Josh writes:
There is a lovely cartoon over at Roger Pielke Jr’s which, delightful though it is, helps perpetuate the myth that Global Warming is somehow an issue for climate skeptics. It isn’t. The issue is Catastrophic Anthropogenic, and specifically that singularly caused by CO2, Global Warming and the alarmist hype surrounding the lack of science and the punitive energy policies that have been pursued in response to a non problem.
So I decided to do my own version of the cartoon – with apologies to the other cartoonist.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
nail on the head.
I know people who cover the full range from “no problem” to “the last few human breeding pairs will be living in the arctic by 2100”.
I don’t think my opinions have changed over the years much, its just the more extreme views have become more extreme and I’ve become more a ‘skeptic’ in comparison.
And that says it all. Amen.
Is it just me or is it a bit reminiscent of the beginning of stars wars.
“A long time ago in a committee room far,
far away ….
Climate wars
Return of the clng-on.
A new hope.
It is a period of floods, drought, heat and snow, (pretty much as usual)
Rebel sceptics, striking from beneath their noses, have won.
As if a faster computer is going to somehow improve the model and not give a bad result more quickly, hah!
So many ugly Ad Homs expended accusing sceptics of denial of a ‘problem’
climateglobal change. I think that is what drives them crazy to agree that ‘global’ is changing….all the time.Like all good artists, Josh doesn’t have to do a lot to say a lot. A lesson both in economy and subtlety for that other artist …
Pointman
What happened with all the Global Wurming?
Perdon, Catastrophic Global Wurming…..
I can’t see how the cartoon at Roger’s relates to what he wrote. He’s critical of the NYT article which is described as an inappropriate hit piece. I don’t see that cartoon, the original, at the NYT article so that’s not why he’s shown it. Roger ain’t bashing skeptics in his blog post, but the cartoon does.
Actually, all you needed to do was use your title on the other cartoon. That’s exactly what the alarmists do. For example, the smearing of Wegman over his supposed plagiarism in his report (and the attempt to use that to denigrate the findings).
A theory is not evidence. Assumptions based on that theory are not evidence. Models based on those assimptions are not evidence. Output from the models is not evidence (nor is it data).
To date, after more than 20 years, the environmental movement has yet to offer anything that qualifies as evidence in support of their hypothesis.
Josh hits the no-evidence nail with a solid hammer!
The anti-skeptic cartoon that Roger Pielke, Jr. posted was not in the NYT’s web article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/science/earth/clouds-effect-on-climate-change-is-last-bastion-for-dissenters.html?_r=1&emc=eta1
Maybe in the print edition? Otherwise, like DavidA, I am puzzled why it’s there.
I agree with Dr. Pielke that the Times article was just a hit-piece on Prof. Lindzen. As I wrote to the friend who sent it to me, “Clearly part of the current, and if I may say feverish, Warmist campaign to rejuvenate CAGW alarmism and discredit Lindzen. Remember who controls the major journals. Clouds have long been a favorite topic of discussion on WUWT, where exciting developments have been noted (e.g. Svensmark and GCRs, Eschenbach’s ‘thunderstorm’ hypothesis, etc.).”
And, of course, it’s a blatant propaganda piece masquerading as ‘news’. Par for the NYT’s course, I guess.
Any chance we could see a response from Prof. Lindzen here?
/Mr Lynn
Definitely one of his funniest cartoons ever!
What’s worse is there is actually evidence against. The feedback mechanism is increased absolute humidity in response to increased heat. This can be checked for by looking at the outgoing radiation bands that water absorbes. If humidity were increasing as predicted the satellite measurements would show a decreasing flux in those wavelengths. Actual measurements show an increase.
The English footballer, Len Shackleton, in his autobiography, had a chapter entitled “What Football Club Chairmen know about football”. The chapter was one page long. The page was blank.
But according to Kerry Emanuel, the evidence will fit on the back of an envelope. I guess he must have thrown the envelope out.
Of course, Climate “Scientists” would tell you there is plenty of “evidence”. The “data” just poors from the models.
Pielke Jr.’s cartoon comes from:
http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/shy-climate-denier-in-science-team-reveals-himself/
who credits Star Phoenix Base (March 31st, 2010):
http://starphoenixbase.com/?p=1119
Didn’t find the original source.
OK S.
The offending original cartoon seems to be unsigned, unattributed and of unknown provenence.
A perfect match for pro-AGW adjusted data evidence. 🙂
Excellent Josh. But, you know, they will invent trends showing our eminent doom soon enough. It’s what they do.
…helps perpetuate the myth that Global Warming is somehow an issue for climate skeptics.
Quite right — although the myth *of* AGW is an issue…
The other artist uses what I call 2×4 humor.
Jeremy:
But the Irish Book of Sex and the English Book of Cooking all provided many more blank pages!
Head. The. On. Nail. The. Hit.
As always.
I like to talk about two main debunking points. 1) There’s nothing unusual about current temperatures (hockey stick debunked; of note: the Medieval Warming Period etc, the Little Ice Age, and rates of temp change that have not changed despite increasing levels of CO2 [also: the 20th “runaway warming” as per the h stick is bunk]), and 2) there is no empirical evidence, none at all, that CO2 causes climate scale warming. See algor repeat the key ipcc deception on CO2 in this must see 3 minute video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg