Friday Funny of the Millennium

Josh captures the essence of …

See the story:

Andrew Bolt scores the Quote of the Millennium

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

50 Responses to Friday Funny of the Millennium

  1. PhilJourdan says:

    Simplifying the gibberish is a humorists greatest strength!

  2. walt man says:

    http://theclimatescum.blogspot.com/2011/03/quote-of-millennium.html

    Over at Whats Up With Watts, I found the following wonderful quote from Australian arch alarmist Tim Flannery:

    Just let me finish and say this. If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years because the system is overburdened with CO2 that has to be absorbed and that only happens slowly.
    Reading that quote, any sane person has to ask himself: if it takes up to a thousand years for Earth to cool after our CO2 emissions, what is the bloody point of cutting those emissions? It simply doesn’t make sense! It just has to be a scam! As Anthony Watts comments:

    Crikey! So much for the “think of the grandchildren” argument used by Dr. James Hansen.

    This reminds me of an encounter I had with another Gaia-worshipping tree hugger a while ago. I and some friends had gone to an ancient oak forest near where I live, bringing our chain saws. We wanted to make a really big bonfire to celebrate Man’s Dominion Over Nature Day, and we thought that those oaks would make the perfect fuel. However, after we had felled a few of the oaks, a man came up to us and called out:
    “What are you doing? Why are you felling those oaks?”
    I responded: “We want to make a bonfire.”
    He said: “But this forest is protected. You cannot do that!”
    I responded: “I don’t think that we are doing any harm to those oaks. It is only natural for them to burn.”
    He cried: “Are you mad? It will take many centuries for oaks like those to grow back again!”
    Whereupon I replied: “Centuries? Are you telling me that even if I and my merry friends stopped cutting down oaks right now, it would take many centuries for the forest to grow back?”
    He said: “Yes! We would have to plant new oaks to replace those lost, and they grow very slowly.”
    So I laughed at the poor imbecille: “Why should I stop cutting down these oaks if it doesn’t make a difference until after many centuries?”
    Whereupon I and my friends continued to fell oaks.

    The moron who had harassed us with his idiotic nature-worshipping ramblings apparently felt so humiliated by the crushing intellectual defeat he had suffered that he had phoned the police as a petty act of vengeance, but that’s a different story.

    Nos ardere quercus

  3. Myron Mesecke says:

    Minnie Pearl price tags?

  4. walt man says:

    So using the sam logic: its not worth planting oak trees – they will take many generations to grow to significant height, and I and my children and grandchildren will be dead by then. I’ll go dig em up now!

  5. Ben of Houston says:

    ??Nos ardere quercus????
    I think you are missing conjugation here. That means “We oak tree to burn”
    “Nos ardemus quercos” means “We burn oak trees”
    “Nos ardere quercos desideremus” means “we wish to burn oak trees”

  6. Smokey says:

    walt man says:

    “I’ll go dig em up now!”

    Keep digging, walt man.

  7. TJA says:

    ” they [oak trees] will take many generations to grow to significant height”

    Is this really your understanding of the natural world? And we are supposed to listen to your opinion on global warming why exactly? Many generations?

  8. D. Matteson says:

    kinetic climate action ;>)

  9. ZT says:

    Walt man, classical scholar, general all round wit, and raconteur: are you saying that CO2 produced in the 20th century caused global warming, stopped causing global warming from 1998 onward, will then continue to cause global warming in the 21st century, but cannot stop global warming for 1000 years, if we stop producing CO2 completely now?

    I just want to summarize your basic scientific thought process.

  10. RockyRoad says:

    Two aspects from this great cartoon by Josh:

    1) What is the meaning of “not likely” used in Tim Flannery’s phrase “not likely to drop”? Is it a 20 percent chance, or 30%? Or perhaps 15%? (With that much confidence, how can anybody put any credibility in what he says regarding that?)

    2) What is the verbal representation of 1,000 years of descendants? I’ll show you (based on 4 generations per 100 years, or 25 years per generation, a fairly good estimate); one of my descendants would be a:

    great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great granddaughter or grandson. *whew*

    Now, how’s what we’re doing now with CO2 going to possibly impact people 1,000 years from now? Don’t you think there’s a much greater chance that the earth will enter the next Ice Age rather than see a temperature rise? As a geologist relying on “the past is the key to the future”, I certainly do.

  11. dak says:

    @Myron Mesecke

    Corks, to chase mozzies away or at least give them headaches.

  12. Frederick Michael says:

    Doesn’t the quote kinda miss the point? Isn’t the “warmists” goal to stop the increase in temperature, or maybe even just to stop the acceleration thereof? (Isn’t that the essence of why they’re wrong?) Who is seeking a temperature decrease anyway?

  13. kbray in California says:

    [[[Myron Mesecke says:
    March 25, 2011 at 9:39 am

    Minnie Pearl price tags?]]]

    It’s a new tanning hat using recycled nuclear fuel pellets, air cooled.
    Helps boost vitamin D.

  14. cleanwater says:

    To Stop us from producing man-made CO2 every person and anamial and other living creature will have to stop existing instantly because even the corpse will decay and produce CO2 . Now the fact that the greenhouse gas effect is a hypotheses that has never been proven with scientific tests and there is NO creditable data that proves the “ghg”effect exists thus Mann-made global warming is a fairy-tale just like Avatar is a work of fantacy.
    List of references:
    The paper “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner is an in-depth examination of the subject. Version 4 2009
    Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics
    B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World
    Scientific Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb.
    Report of Alan Carlin of US-EPA March, 2009 that shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.

    Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme This work has about 10 or 12 link
    that support the truth that the greenhouse gas effect is a hoax.
    R.W.Wood
    from the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95, i
    The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
    By Alan Siddons
    from:http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html at March 01, 2010 – 09:10:34 AM CST

    The below information was a foot note in the IPCC 4 edition. It is obvious that there was no evidence to prove that the ghg effect exists.

    “In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.”

    After 1909 when R.W.Wood proved that the understanding of the greenhouse effect was in error and the ghg effect does not exist. After Niels Bohr published his work and receive a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922. The fantasy of the greenhouse gas effect should have died in 1909 and 1922. Since then it has been shown by several physicists that the concept is a Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    Obviously the politicians don’t give a dam that they are lying. It fits in with what they do every hour of every day .Especially the current pretend president.
    Paraphrasing Albert Einstein after the Publishing of “The Theory of Relativity” –one fact out does 1 million “scientist, 10 billion politicians and 20 billion environmental whachos-that don’t know what” The Second Law of thermodynamics” is.

    University of Pennsylvania Law School
    ILE
    INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND ECONOMICS
    A Joint Research Center of the Law School, the Wharton School,
    and the Department of Economics in the School of Arts and Sciences
    at the University of Pennsylvania
    RESEARCH PAPER NO. 10-08
    Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination
    Jason Scott Johnston
    UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
    May 2010
    This paper can be downloaded without charge from the
    Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection:

    http://ssrn.

    Israeli Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv: ‘There is no direct evidence showing that CO2 caused 20th century warming, or as a matter of fact, any warming’ link to this paper on climate depot.
    Slaying the Sky Dragon – Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory [Kindle Edition]
    Tim Ball (Author), Claes Johnson (Author), Martin Hertzberg (Author), Joseph A. Olson (Author), Alan Siddons (Author), Charles Anderson (Author), Hans Schreuder (Author), John O’Sullivan (Author)

    Web- site references:
    http://www.americanthinker.com Ponder the Maunder
    wwwclimatedepot.com
    icecap.us
    http://www.stratus-sphere.com
    SPPI
    many others are available.
    The bottom line is that the facts show that the greenhouse gas effect is a fairy-tale and that Man-made global warming is the World larges Scam!!!The IPCC and Al Gore should be charged under the US Anti-racketeering act and when convicted – they should spend the rest of their lives in jail for the Crimes they have committed against Humanity.
    The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.”
    —Albert Einstein
    “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb.”
    Benjamin Franklin

  15. Robb876 says:

    You guys are idiots…. There’s just no getting around it… I’m sorry but I’ve tried and tried to make sense of your ramblings…. But it just can’t be done…

  16. Myron Mesecke says:

    “Corks, to chase mozzies away or at least give them headaches.”

    Never heard mosquito’s called that. There is a character on White Collar called Mozzie.

  17. PhilJourdan says:

    Robb876 says:
    March 25, 2011 at 11:50 am
    You guys are idiots…. There’s just no getting around it… I’m sorry but I’ve tried and tried to make sense of your ramblings…. But it just can’t be done…

    It is called H-U-M-O-R. It is usually done for fun. I have heard that some people are humorless, but until you popped in, I had thought they were just mythological.

  18. @motsatt says:

    Bolt is my new hero.

    BOOOOM!

    I knew we should get an aussie on this a long time ago. :)

  19. Nullius in Verba says:

    Walt man,

    I like the oak tree story. Here’s another example of the almost exactly same events. Almost exactly the same thing happened – police prosecution and all – to Liam Sheahan.

    http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2009/02/australian-wildfire-roundup-greenie.html

  20. Alexander K says:

    I know some of the above lurkers are wondering why Aussies have corks dangling from their stockmans hats. Most of the meat at Aussie barbecues flies in unaided and unwanted and does not go well with steak and a beer or two. The corks are a primitive fly deterrent, Aussie blowflies are big buggers.
    The Australian Stockmans hat is not an affectation, but a sensible device aimed at preventing sunstroke.

  21. UK John says:

    Tim Flannery might be right, but he might be wrong.

    Is it likely that the scientific political world is fooled by an over hyped myth?

    Well yes, actually! History is littered with the wreckage of scientific consensus that turned out to be myth. The non existent millenium computer bug being the latest over hyped myth, the science leaders were told there wasn’t a problem, but they did not understand, as their ego’s were likely obscuring reality.

    Nobody never even found one to fix, if they had, we would have heard all about it!.

  22. Duncan says:

    I think my problem is that I’m being forced to pay for the planting of invisible magic oak trees which may or may not grow after I’m dead.

  23. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Robb876 said on March 25, 2011 at 11:50 am:

    You guys are idiots…. There’s just no getting around it… I’m sorry but I’ve tried and tried to make sense of your ramblings…. But it just can’t be done…

    Hey, I’ve felt that way sometimes since I saw the first Crocodile Dundee movie, let alone the second one (and I just found out there was actually a third one, oh the horrors). But really, the lingo ain’t all that hard to understand. Now trying to understand someone from South Africa theoretically speaking English but using a lot of Afrikaans slang, that will drive you bonkers!

  24. Ivan says:

    ??Nos ardere quercus????
    Reminds me of this classic:
    ROMANES EUNT DOMUS

  25. Scott says:

    Walt, our proverbial proponent of a carbon dioxide tax or other such emissions reduction scheme, has set up a straw man making out those who are skeptical of AGW cut down trees. This is not a true statement. In fact, it is possible to argue the opposite. For example, in Africa lots of trees are cut down for firewood because they do not have access to electricity or fossil fuel heaters. Does this mean Walt and his kindred are killing the environment?

    Furthermore, cutting Carbon Dioxide emissions, does not mean not cutting down trees. You can cut a tree down, bury it and plant a new one in it’s place and there will not be, more or less, a net increase or decrease in CO2 emissions.

    That’d be rather stupid though wouldn’t it. I like trees. I like nature. I think most people do. However, I do worry that people that think like Walt will leave people poorer. This in turn will have a more harmful effect on our environment. I that’s without the need to account for the positive effect increased CO2 has on plant growth.

  26. Jer0me says:

    dak says:
    March 25, 2011 at 11:04 am

    @Myron Mesecke

    Corks, to chase mozzies away or at least give them headaches.

    Nah, mate, flies, not mozzies. Australia has an abundance of flies, especially out back. Nothing chases mozzies away!

  27. Billy Ruff'n says:

    Too right, mate!

  28. Who Else says:

    The corks are there to stop the flies driving you mad. Unfortunately, over time, the corks constant swinging and bobbing drives the person out of their mind.

    Tim Flannery is…. well, I rest my case.

  29. Bob in Castlemaine says:

    So Tim do you believe our decedents in 3011 will thank us for foregoing all the comforts of civilization and in all probability helping bring about a new paradigm of socialist world government, just so they might be able to notice 1/1000 of a degree difference in atmospheric temperature? This of course is assuming that by 3011 the planet’s decent into the next glacial period has not already commenced.

  30. Doug Stanley says:

    I thought Tim Flannery was the third base coach for the SF Giants.

  31. Tom in Texas says:

    “The Australian Stockmans hat is not an affectation, but a sensible device aimed at preventing sunstroke.”

    I guess it doesn’t always work.

  32. Mr Green Genes says:

    PhilJourdan says:
    March 25, 2011 at 12:45 pm

    It is called H-U-M-O-R. It is usually done for fun. I have heard that some people are humorless, but until you popped in, I had thought they were just mythological.

    Or to put it another way, H-U-M-O-U-R. :-)

  33. Dave Springer says:

    Are those tiny beer cans hanging from Flannery’s hat or are they regular (25 ounce is “regular” down under, ain’t it?) cans and Flannery has a huge head?

  34. jonjermey says:

    Tim, your bottles have fallen off.

  35. Luke Warneminde says:

    Sorry Dave Springer, the only things “regularly” measured in ounces in Australia are babies and gold (and certain illicit substances). A typical beer can is 375ml…although nobody drinks beer out of cans anyway [citation needed]…and, as has already been pointed out, the things hanging from Flannery’s hat are corks to keep the flies away.

  36. PhilJourdan says:

    Mr Green Genes says:
    March 26, 2011 at 2:48 am

    Or to put it another way, H-U-M-O-U-R. :-)

    Why do the other English speakers always want to put Ewes with Ohs? Great for spelling bees, but not for ink buyers. ;)

  37. Vince Whirlwind says:

    I’m puzzled – I guess I lack the intellectual handicap which allows this article to appear funny.

    Nothing in that Tim Flannery quote is wrong or novel, it simply reflects the current state of scientific knowledge.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/01/28/0812721106.abstract

    “This paper shows that the climate change that takes place due to increases in carbon dioxide concentration is largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop. Following cessation of emissions, removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide decreases radiative forcing, but is largely compensated by slower loss of heat to the ocean, so that atmospheric temperatures do not drop significantly for at least 1,000 years.”

  38. Mike says:

    C’mon Vince. You should know much better than to attempt to introduce scientific facts here!

  39. PB says:

    Scary coming here. Lots of very foolish comments.

    The goal is not to reduce temperature. It’s too late for that. There’s at least 2 degrees of temperature increase locked into the system. Our goal now is to reduce the rate at which temperature is increasing. Surely you people understand the difference between a function and its derivative? We want to get the derivative of the temperature function to start reducing. We want the second derivative to be negative. Rather than seeing a 7 degree increase (for which we are pretty well on track) we hope to see stability at not much more than a 2 degree increase. Still pretty scary, but hopefully leaving us with a habitable, if less comfortable world.

    Reducing the temperature within our lifetimes is not an option. As Professor Flannery said, we aren’t going to see actual reductions in temperature from the current level for hundreds, perhaps a thousand years. What we are hoping to see in the next fifty years is some stabilising of temperature at maybe 2 degrees above what we have now. We hope to see the derivative of the Temperature function – the rate drop to 0. But actual reductions? And actual reductions below what we have now? Nope. Not in our lifetimes.

  40. Smokey says:

    PB,

    Study this chart [courtesy of of Bill Illis]:

    You will see that mass extinctions occurred when the global temperature fell by 5°C. But when temperatures rose, life flourished.

    Draw your own conclusions.

  41. Bernard J. says:

    Just in case Vince’s post didn’t light up a few dim bulbs…

    Flannery’s comment was simply that current temperatures are not likely to drop for even the next few centuries if emissions are magically cut now. He was referring to two physical phenomena here – 1) climatic inertia and 2) CO2 residence time, even with cut emissions.

    What Flannery said is completely scientifically defensible.

    What Andrew Bolt, Tony Abbot, and many commenters here seem to be missing is that a continuation of emissions, to give a further increase in the concentration of atmospheric CO2, will simply mean that temperatures continue to rise.

    Seriously, do these people need to have a graph drawn in order to explain it to them?!

  42. Paul Murray says:

    “if it takes up to a thousand years for Earth to cool after our CO2 emissions, what is the bloody point of cutting those emissions?”

    Damn idiots. “If you go on a sensible diet today, it will be a couple of years before you are decently fit. So what’s the bloody point of not stuffing your face with donuts? Obviously the donuts aren’t making any difference!”

    Words fail me. How can people *be* so stupid?

  43. nico says:

    I am deeply depressed by the simple animal dumbness of cartoonist Josh. Quite a good drawing – but utter failure to understand what Tim Flannery was saying, compounded by the (predictable) belligerent dumbness of interviewer Andrew Bolt, and the consequent belligerent dumbness of Opposition Leader Tony Abbott. Didn’t any of these people go to school?

  44. PhilJourdan says:

    nico says:
    April 1, 2011 at 3:17 am

    I would say they did, but that you just do not understand humor (or humour) at all. They understand what was said – you just do not understand the irony of it, or how it was made a joke.

    Before casting asperions on others, perhaps a look in the mirror is in order to find out the real character fitting your descriptions.

  45. nico says:

    Humour or humor is one thing – but dumb is another. Being, quite simply, wrong, is not funny. It’s quite a good drawing, but Josh (the cartoonist) following the dumb line promoted by the dumb interviewer Andrew Bolt, who is scientifically illiterate, is not humor or humour. It’s just dumb. So I feel free to cast asperions, whatever they are.

  46. Bernard J. says:

    PhilJourdan said:

    They understand what was said – you just do not understand the irony of it, or how it was made a joke.

    Phil, the unfunny irony behind your comment is that the alternative leader of Australia stood up on national television and repeated the very same “joke”, as did Andrew Bolt on public radio. The only problem was that they weren’t trying to make a joke when they said it, they were both trying to deny the implications of climate science.

    Either Tony Abbott and Andrew Bolt have a problem with basic logical analysis, or they are deliberately misrepresenting the explanations of scientists. Which is it?

    With respect to Josh’s apparent ‘humour’, what’s so funny about deliberately misrepresenting the explanation of Flannery on a matter of important science? Perhaps you, or even Josh, could actually detail how Flannery’s comments imply that CO2 has nothing “to do with climate”. Some referenced and defensible science at this point would be nice.

  47. PhilJourdan says:

    @nico – At least in this country, you are free to cast aspersions (if not done in a malicious manner). But do not forget the 3 fingers.

    @Bernard J – there was no mis-representation – with the possible exception of yours. Science is about the understanding and discovery of data and making that data meaningful to human life through analysis. You seem to think climate science is some kind of god that will get angry when made fun of. There are no “implications” of climate science. If we are to believe the hysteria of some of the scientists IN climate science, there are implications to their hysteria. But like other sciences, climate science “is” (except in the world of Bill Clinton where is is not is). There are laws, rules, hypotheses, and theories. Implications are when man applies those to their life.

  48. ginckgo says:

    That’s right: Andrew Bolt and Tony Abbott have a better grasp of science than Tim Flannery. This site will post anything, as long as it seems to undermine climate science.

    REPLY: yes we even post your anonymous fool comment, which shows just how dull unwilling to laugh you are – Anthony

Comments are closed.