The message is that people care more about non-damaging vandalism to famous objects than they do about climate change which will cause irreparable damage to many of these same objects, be it through hazardous weather, rising seas, or global conflict.
Well the message is wrong. People care about both. These clods think vandalizing museums is some kind of magical incantation to energize the anti-big-oil . . . what, legislation? Consumer habits?
The message is that people care more about non-damaging vandalism to famous objects than they do about climate change which will cause irreparable damage to many of these same objects, be it through hazardous weather, rising seas, or global conflict.
Well the message is wrong. People care about both. These clods think vandalizing museums is some kind of magical incantation to energize the anti-big-oil . . . what, legislation? Consumer habits?
How did they come to such a conclusion anyway?
Not exactly a great message in terms of optics. Usually a bad idea to insult your audience