Monday mirthness – Gav calls it

Josh writes: Following the correct use of a certain word on Twitter my guess is that Gavin Schmidt will go for a name change for his blog ‘Realclimate’. Go for it, Gav.


Cartoons by Josh

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 6, 2015 4:02 am

Great one Josh !!

April 6, 2015 4:05 am

Hilarious 🙂

Jimmy Haigh.
April 6, 2015 4:06 am

And most appropriate…

April 6, 2015 4:27 am

Nice cartoon. And dont worry, Gavin comes off as a really friendly and likeable guy. I am sure he has a great sense of humor.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  Björn
April 6, 2015 9:52 am

[Spoiler alert] Gavin’s still smarting from the loss of the CAGW alarmists in the formal IQ^2 debate, which was only 8 years ago, so too soon to forget.

Reply to  Mickey Reno
April 6, 2015 1:07 pm

Nice, I’ve never seen that one. I am still laughing about the very first statement out of Summerville’s mouth — the very first chance one of the alarmists had to speak — where he opens by giving a false definition of the word “crisis.” Somehow I’m not surprised at how an alarmist could misunderstand the definition of a very simple word, they seem allergic to honesty.

Reply to  Mickey Reno
April 6, 2015 6:40 pm

Thanks for the link to this. Shouldn’t be missed for Philip Stott’s debate alone. Jeezuss, Brenda Ekwurzel is dumb. Hey, Anthony, she’s from the same scientific group your dog belongs to: Union of Concerned Scientists.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  Björn
April 7, 2015 8:17 am

If you liked that blast from the past, make sure to check out Gavin’s petulant behavior on John Stossel’s show, on which he refused to be on set with Dr. Roy Spencer. Might I hazard a guess that he didn’t want to lose another “debate?”

Reply to  Mickey Reno
April 7, 2015 9:32 am

Nice video.
I liked that guy from London. Not heard of him before, but clear, simple rapid-fire responses.

Bloke down the pub
April 6, 2015 4:55 am

When’s the harvest?

April 6, 2015 5:00 am

I really like Josh’s cartoons.
Great work!
But, Josh, shouldn’t it be an “A” in “CR P”, instead of a Null? 😀

Reply to  petermue
April 6, 2015 5:30 am


Paul Martin
Reply to  petermue
April 6, 2015 8:11 am

One can never test the null hypothesis for AGW.

Reply to  petermue
April 6, 2015 11:45 am

Not sure what you are seeing but I see an ‘A’ right there between the R and the P. A total A** in fact.

Gary Hladik
Reply to  petermue
April 6, 2015 4:14 pm

petermue, I see what you did there with “null”. Kudos.

April 6, 2015 6:44 am

I’m trying to understand why the vast majority of people in media swallow AGW hook, line, and sinker. Sometimes it seems as though everyone in media who doesn’t buy into it works at Foxnews.
The media people have a world of data at their fingertips, yet they often seem the most susceptible to propaganda and the least able to perform limited scrutiny to even consider whether or not a story is true.

Ian L. McQueen
Reply to  Richard
April 6, 2015 7:18 am

So true. But the media are filled with journalists, and aren’t they the people who avoided any real science?
Ian M

Peter Charles
Reply to  Ian L. McQueen
April 6, 2015 7:53 am

It is really quite simple. As Mark ftM says, misery, doom and apocalypse sells, good news doesn’t. Then we have the modern trend in MSM, most science/technology content is simply cut’n’paste from press releases, analysis is left to specialist publications which have themselves allowed standards to drop.
Then we have the supporters of CAGW (which it still is all about despite the name changing and sleight of hand). Politicians love it, it provides so much: saving the world, protecting the children, doing GOOD and naturally expanding the need for politicians; government loves it, it positively demands more government, more regulation, more control; big business loves it, it provides billions in subsidies and guaranteed returns; science bodies (Royal Soc. Am Ass. etc) love it, it provides research funds, employment for scientists, prestige of world saving; the political progressives one worlders love it, it positively demands redistribution of wealth and technology to the developing world and more global governance.
Sadly only the ordinary taxpayer with common sense doesn’t support it and who has ever cared for them?

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  Richard
April 6, 2015 7:22 am

I work in the media and telecom industry. Here are two simple facts, 1: Most all of the news media will buy into anything that gives them an ongoing narrative of doom and gloom, imagine if their only story was “things continue to be okay, it’s just natural variation.” … and 2: The news media really don’t scrutinize anything, they are prone to a rush to judgement, and if they screw up they are secure in the notion that by tomorrow 2/3’s of the public will forget.
The reason Fox News doesn’t buy into the AGW story is, in large part, because they are conservative leaning. I seriously doubt that anyone, but a couple of the folks, at FOX would be able to evaluate the evidence for themselves.

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
April 6, 2015 2:11 pm

Mark from the Midwest
April 6, 2015 at 7:22 am
“I work in the media and telecom industry. Here are two simple facts, 1: Most all of the news media will buy into anything that gives them an ongoing narrative of doom and gloom, imagine if their only story was “things continue to be okay, it’s just natural variation.””
Too simple. Because at the same time, the same left-leaning media that happily spreads Global Warming panic, closes both eyes when it comes to consequences of leftist policies, e.g. rising crime through unlimited illegal immigration (as in the US so in my home country Germany), fall in labor force participation rate in the USA to 1978 levels, record-high Opium production in US-occupied Afghanistan (is that a catastrophy or a blinding success?).
In reality, most “journalists” do not want to report, they want to change the world according to their desires. That’s why they became journalists in the first place. Again, as in the USA, so in Germany, especially in our state media.

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
April 6, 2015 6:11 pm

We don’t have “rising crime through unlimited illegal immigration” in the US. We do according to a bunch of fear-n-hate sites, but not according to sober studies that actually accumulate and calculate the data. For example, everyone who has lived in NYC for at least four decades knows that crime is down. Dramatically.

Crime rates have dropped all over New York City since 1990 — but especially in neighborhoods that have high immigration.
To be fair, Kasinitz says, “it’s absolutely not something you can attribute to any one cause.” He points to a variety of potential factors, including changes in policing and the end of the crack epidemic.
But I would say, among the things that are on the positive side of the ledger, has been this dramatic increase in immigration,” Kasinitz says. “The fact that you’ve got more people, that you don’t have empty storefronts, that it’s not deserted, sort of decreases the conditions that can create crime.
And it’s not just happening in New York City. Across the country, cities with high rates of immigration, like Los Angeles, Houston and San Diego, also have much lower crime rates than they did 20 years ago.
Some social scientists say that’s not a coincidence. Robert Sampson of Harvard University argues that first-generation immigrants make their communities safer by working hard and raising families.
“You don’t migrate to the United States from countries around the world on a whim. It takes planning,” Sampson says. “And for the most part, it is driven by economic motivations. People want a better life. They’re seeking to get ahead. And those are the very factors that tend to be associated with lower crime.”
But Brewer’s critics say there’s simply no evidence that illegal immigrants are driving up crime rates. And even the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, which opposes increased immigration, came to the same conclusion.
There’s no evidence that immigrants — or even illegal immigrants — are necessarily any more or less likely to be committing crimes than the population at large, says Jessica Vaughan, the center’s director of policy studies [Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, which opposes increased immigration]. “It’s just that they tend to be associated with certain types of crimes — drug trafficking, for example.”
There is evidence that immigrants are overrepresented in local prison systems in Arizona and elsewhere. But overall, violent crime is actually lower than you would expect along the U.S. border with Mexico, says Ramiro Martinez, who teaches criminology at Northeastern University. [From NPR]

Reply to  Richard
April 6, 2015 8:00 am

It is because most people look no farther than to confirm whatever they already believe. And when a great deal of what they already believe has been acquired almost insensibly from their surroundings, then something that is loudly purported to be the product of science (this age’s equivalent of “thus saith the Lord”), something that reinforces what they already take to be a given is scarcely ever questioned. Why should they question that which they already believe and which has since been “verified” by science (the verification consisting in agreement between what they believe and what authority figures tell them that THEY believe), especially when it doesn’t lead to anything but to the reaffirmation of their faith, greatly increased power and control of society by others who share their beliefs, and a convenient way of vilifying those who already occupy the secular equivalent of Satan in their world view?

Owen in GA
Reply to  GuarionexSandoval
April 6, 2015 10:56 am

I don’t know but I feel like I am like most people. I was willing to consider AGW (never bought the C though) until Mike Mann put out a graph negating the medieval warm period and the little ice age. The hockey stick graph instantly turned me off to the premise and made me start digging into the posts here and at Climate Audit. Amazingly, I found both sites because of a blog post at one of the CAGW sites ridiculing what looked like a legitimate result from CA so I went to look. From there I found this site and the Hot Air blog. Then I started to see really how badly the analysis in the CAGW papers was performed and realized I would have been kicked out of my undergraduate physics program back in the day if I had presented any of these papers as a project report. This is one field of science that needs a severe house cleaning!

Tom J
April 6, 2015 8:04 am

Unlike almost all times when I emit (maybe it should use a different word) a comment I actually decided to do a little research. I thought one could take away the ‘R’ in ‘Real’ so that it would just spell ‘eal.’ Then one could take the ‘R’ and the ‘A’ in ‘crap’ and have them change places. Voila, we would have an Eal Carp. Now, the correct spelling for Eal is actually Eel, but let’s not tell anyone. And, this is where my research comes into play because I discovered that an Eel Carp does actually exist. I guess the whole point of the foregoing is that it really probably doesn’t make any difference whether or not I do any research before I make a comment.
Best wishes to Josh and keep up the good work. But beware of Mannian lawsuits. Aw, what the heck, the hell with Mannian lawsuits.

April 6, 2015 8:16 am

Drip under pressure.

Eamon Butler
Reply to  Oldseadog
April 6, 2015 4:18 pm

X – An unknown entity, Spurt – A drip under pressure.
I think I first heard it from Lord Monkton.

Walt D.
April 6, 2015 8:45 am

RealCROP ?
Grow your own dope – plant a climate scientist!

Reply to  Walt D.
April 6, 2015 3:41 pm

LOL. Thanks, Walt, that’s going on my wall. 🙂

Reply to  Walt D.
April 6, 2015 6:14 pm


Brad Rich
April 6, 2015 9:04 am

What is an ass hat?

Tom J
Reply to  Brad Rich
April 6, 2015 10:00 am

I think an ass hat is a hat that goes on an ass. But I could be wrong. (:-{)>
The symbol at the end is the closest resemblance I can get to a bald headed person with a van dyke.

Reply to  Tom J
April 7, 2015 1:04 pm

An Ass Hat is someone who wears their ass as a hat. In other words they walk around with their head stuck in their ass. Polite way of telling someone they have their head up their ass.

April 6, 2015 10:05 am

Terrific Josh!?
Personally, I believe the gavinator looks much more smug and condescending; but you certainly got the gavinmater caricature down.
That new TC name might draw more visitors to the site; at least some extra visits from farmers and greenheads looking to convert manure to fuel…

Richard Keen
April 6, 2015 10:44 am

Sorry Gavin, the name’s already taken. The US Global Change Research Program, formerly the US Global Climate Research Program is now the US Global Change Research and Analysis Program, or perhaps the US Global Change Research and Adaption Program, or, simply, Global CR*P.
So tweet that!
Check out the historical etymology at and

April 6, 2015 11:39 am

Gavin’s bane is his documented RealClimate antics.
Those live on and on and on . . .

April 6, 2015 11:41 am

No need to be bashful, Josh. There’s an “A” in there somewhere.

April 6, 2015 3:34 pm

Since we are having fun with intolerance and gastro-intestinal issues, may I present …

Eugene WR Gallun
April 6, 2015 9:11 pm

This is somewhat off topic — but what the hell. I went to Gavin Schmdt’s site today and he is claiming that globally this last winter was the warmest winter in history.
Obviously this is man-made global warming at work — for, amazingly — cold weather does cause warming!
The colder it gets the more mankind cranks up the heat and the urban heat island effect intensifies — and all those poorly sited stations that Gavin is so proud of show higher temperatures. So Gavin sees a warmer earth even though it is actually a colder earth.
Sound plausible? Or at least funny?
Eugene WR Gallun

April 7, 2015 8:55 am

should be RealCrock

April 14, 2015 1:57 am

Was Nasa and Noaa interested in bias environmental journalism before the Al Gore climate change faction came to be? I thought those institutions were government funded agencies responsible for data collection and unbiased non political research. it’s amazing that the data that these two sites have from satellites and weather balloons continually contradicts most the journalism they put on on a daily basis. how do these agencies benefit from [toeing] the line and spewing unethical climate journalism? there most be some sort of monetary or political kickback in there for them to be willing to go to such measures to brainwash the public. it’s apparent to me that Gavin Schmidt’s position at Nasa is has nothing to do with science at all. [They] might as well have Bill Nye there

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights