Al Sharpton: Republicans Has Climate Change

(Direct link to video.)

God bless Al Sharpton. I mean this. God bless him. This video—this service Sharpton has done us—is final proof, it seals all deals, dissolves all doubt, that global warming is purely political.

In the race for prominence in American political buffoonery, Sharpton lopes neck-and-neck with Joe “The Groper” Biden. Here’s Sharpton saying he’s no scientist, there’s Biden giving the pinch to the Secretary of Defense’s wife. There’s Big Al chanting Indiana’s religious freedom law is akin to slavery, here’s Little Joe saying Obama’s economic solution is “a three-letter word. Jobs. J–O–B–S. Jobs.”

These gentlemen are of great utility. Everybody knows that whatever they say about any political matter, the opposite is true. They are perfect negative barometers—and terrific comic relief. If either man announces his presidential candidacy, I’ll be there, supporting him. Can you imagine four years of “President Biden”? I can.

But then I have a refined and sophisticated sense of humor, married to a sense of inevitable doom over this country’s fate. I say, if you’re going to flame out as a nation, you may as well do it gloriously. No spectacle would be more sublime than Al Sharpton strutting down the White House steps to a chorus of Hail to the Chief.

There’s no chance for Sharpton, of course. Nor for Biden. Since our politics are now purely quota based, we need to fill the Leader-of-the-(not so)-free-world slot with a female. Insisting on a woman because (they claim) women are the same as men is one of the more delicious hilarities we’re about to hear repeated at daily intervals.

Clinton redux is therefore as near a guarantee as one can have in politics, and only to be lamented because regular stories of President Biden failing to corner female reporters in the Oval Office will be denied to us. We still have hopes with Bill, of course, but it won’t be the same.

Anyway, Sharpton. Is there anything worthy saying about the video? Not really. It would be like explaining a joke—well, it would be explaining a joke—which would have the effect of crushing the life out of the punch line.

So let it pass unmolested. Just know that there is now no reason, none whatsoever, to bother explaining climate science. Trying to show a progressive real science about failed climate models is like trying to explain to a progressive that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” means that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Either way, the words just bounce off his impenetrable Armor of Ideology.

Frustrating. Your only hope for sanity, therefore, is to enjoy the absurdity the best you can. So sit back, relax, grab a bucket of popcorn and know that, with politics, Al Sharpton has it down to a science. “We got you.”


  1. Duke Energy gave millios to the Democratic Party—oil money. One must wonder if there’s some sort of little tryst here to push say, wind and solar, plunge the US into darkness as these fail (Duke having made a fortune off the subsidies for the failed wind and solar), and then Duke and the other nice oil companies mop up the economy with the billions they will make when Americans are forced to rely on evil oil and gas. Oh, it won’t be evil then. Duke will be the saviour of the US. Of course, this is all speculation, but who needs an actual paper trail when the accusation is so serious? So hurry up and answer those emails about wind and solar for your home before it’s too late. As for the Koch Brothers, well every good conspiracy needs a third, someone appearing to take the fall. The Koch brothers may well be a division of Duke Energy. Wait! This makes Willie Soon an American hero who worked undercover in all of this, gladly taking the fall so Duke could profit from the whole deal. Wow! Wouldn’t that be so cool!!!!

  2. Gary

    Tawana Brawley.
    I rest my case.

  3. Ray

    Environmentalism is a religion and if you got faith you don’t need facts.

  4. Nate

    Dave Barry covered this in his excellent book about Washington, “Dave Barry Hits Below the Beltway.”

    Page 62:
    “No, we can’t. So instead, we should learn to view the federal government as entertainment – a comedy extravaganza, featuring the kind of madcap craziness and wacky hijinks that you can get only when you give nearly $2 trillion a year to an organization with the proven financial management expertise of a tub of bait.”

  5. Alan McIntire

    “John B()
    April 6, 2015 at 9:54 am

    Found this tidbit on WUWT through a commenter:

    Somewhat off topic, but I strongly dislike that “McCarthyite” term.
    Joe McCarthy was a SENATOR, opposed to employing communists in government agencies. He had nothing to do with the HOUSE unAmerican Activities Committee, which DID attack communists in Hollywood and academia.

