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?

175 Responses to “Climate Change is a Touchy Subject”

  1. Steve says:

    I believe this completely but…
    the world was apparently warmer (according to your graph) when there were 45000 pirates as opposed to when there were 35000 pirates. Shouldn’t the increase in numbers have COOLED the Earth?

  2. LOAN says:

    Guarantee loan offer We offer worldwide loan

    We offer worldwide loan most genuine and honest business and personal loans low interest We offer worldwide loan at
    very low interest rates of 2% no collateral required process takes just 2/3 Days. contact us now
    [email protected]
    Mr Ibrahim

  3. Stef says:

    The Dalai Lama once said: “If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”
    Shouldn’t we take learning of this great spiritual leader and consider the possibility that we, or the pirate Mosey, didn’t fully understood the FSM in these matters? That there’s a chance that human intervention is destroying the planet given to us by Him? Maybe pirates are sensitve to high CO2 levels?
    I humbly try not to be blasphemous, but shouldn’t we use the brains that his Holy Noodlyness gave us to think critically?

    • Captain Birdseye says:

      Absolutely, Stef! It seems likely that the Dalai Lama is in fact a reincarnation of one of The FSM’s noodles. My beer has CO2 in it and I don’t seem to suffer any sensitivity.

  4. Bill says:

    Unfortunately creating beer volcanoes was trivial compared to the difficulty of creating environmentally friendly and reliable alternative energy.

    Also anyone who expects alternative energy to create jobs had lost all connection with reality.

  5. Captain Birdseye says:

    Bill, I thought that renewable energy was so that people didn’t need to dig coal or work. It’s Progressivism that causes unemployment and is unsustainable.

    • Bill says:

      The whole issue of job creation is rather irrational.

      The problem that people do not actually want a job, they want the income that comes with the job.

      So the problem is not creating jobs, it is creating jobs that are valuable enough to justify the income people want.

      Moving on to the subject of alternative energy, the small picture does create jobs as the inefficiencies of solar and wind energy mean that there are more jobs needed to create and distribute a given amount of energy. The problem is that this is one of the factors making alternative energy so expensive, and expensive energy destroys many industrial jobs. This even impacts on the alternative energy jobs, so most of the wind turbines and solar cells are made overseas with coal energy and the user countries only get the jobs erecting, maintaining and dismantling the alternative energy plants.

      • Captain Birdseye says:

        Bill, all of your concerns are justified. I am aware of ‘being green’ often causing more pollution than not.
        There is a long history of media-dramatisation of the ‘weather’, to sell their products, using emotive terms such as ‘violent’ or ‘savage’. People become immune and learn to reject the dramatised view and then all scientific views.
        I have no answers to the job situation, but, an unpopular consideration is that there are too many people, possibly due to the ideas of ‘go forth and multiply’, ‘the world is yours to dominate’.
        The best we have are climatelologists, who love to find fault in each other’s results, and politicians must determine whom to listen to. It is usual to accept the dominant consensus, in this case, about 99%.

        • BillP says:


          The consensus depends rather on how you measure it, some interesting numbers here:

          Note that 17% think that man made greenhouse gases have caused over 100% of the warming, i.e the planet would have cooled without us; do you want a cold planet?

          There are quite a number of unknown and don’t know, despite this being a survey of scientists studying climate change. Also, only a minority were virtually certain they were correct.

          Note that nothing in this article addresses the issue of how beneficial/harmful the change has been or will be. Clearly if the effect is negligible then there is no reason to care why the warming is happening and if the change is beneficial we should be trying to increase it.

          The other issue not addressed is how to reduce CO2 emissions, should one wish to do so. As you say the huge amount of equipment required by alternative energy creates a lot of CO2 and pollution in its construction, operation and decommissioning.

          Add up the uncertainty in the effects of greenhouse gasses, the uncertainty in the consequences of warming and the uncertainty of the effectiveness of alternative energy and you will not find any consensus.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          Of course, Bill. But, one must be cautious about re-defining the meaning of words to suit an argument. Since when has public opinion been an accurate reflection of any scientific theory?

        • BillP says:


          Consensus has never been accurate reflection of any scientific theory. I only mentioned it because you wrote “It is usual to accept the dominant consensus, in this case, about 99%.”

          As that survey shows 66% of climate scientists thought that man made greenhouse gases were the main cause of temperature rise since 1951. Furthermore many of them were less than 95% certain, eliminate them and only a minority are supporting the proposition.

          Remember the temperature rise is only about 0.5 deg C, so to be the main cause man made greenhouse gasses only have to have cause more than 0.25 deg C rise. See http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm for a source even alarmists have to support. Also note that 1951 was a low, the temperature increase from 1941 is about 0.3 deg C.

          Even if greenhouse gasses did cause the majority of the warming, that does not seem to be a major problem. Particularly because greenhouse gas theory predicts that minimum temperatures will rise much more than maximum; so an average rise of 0.25 deg C means an immeasurably small increase in summer day temperature and almost a 0.5 deg C rise in winter night temperature.

  6. Ezekiel says:

    Listen … Your comparison is simply spurious. Please understand the difference between CORRELATION & CAUSATION.

    I am a scientist. Take my education, experience and work for what it is. Even more so … Explore, study and understand science yourself. The example given misunderstands, at worst misrepresents, the scientific method, analysis and conclusion. I can suggest materials to read, examples to explore, and etc. Contact me. The evidence for global climate change has illustrated both correlation and causation with mountains of evidence, independently confirmed and re-confirmed. That is part of the scientific method. A study must be replicable, confirmable.

    Your example provided no empirical evidence, zero documentation of said pirate population thats either accurate or preciseWhere are the sources? There is no described methodology or clear analysis. Putting numbers on a graph isn’t science.

    If you’d like to TRY and do this study, I’d be HAPPY TO ASSIST YOU. But don’t conflate this silliness with science because science it is not. It doesn’t need to disproven because it’s not repeatable, confirmable or follows the most basic standards of scientific research.

    All Hail the great flying spaghetti monster, faithful follower, Ezekiel.

    • Captain Birdseye says:

      Ezekiel, we use the identical methodology taken from Creation Science, where correlation does equal causation. Are you suggesting they are not proper scientists?

  7. Patroller says:

    Disabled toilet.

    Kekka, it is unavoidable, it is your destiny.

  8. Joizee says:

    The number of pirates is actually much higher – they frequent the east coast of Africa and the Yemeni coast… and have speedboats and AK47 rifles and missile launchers.

    • Captain Birdseye says:

      Yeah, Joizee, but they’re just common thieves. Have you ever seen a Somali with a parrot, a keg of rum and a wooden leg, saying ‘Arghhhh..’?

    • Keith says:

      They aren’t real pirates. They are modern marauders. Real pirates use barques and fight with matchlocks , flintlocks and muzzleloading cannon.

Leave a Reply