The People's Cube - Political Satire

Comrades, as a Progressive, I am a very tolerant person. I am very open to other races, creeds, cultures, sexual orientations and all political views similar to my own. However, even MY benevolence has its limits. There are some things which are.. er, sacrilegious (for want of a better term) and CANNOT be tolerated by reasonable people, such as myself. I present to you this heresy:

Global warming is the new religion of First World urban elites

Geologist Ian Plimer takes a contrary view, arguing that man-made climate change is a con trick perpetuated by environmentalists

By Jonathan Manthorpe, Vancouver SunJuly 28, 2009


Ian Plimer has outraged the ayatollahs of purist environmentalism, the Torquemadas of the doctrine of global warming, and he seems to relish the damnation they heap on him.

Plimer is a geologist, professor of mining geology at Adelaide University, and he may well be Australia's best-known and most notorious academic.

Plimer, you see, is an unremitting critic of "anthropogenic global warming" -- man-made climate change to you and me -- and the current environmental orthodoxy that if we change our polluting ways, global warming can be reversed.

It is, of course, not new to have a highly qualified scientist saying that global warming is an entirely natural phenomenon with many precedents in history. Many have made the argument, too, that it is rubbish to contend human behaviour is causing the current climate change. And it has often been well argued that it is totally ridiculous to suppose that changes in human behaviour -- cleaning up our act through expensive slight-of-hand taxation tricks -- can reverse the trend.

But most of these scientific and academic voices have fallen silent in the face of environmental Jacobinism. Purging humankind of its supposed sins of environmental degradation has become a religion with a fanatical and often intolerant priesthood, especially among the First World urban elites.

Plimer presents the proposition that anthropogenic global warming is little more than a con trick on the public perpetrated by fundamentalist environmentalists and callously adopted by politicians and government officials who love nothing more than an issue that causes public anxiety.

While environmentalists for the most part draw their conclusions based on climate information gathered in the last few hundred years, geologists, Plimer says, have a time frame stretching back many thousands of millions of years.

Source Link...

Comrades, as Algore has said many times, the science is settled. This has been corroborated by numerous newspaper columnists, celebrities, congresspersons and other scientific experts, but yet infidels such a Plimer will simply not listen! There is no reasonable way to deal with them; we have tried being nice guys and gals about this. We have tried gently hinting to them that they are destroying the planet and life as we know it. We have tried mild cajoling with big-screen technicolor movies about environmental disasters. We have even tried reasoning with them, such as comparing AGW denial with Holocaust Denial. But these soft methods have not worked. It is time to bring out the big guns.

The Constitution forbids cruel and inhuman punishment, but as we all know it is a "living" document which our People's Republic's founding white eurocentric males intended for us to interpret as we wish. And, these are desperate times; the fate of the planet is at stake! So, we must use extraordinary measures to deal with the threat. The Pope Obama must convene a panel of high profile experts - I suggest Algore, John Holdren and that singer chick who only uses one square of toilet paper (I bet no one wants to shake hands with her) - who will be given extraordinary powers to discover and root out this heresy by any means necessary. There are plenty of instruments of persuasion available in various museums - I hear the Tower of London has a good collection - which will motivate the recalcitrant into accepting the scientific facts. Only when the vile corrosive doctrine of AGW Denial has been violently extracted and destroyed will we be safe. The time to act is NOW!

Comrade Opiate, thank you for bringing another thoughtcriminal to justice. But why go through the trouble of torture, when we can just pull a Che on these blasphemers?! Crucify! Crucify! Then we can have a show trial.

Comrade Opiate,
Perhaps a better term then sacrilegious would be "dissent" maybe? On the other hand though, isn't science an absolute? Something that once The Party nature has determined to be true is true?

Comrade Commissar,

this is a valid point. Since "dissent is patriotic" we must CRUSH it, rip it out by its roots. We must make an example of this dissenter! There must not be a shred of patriotism left in this country as it goes against the fibre of equality among all nations. Of course Cuba and Venezuela are still more equal than the USSA.

Science is absolut, just like the vodka. It becomes more absolut, the more you drink it, especially with copious amounts of kool-aid.

Dissent is acceptable when directed against RethugliKKKans, individualists, capitalists, objectivists, libertarians, gun owners, free speech advocates, privacy advocates, and other low forms of life. Check with your local Commissar for the current Party Approved(TM) Dissent List (pat appl'd for)

Comrades, this issue highlights the difference between religion and science. In religion, dogma is defined by elitist experts and must be accepted even though there are no facts to verify their hypothesis. In science, especially climate science, dogma is defined by elitist experts and must be accepted even though the facts seem to disprove the hypothesis, because the facts are wrong. I hope we all understand the difference.




When boobs like Algore say "The science is settled", that's baloney. Science is NEVER settled. New facts are always being discovered and if they are not explained by the existing hypotheses, then those hypotheses must be altered or discarded. If it were not this way, we'd still be believing in the geocentric universe and healing sick patients by draining blood from them (gee, that would sure bring health care costs down, eh?)

Opiate of the People wrote:

When boobs like Algore say "The science is settled", that's baloney. Science is NEVER settled. New facts are always being discovered and if they are not explained by the existing hypotheses, then those hypotheses must be altered or discarded. If it were not this way, we'd still be believing in the geocentric universe and healing sick patients by draining blood from them (gee, that would sure bring health care costs down, eh?)

I was arguing with a friend not too long ago about if mathematics is a science or absolute.He was so damn sure it was an absolute, and I'm so settle in it's a science, we basically got no where (which wasn't shocking, seeing as he is very stubborn).

I could go into greater details of the argument, but I actually want to hear from you, the comrades, is mathematics (all branches of it) a science, or absolute?

Originally, I was going to add this video about that thoughtcriminal Mel Brooks and his take on the Inquisition.



What a show.

I would say Mathematics is "the science of numbers" so to speak. It differs somewhat from the natural sciences in that those seek to understand real world phenomena whereas Mathematics is entirely abstract. But I would say math requires empirical method to validate its tenets the same as any other science.

I am not entirely sure how he applies the word absolute in this context. Things exist, whether in mathematics, physics or whatever; science of all types seeks to discover and understand phenomena but the pheonomena already exist regardless of our ability to understand or perceive them. All science is basically our human attempt to understand correctly what already is, so to me math or any other science is not an absolute but an attempt to perceive an absolute, mainly the universe.

An absolute, under his definition, is something that is. It is absolutely there, mathematics would be the source of "mathematics branches", or the "tree-ness," in tree, these come from Platonic thinking. Unlike sciences, again under his speculation, which are speculation and assumptions, math is known.

I'm sorry to have to repeat my self that many times, I just wanted to be as clear as I could.


I see math as a science because why is 2+2=4? It is because we assume 2 is "2" of something and 4 is "4" of something, and in this equation, we assume that "2" + "2" is equal to "4".

To quote O'Brian "If the Party says 2 + 2 = 5, then 2 + 2 = 5."

OK, using physics as an example: stars exist and have existed pretty much since the beginning of the known universe. The science of physics seeks to understand how they work and how they are formed but this knowledge on our part was not a necessary condition for them to exist.

Mathematics can be seen the same way. Two plus two is four and the circumference of a circle is approximately 3.1415 times the diameter, etc, etc. The relationship between numbers, the ways numbers work with each other, were created by a Creator or appeared spontaneously (I think the former) when the universe began. Mathematics is a science which seeks to discover and understand those relationships.

As an example, Fermat's Last Theorem states that no three positive integers a, b, and c can satisfy the equation aⁿ + bⁿ = cⁿ for any integer value of n greater than two. Fermat made this conjecture in the 1600s but never wrote down the proof (or maybe was unable to prove it, nobody really knows.) It was not proved until a few years ago. So, for around 400 years, mathematicians could not use this conjecture in any of their work even though it seemed to be reliable (nobody could find a value of n>2 that would disprove it either.) But now that it is proven (assuming the proof was vetted and is seamless), they know there is no solution. Nothing has changed as far as numbers and their relationships; there was never any solution to the problem. What has changed is that now the science of mathematics is sure of this.

I hope I haven't beaten this to death but I wanted to be clear about what I think the distinction is.