Not quite Friday Funny – The winter of their discontent

If you are following Twitter and other social media, you probably have the impression that Friday January 20th, is doomsday. And for some who banked on a continuance of the liberal agenda in Washington DC, it is. And it is not just in the USA, the UK is seeing it too. By email, Josh writes:

There is clearly a lot of alarmism hitting Twitter at the moment in the run up to Trump’s inauguration.
Indeed. And he’s put that angst into a cartoon.
josh-the-winter-of-their-discontent
And, as for 2016 being the “hottest year ever”, that claim is in the noise band of the data and statistically insignificant: (h/t to Shub)
2016-hottest-year-ever-table
0 0 vote
Article Rating
128 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 19, 2017 9:39 am

2016 is 0.01°C warmer than 2015. Margin of error: 0.10°C.
The West is being brought to its knees and slowly destroyed by a pseudo-scientific leftist Trojan horse going by the eco-friendly name of “Saving The Planet.”

firetoice2014
Reply to  Eric Simpson
January 19, 2017 10:17 am

Both the reported change in the anomaly and the reported margin of error in the reported anomaly are ludicrous, considering the quality of the underlying data and the fact that the reported anomaly change is the anomaly between last year’s estimated anomaly and this year’s estimated anomaly. Estimates made to two decimal places are laughable.

rocketscientist
Reply to  firetoice2014
January 19, 2017 10:43 am

I believe it’s covered by one of Augustine’s laws regarding “On making a precise guess”:
“The weaker the data available upon which to base one’s conclusions, the greater the precision which should be quoted in order to give the data authenticity.”

firetoice2014
Reply to  rocketscientist
January 19, 2017 10:50 am

or, at least, the appearance thereof.
It appears that these reports are both inaccurately precise and precisely inaccurate.

Janice Moore
Reply to  firetoice2014
January 19, 2017 11:46 am

Rocket — lol. 🙂

Janice Moore
Reply to  firetoice2014
January 19, 2017 12:03 pm

And see Taylor Pohlman’s GREAT anecdote! (below, here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/19/not-quite-friday-funny-the-winter-of-their-discontent/comment-page-1/#comment-2401332 )
Scott Adams experienced that kind of thing, too, IIRC, and made a cartoons out of it, e.g.,:
http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh/dilbert/accurate_numbers.gif
🙂

Stephen Greene
Reply to  firetoice2014
January 19, 2017 8:55 pm

I have been screaming about this for years. Liberals believe that if they say it, it is then factual. Especially Liberal Scientists. NOT just climate scientists!

Reply to  firetoice2014
January 20, 2017 4:36 am

The anomaly chart is a prime example of why not to use anomalies in context of weather. They are only useful when they are actual measurements and only used for significant figures. The useful anomaly would be 0.0
2015- 274 K 2016 274K
Among a group of people about half can tell the difference between 459.7°F and 460.7°F just by feel. Most can feel the difference between 274K and 275K.

firetoice2014
Reply to  philohippous
January 20, 2017 5:17 am
Reply to  firetoice2014
January 20, 2017 5:37 am

The whole thing is laughable.
So true rs.

Rob Morrow
Reply to  Eric Simpson
January 19, 2017 10:22 am

“The West is being brought to its knees and slowly destroyed leftists.”
Simplified. The left has entropy on their side and the incremental creep of socialism is like a force of nature.

Rob Morrow
Reply to  Rob Morrow
January 19, 2017 10:24 am

“The West is being brought to its knees and slowly destroyed by leftists.” fixed

Janice Moore
Reply to  Rob Morrow
January 19, 2017 10:53 am

To Morrow: Fear not! The fighters for truth are winning (in the end, truth always wins) against the entropy of Hayek’s “dictatorship of the elite” disease. Using petroleum (and other positive ROI technology, e.g., nuclear!) power, they are bringing the clear water of personal liberty and free markets and observations (about everything — from the effects of socialist economic policies to history to CO2) to turn the envirostalinist swamp into a life-supporting lake.
And truth is more than mere wealth.
Truth is beautiful.

(youtube)

Reply to  Rob Morrow
January 19, 2017 11:11 am

Great analogy, Rob! The organization and structure of society have been achieved by centuries of effort, supported by the individual integrity of the participants. The integrity is being destroyed by natural tendencies, enhanced by the deliberate efforts of some of the actors. The structure is falling to pieces.
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
William Butler Yeats (1865-1939), THE SECOND COMING

Rob Morrow
Reply to  Rob Morrow
January 19, 2017 1:23 pm

Janice,
If there were more people like you we’d have nothing to fear.
Ralph,
Thanks for fleshing out my comment. Very well put.

Reply to  Rob Morrow
January 19, 2017 2:39 pm

I was referring to entropy as an analogy. I didn’t expect an intervening response. Maybe I can get this one into where I want it to be.

climanrecon
Reply to  Eric Simpson
January 19, 2017 12:07 pm

Canada will be brought to its knees by a shale-gas fired and low corporate tax USA, but they are so green that they’ll think the hardship is saving the planet:
http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/making-canadian-energy-more-expensive-is-a-no-win-plan-against-trumps-america

spock2009
Reply to  climanrecon
January 19, 2017 1:07 pm

Climanrecon: Unfortunately, our fascist leader won’t have it any other way. Apparently this is what is necessary to earn a position in the politically corrupt UN.
Of course, this must be the way we wanted things to be as many of us actually voted for this, believe it or not. We’ll soon be the laughing stock of the world.

AndyG55
Reply to  climanrecon
January 19, 2017 1:13 pm

It never ceases to amaze me why Canada, of all places, is scared of a bit of warming !!

spock2009
Reply to  AndyG55
January 19, 2017 1:27 pm

AndyG55. I can’t figure this out either and I live here. I’ve been waiting all my life for some global warming so you can imagine how P.O. I became when I found out the promises were all a hoax.

Rob Morrow
Reply to  climanrecon
January 19, 2017 1:43 pm

I blame the CBC as a major reason for Canada’s case of the excessive-progressives. A state broadcaster is a manifest conflict of interest, and the CBC functions just like any other bureaucracy with it’s mandate and budget growing in perpetuity. And just like any other (il)liberal media outlet, their coverage of climate science is vacuous and entirely one-sided.

Barbara
Reply to  climanrecon
January 19, 2017 7:35 pm

At the present time, there is only a narrow band across Canada where food can be produced.

Barbara
Reply to  climanrecon
January 19, 2017 9:19 pm

Natural Resources Canada
‘Plant Hardiness Zone Maps’
Maps at: http://www.planthardiness.gc.ca/?m=1

ironicman
Reply to  Eric Simpson
January 19, 2017 4:21 pm

If the margin of error is 0.10°C then I’m calling it global cooling.

AP
Reply to  Eric Simpson
January 19, 2017 5:59 pm

Wow. Is the 95% confidence interval that small?

Santa Baby
Reply to  Eric Simpson
January 20, 2017 12:46 pm

They dont care if they have been caught with their trousers down. They just focus on new scares instead.

Bruce Cobb
January 19, 2017 9:56 am

The hysterical reaction by the Left to Trump’s election here in the US, and around the world has made it seem like Christmas morning every day for everyone else. Even if you didn’t and don’t like Trump, the reaction by the Inconsolables soiling their unmentionables has been worth the price of admission.

Hans-Georg
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
January 19, 2017 10:29 am

My impression is, as if from the Renewable Energy Mafia the last squad of orcs is sent against the walls of the White House. Trump has so far bounced all the scandals that have been plagued, now the opponents are trying to occupy the social media. But that too will not succeed. Trump is strengthened by contradiction much more in his handling. Now he has at least even more reason to go through hard. My thought is, after a rather moderate start speech the first 5-6 decrees (so much has never issued a newly elected president on his swearing day) show the hard-hitting direction. I would also do so. Better start with hardness and quick decision than to engage in endless discussions, possibly still on Twitter or Facebook.

TA
Reply to  Hans-Georg
January 19, 2017 5:09 pm

Trump’s team is promising “shock and awe” after Trump is sworn in. It sounds like they are going to be moving on a lot of things immediately.
Trump is also looking at the details of the U.S. budget, and his spokeman said tonight they are looking at making big cuts in the budget by cutting out wasteful spending. That’s going to be fun.

RAH
Reply to  Hans-Georg
January 20, 2017 3:44 am

TA
I believe that is exactly the Trump Team strategy. Anything and everything they do will be vilified and opposed so why not steam roller the opposition? Make the changes come so fast and hard that it completely overwhelms the left and their supporting media. There will not be enough air time or newsprint for them to whine and protest and defend everything as so many of their sacred cows go to slaughter. This is possible in part because so much has been done by the previous administration using Executive Orders to achieve their objectives. So congress can’t slow it down. But at the same time it has become apparent that Team Trump and congressional Republicans have been setting up to move quickly.

michael hart
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
January 19, 2017 10:30 am

Yup. I still go on youtube to re-watch the MSM coverage of the election. As Ford Prefect said “It’s a marvellous way to relax.”

Janice Moore
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
January 19, 2017 10:35 am

Bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

#(:))

January 19, 2017 9:56 am

And this is how to lie with statistics.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Bartleby
January 19, 2017 10:14 am

Here are [excerpts from] some of the emails just posted at Climate Audit on this thread, http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7801#comments: …
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline
. …
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK …

(emphasis mine)
(Source: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/ )
Cheers.

Leigh
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 19, 2017 12:50 pm

JM, do you remember what these climatoogists complained about? It wasn’t about the validity of their illegal fitting of data to match théir hypothesis but the illegality of how they were exposed.
Fast forward to the Democrat’s bleatings of “we wuz robbed”. Their complaints are centered on not the facts in the information that was ” hacked”. Exposing their dirty dealings but the fact they were publicly exposed.
As with climategate, the left bent media around the world is only to happy to ignore the real story. With out blogs such as wuwt and the commentary it attracts, we would be none the wiser.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 19, 2017 1:54 pm

Nice observation, Leigh of the lovely name. Thanks for sharing your apt comparison.

TA
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 19, 2017 5:15 pm

I notice the alamists on this website never engage in conversation about Climategate. No “point/counterpoint” on this subject. The skeptics blast Climategate, and it’s “crickets” from the alarmists. I guess they don’t want to discuss it.
I understand why: Because they can’t explain it away. They can’t pretend it didn’t happen. They can’t defend it. I wouldn’t talk about it either, if I were them.

markl
Reply to  TA
January 19, 2017 5:37 pm

TA commented: “…I notice the alamists on this website never engage in conversation about Climategate.
….I understand why: Because they can’t explain it away….. They can’t defend it.”
It’s not just Climategate. Anything indefensible is ignored but repeated ad nauseum. A simple “what have you attributed to AGW in the past that has come to pass?” is ignored. They’re still lamenting pending Polar Bear extinction due to AGW…. and the MSM supports them. Hopefully Trump will be able to get media attention to the fallacies around the AGW meme to everyone.

Reply to  Janice Moore
January 20, 2017 12:05 am

Another example is: It doesn’t matter how many times you patiently point out that the 97%-of-all-scientists “consensus” factoid is unsound balderdash, they simply give you a deer-in-the-headlights look and say it over and over and over again, “But 97% of all scientists! You can’t ignore 97%!”
When our outgoing president, (may his name soon be forgotten), recently used the “97%” factoid, it was clear to me that these people hold the American population and Truth itself in complete contempt.
You reap what you sow. What goes around comes around. Disdainfully hold your fellow man in belittling contempt, and a dawn will rise when that is exactly how you will be held.

Craig
January 19, 2017 9:56 am

“Made loads of money,” that’s one way put it, I guess.

Reply to  Craig
January 19, 2017 11:45 am

“Made loads of money with loads of crap.” That’s another way to put it. … It’s “sauhcerie”, I say ! [fake theatrical British accent]

January 19, 2017 10:11 am

truth is that has been cooling acc. to my data
true enough
it ain’t much
but you are going to feel it
the cold, that is,
if I were Trump I would make a remark about that, during the ‘cold’ inauguration….

Bryan A
Reply to  Henry
January 19, 2017 10:30 am

Something like…”My Fellow Americans, It’s cold out here so in the interest of your health and well being I’ll keep this speech as short as possible………Now Hot Coffee and Hot Cocoa are just inside by the fireplace so lets go get warm. Thank You and God Bless America”

Stephen Lindsay-Yule
January 19, 2017 10:13 am

Wikipedia’s earth page, under the atmosphere section has the average surface temperature at +15C. The dataset 1961-1990 global average temperature is 13.7C. 2016 was 0.99 C above the 1961-1990 dataset, 14.69 C which is cooler than the earth’s average surface temperature of 15C. What’s the difference between the global average temperature and the average surface temperature. It seems to mean the same just worded differently. If 15C is correct then we have been seriously mislead.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Stephen Lindsay-Yule
January 19, 2017 12:33 pm

Wikipedia climate pages, at least many, have been tampered with.
Look that up.
“…we have been seriously mislead.
We?

Stephen Lindsay-Yule
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
January 20, 2017 12:15 am

Like the 1961-1990 dataset. Your’e argument is baseless, if we can’t trust Wikipedia why should we trust this dataset. You can’t pick and choose what you think is tampered and what is not just to prove an argument.

Stephen Lindsay-Yule
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
January 20, 2017 1:21 am

Correction “..biased..” not “..baseless..”

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
January 20, 2017 4:51 am

Most people would merely stand up. Only a die hard would keep still.

jayhd
Reply to  Stephen Lindsay-Yule
January 19, 2017 3:57 pm

Depends on whether the oven is on and if the freezer is plugged in. Warmists would have the oven on and the freezer off to get their average.

TonyL
Reply to  Stephen Lindsay-Yule
January 19, 2017 5:14 pm

@ jayhd
Finally!
The correct answer to that stupid question!

Reply to  Stephen Lindsay-Yule
January 19, 2017 6:45 pm

I doubt you’d notice, You are dead.

markl
January 19, 2017 10:25 am

In the end the truth stands out and wins.

Rhoda R
Reply to  markl
January 19, 2017 1:38 pm

But before or after the hoaxers achieve their goal?

Janice Moore
January 19, 2017 10:27 am

Oh, Josh, lololol — that sobbing man in his underwear – SO FUNNY!! Poor guy, he must be a true believer. Thought it would be so warm that he sold his clothes and invested in wind “power” (lol).
Here he is in Big City XYZ for a “renewable” power seminar:

(youtube — He (and the data twisters) are going to need more than an app……)
THANKS FOR THE LAUGH, JOSH!
Very happy to see you here!
+10
Janice

Reply to  Janice Moore
January 19, 2017 12:46 pm

Janice:
I’m not trying to disappoint; but I believe that guy is supposed to be wearing a thong bathing suit at some green international conference.
He’d probably tell us, but their memories are quite blurred during those parties, er, conferences.
Then again, it looks so uncomfortable, we can hope the elites are wearing those tight tiny thangs for underwear!?

Janice Moore
Reply to  ATheoK
January 19, 2017 1:26 pm

Well, mebbe so, Theo. Afer all, their computer models said they looked GREAT in them (gag).

Reply to  ATheoK
January 20, 2017 1:55 am

It’s Leo Hickman and he is wearing Carbon briefs 🙂

Reply to  ATheoK
January 20, 2017 8:19 am

Thank you Josh!
I got a good belly laugh from that attribution and image.
Of course, my carbon fiber experiences leaves me with a very happy knowledge just how bikini thang swimwear or underwear must fit and feel.
Far better than hair shirts!!
Thank you Josh!
It is a most wonderful graphic, as all your graphics are.

Greg
January 19, 2017 10:34 am

The Guardian’s eco-warriors are staging a marathon of disinformation as a last attempt of huffing and puffing before the inauguration.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/live/2017/jan/19/global-warning-live-from-the-climate-change-frontline-as-trump-becomes-president
Complete with the obligatory polar bear.
Part of this is a “quiz” of how misinformed and scientifically ignore the reader is.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2017/jan/19/understand-global-warming-climate-change-quiz
Examples like “How much has the extent of sea ice in the Arctic shrunk between 1980 and 2016?” without stating if they mean annual average, Sept min or some other metric.
“What proportion of peer-reviewed scientific papers published between 1991 and 2011 agree that human activity is causing climate change?” Without defining what ” climate change” means. ( We can guess the answer they want without even knowing the question… )

AndyG55
Reply to  Greg
January 19, 2017 1:17 pm

“Complete with the obligatory polar bear.”
I couldn’t be bothered looking… but have they also got the obligatory back-lit cooling towers as well?
No “climate change” thingy would be credible without at least one.

TA
Reply to  Greg
January 19, 2017 5:46 pm

“What proportion of peer-reviewed scientific papers published between 1991 and 2011 agree that human activity is causing climate change?”
Of course the answer they want is “97 percent”, which is the number put on this partiucular climate change lie.
Senator Bernie Sanders put it another way at the Senate hearing on EPA administrator Scott Pruitt yesterday, when he said “the vast majority of scientists” agreed that CAGW was real.
“Vast majority” or “97 percent” are both doing the same thing: appealing to authority, and both are lies. The actual percentage they should be citing is less than two percent, not 97 percent. To be accurate, Bernie should be saying “a couple of scientists” think CAGW is real.
The “97 percent” lie needs to be debunked publicly. Appeals to Authority are normal for people who do not understand a subject sufficiently to come to their own conclusions, and appeals work if the scientists are correct, but if they are not correct, they lead a lot of people astray, which is the case with this particular appeal to authority.

January 19, 2017 10:39 am

What I think when I read these crazy alarmist claims: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yqAaejuRn8

Janice Moore
Reply to  Joseph Ratliff
January 19, 2017 10:56 am

Cute. 🙂

Stephen Lindsay-Yule
January 19, 2017 10:50 am

Wikipedia’s earth page, under the atmosphere section has the average surface temperature at +15C. The dataset 1961-1990 global average temperature is 13.7C. What’s the difference between the global average temperature and the average surface temperature. It seems to mean the same just worded differently. If 15C is correct then we have been seriously mislead.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Stephen Lindsay-Yule
January 19, 2017 12:35 pm

See at 12:33

January 19, 2017 11:12 am

Imagine Mr.D.T.had an encounter with Mrs. Levinski. Do you think that would lead to an impeachment process?

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  marty
January 19, 2017 1:01 pm

I *think* you mean Miss Monica “B.J.” Lewinsky or “Miss Have-A-Tampa of 1997”.

Dr. Dave
January 19, 2017 11:17 am

The last couple days have been kind off tough watching the final acts of the child-in-chief, but tomorrow is a new day and a new regime and it promises to be oh so entertaining.
I’m so glad I bought all of those popcorn futures… crunch, crunch, munch munch
Obama — One Big Ass Mistake America

Mark from the Midwest
January 19, 2017 11:17 am

Much of the UK is also freakin’ out after T. May laid out the Brexit plan this week. The biggest problem that a lot of liberal / multi-national / progressives have is not just what is happening, it’s that it happened so fast. Just last year at this time Brexit was no more than a novelty, the progressives in the U.S. were thinking the next pres would be Hill-o-beans, or at worst a neo-con like Jeb BushBakedBeans. Now the whole schmeer is being deconstructed by people who actually know how to make things happen, and for a progressive the worst possible nightmare is that a right-leaning, trash-talking, pragmatist might actually succeed.

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
January 19, 2017 12:01 pm

Mrs. May has to ask the parlament first before Brexit. So if she does not make it smoothe, perhaps the parlament refuses. Is that her plan?

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  marty
January 19, 2017 12:53 pm

By all accounts my spies tell me that May’s outline: 1) It took control of the situation, and 2) A hard and fast break appeals to all parties. In other words “this whole thing will work.” and, at this point, if Parliament fails to approve the Article 50 notification then I suspect there will be civil war.

Margaret Smith
Reply to  marty
January 19, 2017 7:59 pm

“marty on January 19, 2017 at 12:01 pm
Mrs. May has to ask the parlament first before Brexit. So if she does not make it smoothe, perhaps the parlament refuses. Is that her plan”
I believe that parliament gets to vote on the ‘deal’ that is negotiated but not on Brexit itself. That happens anyway.

Nigel S
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
January 19, 2017 3:13 pm

One of the most helpful things for the Brexit cause was Obama telling UK we’d be at the back of the queue (bus?) for a trade agreement. So that’s one thing he did achieve.

TA
Reply to  Nigel S
January 19, 2017 5:54 pm

Trump says Britian will be at the Front of the Line come tomorrow.

TA
Reply to  Nigel S
January 19, 2017 5:55 pm

Britain.

January 19, 2017 11:25 am

Rocketscientist: “I believe it’s covered by one of Augustine’s laws regarding “On making a precise guess”:”
Precisely. A billion years ago (roughly) when I was working at the Dallas school District in Administrative computing, the Director came to us with a question for his board presentation “How many report cards did we issue this past year?” Obviously, with over 100K students, and many coming and going, etc. this was a difficult question to answer but after spending several hours on assumptions and calculations, we went to him with a number of around 560,000. He immediately replied “No, I need the exact number”. We went away, and in 2 minutes came up with (something like) 557,943, but we waited an hour or so to deliver the number, which he gratefully accepted and put in his presentation. I don’t remember if it ever made the papers, but we did learn to always make estimates with an odd number as the last digit, to be sure the answer looked precise (/sarc off)

rocketscientist
Reply to  Taylor Pohlman
January 19, 2017 12:27 pm

Norman Augustine, who created the laws, mentioned a few other examples regarding budget estimates and how they always included a significant digit after the decimal point. He noted that while the first significant digit was wrong on the average of 100%, the last significant digit was wrong about 10% of the time. 🙂

Reply to  rocketscientist
January 19, 2017 1:31 pm

Nice! Exactly what you would expect from a random number selection with 10 possible digits.
Reminds me of the adage about the stopped clock being right twice a day. Also reminds me of the old PR disaster at Intel on their IEEE math chip – “not a problem, it only gets the answer wrong once in a billion calculations”. Users were quick to point out that the whole point of the chip was do do millions of calculations a second, and there was no way to know which calculation was wrong. Sometimes statistics are worse than meaningless.

Mark
Reply to  rocketscientist
January 19, 2017 3:19 pm

I am assuming what is meant is ‘right 10% of the time’ or ‘wrong 90% of the time’, based on subsequent comments.

godzi11a
Reply to  Taylor Pohlman
January 19, 2017 2:20 pm

Taylor, great story! It reminds me of what I have always told my kids: don’t fall for a whopper just because it contains trivial, seemingly unrelated details. The best liars (…ahem) know that a good story has to include little irrelevant tidbits that make it sound authentic, like “their was a huge flock of seagulls overhead”, or “I could smell baked chicken coming from somewhere”, or “the car that ran me off the road had one of those small-sized spare tires on the right front”, etc. etc.
If you had said that there were 557,943 report cards issued, but 418 were returned because they were sent to fake addresses, you would have been the go-to guy from there on out!

John Harmsworth
Reply to  godzi11a
January 20, 2017 2:16 pm

Who wants to be the go to guy for useless statistics?

Tez
January 19, 2017 12:05 pm

Can anyone tell me what “we burnt down the forests” is a reference to in Josh’s cartoon? Thank you.

MarkW
Reply to  Tez
January 19, 2017 12:13 pm

My guess would be the cutting down of tropical forests in order to create bio-diesel plantations.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Tez
January 19, 2017 12:13 pm

It’s probably a reference to moving work crews out of the forests, resulting in no clearing of loose foliage, creating a tinderbox situation. That’s what was responsible for the big fires in the Northwest, although it was characterized in the press as a product of Climate Change..
Although, I didn’t draw the cartoon.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Joel Snider
January 19, 2017 12:17 pm

Mr. Snider, while MarkW and I probably guessed what Josh was thinking of (maybe not! 🙂 ), your comment is EXACTLY right about what envirowackos have done to make forest fires much more likely and far more devastating.

Reply to  Joel Snider
January 20, 2017 1:58 am

Spot on. Here is the link to a story about European supposedly protected forests being cut down to meet EU renewables targets: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/24/protected-forests-in-europe-felled-to-meet-eu-renewable-targets-report

Joel Snider
Reply to  Joel Snider
January 20, 2017 2:49 pm

Yep, you were both right, as Josh confirmed below. Of course, there’s been so much similar damage done, it’s hard to pinpoint.
Maybe we can start going the other direction, now.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Tez
January 19, 2017 12:14 pm

Palm Oil plantation clearing of rainforest:
http://www.smh.com.au/content/dam/images/2/1/h/a/q/image.related.articleLeadwide.620×349.21hch.png/1341421200000.jpg
(Source: http://www.smh.com.au/world/sumatra-burns-in-palm-oil-rush-20120704-21hch.html )
for biodiesel:
The depletion of fossil fuels, coupled with the increasing awareness of environmental protection, has led to concerted and escalating R&D efforts in search of renewable and environmental-friendly alternative energy sources. The recent strong demand for renewable fuels has resulted in tremendous increased production of biofuels worldwide.
(Source: http://www.palmoilworld.org/biodiesel.html )
Summary:
Lies about “peak oil” and about human CO2 emissions caused worse-than-useless devastation of forests.

Nigel S
Reply to  Tez
January 19, 2017 2:11 pm

Burning American forests at Drax power station in UK to ‘save the planet’ with biomass (and bilk the taxpayer of course).
http://draxbiomass.com/
Looking on the bright side at least they don’t get paid £160 for every £100 of wood they burn as in Northern Ireland (cost to taxpayers of that little scam £1 beeellion).

kim
January 19, 2017 12:15 pm

Schoolchildren won’t know what ‘world’s hottest year’ is anymore.
=============

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  kim
January 19, 2017 12:30 pm

School children won’t know ANYTHING, since most of what they’ll be taught will be propaganda.

Manfred
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
January 19, 2017 2:01 pm

Thank goodness then that skeptics are as often as not, born skeptics.

January 19, 2017 12:31 pm

The alarm is set for 12:01 PM tomorrow and we awaken from an 8-year national nightmare. Finally, the beginning of reality.

January 19, 2017 12:48 pm

The BBC and Channel 4 are full on with their anti-Trump propaganda in the UK.

Rhoda R
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
January 19, 2017 1:44 pm

In a somewhat more subtle manner, so is the Weather Channel.

Sheri
January 19, 2017 12:51 pm

Don’t celebrate yet. The billionaire from Colorado is one step closer to destroying a huge area of southern Wyoming, wiping out hundreds of eagles and other birds, and all to make himself richer. Five hundred turbines—millions wasted, increased electrical prices, more corporate welfare. And no one stopping the freight train as it wipes out the area. Way too early to be declaring victory, people, way to early.

tom0mason
January 19, 2017 1:24 pm

With an epic rise in global temperature (what ever that means) maybe we should all run off to Masdar.
http://grist.org/climate-energy/the-worlds-first-zero-carbon-city-is-a-big-failure/

RAH
January 19, 2017 1:29 pm
Janice Moore
Reply to  RAH
January 19, 2017 1:45 pm

Yup! 🙂comment image
Keep safe out there, hoooo-RAH! 🙂

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 19, 2017 1:49 pm

HAHAHAH — wrong clock — but, still funny.
I’ll try to find an inauguration clock gif.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 19, 2017 1:50 pm


Bwha, ha, ha, ha, haaAAAAAAAAAAAAA! 🙂

RAH
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 19, 2017 3:52 pm

I just watched the welcoming concert in front of the Lincoln Memorial. If you didn’t get to watch it you missed something. Best word to describe it: Glorious!

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 19, 2017 4:30 pm

Oh, RAH. Waaaa, I did miss it! I hope I can find it on youtube. Glad you got to hear/see it.

RockyRoad
January 19, 2017 1:36 pm

Wait until Trump’s 10% budget and 20% employee cuts on the bloated Federal government go through–there will be wailing across the land of Biblical proportions.

Rhoda R
January 19, 2017 1:45 pm

Music to my ears.

Peta in Cumbria
January 19, 2017 1:55 pm

And another reason people don’t like Donald…..
We all of us have an instinct, about other people. We cannot pin it down, no-one needs to say a word. Moving pictures send across the world will suffice, even stills for those experienced enough.
Combine those with reports of what he says and how he says it and its obvious – if, the biggest if there ever was, you yourself are awake and responsive to the signals he emanates.
Many times, this ‘instinct’ is called First Impressions.
WTF am I on about you’re saying?
Donald doesn’t drink. In the same way its impossible for a drunk/drinker to make himself appear sober, the contrary applies. Non-drinkers, non-clinically/chronically depressed are like shining stars in a dark grey sky and most people see that without realising.
(You can do it yourself, give it 12 months off the booze and your eyes will open. And your mind.)
And that is why so many don’t like Donald. That ‘so many’, subconsciously realise they are clinically depressed through drink and sugar/carbs and that someone like Donald, in every sense can run rings around them.
Compared to them, he’s quick witted, original, spontaneous, funny and can talk sense without a (tele) prompt or by calling on The Consensus or Authority. he is his own authority.
He can put up a coherent argument and then defend it, without repetition, without ad-homs, without lies and can recall what he said & how he said it weeks and months later.
Compared to most (the chronically depressed through diet & drink) he is a threat, a loose cannon that cannot be controlled.
He threatens their cozy little zombified bubbles just by walking into the room – and how many examples of that have we seen already?

hunter
Reply to  Peta in Cumbria
January 20, 2017 3:51 am

+1. Very interesting comment. I was unaware of his commitment to sobriety until recently. Odd that would not have been mentioned widely.

MattN
January 19, 2017 1:58 pm

The reasons why we are, in less than 24 hours, about to say the words “President Trump” have very little to do with climate change or the science associated with it.

Nigel S
January 19, 2017 2:15 pm

Laurence Olivier, nothing quite like him!

Janice Moore
Reply to  Nigel S
January 19, 2017 3:52 pm

Well, Nigel, Sir Laurence Olivier is excellent indeed, but, Michael Machiavelli the Twisted Prince of Data and all his lot will, before “York’s” bright sun sets, be shrieking tutti,
“A {job}! A {job}! My {organization} for a job!”

RoHa
Reply to  Nigel S
January 19, 2017 6:14 pm

Bad reading. Should be
NOW/
is the winter of our discontent MADE/
GLORIOUS SUMMER/
by this sun of YORK.
(Never did think much of Larry. Always the same, playing the part of Lawrence Olivier, Great Actor. Give me Guinness or Burton any day.)
In modern English, the opening lines are
“Our discontent was like winter, but now it has become Global Warming thanks to the CO2 produced by the new King.”

Janice Moore
Reply to  RoHa
January 19, 2017 6:44 pm

Ha! Here’s YOU, (I think?) RoHa!, as Richard III, doing it YOUR WAY.
(Remember, everyone, THIS IS A COMEDY thread)
“The Goodbye Girl” (not the wonderful movie with Richard Dreyfuss — not sure who did this version) Richard III scene

(youtube)
#(:))

Nigel S
Reply to  RoHa
January 20, 2017 1:46 am

Well, ‘nothing quite like him!’ was intended as a double edged sword.
Gielgud for me I think, I saw him and Richardson on stage in ‘No Man’s Land’ an unforgettable evening.
I think Burton was often a terrible ham but quite effective in that potboiler (Dylan Thomas’s description) ‘Under Milk Wood’.
Guinness I agree of course, from Herbert Pocket to Mr Todd and all the Ealing comedies in-between.
You meant ‘son of York’ of course …
Richard:
Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this son of York;
And all the clouds that low’r’d upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.
That explains what happened to the missing heat, all buried with the lowering clouds.

RoHa
Reply to  RoHa
January 21, 2017 12:13 am

The pun on “son” and “sun” lead to that slip. And now I come to think of it , the line is better read
by this SON/
of York.
Yes, Gielgud and Richardson were both fine. Still a whiff of “Great Actor” about them, but not as bad as Larry. Burton could be hammy, but I still like him. He did 1984 without The Voice.
Guinness as fussy bank clerk, bigamist ferry captain, channeling Alistair Sim in “The Ladykillers”, the dragged-up-from-the-Gorbals officer in “Tunes of Glory” – a different person each time. I saw him live once. He was a totally nondescript little man.
But second to him, Alan Rickman.

January 19, 2017 2:47 pm

I don’t care if you are left or right, centrist, anything, Trump is all over the place on issues, what he will do in power is anybody’s guess.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Geoffrey Preece
January 19, 2017 4:22 pm

That you hear the theme Trump has been playing for months as scattered notes, “all over the place,” seems to say that your reception has been cutting in and out.
Or, perhaps, you mistake melody-supporting harmony for cacophony?
Here. Listen to this. Even with great variety in the notes, the melody is still clear, no? 🙂
And it is beautiful. So beautiful…
Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini, Op.43, Sergei Rachmaninoff

(youtube)
… the lovely melody of LOVE.
Yes, love. Liberty is, at bottom, about love.
Donald Trump loves America.
That tells you all you need to know about what he will do.
(in case anyone listening to the above music wonders what movie used that for its theme… it was “Somewhere in Time”… about a love that waited for a very long time… and, in the end, was rewarded with love in return).
We hung in there, true America — and, thanks to “God’s amazing grace,” after years and years of heavy hearts and furrowed brows, WE won!!!
#(:))

Reply to  Janice Moore
January 19, 2017 8:55 pm

“Somewhere in Time”: one of my favourite (favorite) films (movies), Janice 🙂

Reply to  Janice Moore
January 19, 2017 11:51 pm

They’ll tell you that cacophony is an acquired taste for truly sophisticated, and lovely melody in C major is a fascist platitude for deplorables.
There’s some pleasant schadefreude in Trump’s win, of course, but… there is many a slip between the cup and the lip. We’ll see what happens, don’t launch the fireworks yet.

hunter
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 20, 2017 3:46 am

This story is not yet written to its finish. The fat lady is no where near ready to sing. We must remain vigilent. Many who oppose the inauguration of Mr. Trump are currently a wee bit deranged and in their irrationality capable of many bad things both short and long term.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 20, 2017 7:30 am

So glad you enjoyed that, Luc. I love that movie, too.
Mr. Feht! Good to see you again. Yes, indeed, like modern “art,” only those “in the know” can truly appreciate it (cough). I hope that YOUR musical endeavors are bringing you much joy these days in your snowy part of the United States.

hunter
Reply to  Geoffrey Preece
January 20, 2017 4:25 am

Trump is pretty clear and direct. Perhaps your confusion is in your perception.

Gunga Din
January 19, 2017 5:04 pm

Love the cartoon montage!
“But…but…we know so much better how to run your lives than you do! Didn’t (plug in hysterical celebrity name) tell you that!! Fools!! WHY DIDN’T YOU LISTEN TO US GROWNUPS!!! (Where’s my blankie?)”

talldave2
January 19, 2017 5:26 pm

The idea they know the global average temperature to even a range of .18 degrees with 95% probability is ridiculous. I give 10:1 odds that by 2026 the 2016 temperature has been changed more than that.

RoHa
January 19, 2017 6:06 pm

And for some who banked on a continuance of the corrupt, warmongering, neo-con, agenda in Washington DC, it is.

peter
January 20, 2017 12:05 am

When Obama was elected didn’t he make some sort of remark about this being the time when the temperature would stop rising?
It just occurred to me that if the people who predicted that the world would be cooling in the next ten years and we might be entering another mini ice age are right then Trump will be able to say that during his presidency, the world really did stop warming.

hunter
January 20, 2017 3:40 am

Josh is a talent that never fails to deliver a pointy well deserved barb. Thanks for publishing a great example of Josh’s work.

John Stover
January 20, 2017 2:39 pm

Nothing like double precision arithmetic operations against estimated data
to improve accuracy. Sue, I buy that.

Johann Wundersamer
January 21, 2017 10:15 pm

v’

%d bloggers like this: