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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Spot on, Josh. Sceptics should not let the alarmists – in true strawman fashion – define our argument for us.
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.
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!
Josh,
All the world’s a
stagecartoon by Josh,And all the men and women merely
playerscartoon characters;They have their exits and their entrances,
And
one manJosh in his timeplays many partsdraws many cartoons,Apologies to Shakespeare.
John
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.
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.
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.
Roger Harrabin is the BBC’s ‘environment analyst’ ( WUWT discussion of following e-mail and more on the BBC and Harradin
And an e-mail straight from an insider.
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?”
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.
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.
Right. Garbage in—you know what comes out.
/Mr Lynn
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. 😉
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.