I just finished putting in some data to a computer model. Holy crap, I just realized that the human body's average temperature is 98.6.° Since this body temperature remains constant throughout the year, it won't be long until the 98.6° round-the-clock body-heat emitted from all these millions of Mexican immigrants begins to affect the climate here in the United States. That's right: Mexicans are causing global warming!
What makes it even worse is that they are consuming more and more picante sauce. Rather than settle for a nice, mild pico de gallo, they're going strait for the hot stuff. These spicy farts contain copious amounts of methane gas--a substance which, I have been told, is "more than 20 times as strong a greenhouse gas as CO2" (source: see the comment made to my global warming argument). That's right folks, we're talking about a Mex-ane catastrophe on the horizon.
The evidence is really overwhelming.
Think about it. Mexico's really hot, especially when compared to, say, Minnesota. What, other than latitude, is the major difference between Minnesota and Mexico? Mexico has lots of Mexicans. As these Mexicans pour into Texas, they'll heat everything up with their body heat and picante-methane emissions. Soon, Texas will be uninhabitable. Once they've ruined Texas, it's on to Oklahoma, then Kansas and Missouri, Nebraska and Iowa, and outward in all directions.
It will become even worse once they penetrate Utah. Once there, the Mexican custom of large families will collide with the Mormon tradition of polygamy. Oh my God, it's like the perfect storm. Now, José will have twelve kids with twelve wives. (that's 144 kids) They'll start knocking on people's doors, dressed up in Chachiruleado suits, trying to sell us chiclets while asking if we'd heard the good news brought by the prophet Joseph Smith.
And now I tire of this. I just hope that the xenophobes feel adequately mocked and grateful that their progenitors crossed the Atlantic at least a hundred years ago and not the Rio Grande today.
Okay- that one is just really funny. Like seriously, I pretty much want to be your friend.
ReplyDeleteSure. You let that one go through, but my global warming beast fest is still pending? Unless, for some reason, my brilliant global warming comment didn't go through. That would just be tragic.
ReplyDeleteI did not receive your "global warming beast fest." It sounds so intriguing. Like you said, it's "just tragic."
ReplyDeleteOf course, I was having a bit of trouble posting comments for a while (this is my first blog), so it's entirely possible that your "beast fest" was written before I figured this thing out.
To Jessica's statement:
ReplyDelete"The world temperature has increased exponentially in the years since we started producing those helpful carbon emissions. 19 of the 20 hottest years on record have occurred since 1980. That's not just a coincidence. "
I submit:
While no expert in mathematics, it seems to me that the adverb "exponentially" refers to a designated exponent. While my mathematics course experience is limited, I cannot remember ever using an exponent less than 2 (and greater than 0--that is, I recall negative exponents).
This means that for the temperature to have increased exponentially in the last 2oo years, the average temperature 200 years ago in a place like Michigan would have needed to be somewhere between 7 and 8 degrees F--that would cover a year-round average of 49-64F, at a minimum exponent of 2).
I've done a bit o' studying in my day, and cannot find anything to suggest that the average temperature in Michigan was 7 or 8 degrees F. This is simply another example of hyperbole, promoted by environmentalists who can only promote their agenda via fear (argumentum ad metum--to use another "pretty Latin phrase). Since logic does not support the environmentalists' world view, they resort to logical fallacies to fill in the gaps.
You claim that I:
"sound like my statistics professor. And while you both have a point, this is not one of those cases."
I respond: As if simply stating that this is not one of those cases makes it not one of those cases!
You admit and assert:
"While I’ve been studying global warming for all of, um, a week and a half now and my entire repertoire is comprised of an article in Time Magazine and a lecture by Al Gore, I think I can confidently say that global warming is not some ruse blown out of proportion by sneaky environmentalists who plan on regulating industry in their sneaky environmentalist ways."
So your ONLY admitted sources are 1.) a career politician who once claimed that he invented the internet and holds a basic belief that government should control the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services; and 2.) A magazine that will sell more issues if it scares the hell out of people than if it simply says, "Well, there's not really an issue here."
I reply:
Your sources are corrupt. Whatever Al Gore says, at best, must be taken with a grain (a giant one, at that) of salt. So Al Gore says that humans are causing global warming. Well, then, Al Gore's statement that humans are causing global warming must be taken with a grain (a giant one, at that) of salt. Seriously, the guy wants power. The best way to get power is to convince people that they NEED to give him power. What better way to do this than to make people fear for their lives? He is a politician first, and not an expert in the field. He cannot be cited as a reliable authority (unless you want to send him royalties for your internet usage).
Your second source makes more money if it arouses more interest. It is hardly an unbiased authority.
Basically, your two sources are insufficient for you to have much of a reliable opinion.
You said:
"It’s true that our planet might not have much time left if we let global warming go to the wayside."
I say:
Please quantify "might not." As you ought to know, "might not" also means "might." And neither proves anything. I "might" be dressed in a pirate costume and drinking Zima while I write this. Does that mean that I am?
Also, the bulk of your body paragraph is stating what might happen if the climate continues to warm. Can you read? Did you notice that I did NOT reject the premise that the Earth is warming? Rejecting human-causation of global warming is not the same as rejecting global warming.
Furthermore, might other nations have had a hidden motive in signing the Kyoto accord? Suppose they didn't, and the politicians who signed it actually believed in it, does that make it right? At one point in time, the English, French, Spanish, and Portuguese were profiting off of slavery. Did that make slavery good? Just because "nations" (meaning politicians) believe in X, it does not make X valid.
As far as scientists (the supposed "experts" on this) are concerned, remember that they rely upon government monies for their research. If they suggest that humans are causing significant climate change, then they will get more (much more) funding than if they say that the climate is changing, but there's nothing that we can do about it.
Inasmuch as you pledge to fight me to "the death" on this, why don't you wait until you've studied the issue a bit more. Especially wait until you've consulted sources that are not tainted with bias.
As a side note, a twenty year pattern of high temperatures is not enough to suggest much of anything other than that the last twenty years have been warmer than the previous twenty years. When we're talking about a span of over 20,000 years, 20 years is hardly a drop in the bucket.
Also, the "science" in this is limited by the fact that the climate has only been measured in terms of highs, lows, and averages, in the last hundred or so years. Again, compared to the 20,000+ year span with which we're dealing, it's not really "evidence." It's more like that butthole that you see on cold days who says, "Is it cold enough for you?" Or on hot days when he says, "Is it hot enough for you?"
Don't you just want to kick that guy in the gonads?
Jessica's "global warming beast fest" will hopefully be posted soon (it's up to her). To it, I made my lengthy relpy. She might post it here, but she might post it as a comment to my "Global Warming for Idiots" article. Then again, she might not post it at all. Whatever the case, I have not misrepresented it in my analysis and rejection of its premises.
ReplyDelete