Swivel eyed lunacy – posted by Josh

The recent climate skeptic witch hunt, even against people like Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., who ISN’T a climate skeptic but has presented some data on severe weather losses that contradict the current meme of “severe weather caused by global warming”, prompted Josh to pen a new cartoon.

He gets right to the source of the whole fossil fuel problem.

Investigations_scr

Cartoons by Josh

0 0 votes
Article Rating
118 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Steve from Rockwood
February 26, 2015 9:25 am

This brings up a good question. Can you be religious and still support the theory of catastrophic global warming?

Just an engineer
Reply to  Steve from Rockwood
February 26, 2015 9:38 am

You mean the theology of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming?

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Just an engineer
February 26, 2015 1:42 pm

Just an Engineer
When it comes to the religion of CAGW, there are three kinds of atheist: those who can count and those who can’t.
Now you see the problem. If the CAGW promoters are actually religious, there are three kinds of them too: those who can count and those who can’t.
Therein lie the core issues: bad math, bad methods, incomplete data sets, perfidious intent and self-righteous self-indulgence. Hardly the basis of a moral force.
Reality is much more mundane: CO2 is a GHG, increasing by any means it has only a tiny effect on the climate. The catastrophism however, has had and is having a very large and deleterious effect on society. Among its offerings is the provision of a materialistic pseudo-religion that incorporates the Catholic principle of Original (carbon) Sin, the Islamic injunction to defend the Faith by all means necessary, the Hindu concept of Dharma where you get what you deserve according to how you live your life, and the Marxist ideological position that all morality can be decided arbitrarily and is always subject to the interests of the ruling party.
I don’t such a thing ever existed before. What I observe is that CAGW is incapable, as a religious or atheist movement, of creating moral and principled human beings leading to an ever-advancing civilisation, which is the fundamental purpose of true Religion. That the atheists coast on the good works of the religious communities is OK with me. I don’t mind at all. Love and good wishes only have value if you give them away.

Reply to  Just an engineer
February 26, 2015 6:06 pm

I always thought there were 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary and those who don’t….

Annie
Reply to  Just an engineer
February 26, 2015 10:26 pm

GeoLurking: very good, I really like it!

Walt Allensworth
Reply to  Steve from Rockwood
February 26, 2015 9:48 am

The thought process is very similar.
Ultimately, both are very faith-based.
I know a number of people that are passionately religious and also passionate proponents of CAGW.
There’s probably a psychoanalysis opportunity here somewhere.

Tom O
Reply to  Walt Allensworth
February 26, 2015 11:34 am

I don’t see your connection, Walt. Religion is “faith based,” true, and must be accepted without proof as there is likewise no proof that an alternative is a reality. On the other hand, CAGW is accepted without accepting the proof to the opposite. There is a significant difference.
If there is a psychoanalysis opportunity somewhere, it is trying to understand why supposed atheists find it so necessary to put down people that do have faith. I feel for atheists, really, since there is no “faith” that is more difficult to live up to since you have to deny all aspects of God, which rightfully should require the non-mentioning of religion, its terms, its references, etc., since using them is acknowledging their existence.

hannuko
Reply to  Walt Allensworth
February 26, 2015 12:07 pm

Tom O
There are two kinds of atheists:
1) Those who have no need for faith. They have no “religion-gene” and hence no need to believe in anything supernatural. These people are not anti-religious. They just don’t care as long as nobody tries to actively convert them.
2) Those who have a need for faith, but have grown in a secular environment. These people have the “religion-gene” and they quite often treat their atheism as just another religion. A religion that is intolerant and dogmatic. They have strong intolerance of other religions and generally just care just way too much about things that they supposedly don’t believe in.
I belong to the first group and have a strong dislike of the latter group. Try to convert me or limit my freedoms based on your view, and I’ll put you to your place. Let me live my life and I’ll let you live yours and even respect you.

Reply to  hannuko
February 26, 2015 12:24 pm

Did you just attempt to insinuate that religion is hereditary? “Religion gene”? Or that there are “only two kinds of atheists”…the kind you are and everyone else? I find the first hilarious, the second objectionable and both highly UNscientific to say the least.

rh
Reply to  Walt Allensworth
February 26, 2015 12:30 pm

Another similarity is the hunting and destruction of heretics.

gbaikie
Reply to  Walt Allensworth
February 26, 2015 12:46 pm

–hannuko
February 26, 2015 at 12:07 pm
Tom O
There are two kinds of atheists:
1) Those who have no need for faith. They have no “religion-gene” and hence no need to believe in anything supernatural. These people are not anti-religious. They just don’t care as long as nobody tries to actively convert them.–
Maybe they appreciate people actively trying to convert them, as they are a hopeless case, because they “lack the gene”. Though perhaps they could become frustrated or annoyed by inferior attempts at converting them, as similar to lousy doctors wasting a patient time and not addressing their problem.

Reply to  Walt Allensworth
February 26, 2015 1:16 pm

I don’t think I’ve seen it articulated anywhere as well as this gentleman puts it: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm

BFL
Reply to  Walt Allensworth
February 26, 2015 1:18 pm

@hannuko:
“Try to convert me or limit my freedoms based on your view, and I’ll put you to your place.”
Although only an agnostic, I still occasionally come across the rabid religious type who is “concerned” about my soul and to whom there is not much one can say without strung out verbal animosity. So to save time and tempers and also add a touch of sarcasm, I just tell them that I am Southern Baptist and “Once saved, always saved” no matter what I do or believe and that they should convert for those benefits. Works every time.
P.S. Catholicism would also might work as even if you were a Mafia hit man you would be okay as long as you received the “Last Rites”.

Flyover Bob
Reply to  Walt Allensworth
February 26, 2015 1:38 pm

Atheism is a religion because like other religions there is no evidence to prove or disprove the beliefs.

PMHinSC
Reply to  Walt Allensworth
February 26, 2015 1:43 pm

hannuko February 26, 2015 at 12:07 pm
There are two kinds of atheists:
1) Those who have no need for faith.

My personal experience is everybody will find they need to believe in something during some of life’s trials. Best to pick the something when the picking is good rather than wait until it is too late and you have already excluded everything. Religious faith seems about as good as the picking gets. We all lie in the bed we make.

D.J. Hawkins
Reply to  Walt Allensworth
February 26, 2015 2:24 pm

@BFL
Your view on Catholic Last Rites is widely held and overly simplistic. In order to garner the benefits of the sacrament, especially with regard to confession, the penitent must be sincere in his claim, otherwise it’s just useless posturing. It is impossible for us to see into the hearts of others, so there is no way for any to judge the sincerity of a death-bed conversion/confession. In the world of believers, it is enough that God knows the truth.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Walt Allensworth
February 26, 2015 4:35 pm

Yeah, Walt, but the psychoanalists are corrupted beyond redemption, so there will be no studies of this done in this generation of practitioners . They are all writing papers on the psychosis that creates sceptism. The CAGW blues that has been inflicting pain on a growing number of those who wasted a career on this stuff has found no help from therapists. These sick climate scientists have stated their crying jags, loss of sleep, loss of interest in their craft and deep depression is because they have done all these studies and no one listens and it has drained them trying get all to see the looming disaster.
A real psychologist/psychiatrist would look up the the term ‘D’nial and realize that the word is a central theme to deal with in depression. They have lost this valuable word and offered the wrong kind of support. Ironically, this is exactly what the trouble is with these unfortunate folks. Doubt has crept in with rebuttals of their work and then, along comes a halt to global warming that now is longer than the period of anthropo warming we were all agonizing over. Their inner mind knows they were wrong about all this but the are in ‘D’. They are destined to remain sick because they won’t face this thing that has been trying to shake their minds awake.

hannuko
Reply to  Walt Allensworth
February 26, 2015 9:58 pm

Aphan. Religiousness is indeed hereditary. It’s written in your DNA how predisposed to religious experiences your brain becomes. If you don’t have those genes, you are unlikely to get kicks out of anything supernatural. You are the guy in the church thinking: “Why I don’t feel the presence of god? Should I feel someone watching over me? I wonder why I do not.”
This is not to say one is inferior to another. I have just noticed that every time a person tries to fight against some of the basic features of his personality, the end is just a big mess and a tragedy for everyone. Like those prone to religiousness trying to be atheists and then behaving like religious fanatics about it. Just grab a proper organized religion and get on with it!

Reply to  Walt Allensworth
February 26, 2015 10:29 pm

Call me old fashion but My religion is the old original one with a personal God that belongs to me only. In that way I have full control over my thoughts and mind and no one cal control me on these matters.

Twobob
Reply to  Walt Allensworth
February 27, 2015 2:45 am

+ 1010

John Endicott
Reply to  Steve from Rockwood
February 26, 2015 10:43 am

Steve from Rockwood says: February 26, 2015 at 9:25 am
This brings up a good question. Can you be religious and still support the theory of catastrophic global warming?
=======================================
Since catastrophic global warming is a religion (just ask Pachauri) the answer is most definitely yes 😉

Reply to  Steve from Rockwood
February 26, 2015 11:04 am

The definition of a religious practice that I learned in anthropology many decades ago was:
“Ritual, supported by myth to effect a social change.”
Since that statement holds true for many of the old religious practices (burials, marriages, certain dietary proscriptions etc.) and it absolutely holds true for the CAGW movement, I’m considering it a religion.

Reply to  nielszoo
February 26, 2015 11:40 am

Odd..I don’t agree with the statement in the first place, but if I did, I would think it would be said the other way around…”Myth, supported by ritual.” Or “rituals that support a myth”. I can’t imagine the reverse…where some ancient person is cutting open a ram on a big stone block and someone asks him “Hey…why are you doing that?” and He says “To effect a social change….but maybe I need a back story to support doing it huh?”
Rituals were, and still are, ways that humans celebrate, remember, practice renewal, of the things that they have decided are important to them. We bake cakes and blow out candles (rituals) to celebrate the birth dates of our loved ones, but I don’t see that effecting a societal change at all. Religions practice baptism (rituals) as a “sign” or “token” of a personal promise the individual has made to dedicate themselves to God or a certain life style. It’s an “outward” sign, of an “inward change”….whether that change effects a change to society at all.

Tom O
Reply to  nielszoo
February 26, 2015 11:42 am

If you were taught that as definition, I think you should ask for a refund of the money that you spent. That certainly isn’t a true definition. Religion is faith based in belief but not necessarily supported by discernible facts. It has nothing to do with ritual, and it has nothing to do with the intent to cause social change. It does, however, sound like something that an atheist would create, but then again, Atheism is its own religion. I guess your classes in anthropology must have been taught by far different professors than mine were. By some chance was it a guy by the name of Marx?

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  nielszoo
February 26, 2015 12:06 pm

The definition is wrong. Leave it to a pack of sandal-wearing twits like anthropologists to “establish a self-serving” definition so that it can be later quoted by the incurious forever thereafter.
Here too is a quote from a scientist: Phrenology: Phrenology is the study of the structure of the skull to determine a person’s character and mental capacity.
Just because it is defined, does not make the definition reasonable nor correct.
Nielszoo, Father George Henri LeMaitre, PhD, a catholic priest invented the big bang theory. He was a religious man who used science properly to comprehend this world. He was correct.
On the other hand Pachauri was a scientist who distorted his science to be a religion. These two examples are radically different.
So be skeptical of definitions and categoric eruptions when the word religion appears. Remember, Newton Mendel, Copernicus, LeMaitre, Bacon, Pascal, Galileo, and Keppler, were all religious men. The trouble arises when phony people claim to be scientists, even atheisticly scientific, then descend in to a weird religious sciencism, with themselves at the center of their faith, like Pachauri.

Reply to  Steve from Rockwood
February 26, 2015 11:41 am

What is the ISIS position?

MCourtney
Reply to  M Simon
February 26, 2015 12:19 pm

Basically crooked.
But don’t worry your head over it.
One foe at a time.

rh
Reply to  M Simon
February 26, 2015 12:36 pm

“What is the ISIS position?”
Behind a goat.

Louis
Reply to  M Simon
February 26, 2015 1:34 pm

The ISIS position: Non-Muslims and apostates are a form of carbon pollution, but it’s still OK to burn them.

BFL
Reply to  M Simon
February 26, 2015 1:40 pm

This is why the wheel was really invented:

Phlogiston
Reply to  Steve from Rockwood
February 26, 2015 4:12 pm

I have seen that religious folks – Christians at least, sometimes give ostentatious support to environmental issues such as global warming with An ulterior motive, just to get what the English call “street cred (ibility)”. In the same way that they will take on social causes and other politically correct agendas. I should add that the “Christians” who most feel the need for such exhibitions are those at the liberal wing of Christendom. These people have a curiously inverted system of belief. Rather than make a priority of believing the tenets of ones own faith, the liberals invert everything and choose to believe everything except their own label-faith. Thus these people will cast doubt on life after death, biblical accuracy, the miraculous and even the existence of God. On the other hand however they eagerly buy into agendas such as extreme socialism (denial of property), the gay agenda, environmental agendas and anything that seems fashionable. It’s hard to know what to make of such promiscuous belief in every belief on the market out of embarrassment at the faith they are “supposed ” to believe but don’t.

Mac the Knife
Reply to  Phlogiston
February 26, 2015 9:45 pm

Rather than make a priority of believing the tenets of ones own faith, the liberals invert everything and choose to believe everything except their own label-faith.
Thus, by their own priorities and actions, they demonstrate they are not Christians.

Casey
Reply to  Steve from Rockwood
February 27, 2015 1:10 pm

I find that most of the anthropogenic nutters are religious anyway – they’re automatically tuned into belief based on faith, no proof, faked evidence, outright lies and manufactured falsehoods.

Johanus
February 26, 2015 9:40 am

I’m fairly certain that it was Zog, not Ug, who invented the wheel thingy. At least according to Gary Larson.
http://www.oocities.org/templenh2000/Zog.jpg

Christopher Paino
Reply to  Johanus
February 26, 2015 10:17 am

This silly, but it’s a good example of what happens when attention to detail is not ponied up. Zog obviously repairs wheels, but what makes you think he invented them?
Details… details…

Johanus
Reply to  Christopher Paino
February 26, 2015 11:45 am

But Zog did invent the wheel. He also invented fire and beer! It’s on the Internet, so it must be true:
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22caveman+zog%22+%28fire+OR+beer+OR+wheel%29

It was the caveman Zog who was sitting on a hill hitting 2 pieces of rock together over a pile of dead grass. The rocks created a spark which lit the grass.
This startled him so much that he threw the rocks into the air and fell to the ground. As he was lying there thinking about the spark he noticed the rocks rolling down the hill and thought some more.
Zog had invented fire and the wheel in one go.
http://boards.fool.com/there-is-no-doubt-about-it-it-was-the-caveman-zog-18962036.aspx?sort=postdate

:-]

rh
Reply to  Johanus
February 26, 2015 12:39 pm

Hey! Someone got a picture of me helping my dad fix the car a million years ago.

Jeff
Reply to  rh
February 26, 2015 4:52 pm

Wasn’t it part of a Norwegian ad campaign?
“Have you driven a Fjord, lately?”….

Reply to  Johanus
February 26, 2015 1:11 pm

Gary Larson can’t be trusted in things paleolithic. He once showed dinosaurs and humans living at the same time, and he showed mammoth tracks as being perfectly circular.

Johanus
Reply to  Tom Trevor
February 26, 2015 1:50 pm

But did you know that, due to the popularity of The Far Side, two species of animals were named after Larson: 1) an owl louse (Strigiphilus garylarsoni), and 2) an Ecuadorian butterfly (Serratoterga larsoni)?

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Tom Trevor
February 26, 2015 1:52 pm

What about that guy breaking coal in Texas who cracked open a 1-metre diameter lump of coal and a large iron pot fell out? It is on display at the local museum. It has a ‘pouring spout’ on opposite sides. At the same (underground) mine where the (millions of years old) coal came from, the diggers came upon what I would call a hollow block wall that intersected the coal.
There are lots of underground coal mines in Germany from which metal tools have been retrieved. I am not so sure people are so ‘recent’.

Johanus
Reply to  Tom Trevor
February 26, 2015 2:06 pm

Thomas Gold, the greatest scientific maverick, believed coal was abiogenic in origin, in spite of ‘proofs’ where fossils were found still embedded in pieces of coal:

The fact that coal contains fossils does not prove that it is a fossil fuel; it proves exactly the opposite. Those fossils you find in coal prove that coal is not made from those fossils. How could you take a forest and much it all up so that it is a completely featureless big black substance and then find one leaf in it that is perfectly preserved? That is absolute nonsense.
http://unconventionalgeology.blogspot.com/2012/01/origin-of-black-coal.html

Jeff
Reply to  Johanus
February 26, 2015 4:26 pm

Somewhere there’s an IP attorney scrambling to prove “prior art” and claim patent infringement against
UG and Zog. I imagine Apple will chime in and claim the rounded corners, too…
Damages will be compound interest (erm, at better rates than Druggie, er, Draghi has set for us now…)…

Menicholas
Reply to  Johanus
February 26, 2015 4:43 pm

The R & D was a little problematic in those early days:comment image?oh=e078979901a38324d5b4a890d37c75bd&oe=55937036

Reply to  Johanus
February 26, 2015 5:11 pm

I think you are right Johanus, Ug invented Boots….

Reply to  Ben D
February 27, 2015 9:02 am

This is one of the reasons I love this blog. Interspersed with a variety of insights and scientific reasoning and lively discussions are these little bits of real hilarity that no other blog I’ve visited has. Sometimes they make me smack my forehead or wince first, but they always make me chuckle.

February 26, 2015 9:45 am

Ahem, wood fire is “renewable” innit?

Walt Allensworth
Reply to  Hans Erren
February 26, 2015 9:50 am

Wood. Renewable, yes.
And yet, there is a move afoot to ban wood stoves, and you know why already…

Reply to  Walt Allensworth
February 26, 2015 11:29 am

EPA has recent new regs and my middle aged stove and most of my neighbors (currently keeping us warm through the nights) would not be allowed in new construction. That said, people are building and using the good old fashioned burners. One of the things I do in retirement is property assessment for taxes – has to be done by law and better that a few of us in town visit our neighbors than someone in an office in Montpelier click through tax tables (although that’s coming).

Reply to  Hans Erren
February 26, 2015 10:12 am

Biomass is already under attack by the CAGW adherents, because “stock” renewable rather than “flow” renewable.

Mac the Knife
Reply to  Hans Erren
February 26, 2015 12:03 pm

Hans,
Here in the Great NorthWet, hydroelectric power is NOT designated ‘a renewable resource’. It has been politically redefined as nonrenewable, because there is a strong push to remove dams from the river systems! Now, utilizing the kinetic energy of water flowing from high elevation to low elevation is just about as ‘renewable’ as it gets. Irrational, innit?
There is also a ‘push’ here in the Great NorthWet to ban the use of firewood and wood stoves for home heating. This ban may also include any outdoor fires, such as toasting bratwurst or marshmallows over an evening fire, down on the beach with a gathering of friends. Or charring a prime piece of beef over the ubiquitous pile of charcoal briquettes in a Weber kettle! Proposals to enforce the bans include using FLIR equipped helicopters to ‘target hotspots for further investigation’ and having neighbors report ‘potential offenders’. Insane, innit?
“When Wood Stoves Are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have Wood Stoves!”
And I will be one of them.

PiperPaul
Reply to  Mac the Knife
February 26, 2015 12:20 pm

“That which is not prohibited is compulsory.”

milodonharlani
Reply to  Mac the Knife
February 26, 2015 3:15 pm

All the stranger since the UK is importing wood chips from the US to replace coal fired power plants.
Wood is more carbon intensive than coal, coal than oil & oil than gas, which is why the American contribution to CO2 levels is dropping due to our increasing reliance on allegedly non renewable gas.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Hans Erren
February 26, 2015 1:54 pm

Yes, Hans, Inuit are renewable but they don’t burn wood. How very conservative of them.

Reply to  Hans Erren
February 27, 2015 9:03 am

I might add that the “dung” used in third world countries is very renewable, but it’s killing the folks who are forced to use it.

1saveenergy
February 26, 2015 9:57 am

coal & oil are renewables…..just takes a long time !!!
& to be totaly correct, both are solar energy storage systems, the greens have been looking for such a system for ages, yet nature has done it already!!!!

ozric101
Reply to  1saveenergy
February 26, 2015 10:12 am

LOL.. oh the Green Cult must detests your assailable logic.

