Information
Satire.
The Iowa caucus to decide the Democrat candidate has been mired in delays and confusion because of the dire effects of climate change. You may find this difficult to believe but Greta Thunberg and David Attenborough have both declared that the science is settled and the evidence is unequivocal. Who are we mere mortals to question such authorities?
Al Gore, a well known Democrat, said that the excess heat from global warming had been a factor in the overheating of the app that was supposed to tally the figures. Gore suggested that, had the ice not all melted as he predicted, they could have used some ice to cool the servers undertaking the tally count.
It is understood that Trump had his Russian masters hack the DNC systems to get advance warning of the results. When he saw who was the front-runner, Trump realised that there was no real challenge to his success later this year so handed the hacked results to Nancy Pelosi at the start of his SOTU address. Unfortunately, Nancy tore them up so the DNC will have to wait on the official, adjusted, results later.
The initial reports were that the results from the Iowa Democratic caucuses were delayed by “quality control checks” but, days later, quality control issues have still not been resolved. It is hoped that the predicted cooling due to lowered sunspot activity during Solar Cycle 25 may assist.
The 0.5°C temperature increase since pre-industrial times has meant that the results released by the Iowa Democratic Party were riddled with inconsistencies and other flaws. Apparently the temperature increase is causing widespread chaos as more than 100 precincts reported results that were internally inconsistent, were missing data or were not possible under the complex rules of the Iowa caucuses.
In some cases, vote tallies do not add up, just like a lot of global warming, climate change claims. In others, precincts are shown allotting the wrong number of delegates to certain candidates. This is another climate change effect: wrong numbers are regularly assigned to historical temperature recordings. And, in at least a few cases, the Iowa Democratic Party’s reported results do not match those reported by the precincts. The similarities to climate science are indeed eerie: The models don’t match the data.
Some of these inconsistencies may prove to be innocuous, and the DNC are claiming that they do not indicate an intentional effort to compromise or rig the result as in climate change.
If you enjoyed this BFD article please consider sharing it with your friends.
