People, by nature, say dumb things. I'm aware of this, my readers are aware of this. We're all even susceptible to this. Sometimes it's funny, sometimes it makes you angry. But every once in awhile you hear something that leaves you simply speechless. There may be so many reponses, but the sheer idiocy of what has just been heard renders an individuals power of articulation useless.

Yesterday was one of those days.

It was lunch time at work, and I was in the process of liberally applying additional supplements to my hot dog at the vendor nearby. Then, this woman from another company walks up and orders her dog. She complains about the weather. Yeah, the weather sucks today. We all agree. Then she offers her explanation as to why the weather is bad.

"It's because of those bombs in Iraq." She says, matter-of-factly.

"What?" replies the vendor, "You mean we're being punished?"

"No!" She says, "It's those bombs in Iraq! They screw up the weather systems. All the birds are migrating different now. That's why the weather sucks."

Of Course! How could I have been so obtuse? It's obvious, in fact. Bombs are changing the weather. Sounds like a proper assertion to me. In fact, why don't we write out a formula for it, and create some sort of axiom describing the unavoidable impact upon the world climate system as a result of bombs in Iraq.

Well, what do we know? We know that all of the atmospheric nuclear testing done in the world from 1945 to 1976 created a grand total of 10 tonnes of plutonium pollution. Surely, atomic testing over a 31-year span has created more pollution than the non-atomic bombs used in Iraq in 1 year. For comparisons sake, what about Mt. Pinatubo, the volcano that let loose 26 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide into the planets atmosphere, singlehandedly dropping temperatures around the world by .5 degrees, thus dwarfing in one shot all of the efforts of mankind.

But that doesn't work in favour of the Bombs in Iraq theory. Damn. So how do we possibly support this theory? We don't actually. Instead, I'll just point out that A: That particular individual is likely brainwashed by liberal media. And B: That individual is most definitely an idiot.

Why don't we discern a real scapegoat. Or should I say scapecow. Did anyone here know that methane (primary greenhouse affectant) accounts for 15% of the total human-related pollution in the world? And that livestock belching makes up 20% of that total? That's 3% of all the 'human' pollution in the world - from our cows. (Livestock falls under human pollution because we eat them, and because it helps add big methane numbers to the environmentalist rants about pollution) Now, if you ask me, that's a lot more worrying than the effects of a couple little bombs in Iraq. In fact, I'd like to beseech everyone to join me in countering this massive problem.

Break out the cutlery ladies and gentlemen. Who wants some steak?