By As I have always said many of these global warming loons are mad but not even I thought they would get this crazy:
A seven-month-old baby girl survived three days alone with a bullet in her chest beside the bodies of her parents and toddler brother.
Argentines Francisco Lotero, 56, and Miriam Coletti, 23, shot their children before killing themselves after making an apparent suicide pact over fears about global warming.
Their son Francisco, two, died instantly after being hit in the back.
But their unnamed daughter cheated death after the bullet from her dad’s handgun missed her vital organs.
Paramedics rushed her to hospital covered in blood when police alerted by worried neighbours discovered the massacre three days later.
The youngster is recovering in hospital in the town of Goya in the northern Argentine province of Corrientes, where doctors say she is out of danger.
Her parents said they feared the effects of global warming in a suicide note discovered by police. [Daily Mail]
This case is tragic and hopefully this now orphaned girl will have a full recovery.
2:05 pm on March 2nd, 2010 1
Clearly, the parents' insanity is to blame, not those who argue that global warming is occurring.
3:08 pm on March 2nd, 2010 2
That's it, I quit. I am never going to read this blog again. You are off my google reader and I'm never coming back.
ROK Drop, I've been looking to you for timely and interesting posts about South Korea for over a year and since the Copenhagen Summit last year you have gone nuts on this issue.
I don't want to hear about crazy people in Argentina shooting their children in the chest FOR WHATEVER REASON. These people are mentally ill.
4:01 pm on March 2nd, 2010 3
Since when is using the death of children at the hands of their crazy parents to win an argument not wrong?
6:02 pm on March 2nd, 2010 4
See, this is why we can't have nice things…
8:07 pm on March 2nd, 2010 5
Before everyone gets carried away, you should know that the (London) Daily Mail is considered to be a tabloid newspaper prone to exaggerated and sensational reporting.
8:08 pm on March 2nd, 2010 6
It's apparently never wrong if you are leftist, enviro nut job, or Whale lover. Just like being gay, having an affair, cheating on taxes, or beating your wife is only wrong if you are right of center.
8:24 pm on March 2nd, 2010 7
That's too bad. It's a big shame.
Natural selection is supposed to put a halt to the perpetuation of faulty genes.
In this case, the system failed.
Well… I guess we will have to wait 20 years or so to see what kind of crazy comes about in the surviving generation…
…'cause this is a story about crazy more than it is a story about global warming.
In other news…
"from her dad’s handgun"
It's always a pleasure to see the media emphasize words like "handgun" and "semiautomatic"… though they have a long way to go before they get the bad connotations that "media" and "reporter" have.
…and did you catch the ages? Daddy was 56 and Mommy was 23.
Why'd ya do it, man? You were bangin' a 23 year-old!
8:39 pm on March 2nd, 2010 8
Here is a clear and reasonable posting that explains exactly why people believe so strongly in man-made global warming.
http://roksojourn.blogspot.com/2010/02/26-reasons…
8:40 pm on March 2nd, 2010 9
Let me first say that I disagree with the idea that the science of climate change is to blame for this insanity. But I'm still an avid reader of this blog. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and if we're all divided on an issue, then the scientific community needs to do a better job.
It's fair to say that some previously respectable scientists in positions of authority have misled the public and manipulated data. But don't you think it's a little extreme to then label everyone who conducts a study 'that supports the possibility of climate change' a lunatic? It's illogical to simply rule out every study ever conducted on the subject because some scientists published falsified data. You would have to individually rebutt thousands of published papers, or conclude that they all originated from the same conspiracy. It's possible that the truth is probably somewhere in the middle of the two sides. There is most likely a degree of conspiracy involving a number of scientists, and there are some others who have honestly published data suggesting climate change is real. But to look at some known examples of falsification and then assume that all of the rest must also be false, is unscientific.
Instead of saying that it's all false or it's all completely true, a third alternative is that perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle.
9:32 pm on March 2nd, 2010 10
"It’s apparently never wrong if you are leftist, enviro nut job, or Whale lover. Just like being gay, having an affair, cheating on taxes, or beating your wife is only wrong if you are right of center."
Dude, I drive a brand-spanking new SUV. The seats are finished in baby seal fur and it runs on whale oil (gets 3 miles per gallon).
9:48 pm on March 2nd, 2010 11
Sounds like a Dennis Leary song…I'm an A##****…
10:17 pm on March 2nd, 2010 12
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out Jacob. Geez, you are the guy who wished “a slow and painful death from cancer” for anyone who was skeptical of man-made climate change. Talk about mental illness!
Of course, it must be maddening to read something nearly everyday showing just how wrong you have been about the “settled science” of AGW.
Loser.
6:52 am on March 3rd, 2010 13
I hope Koreans don't get any ideas from this about Dokdo…
7:04 am on March 3rd, 2010 14
Lee, that’s about right I think. But here’s the thing…Jacob is hysterical about climate change, a real warming religious zealot. When I said something along the lines that the science was not as “settled” as some would like us to believe, he said he hoped I got cancer and died a slow and painful death.
So, it inspired me to quit smoking, but truthfully, who is the crazy one? And then he comes here and tries to take the moral high ground. I call bullshit on his sorry ass.
7:10 am on March 3rd, 2010 15
Or it could be that the truth is that Global Warming is a ploy to take over large segments of our economy and our freedoms under the guise of “saving the planet.” When our very breath is determined to be a “pollutant,” will it be too long before “we” have to be “reduced” to cut pollution emissions? Most of these folks aren’t scientists, they are communists in disguise. Science seeks the truth, regardless the outcome. These people have to hide the truth, and the outcome of everything becomes the proof. (Coldest winter on record? Global Warming!) They even had to change the name because the idea that we were causing the planet to get warmer became too rediculous to the common observer. Don’t forget the ICE AGE that Ted Dansen predicted in the 1980′s, perpetually only 20 years away, until he had to change it to GW, perpetually only 20 years away, and now back to cooling, with destruction still 20 years away. Time to kick these bums out.
7:31 am on March 3rd, 2010 16
There's been another subtle shift. Now it's just "Climate Change". Which can be anything they say it is.
9:38 am on March 3rd, 2010 17
Appreciated.
9:46 am on March 3rd, 2010 18
Well there hasn't really been a shift in the peer-reviewed journals, for example, Proceedings of the NAS). It has been referred to as climate change 'the majority of which is warming' for at least the past ten years. It depends what avenues the information is sourced from.
12:14 pm on March 3rd, 2010 19
I was loosely paraphrasing him, yes. Point is, I'm not an "enviro nut jub".
1:20 pm on March 3rd, 2010 20
Teadrinker it is interesting you make this comment because when I first read this story this is what immediately came to my mind:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVGGgncVq-4&featur…
So who is really using the death of children to promote their cause?
2:03 pm on March 3rd, 2010 21
It is not my fault that just about every day another eco-fraud is uncovered and judging by the amount of comments and page views the eco-fraud postings get on this site it is safe to assume that many other people are interested in this topic as well.
If you are not mature enough to handle opposing viewpoints that is your problem not mine.
2:42 pm on March 3rd, 2010 22
First of all I never called everyone who supports climate change lunatics. These people in the article are obviously nuts, but are people that want to change the color of the sky to appease their eco-faith nuts as well?:
http://www.news.com.au/climate-plan-could-change-…
Or how about those that want to evacuate entire continents?:
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/maude_the…
Or even cull the human race?:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/200…
These are all beliefs of leading members of the eco-faith.
Lee, since you are Australian I recommend reading some of the work of Professor David Lindenmayer. From his book he makes rationale arguments based off science that isn't based on scaremongering or advancing political agendas:
http://fennerschool.anu.edu.au/people/academics/l…
I will never forget while I was visiting Tasmania going to a private wildlife park where the older gentleman that owned the park was doing much research and conservation into the Tasmanian Devil facial tumor disease. This guy would run in marathons in a Tasmanian Devil suit to raise funding for his research and conservation activities. I remember him saying to me too bad he couldn't find a way to link the facial tumor to global warming to get government funding.
How many other people around the world are looking for anyway to link their cause to global warming as well in the name of funding?
I just think it is ridiculous when I see all these frauds out there getting millions of dollars in research grants to fudge statistics, hide data, publish fraudulent reports, and intimidate other scientists while this old guy in Tasmania is forced to run in marathons in a Tasmanian Devil suit to raise what little money he can get to help save one of the world's most unique animals.
9:04 pm on March 3rd, 2010 23
Good response…Enough Said.
10:35 pm on March 3rd, 2010 24
GI,
I won't even bother to click on that link. (I mean, come on. A tu quoque argument?)
11:57 pm on March 3rd, 2010 25
Teadrinker since you don't want to click the link though I suspect you have, let me describe it for you. For the Copenhagen conference the opening video was of man made climate change natural disasters killing children. So once again who is using the killing of children to promote their cause?
1:49 am on March 4th, 2010 26
Nope, couldn't be bothered, especially not now that I know that you were indeed attempting to a tu quoque argument. And to answer your question: I was asking a rhetorical question.
1:51 am on March 4th, 2010 27
Pardon the typos…It's getting late.
1:53 am on March 4th, 2010 28
Just so I've made myself perfectly clear, this is the rhetorical question I'm referring to:
"Since when is using the death of children at the hands of their crazy parents to win an argument not wrong?"
1:05 pm on March 4th, 2010 29
You seem to have a habit of making false claims of things I allegedly said, I never said one word that these loony parents are proof that AGW is a fraud.
3:00 pm on March 4th, 2010 30
Maybe, but it was implied.
In any case, the story is probably bunk since it's from the Daily Mail, a British middle-market tabloid.