So, A Sea Lion Walks Into A Bar….Forget The Joke, It Must Be Climate Change!

An amusing story, turned into bat guano insane by a Cult of Climastrology member at Grist

Sea lion, fed up with climate change, hits the bar

Sea lions have been driven out of the sea and onto city streets because their tasty sources of food — like anchovies and sardines — are being decimated by acidifying oceans. In San Francisco, for example, they’ve been wandering the streets starving and confused, but in Southern California (of course) they’re a little bolder.

Last week, a sea lion flopped onto dry land in Orange County, declared “ugh,” and, just like you, immediately headed to the nearest bar.

From the Los Angeles Times:

The pup wandered off the beach, through the parking lot and up the steps leading into Beach Ball just before 11 a.m. May 12, bar patrons said.

Sea lion sightings have become more common recently along Orange County beaches. More than 2,000 of the animals, most of them dehydrated and malnourished, have washed ashore this year in California, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The sea lion, in addition to being fucking hungry because humans ruined his home, has an eye infection which, in the perfect intersection of tragic and cute, makes him look like he’s winking all the time.

The LA Times article also went Warmist, after starting off cute regarding the bar always carding patrons, and the sea lion not having ID.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

10 Responses to “So, A Sea Lion Walks Into A Bar….Forget The Joke, It Must Be Climate Change!”

  1. john says:

    please feel free to mock any of the people listed below for belonging to that cult that you keep denigrating

    Thomas Fingar, former chairman of President Bush’s National Intelligence Council: “We judge global climate change will have wide-ranging implications for US national security interests over the next 20 years … We judge that the most significant impact for the United States will be indirect and result from climate-driven effects on many other countries and their potential to seriously affect US national security interests.”
    Brig. General Steven Anderson, USA (Ret.), former Chief of Logistics under General Petraeus and a self-described “conservative Republican”: “Our oil addiction, I believe, is our greatest threat to our national security. Not just foreign oil but oil in general. Because I believe that in CO2 emissions and climate change and the instability that that all drives, I think that that increases the likelihood there will be conflicts in which American soldiers are going to have to fight and die somewhere.”

    Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense: “[T]he area of climate change has a dramatic impact on national security: rising sea levels, to severe droughts, to the melting of the polar caps, to more frequent and devastating natural disasters all raise demand for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.”

    Robert Gates, former Secretary of Defense: “Over the next 20 years and more, certain pressures-population, energy, climate, economic, environmental-could combine with rapid cultural, social, and technological change to produce new sources of deprivation, rage, and instability.”

    General Gordon Sullivan, USA (Ret.), former Army chief of staff: “Climate change is a national security issue. We found that climate instability will lead to instability in geopolitics and impact American military operations around the world.”

    Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn, USN (Ret.): “If the destabilizing effects of climate change go unchecked, we can expect more frequent, widespread, and intense failed state scenarios creating large scale humanitarian disasters and higher potential for conflict and terrorism … The Department of Defense and national intelligence communities recognize this clear link between climate change, national security, and instability and have begun strategic plans and programs to both mitigate and adapt to the most likely and serious effects in key areas around the globe.”

    General Anthony Zinni, USMC (Ret.), former Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Central Command and special envoy to Israel and Palestine under President George W. Bush: “It’s not hard to make the connection between climate change and instability, or climate change and terrorism.”

    Admiral Joseph Lopez, USN (Ret.): “Climate change will provide the conditions that will extend the war on terror.”

    General Chuck Wald, USAF (Ret.), former Deputy Commander of U.S. European Command under President George W. Bush: “People can say what they want to about whether they think climate change is manmade or not, but there’s a problem there and the military is going to be a part of the solution. It’s a national security issue because it affects the stability of certain places in the world.”

    Brig. General Bob Barnes, USA (Ret.): “While most people associate global warming with droughts, rising sea levels, declining food production, species extinction and habitat destruction, fewer connect these impacts to increasing instability around the globe and the resulting threats to our national security. But the connection – and the threat it poses – is real and growing.”

    Vice Admiral Richard Truly, USN (Ret.), former NASA administrator: “The stresses that climate change will put on our national security will be different than any we’ve dealt with in the past.”

    General Paul Kern, USA (Ret.), Commander of the United States Army Materiel Command under President George W. Bush: “Military planning should view climate change as a threat to the balance of energy access, water supplies, and a healthy environment, and it should require a response.’

    Lt. General Lawrence Farrell, USAF (Ret.): “The planning we do that goes into organizing, training, and equipping our military considers all the risks that we may face. And one of the risks we see right now is climate change.”

    Admiral John Nathman, USN (Ret.), former Commander of the U.S. Fleet Forces Command under President George W. Bush: “There are serious risks to doing nothing about climate change. We can pay now or we’re going to pay a whole lot later. The U.S. has a unique opportunity to become energy independent, protect our national security and boost our economy while reducing our carbon footprint. We’ve been a model of success for the rest of the world in the past and now we must lead the way on climate change.”

    Vice Admiral Lee Gunn, USN (Ret.): “The national security community is rightly worried about climate change because of the magnitude of its expected impacts around the globe, even in our own country … Climate change poses a clear and present danger to the United States of America. But if we respond appropriately, I believe we will enhance our security, not simply by averting the worst climate change impacts, but by spurring a new energy revolution.”
    See any lefty hippies here?

  2. Liam Thomas says:

    Lest we forget.

    November 25, 1997:
    email 0880476729

    Tom Wigley roundly criticises the eleven scientists seeking endorsement of their

    Dear Eleven,
    I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get others
    to endorse it. Not only do I disagree with the content of this letter, but I
    also believe that you have severely distorted the IPCC “view” when you
    say that “the latest IPCC assessment makes a convincing economic case for
    immediate control of emissions.”

    This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you a
    disservice. To someone like me, who knows the science, it is apparent that
    you are presenting a personal view, not an informed, balanced scientific
    assessment. What is unfortunate is that this will not be apparent to the
    vast majority of scientists you have contacted. In issues like this, scientists
    have an added responsibility to keep their personal views separate from
    the science, and to make it clear to others when they diverge from the
    objectivity they (hopefully) adhere to in their scientific research. I think
    you have failed to do this.
    Your approach of trying to gain scientific credibility for your personal
    views by asking people to endorse your letter is reprehensible. No scientist
    who wishes to maintain respect in the community should ever endorse
    any statement unless they have examined the issue fully themselves. You
    are asking people to prostitute themselves by doing just this! I fear that
    some will endorse your letter, in the mistaken belief that you are making a
    balanced and knowledgeable assessment of the science—when, in fact, you
    are presenting a flawed view that neither accords with
    the IPCC nor with
    the bulk of the scientific and economic literature on the subject.

    When scientists color the science with their own
    personal views or make
    categorical statements without presenting the evidence for such statements,
    they have a clear responsibility to state that that is what they are doing. You
    have failed to do so. Indeed, what you are doing is, in my view, a form of
    dishonesty more subtle but no less egregious than the statements made by
    the greenhouse skeptics

    . I find this extremely disturbing

  3. Liam Thomas says:

    As for your Climate Change endorsement.

    Climate change is in fact something to be concerned with and it is prudent for everyone to take into account climate changing and to make the necessary steps to ensure safety going forward.

    The problem is never in climate that is changing. It is in the reasoning behind WHY the climate is changing.


    Okay. Fine Co2 is the fault….I have consistently shown that co2 is produced and introduced into the atmosphere in many ways besides the burning of fossil fuels.

    In fact the Sierra club surmises that nearly half of all newly introduced co2 comes from the soil not fossil fuels.

    This is the debate. AS the above email points out during climate gate email scandals…the gang of 11 wanted to force everyone to sign on board with hardly any evidence showing their positions were sound.

    Nothing has changed other then a purging of data from the internet. Data that used to be routinely googled, or yahoo’d to disprove Jones, Mann etc….has now gone missing from the internet.

    The AGW crowd are Nazi dictators and Stalin Purgers who believe that the world needs to have a DO OVER because they dont like how it turned out.

    That is the debate…Not whether the weather is changing or not.

  4. Jeffery says:

    Nothing has changed other then a purging of data from the internet. Data that used to be routinely googled, or yahoo’d to disprove Jones, Mann etc….has now gone missing from the internet.

    Another right-wing conspiracy.

    The AGW crowd are Nazi dictators and Stalin Purgers who believe that the world needs to have a DO OVER because they dont like how it turned out.

    Nazis and fascists and communists, oh my!

    When you run out of arguments – call the other guy a Nazi. Or a child molester.

    I’ll ask one final science question. Since, in your claim set, atmospheric CO2 originates from ice, soil and dead plants – why has it shot up so rapidly in the last century or so, coincident with humans pumping so much CO2 there?

  5. Jl says:

    John-“See any lefty hippies here?” Probably not. See any anybody with much science background? No. Next, we’ll get the names of some Boy Scouts to counter-act your retired military personnel.

  6. Liam Thomas says:

    Nothing has changed other then a purging of data from the internet.

    Another right-wing conspiracy.

    In the climategate email scandals there are plenty of emails indicating that is exactly what they are doing.

    But dont let the facts get in the way of your paycheck.

  7. Jeffery says:

    Sorry Lame. My paychecks come from royalties, return on investments, a university and a corporation I co-founded.

    What organization is funding the trolling of conservative websites? Is it the federal government? George Soros? Michael Mann? Who funds this program?

  8. Liam Thomas says:

    orry Lame. My paychecks come from royalties, return on investments, a university and a corporation I co-founded.

    Come On jeffery your on the right side of the AGW crowd. Your safe. You can easily reveal your name, your company and your university without fear of retribtuion.

    In fact they would most likely honor you for your service to the cause.

  9. gitarcarver says:

    Sorry Lame.

    Just the other day there was a notice from our host on name pointless name calling. He wants it stopped.

    One of the commenters said “agreed.”

    That same commenter is back to his old tricks. It shows what his word means.

  10. david7134 says:

    You get a paycheck from a university? I am sorry, I could not stop laughing. Is the pay check for janitor services? Then you freely admit to owning a horrible corporation and thus making every effort to avoid your fair tax burden.

Pirate's Cove