My Latest Unassuming Victim? Greenpeace.

About 10 minutes ago, I finally confronted Greenpeace.

They come around every couple of days or so, but I usually just ignore them.

"How's it goin', buddy?"

"Want to save the world, man?"

"Want to stop global warming, man?"

"Hey, buddy, care about the environment?"


"No. Drill here, drill now. Pay less."

"What!? Aw, come on, man."

"I'd totally debate you on this, but I'm going somewhere right now. Later."

"Whatever, man."

"Stupid hippie."

(that last one is always muttered under the breath, don't worry)

Today was different, though. I wasn't going anywhere, I was coming back. And this time, I had time to spare.

"Hey, bro, you wanna save a polar bear?"

"What?"

"Yeah, you know. Hey, I'm from Greenpeace."

"Right."

It was at that moment that I decided to have some fun. He asked me if I'd heard about Greenpeace before, and I unassumingly replied
"Yeah, I have. I've heard a lot of things about you guys."
So he started to tell me about Greenpeace. I was getting bored. I knew something had to be done, and quick. He then mentioned their fight against "climate change."

"Oh," I said, ever so cleverly, "you mean anthropogenic global warming?"

He was taken aback.

"Anth...what? What do you mean?"

I was taken aback myself. How could he have not heard the term "anthropogenic" (man-made) even while working at a freakin' environmental special interest group? The ignorance was unbelievable. So, I put on a slightly annoyed face and explained the concept to him.

"Oh, yeah, you mean global warming," he stuttered.

"Not just climate change. You guys advocate against man-made global warming," I said, "but I'm so glad you're an expert on anthropogenic causes of global warming. I've been looking for one of you to clarify a couple things."

He looked at me warily, and said, "Go ahead."

I asked, "Last year, your anthropogenic global warming models anticipated that there would be no Arctic ice this summer. In fact, the mainstream media had also bought into it. When the results came back from satellite imaging research, however, it turned out that the ice hadn't decreased, nor stayed at the same level as last year. It in fact increased by a great level. How do you explain this?"

Obviously agitated that I knew so much for what looked like a naive student, he started to answer. Then I matter-of-factly interrupted him;

"Not only that, but it turns out that Antarctic ice has increased from last year, as well. So the ice increase isn't in just one localized location. Go ahead, explain anthropogenic global warming for me."

He stared at me, and then laughed and looked at his friend. He said to me,

"You like using big words a lot, don't you?"

I was not amused. I gave him a condescending glare and said, "It's not my fault if you don't know what I'm talking about, much less what you're talking about."

The only response he could come up with was questioning my sources. I explained to him that these sources were just done by satellites, unmodified and anything but tampered with. The scientists who did the research clearly did not have a motive. In what could have been the most idiotic thing I've heard since Barack Obama's last debate performance, he told me to go to a site called ExxonSecrets.com, or .org, or something like that.

"Oh, yeah," I scathingly responded, "they surely don't have a motive. I can tell by the site name. This research wasn't done by oil barons, it was purely uncompromised."

He brought up how we haven't signed the Kyoto Protocol (well, he actually couldn't remember the name. I was glad to inform him). I told him in response that the US economy doesn't work the same way as the other nations who have signed it. If we start cap-and-trade policies now, especially right now in an economic crisis, we'd be trashing our economy because of lack of resources.

In response, he exclaimed,

"The economy? The economy's already been trashed thanks to the last 8 years."

I knew that if he didn't even know his environmental science that well, then he really wouldn't stand a chance against me on domestic affairs. I explained to him that the crisis wasn't caused by deregulation, and that the economy is still fundamentally strong after years of growth. He dismissed that because the DOW had gone down earlier today. I was tempted to backhand him for stupidity, but instead I replied that the DOW doesn't affirm the state of the economy. To that, he could only say,

"I think we're talking about different things here."

I sighed, and said,

"You know, you couldn't be more right."

So he brought up that all it would require is for us to stop producing carbon dioxide for global warming to stop. Being a science major, I corrected him:

"Actually, CO2 only contributes a tiny amount of effect to the atmosphere. Methane, on the other hand, has more than twice as much effect. The oceans release huge amounts of metric tons of methane into the atmosphere. Same with cows. What do you propose?"

Getting angry, he dissed the US and said, "Scandinavia has balanced their carbon emissions. They're perfect."

I simply said, "We make up 25% of the world's economy. We take in and also produce more than any other nation. Can any Scandinavian countries say they're anywhere close to doing that? Absolutely, 100%, categorically no."

He was confused and frustrated. I smirked. Finally he just said,

"Well, man, I have a job to do. Have a nice day."

Yeah, I will. I surely will.


Heck, I bet he's voting for Obama. Who'd a thunk it?