”Hey, I’ve got a stunningly original idea for a cartoon about global warming. Damn, I’m proud of my ability to come up with a gag that nobody’s ever used before”
Cidu Bill on Feb 10th 2010
(Nicole added this one to our collection)
Filed in Bill Bickel, comics, global warming, humor | 37 responses so far
Its Justme Feb 10th 2010 at 04:47 pm 1
But…this really did happen. Not so much funny as ironic.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=b3e826ad-802a-23ad-45b8-8fa00c661d62
paperboy Feb 10th 2010 at 04:51 pm 2
This looks more like a political cartoon than a gag-a-day panel, not meant to be unique, but an added opinion to others similar. (Personally, I think Al Gore is using the weather satellites to cause Global Warming so he can make a fortune brokering Cap&Trade deals.)
Mark Dalrymple Feb 10th 2010 at 05:13 pm 3
Or think of it as an extreme weather pattern preventing them from having a hearing on legislation to reduce extreme weather patterns.
Ted in Fort Lauderdale Feb 10th 2010 at 05:26 pm 4
Its Justme - since it comes from the office of James Inhofe, I actually have no idea if it is true or not. Very little (if anything) he says or does has any relationship to reality, so it wouldn’t surprise me if this didn’t either…
Jenn Feb 10th 2010 at 09:28 pm 5
From the Op-Ed page of the LA Times yesterday, a piece about the Audi Super Bowl ad (Green Police):
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldberg9-2010feb09,0,1688020.column
“I watched the Super Bowl in the chilled air of the GFISZ (that’s Goldberg Family Ice Station Zebra). Here in Washington, we haven’t seen this much snow since at least 1922. The blizzard of 2010 took out our electricity for a day…. We’re slated for another foot by Wednesday.
Suffice it to say I’m not panicking about global warming right now.”
ted in fort lauderdale Feb 10th 2010 at 09:55 pm 6
Jenn - Jonah Goldberg is extremely right wing (he wrote a book basically equating fascism and liberalism) and has for years been somewhere between a climate change denier and a “it’s too expensive to do anything about, so let’s ignore it”‘er (and he has no background in anything relevant). He’s another one whose opinion I can easily ignore….
David N Feb 10th 2010 at 10:01 pm 7
The only people “panicking” are right wing morons like Goldberg, who constantly repeat the phrase over and over to make it sound true. I’m concerned about my retirement too, but that doesn’t mean I’m “panicking”.
Annie Benson Feb 11th 2010 at 04:07 am 8
I just hope that when July rolls around each and every single person on the planet who made this joke goes into a real panic since it is obivious that the planet will be bursting into flame any second now.
Powers Feb 11th 2010 at 07:06 am 9
Apparently Republican lawmakers really are making anti-global warming political points from the current weather conditions in Washington. A tweet, for instance, that said: “The snow will continue until Al Gore cries ‘Uncle!’”. Or an igloo set up with a sign: “Al Gore’s new home”. Or the description of the snowfall total as “two feet of global warming”. This stuff is coming from actual federal lawmakers and their staff.
It’s not as funny as it was when it was just cartoonists doing it.
(Would someone please tell them the difference between climate and weather? And point out that Vancouver has had to import snow for the Olympics?)
gramma(r) Feb 11th 2010 at 12:01 pm 10
This is where I should’ve posted me global warming comment, which you can read under the Obama “debt snow” cartoon above. Basically, the issue is Climate Change. Global warming is only one part of the climatic changes we’re seeing, and the jokes about snow are lazy, boring and misleading.
Keera Feb 11th 2010 at 02:55 pm 11
Actually, I find the cartoon is funny. The _weather_ is screwing up climate discussions.
Kay Shawn Feb 11th 2010 at 04:02 pm 12
The visual is very nice, though the idea is pretty hack.
FlyingFish Feb 11th 2010 at 04:30 pm 13
Actually, Goldberg’s line isn’t “it’s too expensive to do anything about, so let’s ignore it” but “it’s cheaper and more productive at this point to research big CO2-destroying machines then to make the microscopic dents in the problem that Gore’s reduction plan proposes.” Which isn’t a bad idea but I say “let’s do both!” *slams a beer to the TV*
Ted in Fort Lauderdale Feb 11th 2010 at 05:59 pm 14
FlyingFish - you are correct, he says more “it’s too expensive to do anything about _now_, so let’s ignore it _for now_”. (My paraphrase of
http://article.nationalreview.com/305285/global-cooling-costs-too-much/jonah-goldberg
which says what you say, but doesn’t include the “let’s research” part. This (and other things he’s written on climate change) appear to want to depend on the private sector to magically (i.e., without government paying for it) come up with technologies that solve the problem without impacting him economically - i.e, if we wait 10 years, it’ll be almost free to fix the problem!
He writes somewhat amusingly, but he either has no understanding of science, is being disingenuous, or (most likely) both…
Nicole Feb 11th 2010 at 10:20 pm 15
And Fox (cough cough ) “News” has taken up the cause
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/fox-news-wants-proclaim-blizzards-pr
Lola Feb 11th 2010 at 11:00 pm 16
Geeze. I’m in the heart of this storm, but let me tell you, for all those people who want to wrap themselves in the global warming isn’t happening cloak, it ain’t all that cold. Cold enough for snow, yeah, but for winter temperatures, it’s really quite mild. If someone wanted to argue the model for global climate change, I can’t think of a better, though extremely narrow, example. But that would be wrong too. It’s averages that matter.
If someone you know is packing on the pounds but you never see them eating anything but green salad without dressing, you KNOW that they’re eating something else somewhere else. Similarly, when the climate starts making dramatic swings in behavior and the average temperature is rising, then you know something’s going on.
src666 Feb 12th 2010 at 12:09 am 17
It would be really nice if people would realize that for there to be record snowfalls, there have to be unusual amounts of _moisture_ in the air. Moisture that gets there through evaporation. Evaporation that happens because the temperatures, while cold, are on average warmer than usual.
If it were getting colder, then there would be LESS evaporation, thus less moisture in the air, thus less snow.
So, yes winter is still cold, but not as cold as usual, which leads to more evaporation, which leads to more moisture, which leads to more snow. And it’s still just weather. It’s not climate unless you have a broader, longer pattern to study. Which we do. 2000-2009, warmest decade on record.
Detcord Feb 12th 2010 at 08:04 pm 18
It would be really nice if people would realize that for record snowfalls, or any weather, to be considered evidence for Global Warming, Cooling or Climate Change, then the model that asserts any of these themes has to predict such weather – in advance – after filtering out natural causes, of course. Attributing such weather to any particular hypothesis, after it has happened, is simply predicting the past, an action that proves nothing – except good record keeping.
As for claiming that 2000 – 2009 was the warmest decade on record – don’t make me laugh. The IPCC is already under fire for its false claims and even The Guardian, the most left-wing of the mainstream British papers, acknowledges that:
” [The argument over the weather stations] … further calls into question the integrity of the scientist at the centre of the scandal over hacked climate emails, the director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), Dr Phil Jones. The emails suggest that he helped to cover up flaws in temperature data from China that underpinned his research on the strength of recent global warming. ”
Read it all here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/dispute-weather-fraud
Let’s get those 6000 thermometers back on line and their locations identified and acknowledged as relevant by all parties before we start making “warmest decade” claims. Here in Britain, this has been the coldest winter since 1973 according the Met Office – and last winter wasn’t too hot either.
Valerie Feb 12th 2010 at 09:42 pm 19
Ted, thanks for the tip on a book that sounds as though it gets it correct that Fascism, Nazism, and Communism are all products of the Left. I’ll have to check it out.
src666 Feb 13th 2010 at 12:36 pm 20
There go those reading skills again, Det. I never said that heavy snow indicates global warming. I said it indicated a warmer than usual winter, which is true where it is snowing (the US, remember? Not UK). They are having the truck/fly/whatever snow into Vancouver Canada in _February_ for the winter Olympics. I also said that the current weather is just that - weather.
It’s the people on the denial side of Climate change who keep crying “Ha! It snowed! So much for global warming.” They keep pointing to the weather in one spot, and using it to justify their position.
You can keep harping on the CRU all you like. They are neither the only nor the most important research group studying climate change. The only reason the CRU gets so much attention is because the deniers won’t stop talking about it. They act as if it is the “master puppeteer behind the great global warming conspiracy”, which is really the only lever they have to push on at the moment, since the actual data is against them.
It has been warmer globally over the last 10 years than . That’s a fact. Point to any data you have that refutes that. The fact that it is cold “here in Britain” right now, as you know, doesn’t say one whit about _climate_. That’s weather. If that’s all you have to back up your position, you are in a pretty sad state.
Cidu Bill Feb 13th 2010 at 12:50 pm 21
You know… People can quote and interpret statistics all they want, and debate what those e-mails really mean… but the bottom line is, the freakin’ North Pole is melting. That should really end any debate.
src666 Feb 13th 2010 at 12:50 pm 22
Oh, how I wish for an edit button. “It has been warmer globally over the last 10 years than in prior recorded history”
Detritus Feb 13th 2010 at 04:44 pm 23
There can be no such thing as “global climate change”, because there is no such thing as “global” anything. The world is not a globe. The world is flat. It is a scientific conspiracy just like global warming and evolution: the party is over and we can now see that it’s a fraud.
For example, it’s usually said that the Earth’s shadow on the Moon during an eclipse shows that the Earth must be round. Sure - it shows that the Earth can’t be square. But try cutting a circle out of paper and seeing what shape the shadow is when you hold it in front of a light.
Detcord Feb 13th 2010 at 06:29 pm 24
Cidu Bill (21)
“but the bottom line is, the freakin’ North Pole is melting. That should really end any debate.”
Why?
So the Arctic ice is melting. If true, what does it prove? It’s floating on seawater and will have no impact on sea levels anywhere. And why would one alleged “fact” end all debate?
From The Times: “Wieslaw Maslowski, a climatologist at the US Naval Postgraduate School in California, on whose work Mr Gore based his claim that there is a 75 per cent chance that the North Pole will be completely ice-free within five to seven years, said that this was a misrepresentation of the information he had provided to Mr Gore’s office.”
Here’s the link;
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6958290.ece
In Science, the debate never ends – just ask Albert Einstein’s followers. But theories that make accurate and verifiable predictions – and melting Arctic sea ice isn’t one of them in this debate - is what makes skeptics sit up and take notice. For AGW and Climate Change, we’re still waiting for the testable details. When, if ever, such a model is produced, that’s when the real debate will begin.
Dave in Boston Feb 13th 2010 at 06:55 pm 25
No, because if such a model is produced, there’ll just be a different song. Same as when the deniers could no longer claim with a straight face that there was no warming.
Detcord Feb 13th 2010 at 07:16 pm 26
Dave in Boston (21)
So, we’re in agreement that, “no such model has been produced”. Good! Glad that’s settled. Now, what was the argument again?
Seriously. People who can accurately predict the future write their own song. That’s called science. Seen any accurate climate predictions lately? Ever? If you have some, post a link. I’d like to read it.
Dave in Boston Feb 13th 2010 at 07:26 pm 27
No, I’m not in agreement with you on anything at all (AFAICT), I’m just not interested in shouting myself deaf.
Meanwhile you might want to refine your notion of what “science” is.
Detcord Feb 14th 2010 at 08:25 am 28
Dave in Boston (27)
Thanks for the laugh.
I can do with one, which is why I like to follow comics.
Sadly, I have no “notions” about science to refine. I only go by what I was taught – by scientists and historians. Since you appear to need some help – and I really don’t want you shouting yourself deaf – here’s a handy definition of what Science is. Enjoy!
.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science
Dave in Boston Feb 14th 2010 at 09:08 pm 29
Well, it does certainly seem that you have no notion. Because according to what you seem to believe, all of astrophysics (for example) is pure conjecture. The Big Bang theory? The island-universe hypothesis? Pure speculation.
There’s clearly a problem with that line of reasoning, and the problem isn’t in astrophysics.
Detcord Feb 15th 2010 at 04:43 pm 30
Dave in Boston (29)
Um… Yeah!
The concept of the Big Bang is a “theory”. It is not a “fact” as you apparently think. And there are other alternatives, you know.
An hypothesis is even less: the Priceton website offers this definition - Hypothesis: a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; “a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory”
I like that last part. The one where, “surviving experimental testing”, is a requirement for becoming a theory.
The point, Dave in Boston, is to keep looking, keep testing, keep challenging. I found three alternative theories in just a few minutes of web searching. Some are old, others more recent. String Theory seems to be on the way out – as it hasn’t been able to predict anything. Then there is Expansion Theory, which says the universe is accelerating. http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1126-6708/2001/07/003 and this theory says the Big Bang is wrong. Which one do you believe?
The only problem, Dave in Boston, is when we turn our brains off and refuse to keep seeking and testing. And to forestall your next insult (some hope?), I can assure you my brain is fully switched on.
src666 Feb 15th 2010 at 07:37 pm 31
Detcord, by your definition there are no facts. Everything is a theory. Also by your definition, since everything is a theory, and unproven, then it doesn’t exist.
Just glad to finally understand the context behind your posting.
Detcord Feb 16th 2010 at 04:41 pm 32
src666 (31)
Well src666, you may be on to something, albeit unintentionally. Science (referred to as Epistemology) is a branch of Philosophy, as is the Philosophy of Religion, Ethics, Logic etc. Some of these branches contest the reality of existence. You don’t think they made up that “Matrix” plot out of thin air, do you?
The French philosopher, René Descartes, effectively gave the boundaries of science, when challenged to prove his own existence, by stating the following Latin phrase, “Cogito ergo sum”, which in English means I think, therefore I am; or I am thinking, therefore I exist.
That’s it. That’s all we have to go on. We trust things we can sense with our eyes, ears, nose, touch and taste. Nothing else. Well, we now trust the machines we’ve made with these senses to detect facts beyond our immediate senses. But we don’t assume anything as “fact” until it’s proven.
The Princeton website offers this definition of a Theory: “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world;” I’ve already given the standard definition of an hypothesis in my 30 post. Note how hypotheses and theories try to explain facts.
You don’t have to accept these terms src666. As I noted, Science is only one branch of Philosophy. There are others that do not require this level of rigour and, at the Philosophical level, are just as valid. Religion, for example, usually only requires some sort of fervent belief (and maybe a catechism or doctrine) and generally does not require facts to support that belief.
Science tends to earn its respect through tangible results that can be experienced via those 5 senses. The various religions earn their respect in other ways. Ways which are just as valid to those who believe. Thus it is entirely possible for a scientist to follow a particular religion. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
src666 Feb 17th 2010 at 11:03 pm 33
Ok, then I’ll solve my Detcord problem the same way you solve your GW problem.
A lot of people say that Detcord exists, and seem to be acting as if this were a proven fact, but I haven’t seen any solid proof that there is, in fact, an individual by that name. Judging by the evidence I have personally seen, I suspect that “Detcord” is actually a conspiracy cooked up by some people who would like to muddy the waters on climate science in these comment threads. I suspect this based on the muddled, disjointed and often contradictory positions taken on science. There are also instances where a future instance of “Detcord” seems to not know what a prior instance of “Detcord” has said, furthering my suspicion of a grand, although not very well run, conspiracy.
So, since “Detcord” doesn’t really exist, I can ignore it totally, until the fact of “Detcord’s” existence can be proven beyond all doubt.
Wheee, this is fun!
Dave in Boston Feb 17th 2010 at 11:54 pm 34
_My_ next insult? Hmm. Well, whatever.
A while back you were claiming that climate change isn’t a theory because it doesn’t meet your (excessively narrow) criteria for testability. Most of astrophysics has the same property, only (in many cases) more so. I mention this, and you backpedal. So since you’re now willing to call the Big Bang a theory, I take it you have also dropped your spurious objections to calling climate change a theory. Have you? Or are you only willing to call things theories if they don’t contravene your political agenda? (Hint: that’s called Lysenkoism.) Or are you just spouting denial left and right and hoping nobody will notice it doesn’t make sense?
I suppose another alternative is that src666 is right and you don’t really exist.
Detcord Feb 18th 2010 at 02:37 pm 35
src666 (33)
Dave in Boston (34)
Cogito ergo sum!
src666 Feb 18th 2010 at 02:45 pm 36
I’ll need more evidence of Cogito than I’ve seen here before we can get to the ergo sum.
Detcord Feb 18th 2010 at 04:36 pm 37
src666 (36)
Gosh src666. If that is the level proof you require, then you have just consigned yourself to the level of phantasm. I thought it was very nice of you to offer the opportunity for such an obvious reposte. I had hoped it would prompt a smile. It did for me.
Oh well.