You ever come across raccoons in the outdoor trash can at 11:30 or so at night? As soon as they're exposed by the beam of the flashlight (by the way, how much CO2 does the beam of a flashlight put into the atmosphere?), they turn on you with fangs and paws and let you know what follows will be a short conversation with very little talking involved.Meanwhile, Al Gore – busy man that he is - couldn’t find time (again) to debate climate change.
Currently, climate scientists are raccoons hip-deep in statistical garbage and you should approach them with caution because they are unarmed (with facts) and dangerous.
The folks at Demand Debate have spared Al the effort by producing a video in which his assertions are juxtaposed with the responses of actual climate scientists.
The video of Al is from his movie, and I confess, it's the first time I've seen any of it. Kind of hilarious, really. Gore reveals himself to be a rube who's amazed by all the newfangled science these perfessers have come up with; "Gawrsh, Mickey, whut'll they think of next? Hyuck!" What is obviously lacking is the ability to weigh and discriminate - an ability not likely to be cultivated by a man who has already invested his prestige in a particular outcome, and who is profiting handsomely from the widespread acceptance of his views.
Al Gore's vision is just the latest reincarnation of Lysenkoism, and poses the same threat to freedom that politicized science in the service of statist ideologues always poses.
Update: Andrea Harris has a succinct description of the EPA's recent declaration of marshal law in the realm of carbon dioxide.
Update II: Oh, BTW; why has the EPA placed an order for forty Glock G-19's? (H/T: Dad 29)
There comes a point where stupidity is actually harmful, and persistent stupidity becomes malicious. The AGW crowd is long past that point.
ReplyDeleteI ran into the same thing Friday night. A Truther rally has started up on the same corner our lefties usually use in Studio City: one group shows up, leaves, and the other moves in.
One of the idiot Truthers came over to proselytize. The last science class he took was in the 8th grade ("But it was an AP class!") but he was absolutely convinced the Truther science 'felt right' to him, and therefore had to be true.
He also believed the Towers were brought down by a conpsiracy between the CIA, Mossad, and MI6 to 'demonize' the Arab world. He was at a loss to explain why they would put together such a complex plan and then be incapable of planting any WMD's to be found when we went into Iraq, but it didn't slow him down...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteStupidity and insanity are sometimes hard to tell apart. Such as in this case.
ReplyDeleteI deleted what appeared to be some kind of spam comment.
ReplyDeleteAs to the story in my post, I think Richard's previous comment applies here: the Democratic Party is a criminal enterprise.
A criminal enterprise! Isn't that somewhat strong? Granted their new website is RICO.org, but still.
ReplyDeleteEven in the face of shameless lefty power-grabs, I don't think America is on the brink of civil war. Of course, we're only one year into the presidency of the Worst And Most Bolshevik Of Congresses And Presidents Ever, so I could be wrong.
ReplyDelete(Actually, I pray that I'm not, and that we'll do our usual thing and gig the miscreants with our votes, starting next year.)
RE: Update II. People don't carry firearms unless they intend to be shooting. I know that EPA has warrant authority (goes back a long ways), but this is scary -- why should the EPA be an ARMED agency?
ReplyDeleteAnd, no, the Second Amendment doesn't apply to government agencies. It applies to CITIZENS. I don't object to law enforcement agencies being armed, so long as the scales are balanced. But the EPA enforces environmental laws. For them, "enforcement" means a laboratory. If they are going into a tight situation, they can get the Federal Marshall or FBI to assist them.
And just handing someone a firearm for official use is NOT a good idea. Been there, done that. I hope those EPA employees packing heat learn how to handle their weapons.
Also -- why only 40 Glock 19s? The EPA is much larger than that. That's not even 1 per state. What is this, a test? If no one shoots themselves or a co-worker accidentally, the agency will upgrade to MP5s?
May not be a big deal (may not be, that is). The EPA, no doubt, has criminal investigators on its staff, and those folks are usually permitted to carry weapons. But, as the saying goes, I question the timing...
ReplyDeleteLots of agencies have unarmed criminal investigators, Paco. As you say, the timing is key here.
ReplyDeleteJeffS -- Look at the bright side... an armed EPA staffer waving a hair-trigger Glock around a chemical plant is pretty much the definition of a self-correcting problem.
ReplyDeleteUnless then Glocks are for raiding yard sales.
But,but,but don't we have an ammo shortage?
ReplyDeleteObama did say that the EPA was about to institute "command and control measures", didn't he?
Considering the level of aptitude in this administration, if they start sending investigators from every government soup agency around with guns, I say, hey, free guns...
ReplyDeleteExcellent point, Richard!
ReplyDelete