Why is there so much preoccupation with atmospheric CO2 concentrations and reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions when it is well documented in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that the CO2 contribution to the overall greenhouse effect is so weak that it can be easily supplanted by small changes in clouds and water vapor, or natural climate-changing constituents?

http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/19/new-paper-documents-imperceptible-co2-influence-on-the-greenhouse-effect-since-1992/

Monday, 10 June 2013

Mad Men of Climate-Change Alarmism: you don't want their agitation anywhere near your children

These are alarmed men, obsessed with notions of impending doom thanks to rising levels of CO2.  There is neither observational nor theoretical evidence to warrant such alarm.  It is instead only supported by some computer models all but universally agreed to be woefully inadequate* in the face of the complexity of the climate system.  The emotive excesses of these men and of those who have been unduly influenced by them are not suitable for children.  Children should be protected from scaremongering in order that they may have a more carefree childhood.  

CartoonsByJosh.com
The above cartoon by Josh is a response to one entitled 'Mad Men of Climate-Change Denial' where these words are in the accompanying text 'At a time when the emergency warning light is flashing on climate change, these scoundrels help to confuse the issue, making it seem as though there is scientific debate where there is no significant scientific disagreement.'(Brodner)

Mad Men of Climate Denial
My comment to that post was not published, and was, from memory, approximately as follows:
"That climate changes, always has always will, is settled science.  That the CO2 molecule absorbs and emits infra-red radiation is settled science.  What is not at all settled is the relative importance of the latter on the former.  Here there is room for considerable debate, a debate in which the men in your cartoon have all made excellent contributions." 

There is some discussion of both of these cartoons at WUWT, along with these links with further information on some of the doings of the characters in Josh's cartoon:
'References to names:
Al Carbon Billionaire Gore: Al Gore could become world’s first carbon billionaire – UK Telegraph, Nov 3, 2009
Gavin Real Climate Disappoints Schmidt: One could even ask whether the effort that we have put into RealClimate has been in vain. The legend of the Titanic – RealClimate, 3 May 2012
James Death Train Hansen: Coal-fired power stations are death factories. Close them “The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains.” – UK Guardian, 14 February 2009
Mikey One Tree Hockey Stick Mann: Climategate reveals ‘the most influential tree in the world’ -UK Telegraph, 05 Dec 2009
Stephan It’s a conspiracy Lewandowsky: 10 conspiracy theorists makes a moon landing paper for Stephan Lewandowsky JoNova, September 6th, 2012
Peter The Thief Gleick: Breaking, Gleick Confesses, WUWT, Feb 20, 2012
Eric The Red Antarctic Steig: O’Donnell et al 2010 Refutes Steig et al 2009, ClimateAudit, Dec 2, 2010
Scott Super Mandia: Climate Craziness of the Week: Supermandia, WUWT, October 31, 2011
Kevin It’s a travesty there’s no wamin’ Trenberth: The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. Climategate Emails, Wed, 14 Oct 2009'

Note added later on 10 June 2013 Here is another picture with more of the 'Climate Change Mad Men' in it (h/t Paul Matthews) and this is presumably what the Brodner one above was responding to:

1 comment:

  1. Awesome, great cartoons. Climate change science though is like a Government program - too many people have a vested interest in perpetrating it so you can't get rid of it.

    ReplyDelete