1183730 Views
151 Comments

Climate Change is a Touchy Subject

Published March 30th, 2017 by Bobby Henderson

Trump’s Whitehouse is pushing its science officials to shut up about Climate Change, reports Politico:

A supervisor at the Energy Department’s international climate office told staff this week not to use the phrases “climate change,” “emissions reduction” or “Paris Agreement” in written memos, briefings or other written communication, sources have told POLITICO.

I’ve got mixed feelings about this since we Pastafarians are also skeptical about accepted causes of Climate Change. Years ago you’ll remember that we found a statistically significant relationship between the rise in average global temperature and the declining Pirate population.

I’ll note that even after 10 years, this data still has not been dis-proven by the science community, which we interpret as implicit acceptance of it’s Truth.

So we’re sympathetic to Team Trump’s misgivings of Established Science based on “evidence” and “peer-review” and so on.

But, we’re also fans of not needlessly destroying the planet. And while we may not agree with the causes of Climate change, we believe it is happening.

More, we Pastafarians are pragmatic. Even if you have some skepticism about Climate Change (perhaps all that data is being altered by a Supernatural being of some sort) — let’s maybe err on the side of reigning in pollution and old wasteful technologies with their excess CO2 production — and instead let’s support emerging technologies which can provide clean, renewable power. Not to mention jobs.

For this reason, I think Team Trump and the GOP are acting like tools.

Again, I hate to mention politics on our Church site, but I felt that we Pastafarians, as fellow science-skeptics, should say something.

What do you guys think?



151 Responses to “Climate Change is a Touchy Subject”

1 2 3 6
  1. Jessica A says:

    Absolutely with you there. The US should be a major player in reducing carbon emissions, if only because it is the wealthiest and most able to do something about it. Trump talks about bringing more jobs to America, and yet he dismisses the opportunity to get into a relatively untapped market of mass-produced consumer renewable energy technologies. It could be a boon for the economy, if only he didn’t have his orange fingers in so many questionable pies (Russia’s for example).

    The only way to get more pirates to sail the seven seas, and to lower global temperatures, is to harness renewable energy by building fleets of pirate ships. Pirate ships use the wind’s energy, by capturing it in their sails. Pirate ships have no need for fossil fuels and are thus vastly more environmental friendly and economical. Yes, they may take years or even months to cross an ocean but build enough of them and it’ll work perfectly!

    • Keith says:

      I agree. There is no reason why pirate ships could not be powered by modern wind technology. Advances in ship design could still produce something that ostensibly looks like a 16th – 18th century ship but cuts out a lot of the drag inherent in the design.

      • Sylvia says:

        Many pirates enjoy plying their trade in tropical seas, so we could even add solar panels!

        • Keith says:

          Good point! Pirates in tropical seas also have the advantage of being able to stock up on coconuts to save buying cannonballs.

    • Sylvia says:

      I would support the creation of a new cabinet-level Department of Piracy, staffed by pirates, which would create thousands of booty-paying jobs, thus also contributing to our economy without any more carbon emissions. Further, the timber used to build them even sequesters carbon; thus the US could be a leader both in green energy and in Pastafarianism.

      • Bob says:

        Unfortunately your logic is flawed. Killing trees to make wooden ships would have the opposite of the desired effect. Live trees take in CO2 and give off O2, not so much for dead ones.

        • Keith says:

          I wonder how many trees died to build Ken Hampster’s ark?

        • Rasputin says:

          It’s alright providing we plant three trees to every tree harvested.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          It takes vast amounts of CO2-producing fuel to make cement and steel, though, steel can be recycled. Timber, sustainably sourced, is best, with negligible fuel needed. Most CO2 is absorbed by oceanic algae; none is absorbed by concrete jungles.
          The big problem is the economic model of conspicuous consumption and built-in obsolescence.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          According to Trump, other nations have ‘stolen America’s prosperity’, rather than it’s been squandered on obscene monuments, such as Las Vegas and Arks. He only supported Globalisation (Bush) on the basis that the money flowed one-way.

  2. mark. says:

    Humans have been on the planet for 200000 out of FOUR AND A HALF BILLION of its years,if you really think that anything we do can affect the climate then you’re bigger fools than I give you credit for.
    Is their scientific proof we are affecting the climate? No

    • Rev. Dr. Jo Freddie says:

      Mark, there is no scientific proof that you exist, I make this statement, and despite any body of evidence to the contrary, no matter how huge, it must be true as I have stated it here. This statement is just as valid as yours, probably more so as you do not exist.

    • Captain Birdseye says:

      Mark, when coal was burned in every household, it caused acid rain and smog. That was a change in climate. The ‘hole’ in the ozone layer is caused by methane from agricultural practices. Of course we cause climate change, but, the relevant issue is how much. Luckily, we have climatologists rather than you. Most people prefer to keep their environment free of soot, toxic chemicals and radioactive substances, whether or not they also affect the climate.

    • Rasputin says:

      Hey mark., where is the evidence that you exist?

    • bruceo says:

      *affects
      *there
      you fool.

    • Apprentice Frederic says:

      Yes, Mark, their [sic] is, actually; you might profit from looking at:
      https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

    • Apprentice Frederic says:

      And hurry, mark; the Dumf**kistanis (whom Trump welcomes, and who are enemies of Pastfarians and pirates alike) will probably try to take the site down….

  3. BruceDeBotany says:

    ARRRRGGHH!
    We the last band of social network pirates agree! Our Ships be ready and canon full of propaganda memes and science disproved facts! Time to save the planet and spread the word of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Let the Non-poli-Cracken loose Bobby.

  4. reverend william grant says:

    the scrubbers they make to stop emissions are very good.

    • Captain Birdseye says:

      RWG, is that a type of red-neck birth control?

    • Rasputin says:

      In English slang, a “scrubber” is a coarse woman who frequently participates in sex with strangers. It’s difficult to find a good scrubber when she’s needed.

      • Captain Birdseye says:

        Rasputin, I was imagining one that is so coarse as to deter the completion of a liaison. Your speciality, no doubt.

  5. PermieWriter says:

    FSM put fossil fuels under the ground, where they’re hard to get. Getting to fossil fuels makes you dirty, and frequently dead.

    OTOH, FSM put sunshine and wind where we can get at them easily. When we put up enough windmills and solar panels, we can sit back, drink beer and eat spaghetti as the Noodly One clearly intended.

    • Rasputin says:

      Brilliant, Permie. Well said.

  6. Gnocchi Saint Pudding says:

    Dear PermieWriter, You are another Great Thinker after my own heart. The only gripe I have with FSM : The Outdoor Arrangements that gives birds the free range of the sky.

    How many more times must I sit with my coffee mug at my campfire, serenely watching another African sunrise and the little *****rs gift my coffee from on high?

    • Captain Birdseye says:

      St. G., when I put down a cup of tea, humming birds hover and sip it. They also remove any cobwebs from my ceilings. Obviously, you have the wrong type of birds.

      • Captain Birdseye says:

        Have just dodged a category 4 cyclone, which went south of me. It’s not the 260km/hr wind (whatever that is in mph) that does the most damage. Cyclones push the sea ahead of them, raising it by 7m above the normal high tide; then, 0.9m of rain in 24hrs just can’t flow away and the rivers rise by 12m.
        I’ve experienced two category 5 cyclones, with 280km/hr winds. Power goes off; windows and ceilings bulge; sounds like an express train/Jumbo Jet on takeoff just outside; can last for 12 hours. Luckily, I’m on a mountain side, but, 0.3m deep water still runs through my garden – with breakers! I go back to bed with a six-pack.

  7. Gnocchi Saint Pudding says:

    Dear Captain Birdseye, I have been googling the effect wind turbines have on bird life. It’s disconcerting but apparently Technology is working flat-out to overcome the disastrous consequences to bird-life. On the bright side, recent and clever technological ideas are shining a light at the end of the tunnel but I hope the tunnel is a short tunnel, since the birds sure are copping it at a dizzy pace, the poor buggers.

  8. Gnocchi Saint Pudding says:

    Dear Captain Birdseye,
    I do hope you will be and stay safe through the storm(s)

    • Captain Birdseye says:

      St. G., couldn’t be safer for this one, watching it on TV. Supply trucks can’t get through from the south, though. Luckily, I’m harvesting avocados, passion fruit, limes and mandarins at the moment: boxes of them.
      The wind gusts during Category 5 cyclones can be so strong (180mph) that trees are stripped of all leaves. Another feature of the rotational forces is that tall trees can be twisted such that they form vertical splits up the trunk, which kills them. Destroyed 80% of the big trees in my town five years ago. Don’t know how my roof stayed on.

1 2 3 6

Leave a Reply