Today in a speech viewed all across the world, the president has unveiled his plan to solve the largest crisis to face our children ever. This momentous crisis of course is the problem of cookie crumbling. When appealing to his fan-base of first graders, he made it will known that he will not tolerate discussion or even debate. As he states:
So today, for the sake of our children, and the health and safety of all
Americans, I’m directing the Environmental Protection Agency to put an end to
the limitless dumping of cookies from our power plants, and complete
new pollution standards for both new and existing power plants. (Applause.)
The statement was a resounding success as the auditorium of first graders loved it. More cookies for all! All children know that more is better as this commercial shows:
And so his statement that we need to stop the limit-less pollution of cookies and save those cookies for the first graders was a resounding success.
I think we have all heard this claim for years (That CO2 causes our planet to change drastically) but here I show logically why this is claim is based on false premises. The scientific method explains why it is necessary to first disprove the null hypothesis. The short explanation is that this ensures continuity of ideas and logic. If you do not keep this continuity, you double down on your original mistake and thusly anything you publish or explain within this frame of reference is always going to be wrong. In other words, climate science is not doomed because it is wrong per se, but it is doomed because it is based on a premise that is unproven.
The most pressing question most people have nowadays in the global warming movement is whether the religion is nuttier then a fruitcake or not. Well, a good way to answer this question is always with some old-fashioned compare and contrast with another fruitcake so to speak. So which religion is nuttier? That is quite the question and the only way to solve that dilemma is to have me as an impartial jury, judge and executioner to do the appropriate and complete compare and contrast that is just simply outright impartial.
Are believers in Climatology and/or Scientology nuttier then this fruitcake? That question is answered farther below!