Observation: women are responsible for climate change. Who will dare to say otherwise after seeing this scientific demonstration?
Women in charge: proof in numbers
Here is the proof. Just compare these two curves. The first is the activity rate of women since 1968:
In this second graph, the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration :
It is obvious to any intellectually honest person that the more women work, the more the earth is polluted. If you still had doubts, you have the proof! Science never lies.
All right, all right all right
It’s okay, I have everyone’s attention?
I wanted to write this article for 3 reasons.
1) Reading time and reaction speed
A month ago, I posted an interview with Loïc Giaccone, who brought answers about the mountain, its economic activities, and its ecological impact. It was the longest interview posted: it took at least 10 minutes to read it all. The interview was shared on a Facebook group, with the catchphrase ‘skiing only pollutes 2%’. Not only did some people manage to give their opinion within 2 min (!), but a good dozen people commented ‘ah but what the hell, AH YES, AND THE SNOW BY HELICOPTER THEN?
Precisely, this subject was in the article. The 2% was in the article, as was the other 98%. But for that, it was necessary to read.
This is one thing I don’t understand. How can you comment on an article when you haven’t read it? Why write in CAPITALS, since when does that give credibility?
I follow for example the Facebook page France culture. Just this week, a 52-minute podcast was posted online… After 7 minutes, 70 reactions – 120 comments. You guys are fast!
This article is for all the geniuses who comment on the internet without having read or listened to the content. The fact of not liking, it is a right. But opening it without reading?
2) We make the numbers say what we want
I used at the beginning of this article the vocabulary of any guy who, with two perfectly valid sources, makes a demonstration that is worth as much as me in drawing class: 0/20. We call this the Zemmour demonstration: sophism + women are responsible + intellectual shortcut = Z.
This is a very important message: don’t take ANYTHING for granted, without knowing the source and understanding how the number was calculated. This may seem obvious, but if you think it’s obvious, know that you are more the exception than the rule.
3) As in any field, there are flute experts
When we don’t know, we tend to trust the “experts”. You most likely have them at work. Guys who call themselves experts, but the only thing they know how to play is the flute. There are some in every field. Ecology (if it is a field) is one of them.
Recurring example: making some people say things they have never said. I realized this from hearing about the Meadows report, The limits to growth. I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard people say “yeah, it’s a book about degrowth”. Really? I read it, there is not once the word degrowth. Do the test by yourself by clicking on this link : CTRL+F > Degrowth .
It’s the same for the “individual gestures only count for 25%, Gérondeau the real scientist, “the IPCC recommends nuclear power“, “If we destroy the planet it’s because of our striatum“, 30 km/h in town pollutes more than driving at 50 km/h, etc, etc, etc.
The last word
If you are stupid enough to think that women are solely responsible for climate change, I can’t do anything for you. If you think we can solve this incredible challenge without women or men, please go play soccer on the highway.
It’s true that it takes a long time to read books. Longer than watching a 3 min BRUT video. But you will never progress in a field without spending time on it (I also take the opportunity to remind you that a thought cannot fit in 280 characters).
Wasn’t that April 1st?
Update 2022: having chosen the photo of Zemmour in 2020, this true environmentalist, before it was cool…
