Fatties Cause Global Warming

Mike Meyers as Fat Bastard

Mike Meyers as Fat Bastard

The rising number of fat people was yesterday blamed for global warming. 

By Ben Jackson

Scientists warned that the increase in big-eaters means more food production – a major cause of CO2 gas emissions warming the planet.

Overweight people are also more likely to drive, adding to environmental damage.

Dr Phil Edwards, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said: “Moving about in a heavy body is like driving in a gas guzzler.”

Each fat person is said to be responsible for emitting a tonne more of climate-warming carbon dioxide per year than a thin one.

Read the Rest of this article at The Sun.

24 Responses to Fatties Cause Global Warming

  1. Neil F. May 13, 2009 at 7:59 pm #

    Typical Liberal tactics!!!!! If you disagree with something, don’t debate it openly and honestly, hack it and shut it down!!!!!! Well you failed……
    You can not shut us up.
    Besides, if we’re so wrong you should let us keep talking, give us enough rope to hang ourselves. What are you afraid of? Oh, that’s right, if opinions that are counter to yours contain facts and truth, then that means that your opinions contain misinformation and lies. Right?
    You, whoever you are that hacked this site, are a total loser and a scumbag!!!!!!
    I hope you get caught and prosecuted, because what you did is illegal.
    And now, onto the topic at hand.
    A total canard!!!! First, to believe this story you have to accept the premise that CO2 is a pollutant. It is a story designed to force you to accept that false premise by writing as though it is written in stone that CO2 is a pollutant. It is a case where the writer is injecting their beliefs into the story. This is one of the methods that has been utilized since the begining of this whole debate about AGW. Other methods are fear, intimidation, hacking websites, and just out and out lying.
    To illustrate I want to present this; http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
    Now, if AGW were true, you would not see stories like this. The alarmists have said time and time again that we are heading to a tipping point. That if we don’t control “greenhouse gases” then we are going to warm up to a point where positive feedbacks will give us runaway global warming and our collective gooses will be cooked. Pun intended.
    But if they were even close to being correct in their predictions, you would not see stories like the one I posted above, on the contrary, you would see stories that say the opposite. Would you not?
    Admit it AGW advocates, the predictions are not coming true, and the facts are putting a lie to them. And you would not see things like this;
    Something I saw in this will never be a story on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, ect.
    “Temperature changes in the lower stratosphere show cooling of ∼0.5 K/decade over much of the globe for 1979–2007, with some differences in detail among the different radiosonde and satellite data sets. Substantially larger cooling trends are observed in the Antarctic lower stratosphere during spring and summer, in association with development of the Antarctic ozone hole.”
    But still you AGW true believers are still trying to convince us that it is really happening, when it was always a global climate scam.

  2. Rob N. Hood May 14, 2009 at 2:16 pm #

    Neil, I don’t ever see or hear anyone saying CO 2 is a pollutant, and if they do, I agree it’s stupid and wrong. What they DO say is that it is a greenhouse gas, which it is. So enough of that nonsense, ok?

    My god,what could have been if they had not stole the election of 2000,the corrupt supreme court,the members placed by republicans,owned by the oil companies…A preemptive war for oil,resulting in a million innocent dead,just so we can dig the hole deeper.

    The election theft of 2000 was the turning point,we could have by now built thousands of wind and solar plants,created millions of new jobs and avoided the Bush depression.

    What could have been with Mr Gore…

  3. Neil F. May 15, 2009 at 7:05 am #

    Wrong N’ Hoodwinked:
    9 years ago, and you still can’t let it go. Besides it is not true, never was. Now, normally I don’t count on Wikipedia because it can be extremely slanted towards a liberal bias, yet what it says about the 2000 election is interesting, given that is usually the case.


    The media reported the results of the study during the week after November 12, 2001. The results of the study showed that had the limited county by county recounts requested by the Gore team been completed, Bush would still have been the winner of the election.

    The Florida Supreme Court had ordered “counting of the legal votes contained within the undervotes in all counties where the undervote has not been subjected to a manual tabulation.” The U.S. Supreme Court overruled the Florida Supreme Court and stopped their recount via an unsigned “per curiam” opinion in Bush v. Gore, with three Justices (Rehnquist joined by Scalia and Thomas) concurring in a separate opinion. Four Justices (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer) each wrote their own opinion with various combinations of the other three joining.[3]

    The media recount study found that under the system of limited recounts in selected counties as was requested by the Gore campaign, the only way that Gore would have won was by using counting methods that were never requested by any party, including “overvotes” — ballots containing more than one vote for an office. While some of these ballots recorded votes for two separate candidates, a significant number (20 percent in Lake County, for example) were cases of a voter voting for a candidate and then also writing in that same candidate’s name on the write-in line. A judge supervising the recount told the Orlando Sentinel that he had been open to the idea of examining the overvotes, and had been planning to discuss the matter at a hearing when the U.S. Supreme Court stopped the recount. According to Mickey Kaus of Slate.com (emphasis in original), “If the recount had gone forward Judge Lewis might well have counted the overvotes in which case Gore might well have won.”[4]

    The New York Times did its own analysis of how mistaken overvotes might have been caused by confusing ballot designs. It found that the butterfly ballot in heavily Democratic Palm Beach County may have cost Gore a net 6286 votes, and the two page ballot in similarly Democratic Duval County may have cost him a net 1999 votes, each of which would have made the difference by itself.[5] The rest of the media consortium did not consider these because there could be no clear determination of a voter’s intent.

  4. Rob N. Hood May 15, 2009 at 1:22 pm #

    Yawn… you believe what you want. If the shoe was on the other foot (in 2000) your side would have grabbed your guns and revolted. As you should. I only added that part about MY president Al Gore because you people totally freak out everytime he is mentioned, for any reason. You guys are truly sore winners- I never could quite understand that…

    I don’t think you have to worry about the Amerikan sheeple worying as much as you do about global warming either way. They are too busy eating fast food and getting fatter:

    Recent polls indicate that while Americans are concerned about the environment and global climate change, it’s not their primary focus. The latest Pew Research poll shows environmental concerns ranked 16th (!)after “Strengthening the nation’s economy,” “Improving the job situation,” “Defending the country from future terrorist attacks,” and other issues. Human life may be in peril but we aren’t really paying attention.

  5. Constitutional Historian May 15, 2009 at 2:15 pm #

    I have a bachelor’s degree in history and political science. and I can tell you that hitler was a vegetarian, environmentalist and radical ugenisist. Mr. Gore has propagated a crisis out of nothing in an effort to line the pockes of wealthy liberals who are hungry for power. Throughout history, politicians have exploited or created crisises so the people will willingly forfeit their rights. Just ask your buddy from Rome, Caesar.

    Gore is in essence doing the same thing. Global warming and cooling is not man made, but rather a natural cycle! During the 13- 14th centruies there was a significant warming period. English farmers were growing grapes at this time in the northern part of Britain. Crops also prospered and the people of Europe had a higher standard of living than previously witnessed before.

    Our time on this earth compared to its overall age is but a grain of sand in a vast desert. How can Gore be so arrogent as to assume that he knows the entire planet’s climate history.

    Take this to thought. Gore is a politician, who like most of them, strive for power and control of other humans. These so-called scientists who back him up want the power and credibility as well. There are other very credible scientists who say this global warming issue is B.S. and unfortunately the media in thier slanted views often ignore these people. Global warming is being used as a front to assault our constitutional rights. Pretty soon the government will be telling you what to eat, what to drive how much your can use your ipod and things like that. The global warming crowd are a group of control freaks. They have linked just about every daily activity to global warming, and have used that as an excuese to regluate that activity.

    Remember when I said that hitler was an environmentalist. He was…and he used his enviromental agenda to try to supress the rights of the german people. Do your ressearch America and WAKE UP!

  6. Neil F. May 16, 2009 at 8:37 am #

    Wrong N’ Hoodwinked:
    You know, I was going to not respond to you anymore, but I just can’t help myself. You will be happy to know that you have been successful at pushing my buttons, I can’t not respond to your idiocy.
    I suggest that you go back and read what I posted. You said you never heard or saw anything that said anything about calling CO2 pollution. I provided four different stories about just that. Did you even look at them? It was all over the news about a month ago. The previous story in this thread was about just that. That would be like me saying, when the next story is posted here, that “I never heard anybody say that fat people cause global warming”
    And then you had to bring up the 2000 election. It’s 2009! And we have the great and powerful Oz, Barrak Obama, as President. Your guy. Your party has virtual control of every branch of government today, yet you still harp about the 2000 election. Even though in every single recount that was conducted, sanctioned or otherwise, Al Gore still lost. Appearantly you don’t understand what that means. More evidence of your idiocy. I’m sorry, maybe you are not an idiot, but the facts are making a fool out of you.
    Rob, really, I’m not motivated by anger at you. I actually feel sorry for you. You are misguided, misled, and misinformed. A state that I myself had occupied many years ago. I was, at a point in my younger years misguided, misled, and misinformed. But then I joined the Army and went overseas for a few years. I liked Europe but it was not America. It made me appreciate America in ways that I had never considered before. I was, after that, repulsed by the notion that America was bad, and that our policies were what was wrong in the world.
    We have flaws, that’s for sure, but this is still the greatest country to ever exist on this planet, ever. And if you don’t believe that, go live in Venezuela and say something bad about Hugo Chavez, and see how long you last. Or go live in Russia and say “Putin stole the election”. I guarantee you would soon assume room temperature.
    So, you go ahead and believe what you want, you are free to do so here. I am also free to believe what I want, and I choose to believe only things that I can verify, and back up with facts. Not things that can only be quantified by the feelings they evoke. Like environmentalism, and George Bush stole the 2000 election.

  7. Neil F. May 17, 2009 at 9:08 am #

    There was something I posted here before the hacker attack, that is no longer here. I am going to post it again because I think it’s important to see what is happening in the Arctic. Because this should really be the smoking-gun-hard-evidence that AGW is real, and that we have broken the sky.
    But what it shows is the melting that is occurring is not abnormal. And what I find interesting is the fact that the ice is what they call young and thin, and was predicted to melt rapidly. Yet, as you can see by the graph of arctic sea ice extent, the melt is slower than last year, when the ice was older and thicker. It does not take a scientist to figure out what this means. It means that it’s colder this year than it was last year.
    You would think that with all of the alarmism, and dire predictions, that the Earth was warming rapidly. Well, isn’t that what this whole argument is about? The planet has a fever? Really? It sure doesn’t look that way to me.
    The NSIDC is by no means an anti-global warming website, and you will see that when you read the arctic sea ice news that they are still predicting the ice will melt rapidly during the summer melt. And it probably will, given that’s what happens to ice in the summer. But they had previously predicted that the ice would begin to melt rapidly when the melting season begun. Well, it has started off with a whimper, and I don’t put much stock in their predictions.
    But I do give them credit for their honesty, and that when they do make mistakes they make corrections quickly.
    So, here is the article:


    And this is the section that I think is most telling:

    “Conditions in context

    The decline rate for the month of April was the third slowest on record. The Arctic lost sea ice cover at a rate of 27,300 square kilometers per day (10,500 square miles), compared to an average of 41,600 square kilometers (16,000 square miles) per day for 1979 to 2000. Ice extent was well above normal in the Bering Sea, but below normal in the Barents Sea and the Sea of Okhotsk.

    For the past few years, Arctic sea ice extent for most months has been more than two standard deviations below the 1979 to 2000 mean, particularly in summer. Two standard deviations provide an estimate of the expected range of natural variability. Because of cooler than average temperatures, Arctic sea ice extent at the end of April 2009 was within the expected range of natural variability.”

