RIPCC

Surrounding these recent revelations, some hilarity from the world’s preeminent skeptic cartoonist, Josh.

Thanks to Josh at www.cartoonsbyjosh.com

About these ads
This entry was posted in Humor, Satire. Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to RIPCC

  1. cbone says:

    I like it!

  2. Oslo says:

    It’s worse than we thought!

  3. Ed Murphy says:

    A celebration, some fireworks, in the background would be a nice touch.

  4. Gnomish says:

    They get 72 climate virgins, so they’re laughing.
    (/sarcoff)

    Good one, Josh!

  5. Gary says:

    Don’t doubt for a minute that the Frankensteins who built this monster will try to revivify it as long as they have any power at all.

  6. Leon Brozyna says:

    If only …

    It’s more like news of its death have been greatly exaggerated; bureaucracies never die, they just mutate into more deadly forms.

  7. PaulH says:

    “Gone but not forgotten.”

  8. Robert of Ottawa says:

    What is astonishing to me is that the MSM are taking this report so seriously; they actually are making headlines from it. Meanwhile, I see this report as entirely expected, no surprizes and offering a get-out clause to the IPCC. Go figure… and let the momentum fall where it may

  9. Quinn the Eskimo says:

    Well, maybe now skeptics will focus on the EPA.

    Through the EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations the undead IPCC lives on. EPA regulations to limit GHG emissions are on the books and have the force of law unless reversed by the courts or legislatively preempted by a law that Congress passes and Obama will actually sign (or have his veto overridden).

    The EPA’s Endangerment Finding is a target rich environment – it relies primarily and extensively on the IPCC.

  10. John Blake says:

    Railroad Bill Pachauri: “If Caspar can do it, so can the IPCC!”

  11. Gail Combs says:

    Leon Brozyna says:
    August 31, 2010 at 5:08 pm

    If only …

    It’s more like news of its death have been greatly exaggerated; bureaucracies never die, they just mutate into more deadly forms.
    ________________________________________________________
    Boy have you got that right. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
    The rest of the quote is
    “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship”

    I figure a government collapses when the number of bureaucrats and the number of laws completely strangles the wealth producers in red tape and taxes.

  12. I love Matt Ridley’s Times comment piece which inspired Josh. Worth a thread here IMO. I also love the Express headlines splashed right across the newspaper

    CLIMATE CHANGE LIES EXPOSED

    And I’m rotfl seeing Grauniad trying to hush-up with a surprise front-page article saying climate skeptic Bjorn Lomborg now advocates spending money on reducing global warming.

  13. Smokey says:

    They’re grieving because their gravy train is being derailed…

    …because they know Mann’s hokey stick is dead. R.I.P.

    The guy on the right better hope he can sell a lot of bodice-ripper novels, because he’s gonna be as unemployed as his porky pal when the truth gets out.

  14. Paul Pierett says:

    “Where”s my cake?” “Where”s my cake?” “Where”s my cake?” “Where”s my cake?” “Where”s my cake?”

    Its not over.

    Paul

  15. evanmjones says:

    As Oslo says, IWTWT.

  16. Tom says:

    Only if there’s salt in it’s mouth, a stake in it’s heart, chains wrapped around it, and for good measure, it’s head chopped off and the brain destroyed.
    Scary movie idea: “2.8 degrees later”

  17. wayne says:

    Is this what railroad-Pachauri would call “The End of the Line”?

  18. bruce says:

    Having found this site this last spring, I am curious, it seems that the tide is turning on CAGW, how long has this trend been apparent?

    Not that I underestimate the enormity of the facade that is CAGW, it has a great deal of momentum.

  19. joel says:

    Well, after the victory of the Democrats in 2008, I predicted that limiting CO2 would fade as an issue for the Democrats and their supportive media. It was only a political tool to undermine the Republicans.

    It worked. However, it will be as painful for the Democrats to control CO2 as the Republicans. So, ditch it.

    The Copenhagen farce quickly followed. The MSM is looking for a graceful exit. Their readers may be so ignorant they may find one.

    Expect a few efforts to raise taxes or increase Federal regulatory power, and then, some other issue will be created. Who knows, they may subsitute “climate change” for global warming and continue right on as before. They are already doing that in some writing.

  20. Mike from Canmore says:

    Josh needs to make the next one showing Ocean Acidification as a new born.

  21. P Walker says:

    To paraphrase Mark Twain : I won’t attend the funeral , but I will write a letter of approval . However , the reports of my death have been greatly exagerated may well be the case .

  22. Lance says:

    Does that grave site and head stone meet EPA regulations? I bet they’ll go after the dead…probably already are….

  23. Christopher Anvil says:

    Epur si muove

  24. Roger Sowell says:

    The movement is not dead in California. We still have the citizens’ vote on Proposition 23 in November 2010, which if passed will suspend the state’s climate change law (AB 32) until the state’s unemployment drops to 5.5 percent for four consecutive quarters. Presently the unemployment is at 12.5 percent.

    This is one of the biggest issues ever to face California, and is generating intense interest and debate. What is very interesting is the change in emphasis from the AB 32 proponents. This was made into law on the basis of stopping global warming, yet now the proponents describe AB 32 as a jobs-creating law based on green energy technology.

    They have only a vague idea of what those technologies are or will be, or when they will be invented, or how many of the jobs created will actually be in California rather than in other states or other countries, and how much government subsidies will be required and for how long to sustain those companies that will be involved.

    Sadly, almost everyone I talk to has no idea what AB 32 is or does, or that Prop 23 is on the ballot. The election turn-out will likely be high since we are electing a new Governor. But, the wording of the Proposition is hostile, using words like “major polluters.” My feeling is that the average voter will read this wording in the voting box, and click NO because he or she thinks a YES vote will produce more pollution.

    http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/california-voters-to-decide-ab-32-fate.html

  25. redneck says:

    Love the cartoon. Unfortunately I am pessimistic and feel that we will be haunted by the ghosts of AGW and the IPCC for a long time to come.

  26. David T. Bronzich says:

    Ed Murphy says:
    August 31, 2010 at 5:01 pm

    A celebration, some fireworks, in the background would be a nice touch.

    No, I think that the alone and unmourned fits the bill quite nicely. Poignant, rather like the funereal of Scrooge as shown by Christmas Future. “Spirit, tell, me, whose body lay there? “

  27. johnnythelowery says:

    IPCC would like to honor their ill-lust-rious leader by naming the upcoming publication of AR5 ‘back to……………………………………….a drawing board!’

  28. UK Sceptic says:

    I would have used a bigger stone to keep the buggers anchored.

    johnnythelowery: you were almost right. The report should be renamed AR5 backwards or AR5 first.

  29. Mike Haseler says:

    Whatever happened to the Nuclear winter?

    Just as my generation were brought up on a diet of man-made global catastrophe that turned out to be just so much hot air, so this generation was being brought up on diet of man-made global catastrophe with has now evaporated as just so much hot air.

    I can already see the bargain buckets filling up with books warning about man’s impact on the climate. The newsmedia no longer see global warming stories as a trendy filler. Science researchers know that climategate really was a huge scandal no longer want to have any association with the subject.

    All that is left is a few paid-up lobbyists for the mega-corps who grew rich on the scam and a few jaded environmentalists who haven’t grown up yet.

  30. Messenger says:

    The BBC only reported on the IAC the day it came out. Nothing yesterday, as far as I know, and today the first half hour of Today news programme was 20 minutes (20 minutes!) about Tony Blair’s book, a slot about a new musical and yet more about the Pakistani cricketers. So either theBBC think that AGW is not important after all, or they are trying to distract us with bread and circuses.

  31. Lawrie Ayres says:

    In Australia the Greens and Labor have formed an unholy alliance to help Labor regain Government. One of the Green demands was a consensus forum on climate change and the introduction of a carbon tax. In true democratic fashion the Greens are only allowing those who support AGW and a carbon tax to take part. Sceptics and even warmers who oppose a carbon tax are to be excluded from the consensus gathering. Obviously the Greens and Labor are concerned that the sceptics might destroy the consensus with those darn facts.

  32. Annei says:

    Today’s Daily Telegraph (UK) has a marvellous cartoon of melting icey letters IPCC with horrified Pachauri skidding down the disintegrating final ‘C’.

  33. Annei says:

    BTW…when I saw the BBC news item on the report on the IPCC, guess what visual accompaniments they produced? You guessed it! Melting ice, floods, etc., etc.

  34. Josh says:

    RIPCC – lovely title, wish I’d thought of that! Might just amend that stone.

  35. Gail Combs says:

    dp says:
    August 31, 2010 at 7:03 pm

    Speaking of funerals…

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/sendler.asp
    __________________________________________________________

    How absolutely horrible that such a worthy candidate for the Nobel Prize was beat out by a slimy charlatan. I guess it is now the Ignobel Prize.

  36. Beth Cooper says:

    Those of the hard left constantly reinvent themselves. They really want their world government. The price of the Open Society is constant vigilence etc etc

  37. Beth Cooper says:

    :-(I mean’vigilance’!

  38. woodNfish says:

    >>Gail Combs says: (August 31, 2010 at 5:46 pm )

    The US is not a democracy Gail; we are a Constitutional Federal Republic with representative democracy.

    The IPCC is not dead and is not going away. Anyone who thinks it will is only fooling themselves. Don’t start yelling, “Victory!” too soon because you will most likely end up eating your words.

  39. Bruce Cobb says:

    OK, we can’t be 100% sure that it’s dead, but it is “very likely” that it is, which has been scientifically proven to mean a “greater than 90%” chance that it is.

  40. Enneagram says:

    As used to be in very old times, they took all the gold, the servants, their wives, and the occidental culture to the grave with them.

  41. Enneagram says:

    Or…may be it’s not dead. VOODOO science made it.

  42. Enneagram says:

    Oh My!, now I realize it, PATCHY is a ZOMBIE!

  43. Roger Knights says:

    Quinn the Eskimo says:
    August 31, 2010 at 5:39 pm

    Well, maybe now skeptics will focus on the EPA.

    This IAC knuckle-rap will be very helpful in court cases, as it will undermine the presumptive authority of the IPCC’s consensus on settled science. The US courts rely on such consensues; they no longer are open to giving much weight to minority views. I suspect that an unspoken part of the motivation of gatekeepers in excluding or toning down (see Spencer’s latest paper) skeptical papers has been to create the appearance of a solid consensus when the courts get involved.

    Hmmm … I wonder if that is why the administration has asked that the courts not be allowed to rule on the science — because it knew that this damaging IAC critique was in the pipeline.

  44. evanmjones says:

    Only if there’s salt in it’s mouth, a stake in it’s heart, chains wrapped around it, and for good measure, it’s head chopped off and the brain destroyed.

    Just heat it up around 3 degrees C. According to those guys, that’ll kill just about anything.

Comments are closed.