Is it getting boring to make fun of Rick Santorum? I don’t really care, because frankly the dude is both a menace and an ignoramus and that is comedy gold even if he didn’t look like the love child of Ryan Reynolds and a turtle. (Yes, I recycled that joke, but it’s TRUE.) It’s all very well to talk about frothy mixtures and whatnot, but opportunities to mock Santorum go well beyond his Google problem. Although seriously, does anyone else feel sort of dirty when they type his name, like they should be writing “Sant*rum” or something?

Anyway, Treehugger found a doozy of a quote from Sir Mixture-a-lot about global warming. Let’s mock it! (Note to Rick and adherents: We are not in the “then they laugh at you” stage of Gandhi’s, or whoever’s, hierarchy. We are just laughing at you.)

The question is on how do I get my policies with climate change science. I get asked this question a lot, and you look at the data and you can see some change in the climate. But then again, pick a point in history where you haven’t seen a change in the climate. The climate does change. The question is, what is causing the climate to change?

“The question is climate the change change climate change. When you look at the climate, the climate change climate the climate. What climates the change?”

And so why have we decided that this one particular factor, carbon dioxide, is in fact that tip of the tail that wags the entire dog. Why from a scientific point of view do we make the assertion that this is in fact what is the case when there is a whole lot of other factors out there that could be affecting it? So, that’s the question.

Whoa, Rick Santorum doesn’t know what “wag the dog” means or how to use it. I look forward to the day when he explains that he opposes gay marriage because it’s the lipstick that pigs the downfall of society.

Some people have very strong feelings that it is that. There are a lot of other people who don’t.

Okay, here I can’t really fault him. The public editor of the New York effin’ Times just asked the paper’s readership whether journalists should, like, try to write the truth or something. Given that sort of context, how can we expect some poor sap like Santorum to understand that scientific evidence is not the same as feelings? That would be wagging the dog’s tail for it.

Here’s the question. Let’s even assume, for purposes of argument, not that I agree with it, but for purposes of argument, that they are right. Then what would be a rational response? Well, if you have a problem and you want to craft something, what should that thing that you’re crafting do? Solve the problem. Do any of the proposed solutions put forward by Al Gore and his friends do anything to solve the problem? Even the scientists who support the theory will admit to you that it doesn’t do anything to solve the problem. So query, why support the solution, other than you may have some other agenda that may be in place here.

Right?

“Let’s pretend human-produced carbon dioxide was a factor in climate change, which of course is an absurd feeling that is felt only by liberals so don’t go thinking I feel this feeling because there are very few feelings I’m authorized to feel. Then you should craft a solution, and what should the solution that you crafted be? A solution. ZING. QED. No wait, I’m not done … oh right, so obviously reducing carbon emissions would do nothing to reduce carbon emissions, and furthermore Al Gore doesn’t even have a magic wand to cure climate change instantly, and if he did I would burn him as a witch, and therefore humans have nothing to do with climate change and also rape victims can’t have abortions. Vote Santorum!”

If you really want to see poor Turtle Reynolds flail in person, here’s video: