Howeird Is That?

I have uncovered some very unfortunate evidence that the greatest "real science" website in the history of mankind (according to its visitors) has been infiltrated and overrun by leftist environmental greenish scum. I have tried all the usual things to try to make this discovery go away (including ignoring it, plugging my ears and saying "blahblahblahblahblah" for a very long time, pouring boiling water onto my crouch region to try to wake up from what I'd hoped was just a nightmare, and closing my eyes really tightly for as long as I could), but every time I looked, the evidence was still there.

The proof is in the environmental pudding all over the comments for a story on Watt's Up. The educational/research website's ruler and greatest scientist in the history of the internet (as determined by my own blog poll), Dr. Anthony Watts, appears complicit in the scandal, evidenced by the very fact that he has not censored these subversive comments and excommunicated the commenters or worse, which would certainly be justified.

Read the comments yourself if you have a strong stomach. It is full of environmentalist commies who are lamenting the environmental cost of letting an icebreaker sail to the north pole, breaking up the last of whatever ice is still there. I find these objections repulsive, as it is every captain's god-given right to drive his boat wherever the hell he wants to, whether on land or sea or ice.

It is true that the far north is a pure untouched and clean indicator of mankind's complete lack of effect on the environment, and traipsing about it destroying it all makes that a little harder to see. It's certainly easier to realize that mankind has no effect on the north when we're not even nearby and it's out of sight, but when we're there and actually breaking it all up and you can see it (unlike invisible trace gases), it makes it easier for stupid leftists to mistakenly think we're having an impact. When you see a picture of the open-water wake of an icebreaker stretching across the entirety of the millions of square miles of the arctic, it can confuse even the right.

But folks, it's easy to see that the environmental viewpoint is wrong and an imbecile. First, God would not provide for us all the resources that are eagerly waiting to be exploited there, along with a means of getting around, if He was just going to make it so fragile that it could be destroyed by the simple act of exploiting it. Second, the very fact that arctic sea ice is actually on the rise proves that God has a way to stitch up the ice after we've gone. I'm not saying I know how He does it, just that after we're gone, I can tell you that that ice is going to get stitched up. Perhaps this is what the residents of the north pole do during the summer.

---

However, the commenters do have one point: The scientists have now completely destroyed the only important and unbiased environmental indicator that was proof that global warming wasn't happening. So now, folks, if all the ice melts, remember that it's due to icebreakers not global warming, and it's certainly not anthropogenic.

And I have to say I agree that while mankind's activities have no effect on the environment and that we should be doing whatever we want with our land (and also international waters and also other countries' land), we must be careful and delicate in dealing with any sensitive environments that are providing evidence in agreement with our side.

Let this be a lesson folks. You just can't trust a science website, not even Dr. Watts'. Even if it's been posting the correct scientific views for quite some time, it's still science, and will stab you in the back first chance it gets.

New Zealand is completely buried in a once-in-an-eon snowfall, which proves that the global temperature is below freezing there, despite all AGW predictions that NZ should instead be experiencing fiery rains of boiling water and sulfur.

I'd like to hear Al Gore try to explain how global warming can lead to increased chance of weather events like this one. You can't explain that. If he did though, I'd plug my ears, because I refuse to listen to that man. He has just lost all credit, in my opinion, due to the unending barrage of skeptics refusing to listen to what he has to say. I just can't bring myself to listen to someone who has been so thoroughly discredited in that way. In all the time that I've been ignoring him, I'm not aware of one single thing he's said that could make me change my mind.

I was standing at the bus stop the other day (I like to take the bus because it's one of the biggest vehicles on the road and thus the safest. I'm taking the bus while saving up for a semi truck, which will be more convenient than waiting for the bus, for short trips to the corner store etc).

I was wearing my winter jacket and sweating profusely, while minding my own business trying to beat the heat, when I was accosted by a militant liberal (who was taking the bus for completely different reasons than I was, I can assure you) for running my portable A/C unit at full tilt. Being the open-minded person that I am, I tried to argue some sense into this obvious idiot (you can tell by the way he looked), instead of simply pepper-spraying him like an average person ought to do.

This liberal tried to distort the facts by suggesting that it might help for me to not be wearing a winter jacket in the summer. I was dumbfounded. "Haven't you read my blog?", I asked. "I've already proven that wearing a winter jacket does not add any heat to a terrestrial body."

