@TTM I'm not disagreeing with you about pollution. I have a problem with fanatical echo fascists wanting to blow up people and their kids if the don't agree with their point of view, that's just sick is it not?

May I also remind you that all those graphical videos you posted are a result of you having the ability to post here in the first place. I don't see you giving up your toxic computer now do I? lead the way dude, you know you want to. Now where's that red button thingy? Arjay, son, can you pass it to me please, it's just there under that paper work, no pressure.

@TTM I'm not disagreeing with you about pollution. I have a problem with fanatical echo fascists wanting to blow up people and their kids if the don't agree with their point of view, that's just sick is it not?

Yes I agree as well. Sorry for my whole heartiness, but I do get a little emotional when it comes to Pollution. And yes, if I have been offensive in any way, it was not my intentions of doing so.

Thank-you RawMustard for reminding me the rules of this site and I do thank the staff for their understanding.

NO Pressure.

TTM

For goodness sake the YouTube video is a spoof.

It is clearly anti-climate change 'pressure'. The extreme nature of the piece is more in the line of a Monty Python or a good English BBC comedy sketch which emphasises the social pressure on climate change 'deniers' or the ambivalent.

It is anything but supporting climate change. I think it is hilarious.

George Monbiot recently groaned that "Climate change enlightenment (sic) was fun while it lasted. But now it's dead".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/20/climate-change-negotiations-failure

On the contrary. Enlightenment, properly defined, is gaining traction. A university study in Texas http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2010/10/05/Humans-climate-impact-hard-to-assess/UPI-39551286311833/
shows that

"it will take a long time before a statistically significant difference can be seen between possible human impacts and those caused by natural climate variability" so

"Do we charge ahead with international agreements and policies, or do we do nothing? Do we save money for our grandchildren's future or do we try to save the climate, not knowing if our efforts will have any effect?"

It's a no-brainer, really.

The greens policy is clearly to reduce the population of the world by 10% which will reduce carbon emissions, created by humans by 10%.

Phil,the lunatic Maurice Strong the ex secretary to the UN,wants to actively reduce the world's pop by billions.Prince Charles has a similar bent.