  6. MattS

    @Alan McIntire

    “Joe McCarthy was a SENATOR, opposed to employing communists in government agencies.”

    Not only that, he did actually find real communist spies that had infiltrated the government, so it wasn’t the complete witch hunt people these days try to make it out to be.

  7. John B()

    Apologies :

    Somewhere in the thread was an acknowledgment of Ann Coulter’s book on Joe that showed he was right after all.

    Just wanted to point out the hypocrisy of Harry Reid and his ilk.

  8. MattS and John B()—yes, McCarthey apparantly was right—in hindsight. The fact the McCarthey was right only strengthens the warmists using the same tactics. After all, they may be proven right later in hindsight.

    It doesn’t matter if McCarthey was right or not, the tactics the term refers to were unethical, immoral and very damaging. That’s what matters in all of this.

  9. Ken

    RE: “This video—this service Sharpton has done us—is final proof, it seals all deals, dissolves all doubt, that global warming is purely political.”


    While there’s no doubt the vast majority of alarmists have a political agenda or are duped into supporting such an agenda…without a doubt, some (or “many” depending on how “some” & “many” are defined) truly believe in the science.

    I.E., there’s a logical fallacy invoked–that the hi-jacking of a science (flawed or otherwise) for political ends thus proves ALL the science is political. Isn’t that what’s called a “Sweeping Generalization”?

    That aside, there is an interesting clue there — the nature of the ilk of those like Sharpton disclose their vulnerabilities by their tactics: Their ongoing emphasis on “Big Oil” paying for allegedly particular findings puts the accused on the proverbial hot plate upon which they’re induced into defensive tap dance that is “rebutted” by vague generalities & implications…almost but not quite slander/libel. That’s the clue — they get a LOT of funding from sources that, if disclosed, would undermine thier position of implied [never stated/asserted] objectivity. What they attack in others is, mostly often, exactly the sort of thing they’re guilty of. So why not go on the offensive, identify their biased funding sources, etc?

  10. Wow. How sophisticated. And replete with the Joe McCarthy fan club. My IQ just went down reading all this. Wow.


  11. Brandon Gates

    Alan McIntire,

    Quoting the National Review article:

    Ever since [1954], McCarthyism — the reckless hurling of accusations at adversaries so as to destroy their reputations — has been considered one of the lowest forms of political behavior and one liberals love to crusade against.

    I’d say it’s a fairly popular crusade all around.

    But McCarthyism isn’t limited to one party or ideology.

    That would have been my next point as well.

    And if liberals have any sense of self-awareness they will recognize the tactic has returned and is growing in their back yard.

    Irony. Also; it never went away.

    I was thinking that perhaps the New McCarthyism looks something like this: dispense with the tedium of keeping a blacklist and crucify the entire opposition via the press and social media to fire up the rabble. However, credit for that goes as least as far back as the demagogues of Athens.

    I’m with Briggs on this point: popcorn futures look good, especially if one revels in observing herds of bleating sheep gnawing each other’s legs off.

  12. DEEBEE

    JMJ, rejoice, the absolute value of your IQ increased.

  13. John

    Assertion, bulverism, inconsistent comparison, moral high ground, appeal to bandwagon, reification, poisoning the well, appeal to motive, and genetic fallacies at the least. A whole, “kettle,” of fallacious logic there.

    Wow, Sharpton, so many in so short a span (not the record I’m sorry to say). Not once did Sharpton actually refute or address the claims of whom he derisively term, “deniers.” Not once did he provide any factual evidence to support his position. I find it funny a person who is clearly, “not a scientist,” attacks others for honestly admitting such and then referencing actual scientists instead of simply accepting the talking points spewed by some.

    Any self-respecting, intellectually honest person would know; definitively and without reservation; that this demagogue is spouting nothing but slander and ignorant nonsense. Then again, look who his comments were directed to…

  14. Sander van der Wal


    Did you measure by how much, or do you just believe?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *