Join me on Facebook!
Follow me on Twitter!
More 'toons here!
Or subscribe here.
I'm not sure why people still don't accept AGW. It's not really rocket science:
1) We have added CO2 to the atmosphere. Proof: We have measured it since 50s, we have detected that the extra CO2 comes from fossil fuels, we have measured how much we put there and how much naturally goes there and how much it gets absorbed and there is an imbalance there. For a perspective, we put 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes: http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html
2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas and this is supported by basic physics. If you add more CO2, it will have a forcing effect and will push the equilibrium towards a warmer temperature. There is nothing to argue here.
If you put them together you get to AGW.
You pathetic believers in AGW fail to recognise the simple fact that it isn't about resistance to science, or to a preference to pollution or a lack of concern for the planet. It is as you keep on bleating yourselves without having a clue what you're on about, it is, ALL ABOUT SCIENCE.
The "science" behind AGW has been shown to be bogus. Climate gate showed anything but a scientific process behind the AGW claims and proved fraud and deceitfull practices used to hide the facts that showed the opposite to the conclusions being sought. Since then further major cracks have appeared in the AGW arsenal of "science" and this includes the claims about the Amazon and Polar Bears which it seems have been declining in a couple of places where interestingly average temps have been cooling whilst on the whole they've been increasing in numbers, especially in some places subject to some warming. In fact the Polar Bears, the very pin up for this whole fiasko, have "declined" from ~5,000 in the 1970s, to ~25,000 today.
The facts do not support the AGW hypothesis and furthermore the plans put forth to combat it, are nothing of the sort, they merely amount to a form of tax, or better described, a new form of derivatives trading.
I say all this as a "Greenie" my whole life. I lived in a logging town and owned a business and was still prepared to stand against the government and timber industry which dominated. I am an rganic permaculture farmer and recycled before it was fashinable and I make sure my efforts are not merely window dressing. I dare anyone to be more passionate about the environment than I have always been.
You faux environentalists sicken me. Most of you never gave a dam about the environment and you only do so now, because you've been roped in by a slick and substantial campaign of disinformation. From slickly produced carefully catapulted videos by ex presidential candidates, which amount to a load of codswallop when the dust finally settles to every major BOUGHT and PAID for celebtrity name imaginable, to many major corporations and governments none of whom have ever shown even a modicum of respect for the environment, yoiu get the flim flam treatment and you just got sucked in.
So spare me your anguished bleating about those of us who don't buy into the hype, and especially hold your tongues now that you have practically nothing except the slick campaign left for credibility.
Hypocrites talking about science when you none of you have even paid the remmotest scientific notice of anything which has transpired in this whole affair.
WOW! Where to begin...
First, let's start with spelling. Buy a dictionary and learn how to use it (that's 'dikshunaree', in case you don't understand 'dictionary'). Nothing screams "ignorance" like a rant filled with erroneous spelling.
Second, for anyone who knows the first thing about the problem, the proper scientific term is "Climate Change", not 'Anthropogenic Global Warming' as the deniers keep incorrectly calling it...some spots will warm, some will cool.
Third, it would seem that ANY REASONABLE & RATIONAL person who gives a rat's a$$ about the future would realize that.."Hey! We don't have a back-up planet to fly off to and live happily ever after on! Maybe we should err on the side of caution until we actually DO know without a doubt!"
Fourth, have you actually ever been to the Amazon or polar circle? Take a field trip sometime & you might be stunned by what you see....I know I was.
Fifth...there is no such thing as a permaculture farmer that ISN'T organic, so given the fact you felt you needed to preface permaculture with the word organic, I seriously question whether you really are.
Last, I am an environmental scientist with multiple degrees who has actually studied the topic & not just listened to O'Reilly & Beck and the rest of that ilk, so kiss my bleating, hypocritical...well, even you can figure that one out with a little help from your friends.
This is a typical example of a one-sided option on climate change (Global Warming is a misconstrued term and is incorrect - Climate Change is the correct term). For anyone interested in a more fair deconstruction of the present Climate Change debate:
It may be Wikipedia but it's a fair introduction in my view. Further in depth reading can be found in many of the recent scientific Journals such as The Proceedings of the National Academy of Science or The Proceedings of the Royal Society (London). These are excellent resources for up-to-date information and research.
In the most grossly simplistic terms:
The present research shows that historically the climate has fluctuated. Some periods of Earth's history the climatological fluctuations have been on an order greater than at present. However, temperatures over the last 100 years have shown an average median increase of around 1 degree C. This is a significant increase. It's direct cause is likely to be be a substantial CO2 increase in the Earth's atmosphere. What is less well understood is the human catalyst variable. Industrial output of greenhouses gases has caused a marked change in the atmospheric mix over the last 50 years. It is presently unclear how this will effect climate in the long term. However it is reasonable to assume that outputting substantial greenhouse gases will cause a change in atmospheric energy absorption.
I hope this summary is fair. Feel free to comment.
> The Proceedings of the National Academy of Science or The Proceedings of the Royal Society (London)
...which also happen to be the old stompin' grounds for the Club of Rome.
...and which happen to be among the institutions most heavily endowed by financial players that stand to earn hundreds of billions from a carbon credits exchange.
...and which also, in the latter case, happen to be the stompin' grounds of the OPT--who have repeated declared that the world population should be reduced to the 'optimal' 75-500 million by 2100 so that the better types can continue to enjoy the lifestyles to which they have become accustomed. Preferably by spending the trillions they've accrued by taxing the very air you breathe.
> It's direct cause is likely to be be a substantial CO2 increase in the Earth's atmosphere.
The models (now on the fourth generation) break every five years (which by no coincidence is the shortest time needed to conclusively prove they've broken).
The experimental results are thrown out because they don't agree with the models.
The 'denialists' are thrown out because they base conclusions on observed phenomena and not the Johnny-come-latest AGW model needed to justify a 3+ trillion carbon credit global exchange. And not that it matters, because none of the 'compelling data' that supports the AGW thesis is made available to dissenting scientists.
"The truth, of course, is that a billion falsehoods told a billion times by a billion people are still false."
- Travis Walton
It has NOT been proven bogus, so everything after that lie in your diatribe matters less than a gnat's fart.
Speaking as a leftist and scientist: This animated cartoon blatantly and glaringly and completely ignores all facts relevant to the controversy concerning the science of global warming... as well as the social and political background to that controversy, chosing instead to present exclusively true but utterly irrelevant personal details of the lives of scientists in other fields, from other times. It's a vile example of propaganda and deceit via selective neglect of data and inclusion of irrelevancies.
It is an undeniable FACT that the earth IS warming. It is also a fact that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere has a greenhouse effect, that causes warming. And it is a fact that the industrial revolution has increased CO2 emissions and CO2 levels. HOWEVER, the science IS NOT THERE that can quantitate the magnitude of these effects, even to the point of telling us whether or not the effect FROM the existing CO2 increase is in any significant way RESPONSIBLE for the warming we see now. Warming of smilar and even greater degree has occured in ages pior to human industrial intervention.
The cartoon does not touch on the fact that the USA and nationos of EUROPE benefitted for a century and more from getting easy power from coal, and now with this global warmingn flim-flam want to BAR less developed nations from doing so.
I support rational energy conservation (support of mass rail transit instead of use of automobiles as primary means of transit in and beetween large cities), and construction of dwelling that are energy efficient thru insulation and use of solar heating. I support human power transportation where feasible. I support moving toward renewable energy sources, including in particular solar thermal (mirrors, boilers, steam turbines) power generation and the creation of the required INFRASTRUCTURE that is needed to support that.
But I do not support the trendy and mistaken assertions that global warming >is primarily or even significantly caused by< man's efforts, for that HAS NOT been proven with any level of confidence, and indeed likely CANNOT be shown to be either true or false for a while, until the science gets better and data gets more complete.
As a long-time fan of Fiore, and a scientist, I can't help but think this particular cartoon as just plain terrible. The scientific method is the best means at our disposal for improving our understanding of the universe, but it has time and again shown to be corruptible by money and vested interests. If there has been *any* unethical/unscientific conduct by climate change researchers, it MUST BE INVESTIGATED, end of discussion. The idea that just because "it's science, stupid" is a lame duck to hide behind, and just shows that Mark Fiore should stay away from the scientific arena, as he is clearly out of his depth.
Okay, I think humans are responsible for Global Warming, let me just put that out there. But I'm also open to the idea that I could be wrong. Even if I'm wrong, which of course I doubt I am, but still... if I am wrong, what's wrong with NOT turning the lower atmo into a monoxide suicide's garage? What's wrong with NOT shitting where we eat? What's wrong with NOT being filthy creatures that rape and pillage and kill species we don't even know, and befoul ourselves? DDT didn't exist until we were here, and it's not good for us, and it'll be around forever. We don't have to be like this.
Hehe, the caveman at the end was the best part! XD
Beam me up, Scotty. There's no intelligent life on this planet judging by the comments.
If the Left actually cared about the planet, wouldn't they take ClimateGate as good news? Wouldn't they look at the opposition's data and research with optimism? Instead they are hostile because it really isn't about the planet, it's about control.
What opposition? This is about facts, not politics. The left and the right may disagree about values, about relative importance of some things, about how politics should be conducted. The facts are independent of those kinds of questions, and science is the best path to truth.
You're just projecting. It's right-wingers who are all about control. Wingnuts LOVED 9/11 because it gave them an excuse to bomb lots of innocent people to death.
If man-made climate change were REALLY proven false, that would be great; but one particular set of evidence being suspect doesn't automatically make the conclusion wrong, no matter how much you want it to be wrong.
Before it can be proven false it must first be accepted as TRUE! Scientists around the world are in sharp disagreement over this issue and the fact that you would deny that proves that this is not about the planet, it is about your agenda.
Does the fact that 20,000 years ago the location of my current dwelling would have been at the bottom of the ocean mean anything to you? The earth goes through its own changes. With or without us.
The fact is that the majority of those who are denying that global warming is occuring and that it is in fact caused by human activity are NOT scientists at all. Those few deniers who ARE scientists have never worked in the field of climate studies. These voices are bought and paid for by the oil, gas and other industries which would have their profits eroded if we all stopped using their products.
The fact that so many folks (many of whom are intelligent and well meaning) still believe that there is a debate on this topic points to the effectiveness of the campaign to discredit valid scientific research into climate change.
I would suggest you read James Hoggan's book "Climate Cover Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming", or check out http://www.desmogblog.com/.
Have no fear friends! Earth is not in danger, WE are ... The planet has known epochs with green oceans and much more CO2 in the atmosphere that we can ever pollute.
Put yourself in the place of the Greenpeace lady in this video and honestly try to answer or refute Christopher Monckton.
"If there's been climate change for four billion years, why are you against it now?"
Because the current climate on Earth is hospitable to human life. And we'd like to keep it that way, if we can.
Now here's a question for Mr. Monckton. If human beings have been dying ever since there've been human beings, why are you against committing suicide?
There is so much smoke and wind about this topic.
We're pretty sure the earth is going through a warming cycle and that it has gone through both cooling and warming cycles in the past.
We observe a rapid increase in atmospheric co2 that is attributable to the burning of fossil fuels for energy.
We suspect a connection between co2 and the warming cycle, but this is disputed.
We know scientists are people, this issue is politicized, there is a lot of money involved, and some of the eco-friendly stuff on the market is legitimate and some is (obviously) snake-oil and some is just weird.
There is reported to be a strong agreement among a circle of experts regarding co2 = climate change; but that agreement is not proof that they are right about the correlation or the explanations offered.
We do the best we can. Conservation is a good thing no matter if global warming is our fault or not, as is the reduction of all types of pollution.
If any researcher is found to be massaging data to hide empirical facts that may cast doubt on his supported theory it is our duty in the discourse to call shenanigans on that. Put on your thinking caps, read the fine print, and ask questions! The true strength of a theory is revealed by how well it stands up to being refuted!
Like this one! Of course if you had to prove all scientists were perfect before you believed in their discoveries we would still be waiting for the wheel.
Diana e Forrest
Global warming theories are hardly even near par. This and the other two winters we've been having were freezing.
I live in toronto ontario canada. There are certain plants which 10 years ago couldn't grow here because it was too cold during the winter but can grow here now. I believe that the overall temp is rising this however probably isn't just because of influence but we have been doing our part. The fact is parry sound which is about a 2 hour drive north now has smog (not alot but enough to change the sunsets) it didn't have that 10 years ago.
'Smog' is caused by nitrates, sulfates, and industrial/vehicle byproducts that have absolutely nothing to do with CO2.
For smog in the Hamilton area, you have Mr. McGuinty to thank for scrapping heavy metal scrubbers in the smokestacks at nickel plants. Reason given: "they don't do anything to further reduce CO2". The Libs also killed several heavy metal clean-up initiatives for the same reason.
We need the billions of dollars to pay for carbon offsets. Hence, necessary cuts have to be made to wetland protection, scrubbing of industrial pollutants, and elimination of VOCs.
So congratulations. Your kids are living in a smoggy, heavy-metal-laden cesspit as part of the sacrifice we all must make to save ourselves from AGW.
Look on the bright side. Maybe they'll die off and reduce your carbon footprint.
This comment proves you understand nothing. Refrain from proving your ignorance so blatantly in public.
look who's ignorant. You claim the earth is warming yet poor families are freezing to death because oil is more pricey over some stupid theory that has not one shred of evidence.
The price of oil has nothing to do with global warming. The only people setting energy prices are the corporations, who could give a flying crap if families freeze as long as they get paid.
Actually, the price of oil has everything to do with global warming. Do you know anything at all about leftist agenda?
There's tons of evidence; you just choose not to believe it because it would force you to realize that, yet again, humanity is screwing up the natural world.
Global warming doesn't mean that winter stops happening, jackass. If it reached that point, which you seem content to allow to happen, everything would be DEAD.
I rather like the idea of Winter not happening.
At Least Galleleo, Kepler and Einstein weren't using their scientific theories to promote starvation, 3rd world poverty and eco fascism the way globo warming wackos are now.
Right now in San Joaqin, 80% of our farms are going to go down the tubes and we will lose most of the capacity to feed ourselves just to protect some stupid fish. the thrid world remains in poverty because they can't develop for the sake of rainforsts, rats and bugs.
The thrid world needs to develop energy and infrastructure even if they have to cut down a few forests and burn coal and oil if they are to ever get out of poverty. We also need to stop cowtowing to this crap if we are to ever get our economy jumpstarted again. We can't depend on China to do everything for us forever.
And speaking of which, why aren't these countries in Asia supposed to follow these strict standards? Why is America and the third world the only ones who need to sacrifice prosperity and peace for some unproven theory?
This toon has inspired me too redouble my efforts in regards to global warming. I'm doing my part. I keep the window open and run the heat full blast, removed my Cadillac converter, and supported C02 producing industries. With a consistent effort, we can all enjoy warmer temperatures here in Canada in a few years!
Global warming hopeful
Yeah, that's it. Not like politicians have become the new Holy Roman Empire. They even call scientists deniers! Is that the new "heretic"?
Of course the planet is warming up, we came out of a big ice age. Ice that covered a good portion of North America down to Pennsylvania. However, there have been warming periods. The Vikings called Greenland, Greenland, because it was in fact GREEN at the time. The Medieval warming period. Anyone? Did England sink? No.
The deniers are here because someone has to keep their senses. That a minor component of the atmosphere (CO2) is bad is ridiculous. Trees expel it. Plus, it would help if we could agree on methodology. http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2009/04/co2-levels-may-have-been-over-20...
"Trees expel it."
Well there you go; a perfect excuse to cut down every tree all over the planet. That will really cut down on carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere.
Of course after you find out that trees absorb it, you will have a big Duh moment.
"He named the land Greenland, saying that people would be eager to go there if it had a good name."
It was full of ice even back then.
Ernst-Georg Beck's paper was kicked around years ago;
I just love this cartoon! These men were really courageous because they dared view the world in a new light, and some of them (Galileo, for one) risked excommunication and execution for speaking their minds openly! However, I miss Flamey McGassey!
Or perhaps Dogboy and Mr. Dan talking about Global Warming.
Leaked e-mails showing 'human disagreements', 'scientific indiscretions', and forgivable oversights.
So that's how they're whitewashing this one, huh?
Not database architects ranting for pages about how the databases are disorganized, faked, broken, missing, or supplemental?
Not programmers' notes lamenting over model deficiencies and the need to fudge data to 'make the results right'?
Not orders to delete e-mails to avoid freedom of information act requests?
Not repeated denials to provide data or models to dissenting scientists (not including this, or this or this), or even to scientists whose 'stance' is questionable?
Just a few enlightened men, tossing some barbs against the deniers, maybe using a bit of misinterpreted language--just like Galileo and Kepler.
Mr. Fiore, this monstrosity of a toon reveals that if there's anything you understand less than the real damaging content of the CRU e-mails, it's the definition of the word "science". I suggest you turn off your personal RSS feed from the Sierra Club telling you that you can go back to sleep.
But hey. You're the one living in the state with BB- -rated bonds whose standard of living is skating downhill faster than a lead monkey. If you don't give a toot about the difference between science and the CRU, you deserve everything you get.
Ugh. Now I have to go and wash the stink off.
They say a drowning man clutches at a straw. That I don't know, but people sure pounce on whatever they can use to support their ideology (and ignore evidence to the contrary, no matter HOW massive). It's interesting that because of the problems of a few staffers and researchers at one obscure English university have been revealed that JUST LIKE THAT it proves mad-made Climate change is all a big hoax and conspiracy.
Yeah, whatever. Anyone who even comes close to believing that really is out there on the lunatic fringe. Tinfoil hat time!
Firstly, the CRU is credited by the IPCC as being one of the 'top five institutes' from which AGW research is sourced. The unit has 13 research subsidaries. Its members liaise with virtually every climate-based NGO in western Europe. In short, it is anything but an 'obscure English university'.
Secondly, I don't contend that the e-mail scandal 'proves' AGW is a hoax. I contend that climate research is an inscrutable black box and a kind of post-modern mysticism devoid of objective oversight. It is, in other words, unscientific--which should be evident to anyone with even the slightest idea of what the scientific process comprises. Furthermore, I contend that every peek we get into this black box (only one of which is 'climategate') we observe a morass of fraud, incompetence, cupidity, and political monopsony.
How many peeks do we need to take before we conclude that this is all the box contains?
Thirdly, I point out that Galileo, Kepler et. al. (the subjects of this week's uncharacteristically insipid bit of cartoonery) were among the lunatic fringe of their time.
Now, will you kindly read the content in the final link of my OP before replying.
"In questions of science, the analysis of 1000 is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."
Clearly this undermines all of science! I'm now convinced that people lived with dinosaurs on a flat earth.
Who else has been tweaking their research and complaining about the deniers? Find out in, Science-Gate, just posted.
More information about formatting options