"No," he replied. "Who are you?"

I was again dumbfounded, before even fully recovering from the first one. I literally staggered, partly from the effect of the layered dumbfoundery, and partly I suppose from the dizzying heat of the sun heating the Earth all by itself with no help from trace gasses.

I felt it was my duty to enlighten this misguided fool. I outlined the same arguments that I've described in this blog and which I've repeated ad nauseum in forums and various internets. I explained the chemistry of winter jacket material (it is fairly inert). I unzipped my coat to show that there were no heating elements in it. I wasn't concealing a campfire or a toaster. I took quite a bit of time to explain this all clearly and simply. I don't know how I could have made it any dumber for this guy to understand. Yet, wouldn'tcha know it folks, this waxy-eared leftist simply refused to listen to reason. I pointed out several times to this guy that he was a jerk for not getting it.

"Quit following me!" he cried. Typical of the left, isn't it? When they're beaten in an argument they immediately change the subject and start with the personal attacks.

Exhausted, and sad that there are people out there who won't let their opinions be corrected (even when I beat them over the head with the correct ones), and also having ended up in a strange part of town, I began walking in a daze toward home. Thankfully I must have passed out, as I woke up some time later and found myself in a refreshingly cool puddle of water on the side of the road. Luckily, I refuse to buy gore-tex (for obvious reasons) and the cool water had soaked right through my heavy coat.

Folks, it would simply be foolish of me to stop wearing the coat and buy a whole new wardrobe, when there is no evidence of the preposterous claim that summer heat is caused entirely by winter jackets. I had been wearing my coat all winter long; it's not like I can just change the way I dress to fit the changing seasons. That would take too much effort. We can't just change our lifestyles to fit our environments. We must be steadfast and live true to our way of life no matter how uncomfortable or hard it becomes. This is a sign of strength and it is the American way. No one can take away my way of life, no matter what are the horrific costs of keeping it. To change course now indicates weakness of the mind, of the soul, and of the wrist. It is essentially surrendering to the terrorists and the poor.

Regardless, it hasn't even been shown with 100% consensus that losing the coat would magically cool anything down. This is clearly a scheme of the left-wing summer clothes retailers to make a quick buck selling cooler clothes while purposefully ignoring the winter jacket blogscience and misleading the public about it.

Besides, summer's half over. It might be too late to do anything about it now.

Not much going on these days with the climates. Remember folks, flooding and tornadoes and wildfire hurricanes and swarms of frogs and your tires melting are all just good old plain completely normal weather. Any record hot temperatures every day are because it's summer -- it's supposed to be hot! Don't forget that just a few months ago, it was pretty cold, and if you remember correctly you'll recall that it was pretty significant news on the climate sites all winter. The scientists have no explanation for the kinda cold winter other than the tired old "predicted effect of climate change" nonsense. Be strong, skeptics. Remember the snow! Even if the weather's hot, the climate's still cold under all that! It's due to the coming ice age.

I'll be sure to update the arctic sea ice page sometime in the next 8-10 months. My prediction is that come February, it will be even thicker then than it is now. I also predict snow for next winter (a sure sign of global cooling -- each snowflake is a delicate, beautiful, and unique nail in the AGW coffin).

Senator Claire McCaskill wants to end oil subsidies. I'm dumbfounded and disappointed. Why is it always that the Dems seem to have everything backwards and are always high on glue?

Madam senator, have you not been reading my blog with your eyes open? If you had been paying attention, you would see that it's government money going to the windmills that is the problem, not oil. Oil subsidies are an integral part of keeping the oil industry happy. Are you anti-industry, madam senator? In this country, we appreciate capitalism, and we frown upon communism, murder, and rape. There is nothing more capitalism than the big oil companies. How could you possibly be against that? You're not pro-murder too, are you??? It is simply unbelievable to me that any Dem senator who is pro-murder could remain in power. How do brainless pro-murder Dems expect a truly capitalist company to survive in this day and age without government handouts?

Madam senator, are you trying to make all Americans equally poor? Oil companies are successful because government subsidies keep them afloat and highly profitable. Are you against success, madam senator? Success is as much a part of America as winning wars, defeating the French, and baseballs. It would seem that you want to see an America where all of us are poor, because you can't seem to stand seeing anyone get ahead on their own through the blessing of the government. You feel that success deserves to be punished, by making those who achieve it to suffer with the same government treatment as the unsuccessful, the worthless, the poor. How can someone who is wealthy because of subsidies stay wealthy if you stop giving them money? This is nothing but anti-wealthy politics, and it's un-American. You probably just want to greedily keep that money for yourself, so that you can give it away to the greedy money-lusting wind industry and the less fortunate, while keeping it away from the entrepreneurial, go-getting oilmen.

What will happen if you cut off this vital source of income to the oil industry? The oil companies, well accustomed to a lavish life of high profits, aren't going to simply adapt to a new life of poverty. They will require an additional source of income to make up for it. Where will they get it? From the American car-owning tax-payer, through even higher gas prices. Why should tax-payers be forced to pay for what the government refuses to shell out for? Subsidies are a small ransom that we would gladly have you pay on the behalf of all Americans, when compared to the looming threat the oil companies could easily make if you don't pay up.

Yes madam senator, a few billion dollars in subsidies is a small price to pay to keep the American dream propped up and to fight against the terror of expensive gas.

A lot of the chicken-littles are worried about "peak oil."

What is peak oil? Peak oil is the hypotheoretical day that the oil suddenly completely runs out (from the French "pique" which means "To cause to feel resentment or indignation", which is what the greenies expect to feel when we somehow magically use up all the oil). What a ridiculous proposition. Think about it, folks. One day there's all the oil we could ever want to use in a million lifetimes, and the next day it's suddenly all gone?! Where do they think it will go? Into thin air?! Idiots.

It's just not possible for us to use up all the oil. There are practically infinity barrels of the stuff. I've said it before and I'll say it again: It's simply impossible that humans can have any influence at all on the environment. Humans are just too small (on average only about 4 feet tall), and the world is just too big. Carbon dioxins, disappearing rainforests, polluted rivers and lakes and oceans, ever-increasing ratio of paved land -- these are all the result of natural processes. We couldn't harm the environment even if we tried a lot harder than we're trying now. Something small cannot have an effect on something big; that's just common sense logic, folks. It's like saying you could poison yourself with just one poison pill. It just doesn't happen. You have to eat the whole bottle.

Think about it, folks. Oil has been created under ground over billions of years. How can something that's been made for so long be used up in any imaginable amount of time? Imagine filling up your gas tank, but instead of spending 10 minutes pouring gas in, imagine spending a billion years pouring it in to the tank. That's literally a million times the amount of gas you usually get. That tank would be pretty damn full. You're not going to run out of gas any time soon! Nature has been pouring gas into the Earth's tank for billions of years, so it will probably take a few trillion years before we get through it all.

But wait a minute. The Earth made all that oil for us out of dead animals. If animals keep dying, nature keeps on making oil. That's why it's called a renewable resource. This is why the greenies want to save all the animals. If there are no more animals dying, there's no more oil being made, and then they get rich when dirty wind energy prices skyrocket and they make a killing on cash from congress. But animals dying is a natural process. So I say we keep killing all the animals we can. Then we never run out of oil, and the greenies' little investment scam doesn't pay off.

I don't know why the idiot scientist greenies just don't get it. It's scientifically impossible to run out of a renewable resource. By definition, all the used-up reserves of that resource get renewed. The more we use up oil, the more it's just going to be there again. It doesn't make sense to me why we haven't put an oil rig on each and every square foot of the planet... but I know why we haven't. It's because those money-grubbing greens have been reading a bit too much Richard Marx and can't stand the idea of patriotic American oil companies earning even a meager profit for their hard work. Go back to Russia, you commies! Stop trying to make an advantageous gain or return on your windmills, and let someone else earn an honest profit for a change.

Here's some proof that crude oil is "clean oil." In Naftalan, they soak in it! Yes, those lucky citizens in whatever country that is where congress clearly has their head in the right end, they get to bathe in the stuff.

bath
n. 1. a. The act of soaking or cleansing the body, as in water or steam.

And here's proof that CO² is clean:


I've looked at CO², which I obtained by breathing it out. Even using a magnifying glass, I could not see hardly any dirt in it.


But what about wind power?

Have you ever left a window open, and then later looked at the window sill? What's there? That's dirt! And where'd it come from? The wind! That's proof, folks! We nailed that coffin hard!


Case closed!!!