What a Bunch of Gasholes!

As jaded as I’ve become in my later years, there are still some things that make me shake my head in a “Are you fucking kidding me” way. Usually, this comes from the federal government, online culture warriors, or media types, but recently, we had the perfect storm of fuckery, thanks to a federal agency.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission announced it was considering banning natural gas stoves, citing health concerns because of course. Recent peer-reviewed research published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health found an alleged link between the use of gas stoves and childhood asthma, a danger further underscored by co-author Brady Seals of the Rocky Mountain Institute. More on this later.

Once this news became public knowledge, online culture warriors went to work to amplify the CPSC suggestion, which promptly made the media go into “Republicans Pounce” mode. At first, the CPSC tried to deny what the commissioner, Richard Trumka Jr., clearly said, which as we all know makes everything instantly better! Then, Trumka, who made the initial statement “Products that can’t be made safe can be banned,” issued a tweet “clarifying” his statement, saying they weren’t coming after gas stoves after all, and any new regulations would only apply to new products.

It got so bad that CPSC chair Alexander Hoehn-Saric had to issue further clarification, and stated the organization was evaluating the health risks in light of the aforementioned research. Furthermore, Hoehn-Saric said no new regulations were on the table right now.

Meaning, they’re still on the table, but they’re being hidden behind the boiled radishes that nobody wants to eat until they can be reintroduced as though nothing had happened.

And believe me they will.

This is because the Left and its government stooges (but I repeat myself) love to have as much power over us as possible. Controlling how we cook our food, as meaningless as it is in the grand scheme of things, is exactly the kind of shit they’d do if given the chance…or if they take the chance.

But then they fucked up by not only giving away the plot, but by assuming the opponents wouldn’t have receipts. Oh, but they did. Lots of receipts. They even got the Socialist Socialite to defend her use of gas stoves while simultaneously doubling down on the science.

And just what was the science, you ask? Remember the peer-reviewed study I referenced earlier co-authored by Brady Seals? Well, turns out she might have a vested interest in the outcome, given her association with the Rocky Mountain Institute. If you look at the Board of Trustees, you’ll notice a few different themes and some familiar names in Leftist circles. Of course, none of this is ever discussed in the news pieces citing the paper Seals co-authored. After all, why let a little thing like complete transparency get in the way of a good scare piece?

But before you damn me for guilt by association, let me also point out one other tiny problem with the paper: it’s fundamentally flawed. What’s more, the problems raised in Seals’ paper and in the subsequent media stories can be addressed somewhat by using a range hood. So, banning or even adding new regulations for the use of gas stoves isn’t even necessary.

But it is necessary if you’re trying to persuade people to adopt an alternative to what we currently used.

Surely, electric stoves are better for the environment, right? Oooooh, sor-ray. Turns out it takes more energy for an electric stove to do what a gas stove does. And since most of our energy production comes from fossil fuels, that means to use the allegedly safer technology, we have to create more pollution. Brilliant!

Oh, and the best part? Natural gas is cleaner than fossil fuels. Even Leftist eco-nuts (again, I repeat myself) admit that, but they always love to throw in the “but X” to explain why natural gas isn’t the good deal it’s made out to be.

“But the study was peer-reviewed!” some might say. My response is that peer review is only as good as the intellectual rigor used by the peer reviewing it. As we’ve seen, peer review has its flaws and scandals that have tarnished its reputation for being, well, reputable. And the fact it keeps happening year after year after year doesn’t help make the case why a peer reviewed paper is more valid and truthful than a paper a puppy pees on.

But the Left needs people to ignore the problems and “trust the science” because it plays into one of their favorite logical fallacies, appeal to authority. If you are impressed by the credentials and don’t look into the facts, you can be persuaded to adopt an idea as true basely solely on who says it. But titles in and of themselves don’t necessarily mean the person with them should be listened to on a given subject. Remember, Neil deGrasse Tyson says some stupid shit.

But the Left count on people being ignorant enough to listen and believe and not listen and mock mercilessly. However, the online culture warriors unwittingly give the Left ammunition (which is ironic given how the Left hates guns) to dismiss all criticism. Although the critics were mostly right factually, the way they presented the facts made it sound like a crazy conspiracy theory. And remember the media love to do the “Republicans Pounce” thing to cover the Republicans’ response to a Leftist scandal instead of the scandal itself. This rhetorical slight-of-hand takes attention away from the actual story to get people to pay attention to the distraction.

Even so, the culture warriors don’t seem to get this. Oh, they’ll mock/complain about the “Republicans Pounce” tactic, but their passion turns into the distraction the Left needs to escape responsibility for being utter fuck-ups.


Once you see the bait and switch the media pull (see the recent scandal related to Puddin’ Head Joe and classified documents for evidence), you can’t unsee it. Like a Micheal Moore porn video. But unlike “Fahrenheit 9-11 Inches” or “Balling for Columbine” you don’t need brain bleach, therapy, and a Men In Black memory wipe to function after witnessing it.

The moral of this story is to be skeptical of a gut reaction given amplification by people with a Paul Bunyon-sized axe to grind, even if you agree with them. A little information can go a long way towards finding the truth, often found in between the extremes. But there are still some pretty good rules of thumb that are easy to follow.

Whenever the Socialist Socialite talks about anything other than, well, herself, believe the exact opposite because she’s a fucking idiot.

Hmmmm…maybe there’s something to the science saying gas stoves affect cognitive ability after all…

We’re At a Tipping Point…Again

It seems like we’re seeing old favorites (The Little Mermaid, The Lord of the Rings, a music scene without Nickelback) being revised for a new generation with little twists to make them seem different (a black Little Mermaid, The Rings of Power, Nickelback putting out another new album). The same can be said for political and social issues.

Former Vice President and Internet creator Al Gore resurfaced, which typically means 6 more years of global climate change talk. And, true to form, he was talking about…global climate change. But instead of pushing a doomsday scenario, he talked about the world reaching “a positive tipping point” thanks in part to the Inflation Reduction Act. I’m not sure what fighting inflation has to do with climate change, but hey, I’m not a biologist.

But I’m also not a dumbass with the memory of a goldfish with ADHD. It wasn’t that long ago that Gore pushed less-optimistic predictions concerning climate change.

It was waaaaaaaay back in 2006 when Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth” warned us we had 10 years to avoid “a point of no return” unless we took serious action to combat climate change. Sixteen years later, we’ve blown past that point and are now at a positive tipping point? What changed?

Absolutely nothing.

No new government programs. No societal commitment to green energy. Not even a Prius in every solar-powered garage. Just more of the same that’s been going on since 2006 and before.

In fact, you could count on Captain Hook’s, well, hook the number of times Gore’s predictions have been correct and still have the ability to hail a cab. But that hasn’t stopped the former Vice President from claiming his predictions have come to pass. Which brings us back to the original logical problem: if Gore was right all along, where is the ecological disaster we were promised?

That’s the beauty of Gore’s scam…I mean activism: it doesn’t have an expiration date because science keeps evolving. Back in the 1970s, we were told the world would freeze. Then, in the 1980s and 1990s, the planet was burning up because “the science is better now than it was then.” And in another 10-20 years when this year’s climate change fear porn doesn’t happen, the same asshats who told us the world would be experiencing climate disasters out of Irwin Allen’s fever dreams will tell us the predictions they made today were wrong, but the ones they’re making later are the right ones. Just trust the science!

Provided the science isn’t full of bullshit, that is.

Since I’ve been following the climate change debate in the early 1990s, I’ve noticed the Left has been bastardizing and lionizing science simultaneously. Since science when done properly follows a logical and consistent set of events, Leftists can’t feel their way to a correct answer. So, when the facts don’t fit the narrative, change the facts so they do! The Scientific Method be damned if it doesn’t come up with the results we need to force more government down our throats!

Meanwhile, the Left also makes it impossible to disagree with the science (that they’re rewriting on the fly) by appealing to the human need for community and acceptance within it. How many times have we heard “the science is settled” and just so happens to coincide with what the Left claims is happening? Well, I don’t know how to put this, but…that’s not how science works. Every hypothesis and theory is subject to testing and revision to see if the established conclusion is still valid. In other words, science is rarely, if ever, settled, and anyone who says differently is a fucking idiot.

Or they’re trying to sell you something, namely the “fact” of climate change.

Of course, they have a bit of a problem with their sales pitch: they’ve been wrong. Consistently. I’m talking make-your-local-weather-forecaster-look-like-Nostra-fucking-damas wrong.

With a track record of failure that long and spectacular, even the most ardent climate change worrier would pause to reconsider. Or they would if they were being honest, which the global climate change cult cannot allow for fear of being exposed as the frauds they are. To keep the gravy train of sweet fear porn cash coming, the narrative must be protected, even at the expense of the credibility of those pushing it.

Then again, it can be argued Al Gore has no credibility to lose…

The only tipping point we’re at right now is whether we will continue to believe the climate change bullshit we’ve been fed since the first Earth Day. I’ve long advocated for an honest discussion on the science behind climate change and to call out the bad actors on both sides so we get a clear picture of what we face, if anything at all. That won’t happen in today’s climate (see what I did there?) because there are too many people with a vested interest in maintaining the facade.

Such as a former Vice President whose two movies on the subject have made him a lot of money in spite of the fact he’s not a scientist, nor did he stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Take it from me. Someone truly concerned about rising tides due to climate change doesn’t buy up beachfront property.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

At long last, the details of one of the proposed infrastructure bills became public knowledge thanks to the New York Times. Although the details of the expenditures aren’t known yet, some of the details came out with a particular focus on fighting climate change. And a big focus on fighting climate change involves fossil fuels.

No matter where you go, the same people who keep telling us the planet is doomed tell us the way to prevent the inevitable is to do away with fossil fuels and convert to renewable energy. Although I haven’t seen any of the main proponents of renewable energy travel via solar vehicle, it’s worth exploring what the Left thinks of fossil fuels and why they’re so keen on making them as obsolete as the career of Yahoo Serious.

fossil fuels

What the Left thinks it means – sources of energy that are killing the planet with diminishing returns

What it really means – the only energy came in town for now, and possibly ever

The self-professed “Party of Science” has been after fossil fuels for a while now, but it wasn’t always the case. Back in the heady days of the 70s, some climate scientists suggested adding more pollution to the atmosphere to ward of global cooling. As we’ve since figured out, they were wrong, and as a result, the Left doesn’t take those dire predictions seriously or as valid. Instead, they have their own dire predictions to push, namely global warming/climate change/climate catastrophes/whatever they’re calling it this millisecond to generate fear.

And the scientists the Left are relying on for their proof? Turns out they’re wrong, too. Funny how that works out, isn’t it?

Undeterred by the lack of global catastrophes directly linked to fossil fuels, the Left has made it their aim to get us to move away from fossil fuels in the name of protecting the environment. And they’ll fly all over the world and drive in long lines of cars to go to events in large venues using more electricity than Las Vegas during Christmas telling us about the dangers that await us if we don’t stop using fossil fuels.

As you might have guessed, I have more faith in convenience store sushi than the Left’s commitment to fighting climate change.

Aside from the blatant hypocrisy even Ray Charles can see (and he’s dead), the “Party of Science” hasn’t figured out why fossil fuels are still in use today. Not surprisingly, it’s dirt simple: fossil fuels work. No matter how many solar panels you put up, no matter how many Priuses there are on the road, no matter how many windmills you erect, fossil fuels tend to work better than alternative fuels, at least for now. And I say that as someone who has driven through typical Iowa winter conditions with a gas-guzzling SUV passing hybrids stuck in the snow. To be fair, though, the hybrids were traveling up a 0.000000000001 degree incline, so they were really at a disadvantage.

Seriously, though, nobody has been able to figure out a viable alternative to oil, coal, and gas yet. What people have done is build upon the existing framework fossil fuels have built, in some cases literally. Even with these alternatives, fossil fuels are more effective and in some cases better for the environment. (See ethanol for an example of this.)

Put simply, we can’t do away with fossil fuels yet because so much of our economy still runs on it. I’m not just talking about fuel here, kids. Fossil fuels are used to generate electricity, because we kinda like to power our devices and, oh, not freeze ourselves to death in the winter or boil ourselves to death in the summer. Then, there are some of the byproducts of fossil fuels, namely plastics, that would be the metaphorical rochabeau to our economy if the Left gets their wish.

But no one ever accused the Left of knowing anything about economics.

There is one alternate fuel source out there that has shown to work well independent of fossil fuels, but the Left doesn’t like it, so it doesn’t get mentioned. And that alternate fuel is…nuclear power. Granted, the Left’s opinions on nuclear power haven’t changed since Three Mile Island, but it’s important to note two things. One, nuclear power is currently being used in some parts of the world without there being meltdowns on a regular basis. And, two, the main reason the Left doesn’t like nuclear power isn’t because of their commitment to safety, but rather their commitment to sowing fear and providing seemingly the only answers to “solve” the climate problem.

I call this the Oprah Effect. Back in her heyday, Oprah Winfrey seemed to thrive on the idea she could see all the problems we (i.e. suburban white women) face and come up with a ready-made solution that not-so-coincidentally helped her pocketbook and ego. The Left uses the Oprah Effect to great success on climate issues for the same reason Oprah was so successful in peddling her brand of problem-solving.

Most people are uninformed, gullible, and lazy. (But not you, faithful readers.)

Since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, people have sought ways to work smarter, not harder, and have utilized whatever means available to do so. The only problem with that approach is eventually we think we run out of ways to make things better, so we rest on our laurels, which America has done for, oh, seven decades or so. As a result, our interest in thinking has waned like the interest in people watching Hannah Gadsby do “comedy.” After all, thinking is hard, dammit! So why not leave it to the experts?

Five decades of wrong predictions on climate change should be a clue.

And to be honest, none of the people pushing for the elimination of fossil fuels are experts, either. I still think alternatives to fossil fuels are possible, but until they can become viable alternatives, they are just possibilities. We need to work with what we have, and the eeeeeevilllll fossil fuel companies are finding new ways to extend the life of the industry and minimize damage to the environment. You know what the anti-fossil fuel side has done?

Talked a lot.

Oh, and stoked a lot of fear of an ecological disaster coming in the near future without anything like they predict ever happening.

With this kind of uninformed resistance, I think fossil fuels will be around for a while longer.

The Politics of Science

What a difference a couple of weeks make! It wasn’t that long ago that we were told outdoor protesting against overly oppressive state lockdown decisions made by a dumbass Governor where open-carry laws were followed would cause COVID-19 cases to skyrocket! (Spoiler Alert: they didn’t.) Now, we’re being told by the same people that protests against the death of George Floyd (some of which have turned violent and destructive) are totes cool.

And people wonder why I have a healthy distrust of public figures.

It’s clear politics have more to do with these contradictory positions than actual science, which has been a destructive force for decades within the scientific community. From climate change to the number of genders, ideological elements have made it possible for science to defy itself at the same time the Left tells us we need to listen to the experts. Of course, when the “experts” are Leftists, it’s like they’re saying to listen to, well, themselves.

Funny how that works, isn’t it?

The problem with politics becoming part of science is the former taints the integrity of the latter. With the scientific method, the scientist work toward finding a conclusion by objectively looking at the results of the experiments used. With politics added into the mix, the scientific method either works backwards (as with climate change) or disregarded altogether if the results don’t come out the way the Left wants (as with genders). As a result, we get studies where the results don’t make sense, which opens science up to (deserved) mockery.

As a fan of science, I take the Left’s perversion of science seriously and, admittedly, personally. We cannot simply ignore it when the science tells us we’re wrong. We either have to accept the results or try again. There is no third option. There isn’t a provision where the results don’t matter if they hurt our fee-fees. Accept or reject are the only choices.

That’s where politics taints the process. There’s an old saying, “The personal is political.” The Left takes this very seriously because it allows them to make anything political with the right framing. Once that happens, they can find/create allies to whatever cause they deem appropriate at the time.

Now, here’s the fun part. Once those causes lose traction with the public, the Left chucks them and their supporters aside. Of course, they will pick these causes and supporters up when it suits their needs (like to blame Republicans for what Leftists did to screw things up). If you question this, let me ask one question: How’s the water in Flint, Michigan, these days?

Not good, huh? My point precisely.

Leftists have always treated the black community as below them in the hierarchy of power, which is why you rarely see blacks in positions of real power within their ranks. They’re always on the stage with white Leftists, but only as bunting, and optional bunting at that. And when black Leftists do create organizations, it’s always as subsidiaries of the main hive-mind.

What does this have to do with the Left’s hypocrisy…I mean change of position on protests? Control (and I’m not talking about the Janet Jackson song). With the anti-lockdown protests, the Left couldn’t control the protesters. They were powerless to stop them, so the Left tried to get people to believe they were dangerous and that a love of freedom is equally dangerous. However, with the protesters of George Floyd’s murder, the Left controls the narrative and can stoke the fires to make the tensions worse. And once the passion dies down, the Left will forget George Floyd even existed.

Just like they forgot about Flint’s water problem.

And just like they forgot about COVID-19 when it came to the George Floyd protests, even after these same folks shouted about how dangerous it was for people to be out in public without masks and social distancing.