Friday funnies – a cartoon week

Josh writes: it’s been a fun week.

First, there was a survey of 17 countries showing the British rank 15th in their concern over climate change. H/t GWPF

21C_climate_change_scr.jpg

 

Then we had George Monbiot of the UK Guardian wrongly citing the IMF on an equally wrong definition of subsidies.

 

MemoToMonbiot_scr.jpg

Finally, we had the post Paris realisation that since climate science is settled we don’t need any more climate scientists. Australia has jumped first with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) to axe 300 of to 350 jobs.

PostParisPrognosis_scr.jpg

Cartoons by Josh

109 thoughts on “Friday funnies – a cartoon week

  1. Great stuff! I would happily toss a couple of carbon credit certificates in mann’s begging bowl. ;-)

    By the way, my WUWT/Josh calendar arrived in the mail a few days ago, and has a prominent place on my office wall. Thanks!

      • …but Obama has taken the credit. He can’t lead; he can’t follow; he needs to just get out of the way.

      • “…but Obama has taken the credit. He can’t lead; he can’t follow; he needs to just get out of the way.”

        You mean… “he just needs to take the credit”

        Man has a legacy to manufacture, dontcha know?

  2. Out of 17 countries where did the United States rank (I’m from Texas and we’re not really part of the US – just waiting for Obama to raise the price of oil so we can pick up some more profits)

    • Djozar,
      The US came out one place even lower than the UK with only the Saudis lower.
      Here’s a link.

      As expected the most scientifically literate countries with the best science education (and most science Nobel prizes) are more sceptical.

      The KSA is a special case where they all earn a living by not looking into the subject critically.
      A bit like Climatologists, really.

      Or maybe the bubble has burst… You can only “Cry Wolf” so often.

      • There is not a very good correlation between skepticism and scientific literacy. As ranked here https://www.acer.edu.au/files/PISA2006_Figure3-1.png nine of the countries more ‘believing’ than the U.S. are more scientifically literate, three are less and three are unknown. The ranking of a country’s skepticism would presumably be more closely linked to the literacy of their population than the number of Nobel laureates but in any case, the U.S. ranks below several of the more believing countries in terms of Nobel laureates per capita. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Nobel_laureates_per_capita

        I am not sure what quality makes people in a country look at the evidence. I would venture that there is probably a pretty strong link between the number of people in a country who read WUWT and the few other good skeptical blogs and climate skepticism. How else does one get balanced information given the solidarity of the MSM on this issue?

      • CBill:
        M Courtney said “are more skeptical” (as in the opposite of ” are less skeptical”) rather than “are the most skeptical” (which is the opposite of “are the least skeptical”).

        “How else does one get balanced information given the solidarity of the MSM on this issue?”

        1) They own thermometers
        2) They can read and comprehend crap even when couched in scientific terms
        3) They cannot “see” the “drastic changes” they are constantly told are happening
        4) They can also see with their own eyes that the rabid name calling and otherwise unprofessional behavior always comes from people who use the word “climate” in their job title, AND that as much as the do-gooders scream about the average person’s carbon foot print, it is the “climate mafia” that is jet setting around the world to lush parties and exchange snobberies with each other.

        People SEE the hypocrisy. They FEEL it. They instinctively reject it on a subconscious level. And most importantly, they really don’t give a damn. Until the social scientists figure out, that THEIR OWN BEHAVIOR has driven , millions of people to the opposing side with their arrogance and name calling, and especially declaring others to be insane, mentally ill, or cognitively challenged, skeptics don’t even have to do anything to win.

        Braniacs like Cook and Lewandowsky and others try to manipulate the general public in ways that they themselves perceive to be effective. Hiroshima bombs, consensus, apoeals to authority (but SCIENTISTS say so!), and they think that other people honor and revere the words “experts” and “consensus” and “Ph.d” as much as they do. They are just THAT out of touch with REAL people. And especially Americans. And they constantly and loudly keep approaching them in ways that result in reactions that are diametrically opposed to the ones they want/expect/need.

      • I think your observations are accurate, Aphan. It may be fading, but skepticism toward “the authorities” is pretty deeply ingrained in American culture it seems to me. It sure as hell is in me ; ).

      • I just remember reading something Dana Nuccitelli said in the “private” discussions about Cook et al 2013-before they’d even DONE the research they were discussing what to do with their results (bastages). He said something to the effect of “People trust scientists”. And I laughed outright! No Dana. They don’t. Not anymore. At least not here in the States. Surveys today show that the public’s trust in “scientists” ranks closely to their trust in politicians. (You sleep with dogs…you catch fleas).

        Apparently “scientists” like Cook et al, deny even the evidence that says no one trusts them. That makes them science deniers…right?

      • Aphan

        I see you’ve got your gander up and are aiming for the crux of the matter. A hum of discontent is brewing in the minds of the peoples. They DO see some good things being done by the edumacated avocations, but they are becoming skeptical.

        ::: wake up silent scientists … your getting dragged down my your neer do well peers :::

        They appear to be suffering from fear fatigue. They also appear to be outraged that simple things like clean water in Flint are mismanaged.

        Would love to see a solid poll that you respect on the credibility issues.

        The door to a smarter public appears to be creaking open.

  3. How can we let the great faux Nobel Laureate lose his huge grants? No more paid visits to the “disappearing” polar bears, no more imaginary temperature increases, no more pretend disease spread, no more unpleasant twitter!! How will the world survive?

    Enough to make a grown man cry.

    • Do not cry for Michael Mann. Despite Josh’s cartoon, the funding tap is not going to shut off. Neither are the large international conferences going to come to an end. It will take a regime change in several major countries (including the USA) before that would happen. If that were to happen, then the smaller and less developed countries would abandon the ruse and find another way to bilk to large, developed milk cows … er … nations.

      • @ Mumbles. You are correct, just a few days ago some scientist was given $ 5 million ( Oz $$ I presume) to find out if Koala bears were in danger of toxic Eucalyptus leaves that might become toxic because of CC ( The bears of course have been through many climate changes in I believe the past few years ( as in what? A few hundred thousand years?).

  4. That’s just ‘cuz the people haven’t been indoctrinated inoculated enough yet. As we speak, they are working on a powerful “truth serum” so that everyone will be on the same page wrt climate. They haven’t yet figured out how to shut down sites like this, but they are working on that, too. These things take time.

  5. Relatively few AGWers seem able to grasp the difference between “pays trillions in net taxes after billions in rebates and subsidies” and “pays billions in negative net taxes after billions in rebates and subsidies”

    • Those “subsidies” to the oil companies are, as I understand the IMF’s accounting, oli depletion allowances, comparable to depreciation on equipment for non-extraction companies. And depreciation hasn’t ever been called a subsidy, as far as I know, even by the IMF.

      • REJ, I thought so too until I read the godawful IMF paper. What IMF did was estimate fossil fuel consumption annual ‘harm’ (like from supposed warming), and then assert that because a tax had not been levied to pay for the harm, that lack of tax was a US subsidy. Proving that in the warmunist world up is down and 2+2= whatever you want.

      • Also, when a country allows its citizens to use gas for 1/10 of its actual cost, that too is a subsidy.
        This number can be calculated, more or less.
        I think there are other odd things but ‘ristvan’ nails the big one.
        That is not a number but a WAG. Alarmists are experts at WAGs.

      • Rud Istvan’s comment reminds me of 100% renewables crackpot, Mark Jacobson padding nuclear power’s carbon footprint with CO2 released from future wars.

    • The cartoon version to help AGW Parishioners understand:

      Big Oil: (Price/unit x Volume) – Cost of Production > 0 (over the long-term), = Gross Income; Gross – Tax = Net Income.

      Comment: Lowering Tax merely increases Net Income earned.

      Big Wind/Solar: (Price/unit x Volume) – Cost of Production < 0 ALWAYS**. NO GROSS INCOME (0 Taxes paid). Until…. (Tax subsidies + Traditional Power Customer Rate Surcharges) are handed over to Big Wind. THEN, contrived “gross income,” and a return to the sc@mmers who “invest” in Big Wind.

      Comment: BUT FOR tax subsidies and rate surcharges, negative income, i.e.,PERMANENTLY*** NEGATIVE ROI.

      **“There is no economic case for expensive wind-power.” (“Perspectives by Ruth Lea: … The Folly of Windpower,” http://blackmain.taylorpartners.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Ruth-Lea-The-Folly-of-Wind-Power-2011-10.pdf ) — further: Lea’s report also points out that windpower does not meaningfully (vis a vis the tenets of the AGW religion) reduce human CO2 emission (more likely, a net increase in CO2 — which is fine in reality (i.e., to all not bowing the knee in the AGW Temple), but I point it out, for Big Wind uses this CO2-reduction baloney to fool the public)

      ***The bearings/bearing lubrication problem of wind power has not been solved and there is no indication it will be solved any time soon, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/26/bearings-the-achilles-heel-of-wind-turbines/ )

      • But those in the Church of Eco-lunacy… “In renewables we trust, on Earth as it is in the computer models”… refuse to understand. They’re too busy hating the existence of their own species to even care what may be scientifically correct or not.

        We’re not dealing with rational minds, we’re dealing with religious zealots.

      • The bearings/bearing lubrication problem of wind power has not been solved and there is no indication it will be solved any time soon,

        Actually, it looks like a pretty run-of-the-mill engineering problem to me.

        The problem is the bearings. If we make the bearings bigger, the bearings last longer, but making the bearings larger increases friction, which kills turbine efficiency. But we can’t keep using the current bearings – replacing them is sending us broke. What we need is a quantum leap in bearing technology – bearing materials which are at least ten times tougher than current materials.

        What we have here is a misty eyed dreamer wishing he could have bearings made from unobtanium.

        Horseshoes are heavy but that’s not why horses can’t fly. Wind turbines have worse problems than bearings.

  6. Here in Vancouver approximately 50% of the price of gasoline at the pump is tax. The provincial and federal governments collect billions of dollars each year in fuel taxes.

    So the question is, how can governments afford to switch to renewable energy? Where will the money come from? It cannot come from renewables, because they have negative taxes. So who will pay?

    For example, the BC government raised taxes on gasoline. People switched in large numbers to more fuel efficient cars. They were able to do this because the high cost of fuel combined with low interest rates on new cars made it cheaper on a monthly basis to buy a new car than stay with the old.

    What the government had not counted on was the loss of revenue. The net result was a sharp reduction in government revenues from the tax hike. And this is the reality facing governments.

    Revenue Neutral taxes are an illusion if you are replacing something that generates significant revenue with something that generates negative revenue. The difference must be made up somewhere. Ultimately that somewhere is you and me.

    • Politicians do not understand economics, and often do static analysis when planning tax increases. They rarely think about that if they raise taxes x% or x amount, that people will change their behavior. In 1990 the U.S Congress slapped a 10% luxury tax on yachts. Within a year, around 16,000 to 19,000 jobs were lost. The U.S. Treasury actually received less in taxes after the tax increase, by large amounts. These people are perpetually stupid.

      • Yet the yacht tax was a huge success. The tax revenue was secondary to the perceived ability to punish people for being rich. That same punitive atmosphere is even stronger today. Envy has been elevated from a deadly sin to a virtue; passing judgement on those who have more money than we do is now practically an industry in itself.

      • Your observation reminded me of a clipping I had saved from a 1993 Tau Beta Pi “Bent” letter to the editor: “Economics is a difficult subject because it is not about the control of a passive system. Rather, it is about the design of policies in pursuit of complex objectives in a system comprised of people who are at least as intelligent as the government that is attempting to influence their behavior.”

    • It’s the same issue here in the UK. The tax on fuel, the highest in Europe, is 61% and 59% on petrol and diesel respectively. So the more they push electric cars, and polish their green credentials, the less tax income they are going to receive. But seeing as the take up of electric cars is miniscule, by the time it is significant, if ever, another govenment will be in power. So not their problem, but in the meantime aren’t they a green government!.

      • “The tax on fuel, the highest in Europe, is 61% and 59% on petrol and diesel respectively”

        61% over basic price or 61% of total?

        France:

        Please note that the tax is in orange: most of the price is taxes (61% of total price for SP95). It means the taxes are 156 % over basic price.

        That’s for 33 c€ per litter of Brent, when the price of oil is lower, the % of taxes is higher.

        “TVA sur TICPE” means VAT on fuel tax, it’s the tax on the tax.

    • California is seeing the same problem – even though gasoline prices, and taxes, are much lower here, the switch to more efficient cars has caused decreased tax revenues. In addition, our annual car registration fees used to be based on the weight of the car. That got changed a number of years ago to restore some of the lost revenue. Now our Governor wants to raise fuel taxes at the pump.

      • There was discussion in Texas about instituting a mileage tax, charging a tax per mile driven to avoid this issue. If they had wanted to rely on odometers, it probably would have passed, but the plan was for an inordinately expensive tracking system on every car. The anti-big-brother fervor killed it handily.

      • The California Democrats are pushing for usage tax using GPS tracking devices. You would be taxed on not only how much you drive, but where and when.

    • Hence the Carbon Tax in BC to fund Social Programs that could no longer be funded from taxes. Many claim the BC Carbon Tax is “revenue neutral”. It really isn’t as these programs would have been funded from other sources of tax but the BC government ran out of money – so they created the Carbon Tax to be politically acceptable and hopefully improve the plight of lower income people (as they should) and increase their voter base (my cynical interpretation). There is no such thing as a revenue neutral tax. A tax is a tax is a tax. It just depends on how you raise it. Nothing new. It has been going on since Medieval times and before – pay your tithe or go to H?ll.

    • The provincial government of BC put a “carbon tax” on gasoline with the intention of reducing consumption. In fact sales of gasoline in BC went down as a result of the tax. However, in reality, the decrease was almost identical to then increase in gasoline sales in Washington. They only shifted sales, ( and revenues, taxes, and jobs ) to cheaper gas from the US.

  7. Unfortunately the jet set lifestyle of CAGW-politicians and NGO’s will continue few more decades as predicted in this fantastic episode of the Yes, Prime Minister:

      • Primarily because the appeal to the little ego of CAGW allows people to think they are doing good things (appeals to false guilt). The easiest way to brainwash someone is to identify their weakness, offer a solution and then play carrot and stick games.

        CAGWs appeal sunk it’s claws into weaker minds faster than stronger minds were able to rise up. Then they added good old fashioned anointment to early leaders. It continues to maintain its hold in the general public because the weaker minds have not been offered an equally good thing to cater to their little egos (false guilt blah blah).

        Humor helps soften the blow of awareness.

      • TV as we used to know it is dying. Twitter, You Tube etc are replacing viewer attention.
        Perhaps your local theatre troupe is snarky enough to pump out a viral series.

  8. Josh, if I may make so bold, I was hoping I could suggest something in support of Chris Monckton’s lovely composition in memory of Bob Carter. As I said, it was genuinely “a peal to authority”.

  9. A few years ago at the world’s largest mining convention and conference, (PDAC in Toronto), I had a chat with a young graduate student from the US about what the potential was for an earth scientist (I hate the term – it replaced the venerable term geology with a social sciency name and now it is among the non sciences who feel the need to call their stuff science). I suggested some avenues for starting out but she advised me she was taking the environmental option! I told her that this would be a big mistake in my opinion. I said we are already in a recession so it’s tough enough getting a foothold, but environmental science is the most over subscribed of them all and by the time she got her degree, there would be not much work for her to go to.

    In a comment on a thread some time later, I forecast that they would be working as bank tellers and insurance salespersons. An interesting study for Lewandowski would be to actually track what does happen to all these 100s of thousands of climate scientists. I’m also concerned that if the pause caused a flock of clinically depressed climate scientists, what will laying them off do? I think there may need to be a psychiatric interventionist team set up.

    • I had a friend switch from oil to environmental…..Oil companies have huge expenditures, and the geologist salary is a small part of it all. Environmental companies mostly do paper work, and personnel costs are a major expense. The pay sucks.

      • There is good money to be made is being a chemical engineer in environmental. However, you need to be doing actual work on compliance and permitting, not just “sustainability” or any of that nonsense.

        As always, the jobs that require qualifications and experience pay well. However the job that any runt out of high school could pull off barely scrape a living.

  10. to axe 300 of 350 jobs.

    Uh, shouldn’t the above read “to axe 300 TO 350 jobs”
    or 300-350 jobs? GK

  11. Watch this video clip that starts at 56:12s up through the scene that starts at 57:11s. It captures the meaning of the graphic of this post. How this hasn’t been investigated is way beyond me. It is clear fraud.

  12. Exxon/Mobil Tax Bill:

    1) Over the last five years, ExxonMobil’s U.S. taxes have totaled more than $55 billion – about $16 billion more than our U.S. operating earnings during that period.

    2) For every dollar of net earnings in the U.S. between 2008 and 2012, ExxonMobil incurred more than $1.40 in taxes to federal, state and local governments.

    3) On a dollar-for-dollar basis, our industry’s profits are generally in line with the average of all U.S. industry. In 2012, the U.S. oil and gas industry earned on average 6.2 cents per dollar of sales – below the average of 8.6 cents per dollar of sales for “All Manufacturers.”

    4) From 2008 through 2012, ExxonMobil distributed $145 billion (and $26 billion in 2012) to our U.S. shareholders, representing a significant transfer of income from foreign resource development into the U.S. economy, including ultimately to the U.S. Treasury.

    Tell me again, how many Tax Dollars did we collect from Solyndra or any other “Green” industry? How many tax dollars did Sierra Club, WWF, Green Peace pay?

    • And that’s just the corporate entity, I very sure that Exxon/Mobil employees paid more than a few billion in personal income taxes over that time, as well as the state and local taxes that support things like, schools, parks, etc., etc. The thing that gets me about people like Bernie Sanders is that he does not understand that without personal wealth most everything that people call “community” goes down the crapper, (unless you want to call Detroit, Newark, and Compton “community.”)

