Posted by coby on July 22, 2010 Courtesy of commenter “Cornelius Breadbasket” at John Cook’s Skeptical Science:
100 climate deniers go into a bar.
Spencer goes up to the landlord and asks “do you sell pure alcohol?” “No mate, just the usual wines, beers and spirits” he replies. “Right lads, next pub” says Spencer.
The landlord is stunned. “What’s wrong?” he asks. “Nothing mate” replies Spencer, it’s just we require 100% proof”.
Of course, 100% proof is only 50% alcohol, but since when did that lot get anything right? 
)
As funny as that is on its face, I think it’s inaccurate.
Considering the concentration of redneck idiots that make up the climate denial camp, conversion between alcohol proof and percentage is one of the few of life’s details they know intimately.
Well, while we’re being picky, it’s either a percent or a proof, not both.
But I still think it was hilarious. Actually, it had me at, “100 climate deniers go into a bar.” It almost didn’t matter what the punchline was.
Shouldn’t it be “climate change deniers”? It makes it sound like they’re a bunch of people who believe that there are no set of measurable and predictable characteristics to long term weather patterns based upon known inputs… Oh, actually, “climate denier” works well enough. Carry on.
Actually the 100% proof statement comes from the old days when the poms would transport rum to the colonies. Sailors had a habit of drinking some of the rum and replacing what they drank with water.
When the ships docked they would pour the rum onto gun powder if the water content was too high the gun powder would not light. If it did then that was 100% proof the rum had not been watered down.
Now onto the joke, yes i did find it funny and admit i had a little chuckle. So if deniers required 100% proof alcohol then believers would be happy to drink a shandy? (thats half beer half lemonade to those not as wise).
shandy’s ‘good’ if you’ve had something way stronger first 
.
“100% proof is only 50% alcohol”
Only in America. Originally it means 57.15% alcohol by volume (see crakar24 above). And overproof is a fire hazard; underproof is safe.
So if deniers required 100% proof alcohol then believers would be happy to drink a shandy?
We neither demand nor eschew a drink based on alcohol content; we merely avoid nut products.
Pough my god man how are you? I see your ability to write funny posts is still with you.
“Avoid nut products” thats a good one LMAO…
Cheers
Crakar
I’m doing okay, Crakar, and will be better in a few hours after a beer or two! It’s been warm and dry here for a long time. (Not that I’m blaming temporary regional weather on AGW.) I’m finding a local pilsner goes down nice on a hot day, even though I’d probably find it way too bland on a cooler one.
Well, I got a smile out of it even with the inacuracy.
There can be “comedic licence”..
Hey everyone. I just popped back in to see how you all were.
Entertaining reading as usual.
Hey Craker, I noticed your post about Woomera. We might know someone in common.
Do you know Michael Smart?
Hey Mandas, could you tell me the name of that book you recomended again? (a couple of months ago)
Sorry, but I have tried searching the Posts, and can’t find it.
I want to see if I can get hold of it, as well as the Links you posted.
Cheers b’gears!
Do you think we may have met before Michael )
I do not know him by name but if he was in Woomera at the time then i would have worked with him at some point but i do not remember his name. Who did he work for? DSTO?
July 22, 2010
July 22, 2010
July 22, 2010
July 22, 2010
July 22, 2010
July 23, 2010
July 23, 2010
July 30, 2010