Bridgitte Bardot opens her mouth (I thought she was dead?)

[Chip]

http://img.breitbart.com/images/2008/10/7/081007172729.q0klgd6h/CPS.NVA87.071008192624.photo00.photo.jpg

First let me say she looks like :puke:

French film legend-turned-activist Brigitte Bardot took a swipe at Sarah Palin on Tuesday, saying the US vice presidential candidate was a disgrace to women.

"I hope you lose these elections because that would be a victory for the world," Bardot wrote in an open letter to Republican John McCain's running mate in the November vote.

"By denying the responsibility of man in global warming, by advocating gun rights and making statements that are disconcertingly stupid, you are a disgrace to women and you alone represent a terrible threat, a true environmental catastrophe," wrote Bardot.

The screen icon from the 1960s, who now heads an animal rights foundation, went on to assail Palin for supporting Arctic oil exploration that could jeopardize delicate animal habitats and for dismissing measures to protect polar bears.

"This shows your total lack of responsibility, your inability to protect or simply respect animal life," Bardot wrote.

In a final salvo against Palin, the 74-year-old ex-star picked up on Palin's depiction of herself as a pitbull wearing lipstick and said she "implored" her not to compare herself to dogs.

"I know them well and I can assure you that no pitbull, no dog, nor any other animal for that matter is as dangerous as you are," Bardot wrote.



What a spiteful old hag.

[Alaric]

Is that crone still not dead? How unfortunate.

[Chip]

Is that her brains leaking out the back of her head?


Is that crone still not dead?

Kinda hard to tell from the picture.

[kyleh]

Time will be unkind to any that are lucky enough.

[Wyrmlord]

See, Bardot's focus is too much on environmental issues rather than economic ones. And I don't like it when people do that.

As you guys know, a luxury good is something that you can get in greater quantities when you have more money, but is not a priority when you don't. Paintings are luxury goods. And less obviously, concern for the environment is a luxury good.

Because when you don't have money, your concern will not be the environment, hence poachers and people who cut endangered trees for the saps that make mosquito nets. The people who care about the environment are people with money, who can afford to care about it. And since people with money can excercise power by virtue of their money, its their interests that will take precedence. And it's ironic that their very altruism will be at the disadvantage of all the poachers and tree-choppers. I don't doubt how genuinely they feel about it, but the main purpose of the luxury of caring about the environment is just to feel better about yourself.

It goes without saying that economic interests take precedence over environmental ones. If man has to take care of the world, he has to take care of himself first.

Of course, environment is an important issue. But somehow, when this woman makes disparaging remarks about someone's character and responsibility solely from an environmental stand, it strikes me as that typical ostentatious "altruism" of rich people. I mean, statements like, "I know them well and I can assure you that no pitbull, no dog, nor any other animal for that matter is as dangerous as you are," are just like that.

[jackarse]

That's :yuck: she looks like someone dug her out of the grave and took her to a lab to recreate her making her Bardotein. Apart from my insult, I agree with that statement Wyrmlord.

[Kosmo]

Love her. Good for her. I agree with every word she said.

[Chip]

There is no proof that man is behind global warming. In fact when not only the earth has been getting warmer but also other planets in our solar system that would pretty much rule out man as a as the major cause of global warming. Look at it this way. She hunts moose and everyone knows that moose farts do more towards "global Warming" so by her hunting moose she is saving the world.

[Kosmo]

Who CARES who's behind global warming? Don't you think that's the wrong argument? That's like arguing over whether being gay or Catholic is a choice.

That it is happening is beyond dispute. The question is, how are we going to deal with it? I won't personally miss Florida, but I'm sure some people will.

PS If you want to see Brigitte in her glory, catch "Dear Brigitte" with Jimmy Stewart whenever it plays on Turner Classic Movies.

[Chip]

Love her. Good for her. I agree with every word she said.

ok...;)

[kyleh]

That it is happening is beyond dispute. The question is, how are we going to deal with it? I won't personally miss Florida, but I'm sure some people will.

Personally, I'd rather actually work on looking for real solutions rather than just dumping billions into the new 'green industry'. Things that feel good and things that are right are not always the same thing.

[Wyrmlord]

Do you know that alot of so called eco-friendly products actually harm the environment? Like certain CFC-free products that create other sorts of emissions. Or the fact that certain green cars have to be manufactured by using rare raw materials from all over the world, ultimately causing even more environmental damage.

The whole concept of green consumerism revolves around making people feel better about themselves. It does not actually solve the problem.

[Kosmo]

Then let's work smarter so that we CAN solve the problems, instead of simply demonizing those who are trying.

[kyleh]

It's not possible. The signal to noise ratio is too high. Someday it will actually matter and the real solutions will become more clear. Right now it's just a moneymaking feelgood industry.

Just look at the global restrictions on DDT and how many people in other countries die of malaria every day. As long as we feel good about not using or producing DDT, who cares how many third world people die, right? heh

[Alaric]

The difference between science and pseudoscience is that in real science when a claim is made, it is always clear and supported by what the author believes to be constructive evidence based on research and experimentation. The results of the conducted experiments are always recreatable and verifiable.

Real science encourages skepticism, double checking, triple checking and so on. It is as much about disproving claims as it is about making them.

Pseudoscience, uses the same long words and tries really hard to pass itself for science. However, it discourages trying to disprove its claims (much like religion). "How can you deny this, you evil *****?!" is not an argument. Moreover, when someone goes ahead and tries to verify the results - they discover than those are either completely unverifiable or at best inconclusive and can't be used to support any claims.

This is why the "global warming" hysteria is anything but scientific. It is more akin to water dowsing, UFO sightings and astrology. Those who stand behind it are either honestly mislead and need to learn to adopt the skeptical and inquisitive scientific method, or purposely malicious.

[Kosmo]

I completely agree with you in principle, Alaric. But . . . are you saying we shouldn't be alarmed as the ice caps melt? Isn't that really happening? It seems to be happening at both poles. Are the photos and videos documenting it all fraudulent? The polar bears are NOT in trouble? It's an evil conspiracy? If so, what's the motive?

I really thought it was unambiguously established that the polar ice caps have been shrinking. That doesn't seem like a particularly easy thing to fake. But if I'm wrong about that, educate me. I know Michael Crichton thinks global warming is a boondoggle, and I respect him.

[Alaric]

The place where I am located at right now, has not long ago been under a sheet of ice two miles high. That is a proven fact, which never the less was, is and should be doubted and reexamined. So far all the attempts to disprove it have failed. Maybe in the future it will be proven to be false, but so far we can accept it as fact.

Why am I even mentioning this? Because I want to illustrate the fact that climate did, does and will always change. It is no more "bad" or "good" than a sunset or a tide are "bad" or "good." It just is so.

The change in recorded temperatures over a long period is fairly insignificant and inconclusive. However, even if there was a clear indication that the temperatures are on the rise, it is not cause for political action.

Why so? How can I be saying these things? Do I want Florida to submerge?

No. I do not. Still, I am not afraid of it because there has not been a single study that can reasonably argue that this particular projected effect will take place.

Oh, yes, common sense suggests that if the ice melts the water levels will rise. But events of planetary scale are not easily modeled on one's office table.

Consider this: the introduction of more water is very likely to alter the major currents and the major winds. That in turn is very likely to create moist Sahara. Think about it for a second. That huge desert will grow no longer. In fact it will begin to shrink. It will become fit for agriculture. Surely you can appreciate the effects of that.

Now, I can't tell you that this is exactly what will happen. The simple reason is - I don't know. Unfortunately - neither do you, or anyone else. Same goes for the increasing sea level. It is a theory that has no conclusive or even plausible evidence to back it up.

Paranoia and politics mix well. Neither mixes with science.

[Kosmo]

You didn't really answer my question, Alaric. There has been a pile of evidence suggesting that both polar ice caps are melting. Is this or is this not happening? If it is, that water has to go somewhere. Florida is about 3/4 of an inch over sea level (I exaggerate for effect) so it wouldn't take much to submerge the place.

Also, I didn't really understand your first sentence.

[Alaric]

Did you read anything I wrote?

1) Some glaciers are shrinking.
2) Some glaciers are growing (http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071102/NEWS/711020331).
3) The shrinking ones do NOT necessarily mean that water levels will rise.

[zauggru]

Some of the ice melting will have no effect on water levels at all.

Take a glass of water. Add some ice. Water level rises. As the ice melts the water level does not rise.

Sorry, more table top science for you guys!

[Katie]

Most of the save the world because of CO2 emissions have been money making scams. I'm not saying stop recycling, but what I am saying what we are doing doesn't necessarily have any effect on climate change. I am probably the biggest recycling hippie here to be frank with you, and I even have a car that gets 30MPG. I was all about the lower CO2 emissions until I did research.

In all reality, we people only emit about 3% of the worlds CO2 emssions. The other 97% comes from decaying plant life. We can't control decaying plant life, that's only natural. Also, the climate change has nothing to do with CO2 emissions, it actually is in connection with solar activity. Also, the earth goes through natural cycles, how do you explain the ice age? And not all of the ice age was ice either. The growing and shrinking of the glaciers is also natural. I highly suggest watching Penn & Tellers Bullsh*t show on global warming. It's very informative, and points out a lot of Al Gore's flaws. Most of this stuff has been imposed upon people to give them guilt, and get money out of them. But I still will be the first to say, there's no reason why you shouldn't still recycle to preserve what we have, and fuel efficient cars end up saving us money.

Warning!!!! Penn has a dirty mouth! But has REALLY GOOD INFO!
Penn & Teller Being Green Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAu68OsFggw)

Penn & Teller Being Green Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5weG9IllCpo)

Penn & Teller Being Green Part 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ictpPrle3EQ)

[Evilpenguin]

the moon and mars are apparently getting hotter as well, i suppose thats our fault too

[kyleh]

My point was just that it's better to find out WHY before you start to DO. What if CO2 emmissions are good for the environment? Won't we all feel silly then? At least we'll feel good about ourselves and silly. :)

Are polar bears dying because they are being poached, or are they dying because the ecology of the arctic can no longer sustain a gigantic land predator? Civilized folks from the first world always want to say that there is a direct causal relationship between man and everything that happens in nature. Seems a bit egotistical to me.

[stingray]

What if CO2 emmissions are good for the environment?

I think we are far beyond that point already: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis ;)