Happy Climate Change Denial Season!

click for comic

Here in New England, the hinterland beyond New York most people forget about until some shitty movie about Southie comes out, it usually gets cold with a few flurries around the end of October, beginning of November. But last week’s freak October snowstorm that hit most of the northeast meant an early start to climate change denial season throughout the nation.

I was reluctant to do a cartoon that made so many parallels to the holiday season; I’m a post-Thanksgiving traditionalist. But Starbucks already changed their cups, and TV ads are already filled with elves and shit so I figured it’s fair game.

While reading up on climate change denial, I came across this funny song from Sydney band, Men with Day Jobs:

I also saw this great graph that illustrates how the deniers perceive the incontrovertible climate change data.

4 thoughts on “Happy Climate Change Denial Season!”

  1. Ahh, many’s the time my parents used to gentle me to sleep with stories of Anthracitius, the Clean Coal Elf. When I learned he was a myth, I cried for weeks.

  2. I can see by your misuse of the word conflate, that you were influenced by Don Curry and his comments on the “Educating the Obvious”. But, I’m afraid you were too slow to get his point. The idea is that when the scientific process is hijacked for political ends, both the scientific and the political process suffer.Your misrepresenting science to forward a political agenda creates the same kind of distortion as the creationists. But, unlike the creationism, there is a gargantuan economic and political payoff of the designation of the globe being the victim of humanity that has a corrupting influence on the science.

    Your claim that the stench of burning tires somehow informs the climate science debate is as silly as you pointing out that science can be corrupted by the wealth of the oil companies and not the influence of the IPCC and the massive related global political and economic interests.

    Mr. Curry made no claims about anything other than your ignorance and bias, but merely reported on the current state of climate science, What his threat was that he interrupted your political agenda, and you shut him down. At least you’re not like the creationists

    So.let’s look directly at the IPCC core advocacy for the Climate Change agenda.

    Phil Jones is director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), the database for climate research for the IPCC, at the University of East Anglia (UEA), which has been a the centre of the row over hacked e-mails, known as “climategate”.
    In an interview with BBC’s environment analyst Roger Harrabin there was a focus is on the data that the hacking uncovered.


    (Keep in mind in reading the answers below that Jones is a very intelligent scientist attempting to preserve his reputation and the integrity of his research unit, and this is the best he could do. The BBC interviewer also has an impeccable British politeness in his insistence. I would suggest that when there is a questionable response or obfuscation it cuts mainly against Jones and the EAU research.):

    “A – Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?”
    After much talking Jones says,”…. the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other”

    B – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
    “Yes, but only just.”
    (This is reflected in the way that the marching slogan of “Global Warming” segued into the marching slogan “Climate Change”)

    C – Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
    “The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.”

    I guess you might say the evidence is robust, overwhelming, and convincing though insignificant in both warming and cooling. And it also is an almost exact paraphrasing of the open letter by climatologists to Moon-Yi at the UN in 2009.

    “Variations in global climate changes in the last hundred years are (not) outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries.”

    And then finally his answer from the IPCC data centeritself…..

    N – When scientists say “the debate on climate change is over”, what exactly do they mean – and what don’t they mean?
    Jones answers “……I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties.”

    So, Brian, who in the real core of the science agrees with you? I wonder why it is so misrepresented in the media.

    This means that when you talk about the almost universal consensus in climate science about global warming, you are propagandizing to forward your personal political goals.

    And I also believe that you will continue to misrepresent the science because you have political goals that you hold more dear than the truth.

    I guess since Milton Friedman neither talked about Ketchup or Climate Change that his similarity to Mr Curry was that he was logical.

    Don’t bother to block me as I won’t be back.


Comments are closed.