More Fun With Gaseous Emissions

« December 2009 »
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
3
5
6
10
12
13
19
20
25
26
27

Memo to watchers of political discourse: A NEW DAY HAS DAWNED... AGAIN.

This is awesome. Truly awesome. One of the biggest problems of the past couple of decades is that political arguments are never settled. This is because there has been no clear agreement on what ends a debate and proves one side absolutely correct and the other side discredited, wrong, and no longer worthy of being listened to. I mean, just yesterday, Thomas Motherfucking Friedman was on The Daily Show, shaking off his rabid warmongering of the past eight years as an unfortunate over-reaction to 9/11, but certainly not something that should keep him from going on, say, The Daily Show.

But all that's about to change, thanks to a bunch of scientists and their e-mails. They call it "Climategate", because it involves climate change and has the hint of scandal and they're not, to put it mildly, all that bright. Anyway, what happened is this. Thousands of e-mails from climate scientists were found/stolen/hacked/whatever by climate change deniers. These e-mails included a few things that, when taken out of context, hint that not every single climate scientist in the universe is 100% forthright about the data and the findings.

This is enough to prove that man-made global warming is a hoax, a vast conspiracy fronted by Al Gore, and we should go on burning whatever the fuck we want to burn because those glaciers were going to melt anyway.

Now, on the surface, this SEEMS crazy. Moronic, even. Like the way the deniers have seized upon the word "trick" as if it had only one meaning - "to fool", as opposed to, say, a skateboarding trick, a magic trick, or when* James Inhofe pays a nineteen-year-old boy to have sex with him. But below the surface, the reaction to Climategate reveals an important new rule. Once evidence surfaces showing that someone involved in one side of a political argument has been untruthful, the other side wins. I mean, listen to how Okie retard Inhofe put it, even using his formal Senator language. ACTUAL QUOTE TIME!

"The recent disclosure of emails... raises a number of issues, including the following: 1) potential violations of federal and state information disclosure laws; 2) a possible conspiracy by scientists, some of whom receive or have received US taxpayer funds, to stifle open, transparent debate on the most pressing issues of climate science; 3) an apparent coordinated effort to distort and falsify data; and 4) the appearance of a campaign to vilify scientists who question global warming alarmism."

Bear in mind that out of thousands of e-mails, one guy said he had a trick, one guy talked about the peer review process, one guy talked about not having a handy explanation for short-term temperature trends, and one guy bitched about internal politics. And that's all Inhofe needed to declare victory over a bunch of lawbreaking conspiring scientists who want to vilify anyone who disagrees with them.

By this standard, the government can retroactively impeach, try, and imprison George W. Bush. We can break up all the large banks and have their CEOs fired, humiliated, and possibly imprisoned. And even better, we can go back and look at the metric tons of carbon-based bullshit the oil companies and Inhofe himself have spewed into the global warming debate since before Kyoto, declare man-made global warming the winner based on that, and eliminate Climategate itself, as if we'd built a time machine and shot its grandfather in the ball-sack.

It's a complete and utter win for the forces of good, assuming, of course, that everyone involved in this debate are honest people who recognize and abhor double-standards, and are willing to apply the same rules to everyone, equally, across the board. You know, like they did with ACORN and Blackwater. And Obama vs. Bush. And Clinton vs. Bush. And drug addicts vs. Rush Limbaugh. Or that guy the other day on food stamps who said everyone else on food stamps was a lazy-ass slacker.

Upon further reflection, you might just want to invest in a house that floats.

*"When", by the way, also has several meanings, and in this case is purely speculative, based on the fact that there's no way Inhofe could get a nineteen-year-old boy to have sex with him WITHOUT paying.