By audience applause, who won global warming?

On Tuesday, coalmonger and head of the EPA Scott Pruitt told Reuters that he hopes to have a televised debate on climate change. He proposed that it would be between "a group of scientists," but refused to say who these scientists would be, what kind of science they tend to get up to, or what kind of barrels he plans on scraping the bottom of in order to find a climate scientist opposed to human-caused climate change. One would assume he'd go with the discredited shill barrel, but then there's always the tried and true emeritus gadfly barrel for when you're looking to throw a contrarian among the proper scientists.

At this point, having a debate on whether humans are causing climate change or not is about as useful as debating whether the dress was actually #whiteandgold or #blackandblue. 

Now, I haven't seen the actual dress myself, but I trust the experts that have. Despite the fact that my eyes see (and the picture is) browny-gold and a bluish-white, I can accept the fact that the actual dress was black and blue. (Writing that made my eyes want to barf--the picture of the dress is clearly team #whiteandgold!)

It may not seem to some that climate change is a thing we as humans are doing, but trust the experts: we are! So, here's a list of debates that would better serve the public:

  • Do mermaids exist? If so, are humans causing mermaids to exist less? Probably.
  •  Is Frank Underwood's accent from a place? If so, a consistent place?
  • Why do the elderly hate squirrels so much? Is it that they're the only ones that remember what the squirrels did during the war?
  • How many rollerblades is too many?
  •  Is Vaseline pronounced vays-line or vaws-line?