This has been the most strange and unsettling week ever. Wiretaps, using the tax code as a political tool against your opponent, Huffington Post goes over to the dark side, and we witnessed the collapse of climate models ability to predict the future.
The Chinese must be laughing at our folly.
“May you live in interesting times“, often referred to as the Chinese curse, is reputed to be the English translation of an ancient Chinese proverb and curse, although it may have originated among the English themselves. It is reported that it was the first of three curses of increasing severity, the other two being:
“May you come to the attention of those in authority” (sometimes rendered “May the government be aware of you”). This is sometimes quoted as “May you come to the attention of powerful people.” (Alternately, “important people”.) Source
The icing on the cake this week is a portrayal as being one of the “Mad Men”, but given what’s been going on, one has to wonder, who really are the mad men? You just have to laugh though.
For those unfamiliar, this is a parody of the TV series Mad Men, which I have only a passing familiarity with. Apparently its about Madison avenue, sex, power, and smoke filled back rooms in the 60’s.
Unfortunately there’s no large version of the poster, because I’d surely like to print it and frame it for the sheer hilarity of it. It’s like somebody did a Vulcan mind meld with Mike Mann, and this was the image that came out. Of course, I want to frame the poster, rather than burn it like some that inhabit Mann-world do.
(Update: In comments, Michael Palmer says at June 7, 2013 at 10:48 am: here is a reconstructed mostly hi-res version of the picture. My thanks to him – Anthony)
Just a couple of notes for the artist, Steve Brodner, who didn’t bother to do his homework (all he had to do was check my “about page“), but instead allowed himself to get caught up in the Mannian fantasy vortex. For example, recall how Mike Mann reacted with full on conspiracy theory when I sent him a free calendar for Christmas.
I’ve met some, but not all of these people. As far as I know, none of them smoke. I asked Joe Bastardi yesterday whether he smoked or not (given his bodybuilding I highly doubted it) and he replied “only when I’m on fire!”.
For the record, both of my parents died of smoking related illnesses while I was young, and my severe hearing loss is connected to ear infections (and treatment by an ototoxic
drug) due to growing up in a smoke filled household. Smoking adversely affected my life, and made life choices for me that I didn’t plan. To portray me as embracing smoking is particularly unkind and most certainly inaccurate. But, that’s what happens when you live in The Mad Mad Mad World of Climatism.
While the cartoon is funny, the smoking portrayal does bother me a bit about this cartoon, because it is personal, and the artist of course is just another low information sap who works with popular memes. But, that smoking meme all part of the ongoing comparative smear to tobacco company tactics that Mann and Co. like to push, because after their own failure of the alarmist public relations strategy, all they have left now is denigration. Maybe they need to watch that “Mad Men” show for tips.
Oh, and also for the record I’ve also never gotten any money from big oil, small oil, Olive Oyl, Kochtopus, or the American Petroleum Institute, nor am I on the payroll (nor have I ever been) of any such organization. What you see is what you get, some advertising on the blog and the donation button on the right sidebar.
Finally, I don’t “deny” climate change. Most certainly the climate has changed over the last century. My view is that while CO2 has an effect, it isn’t as bad as being portrayed and it certainly isn’t living up to the expectations of the climate models. Like many eco-causes, it is over-hyped to get emotional churning which panders to the gullible.
Yes, we live in interesting times.
UPDATE: I’ve asked Steve Brodner on his blog (where he talks about the artwork) for a full sized copy. We’ll see how he reacts. I’d really like to get one. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Anthony: Far to sensitive! The way you wrote it, I was SURE you were puffing a stogie! BUT, you are only holding a mixed drink glass. IT’s obvious, you are just portrayed as a SOUSE, and not a smoker. BACK OFF. As Churchhill told the “Grand Dame” , when she accused him of showing up to Parliment “soused”, “Sir Winston, I do believe you are drunk!”
“Lady so and so, I do believe you are FAT! But there is an important difference between you and I. Tomorrow I will wake up SOBER. However, you will wake up and still be FAT!”
In your case: “Sir Anthony, I do believe you are accused of being a SOUSE…by Mr. Mann, et. al. But when you wake up, not only are you and will you be sober, unlike Mr. Mann, you will NOT be FATUOUS!
Let them keep digging.
If you are going to do a poster of Mad Men warmists — I really think that Alfred E. Neuman should somehow sneak into the picture.
Eugene WR Gallun
I think Josh ought to do one either entitled:
Nobody’s expects the Spanish Inquisition
Or
The Last Supper at la de Vinci
I think the cartoon is good! Buy the original and hang it in a place of honour!
That is not quite how Christopher Horner looks.
http://cei.org/expert/christopher-c-horner
Jealousy and envy is bad for your blood pressure, ya know.
I am coming up with a parity cartoon. Just need 12 names please. Also a caption for each. Already have mann, gore, trenberth, hansen, gleick. Appreciate the help
Arthur C Clark has been a favorite author of mine. He wrote 1989’s Ghost from the Grand Banks about raising the two parts of the Titanic in 2012, ironically using ice for buoyancy and strength. Two of the principle characters are rich Silicon Valley geeks who have made their money by editing 20th century film classics to remove and minimize all vestiges of smoking.
This book came out about the time of Colorization. Clark’s took that computer processing further:
Ever since reading that book, I can’t help but look at mid-20th Century movies in that light. I watched The Quiet Man the other night. The number of times Sean Thornton (Wayne) lights up briefly is staggering.
I can see editing out smoking scenes and air-brushing frames for smoke. But if society ever feels the same way toward the drink! Oh a great number of classics will disappear. What would be left of Casablanca without the smoke and alcohol?
Anthony,
I stopped smoking for nearly 20 years..I picked it up as a stupid kid when I was very, very young, and stopped when I was 23 or so, in the US Navy, stationed in Scotland at the time. Never thought anything could drive me to smoke again…but sometimes life kicks a guy in the teeth, and next thing you know…. Anyway, after nearly a decade of once again being an active smoker, I stopped again 9 months ago.
Please note, and take hope, smokers who might read this, that at no time did I ‘quit’. It’s part of my own philosophy that you cannot quit something you’ve done. It’s a part of you. So trying to quit will always end in failure. We can’t quit, but we CAN stop. The fact is, it’s simply been a long time since my last cigarette. I din’t quit; I’m just taking a bit of time between cigarettes.
True that, unlike someone who never smoked, I have: so I can’t say I’m not a smoker. It’s just that I’m not smoking NOW. If I ever decide to have one again—please, please, don’t let me be quite that dimwitted again—it’ll be my choice. Think about it for a sec: I simply haven’t lit my next one yet. I relaxed into stopping, if you follow me. Sure, hadda wrap my head around it after flirting with the idea for months. It wasn’t like it happened overnight. I knew all along that, willy-nilly, like it or not, I’d stop eventually—reasonably, like I did, or when it killed me, but I’d stop. But the truth is, it really WAS that simple: I had my last one late at night, knew it was the last in that pack but was sure I had another pack on the table, and the next morning, discovered I was wrong and said, “Well, know what? I think I’m not going to bother going to buy any just now.” It was that simple because long, long ago, I’d arrived at the notion that I wasn’t quitting, I was just going to wait a bit between cigarettes. First, just for a day. Then a couple of days, then a week, then…
I pretend, sometimes, that I’m not so very stupid as I really am, and I do reasonable things. Sometimes I even surprise myself when I get away with it. Anyway, rather than grit my teeth and tell myself, “Quit!” and then be afraid to tell anyone I what I’d “promised!”, lest I submit to temptation and have another (and be foresworn! Oh no! And then, humiliated in our own heads, even though we’re the only ones who know, because, WE FAILED, we’d go back to smoking and try not to think about the humiliation of being human and giving in to temptation, and probably not try again to stop because we’re afraid of failure…), no, I simply decided I’d wait a bit before I have another, and that wait has stretched out a mite. Hopefully, It’ll be more than 20 years, at least. And it was pretty stress free—as it was the last time I stopped instead of trying to “quit”.
But if THAT ain’t enough for anyone who still smokes, think on this: at 2 packs a day, I spent around $320 a month smoking. I stopped, and around the same time, I also refinanced my house, and gave myself a $10K per year pay raise without moving up a tax bracket. I was so happy, I bought a new Les Paul as a present for myself (Studio Shred—a Les Paul with a Floyd Rose Trem that didn’t cost me $5K! I”m primarily a Fender Strat kinda cat, but I’m now looking for my THIRD Les Paul…a thing I couldn’t even think to afford as a smoker—-but here’s a strange thing: though I’d been through this before, and though I KNEW smoking was expensive, I never, never, never sat down and added up the cost before I stopped. Can you say, “Yes, smokers lie to themselves!”? We can’t help it. When we tell ourselves the truth, we realize how utterly stupid we’re behaving, and tha’s just embarrassing…), and unless I get hit by a bus (always a possibility…), I’ll live longer to play it.
On the whole, however, I’ve lived a charmed existence, so I claim no halos for anything I’ve done— Instead I’ll echo a sentiment I’ve read here:
Anthony, yes, you are a Class Act. But given what you have achieved with WattsUpWithThat, you and all the other “Deniers” have done the entire world a great service, so more than simply echoing a sentiment, let me say I hope you go down in history (in a good way!!!)—you and all those others who have fought so long and so hard against the dunderheads of the Alarmist faction—as another Copernicus, Galileo, or maybe better, another Leon Foucault!
The others (Copernicus, Galileo) defied the world order, but backed down to authority and were only accepted as correct long past their own lifetimes, and even then, only celebrated for it many generations later. Leon Foucault, however, took on the Established Scientists (sarc) of his day and, sans all their fancy creds, and though he wasn’t of their circle or an initiate, very thoroughly embarrassed them, and put them in their place. True that some of the responders here DO have the creds, the fact is, none y’all are Establishment, just like Leon Foucault (definitely one of my heroes!).
The alarmists like to talk about how much “harm” deniers do to their cause, but how many poor people have starved because of the insane expenditures on attempted “fixes” to problems which cannot be fixed, don’t need fixing, aren’t a problem in the first place (can anyone point out a time when the climate warmed which has NOT been beneficial to mankind? As I said, ain’t my field, but I DO read, and I haven’t read yet of a past warming that was bad for mankind—but I HAVE read of many reports of cooling that were disasters. I’m just askin’…)? How much better would the world be if the millions spent on their useless models were simply spent to help those poor? Or spent on research to learn how to take better advantage of the coming warm period (which thus far, is showing GREAT reluctance in arriving… I’m thinking it’s time to sue Al Gore for false advertising. I LOVE the heat, myself, and this continued cooling trent… …again, just sayin’.)?
For that matter, I think y’all should be proud of being called Deniers (someone above was upset about it, but I think tha’s probably not the right way to look at it)—there’s nothing negative about denying that ipsi dixit pronouncements are The Truth, if those who make prounouncements deliberately do not follow the Scientific Method, but then claim what they’ve said IS science, and dodge and evade any attempt by anyone to engage them in question/answer/debate about their methods, data, interpretation of results, etc, i.e., to force them to defend their theses—as any PhD candidate had to do, once upon a time, to attain the Doctorate. Perhaps these newer PhDs (Mann & co., but perhaps he was lead to it, because some, like Phil Jones, are of an older generation and should know better!) forgot why the defense of thesis existed as a part of the process of conferring a Doctorate of Philosophy in a discipline: it wasn’t because that was the only time a PhD would have to do so, it wasn’t the “final test”, it wasn’t to prove they’d reached a certain plateau (at least, not primarily); it was simply the first time they’d have to do so at that level. But every paper that followed from the new Phd was expected to meet the same level of scrutiny as a minimum.
In other words, the defense of the doctoral thesis was just the initiation; the conferring of the degree wasn’t to say, “Congratulations! You’ve arrived!” It was to say, “Good luck, kid. You’ve just gotten to the starting gate. May you leave your mark on the world, and not vice-versa!”
(I will not get started on education! I will not get started on education! I will not get started on education!)
Anyone can be a parrot and say what everyone else says, and hope to sound intelligent thereby. It takes integrity, discipline, and self-confidence to take on the King and his sycophants and say, again and again, “Dude: you’re naked.” And courage: how many people who have never met, never spoken with Anthony Watts speak ill of him, and not because they’ve read anything here, but because they believe the smear-job done on sites like RealClimate or SkepticalScience?
And I owe you a personal thanks: where else can I get to read discussions between Scientists & researchers still working in the field, and students still studying in the university, who will answer questions from anyone (even me!)? It’s all the good things you expect from academia but rarely get anymore, and without having to go back to school (I was married to an academic for some years, so I know a bit about that world…if only from the perspective of my ex’s field. But I did get to meet and spend time with Academics from many other fields, and so don’t think I’m too far off the mark in my generalities—but don’t let me smear ALL universities! I’m sure there are many, many colleges and universities where there are departments that still adhere to the Scientific Method, and value open sharing of ideas and open debate, even if that’s not the case where folks like Phil Jones, Keith Briffa and Michael Mann came from…)!
That’s all to say, all y’all ROCK, especially you, Anthony, and you’ve got a killer site with an incredible amount of data, research, opinions, links—
Pointman, in one of the links you have provided above, makes some very very good points about the on-going failure of the Alarmists’ dreams and why they’re losing their own propaganda war with the Deniers. But he misses one point, I think (though maybe he saw it but din’t think it as important as I do):
Skeptic bloggers and those who follow them tend to be, for the most part, people who think for themselves; they don’t simply agree with ANYONE, no matter who that person is or what degrees they have. They aren’t intimidated by letters after a signature, don’t believe everything they hear, demand evidence, and most especially, they are not people who repeat what their “heroes” state. There is open discussion, dissent, review—in fact, a very lively culture of learning going on, from the highest levels of PhD’s in various sciences (actual science, like Geology, Math, Physics, etc., and not questionable claims to “climate science”) with decades experience in the field, to interested bystanders in unrelated fields, to autodidacts, all asking questions, and sure, trolls get snipped (and should!), but no one tries to censor honest questions or shut anyone up because (noses in the air..) the asker is not “qualified” to have an opinion in the field of ‘climate Science’ (whatever that may really be), and of all the nerve, to have the temerity to even QUESTION the proclamations of Dr. Michael Mann (long may he wave…)!! Of all the nerve!
The difference in the posts I read here, from those I’ve read at SkepticalScience et al, are sorta like the difference between reading Ian Plimer’s “Heaven and Earth” and reading opinion pieces on some teen pop music star Fan site: in the first, you learn useful information—in the other, not so much.
For example, this, from a comment on RealClimate about “Unforced Variation”:
“- while “renewable fuel” is free, the overall system costs are very high (even while being heavily subsidized), leading to a much lower return on investment” (see here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/06/unforced-variations-june-2013/comment-page-2/#comment-342394, comment No.94)
I have to say, that if it’s subsidized, it’s ANYTHING but free—aren’t those OUR tax dollars that are paying for it? That’s like saying a perpetual motion machine that requires me to add a motor to it is still really and truly a perpetual motion machine. And that comment was from a very sincere response to the article, from a well-written, articulate responder! This wasn’t written by a simple zombie! If their best and brightest can write such contradictory nonsense with all sincerity and believe it…!
So— I’m not going to ask why you bother, Anthony, because I’m sure you ask yourself from time to time if you don’t have something better to spend your time on.
I’m just going to say that, when that great day comes, and Al Gore himself admits the inconvenient truth that he’s wrong, and Deniers are no longer denying anything but simply stating the truth, I hope you keep running this incredible site, because a dog ain’t never too old to learn a few new tricks, and I learn something new here every time I visit.
Don’t ever stop. To everyone else, please, keep right on submitting, commenting, blogging your thoughts. What “peer review” won’t do for “scientists” who follow the Political Method instead of the Scientific Method, the Blogosphere will do—because of you.
From a delighted bystander….
p@ur momisugly
Hey, Go Home, good for you (re: the counter-cartoon) some names (I’m assuming you’re going to include only men, since it would, I think, falsely imply that the pro-AGW camp is more welcoming of women in its ranks than the Truth in Science camp is to include women in your cartoon):
1. Bill Nye (The Science Guy)
2. Dana Nuccitelli
3. Bill McKibben
4. Joe Romm
5. Paul R. Ehrlich (b. 1932 — still alive?)
6. Mayor Bloomberg
7. Charles, Prince of Wales
8. Alec Baldwin (the loud mouth actor)
That’s all for tonight (zzzzzzz).
Best wishes for success in your cartoon endeavor, Go!
Janice
!! Love it!
But don’t forget Loudmouth Sean Penn, as long as you’re counting “actors”, and what about James Hansen and Al Gore??! Are they that passe already that they don’t pass your sniff-test as somebody who needs to be included in a counter-mural of “Mad Men of Denial”? What about Cook??
Just suggestin’…
I thought I’d ask so I did. Let’s see if my question is cencored on that Amnesty promoting artist’s page:
Vieras says:
June 8, 2013 at 1:46 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Where did you get the idea of drawing them with cigarettes when none of them actually smoke?
Thanks Janice. How about Richard Windsor to round out my 12 ‘guys’
@Go Home
Lemme know whom you select— If it’s any of my suggestion, I’ll help provide the caption-text!
more proof that satire is dead in this orwellian world we live in. like all zealots, the CAGW crew are totally lacking in real humour.
Anthony,
Perhaps if you post this Buffoon’s email address, we “deniers” around the world can scan our photographs and align ourselves to the cause. I’m up for it here Down Under.
OK, I have completed my parody.
http://s21.postimg.org/pmhxnu77b/Green_Menof_Climate_Alarmism2.jpg
Anthony can use this on his website as he pleases…
I may have to redo it, I am not sure I made Al Gore’s head big enough in the parody “Green Men Of Climate Science”.
A co-worker of mine once got a speeding ticket on evidence of a picture taken by a camera that photos the front of the vehicle and shows the driver. With these you don’t get a copy of the photo just the ticket and if you want the photo you call a number and for more money they will send you your picture, I suggested that he ask them if they did the pictures poster size so he could put it on his wall and prove to his friends and family that his old motor could reach such speeds. He thought the ticket people might think he was not taking his “crime” seriously.
As you say I do like the picture apart from the smoking references. I once tried a ciggy when I was about 12/13 and coughed myself nearly unconscious and thought I could smell and taste it for about the next few days so never again.
James Bull
The post with the link did not post. Not sure if it is in moderation or in spam? If there is anything I need to do, let me know how to post the link to the picture. I used…
Al Gore, Kevin Trenberth, Phil Jones, John Cook, Dana Nuticelli, Bill McKibben, Bill Nye, James Hansen, Joe Romm, Lisa Jackson (aka Richard Windsow, and Peter Gleick. I am open to edits if folks feel I did not get the right Green Men Of Climate Alarmism right.
I used a 1994 version of Corel Photopaint to put it together.
[Link works, but the image does not display here. Hint: Use the “Test” page to check out your html coding. Mod]
Oh and Michael Mann (sorry for the multiple posts).
The artist’s comment on his blog is almost a self parody……
“To all those posting here who repeat what Harpo has said, please know that the repetition of denial doesn’t change anything. You can do the self-delusion dance all you want on your sites. And soon there won’t be much of that either. We can change while there’s time. This blog will be devoted to that.”
When considered collectively, the most unusual thing about them is the almost fifty-fifty gender demographic. The women speak with as strong a voice as the men, and have just as strong a readership. I think a possible explanation of that is the one dimensionality of the medium of blogging. You can’t see their faces, hear their tone of voice, watch the body language or anything else, except read their words. Like a book, it’s such a seriously stripped down medium, that it’s the purest form of one mind communicating with another, and hence it liberates women from the expected behavioural stereotypes. It’s a case of mind over dangly bits.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/09/28/intentions-profiles-and-predictability/
Pointman
RE: Eric Simpson says:
June 7, 2013 at 11:57 am
Thanks for your kind words. I have now replied to your comment on my blog. Sorry it took so long. It has been a busy week.
By the way, that blog is nicely obscure, and I average around five or ten views a day, but when you commented here there was a big spike up to 96 views. Wow! I’m famous!
I just use the blog as a repository of my ideas, including some that need work and/or criticism. Some of the writing is likely tedious and way too long-winded, but you need to write such junk to get things organized, so that you can occasionally write something brief and concise.
Sometimes, when in a more paranoid mood, I like to think of some poor government spy, doomed to wade through my worst writing. He’s not allowed to skip ahead, but day after day has to go through every word. It must be sheer hell, and worthy of a fourth Chinese curse.
More desperation by the people who are losing the (defacto) debate without actually debating.
Go Home. Great rendition of the main characters. Should Obama be in there since he’s become the big push plucking this turkey.
Spencer and Curry, for two. They appear on or are quoted in the media, so they qualify as “front men” (persons?), but they’re climatologists, so their inclusion would wreck the caption’s claim that none of the Mad Men are climatologists.