The truth is out… Hitler is behind Global Warming!

By Wednesday December 16, 2009



35 Comments
  1. Mark T. says:
    12/16/2009 at 8:28 pm

    Phydeau, I, for one, do not believe in creationism of anthropogenic (i.e. “man-made”) global warming. Please don’t lump us all in the creationist column.

    Personally, I think any global warming is a natural phenomena that has been happening for eons. And I think that increasing CO2 levels FOLLOW warming trends and are not the CAUSE of warming trends.

    Basically, I distrust politicians with an apocalypse based agenda that involves taxation. Gore simply wants a global tax. This would be the biggest government revenue stream in recorded history. That is step one in getting a global government started. It must have a HUGE tax base to get off the ground. And everyone on the planet must be beholden to them as saviors.

    Dr Dodd, Izzard claims to be an “executive transvestite” and not the garden variety “weirdo transvestite”. That means he still likes girls but also likes makeup and high heels. Very funny guy if you can get past the garb.

    Reply
  2. McCullough says:
    12/16/2009 at 8:31 pm

    We are polluting the planet…that’s a fact. But seriously, do you think government imposing a tax on carbon will solve anything? More taxes…?

    More money in the pockets of the elite? Think about it.

    Mark T. gets it. This is for the funding of global gov’t. If that’s OK with you, then just say so.

    Reply
  3. Mark T. says:
    12/16/2009 at 8:32 pm

    oops, “creationism OR anthropogenic…”

    Reply
  4. Phydeau says:
    12/16/2009 at 8:55 pm

    Regarding global government, here’s the problem. Things that other people in other countries do can directly affect us. Suppose China thumbs its nose at the rest of the world and says they’re going to build up their industry and pollute as much as they want. We already have pollution blowing across the Pacific. It’ll get worse, and not just for the U.S. and Canada, but for the rest of the world. What do we do? Just shrug our shoulders and put up with polluted air, because they’re a sovereign country? Invade them? What?

    We’re all in this together, like it or not, and we have to negotiate and agree on things so we don’t sh*t in our own nest. If the survival of many nations depends on stopping one nation from doing something destructive, will we take action?

    Reply
  5. Phydeau says:
    12/16/2009 at 9:02 pm

    #21 Mark T, I don’t “believe in” any scientific theory. They aren’t to be believed in or not, but examined to see how well they explain the facts and observations we see in the world. Faith involves believing in things unseen (“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” Hebrews 11:1, KJV) while scientific theories are all about evidence of things seen. As research continues and new facts emerge, the theory of AGW will either be reinforced or disproved, and thus will become either more useful or less useful to science. Belief has nothing to do with it.

    Reply
  6. ramuno says:
    12/16/2009 at 9:36 pm

    Of course global climates change naturally. However, since we have so many more people making CO2 than plants turning it back to oxygen lately. And indutrialists are adding carbon into the atmosphere more than ever. It is not unreasonable to think that it can make the nature changes worse.

    The real battle going on right now is who is going to help the poorest countries survive the change, no matter how it is caused. Farmers are killing themselves by the thouands in those countries (including India) because of their failures.

    Reply
  7. deowll says:
    12/16/2009 at 9:50 pm

    I found it to be funny though I do disagree about the connection with Hitler.

    The moderns in the movement mostly seem to be socialist/Marxist/Leninist or some such with fellow travelers from the business community who see a chance to get rich providing “green” energy at premium prices.

    Reply
  8. Phydeau says:
    12/16/2009 at 10:41 pm

    If there was a drinking game where you had to pound a shot every time a wingnut says “Marxist/Leninist” we’d all be drunk all the time. :)

    Not that I expect consistency from wingnut insults, but a real Marxist or Leninist (if any such thing existed any more) wouldn’t be caught dead with an evil capitalist.

    But I bet that felt real goooood to say. Whoops, someone’s gonna need a kleenex. ;)

    Reply
  9. amodedoma says:
    12/17/2009 at 12:23 am

    # Fido

    ‘A real Marxist or Leninist (if any such thing existed any more) wouldn’t be caught dead with an evil capitalist.’

    Ever here of a guy named Deng Xiao Ping?

    Reply
  10. Uncle Patso says:
    12/17/2009 at 1:54 am

    The thinking here is apparently that everyone who has ever told you anything was lying to you, most especially anyone who has studied a subject enough to become knowledgeable about it. It’s equivalent to the old favorite, “Those college boys think they’re SO smart!”

    Why, for all we know, we’re not really conversing in English here — the professors have all been lying to us and we’re actually speaking, writing and reading CHINESE!!!

    Reply
  11. Mark T. says:
    12/17/2009 at 5:32 am

    Phydeau, puhleez. I used the word “believe” to merely indicate what I consider to be factual, not to show some religious faith in some unknowable truth that is beyond my meager comprehension.

    I don’t “believe” that my statement needed to be parsed and deconstructed to make me look like a religious fruitcake. I subscribe to no religion and I don’t like fruitcake. Bleh.

    Reply
  12. Phydeau says:
    12/17/2009 at 7:27 am

    #31 OK Mark, sorry about that. There are a lot of those religious fruitcakes out there. :(

    Reply
  13. Guyver says:
    12/17/2009 at 11:27 am

    25, Phydeau, Theories are examined to see how well they explain the facts and observations we see in the world? LOL. Thanks for beautifully explaining you don’t use the Scientific Method. LOL.

    31, Mark T, Don’t worry about Phydeau. He’s prone to hasty conclusions. It’s in his nature. :)

    Reply
  14. tonyedit says:
    12/17/2009 at 11:35 am

    So we’ve had a posting featuring BNP stooge who’s all about “The Rights of Whites” claiming the whole climate row is a scam…

    http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/12/07/nick-griffin-on-climategate-nwo-plan/

    And now we have an intermittently funny Downfall mashup claiming Hitlers behind it.

    Editorial consistency as usual.

    Pettiness aside though, if progress isn’t made on dealing with the actual matter at hand, and populations aren’t forced to seek out alternatives to carbon based energies, does that mean the oil companies continue to pull the strings? My main confusion in this debate is you guys seem to be recommending the status quo be maintained i.e. Saudi Arabia et al. continuing to keep the West as their collective bitch. Are you proposing a system of stimulus over taxation as an alternative to proposed measures? What is your proposal? Boats? Bunkers?

    Reply
  15. Phydeau says:
    12/17/2009 at 4:36 pm

    #33 25, Phydeau, Theories are examined to see how well they explain the facts and observations we see in the world? LOL. Thanks for beautifully explaining you don’t use the Scientific Method. LOL.

    Um, you might want to do a little research in between your LOLs, there, pal. You’re embarrassing yourself. Here, let me spoon feed you a bit. Type in “Scientific Method” at wikipedia. Are you with me so far? Take it easy now. After you do that, then… read it. Whoops, you gotta hit “return” first. You might be sitting there a while if you don’t. Here’s a couple quotes.

    In general scientists tend to look for theories that are “elegant” or “beautiful”. In contrast to the usual English use of these terms, they here refer to a theory in accordance with the known facts, which is nevertheless relatively simple and easy to handle. Occam’s Razor serves as a rule of thumb for making these determinations.

    The scientific method — the method wherein inquiry regards itself as fallible and actually tests itself and criticizes, corrects, and improves itself.

    You see, young grasshopper, theories and hypotheses are advanced by testing and observation. The parts of the theory that fit reality are kept, and the parts that don’t are discarded. It’s this iterative process that strengthens our knowledge of our world.

    Now I hope all that knowledge didn’t overwhelm your little wingnut brain. Better lie down and rest a while, that’s a good boy. :)

    Reply

« Older Comments

Leave a Response


Bad Behavior has blocked 25676 access attempts in the last 7 days.