Catastrophically cartooned

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.

Cartoons by Josh

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
georgi

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.

Jimmy Haigh

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.

Dan

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’ climate global 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

Joachim Seifert

What happened with all the Global Wurming?

Joachim Seifert

Perdon, Catastrophic Global Wurming…..

DavidA

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.

BarryW

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).

Doug in Seattle

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

D. Cohen

Definitely one of his funniest cartoons ever!

Ryan

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.

Bruce Cobb

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.

OK S.

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.

cui bono

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…

eric1skeptic

The other artist uses what I call 2×4 humor.

bernie1815

Jeremy:
But the Irish Book of Sex and the English Book of Cooking all provided many more blank pages!

Evil D*ni*r (certain words being forbidden)

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

Monty

Josh writes: “the myth that Global Warming is somehow an issue for climate skeptics”. You’re kidding right? So-called skeptics are ALWAYS arguing that there has been no recent warming (despite their inability to understand how trends work in noisy data sets). I also don’t understand this bit about ‘catastrophic’. No scientist has ever used the term ‘CAGW’…this is entirely made up by ‘skeptics’.
So we are just going to get back into a discussion of sensitivity and whether 3-6 degrees C of warming by 2100 would be good or bad….and you’ve lost that argument.
Sensitivity is high (ie around 3+) and 2100 warming will be potentially disastrous.
By the way, I’m not talking to ‘skeptics’ here, I’m posting just in case there are sensible people lurking here.

John from CA

Definitive Josh — well done!

Monty: “So we are just going to get back into a discussion of sensitivity and whether 3-6 degrees C of warming by 2100 would be good or bad….and you’ve lost that argument. Sensitivity is high (ie around 3+) and 2100 warming will be potentially disastrous.”
Monty is Exhibit A for Josh’s point. Lots of assertions based on models; no evidence. BTW, I note you use “disastrous.” Right, so only skeptics talk about “catastrophic” but you talk about “disastrous.” Thanks for the laugh!

One minor suggestion for an amendment Josh. The ‘suggestion box’ should be a trash can overflowing with press releases. Otherwise, excellent.

Monty,
If there will be no CAGW then I want my money back.

Toto

With Y2K, there was lots of ignorance about the problem, so it was good that there were warnings, up to the point where the alarmists took over. With GW, it’s the same pattern all over again. It’s legitimate to raise the question; it is not legitimate to declare the end of the world and shut down debate. One one hand you have your dog who barks when the doorbell rings, on the other hand you have the pit-bull who gloms onto something and won’t let go no matter what. 2012 is yet another end-of-the-world date. A new Ipsos Reid poll says 12% of Americans agree to “The Mayan calendar marks the end of the world in 2012”. No matter that the Mayan calendar says no such thing. Why would people believe the Mayans anyway? confirmation bias?

Bart

It seems more and more blogs are going the way where you have to have a google or twitter or some such account to comment. I will resist that movement as long as I can. The comment I would have left at Pielke’s blog is this:
Reading that “clouds are the last bastion of sceptics” puts in mind a conversation in which a Flat Earther insists that “gravity is the last bastion of those arguing for a spherical Earth.” It’s kind of fundamental, not just some minor detail.

David, UK

Spot on, Josh. Sceptics should not let the alarmists – in true strawman fashion – define our argument for us.

eric1skeptic

Monty says: “Sensitivity is high (ie around 3+)”
Monty would love to get into a discussion of all the “independent” lines of evidence pointing to high sensitivity. Alas there is only one: models. But it won’t stop him from trying.

Vince Causey

Monty says:
May 2, 2012 at 10:01 am
“Sensitivity is high (ie around 3+) and 2100 warming will be potentially disastrous.”
Of course, disastrous is so different from catastrophic. How could anyone conflate the two?
Maybe those “sensible people” you hope are lurking here!

John Whitman

Josh,
All the world’s a stage cartoon by Josh,
And all the men and women merely players cartoon characters;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man Josh in his time plays many parts draws many cartoons,
Apologies to Shakespeare.
John

Monty

eric1skeptic says:
“Monty would love to get into a discussion of all the “independent” lines of evidence pointing to high sensitivity. Alas there is only one: models”.
Eric: you clearly don’t know what you are talking about. Sensitivity is an OUTPUT from models, not an input. Got it?
The reason why scientists don’t use ‘catastrophic’ is because you can’t define it. What is catastrophic for one person might not be for another. It is therefore unscientific. Which is why ‘skeptics’ use it I guess.

Follow the Money

I understand Josh’s cartoon, but the first warmist cartoon should be understood in the present warmist context. They have moved the goal posts. They are no longer arguing for feedbacks, or “catastrophic” warming. They are tacitly arguing that any increase in CO2 increases warming, regardless of it being minutely small or big. They recognize their side is flawed, and they are salvaging their sense of superiority. Even Heyhoe, a real good weathervane of warmist groupthink, is saying just one degree c. of warming is dangerous.
The tactic should be to smoke out the media warmists on how much warming they think doubling of CO2 will cause, since that’s the last thing they want to talk about it. They are not arguing for IPCC science, they are arguing for their own arrogance. They will never, ever concede they believed in higher warming because that would put a stake through the heart that their side’s science can be flawed. Even they know the “positive feedbacks” IPCC UN science is a joke.

Gail Combs

Monty says:
May 2, 2012 at 10:01 am
….. I also don’t understand this bit about ‘catastrophic’. No scientist has ever used the term ‘CAGW’…this is entirely made up by ‘skeptics’……
______________________________
Bull Patties!
This is straight from the The Guardian, Sunday 27 September 2009.

Met Office warns of catastrophic global warming in our lifetimes
• Study says 4C rise in temperature could happen by 2060
• Increase could threaten water supply of half world population

Unchecked global warming could bring a severe temperature rise of 4C within many people’s lifetimes, according to a new report for the British government that significantly raises the stakes over climate change.
The study, prepared for the Department of Energy and Climate Change by scientists at the Met Office, challenges the assumption that severe warming will be a threat only for future generations, and warns that a catastrophic 4C rise in temperature could happen by 2060 without strong action on emissions….

Roger Harrabin is the BBC’s ‘environment analyst’ ( WUWT discussion of following e-mail and more on the BBC and Harradin

….We had an interesting debate on this at the Tyndall Advisory Board last week, and the consensus was very much in line with your views, except for the journalist present (Roger Horobin), who wanted something more pro-active. I am more sympathetic to his view than most of you, I think, but the question is what more would be useful, effective, and not too burdensome ? So far I don’t think I have identified anything, but I do think that the sort of web-page mentioned above would be a start, and so I am copying this to Asher Minns, for him to consider and discuss with John & Mike at Tyndall Central….. http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2336.txt

And an e-mail straight from an insider.

Email 2336
date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 18:50:38 +0100 (BST)
from: “B.J.Matthews”
subject: The Drowning Village: (about global climate change negotiations)
to: titus.alexander@mcr1.poptel.org.uk
Dear Climate colleagues,
I thought you might like this story from Titus Alexander (please accept my apology if you get this message more than once)
Ben
Global warming is the most serious threat ever faced by humanity. It is potentially more dangerous than World War 2 or the cold war. To avoid dangerous climate change, we need to devote at least as much effort to using less fossil fuels as went into defence over the past 50 years.
This story is a lose analogy of the climate change crisis and global negotiations that have continued for ten years without cutting any greenhouse gases. None of the characters represent real people, but the following may provide an insight into the complex issues involved.
The IPCC (“Ipsee”) is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of over 2,000 scientists who have provided evidence of global warming and have warned that greenhouse gases must be cut by up to 60% to prevent dangerous climate change.
http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2336.txt

Andrew C. Revkin journalist for the New York Times e-mail to Phil Jones
…As you all are aware, a very vocal and plugged-in crew has been making much of the recent downturn in temps. Because the ‘Average Joe’ out there is only hearing radio soundbites about the sun turning off, or cable-news coverage or some stray TV image of snow in baghdad (and particularly with a big ‘skeptics conference’ coming next week), I think it’s important to do a story putting a cold stretch in context against the evidence for the long-term warming trajectory from greenhouse forcing. Would need input from you by end of Thursday ideally….
Other Climategate e-mails discussing how to influence public opinion. Other wise known as how to spread propaganda.
Mike Hulme on using climate propaganda to mobilize opinion
UEA’s David Viner forwards an email to cru.all; the email contains sentences like: “What do you think would be the most effective way to radicalise the UN agenda and protect the climate from our current economic and political systems?”

Stephen Richards

Monty says
By the way, I’m not talking to ‘skeptics’ here, I’m posting just in case there are sensible people lurking here.
Two problems there for you M;; 1 you are talking to sceptics unless of course you misposted and thought you were at Joe’s place and
there are sensible people here which means you will be challenged and you will not be up to meeting that challenge.

Gail Combs

moamoke says:
May 2, 2012 at 10:29 am
Monty,
If there will be no CAGW then I want my money back.
_______________________________________
Since “Monty” is one of the “Climate Scientists” (physicist) feeding off tax payer dollars maybe you should go after HIS salary/pension.
You might say good ole Monty has a vested interest in keeping Joe Sixpack alarmed since his pay check depends on it. Note how he is posting at 10am BTW.

Monty says:
May 2, 2012 at 12:16 pm
eric1skeptic says:
“Monty would love to get into a discussion of all the “independent” lines of evidence pointing to high sensitivity. Alas there is only one: models”.
Eric: you clearly don’t know what you are talking about. Sensitivity is an OUTPUT from models, not an input. Got it?

Right. Garbage in—you know what comes out.
/Mr Lynn

Matt G

Monty says:
May 2, 2012 at 10:01 am
Sensivity is not high, demonstrated by the planet to be low. Global temperatures have failed to rise mainly because global cloud levels have increased. You are basing it has an high sensitivity based on model projection, which is not evidence.
Show one example of high sensitivity observed that can only be explained by CO2.

Mr Lynn, surely you are aware that the result of a simulation is now proof. One could even say that model results are the new facts. 😉

Adam

Josh, you can have your own opinion about AGW, but you can’t lie about all the evidence for Anthropogenic Global Warming not even existing. The IPCC reports would be a good start for the evidence for AGW. You may disagree with the evidence, but you cannot say that no evidence has been provided.

Kasuha

I had a good laugh to the cartoon, thanks.
What I think about it though is, it’s funny for people frequenting WUWT but not for people uncritically taking their daily dose of alarmism in news. It might be better to have at least the most common non-evidence such as heat waves, cold waves, tornadoes, droughts, floods etc written and already crossed out on the blackboard – that might get them at least thinking.

Monty is not a scientist, he just plays one on WUWT.
. . .
Adam says:
“The IPCC reports would be a good start for the evidence for AGW.”
Adam doesn’t get Josh’s point: there is no evidence for AGW. None. There are models, and there is conjecture. AGW may exist. But there is zero empirical, testable, measurable evidence for it.

Matt G

Adam says:
May 2, 2012 at 3:12 pm
Where in the post is Josh lying about AGW? No evidence that AGW is dangerous is not the same as any evidence that AGW exists at all. Stop making things up that are not even there. He is correct that there is no evidence supporting a dangerous responce from rising global temperatures. The IPCC reports show nothing that is dangerous on humans with supported evidence and is full of conjecture.

Robert Austin

Adam says:
May 2, 2012 at 3:12 pm
Straw man arguement alert! Carefully read the the blackboard in Josh’s cartoon. It says “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”, not “AGW”.

The Evil Capitalist Denier

Not sure if I support all this guy ideas. Doesn’t believe in anthropogenic Global warming, but he doesn’t support the free market. Well, warmist or not, in both case it gives the same outcome, communist.