With a few weeks of school behind us and reams of homework to do, we could all use a break from the exhausting load of responsibilities placed upon us. Luckily, in just over a week, the college will grant us a vacation planted right in the middle between Monday and Friday. And by vacation, I mean the annually held, nationally renowned science forum known as the Nobel Conference. Yes, Gustavus, it’s almost that time of year when scientists and intellectuals flock to campus to discuss cutting-edge scientific issues such as the nature of the universe, the future of medicine, and even the evolution of sex (which must have set the attendance record). Yet in the past couple years, the Nobel Conference has covered some controversial topics, namely the impact of fossil fuels on the global climate and the primitive ancestors of humanity. Well this year appears to be no different, as the current topic of the conference revolves a fiercely debated, highly controversial issue: water conservation.
Now you may not think the sustainability of freshwater resources draws much skepticism or dispute, but it should. Like global warming, human evolution, and the shape of the Earth, there are always two sides to every issue. Consequently, in the name of intellectual diversity, I’ve taken it upon myself to present the other side of so-called “water problem” facing our planet. Over the course of the Nobel Conference you will hear Nobel laureates and academics warn about the environmental impacts of the world’s water supply, the inequality of water provisions to third world countries, and the future of freshwater in the midst of climate change, but I say this is all just a theory. And when I say the word ‘theory’ I don’t mean a well-tested paradigm based on years and years of empirical research – I mean a matter of opinion. Because that’s exactly what these “scientists” are trying to do. They just want to indoctrinate you into believing their opinion is the right one! Plus, we all know that scientists are bunch of snobby elitists who consider themselves far more intelligent than someone like you or me.
Let’s take a look at this year’s presenters. The first speaker will be Rajendra Pachauri, who serves as the chair of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In 2007, IPCC won the Nobel Peace Prize alongside none other than Al Gore. Dr. Pachauri played a role in the creation of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and has been a leading voice in climate and energy issues. He will speak on the effect climate change will have on the world’s water supply. Now is it just me, or are scientists always proclaiming the gloom and doom of global warming?
Okay, I’ll admit I believe in ‘micro’ global warming – how everything heats up in the summer – but definitely not ‘macro’ global warming. How can anyone measure the temperature of the entire Earth at once?
Not to mention that thermometers are highly inaccurate means of measurement. 100 degrees could either be a hot day or the point at which water boils!
Speaking of water, other Nobel presenters including David Sedlak, Peter Gleick, and Asit Biswas will discuss water management and the need to reform water infrastructure to ensure everyone has access to clean water. They will tell you about water shortages around the world, but I demand evidence! And whenever I turn on the faucet there’s always an unending supply of delicious water waiting for me.
I’ve never understood the concept of a water shortage since I can easily point out on a map a virtually unlimited source of water – that’s right, the ocean! Sure there’s salt and sea critters that inhabit the deep blue, but we have plenty of ways to eliminate both from our drinking water. Even if we did run completely out of water, there’s enough Mountain Dew to hydrate humanity for generations.
Joining the panel of water experts and engineers is Larry Rasmussen, a Christian ethicist from Union Theological Seminary. Dr. Rasmussen will address the relationship between social justice and responsible water governance. Finally! A man who understands my point of view, although I have a sinking feeling that his ideas will be too progressive for my liking. You see, I get all my knowledge from the greatest science textbook of all – The Bible – and it has plenty to say about water. If God can send a flood, He can most definitely provide us with the water to sustain our civilization. I think Jesus said it best in John 4:14, “But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.” Water problem solved!
This is the greatest satirical article that I’ve read since A Modest Proposal.
My 5-year-old daughter asked me what “special” meant, so I read her your article. Rest assured that it stands easily as the worst motherfucking piece of writing I have ever read in my as-of-now *questionably* pleasant life. But enough about me; in fact, let’s just dive right into a mere handful of the horrifying assaults against sanity you’ve managed to commit. As a completely unrelated aside: Gooooooooooooo Gustavus!!
“Over the course of the Nobel Conference you will hear Nobel laureates and academics warn about the environmental impacts of the world’s water supply, the inequality of water provisions to third world countries, and the future of freshwater in the midst of climate change, but I say this is all just a theory.”
Instead of just asking outright in some sort of purely rhetorical sense, I’d like to set up a pool with all the other (dozens upon dozens, I’m sure) regular readers of The Gustavian Weekly: on a scale of 0-10, how much deadening, embarrassed silence will I get when I ask Paul Huff what _his_ credentials are? 10 is, let’s just say, Mama and Papa Huff. Or “hair.”
“And when I say the word ‘theory’ I don’t mean a well-tested paradigm based on years and years of empirical research – I mean a matter of opinion.”
Okay, being serious here for a moment. That is never what a theory is. Just because something hasn’t been verified does not mean it is not _verifiable._ There is no other way for me to explain this to you, though it is irrelevant in the face of the *actual verification* (the onus, obviously, is on you to seek this out, given your stated utter lack of qualification when compared to, oh, the entire scientific community) which renders your horribly skewed definition utterly irrelevant to this issue in the first place. I counted at least three ways you are wrong in just that one sentence, but we can make it a game if you’d like to see if you can find one or two more.
“Plus, we all know that scientists are bunch of snobby elitists who consider themselves far more intelligent than someone like you or me.”
Immediately after I finished with this sentence, my daughter told me to “Stop fucking reading.”
“Now is it just me, or are scientists always proclaiming the gloom and doom of global warming?”
Builders build, teachers teach, scientists use their big brains (and tiny penises) to make reliable evidence-based claims. No, not _that_ tiny, Paul.
“Okay, I’ll admit I believe in ‘micro’ global warming – how everything heats up in the summer – but definitely not ‘macro’ global warming. How can anyone measure the temperature of the entire Earth at once?
[the rest of the article]”
I’ll have to cut this short; my daughter just asked me what a “machete” is. I’ll just call this a truce and end by saying that Jesus probably won’t kill you for writing this article.
Well, somebody’s never heard of The Onion.
You had better pray to whatever dark god you worship that this actually is a satire article, so that my only lingering objection will be how shitty it _still is anyway._
Just… fucking horrible.
Yes, it’s satire, and I’m a little worried that you couldn’t perceive it…
Good job, Paul. Your article is so awful that you’ve tricked some poor soul into believing that you’re not even serious
so horrible…