Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Josh 57 | Main | Wind capacity again »

Josh 56

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (26)

That is brilliant, Josh.

Dec 2, 2010 at 11:31 AM | Unregistered Commentere smith

Superb. Good to see you back and on top form,

Dec 2, 2010 at 11:51 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Another classic :)

Dec 2, 2010 at 12:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterFrosty

Josh strikes at the heart of the matter once again! :)

Dec 2, 2010 at 12:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterSimon Hopkinson

Hate to be the a**hole here but Josh can do a lot better. Why do the figures have to look so likable?

Dec 2, 2010 at 12:17 PM | Unregistered CommentersHx

Well, sHx, I am much more interested in the science and policy angle than taking down personalities.

But, hey, cross my palm with silver...

Dec 2, 2010 at 12:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterJosh

Why do the figures have to look so likable?

Because (I presume) portraying your opponents as detestable people just comes across as crude propaganda and suggests that you don't actually have much of a point to make.

Dec 2, 2010 at 12:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

Anudder nice one Josh.

A dish of humble pie in front of each of the apologistas might have enforced the facts against their fictions.


Dec 2, 2010 at 1:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterRETEPHSLAW

"Why do the figures have to look so likable?"

Well, it is 'surreal climate'...

BTW, I note that the domain name (and other suffices) is available. Worth registering?

Dec 2, 2010 at 2:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

One thing I like about Josh's cartoons is that the people portrayed generally look so likable, somehow it adds a certain refinement.

Dec 2, 2010 at 3:27 PM | Unregistered Commenterpax

Spot on Martin A !

Josh you got their coprophagic grins just right!

Dec 2, 2010 at 3:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

Thanks for that word Don Pablo!

Dec 2, 2010 at 4:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterAaliamzen

I do like 'Conical Al'. Just so.

Dec 2, 2010 at 5:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

The evidence is going the other way.

LOW, grey clouds help keep the planet cool. But as the world warms they will shrink and temperatures will rise ever higher, according to a study that could help to resolve one of the biggest uncertainties in climate science.
--------------- view/ generic/ id/ 66902/ title/ Food_security_wanes_as_world_warms

Food security wanes as world warms
Global warming may have begun outpacing ability of farmers to adapt

———– releases/ 2010/ 12/ 101201134156.htm

Loss of Species Large and Small Threatens Human Health, Study Finds

ScienceDaily (Dec. 1, 2010) — The loss of biodiversity — from beneficial bacteria to charismatic mammals — threatens human health. That’s the conclusion of a study published this week in the journal Nature by scientists who study biodiversity and infectious diseases.

Dec 3, 2010 at 4:19 AM | Unregistered CommenterMike


and how about this one....

H/T commenter Rhaan on EUReferendum

Dec 3, 2010 at 9:49 AM | Unregistered CommenterMessenger


It is an interesting article. I'm not sure why you are posting it in response to my post. But yes, economic growth, under our current economic/energy structure, has negative environmental impacts. The challenge is to find a way to have sustainable economic development. As the EU report says on page 70: "Europe's ambition is to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation." Denying the basic science (or economic realities) as Josh's fantasy cartoon does, gets us no where.

Dec 3, 2010 at 1:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike


The Lauer modelled study of low ocean cloud cover is not 'basic science' so please don't present it as such. It is highly speculative, and should be treated with care not preached as gospel.

Excepting the Russian harvest failures this year that even NOAA cannot ascribe to AGW, the price hikes in cereals over the last decade are the product of population growth and market speculation, not climate change.

The biodiversity study in Nature is about the thousandth such paper I have seen this year. All are at heart advocacy, and very few present genuinely robust conclusions. I doubt this one will be any different.

Please take your wearying blend of scaremongering and assumed moral superiority somewhere else.

Josh is a cartoonist for God's sake. If you cannot take some gentle ribbing from Josh, you really need to get out more.

Dec 3, 2010 at 1:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD


I think you are referring to my posts, not Martin's. The cloud cover study is real science, but I never said it was definitive. I said it was evidence. You dismiss the Nature article, without looking at it, because lots of other researches have come to similar conclusions. That's like saying 2+2=5 because most fools think it is 4. Food issues are complex and climate change is not the only factor. That's no reason to ignore the studies referred to. You show the classic signs of being in denial.

The link I gave to the Science News article does not work because somehow additional spaces were inserted in it. (Same for the Science Daily link.) Just Google the title if you interested. Science News links to this report:

It is a report and not a peer reviewed article and it is put out by an advocacy organization. Judge it on its merits.

And for the record Josh draws really well. In disagreeing with him I am not disparaging him as an artist.

Dec 4, 2010 at 10:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike


Sorry about the name confusion. Possibly the phone rang.

I note you are touting these links round elsewhere, eg WUWT, which is trolling. Naughty, that.

I am glad to hear that you give Josh the artistic credit due.

Less pleased with this: 'You show the classic signs of being in denial'.

You show the classic signs of being ill-informed. Research the role played by certain hedge funds and investment banks in gaming the markets over the last decade. The effect on world grain prices is being misrepresented by wind-up activists such as yourself.

I am sick of doing homework for other people, but just to get you off the blocks, here's a little snippet from the World Development Movement's own blog:

And here's something in the Independent (a UK newspaper):

Instead of wasting your time and energy on trolling the comments here, why not go and do something useful. Expose this horrific injustice. Protest. Smash a few windows.

I did look at the Nature article, then 'dismissed' it (as you put it) on the basis that it had all the hallmarks of scientific advocacy and non whatever of hard academic plausibility. Sorry if that offends.

I found that all the links you provided worked, so I'm not sure what's happened there.

Now, go and do some reading.

Dec 5, 2010 at 1:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD


Just for completeness' sake:

The cloud cover study is real science, but I never said it was definitive. I said it was evidence.

No, you said it was 'basic science' (see below). You then went on to claim that your rubbish about food price hikes being caused by climate change affecting crop yields was 'economic reality' (see below).

Denying the basic science (or economic realities) as Josh's fantasy cartoon does, gets us no where.

Don't come back.

Dec 5, 2010 at 3:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD


You are obviously an angry person. I know most bullies are very sad people. You have my sympathy.

Josh's cartoon makes no reference the the cloud study. Josh's cartoon is referring to the basic science of climate change, not anyone recent study. My parenthetical reference to economic realities was not about the food study or Josh's cartoon. That's why it was in parenthesizes. In my opinion some people on both sides of the AGW debate ignore economic realities.

I will read your links.

Dec 5, 2010 at 4:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike


I did my homework! And I am back. Here is another snippet from the World Development Movement's site.

"Climate change is the greatest challenge facing humanity. But it is not just an environmental issue, it is a development issue, and a global justice issue.

It is our excessive carbon emissions that are driving climate change. Rich countries are responsible for almost three quarters of global emissions. But it is poor countries that are bearing the brunt of the impact. Hundreds of millions face drought, floods, starvation, disease and death.

WDM is calling on the UK government to take action to reduce the UK’s emissions and show the rest of the world that it can be done. WDM is campaigning to stop climate injustice."

Your a basic problem is poor logic - and anger management. If A causes C then you assume B cannot also cause C or cause C to be even worse. There is just no basis for this.

For the record, I find the WDM's positions to be extreme and I would not reply on the WDM as a source of objective information. Also for the record, I appreciate this blog's owner for being open minded enough to allow me to post here.

Dec 5, 2010 at 4:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike


I am angry - with you - because you are one of an army of people whose collective actions over the last two decades have caused untold harm.

You self-identify through the kind of scattergun green advocacy exemplified by your earlier comments here. This means you are a climate alarmist and therefore a proponent of renewable energy.

This in turn means you are, in your small but clearly active way, responsible for the disaster overtaking UK energy policy. When the destructive influence of climate activism on energy policy becomes more apparent, perhaps you will begin to understand the depth of my antipathy to what you - collectively and individually - have done.

Then there's the vile business of misrepresenting the cause of grain price rises and the starvation and misery caused thereby as a consequence of climate change.

People like you, pushing your activist agenda, have provided some of the worst elements of capitalism with the perfect smokescreen.

Again, perhaps you would do me the kindness of carefully considering your personal culpability in this matter.

Interestingly, you call me a bully because your actions have provoked an angry response. This is a fundamentally dishonest misdirection.

Dec 5, 2010 at 4:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Our posts cross.

You cherry pick out the reference to climate change, totally ignore the entire substance of the WDM comment, make no reference to the newspaper article, and then attack me for supposedly weak logic.

Finally, and predictably, you attempt to delegitimise the WDM. Ho hum.

Transparently disingenuous and highly revealing.

Dec 5, 2010 at 4:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD


Anyone who pays attention to the weather knows that it is often 2 c warmer when there is cloud cover at night. I find your cloud cover "finding" total ballcocks. And as for New Scientist, they have no credibility in my mind. They are as bad as Nature

And I agree with the dressing down BBD gave you. People are starving because of the grain being made into fuel is driving up prices for food. Come down off your lofty perch and look at the damage your lot are doing.

Why ethanol production will drive world food prices even higher in 2008

Dec 5, 2010 at 5:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra


I share your concerns about ethanol driving up food prices. The report I referred to addresses this as well. There are multiple causes of instability of food prices. There is evidence that climate change is emerging as one of them. There is legitimate concern that human caused climate cause will have a greater impact on food production in future decades.

I am against government subsides for the ethanol industry for a number of reasons. I do support funding for cellulose to ethanol research.

Clouds have a cooling effect during the day and a warming effect at night. Whether the net result is cooling or warming depends on other factors like the counds' altitude. The study claims to show the low clouds which tend to have a net cooling effect will decrease with warming. It was a limited study using computer models. The author claims his model is an improvement on earlier models. Many skeptics have predicted cloud cover would increase with temperature and provide a negative feedback. There is not yet enough evidence to known what the impact clouds with have. But this study breaks new ground in computer modeling and provides evidence that clouds may be a positive feedback. If so, then the higher end of the IPCC protections may be the more realistic.

Dec 5, 2010 at 6:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>