Global Warming = Moving Towards Metrosexuals

[quote][color=pink]Global Warming: Moving Towards Metrosexuals[/color]
By Daniel Clark
Mar 17, 2007
The latest point of emphasis in the global warming movement is that cattle farming endangers the planet by producing too much methane. So now, steaks and hamburgers are classified as instruments of destruction, along with large vehicles, lawn mowers, and charcoal grills. It can’t be much longer before cowboy movies, cigars and hockey are held to be enemies of the earth as well.

This has got to be the most blatant assault on guyhood since ABC moved Coach to the same night as Roseanne, and turned Hayden Fox into Phil Donahue. It’s a wonder that liberals don’t cut to the chase, by simply claiming that global warming is caused by testosterone. Then, they could make public school nurses siphon the offending fluid from the boys during health class.

Many environmentalists believe that the earth is a living organism, personified by the Greek goddess Gaia. Conveniently, it turns out that Gaia is a shrew, who demands that her men be reduced to henpecked, metrosexual noodles. Manliness makes Gaia angry, and we wouldn’t like her when she’s angry, because she’ll turn into a green monster and start smashing everything to bits. Hell hath no fury like an earth goddess exposed to excessive cattle-produced methane emissions.

Wouldn’t it be more plausible if a few items like styling gel, latte makers and tofu were said to destroy the planet as well? Perhaps, but that would not serve the purpose of expanding the base of the global warming movement. Since no liberal cause can produce much support on its own, any one of them must ally itself with all other liberal causes, so that they can pool their resources.

That’s why it’s almost impossible to distinguish the original purpose of a left-wing political rally. What starts out being an ‘anti-war’ demonstration will invariably become an convention of environmentalists, gun control advocates, pro-abortionists, animal rights activists, racial Balkanists, and outright Communists, because that’s the only way to prevent the size of the crowd from being laughably small. Therefore, environmental alarmists must incorporate other causes within their own, in order to keep their core of support relatively large and energized. Clearly, they’ve determined their alliance with the feminists to be vital to these ends.

It’s not coincidental that the icon of the global warming movement is former vice president Al Gore, who, during the 2000 presidential campaign, sought advice from feminist author Naomi Wolf on how to become an “alpha male.” Needless to say, she did not suggest that he scarf down a steak sandwich while sitting behind the wheel of a riding mower. Instead, her solution was to dress him in earth tones, as if obsessing over his wardrobe was any way to attain guydom. Never is it manly to ask, “does this make my butt look big,” even if you want the answer to be yes.

For Wolf to tell Gore that he’d become an “alpha male” just by wearing the right clothing is a little like a mother patronizing her young child. She probably got the idea when Gore put a bucket over his head and said, “Look, Ms. Wolf, I’m an astronaut,” and she replied, “Yes, of course you are, dear.”

Images of global destruction being more powerful than images of normalcy and stability, Gore and friends are bound to win the competition for people’s emotions. Hence, they are now deterring any analysis of the issue, by calling skeptics “global warming deniers,” a not very subtle comparison to neo-Nazis. If we succumb to this intimidation like a bunch of namby-pamby rice cake eaters, the debate will be lost for good.

Thus, the global warming movement seeks to repress guyhood in order to perpetuate itself. If a guy is shown a picture of a sad-looking polar bear adrift on an ice floe, his first thought will be something like, “I’ve heard that bear steaks are tough, but maybe if you marinated them in beer, they’d turn out all right.” At that point, the alarmists’ emotional ploy is foiled. In a world without guy stuff, however, his vacant mind may be invaded by irrationalities like, “Who will take care of the
polar bears’ children?”

In this chicken-and-the-egg scenario, the success of the global warming movement is both the cause and effect of our society’s emasculation. It would have never gotten this far if the “Nineties Man” hadn’t paved the way. When “I feel your pain” became a successful presidential campaign slogan, we should have known that charcoal-grilled steaks would soon be on the endangered list.
nationalledger.com/artman/pu … 2158.shtml[/quote]
I, of course, agree.

I think the onslaught against freedom began even earlier. I was a senior in high school during the Reagan era: I was the last of the ‘just say yes’ generation.

Duh. Haven’t you seen charts depicting the direct correlation between the increase in global warming and the decreasing number of pirates? Pirates are about as coarse, sweaty, smelly and un-metro as you can get (except the swishy Johnny Depp-style version depicted in recent movies, complete with silk bandanas and eyeliner, but those aren’t real pirates, just Hollywood depictions).

It is a conspiracy.

Interestingly, that chart begins back in the days of Japan’s Tokugawa Era during which the country maintained itself in isolation and kept its ninjas to itself. Temperatures started to rise following the opening up of Japan to international trade by Matthew Perry, an American.

It as this blatant act of US aggression which ended Japanese isolation and unleashed a wave of metrosexual ninjas on the environment with catastrophic consequences. (Silent peeing, for instance, is much worse for the environment because splashing releases oxygen trapped in the water.) Global warming remains America’s fault, no matter how you try to wriggle out of it.

Yankish pirates are responsible for the ninja environmental menace?

Taking a more balanced view, methanous boat people are without a doubt contributing to the alteration of the planet. Explanation not needed, on such an erudite forum as f.com.

It’s just a hop skip and a jump to being hassled by panhandling polar bears on the streets of the industrialized monolith of your choice.

I blame the Vikings. shifty-eyed, weasel-looking drifters, no better than gypsies. as soon as steal your children, they will.

It’s so manly to drive a big car, eat a big steak, drink too much beer and wake up in the morning to a big beer shit. Fuck the toilet paper. Wipe your ass with it and throw it in the can shit side up.

metrosexuals feel colder than normal due to their weird fascination for smooth hairless chests. ergo, they actually stand to benefit the most from global warming. they can also parade down the street in their sexiest briefest pairs of briefs without catching a chill. a downside is their nipples are not so erect in the warmer temperatures, and for some of them, it will also be a depressing time as they will no longer be able to use the excuse of “it’s cold, that’s why it’s so small”.

who started this topic anyway?

Kudos and THAT is precisely the spirit of the thread I started earlier. Why cannot the rest of you come up with something equally creative and VALID? See global warming is causing more pirates. These are just the kind of graphs that we all want more of. Anyone else? Or does top honor go to MT?

I respect MT’s post as he is the only person on this thread who is able to provide any scientific data.

That’s the spirit! What about the rest of you guys! Metrosexuals or otherwise!

I, for one, am glad to see the people on this forum seeing past the same old hackneyed left wing librul ninja agenda.

I sincerely hope that you are being sarcastic here, Buttercup, because otherwise… :loco:

To put it bluntly, (and with all due respect to MT) his “scientific data” looks more than a little suspicious to me. :s

Let’s take a serious look his so-called scientific data…

Okay… so far so good right? Seems pretty solid so far.

But now take a look at this:

[quote=“Foreign Affairs, November/December 2004”]The total damage caused by piracy-due to losses of ships and cargo and to rising insurance costs-now amounts to $16 billion per year.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20041101faessay83606/gal-luft-anne-korin/terrorism-goes-to-sea.html[/quote]

and THIS:

[quote=“ICC Commercial Crimes Services”]In 2006, there were 239 attacks on ships, compared to 276 in 2005 and 329 in 2004…"

http://www.icc-ccs.org/main/news.php?newsid=80[/quote]

MT is honestly asking us to believe that approximately 17 pirates (as of 2000 – presumably it would be even fewer now) are conducting hundreds of attacks per year, and causing around $1 billion worth of damages/costs each!? :noway: No. It just doesn’t add up. There must be more than 17 pirates in the world today to cause the kind of problems that we see.

So, while I agree that “fewer pirates = higher global temperatures” makes sense on an intuitive/common sense level, I just can’t trust the data that MT has given us to back up the point.

Anyway, sorry to burst your bubble, Buttercup, but when it comes to a problem as serious as global warming I think we need serious data. If MT can come back with some supporting sources to buttress his pirates number I will be happy to look at them. Until then, I remain unconvinced – I don’t care how logical the theory sounds on its face.

-H

I couldn’t care less about global warming, but the metrosexuals have to go!

You might want to be careful with that. You could attract unwanted attention from Sun reporters.

HEY! Who you calling a Metrosexual?!

Um, ninjas?

[quote=“worryman”]HEY! Who you calling a Metrosexual?![/quote]Well!
If the fluffy shirt (and hair) fits…?

…‘metro’ lookin’ Pirate…I think he un-buckles swashes

I sincerely hope that you are being sarcastic here, Buttercup, because otherwise… :loco:

To put it bluntly, (and with all due respect to MT) his “scientific data” looks more than a little suspicious to me. :s

Let’s take a serious look his so-called scientific data…

Okay… so far so good right? Seems pretty solid so far.

But now take a look at this:

[quote=“Foreign Affairs, November/December 2004”]The total damage caused by piracy-due to losses of ships and cargo and to rising insurance costs-now amounts to $16 billion per year.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20041101faessay83606/gal-luft-anne-korin/terrorism-goes-to-sea.html[/quote]

and THIS:

[quote=“ICC Commercial Crimes Services”]In 2006, there were 239 attacks on ships, compared to 276 in 2005 and 329 in 2004…"

http://www.icc-ccs.org/main/news.php?newsid=80[/quote]

MT is honestly asking us to believe that approximately 17 pirates (as of 2000 – presumably it would be even fewer now) are conducting hundreds of attacks per year, and causing around $1 billion worth of damages/costs each!? :noway: No. It just doesn’t add up. There must be more than 17 pirates in the world today to cause the kind of problems that we see.

So, while I agree that “fewer pirates = higher global temperatures” makes sense on an intuitive/common sense level, I just can’t trust the data that MT has given us to back up the point.

Anyway, sorry to burst your bubble, Buttercup, but when it comes to a problem as serious as global warming I think we need serious data. If MT can come back with some supporting sources to buttress his pirates number I will be happy to look at them. Until then, I remain unconvinced – I don’t care how logical the theory sounds on its face.

-H[/quote]

That graph is posted on the same wikipedia article about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but it’s supposed to encourage people to become pirates in order to reduce global warming.