  8. Dan McGrath May 18, 2009 at 12:00 pm #

    Reminders about comment decorum: Try to keep comments brief – no longer than the post being commented on as a good rule of thumb. Please avoid personal attacks. Stick to the issues – it’s more productive. I’m experimenting with a new moderation method, but I’ll switch back to reviewing and moderating every comment if it doesn’t work out.

  9. Rob N. Hood May 20, 2009 at 8:47 am #

    I brought up 2000 because you all hate Al Gore so much- it is irrational and reveals your true subconscious, and even kinda funny (but also very sad). Thanks for feeling bad for me, however, it is I who feel bad for you, but also for me. Why? Becuase it is reactionaries like you who have stunted human potential and happiness by defending the very people that are suppressing you, and all of us. You think you are being intelligent, but you are brainwashed. But don’t feel bad- many people are, and the mainstream media is a powerful and relentless force- an dit is NOT Left-leaning. If you believe that you are… well, not intelligent.

  10. Rob N. Hood May 20, 2009 at 4:56 pm #

    Hey CH- you are really funny. Did you also know that Hilter was a Christian, although some saye he worshipped the Devil, and was an astologer freak too. What is your point exactly? That was a rhetorical question because you are obviously trying to equate Hilter with greens, socialism, whatever it is you don’t like. VERY spurious CH. Shame on you for being so juvenile… And now, Ta Da! B. Obama is the new Hilter! Gee, that’s convenient… you guys are freaks.

  11. Neil F. May 20, 2009 at 11:26 pm #

    Puh’ leeze….. You presume a lot. I don’t hate Al Gore. I think he is wrong, and that his powerpoint presentation movie was full of lies, and misleading statements which have been repeatedly disproven by multiple sources that you ignore. How is that irrational? It’s actually quite rational. What is irrational, is people who believe things based on what Al Gore says just because he said them. Without checking his facts. That’s irrational.
    And it’s amazing how you can discern my true subconcious from what I think of a few political, and scientific issues. Master psychologist.
    I have to say that I do fit the definition of reactionary somewhat. According to the free online dictionary a reactionary is “An opponent of progress or liberalism; an extreme conservative.”
    Obviously the author of this definition thinks that Liberalism is progress, I disagree. And I would not call myself an extreme conservative.
    Now how, exactly, have I stunted human potential and happiness? And who is it that you think I’m defending? George Bush? HA!!!! Bush was an idiot! He kept reaching accross the isle just to get his knuckles whacked time and time again, and he could not speak a coheasive sentance to save his life!
    I believe you are misusng the word suppressed.
    “1. To put an end to forcibly; subdue.
    2. To curtail or prohibit the activities of.
    3. To keep from being revealed, published, or circulated.
    4. To deliberately exclude (unacceptable desires or thoughts) from the mind.
    5. To inhibit the expression of (an impulse, for example); check: suppress a smile.
    6. To reduce the incidence or severity of (a hemorrhage or cough, for example); arrest.”
    What I think you meant was oppressed:
    “1. To keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority: a people who were oppressed by tyranny.
    2. To weigh heavily on: Poverty oppresses the spirit.
    3. Obsolete To overwhelm or crush.”
    Also I don’t feel bad for you, I feel sorry for you. If you don’t understand the difference, I’m not going to explain it to you.

  12. Neil F. May 20, 2009 at 11:28 pm #

    Sorry Dan, I’ll try to keep them shorter in the future.

  13. Dan McGrath May 21, 2009 at 10:18 am #

    Hitler may have been raised a Christian (specifically, Catholic), but he jettisoned any semblance of Christianity he may have once exhibited while in power. He despised Catholocism. He established a state religion of mysticism that borrowed concepts and traditions from many religious and occult practices. He was a vegitarian, animal-rights-promoting, smoking-ban-pushing socialist who clearly valued woodland creatures above human life. He shared many traits with the typical greenie of today.

  14. Rob N. Hood May 21, 2009 at 11:07 am #

    Dan- come on. He was a psychopath. Antying beyond that are superficial coincidences, something you can do to just about anyone, for any reason. You and your followers hatred for environmentalism and/or environmentalists borders on the pathological. See? I judt did it too. It was very easy.

    Also, while I’m at it, why is it that I seem to be the only lonely “greenie” wasting my efforts here? If we were such an evil and forceful group I think you’d see a lot of hate mail, etc. It is mostly right-wingers that are good at that crap. And don’t deny it- it will just make you look even more silly.

  15. Rob N. Hood May 21, 2009 at 11:26 am #

    And Dan you are wrong about Hilter being a Socialist- he was anything but. He was a Fascist, and if you take issue with THAT one you will appear to be very foolish, about that issue. Oh, and Neil, thank you so much for correcting all mistakes, or what you think are mistakes. That is really a waste of time don’t you think? I guess not, because you keep doing it. Re: your so-called “facts”. Just because you can pull something out of your – where ever you get it- doesn’t make it true. And I don’t just believe whatever Al Gore or anyone else says or thinks. I do my own thinking, and that is another reason why I don’t fill these up with big fancy exact wording, dictionary lectures and the like.

    Liberals are more open-minded than conservatives, and that is a researched fact. Where are those studies? I’ve seen them and read them- perhaps you could find them, if you really wanted to. My point is this- you right-leaning libertarian types or whatever the heck you are, are, generally speaking, not tolerant or open-minded. As a group, generally speaking, Liberals are. This “fact” will make you angry, but if you were honest with yourself you would be able to see that. As it is you probably never will. You are brainswashed into mostly defending the true powers that be, the ones that are Oppressing you, and me. You are directed to disagree with and/or hate those that the powers that be want you to. That is why people like me usually don’t like people like you. You are part of the problem, not the solution. And “suppressing” works just fine for what I was talking about before. Either one works Professor. And one other thing- I do have a Master’s in Psychology. that was pretty insightful of you…!

  16. Neil F. May 21, 2009 at 9:18 pm #

    Wrong N’ Hoodwinked:
    Masters in psychology? Yeah, right! I bet you haven’t even finished high school yet. I know for a fact you are not a college graduate. I can tell by how you write. Why do you feel like you need to lie?
    Besides, I wouldn’t care if you had a PHD, your still wrong, and I will produce evidence, and links to sources, prooving your wrongness as long as you continue to be wrong. If you don’t like it… tough cookies.
    You think you are open minded, and in essence, are saying that we Consevative/Libertarian types should be more open minded. Right?
    Well, I think you need to watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI Maybe a couple of times, you know, untill you understand it.

  17. Dan McGrath May 22, 2009 at 1:44 pm #

    “Liberals are more open-minded than conservatives, and that is a researched fact. Where are those studies? I’ve seen them and read them- perhaps you could find them, if you really wanted to. My point is this- you right-leaning libertarian types or whatever the heck you are, are, generally speaking, not tolerant or open-minded. As a group, generally speaking, Liberals are.”

    Absolutely NOT true. Couldn’t be further from the truth. When conservative speakers arrive at liberal universities, do the liberals sit back and say, “well, let’s see what this person has to say. We don’t have to agree?” No. They cause disruptions and try to shout the speaker down and drum them off campus.

    Also see here. And here. And here. And here.

    When a meteorolgist expresses views on global warming that don’t fit the scam, liberals demand he or she be censored, and even want them kicked out of the AMS. Our side says, debate us. Gore and company says, “the debate is over” and refuse to debate.

    When Rush Limbaugh manages to garner a huge radio audience, liberals try to enact broadcast regulations that would shut him up. Air America pops up, and we say, good luck with that.

    When the GOP had it’s national convention in St. Paul, the opposition (ie liberals) were planning terroristic attacks on the convention delegates, vandalized property, damaged busses to try to stop delegates from geting around, and even tried to stop the convention being ALLOWED in the fine liberal city of St. Paul. See here for evidence. This video is especially interesting, as is this planning document. Decent summary here.

    When have you heard of Republicans trying to disrupt a DFL convention? Liberals are entirely tolerant of other liberals. Big whoop. They are the most intolerant (of other points of view) bunch I have ever encountered. Of course, modern “liberals” aren’t liberal at all in the defined sense. What we now call conservatives are the actual clasical liberals.

    Hitler absolutely WAS a socialist. NAZI= National SOCIALIST Party.

  18. Rob N. Hood May 23, 2009 at 7:08 pm #

    Nice to hear you defend Rush Limbaugh, Dan. I said you were freaks, now I can add wackos too.

    Re: the name of Hitler’s party- it was a misnomer to fool the people, and it worked. Kind of like brainwashing, or what goes on with TV and “news” today all the time. It is not surprising that you, like many right-wingers, choose to alter and assign to history whatever suits your purposes. Either that or you are simply fools.It’s pathetic, it really is.

    You and your ilke are dinosauers, Neanderthals… you are not evloving and fight at every turn anything progressive. What are you really afraid of? have you ever thought of that? Are you capable of deep thought and true interspection?

    One reason for this site is to provoke the Libs, so you can bash them, etc. I am the only lonely sucker who took the bait. that should tell you something right there and also refute your long-winded and defensive and skewed rant above. but it’s been fun to get you to show your true colors. Really…

  19. Rob N. Hood May 23, 2009 at 7:14 pm #

    And oh, of course you have it competely backwards. 99% of Liberal politicians today behave and vote the way moderate conservatives did in the past. If Nixon were alive and President today, he’d be labeled a Democrat. This country has moved WAY right since the late 60’s, 70’s and beyond. Ga ahead and refute that and look foolish again… but not to your loyal followers, no, they will agree with you on that I’m sure.

    P.S. you will miss me when I totally tire of debating reality with you reality-impaired serfs.

  20. Rob N. Hood June 5, 2009 at 9:45 am #

    You be the judge. Extreme quotes below are just an example from many such quotes in “What Liberals Believe,” edited by William Martin.

    “I’m thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I’m wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it.” — Glenn Beck, nationally syndicated Clear Channel radio host and now a CNN commentator, The Glenn Beck Program (May 17, 2005)

    “I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo.” — Ann Coulter, “Live and Let Spy,” Yahoo!News (December 21, 2005)

    “When abortion is made illegal again, you will be hunted down and tried for genocide.” — Randall A. Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, in a letter to doctors sent to the New England Journal of Medicine, quoted in Time (September 11, 1995)

    Freedom vs. License: “The liberty of the individual to do as he pleases, even in innocent matters, is not absolute. It must frequently yield to the common good.” — Justice George Sutherland, Atkins vs. Children’s Hospital. 1925.

  21. Paul Wenum July 13, 2009 at 10:17 pm #

    Rob, Do you yourself think? You quote often, but you never have let your thoughts be known. What a waste.

  22. chris July 16, 2009 at 12:48 am #

    Speaking of studies and polls,it’s a well known fact that in general,conservatives are much happier people than Libs. I guess having facts and logic on one’s side would tend to contribute to thier overall happiness (just a theory). Also, the latest polls suggest that the American people rate climate change at the bottom of the list of concerns.I know it’s probably painful for you to watch Obamas poll #s decline so rapidly,but you just hang in ther Rob,it’s going to get much worse.

  23. Paul Wenum July 30, 2009 at 11:07 pm #

    Chris, It can’t get any worse. That said, I’ve been through numerous recessions One positive note as you outline, People are starting to wake up and “inspect,” not “expect.” There is a difference! Global warming will be like it was in the 70’s when it was Global Cooling and right now we would have froze to death according to the Al Gore’s of the time. I always wondered how much money they made on sweaters? Later.

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.