Tuesday, May 25, 2010

laugh out loud funny

un says case for saving species 'more powerful than climate change', guardian.

"We need a sea-change in human thinking and attitudes towards nature: not as something to be vanquished, conquered, but rather something to be cherished and lived within," said the report's author, the economist Pavan Sukhdev.

still trying to push an ideological economic agenda but can't get away with scouring the same old scientific fields for the one crank that will take government money to say whatever he already believes is true so you can amplify it a thousand times over with the mainstream media's obsession with celebrity politicians? just try a new angle! change! and i guess i'd better keep up with the change: instead of investing in gold, i'm going to invest in asphalt. but don't worry, i'll do due dilligence.

for instance, let's just ask the one and only serious question: just where does pavan sukhdev live? bangor, maine? the everglades? nope. london. population 7.5 million. population density 12.3k/mi2. he was born in new delhi. population 300k, density 24k/mi2.

hint: lots of asphalt there. so, my ETF will be going up on the exchange next thursday.

pavan holds a... physics degree. gee whiz! armchair economist with a hard-on for gaia and a degree in applied mathematics? that's funny, i seem to recall a whole lot of popular science eloi suggesting that a "scientist" (or engineer!) with a background outside of "climatology" or "climate science" isn't qualified to talk about climate change even casually. look closely: this is my "shocked and awed" face.

what do you think pavan makes of the asian giant hornet? oh well hold on, maybe he'll notice what living in the fucking wilderness is actually like once they're sporting a population density of 24,000 per square fucking mile. let's not get his opinion just yet.

pictured: a flavor of sriracha sauce, reportedly pleasing to the palate of most bears.

see, most of these nutjobs usually have batshit insane ideas about dealing with wildlife, but when they make their case it's always about "saving" vegetation and dead bug husks mixed with shit and grubs. this is never about keeping an existing park with awesome trees in it funded, of course. it's always and everywhere about taking control of someone else's land, and as pavan-the-economist has probably realized, any reason will do, but the reasons that have already fooled conservationist (read: deer-and-turkey-socialism) hunters in the US will probably do best. nobody ever seems to want to save the deer ticks, or the killer bears, or the giant hornets. hey but i thought everything was connected? well if you don't mind, then, i'm going to decide what lives and what dies on my own property.

shit, with a track record like we've seen from climatruthogists and enviro-mental-cases, who even believes the food chain model is accurate or complete, anyways?

note to americans: the whole rest of the world sees "UN says" and they hear "the USA's puppet says" -- particularly the poorer of the undeveloped countries. you're not supporting "global problem solving" here, you're supporting universal gentrification.