Monday, April 20, 2009

Too Much Sex Causes Global Warming! "Take Cold Showers," Scientist Advises

A famous global warming scientist issued an alarming study today finding that too much sex is a major cause of global warming. "All that heavy breathing releases tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere," Dr, Raymond Sunburn, the head of the Aspen/Davos Collective's think tank, Keep Earth Cool, said today. Sunburn, who earned the world's first Ph.D. in biospheric computer modeling studies, added, "Our computer models show that if people don't reduce their rate of intercourse and heavy petting to, at most, once a month, the polar bears will become extinct by 2050."

When asked what people should do who get "pent up," the ironically named Dr. Sunburn said, "Take a cold shower. In that way, you both avoid using more than your fair share of exhales and you save the earth by heating less water. There's no question about it. Adopting a monastic lifestyle is good for the planet."

That yarn could get me an anti-global warming government study grant. Besides, it is about as sensible as the real scientists who claim that fat people are endangering the planet. From the story:

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.
Look at the damage people like actor John Goodman might cause!
Australian Professor Paul Zimmet predicted a disastrous obesity pandemic back in 2006. And Oxfam warned yesterday that the number of people hit by climate-related disasters will soar by more than half in the next six years to 375 million. The impact of more storms, floods and droughts could overwhelm aid organisations.
Just imagine the impact of fat people having too much sex! Randy Newman should write a song.

Labels:

9 Comments:

At April 20, 2009 , Blogger Unknown said...

If this is for real, rather than a joke, we're done for with such geniuses running around loose and allowed to talk.

Yes a monastic lifestyle -- for idiots -- would improve conditions markedly by reducing the number of other idiots they would otherwise produce.

Somehow Earth survived the dinosaurs, but now it can't handle fat people. Do they want to get rid of every animal, human and otherwise, that weighs more than whoever dreamed this up?

How can fat people drive more? Wouldn't they be unable to fit behind a steering wheel? Thus shouldn't everyone be encouraged to be too fat to drive? That would deepen the human footprint, but reduce the carbon footprint.

Well they're going to have to kill all the dogs now; they pant don't they. No more horse races or allowing horses to breathe heavily through their noses. What about blowing out birthday candles? Is that why they want futile care for old people, before they get too many candles on their birthday cakes?

 
At April 20, 2009 , Blogger HistoryWriter said...

If overweight people consume a "disproportionate share" of anything it's probably medical resources --- obesity being related to so many serious health disorders, such as heart disease, stroke and diabetes. Now there's an interesting problem for an ethicist (forgive me if I've raised this before; it might have been in another forum). You may recall that a few years ago Micky Mantle moved to the head of a liver transplant list after having destroyed his own liver because of alcoholism. When critics pointed out that Mr. Mantle had perhaps less of a claim to a liver replacement than someone who had, say, contracted an innocent case of Hepatitis C, the justification was that they just happened to have a good tissue match. He died a few months later anyway. What's your take on this, Wesley? Should the suppliers of organs for which there is more demand than supply hold potential donees responsible for bringing about their own misfortune --- contributory negligence, so to speak; or should they turn a blind eye to circumstance and use the old barber shop methodology of "first come, first served"?

 
At April 20, 2009 , Blogger SAFEpres said...

This story is so bizarre that I expected you to reveal that it was from the Onion or some other farcical source. Ha ha ha ha ha...

 
At April 20, 2009 , Blogger Deborah said...

Hey, has anybody told Al Gore yet about the whole fat people thing? He's not exactly, uh, looking trim these days. Just sayin'.

And yeah, I'm with SAFEpres, I was expecting this to be something out of The Onion! So where's the real article on that?

 
At April 21, 2009 , Blogger Don Nelson said...

If this catches on it's the end of many of our freedoms, like how we travel and how and what we eat, the size of our homes, where we live, how may kids we have and etc. Green/Global warming religion is developing its own set of morals and its fundmentalists are coming to the fore. A human's morality will shift to how much CO2 we emit and etc. I'm going to guess that moral relativism will not be tolerated when it comes to challenging the moral orthodoxy of the green movement.

 
At April 21, 2009 , Blogger Unknown said...

HW:

I'm not Wesley, but I'll do my best to respond to your question. I would not support lifestyle or morality testing for organ recipients, or anything much besides length of time on a waiting list and perhaps an actuarial adjustment based on projected years of life after the transplant.

While I can sympathize with some of the desire that more "deserving" recipients receive organs, any time you inject a subjective choice like this into the process, you bring in politics and plenty more besides sober ethical judgement. Would HIV-positive potential recipients be penalized because they had a disease caused largely by risky behavior? Would fat people be moved down the list for corneal and other organ donations that don't have obesity-associated risk factors? The whole thing would be a mess. Better to leave subjective factors out of the decision-making altogether.

 
At April 22, 2009 , Blogger Dark Swan said...

Randy Newman should write a song.


A fat man lying naked on the bed...

LOL

 
At April 24, 2009 , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is this true? Seriously I cannot believe that is a scientist's conclusion...

 
At April 24, 2009 , Blogger Wesley J. Smith said...

To be clear, the sex part is a parody I made up. The overweight part is real.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home