Reply to  1saveenergy
February 26, 2015 11:48 am

Had a funny thought/argument when I read your post….what if we just tell CAGWites that speeding up the rate of warming on earth will accelerate the carbon breakdown cycle and thus result in more oil and coal faster? Then we could argue that we are doing our best to create a renewable fuel source!
(PS…I don’t personally do not believe human activity has the ability to heat the atmosphere to any serious degree)

Paul
Reply to  Aphan
February 26, 2015 12:56 pm

“…do not believe human activity has the ability to heat the atmosphere to any serious degree”
UHI? recently I’ve noticed a large rise in temperature as I approach work, a 9 mile drive from country to the edge of the city.

Reply to  Aphan
February 27, 2015 9:22 am

Paul,
UHI’s are area/regional/local biases, and of course they happen. When I say “the atmosphere” I mean the entire thing..not just the area around any city, and when I say “to any serious degree” I mean to any dangerous or concerning degree.
P.S. I can just believe that your view of a “large rise in temperature” is the same as mine would be, or I can ask you some questions. What is the actual rise in temperature you experience? What variables change on your ride to work every day besides the amount of concrete, asphalt and buildings? Does this ride take place between dawn and noon…as in..is the Sun’s energy influence increasing during your drive? Is there an altitude difference between where you work and your home? If you are referencing a car type thermometer, has your car been in a garage all night or outside parked in shade and your drive to work is now in sunlight? How sure are you that the thermometer you are referencing is accurate? Do you pause as you begin your drive long enough for your thermometer to reach equilibrium with the “real average” outside temperature near your home in the sunlight so you are making an accurate comparison of the overall temperature at home to the overall temperature at work..or do you just begin driving so part of this temperature increase is most likely due to two different environments?

dipchip
February 26, 2015 10:05 am

It seems the Brilliant Book Burners of Bagdad decided to burn the contents of the Mosel Library before they blew it up, and are forced to leave.

Reply to  dipchip
February 26, 2015 11:46 am

It is traditional in warfare in that area. See Alexandria, Library of

Jeff
Reply to  dipchip
February 26, 2015 4:37 pm

Do you mean Mosul? Mosel would be a little too close for comfort….
Having said that, I imagine that the BBBB align themselves with the CAGW crowd, as they like to
destroy the evidence (don’t need no stinkin’ facts), and prefer to, erm, cook the books…

Curious George
February 26, 2015 10:06 am

Data is not to our liking. SHOOT THE MESSENGER.

Zeke
February 26, 2015 10:16 am

Thank you Ug! Love ya man.comment image
And who are these animals that want to put women back in the stone age, before Chevy pickups?

Ivor Ward
February 26, 2015 10:23 am

It appears that some people want to call this the Anthropocene epoch but it really should be called “The Age of Stupid”

Reply to  Ivor Ward
February 26, 2015 10:31 am

How about the Idiocene ?

Oldseadog
Reply to  philincalifornia
February 26, 2015 10:37 am

Brilliant!

Joe Crawford
Reply to  philincalifornia
February 26, 2015 12:53 pm

+2

Thinair
February 26, 2015 10:33 am

Now, they are going after Richard Lindzen of MIT, and I suppose all who said anything they did not like.

February 26, 2015 10:50 am

I love this cartoon, Josh! One of your best IMO. You’ve nailed the attitude perfectly. 🙂

February 26, 2015 11:18 am

Reblogged this on the WeatherAction News Blog and commented:
🙂

Kohl
February 26, 2015 12:02 pm

@ Tom O.
You said that atheism is it’s own religion.
That is just silly.
I am an atheist. I do not believe there is no God. I simply have seen no credible evidence that there is a God and hence I am, literally, ‘without god’ (which is from the greek a: without and theos: god).
The things I do believe are based on evidence. Sometimes the evidence is poor and my belief is wrong. In that case I can change my belief to conform to better evidence

Sun Spot
Reply to  Kohl
February 26, 2015 12:20 pm

I think Dawkin, Hitchens and Harris would cast you into the outer darkness for not blaming everything that’s wrong in the world on religion. You must pay closer attention to your prophets .

cba
Reply to  Kohl
February 26, 2015 12:41 pm

then you should be considered an agnostic, not an atheist because an an atheist believes there is no god.

Kohl
February 26, 2015 12:04 pm

I should add that none of this has the slightest thing to do with whether there is anthropogenic warming which is endangering the planet. I daresay it is the same for folks who do believe in God.

Mac the Knife
Reply to  Kohl
February 26, 2015 12:09 pm

I daresay it is the same for folks who do believe in noGod.

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  Kohl
February 26, 2015 12:13 pm

Kohl, you simply chose to be wrong and you are free to do so. Cosmological evidence, EVIDENCE, the confirmed big bang theory, second law of thermodynamics, the Borde Vilenkin and Guth theorem, and the anthropic fine tuning put your position in the realm of highly highly highly and highly unlikely. Logic and reason aside, you are entitled to “believe” whatever you want.

Oldseadog
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
February 26, 2015 1:11 pm

Paul,
Look at Mr. Watts’ post on 10th. February about The Big Bang.

u.k.(us)
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
February 26, 2015 3:04 pm

Take it easy on the commenter, you say “the confirmed big bang theory”.
Since when ??
Who’s the “believer” now ?

PaulWesthaver
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
February 26, 2015 9:45 pm

Old sea dog,
The present standard model is still in effect. The Big Bang and its 14 adjustments is verified by the accelerated inflation measurements. All other theories are just theories without measurements and all but a couple are far fetched.
u.k. (us),
The Big Bang is, in fact, consistent with the standard model and as of yet unrefuted by any measurements. Lotza folks making noise about universes they can’t see. I’m sticking with what is generally accepted an verified. The biggest confirmation, the IMAP and the accelerated expansion data. Then came Alan Guth and his inflation rules. So I accept, Susskind, Guth, Borde, Vilenkin, Lemaitre, Hubble, Hawkings, Penrose just to name a few. Any other theory is speculative. Show me the evidence, and I may change my mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
February 27, 2015 9:41 am

PaulWeshaver-
Actually, cosmic inflation has never been proven, and no scientists ever stated that it had been, until scientists made a major announcement in 2014 that they had detected the signals that would “prove” it. Sadly, in 2015, they had to retract that announcement-
http://www.space.com/28423-cosmic-inflation-signal-space-dust.html
Be careful what you claim has been verified.

Kohl
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
February 27, 2015 1:32 pm

Ah Paul, this is too funny! Evidence? The big bang, cosmological expansion, whatever, are evidence for?? the big bang, cosmological expansion etc etc.
And I will stick with my definition of atheism, it has sound etymological roots!
It will be a very hard sell to make out a case for an atheist being religious.
But in all of this stuff, you ignored my main point which was to say that one’s position on dangerous anthropogenic global warming is irrelevant to whether one is a Buddhist, a Catholic, a Mormon or indeed an atheist. I think that those who attack a person’s position on global warming on the basies of that person’s b religious beliefs.

PaulWesthaver
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
February 27, 2015 1:54 pm

Aphan,
WMAP plots are the best evidence of inflation. Nothing to disprove it. and, no other models work.
as I was saying…
Kohl,
You simply chose to be wrong and you are free to do so. Cosmological evidence, EVIDENCE, the confirmed big bang theory, second law of thermodynamics, the Borde Vilenkin and Guth theorem, and the anthropic fine tuning put your position in the realm of highly highly highly and highly unlikely. Logic and reason aside, you are entitled to “believe” whatever you want. It is a free country.

Reply to  PaulWesthaver
February 27, 2015 2:47 pm

WMAP Inflation Theory according to NASA –
http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_infl.html
This “Inflation Theory”, that supposedly solves the problems with the Big Bang Theory (as are noted on the NASA website link above) is the one that is having scientific problems at the moment.

BFL
Reply to  Kohl
February 26, 2015 1:32 pm

Well….there is always the old question about who made the “Maker”. But wait,,,,it is sacrilege in most western religions to even consider asking that question (how convenient). Then there is the inconvenient issue of ~100 billion stars per galaxy and ~100 billion galaxies with up to 100 billion stars each (that’s 1 x 10^22 stars. And then some would say it was all made just for us. Wow and also what a waste of space for the non living. Of course there could be separate God like entities watching over any other created civilizations that might be in place around some of those other stars (they would have to be separate, because of, you know, the “made in our image” thing).

D.J. Hawkins
Reply to  BFL
February 26, 2015 2:37 pm

Really BFL, you must try harder. God is defined as the First Cause, or the Prime Mover, the thing that before which there is no other thing. Think of it like an axiom in geometry, like parallel lines never meeting, a claim impervious to proof.

February 26, 2015 12:11 pm

To me the issue is whether a paper is junk. Secondary is to ask if it was the taxpayer that had his money wasted; namely was it funded through a US gov’t body?
Let’s begin a list of who funded science in the area of climate that was eventually viewed as comparative junk compared to other pertinent research but which, none the less, was favorably cited in a past IPCC Assessment Report:
1) M. E. Mann, R. S. Bradley and M. K. Hughes, “Global-Scale Temperature Patterns and Climate Forcing Over the Past Six Centuries,” Nature, Vol. 392, No. 6678 (1998)

Quoted from Mann et al (1998) Nature,
“Acknowledgements. […] This work was supported by the NSF and the US Department of Energy. M.E.M. acknowledges support through the Alexander Hollaender Distinguished Postdoctoral Research Fellowship program of the Department of Energy. This work is a contribution to the NSF- and NOAA- sponsored Analysis of Rapid and Recent Climatic Change (ARRCC) project.”

2) M. E. Mann, R. S. Bradley and M. K. Hughes, “Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations,” Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 26 No. 6 (1999)

Quoted from Mann et al (1999) Geophysical Research Letters,
“Acknowledgments. […] This research was supported by grants from the NSF (ATM-9626833) and DOE. M.E.M. acknowledges support through the Alexander Hollaender Distinguished Postdoctoral Fellowship Program (DOE).”

3) {more papers added to the list later}
– – – – – – – – – – – –
So, US gov’t bodies like the NSF, NOAA and DOE fund that kind of science that was eventually found to be comparatively junky compared to other pertinent science. As a US taxpayer, I revolt!
John

AndyG55
February 26, 2015 12:11 pm

It is obvious that “He/She” arranged for all this coal and oil to be available to us just when we needed it.
The planning and forethought is quite amazing. !
We owe it to “Him/Her” to use it to enhance the progress of our species.
It would be sacrilegious not to !!

rh
Reply to  AndyG55
February 26, 2015 12:47 pm

I thought man, was created because the Earth wanted plastic?

Reply to  rh
February 26, 2015 2:56 pm

“I thought man, was created because the Earth wanted plastic?”
Maybe man evolved because Earth was tired of being so D*&% cold!!!! 🙂

Mark Bofill
February 26, 2015 12:30 pm

It does cut to the heart of the matter, doesn’t it? Well, at least it would, if Grijalva were a man of conviction rather than the political hack he appears to be.
Good cartoon Josh.

February 26, 2015 1:30 pm
PMHinSC
Reply to  Bubba Cow
February 26, 2015 1:50 pm

I find it fascinating that Politico, a “progress” source, would print something written by Rich Lowry, a “conservative” columnist. What is this world coming to when the wolf would lie down with the lamb.

pat
February 26, 2015 1:53 pm

this sounds like lunacy to me:
25 Feb: WaPo CapitalWeatherGANG: Jason Samenow: Even as the eastern U.S. freezes, there’s less cold air in winter than ever before
Residents of the eastern United States are enduring one of the most painfully cold periods in modern times. Since January, Syracuse, N.Y., has never had more days below zero. Bangor, Maine is witnessing its coldest month ever recorded. On Tuesday, Washington Dulles Airport experienced its most bitter morning measured so late in the season, plummeting to minus-4.
Yet, in what may seem like a paradox, the amount of wintertime cold air circulating around the Northern Hemisphere is shrinking to record low levels. This winter (2014-2015) is on track to see the most depleted cold air supply ever measured.
“We are still on pace to break the all-time record — no question about it,” says Jonathan Martin, a professor of meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “Despite the brutal cold in the eastern U.S., the whole hemisphere is warmer this winter than it has ever been in history.”…
In a study accepted for publication in the Journal of Climate, Martin found that four of the five smallest Northern Hemisphere cold pools on record — averaged over the winter — have occurred since 2004…
“You just need to look around and see how big the globe is,” Martin says. “The thing this simple analysis makes clear is that there is such an obvious difference between regional weather and global climate. There’s a better way to measure global change than backyard thermometers.”…
While some warming naysayers have attempted to discredit surface temperatures datasets because of adjustments made for quality control (the methods for which have been published in the peer reviewed journals and gained widespread acceptance), Martin says his results from upper air data are difficult to refute.
“Skeptics have jumped all over the surface data, but you can’t really do that with temperatures about a mile above sea level [analyzed from atmospheric data],” Martin says. “They make a pristine signal.”…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/02/25/even-as-the-eastern-u-s-freezes-theres-less-cold-air-in-winter-than-ever-before/
Jason-CapitalWeatherGANG in the comments: Here’s a link to the full study: http://marrella.aos.wisc.edu/Cold_pool_REVISED.pdf
also, Jason-CapitalWeatherGANG, in the comments, responds to a reader questioning the data:
“WeatherMann555- I’m just summarizing the author’s rationale as written in the paper. I am fully aware the 0 to -1C at 850mb is often a good rain-snow proxy in the eastern U.S. I’m also fully aware it can be mild at the surface when it’s -5C at 850. But you’re really nitpicking here. The -5C is a perfectly reasonably approximation for the cold pool boundary. If you don’t like it and bother to read the paper, you’ll see he gets similar results at -10C and -15C… the cold pool is shrinking for a range of boundaries. On your final point, he was expressing his belief- which by the way is supported by a vast scientific literature”

February 26, 2015 1:58 pm

IPCC is sponsored by the weapons industry!
IPCC received a Nobel-prize; Nobel manufactured dynamite; dynamite is used in weapons.
QED

D.J. Hawkins
Reply to  Hans Erren
February 26, 2015 3:07 pm

The stabilization of nitroglycerin in a semi-gel with nitro-cotton and an admixture of ammonium nitrate is his claim to fame. The use of nitro-cotton to form a gel is the foundation of double-base smokeless propellants, i.e. modern gunpowder. No military man, unless very desperate, would consider using dynamite as weapon. It is far too liable to go off if struck by a stray round, and you can’t stuff it into a munition. Better to use TNT, RDX, and/or HMX.

ozric101
Reply to  D.J. Hawkins
February 26, 2015 3:35 pm

Desperate men do irrational things

Reply to  Hans Erren
February 27, 2015 6:53 am

It;s even worse than that, they made their first money in the oil business in Baku, Azerbaijan.

David Lasren
February 26, 2015 1:59 pm

I just figured out how to prove the greenhouse effect. Get 100 thousand believers and place half of them on the planet Mercury and the other half on Uranus. Leave them there for five years and then let them compare notes to prove greenhouse.

