The MAD MEN of Climate-Change Alarmism

The caption for Gore has the word “Blionaire”. Was this perhaps intended to be “billionaire”? Or possibly some form of “bloviate”.

This comment is awaiting moderation at his site. I hope he thinks about it.
Steve,
Harpo is actually quite right. For years, I was very alarmed about climate change and concerned that we weren’t doing enough. It wasn’t until I was challenged by my father, a retired engineer, who had taken an interest in Steve McIntyre’s work and my inability to counter his arguments that I started taking a serious interest in the subject. Once I started to dig for myself and examine seriously the reasonable objections serious scientific skeptics were saying that I began to realize that the case for alarmism is extremely weak. You mention that the ‘science is settled’. The science is NEVER settled – otherwise it would stop! Climate change has happened, is happening, and will always continue to happen – whether we influence it or not. Saying the ‘science is settled’ is shutting down reasonable and rational debate over an enormously complex subject, characterised by the depth of our ignorance, not our knowledge.
If you don’t want to listen to those who you regard as ‘mad deniers’ – why don’t you at least listen to the balanced, reasonable, fully justified and supported views of tenured climate scientists such as Richard LIndzen, or Judith Curry or Roy Spencer or John Christy. These aren’t mad crackpots, but publishing and serious climate scientists who essentially caution against over-confidence, confirmation bias, and group-think that has blighted climate science for the past decade and a half.
I urge you to at least examine what they say, and understand their objections before committing yourself to an opposing viewpoint without ever fully understanding what you are opposing.

Jim says:
June 10, 2013 at 6:47 am

What? No mad women on either side? This is not politically correct, eh?

True, but “climate science” as practiced by “The Team” IS politically correct. And that’s why it isn’t science. (Just look at the bozos in Josh’s rendition–every one of them are crooked activists who are out of control–much like our government.)
(Oh, hello NSA–file this under “reactionary” or “dissident” or both.)

“Why do they only have three fingers on each hand?”
This is a subtle homage to 100-97 = 3. I.e. the real consensus figure. Or, as the spell – checker just suggested, the Con Census.

I’m afraid Josh got it wrong on the “Most influential tree in the world” reference for Mann. That was Briffa’s claim to infamy with his Yamal reconstruction. There’s probably little doubt that Mann may have had a hand in it, but the reference is misplaced.

Very funny, I still don’t get the obscure “Mad Men” reference. But still, Josh’s work has more of a good natured feel to it, Steve Brodner’s work is good too but has a darker feel to it, the intention of demonizing his caricatures comes across very well. 🙂

I like that sketch. Nicely executed loose watercolor. I can see why you would want a copy. It’s too bad he’s not open to the skeptics, he’d probably make some good money selling prints to the skeptical community. But I suppose he’d think it was filthy carbon money and wouldn’t want to touch it. :roll eyes:

Is this “the team?”

No Phil Jones? Or Briffa?

I will say, how could a caricaturist resist throwing in Lord Monkton??

Add 3 more guys and you can make a 2014 calendar….