  13. If you look at the taxes on oil and oil derivatives one might say that It’s time to end the subsidies that big oil provides to government…

  14. Some politicos and climate scientists make me wonder if the Zica virus has been around longer that we know.

  15. As ‘renewables’, esp. wind, get extra subsidies when they don’t produce electricity because it puts uncontrollable spikes into the Grid, I wrote to DECC asking what I could charge per megawatthour if I didn’t build a wind turbine and the didnn’t generate unwanted electricity. I await a reply (some months now!).

    • Lol. Good point.

      Say, wait-a-minute….. Go on down the road and talk to Farmer Chris who gets paid not to produce… maybe….. if you call your wind turbine a “winter bean”….. lololooll

  16. You should all be very concerned about Global Warming! It’s been common knowledge for some time now that Global Warming causes an increase in rich older men taking younger brides, elopement, high school dropouts and sexually transmitted diseases. Now breaking news from the U.K. where animal behaviouralists have announced that Global Warming causes dogs to become depressed! Wait until they find out!

    • My dog is depressed by global warming too. When the snow melts, he knows I’m going to make him go outside and work in the yard with me, and he likes air conditioning better. :)

  17. RE Sceptics and Non

    Our Non ABC (National broadcaster) spends enormous amounts of time in each weather forecast telling everyone how hot it is going to be when really the temperature is around 30 – 32C = 80+F. But when most of the listeners work in aircon they believe the nonsense when they emerge in the afternoons to normal warmth. Most really have no idea of the ambient temperature of a summer day, cannot read a thermometer etc

    To me anything above 100F or above is hot; depending on the humidity, but can be quite bearable at 42C+ with low humidity.

  18. The Mann cartoon and its idea that fronting a mantra that the “science is settled” would ultimately leave the one who thus spake it out of work, would have been funny even outside the context of post-Paris ‘layoffs’. But the layoffs add a extra dash of irony to it. Great timing.

    It can take me days to go through the funnies because before I laugh at anything, even a cartoon, I must do a bit of research to discover whether it is grounded on direct context such as an actual quote, or a more tenuous attributed sentiment as famously expressed as “here I just said something… they would say something like that” even if they wouldn’t or didn’t. Direct quotes twisted by fate make good laughs. Attributed sentiment might only bring a smile, even a bit of sympathy for the accused.

    We know that Al Gore said flat out that the science is settled, he made that pat phrase part of his drilling droning lectures. But did Michael Mann say it? His pet Wikipedia page makes a point of quoting him down in the references that the science is not settled in the specific case of polar bearmageddon and hurricanemageddon, which does imply it could be settled everywhere else, and these two things just need a little brush-up. Hardly what we’re looking for.

    Then in my science-is-settled quote quest I stumble on this interesting philosophical rant that examines the very motive behind saying it, and how it is an accursed mind-trap of sorts no matter which side of the electric fence you are pissing on.

    It leads me to daydream-imagine an Experiment where scientists are rolled into a giant MRI machine and as they lay there someone proclaims, “The science is settled.” To see what part of their brains lights up. What amazing insights could be revealed, thus?

    Then down in the comments — lo and behold! — someone promises to show me exactly where and when Michael Mann declared that the science is settled. “That’ll teach that Wikipedia page” I thought. So I came, I saw, I clicked:

    Bill Maher: Just for the record, Doc, it is settled science, right?
    Michael Mann: Well you don’t have to ask me. You can ask the National Academy of Sciences, you can ask …[society name dropping continues without answering question]… I could go on but they’re all on record…
    Bill Maher [interrupting]: But they’re not here.. You’re here. So I’m asking you… it is super super settled science, right?
    [Bill Maher’s interruption represents a brief glimmer of ye olde journalism]
    Michael Mann: Yeah. I mean absolutely. [Begins name dropping again…]

    Arrrrrgh! Once again existential Lucy has set out the existential football and I’m lying flat on my back. It is I who am accursed to go looking for this direct quote, only to find it being force fed to him… by Bill Maher. So while there is no doubt that a part of Mann’s brain is set alight by the phrase, he was not observed then to utter it. I come away empty handed so far.

    So I’m asking you, is that Cartoon By Josh super super funny?
    Um…. Yeah. I mean absolutely.

    • The National Academy of Sciences … the same one who says that “radioactivity increase cancer risk, at any dose”, is settled science?

  19. I love how every cartoon representation of a climate scientist is real chubby and has that cheesy goatee and moustache combo. LOL.

    • It’s amazing how many of them are chubby and have that cheesy goatee and moustache combo in real life! Josh creates incredibly realistic representations of each one.

  20. 8-)
    Perhaps another version of “Post Paris Prognosis” could have “The Mann” wearing blinders and the stick white with a red tip, like a blind-man’s cane?

Comments are closed.