@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!
Billy Ruff'n
March 25, 2011 4:08 pm
Too right, mate!
Who Else
March 25, 2011 4:12 pm
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.
Bob in Castlemaine
March 25, 2011 4:41 pm
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.
Doug Stanley
March 25, 2011 5:30 pm
I thought Tim Flannery was the third base coach for the SF Giants.
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. 🙂
Dave Springer
March 26, 2011 11:17 am
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?
jonjermey
March 26, 2011 4:21 pm
Tim, your bottles have fallen off.
Luke Warneminde
March 27, 2011 5:54 am
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.
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. 😉
Vince Whirlwind
March 29, 2011 5:01 pm
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.”
Mike
March 29, 2011 6:25 pm
C’mon Vince. You should know much better than to attempt to introduce scientific facts here!
PB
March 29, 2011 9:09 pm
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.
PB,
Study this chart [courtesy of of Bill Illis]: http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/9508/tempco2570mlefttoright.png
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.
Bernard J.
March 29, 2011 9:24 pm
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?!
“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?
nico
April 1, 2011 3:17 am
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?
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.
nico
April 1, 2011 4:39 pm
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.
Bernard J.
April 1, 2011 10:50 pm
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.
@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.
ginckgo
April 5, 2011 6:44 pm
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
See the story:
When you get tired of laughing at Flannery there’s always this; http://beta.searca.org/kc3/index.php/feature/239-another-century-of-emissions-will-fuel-1000-years-of-climate-change-study
dak says:
March 25, 2011 at 11:04 am
Nah, mate, flies, not mozzies. Australia has an abundance of flies, especially out back. Nothing chases mozzies away!
Too right, mate!
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.
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.
I thought Tim Flannery was the third base coach for the SF Giants.
“The Australian Stockmans hat is not an affectation, but a sensible device aimed at preventing sunstroke.”
I guess it doesn’t always work.
Oh rabbits! http://ediehats.com/archives/2065
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. 🙂
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?
Tim, your bottles have fallen off.
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.
Why do the other English speakers always want to put Ewes with Ohs? Great for spelling bees, but not for ink buyers. 😉
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.”
C’mon Vince. You should know much better than to attempt to introduce scientific facts here!
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.
PB,
Study this chart [courtesy of of Bill Illis]:
http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/9508/tempco2570mlefttoright.png
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.
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?!
“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?
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?
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.
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.
PhilJourdan said:
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.
@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.
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