I wish I were as funny as I think I am. But hey! A million starving comedians and I'm giving it away for free. NO REFUNDS!!!
Global Warming Summit is a bit ironic as, rather than advancing upwards (towards a summit) the polys are determined to devo our industries back to Fred Flintstone levels.
Freddy boy, like Global Warming, is a made up thing. No one really believes in Fred Flintstone, either.
Speaking of funny-people who believe as I do are sneered at by the intelligentsia liberamuses ( I had to resort to Latin so as not to speak the unspeakable and thus get kicked off of Facebook) who themselves may not be convinced that Global Warming exists, but
"IF CONSERVATIVES SAY IT IS FAKE I MUST DECLARE IT TRUE! They're not allowed to be right about anything, or else my whole world caves in!"
So, since Al Gore began Global Warning (see what I did there?), what has changed?
Nothing concerning weather, which moves through seasons approximately four times a year, just as it has since Noah left the Ark. What else? HHhhmmmmm?
Oh yeah. Thanks to his Carbon Credit scheme, Al Gore is a lot wealthier. If he gets any richer, maybe becoming one of the 1%...watch! Just watch! As Gore proceeds to give away 90% of his fortune to the poor.
See? I AM as funny as I think I am!
10 comments:
You will die before you see any change in the weather due to Global Warming. Because it is a made up scheme for profit.
How do I know this?
If it were true, it would be recognized globally rather than only by the Liberals infesting each country.
Really, have you seen how rich Al Gore has become? Nope. Because he made his pile and has retired from politics. No politics, so no one sees the books.
Like Dora, he's not so dumb. Clap your hands if you get that reference.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TEC_FACEBOOK_BABY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-12-01-16-55-21
See? Zuck the Magnanimous is parting with 99% of his money-and I wrote suggesting Gore do the same before I saw that article. Life is funny without a punchline.
I dare you to read this. Not that it will change your mind, which you have padlocked, nailed, and glued shut and then shrink-wrapped and moved to a secure undisclosed location known only to Rush Limbaugh, but it's the truth. It doesn't matter how many people believe it's false, or how much money Al Gore has. What's true is true, and what's real is real.
Sure, Lu-but it is an embarrassment-I'm going to point out a few of the mistakes, yust for fun.
"O.K., I know the reaction of many readers: How partisan! How over the top! But what I said is, in fact, the obvious truth."
Obvious truth? If it were obvious truth, there would be agreement instead of conflict. If it is only OBVIOUS to one political party...then it is not obvious. This isn't a case of Repub/Conservatives are dimwits and only Liberals are smart enough to see the obvious. There are intellectual giants on both sides.
"And the inability of our news media, our pundits and our political establishment in general to face up to that truth is an important contributing factor to the danger we face."
News media, Liberal pundits and Liberal political establishment are unable to convince anyone due to the quality of what they are attempting to sell. No one's buying.
"Anyone who follows U.S. political debates on the environment knows that Republican politicians overwhelmingly oppose any action to limit emissions of greenhouse gases, and that the great majority reject the scientific consensus on climate change. Last year PolitiFact could find only eight Republicans in Congress, out of 278 in the caucus, who had made on-the-record comments accepting the reality of man-made global warming. And most of the contenders for the Republican presidential nomination are solidly in the anti-science camp."
This one is always fun to rip apart. Scientific method involves examining evidence and testing hypotheses, coming to conclusions based on being able to recreate results in a controlled environment.
Consensus is not proof, consensus does not follow the scientific method, and is actually 'voting' on a theory.
So, who exactly is in the "anti-science camp"? It would be the ones on your side who wish to push their agenda without proof, evidence.
As I am reading your rhetoric, I double dare you to watch/read the links about climate (number 2 on this fine list) and respond....If you Dare!
http://louderwithcrowder.com/top-five-conservative-comebacks-to-your-liberal-friends-on-thanksgiving/
Back to our show.
"What people may not realize, however, is how extraordinary the G.O.P.’s wall of denial is, both in the U.S. context and on the global scene."
This is what I was talking about whereas Liberals may click their heels together to keep Tinkerbell alive and warn the WORLD about climate change...BUT locally and globally those not drinking your kool aid aren't accepting your conclusions. You can guess who I think is hiding behind a 'wall of denial'. Hint-mirror.
"And they do all they can to harass and intimidate individual scientists." Did you read/watch the Crowder link above? We don't have to harass anyone to convince them of our beliefs. That is Liberal tactic number 7. Also, if you haven't noticed, most of the researchers can't be intimidated by US, as much of their work takes place at colleges and universities. Who holds most of those? Yup. Y'all.
Some poor shlub professor is told that his tenure could evaporate if he doesn't toe the Liberal line, declaring Climate Change the greatest threat that blah blah blah.
I'm going to start another comment, as I don't want this one to cut off.
Aaaaand we're back!
"And U.S. Republicans are unique in refusing to accept that there is even a problem. Unfortunately, given the importance of the United States, the extremism of one party in one country has enormous global implications."
I totally agree with that last statement! The extremism of the Democratic party led by President Obama has enormous global implications.
Our foreign policy has failed so miserably under President Obama that no-one takes us seriously. I'll be developing this idea in a post soon.
"But in most countries — actually, everywhere except America and Australia — these parties nonetheless support measures to limit emissions." Mom! Everyone else is doing it!
Support measures to limit emissions why? Because they are convinced that global warming is real, or they have been heckled by your team, which screams bloody murder and "We're all doomed IF YOU DON'T DO SOMETHING!!!!!"
Also, don't forget about the carbon credits swindle. Algore set in motion penalties for excess CO2 emissions by countries.
Russia and China JUMPED AT the idea, as they have such wide expanse of land vs population, which is how the carbon credits were assessed-not only did they have no penalty, but they found a market for their carbon credits, making money off of more industrialized countries with less area. I'm doing this from memory, but that is the gist of the carbon credit swindle.
"More important, probably, is the denial inherent in the conventions of political journalism, which say that you must always portray the parties as symmetric — that any report on extreme positions taken by one side must be framed in a way that makes it sound as if both sides do it."
This paragraph is pure fantasy. Political journalism in this country NEVER portrays the parties as symmetric. Only Liberals say, "What liberal media bias? We may have 99% of media on our side, but Foxnews exists, so of course there is no liberal media bias! Balloonjuice.
"But I hope I’m wrong, and I’d urge everyone outside the climate-denial bubble to frankly acknowledge the awesome, terrifying reality."
Libs say, "Even though we can't prove it exists scientifically, even though only Liberals believe in it...you must accept what we believe because we have a perfect record of telling the truth!"
"We’re looking at a party that has turned its back on science at a time when doing so puts the very future of civilization at risk. That’s the truth, and it needs to be faced head-on." Scare tactics don't work, Lu. Neither does using "Climate change denier" as a pejorative. It's my realist badge of honor.
In case it got lost in the brilliance above:
http://louderwithcrowder.com/top-five-conservative-comebacks-to-your-liberal-friends-on-thanksgiving/
diss or discuss
I read the Crowder post and the linked posts, a whole cherry pie's worth of quotes out of context.
This is a fairly pointless argument, however, as you haven't even pulled out your big guns 1) climate change is a giant hoax perpetrated by scientists desperate for government money 2) even if it's not, God's going to come back and fix it anyway, so why bother? So I won't link the article I was going to link that has all the links in it to the scientific data. If for some strange reason you want it, google climate change scientific evidence. (Please tell me you don't read Kevin Drum. I'd have to adjust my whole Weltanschauung.)
Let's move on to something almost as scary. What chance do you give Donald Trump of winning the Republican nomination? The consensus (there's that word again) among electoral statisticians is that his odds are still less than one in five. I dunno: he still doesn't have majority support, but the support he does have is entirely unmoved by anything he says or does.
Hi Lucia. I've never heard of Kevin Drum.
"climate change is a giant hoax perpetrated by scientists desperate for government money."
Never said it, and I don't think it. You have the cartage before the donkeyage. Meaning that it was Democrats seeking some issue to champion that thought up climate change.
A perfect issue-they can act all brave and heroic and anyone who calls them on it can be characterized as a fool.
No-the fools are those of you on the Left who accept their argument.
I was just going 'round and round' with a buddy on Facebook regarding what would happen if (when?) the arctic and antarctic ice DID melt. Hint-even smart guys can succumb to dumb arguments which violate the laws of physics.
"What chance do you give Donald Trump of winning the Republican nomination?"
One thing I learned in Vegas was to never make prop bets. But I can tell you that I don't think he will be the nominee. I think this has been a gigantic (Trump-sized) ego trip for him, and he wouldn't be interested in actually taking the job. I think he was bored and decided to run just to promote his brand.
Who would be my first actual choice? Cruz, followed by Carson. I give Cruz the edge because he is actually a politician who has won races; he has also been in Washington long enough to know how things work there. Carson is a very good man, but I don't know if he is politically savvy enough to get things done. That town is twisted. And it warps and twists some who go there with all the best intentions.
Kevin Drum is a liberal political blogger with a somewhat odd way of analyzing the issues of the day, which is one reason I enjoy his writing. He wrote a post recently entitled, "Why are University Professors Such Schlubs?", which is why I asked if you read him. Just a coincidence, nothing to see, move on. But you might enjoy (no sarcasm, really) this post about Trump. Drum's theory, which at least started out being mostly tongue in cheek, is that Trump is trying, possibly on a bet, to see just how out there he can get without losing the fervid base. The answer so far seems to be that he still has room to roam.
Ben Carson is undoubtedly bright -- morons don't become brain surgeons -- but he has, shall we say, an unorthodox view of how the world works, no understanding at all of public policy (either domestic or foreign), and some truly crackpot views (the Egyptian pyramids were built to store grain, for one example). I agree with you (!) that he'd be unlikely to get much done.
Ted Cruz is a pure far-right ideologue, Christian variety, so I'm not surprised he's your first choice. He doesn't scare me as much as Rubio, whom the media persistently insist on viewing as a "moderate." I think Cruz, who seems to be shrewdly using Trump's outrages to position himself as the "middle way" between Trump/Carson and Rubio/Bush, would lose badly in the general election, though not as badly as Trump or Carson.
There have been rumors of a big story about to pop on Rubio's mistress(es) and/or worse-than-yet-reported financial shenanigans, but it may well be just smoke and mirrors from the Bush team. And speaking of Bush, why doesn't anyone like him? He checks all the boxes, yet his campaign is on life support.
Aaaaand the response I crafted last night is lost in the haze.
Recapping:
If you were to ask Carson about the Egypt quote, he'd probably say, "Yup, I was wrong, and know better now." But that won't stop you from using it to show how much of a crack-pot he is in your estimation. Stay relevant, Lu.
Hilclinton will never be President-too unlikable, too much baggage, too many negatives.
She hasn't "earned it" and this isn't "her time". She may 'do time' when this is all over.
Bernie isn't qualified but he is, as my Brit friends say, "Certifiable". As in insane.
He's so far Left that he makes President Obama look like a Republican which may play well among Dems, but won't fly with the rest of the country. We need Leadership, not Leftmanship. Or Leftneutralgendership.
So, right now, my dream ticket would be Cruz/Carson. Carson would have opportunity to learn the ropes regarding Washington, and I think their admin would benefit America and the world.
See you in the funny papers. Every time the Pats lose an angel gets its wings.
Post a Comment