“The Texas congressman asked whether there was anything the U.S. Forest Service could do ‘to change the course of the moon’s orbit or the Earth’s orbit around the sun.'”
The noted genius addressed a Forest Service spokesperson as follows: “If you figure out there’s a way in the Forest Service you could make that change, I’d like to know.”
Unfortunately, the Forest Service was too busy raking the forests to deploy any of their latest orbit-altering technology.
Suggest the owner and purveyor of this filth remove himself from politics and political “commentary”. The ignorance, utter hate of different views, bias, and bigotry just can’t be masked. Of course, the Texas Congressman was being humorous or sarcastic or just throwing the climate change, science rules mandate back at the idiots that pontificate from that line of sophistry.
Where you see utter hate, I see a sort of amused amazement that a numbnuts like Gohmert is drawing a check from the federal government. Far as Louis “being humorous”, I’d say it barely rises to a recognizable *attempt* at humor. I mean, did you laugh?
Right, Tucker.
The warming and cooling effects of orbital shifts can be calculated, and their impact amounts to an insignificant portion of the current warming. It’s just math. To argue that the Milankovich cycles have an impact on climate is completely fair. To argue that they are producing the current levels of climate change is not. It’s like saying the ’27 Yankees were the best team because they had the best water boy, and were thus more refreshed than their opponents. Sure, the fresh, cool water may have helped, but it’s a safe bet that Ruth and Gehrig and company bore more than 99% of the load.
The attempts to deny anthropogenic climate change are perfect examples of “sophistry” – the use of intentionally deceptive arguments that seem sort of plausible on the surface. It’s the same sort of pseudo-science formerly used by the cigarette companies to deny the cancer connection.
As I noted earlier, the problem with Louie’s question is not the joke portion of the question, because we know that even he is smart enough to know that the forest service can’t alter orbits. It’s the underlying ignorance of the fact that even if they could do that, it would not have a significant impact on warming. That’s the part he doesn’t seem to get.
Also, hate is not automatically a negative thing. We, as humans, should have hate for different views when those views are harmful to men or mankind. We should hate the Nazi principles. We should hate racism. We should hate cruelty. We should hate ignorance. We should hate lies.
This is just bad reporting. If you read the original exchange, he was obviously being sarcastic.
That’s misleading.
He was being sarcastic about the Forest Service changing the orbits. Even Gohmert is not dumb enough to think that they could change the course of celestial bodies with their rakes. The point is that he IS dumb enough to think that the severe climate change we are now experiencing can be attributed to changes in orbits! As the article notes, those orbital changes happen in predictable cycles over tens of thousands of years, while the current level of warming is something that has not occurred in MILLIONS of years. In other words, the same cycles we are now experiencing have happened many times before in those millions of years, and have never before produced the kind of warming we are seeing now. Sure there are some effects from adjustments in the earth’s orbit and inclination, but we know what those effects are, and can adjust for them. The effects of those orbital shifts can be observed in the past, and those relatively minor effects can be backed out of the current data to determine the extent of the man-made effects.
The “orbit” argument is just another one of those flimsy rationalizations proposed by climate change deniers. I presume those arguments originate from the oil companies, and that they hired all the scientists who used to be employed by the cigarette companies. Nobody in a position of responsibility should be dumb enough to fall for such a flimsy misdirection, but … well, it’s Louie. Unlike many conservative lawmakers who know better, but use such arguments disingenuously to pander to and bamboozle their ignorant constituents, I am assuming that Louis really is dumb enough to believe that.
Yes, I realized that Gohmert was trying to be sarcastic too. The problem for Gohmert is that he has said so many mind bogglingly dumb things, he has made it very unlikely that it will occur to anyone that any new dumb thing he says is meant sarcastically. Nor did he adopt an exaggeratedly sarcastic tone or facial expression to help get his point across (See SNL sketch “Heavy Sarcasm” here.)
So it was a case of the messenger ruining the message. Really, what else can you expect when you choose Louie Gohmert to deliver it?
ah yes … spoken from the dumb fuck libtards that dont know what ” raking ” is about … always nice to see you all spewing hatred and always fun to read your comments … gives me a laugh !!!
You are in error. Finland does no raking. They do other forest management procedures. Various right-wing nutbags argued, after the fact, “If we just call those procedures ‘raking,’ then Trump was right all along!”
What the Finns do a lot of is clear-cutting and controlled burns, and when they do that they clear out debris. One could call that “raking,” but it’s a real stretch.
Here is what the forest service calls a rake.
Trump’s apologists said, “But you can also call this a rake, and California should be using it.”
In reality, it’s almost impossible to use anything like that in California because of the topography.
In fact, Trump was doubly wrong: (1) Finns don’t rake the forest by any reasonable definition of that word, (2) the forests that Trump was referring to are mostly federal land – 57% of California’s forest land is federally managed – therefore if any “raking” needed to be done, it was mostly his responsibility, not California’s.
So there are only two options: either nobody screwed up from failure to rake, or if anyone screwed up, it was mostly Trump himself.
That said, it would not be a bad idea for the federal government to study and implement the world’s best practices for forest management, and to require the states to implement those practices in the areas they are responsible for, provided that the techniques are applicable to the specific terrain they have to manage.
I’ve always heard that thing called a McLeod, probably to distinguish it from a rake-rake.
Welcome back Red, it’s been boring (in a great way, like having a competent president) without you.
Guess you’ve been needing one since your boy “won in a landslide”. Not to mention those tissues you offered us.
See, redlion is another person who is too dumb to be plausibly sarcastic. I think he really does like and enjoy our posts. Kind of like the guy who likes hitting himself in the head with a hammer, because it feels so good when he stops.
Jewish space lasers?
He makes me miss the comedy stylings if Michele Bachmann just a little bit less.
A luny-toon if there ever was one.