Political Humor

Frequenter Commenter Eric offers up this political piece. Let’s give it a warm welcome.

The immortal words of John Galt;

I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live my life for the sake of another man nor ask another man to live for mine . (Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged)

We start with Senator Snowe and her capitulation on healthcare, which she said was “off the table” without the public option. SHOCKER! Democrats leave it out to get her vote. The superior enemy will promise anything you ask long enough for you to surrender, particularly when you tell them the conditions of your surrendering.

On to the former Senate President having debate cut off on a debater trying to debate his un-debatable golden egg laying goose about which the debate has been over for some time. The news of “global warming”(read cold and snowfall) breaking records all over the Northern Hemisphere earlier than ever recorded this year which is something you won’t see in the mass media, but that doesn’t take away the fact that it is occurring.

On one hand you have a squishy go along to get along don’t vote me out surrender professional (RINO), on the other hand you have a do not question me I am superior to you send me money professional flatulator (liberal).

See the connection? They both ask others to live for their sake and refuse to give anything in return.

The BBC reports that Global Warming died a horrible, embarrassing death in 1998. Since that time, the Earth has “unexpectedly” cooled. According to the report:

For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

How utterly shocking! It’s almost as if the Global Warming Hysteria agenda was a purely political movement, contrived to inflict fear in the general public and allow worldwide governments to pass legislation designed to limit the liberties of their citizens.

Let’s analyze. Since this is one of AlGore’s pet projects, we’ll transform one of his own speeches. Carbon dioxide has gone UP! Temperatures have gone DOWN!

Here’s a key statement “Our climate models did not forecast it.” Let’s see, who here could have predicted that the computer model predicting the weather could have possibly been wrong? Anyone.

Oooh! Oooh! Pick me! And what did I get for my efforts? In my Facts on Global Warming post, the enlightened “Cynthia” had this to say:

Wow, you are a moron my friend. That’s ok though one day you will look back at this post and say oops… oh well my bad!

Oops isn’t exactly the word coming to mind right at the moment. What else is there? “Tiago” says

everyone who said global warming is a hoax and especially whoever wrote this article…you are all a bunch of drooling morons

Let me get you a towel to wipe up that drool, my friend. Thankfully “Informed Reader” was impervious to the media propaganda and had these sage words to say

Well, all I have to say is this author is a complete idiot. I would wager a guess to say they never graduated from college as well seeing as he does not have to ability to look at facts and see them for what they are.

Or not. Hey, did you know that Einstein was kicked out of school for asking too many questions? Clearly the man was an idiot.

We even had a special appearance by “Guy Who Knows More Than The Author.” I’d quote him, but he had to get back on the short bus and go home.

Thousands of years ago, Nug Nug looked at the sky and said “Big ball of fire in sky make hot.” They didn’t even have a word for “science” yet, and still Nug Nug had his scientific method down far better than the so-called “Scientists” of today.

Back to the BBC article.

Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth’s warmth comes from the Sun.

Wow! 98% huh? That’s almost ALL of it. Yet, still the priesthood of the New Religion of Global Warming Hysteria claim that, and I quote, “Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can’t have been caused by solar activity.” Now that’s incredible, as in the opposite of credible. What did this guy get his degree in? 12th Century Japanese Poetry?

Fortunately, the BBC has the good mind to make sure we all know that there is some renegade out there questioning the general consensus. He’s probably the next unabomber or something based on the introduction he received.

But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.

Just a single, solitary scientist questions the veracity of man made global warming. A lone gunman, if you will. Thankfully he’s the only one, right?

He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.

Nug Nug, is that you? Let’s recap, the Sun generates 98% of the Earth’s heat, which is almost all of it, and this guy wants us to believe that “solar charged particles” are responsible for almost all of the Earth’s heat? Like, maybe 98%? Put the guy in a mental institution! “Guy who knows more than the Author” said he’s an idiot. And you know that’s a credible source.

We were force fed a steady diet of global warming propaganda on the basis of a scientific model that failed to produce accurate predictions. I thought that a model that didn’t make accurate predictions meant that the hypothesis was wrong. What does ScienceBuddies have to say about the scientific method?
See that part where it says “Hypothesis is false or partially true.” It seems to me that it winds up circling back around to “Construct new hypothesis.”

Big ball of fire in sky make hot. Nug Nug’s hypothesis still holds true, even after tens of thousands of years.

Perhaps it’s time we finally gave The Great Global Warming Hoax it’s eulogy. Offer your eulogy in the comments section.

On my facts about global warming faq, a lot of people stop by and tell me what a moron I am for daring to be skeptical about the hysteria of man made global warming/climate change. I’m not sure what about man-made climate change nee global warming is factually apparent and indisputable, thereby making me a moron for not adhering to the cult of global warming hysteria.

There is an enormous nuclear reactor that does more to affect the climate than anything we will ever do. Ancient humans were smart enough to figure out that the giant fireball in the sky had a powerful influence. In fact, many civilizations worshiped it as a god. Now, our supposedly advanced civilization is too stupid to realize the giant fireball in the sky has a power that dwarfs us, and it even dwarfs our planet.

Studies show that the people who are least competent tend to be the people most confident in their abilities. Those who are most competent tend to feel as if they are not meeting their full potential. There are also sayings such as the more I learn, the more questions I have. In other words, the smartest guy in the room is the one that has a few questions. So I have a few questions about the validity of man made global warming. That would seem to indicate that I am the smart one here. The morons are the ones that are unquestionably confident in their views.

Image: Global Warming – The Evidence

Questions about global warming/climate change

If global warming is real, is it provably caused by humans? What is the scientific method for indisputably proving that humans are the cause? What is the control group?

Is global warming provably bad? If global warming is real, and is caused by humans, can it be proven that this is somehow bad? More varieties of life thrives in warmer climates than in colder ones. This is why areas with seasonal climates are blooming with life in summer and much more barren in winter.

This is why animals migrate towards the equator in that hemisphere’s winter season. This is why the rain forest has more species of life than we can count, and the polar regions are fairly desolate. It seems to me that global warming is good for nearly all species of life. Its global cooling (what we were hysterical about in the 70s) that would be disastrous.

If humans can cause climate change, then what is the optimal average global temperature we should shoot for? if we have the ability to control the weather, why wouldn’t we aim for the optimal average global temperature?

Why is the baseline for measuring global warming a period of time between 1961-1990? Does that time period represent the optimal average global temperature?

How does one calculate an average global temperature? How is each data center weighted to calculate an average? Are all data centers weighted equally. What data points throughout the year are counted in calculating the average? Is it a quarterly measurement, daily, weekly, hourly? How does this compare to the frequency of past measurements?

Have the number of data centers changed over the course of time? How does adding a new data center affect the average? Are measurement techniques consistent?

Has the equipment used to take measurements changed? Newer measuring devices are more accurate than old ones. What is the margin of error?

Why do all solutions for global warming/climate change involve taxes, rationing, and government regulation? No proposed solutions seem consistent with advancement of society and technology. All seem directed towards regression.

Why is it that a few decades ago we were hysterical over cooling, then we were fearing warming, and now it is a more generic “climate change” that we’re supposed to be worried about? Why the lack of consistency in rhetoric?

We hear about CO2 as a major “greenhouse gas.” What about water vapor? Isn’t that a bigger contributor? If a proposed technology creates water vapor as an output instead of CO2, how is that an improvement?

Image: Combating Global Warming Map

If anyone here can give a coherent answer to all of these questions, I’m open to reducing, or even eliminating my skepticism.