Really? I guess this explains Mary Magdalene during the Roman Warm Period.
Several House Democrats claim that trace amounts of carbon dioxide could push women to ‘transactional sex’ for survival
Several House Democrats are calling on Congress to recognize that climate change is hurting women more than men, and could even drive poor women to “transactional sex” for survival.
…
Climate change could also add “workload and stresses” on female farmers, which the resolution says produce 60 to 80 percent of the food in developing countries.
h/t to Tom Nelson
No wonder polls are showing a lack of support for climate issues, even the dumbest voter can see through this.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
michel says: April 29, 2013 at 12:16 pm
There is underlying all this a serious point – and the jokes here about more hookers being a good thing are in terrible taste.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is better to laugh than to cry. You might try a little CO2, yourself.
Meanwhile over at Geoffchambers’s Blog he’s been looking at how Lewandowsky has cited extensively from V. Swami and how the latter appears to have a fixation with breast and buttock studies.
http://geoffchambers.wordpress.com/2013/04/17/lews-guru-and-the-science-of-a-beautiful-you/
Meanwhile due to a lack of interest I have decided to ‘sex up’ my previous study (‘is there a link between climate change and boggers up my nose?’) to ‘is climate change affecting breast and buttocks?”
With such a provocative title and guarenteed media coverage/leering I will forgo the study and make up the results knowing fame and acclaim await. I’m pretty sure it will have liberals frothing en mass.
I can say no more for now but ‘it’s worse than we thought’
/sarc
So this is what the U.S. Secret Service was doing in Cartagena, Columbia last year. They were investigating global warming!
Right. Got it. That’s not the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard, but it ranks. But wait, here’s a counterargument worthy of this gem:
Suppose AGW is real. Therefore we are turning into hobbits, and therefore women are turning into prostitutes. But there are no streetwalking hobbits because I didn’t see any while watching ‘Lord of the Rings’. I didn’t see any while watching ‘The Hobbit’ either. No hobbit brothels are mentioned in the books. Therefore, that AGW is turning women into prostitutes and hobbits at the same time is a contradiction. Therefore AGW is false.
~sigh~ I know, not all that funny. But it’s the best I could do to prevent my skull from exploding.
where are these transactions supposed to take place when everywhere is flooded. Bet LA Gore is licking his lips already, the randy old toad.
I don’t see why “climate change is hurting women more than men” – we all have to keep warm, we all have to eat. So, aside from the sexist women-are-weaker-when-it-comes-to-tolerance BS in such a claim… I do hope you’ve added this to The List. This is the funniest thing I’ve read in ages. 🙂
evidence to the contrary: http://blog.balder.org/?p=847
Women and Minorities Hardest Hit (except Asians)
I knew this was going to happen after I got married. The bottom’s going to fall out of the sex market (so to speak) just like it did the carbon market and here I am locked into a long term, limited option, annuity.
Job-wise I suppose the corollary is global warming creates more openings for men!
eco-geek says:
April 29, 2013 at 2:43 pm
Job-wise I suppose the corollary is global warming creates more openings for men!
Not if Hillary gets elected in 2016!
Déjà vu
What a bloody joke.
It is a new and refreshing view of history: I guess we are good for a new proxy for global temperature based on hooker’s transaction costs?
A multi-model ensemble forecasting study (where the ensemble can either consist of multiples runs of a single model or runs from different independent models) is needed to asses where the tipping point will come.
However, before doing this we might look at the real data (interesting like many things with the climate, the data tells a different story and does not fit the narrative:)
http://www.voxeu.org/article/parametric-estimations-world-distribution-income
The world poverty is falling:
“Although world population has increased by about 80% over this time (World Bank 2009), the number of people below the $1 a day poverty line has shrunk by nearly 64%, from 967 million in 1970 to 350 million in 2006.”
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/reasons-to-be-cheerful.aspx
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/richer-for-poorer.aspx
well, unfortunately not everybody is getting richer:
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/global-outlook-rosy-europe%27s-outlook-grim.aspx
Is there anything the trace rise of the trace gas co2 can’t do?
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Science Eduction No Longer Required to Sell Warmageddon Tricks.
[headline suggestion]
Will they accept carbon credits?
Re Code Tech:
“Anyone with even a whit of sense knows that it’s poverty that pushes women in that direction, and as others have noted the constantly rising price of merely staying warm, having light, and being able to drive or take transit is having that effect.”
Whit of sense aside Code Tech you are talking out of your arse. You’ve zero knowledge or experience of European prostitutes. A qualified engineer doesn’t pack in her job and become a prostitute out of poverty. An English woman doesn’t emigrate to another country specifically to become a prostitute where it is legal out of poverty. Intelligent articulate women who speak three languages don’t become prostitutes out of poverty. I am talking very specifically about prostitutes I know.
For these house Democrats to put forth such ridiculousness is a measure of how hyperbolic the CAGW fairytale has become. Only 10 to 20 years ago, even the dumbest of gullible politicians would have thought such an idea to be too stupid to even think of and that it would be bad publicity for the cause. But when you build it block by block…..
…to be fair, I do understand the point you were TRYING to make: IF poverty was what drove women to prostitution THEN it is Green policies and Green taxes will be responsible.
“transactional sex”, sounds like marriage (gives and takes)
A bit off-topic, but
(a) Mary Magdalene probably never existed. Same for Jesus. But if they did exist …
(b) For what it’s worth (and that is not much) the documentary evidence we have gives absolutely no grounds for thinking that MM was a prostitute.
(c) It does, however, contain strong hints that MM was J’s wife.
Not that it will do any good, but I sent that link to my democrat senator and asked him if all dems were nuts. I don’t expect an answer. Again.
RoHa says:
April 29, 2013 at 4:27 pm
Humor-type jokes aren’t your thing, eh?
Wamron, whatever you’re trying to say, your hostile and belittling tone completely undermined it.
I know many people who live in a low income area of my city. Far too many girls that I know have made money as “escorts”. There is no way they EVER would have done that if they had other ways of earning money.
And contrary to your second post, I DID make my point. Just because you didn’t understand it doesn’t mean otherwise.
RoHa, there are no serious historians or scholars who actually doubt the existence of Jesus. The only doubt realistically is whether he was who he claimed to be. We even know his real name.
From the wiki entry:
So you fail on A, succeed on B, and fail on C. Thats 1 for 3.