Friday, September 26, 2014

People Who Need People

Who are these people? Are they people? If so, where are their corporate seals? Where do they venture forth to find their meals? No meals on wheels? So what's the big deals?

This is the ultimate viral video manifestation of the defensive psychology found in "I have many ____________ (black, gay, hispanic, Jewish, Muslim, atheist) friends, BUT....

What comes after the 'but' is never good.

Twitter had some amazing reactions.

@JOHNCLAVISI believe the global warming hoax, like the homosexual agenda and the War on Christmas, are intended to destroy America. #ImARepublican
@ARENSBRepublicans are people. Just like corporations, and Soylent Green. #ImARepublican  
@EMLYNADDISON#ImARepublican because climate change cramps my style, yo.

Of course you need a good PR campaign when the WTF flows this thick through your party.

For those of you who may be on a reading device the picture is of Joe Barton, Chairman of the House Energy Conference Committee and he's admitting that he has absolutely no understanding of basic physics or earth science by saying, "Wind is a finite resource, and harnessing it would slow the winds down, which would cause the temperature to go up."

The only thing going up is my blood pressure at the thought of our national energy policies being guided by this type of imbecile. This isn't left v. right. This is competent v. incompetent. If any political party wants my respect they must get a better grip on their crazy than this.

Even the Rockefeller family has acknowledged that fossil fuels are dangerous, yet PolitiFact can only find a handful of Republicans in congress who accept the science.

Sure, Republicans are people but they certainly aren't acting like smart people.


Anonymous said...

@Godwhacker - Because pointing to the most absurd, dangerous and hated members of a group is a winning strategy - - #theyaregaytoo

Godwhacker said...

As I said and provided evidence for in my post, this is the VAST majority position of the Republican Party.

PolitiFact looked hard and found 8 and only 8 members of the Republican caucus who accept climate change science.

"That’s eight out of 278, or about 3 percent."

Also, if you have stupid/crazy people in your party, keep them to the back of the room. Discredit them at every opportunity. Don't give them chairmanships on important committees.

Anonymous said...

Actually, you are right - the Republican party is fucked in the head.

When we are all wading up Flagler street, they will blame Obama for angering God.

Anonymous said...

Oh yeah, and the Gays.

Godwhacker said...

I want at least 2 (hopefully more) functioning political parties in our country. I want to go to the voting both and have to really think hard about which to choose.

I can't do that right now. One has disqualified itself with ignorance.

Anonymous said...

“I'm a registered Republican, I only seem liberal because I believe that hurricanes are caused by low barometric pressure and not gay marriage.”

Anonymous said...




Anonymous said...

Sorry to interrupt your precious snarkfest but he was quoting from this paper:

Godwhacker said...

As with the bible and the constitution, conservatives only read the parts they like. This paper deals with a hypothetical, not with anything with practical implications in the near-term or even the longterm.

"A single wind turbine has an infinitesimal direct effect on global climate, but it also makes an infinitesimal indirect contribution to reducing climate change by slowing the growth of atmospheric CO2. The ratio of direct to indirect effects is relevant to decisions about implementing wind power at any scale if the objective is to mitigate climate change.

The direct impact of wind power is immediate, whereas the indirect climatic benefit grows from zero with time as electricity from wind reduces CO2 emissions and slows the growth of concentrations. A comparison of the effects depends, among other factors, on (i) how impacts at different times and locations are aggregated, (ii) the effectiveness of electricity from wind in reducing CO2 emissions, and (iii) the baseline CO2 emission profile."

The paper reaches a conclusion that is the exact opposite of what the congressman was trying to say.

Anonymous said...

I don't think "exact opposite" means what you think it means. Pointing out that CO2 reductions from turbine power would offset any other effects of the turbines on weather and climate does not refute the fact that turbines do have an acute effect of weather, which Godwhacker and his fellow travellers thought was so snicker-worthy.
Your timing is good though--article in the WSJ today about a Stanford study that large offshore wind farms could substantially reduce the power of hurricanes. Fact is turbines can have substantial effects on wind patterns and concomitant effects on weather conditions, notwithstanding that smug elitists think it's amusing.

Godwhacker said...

Conveniently for you, you leave out the part which references the amount of wind power that we'd have to be using before any effects could be measured. It's a lot. Way way more than we would need for any conceivable alternative energy plans.

You seem to argue against outrageous extremes on the one hand, then embrace them with the very next breath.

Citing this study as a reason NOT to support wind power is worth every laugh we had on this post and then some.


Godwhacker said...

Meanwhile I'm chuckling that elitists like me drive 90s era Hondas! I thought the 1% had it so good!