused Johnson of “adopt[ing] the Pat Robertson model and claim[ing] Divine Justice for those redneck Republican climate change deniers in the south.” But Brad did know such thing, he merely noted that climate change happens—and kills—whether or not politicians want to acknowledge it.

    >Indeed, precisely the crux of our problem is that climate chaos isn’t divine retribution for pollution. If severe weather specifically afflicted the individuals responsible for pollution, then polluters would need to weigh the costs and benefits of generating additional pollution. The result would be an efficient equilibrium. But in the real world, the costs of the pollution don’t fall specifically on polluters. The result is that engaging in extra polluting activity is often profitable even when the costs far exceed the benefits. That’s precisely why we need a regulatory solution, ideally featuring a system to charge polluters for polluting and bring the system into equilibrium.


    • wormme says:

      I absolutely do not want to despoil the earth, but I absolutely disagree that CO2 is a “pollutant”. If we want to regulate human production, the way to do it is to become rich enough to afford it without human sacrifice. Currently we’re not. For people who do believe it’s a pollutant, the choices at present are to build the heck out of nuke plants or let a lot of earth’s population die off.

      I hadn’t thought of Robertson’s charge in a long time. Yet another reason I can’t stand preacher/politicians.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s