Josh’s livetooning of Steve McIntyre’s talk in London

Josh writes via email:

Here are the cartoon notes from Steve’s talk – it went very well, a great turnout too. All the best.  Josh

Enjoy the humor.

Click image to enlarge if you have trouble seeing details.

About these ads

21 thoughts on “Josh’s livetooning of Steve McIntyre’s talk in London

  1. Snicker!

    Hilarious, as always, Josh!

    Well done – and if I may say so: Please give us more of the same!

  2. At first glance, I think the “drought” one is my favorite. How many “believers” are just too young to have lived through past weather events that are now labeled “extreme”?

  3. Excellent! One misprint: “dry” not “try” in the “I’ve never seen it this [dry]” with the poor cornstalks.

    REPLY:
    Josh has provided an update, hit refresh. Thanks for spotting that. – Anthony

  4. I went along. Someone’s shoes were very smelly, but other than that it was an excellent talk, only marred by the horrendous sound set up. I badly wanted to get up and sort it out – I am a music professional so I could have done something – possibly.

    There were some interesting questions and some not so interesting ones. There were quite a few ardent and politically minded skeptics, and Piers popped in at the end to hijack the proceedings and flog weatheraction. Not sure about that as a cool thing to do, but I took his bumps and wished him well.

    Josh’s cartoons captures the main points of the talk really rather well I think. I think Steve Mc is one of the clearest and most reasonable voices in the debate.

  5. Energy used for A/C generating CO2 which causes warming …. or just A/C exhaust raising thermometer temperatures within their housings.
    Surfacestations…..a picture is worth a 1000 explanations.

  6. Very good and very funny Josh, keep it up. BTW when do we see a copy of the speech or video or both?

  7. Is there a link to the video of the talk? I would like to watch it.

    And if no link, why not? Why wasn’t it taped and posted to YouTube?

  8. Yer witty, Josh. Liked ‘When shall we three meet again?’ from Macbeth.
    The play’s central metaphor has deep connotations as well re climate sci data and game play:
    ‘Fair is foul and foul is fair
    Hover through the thick and filthy air.’

  9. All the weather conditions being blamed on global warming can be explained by the earth’s 23.4 degrees tilt on its axis. Because of the sun’s and the moon’s gravitational pulls on the earth, this tilt is not stable and fluctuates between aproximately 22 degrees to 24.5 degrees, in 41,000 year Milankovitch cycles, creating our seasons and other climate/weather phenomena including monsoon rains and tornadoes. As earth’s current axial tilt phase decreases, we are going to encounter another ice age in about 15,000 years time regardless of how much CO2 is in the atmosphere.

    This is basic planetary science, so I cannot understand how climate scientists can continue to bang on the bogus AGW drum and blame CO2 for bad weather/climate catastrophy. When we look at the earth’s historical temperature record, it has been much warmer many times in the past so AGW theory cannot be correct.

    Climate scientists would make more valuable contributions to society by studying how the earth’s orbit and tilt create everything from the jet stream to thermal columns to clouds, rather than continue their misguided demonizing of CO2. By better understanding these natural processes, we could possibly one day create technology sufficient to accurately predict the inset of climate/weather changes.

    I agree that we need to look after our planet and cut down on pollution, but it boggles the mind how scientists can blame CO2 for AGW and believe that a tax on CO2 will do anything to change earth’s cyclical climate.

  10. I enjoyed hearing Steve talk and getting a chance to thank him and shake his hand. The after talk at the pub was good as well. I especially enjoyed the Josh cartoon of Michael Mann doing the Usain Bolt pose, priceless! I think some of Steve’s views threw a few people off but I think it speaks volumes about Steve’s open mind that he can be a liberal and still question the science behind AGW. Well worth taking half a day off from work.

  11. Don says:
    August 17, 2012 at 1:50 am

    Whilst you talk absolute common sense, whether you’re right is almost neither here nor there, you see when politicians pay people to tell them what they want to here, you get the Emperor’s new clothes! They will continue to provide “evidence” in some form or other until the funding stream is turned off! No funding=no research=no evidence! People here in the UK & eslewhere ought to take a gander at episodes of Yes Minister, to see how it works, Guvments have an idea, they want a policy, policy is difficult to swallow & the people won’t take it, so evidence has to be manufactured to change people’s minds. People are chosen to head up new establishments or departments for this & for that, they have to be sound, knowlegeable, reliable, trustworthy (?), but of course be favourable towards Guvmnet policy on certain matters!

  12. I was there. I think some in the audience were surprised to find that Steve is not a CAGW sceptic – although probably an agnostic. Here’s my summary of his closing comments:

    Having commented that China’s GHG emissions will be double US emissions in 2012, that over the past 5 to 6 years China has increased its emissions by an amount equal to the USA’s total emissions and that the trend in US emissions over the past 20 years is negligible (now maybe close to 1990 levels), he observed that Western policymakers are simply ignoring the real consequence of what’s happening in China (and India etc.) – namely that the IPCC’s “base case” for GHG emissions is going to happen. “We must hope the sceptics are right”, he said. The truth is that nobody really knows what to do – although building resistance to extremes is one obvious action. Then, having noted that “acts of petty virtue” (great phrase) have no point, he suggested that another useful focus might be on developing/discovering Bill Gates’s “miracle technology” ** (i.e. viable energy without CO2 emission).

    ** Something difficult but not impossible.

  13. Robin Guenier: E=mc2 . . . . where in that equation do you see a co2 . . . that’s c2 (squared) not co2 (or is that see O2)!

    /sarc . . . but not really! Why does everything have to be so hard?

  14. Don says:
    August 17, 2012 at 1:50 am

    “All the weather conditions being blamed on global warming can be explained by the earth’s 23.4 degrees tilt on its axis.”

    What I’ve tried to get calculated is the minimum and maximum latitudes of the Arctic and Antarctic circles, and the area of the Earth’s surface between those extents.

    Why do that? To use as data for modeling the climatic changes between minimum and maximum angle. Earth’s axis is gradually been tilting more upright, has been for thousands of years and will continue to do so for thousands more.

    Of more immediate use would be modeling incorporating the annual variability of the axis angle. It does wobble about, more and less but always more less than more more. ;)

    The really immediate practical use of Earth’s wobble is any sign stating “Here lies the (Ant)Arctic Circle” is wrong, a little or a lot, unless the latitude was very recently plotted and the sign planted. Can I get funding to design and build a sign on a track, with a small computer that constantly plots the correct Circle latitude and moves the sign? Make the track long enough and it won’t have to be extended for another 100 years or so.

    Of course the minimum and maximum axis angles are theoretical, in other words calculated guesses. The science to measure the angle has not existed at a time when Earth’s axis has been at the minimum or maximum angle and thus those extents have never been directly observed and measured. Until the axis reaches minimum angle and starts heading the other way, nobody will be able to state as an absolute fact that is the minimum angle. ‘Course there will have to be sapient beings actually observing to write the paper on it…

  15. Galane says: August 17, 2012 at 9:28 pm
    Dots 1/2 crop! If you think that is all there is to it . . . it would repeat exactly . . . .it does not . . . history tells us so . . . . . ‘weather’ it’s of the last 200 years . . . or whether its’ the evidence of the all the evidence we have . . . somebody is still phishing here . . . that is my theory!

  16. Galane says:
    August 17, 2012 at 9:28 pm

    The celestial mechanics are easy for a celestial mechanic to model nowadays–Newtonian physics gone digital–relativity invoked only for Mercury. It’s the slight movement of the earth’s axis over the crust (polar wander–not precession) that requires daily observation, along with LOD–see the IERS. –AGF

  17. Robin Guenier says:
    August 17, 2012 at 9:06 am

    another useful focus might be on developing/discovering Bill Gates’s “miracle technology” ** (i.e. viable energy without CO2 emission).

    ** Something difficult but not impossible.

    With any luck, and enough increased private funding, within 5 yrs this should be entering the market:
    LPPhysics.com
    Small units (5MW), usable anywhere, about 10% best current costs, no emissions or radiation above background. Fuel available on-planet for about until the Red Giant Sun crisis.

    Would render the entire debate moot.

Comments are closed.