PlanetaryPhysicsGroup
February 26, 2015 2:10 pm

[snip – yet another Doug Cotton sockpuppet -mod]

Mark from the Midwest
February 26, 2015 2:11 pm

Isn’t it a sign of severe stress when the IPCC starts eating their own?

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
February 26, 2015 2:59 pm

Well it can’t be a sign of hunger, because I have no doubt they all taste like lies.

Roy Spencer
February 26, 2015 2:51 pm

Ha! I always suspected Ug was behind this mess.

Jimmy Haigh
February 26, 2015 2:56 pm

Ug bears an uncanny resemblance to Rajendra Pachauri…

Reply to  Jimmy Haigh
February 26, 2015 2:57 pm

What did UG ever do to you? Sheesh!

Jimmy Haigh.
Reply to  Aphan
February 26, 2015 7:04 pm

You’re right. Sorry, Ug…

Reply to  Jimmy Haigh
February 26, 2015 2:58 pm

correlation is not causation

Evan Jones
Editor
February 26, 2015 3:35 pm

To be pedantic, the wheel is a latter-day invention, and a number of societies within the last 5000 years never developed it.

Jeff
Reply to  Evan Jones
February 26, 2015 4:46 pm

The way they are in Brussels now, they’ll probably mandate that all wheels be made of bricks…
(I’d love to see the “traffic light” buyer information sticker on that one – wears even longer than Michelin).
(yep, and rides about the same, too)….

February 26, 2015 3:45 pm

Thanks, Josh. Great!

February 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:

Insightful and funny.

February 26, 2015 6:01 pm

I had a good friend who as the years passed become ever-more environmentally radicalized, to the point where he could no longer be around me and my … evil ways.
His hypocrisy was so complete that I could never cover it all here.
But one dimension that I found utterly mind-boggling was that he could — in the same sentence(!) — say that he hated organized religion, but that Nature (yes, with a capital N) was his religion, and that he was prepared to die for It / Her.
Gaia figure.

commieBob
February 26, 2015 7:35 pm

God … also under investigation.

OMG … Folks have compared the witch hunt for skeptics to Joseph McCarthy’s antics in the 1950s.
The CBC lampooned McCarthy with a brilliant radio play called
The Investigator in which McCarthy arrives in Heaven and accuses God himself.
I’m glad I didn’t have a mouth full of coffee when I saw Josh’s cartoon. Most excellent!

phlogiston
February 27, 2015 12:00 am

“Breaking: all human knowledge called into question …”
The Russians have a saying “in every joke, a little bit is joke and the rest is true”.
Human knowledge and humanity itself are, in fact, really at stake here.
The process that brought us humanity and sentience can be reversible.
The most striking evidence for this is a controversial (among conservative palaentologists) but nonetheless plausible hypothesis made by Gribben and Cherfas some decades ago in their book “The First Chimpanzee”:
http://kirkwood40.blogspot.be/2013/09/john-gribbin-jeremy-cherfas-first.html
The basic idea, backed up by molecular genetic evidence (and likely to be true) is that both humans and chimps/gorillas evolved from a common HOMINID ancestor. Think about what this means for a moment. The close resemblance of human and chimp dna convinces most people of a generally close evolutionary relationship between us and the Pongidae (chimps/gorillas). But people generally assume that an ancestral ape branched into the line leading to humans and another staying ape-like and ending with chimps. But there is another, somewhat disturbing, possibility. A human-like ancestor had already evolved 4-7 million years ago, and this hominid then branched into two lineages. One of these led to us. However the other led to the chimps / gorillas. This has a striking implication. That is that human-like attributes such as large brains, manual dexterity, upright posture, intellect, can be LOST in primate evolution as well as gained. That the evolution of human traits is REVERSIBLE.
We know that extreme environmentalists and CAGW believers have profound misanthropic feelings, e.g.:
http://www.vhemt.org/
The organization VHEM even goes as far as to articulate a desire to wipe out humanity entirely (and still gets taken seriously by the liberal chattering class). This objective does not have to be reached by a violent extermination. What if the momentum of evolution of humans were to be put into reverse? What if rigorous intellectual activity were to carry a penalty of social punishment and reduced reproductive success? What if emotion-driven dishonest and illogical narratives such as CAGW were to win out over reasoned scientific investigation of climate history and dynamics? What if discussions such as about nuclear energy and genetic modification were also to be determined by predjudice and emotion and dishonest arguments, and rational intellectual analysis in these areas was always punished? This tendency could spread quickly to human politics and general social behavior and become reflected in the reward structure determining the course of human genetic drift.
Thus an anti-intellectual anti-science agenda is in the end a genocidal anti-human agenda with the possible outcome of steering human evolution back to the jungle and the “dark side of the sun” of non-sentience. We need to look at what we have in humanity and decide if it is worth saving. Personally I believe strongly that it very much is worth defending and saving. The spark that “gives songs in the night and makes us more than the beasts which perish” (book of Job) should be treasured, not given up without a fight.

prjindigo
February 27, 2015 5:22 pm

some people think the bit is a 1, some people think it’s a 0.
The engineer checks the reference voltage.

Zeke
February 27, 2015 8:32 pm

Well everyone waxed philosophical. We should have Ug back sometime soon.

March 1, 2015 2:37 pm

An excellent range of comments, very enlightening.

%d bloggers like this: