Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 12:00 AM ET, 02/11/2011

Misdirection

By Tom Toles

c_02112011.gif

***

Friday rant: loyalty edition

People get loyalty, sort of. The only two people I can count on are me and you, but I'm not too sure about you. We need group loyalty, because we are programmed to trust and rely on our genetic sub-group. You may not know about that, because as yesterday's blog pointed out, we don't "do" evolution in our schools. The other reason we need group cohesion is because there are just too many hard facts to learn them all, so you need a group to help digest the best current evidence.

Take climate, please! I know readers think I can't leave that subject alone, and that's because I can't! Why? Because it is not going to leave us alone. (see: wheat-destroying droughts in Russia, Australia, China sampler). Now I have read a fair bit on the subject and have long since come to the conclusion that the case is VERY strong, but I am relying to a certain extent on a larger group to account for my lack of technical proficiency in a complex science. Who do I rely on? CLIMATE SCIENTISTS! How wacky. Climate science has now been politically discredited, and who would have guessed that such a thing could happen in a country that doesn't teach science in science class.

Deniers, of course, have read up on the subject, too, as they never tire of parading about in the comments section here. They are all about conspiracies, EXCEPT when it comes to wondering about the reliability of information that to a great extent has been generated by the energy industry, whose financial stake in the debate dwarfs the putative conflict for scientists by many orders of magnitude. (Orders of magnitude? Do we do math either?) The energy industry, in a remarkable demonstration of synergy, is destroying the climate AND America's respect for science at the same time. No negative consequences down the road for us with that! Anyway, some have scratched their chins and decided that the energy industry "interpretation" of the facts is the one that shall hold their loyalty, and, wow, hold it it does! My only suggestion, before they bet the whole planet, and THAT IS THE BET, is that they go back and reread the second sentence in this post. --Tom Toles

***

sketchicon_ver1.jpg

s_02112011.gif

By Tom Toles  | February 11, 2011; 12:00 AM ET
Categories:  DC, Metro  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Biblical proportions
Next: Date with destiny

Other Syndicated Editorial Cartoons:

Comments

I, Ron, do not understand the cartoon, Tom Toles. Crazy Horse, and Socrates, and Miranda Cosgrove, who are sitting here with me, do not get it either. But, we are all smiling and laughing, and wondering why Dan Schneider, creator of “iCarly” and “Victorious,” among other confections, can not shimmy up that pole. So, I, Ron, call out to him, “Yo Banana boy, shimmy, shimmy, shimmy!” And he does, but to no avail.

My wife, Miranda, tells me she is not upset with me for losing my job. “You probably won’t find another, but I do not care.” “Thanks for your support, Love,” I say, and then she smacks me. Crazy Horse and Socrates are rolling on the floor, and wondering where she got that crazy pajama top. So, well, Ronish.

Dave McKenna, in his review, claimed my wife won’t ever have street credibility. She just laughed, and told me to make him right, so, here I am, doing my best to undermine her street credibility, because her smile, and her laugh, and the joy and beauty and goodness, I always see in her eyes, compels me.

Socrates suggests you consider the temperature of his cell at the moment he drained his last cup, and compare it to the temperature of the room in which JonBenet Ramsey took her last breath. She is a dear child, and we love her. Both Socrates and JonBenet know there was a temperature in each place, and know how it felt, yet, because Socrates did not have a way to measure temperature, and JonBenet did not check, we are not able to provide an accurate comparison. People could argue themselves blue in the face and make no progress, but it is difficult to imagine why they would. Bad ideas, maybe.

Socrates also suggests you try to measure the amount of justice in his cell, and compare it with the amount of justice in the room from which JonBenet escaped to us. For some reason, we lack a scale to measure it in any objective manner. Yet, a scale is what we need. Imagine discussing climate change without thermometers. Or clocks. Or values.

Long ago, I spent time with an artist at NOAA, in Boulder, listening to him explain how he translated their climate data into images, for them, and seeing the complexity involved in the models they employed. And, before I took my wife to Princeton to see John Nash, and let him know how much we value his work on “Ideal Money and Asymptotically Ideal Money,” I spent time discussing certain difficulties I found, concerning the nature of value, in his work, with Bill McKibben.

My wife, Miranda, loves “Dancing Crazy.” Because she has no need to care who is wrong or right. Love is like that. Always.

Joy to you, Rose.

Posted by: RonLovesRose | February 14, 2011 12:56 AM | Report abuse

http://morphcity.com/home/92-playing-the-global-warming-card
Posted by: DirtFarmer1

Interesting website—features G. Edward Griffin—quick wiki check: John Bircher made documentary about finding Noah’s Ark (1992). okaaaaay….might be a good source of information on the firmament’s crystalline dome Toles referred to a few days ago.

Posted by: e30m42 | February 12, 2011 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Right wingers have a knack for seeing boogie men where there are none (Commies in the State Department and the Army, al Qaeda at the other end of YOUR phone, Iraq has WMDs) and no boogie men where they are there in plain sight (global warming). They live in fear of non-existent conspiracies and deny what those who should know tell them, because it doesn't "feel" right to them. Presumably if there were a choice between their loving families being wiped out and the stock prices of their favorite enterprises rocketing to the moon -- the families would take the hit.

Posted by: BlueTwo1 | February 12, 2011 12:21 AM | Report abuse

The man-made global warming fairy tale is being used as a tool to justify political policies seeking total control over every aspect of human activity everywhere on earth. Therefore, any individual (e.g., Mr. Toles), organization, government or any other entity who considers carbon dioxide a pollutant and harmful is grossly misinformed or is in league with the power structure and is ultimately beyond trust.

http://morphcity.com/home/92-playing-the-global-warming-card

Posted by: DirtFarmer1 | February 12, 2011 12:20 AM | Report abuse

~~~Bertzel, you did indeed ask first.

And I do not know how it all DID begin before the Big Bang. Or where the matter came from, that expanded as a result of the Big Bang... because something had to have been there before the Big Bang, in order for the Big Bang to happen.

"In the beginning..." I'm pretty sure there was nobody around to observe.

Here's a separate-yet-related question: Why does there have to have been a beginning? (I suspect where you may be going with the questions, but am happy to let you lead.)
Posted by: jonroesler | February 11, 2011 2:57 PM ~~~

Bringing your forward jon...hope you don't mind....
In answer to your question;

No problem jonroesler, will lead this “two step” ….your comment reminds me of the question, ‘if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?’
Always thought that to be a stupid question, tho some people believe there are no stupid questions. Go figure.
That being said, and yes, I truly enjoy your question.
I don’t agree with Hawkings who, in fact, believes that “ALL” began with the Big Bang (cool song by the way).
So, to put it as simply as I can (the ‘ole -two -step if you will) you must have ‘something’ to beget something. No?
In other words, if there is nothing, nothing exists. Therefore, only nothing can be created from nothing.
Your turn.

Posted by: bertzel | February 11, 2011 9:04 PM | Report abuse

Some seem to argue that since the earth’s climate varied in the past humans can’t affect it now. Others claim that since the CO2 content of the atmosphere is miniscule, it can’t possibly affect climate. While we are trotting out our scientists, here is a video with slideshow of a lecture by Richard Alley, highly prolific and oft-cited geologist from Penn State, on why CO2 is “the biggest knob in the climate machine,” given to an SRO audience of some 2000 geoscientists at the December 2009 meeting of the American Geophysical Union. He gives an overview of the past 600 million years of earth history.

http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml

Posted by: e30m42 | February 11, 2011 7:52 PM | Report abuse

Regarding today's topic, what are "proper policies" being thwarted.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 11, 2011 5:43 PM | Report abuse

But Tom's point is that ideology IS trumping science. The whole point behind the Big Lie is that if you shout it loud enough and long enough, you can enough people to believe it to thwart proper policies.

Posted by: ebtnut | February 11, 2011 3:42 PM | Report abuse

"Easter's End," by Jared Diamond.

The more inertia we gain, the less chance there is of changing direction. That statement applies to population growth and resource depletion and other changes we are making to the only home we have, in the same way it applies to physical bodies.

Understanding inertia, however, also requires a basic understanding of science.

We really, really need to do something to change direcion.

Posted by: jonroesler | February 11, 2011 3:04 PM | Report abuse

@dalyplanet - Now you switch to "argumentum ad verecundiam". At least that's an improvement over asking a barely relevant two-valued question attempting to argue a multi-valued issue.

What your list of "authorities" presents, however, is "my experts are more expert than your experts", which is both untrue and logically fallacious. When an "expert" presents a distortion or falsehood, whether it's in his field or not, it's still distorted or false. Credentials don't trump facts. Ideology doesn't trump science.

Posted by: fbrewer1 | February 11, 2011 2:10 PM | Report abuse

e30m42

The prophet himself,

James E. Hansen born March 29, 1941

What about Lindzen,is he a believer or a denier in your opinion.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 11, 2011 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone read Collapse by Jered Diamond? That outlines what will happen if we permit short term benefits trump long term considerations - We will cease to be!

Posted by: jmh6 | February 11, 2011 1:56 PM | Report abuse

dalyplanet

Were any of these guys born after WW2? Average age of the first four is 75!

Lindzen, b. 1940; Abdusamatov, b. 1940; Tennekes, b. 1936; Chilingar, BS, 1949, b. ca.1927?

Posted by: e30m42 | February 11, 2011 1:52 PM | Report abuse

quiensabe wrote:
Not opposing a woman's right to choose is constitutional. But what about the life [read: gestation] of the baby [read: fetus] she chooses to end? What about the baby's [read: fetus's] constitutional right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?

---
The phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. As to a fetus having constitutional rights, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Note the word "born" in the first sentence. It does not say "gestating."

Posted by: EthelredtheUnready | February 11, 2011 1:51 PM | Report abuse

e30m42

I said

This guy might be an oil guy

* George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California: "The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major suppl

I put him in as a joke to see if anyone was paying attention.

Tennekes is THE fluid dynamics god to date.

Abdusamatov is kinda like M Mann on the opposite side of the argument, fast and loose. I have 20 more but was feeling futile that this list would be looked at.Thanks for looking.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 11, 2011 1:26 PM | Report abuse

wvng

Tim Patterson view is peer reviewed and published, but the IPCC forgot to include it in the report.

The website you reference is the biggest AGW cheerleader on the web and their bias is well known. There are libraries of contradictory papers available. How are you so certain the Hansen model is perfect.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 11, 2011 12:42 PM | Report abuse

dalyplanet:

Google “Abdusamatov” and the second hit down, just below Wikipedia, gets “The uncritical parroting of Khabibullo Abdusamatov; last ditch effort of the denialists”

Or Tennekes: hit #2: “has not published any original research in a peer-reviewed journal since 1990.”

Or Chilingar: hit #5: Just how bad is Chilingar’s latest paper?” #6: “Is this science?”

Posted by: e30m42 | February 11, 2011 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Good morning Tom. I have been on the same page as you on the following subject for quite a while: "Deniers, of course, have read up on the subject, too, as they never tire of parading about in the comments section here. They are all about conspiracies, EXCEPT when it comes to wondering about the reliability of information that to a great extent has been generated by the energy industry, whose financial stake in the debate dwarfs the putative conflict for scientists by many orders of magnitude."

Expanding on that, climate scientists "financial stake" is dependent on producing research that passes peer review muster in the short term, and stands up to scrutiny in the longer term. The only value in science that matters is doing substantive research, that is the only path to success as a scientist. What possible reason would scientists have for doing crappy work? It won't get published or, if published, will soon be exposed and their career damaged or ruined.

The denier think tanks and their acolytes who haunt your comment section, on the other hand, don't do actual science that stands up to scrutiny, they do obfuscation, and they are very well paid to do so. This really shouldn't be hard to understand.

The folks that dalyplanet is quoting above are in many cases substantive scientists doing worthwhile research. If they have expertise and related research in the field of climate change, then they should certainly publish it (if it passes muster) and see how it is received. Tim Patterson's point below about high levels of CO2 in ancient times is readily addressed by scientists working in the field: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

Posted by: wvng | February 11, 2011 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Are these guys in energy's pocket Mr Toles

* Nicola Scafetta, Pubs research scientist in the physics department at Duke University, wrote a booklet proposing a phenomenological theory of climate change based on the physical properties of the data. Scafetta describes his conclusions writing "At least 60% of the warming of the Earth observed since 1970 appears to be induced by natural cycles which are present in the solar system. A climatic stabilization or cooling until 2030–2040 is forecast by the phenomenological model."

* Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."

* August H. "Augie" Auer Jr. (1940–2007) believed that the cause of global warming was unknown. Retired New Zealand MetService Meteorologist, past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming, in 2006 he said: "So if you multiply the total contribution 3.6 by the man-made portion of it, 3.2, you find out that the anthropogenic contribution of CO2 to the global greenhouse effect is 0.117 percent, roughly 0.12 percent, that's like 12c in $100." "'It's miniscule ... it's nothing,'".

* Marcel Leroux (1938–2008) believed global warming was primarily caused by natural processes. former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin, in 2005 he said: "The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, ... solar activity, ...; volcanism ...; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 11, 2011 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Are these guys oil guys Mr Toles?

* Garth Paltridge,Pubs Visiting Fellow ANU and retired Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired Director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre."There are good and straightforward scientific reasons to believe that the burning of fossil fuel and consequent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to an increase in the average temperature of the world above that which would otherwise be the case. Whether the increase will be large enough to be noticeable is still an unanswered question."

* Antonino Zichichi,Pubs emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists : "models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view". He has also said, "It is not possible to exclude that the observed phenomena may have natural causes. It may be that man has little or nothing to do with it"

* Tim Patterson, Pubs paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

* Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo: "The IPCC's temperature curve (the so-called 'hockey stick' curve) must be in error...human influence on the 'Greenhouse Effect' is minimal (maximum 4%). Anthropogenic CO2 amounts to 4% of the ~2% of the "Greenhouse Effect", hence an influence of less than 1 permil of the Earth's total natural 'Greenhouse Effect' (some 0.03 °C of the total ~33 °C)."

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 11, 2011 11:30 AM | Report abuse

~~~~This guy might be an oil guy. daly~~~

When I first read that I thought you were referring to the guy in the toon. : )

Posted by: bertzel | February 11, 2011 11:28 AM | Report abuse

This guy might be an oil guy

* George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California: "The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible."

What about these guys

* Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy – almost throughout the last century – growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."

* Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance."

* Richard Lindzen,Pubs Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But – and I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future."[4] "[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas – albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 11, 2011 10:54 AM | Report abuse

The problem with the cartoon is that it implies that Metro escalators actually work.

Posted by: AxelDC | February 11, 2011 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Regarding the "sketch" toon today, here's MY Friday rant;

It's amazing how many people are unemployed and have given up filing for unemployment, and also the numbers that are underemployed (I have some of both in my family). Yet, the stock market goes up, and the financial sector continues to make huge profits.

Americans don't make many "things" anymore. Our economy seems to hinge on making money. Someone on Wall St. takes some money from a bank, an investor, a corporation, etc...moves it here, stashes it there, launders it (sometimes legally) somewhere else, and viola!...you have MORE money! And the stock market goes up, and the GDP shows more in the "black" column. But meanwhile, no jobs are created. Well, not here anyway. Oh some poor schlep in China or India gets an assembly line job, doing something repetitive for 6 or 7 days a week for $12 a week; but the only ones here that benefit are WalMart (because they sell that product and make a huge profit), and the guy moving the money around.

Oh, and I left out the other big beneficiary in all this; the politician who makes it easy for WalMart and the guy moving money around to keep doing what they're doing, so they can give some money to the politician, who will help them make even more of it. And if he doesn't help them make more of it? They simply use it to fund someone who will, or buy smear ads comparing him to satan, Stalin, Hitler, etc.

You want to make a difference (those of you who HAVE jobs, that is)? Look for something, anything, made locally, and buy it. Get to know your local sustainable agricultural producer and buy from them. Join a local Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) operation, and buy from them. Lobby for publically funded elections to get big money out of politics. (I don't think any of us can even imagine an election where a small bit of tax money is all the candidates are allowed to spend, but wouldn't it be cool?)

We have one common enemy in this country; the concentration of money. Those that have too much of it are controling every aspect of how we live, what we eat (watch "Food, Inc" if you haven't yet), the media we see, the laws we get. Our politicians are beholden to no one except contributors, and these contributors often include the media giants that keep consolidating, who then feed us just the right amount of crud to make sure we keep feeding the machine.

We don't need bigger corporations (who now have more rights than people). We need locally sustainable economies. Jobs are multiplying overseas and decreasing here for one reason...corporations can make more money (and keep their stock prices up) if they use cheap labor from the other side of the world. Globalization, where people are allowed to be exploited to line the pockets of a few, is not going to solve our problems. In fact, I postulate that it is the source of most of them.

Posted by: PrairieDog60 | February 11, 2011 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Why do I argue with you true believers?

One of the solutions to reduce CO2 has been to 'grow' fuel. I spent time trying to stop that plan ten years ago but it has developed. How much CO2 reduction, some studies say there is more CO2 with ethanol due to manufacture costs and very little energy gain.

Another result is the price of corn has gone from two dollars a bushel to seven and will probably hit eight. This will cause ethanol production facilities to go bankrupt as the cost is too high. The cost of our food will also rise to reflect this quadruple of a basic ingredient\ feedstock. We end up with large price increases, diminishing food stocks world wide, and NO environmental benefit at all.

Carbon capture and storage is on the tracks and ready to leave the station and will be the next ethanol project. It will raise the cost of everything and do little or nothing to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels. We all need to stop this train, believers and non believers alike.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 11, 2011 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Are all these guys oil guys Mr Toles??

* David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming."

* William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology: "There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences.

* William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential."[20] "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."[21] "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."

* William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University: "all the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings. In fact, it's not as much as past warmings yet, and it probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide"

* Don Easterbrook,Pubs emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University: "global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035"

* Ian Clark,Pubs hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation – which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 11, 2011 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Ah, loyalty..... yes Tom, you are a loyal climate alarmist.
And I am a loyal skeptic! Without even attempting to argue or articulate the actual detailed reasons for my skeptism, I sense a profound degree of projection on your part. You say we're all about conspiracies, yet then in the same breath you suggest the energy companies are in essense conspiring to destroy the planet for evil profit. Well, yes, one does need to follow the money...and in this case, it will lead you right to the door of the greatest scam artist in history.... a certain former VP, prominant climate scientist, "documentary" film maker, Nobel Prize winner, need I go on....
AGW (oops sorry, climate change) is a religion to the left; there is no room or tolerance for discussion, reason, analysis, or debate. It is belief.
Those of us that suspect, but more importantly, OBSERVE less than honorable motives and actions by the advocates and ultimate beneficiaries should not, and will not just sit back and watch and, worst yet, EXPERIENCE the real negative consequences of these proposed draconian "fixes" to a "problem", not fully understood, or clearly diagnosed.
The real shame is the actual damage done to the credibility of the scientific community at large, with the clear corruption and compromising of a fundamental principle of all scientific study and research... peer-review. The perversion of this process under the IPCC and other groups has been the real crime. Hmmm... perhaps, just perhaps is this another result of the perversion of science education??... oops, another conspiracy theory.

Posted by: Shrimper | February 11, 2011 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Toles, don't stop the commentary on our attitude toward climate change. It's too important to sweep under the table.

Why this nation should be so full of people CONVINCED that they in their wisdom have penetrated the "lies" of scientists is amazing to me...I do hold the massive funding of denier propaganda by the Koch brothers and ExxonMobil under the direction of former chairman Lee Hamilton responsible to some degree. Propaganda works, especially in a vacuum. Who reads sober, measured scientific reports when they can get an emotional charge out of hysterical accusations of conspiracies? So keep up your barrage of cartoons.

Posted by: desmodia | February 11, 2011 9:25 AM | Report abuse

The energy industry would try to mislead the public? No way. BP was just trying to bring oil to American shores.

Posted by: wireman65 | February 11, 2011 8:51 AM | Report abuse

Ray of hope?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/feb/11/carbon-nation-climate-change-documentary

Posted by: antietam | February 11, 2011 8:21 AM | Report abuse

", as they never tire of parading about in the comments section here."

I am tired enough. But I just want Mr. Toles to say (someday) "I should ask more questions."

That will fix my attitude. But please do not call me a denier. "Retired Science Librarian" will do.

Posted by: GaryEMasters | February 11, 2011 7:59 AM | Report abuse

Manmade global warming hoaxers are definitely part of the Ponzi and Madoff subgroup. Gore's name will eventually be etched along with this illustrious group of scammers.

Posted by: billybeer6 | February 11, 2011 6:37 AM | Report abuse


Very interesting comment, lufrank1. I wish my horizons were broader than “Evolution is a Science.” That way I could comment on stem cell research, and a woman's right to choose. But I've told Tom that I would only comment when he brings up climate change and then only about evolution being a science. Whew! Two days in a row I've to double down.

Abortion is one result of a woman's right to choose. Stem cell research is another result of a woman's right to choose. Not opposing a woman's right to choose is constitutional. But what about the life of the baby she chooses to end? What about the baby's constitutional right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? For that child, how old the earth is or whether global warming is true or not is irrelevant.

Enough of that. I've already broken my resolution. After all, “Evolution is a Science.” As a science, the fact of it can be duplicated and observed in a laboratory. It can can't it?

Posted by: quiensabe | February 11, 2011 4:20 AM | Report abuse

Yes, I know some of you will reply about climate v. weather, and how blizzards and hurricanes are a byproduct of our CO2 emissions, etc.

Give Mother Earth a chance.

We will be gone long before the Sun absorbs this little rock.

Posted by: chaunceygardener | February 11, 2011 12:38 AM | Report abuse

"Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get."

~Robert A. Heinlein

Equating recent local weather abnormalities with global climate is absurd.

~If the roots are sound, and the soil is good, there will be growth in the Spring~

Posted by: chaunceygardener | February 11, 2011 12:14 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Toles writes, "The energy industry...is destroying the climate."
Mr. Toles would apparently have us believe that there will soon be no climate! Obviously, this is absurd, and deomonstrates the absurdity of his beliefs and arguments.

Posted by: DirtFarmer1 | February 10, 2011 11:19 PM | Report abuse

Absolutely on TARGET!

Please include the religious extremists who oppose stem cell research and a woman's right to choose, and who believe and PREACH that Everyone (including Jews and children) who don't accept Jesus as God and savior are going to suffer eternal "firey" torment.

Posted by: lufrank1 | February 10, 2011 10:01 PM | Report abuse

Why? Eyes of needles, camels and rich men come to mind.
But for the life of me why does anyone—especially my own highly “educated” kin, oh help me god—believe the earth is 6,000 years old?
PS: I love the 'toons!
Posted by: e30m42

My Comment...
It is all about how people see things.
Some people see things realistically and other people see things figuratively.

Some people see the eye of a needle as the eye of a sewing needle and other people see the eye of a needle as a low gate that the camels have to kneel down to get through the gate.

Some rich men see their wealth as an opportunity to make other people successful and other rich men see their wealth as never enough and as a means to subjugate other people.

Some people see money as a means to an end and other mean people see money as a source of power over others.

Some people see money as a means to fix things and other people see money as a means to destroy things.

Money is all in the eye of the beholder for good or evil. Money is only numbers but they are the numbers that add up to either success or failure.
Money can be the root of evil or the tree of life.

On the subject of how old the earth is...
The Bible does not say how old the earth is and time is not a constant. It is based on one revolution of the earth. The rotation of the earth could be slower or faster. According to the Bible, a day to God is as a thousand years.
The age of the earth to people is not as important as how much longer it survives.
Dave

Posted by: OckamsRazor | February 10, 2011 9:24 PM | Report abuse

Thank union labor for the performance, results and extra exercise.

Posted by: jornolibist | February 10, 2011 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Continuing from my post yesterday:

I find it much more believable that the fossil fuel industry is waging a deliberate campaign of disinformation than to believe that 97% (or so) of climate scientists have fabricated the largest conspiracy in history (especially because I’ve worked in both fields).

Why? Eyes of needles, camels and rich men come to mind.

But for the life of me why does anyone—especially my own highly “educated” kin, oh help me god—believe the earth is 6,000 years old?

PS: I love the 'toons!

Posted by: e30m42 | February 10, 2011 8:12 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company