Seen elsewhere

 

Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

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

Powered by Squarespace
« Josh 75 | Main | Commenting problems »
Saturday
Feb052011

Josh 74

More cartoons by Josh here.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (47)

[Inflammatory. Could you stop this kind of thing please]

Feb 5, 2011 at 7:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterAnoneumouse

Anoneumouse

Another unfortunate choice of words. Perhaps less inflammatory similes might be more helpful.

Feb 5, 2011 at 7:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Josh

Nicely distilled.

Feb 5, 2011 at 7:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Josh, you've perfectly captured both Gavin's noble features and his impeccable logic.

Now this is not a slight to the artist, but the dimensions of the images lead me to wonder whether there might be a potential green business opportunity to be had here.

Feb 5, 2011 at 7:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterBT

@ BBD

(-:

Feb 5, 2011 at 7:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterAnoneumouse

BT, hilarious...tnx.

Feb 5, 2011 at 7:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterJosh

My comment was only inflammatory if you read into it something that was never said, but hey, I guess deleting my inflammatory words means from your perspective the argument is settled eh

SHAME

Feb 5, 2011 at 7:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterAnoneumouse

Here's a variation on the caption

From the pages of Gavin Schmidt's pictorial climatology programming textbook...

science != settled; if (gavin && convenient) science == settled; problem = fred;

Feb 5, 2011 at 8:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterZT

ZT, thanks! Clever.

Feb 5, 2011 at 8:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterJosh

Josh,

I demand you produce the evidence that Schmidt actually said those things!

Feb 5, 2011 at 8:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn M

March Hare: Then you should say what you mean.
Alice: I do; at least - at least I mean what I say -- that's the same thing, you know.

Feb 5, 2011 at 8:34 PM | Unregistered Commentersimpleseekeraftertruth

John, ah the evidence!

Gavinology is a young scientific language that can only be understood by certain people. And translating it is the selfless pursuit of dedicated blogging professionals. The popularity of this work is beyond doubt, settled even.

What I am really doing here is what is known as the Tallbloke translation technique, finely crafted by very tall people who can see things from a very long way away (Lisbon, for example).

Of course I may well be wrong, but then that's nuance for you, it's uncertain.

But it is the next best thing to having a Babel fish in your ear.

Feb 5, 2011 at 8:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterJosh

Congratulations Josh - you just get better and better. This is real laugh out loud stuff!

And to quote T.S. Eliot:

Humour is also a way of saying something serious

Feb 5, 2011 at 9:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterScottie

On the serious side for a second - I had not seen this before. Have I missed it??

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p41.htm

I am told that 32,000 scientists (9,000 PhDs) are signed up to this.

Feb 5, 2011 at 10:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterRetired Dave

After years of expensive PR to establish a consensus of settled science, Gavin disappears the consensus, and himself to the Bore Hole

Feb 5, 2011 at 11:04 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charley

After years of expensive PR to establish a consensus of settled science, Gavin disappears the consensus, and himself to the Bore Hole

Feb 5, 2011 at 11:06 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charley

The Gavinator, more lethal to AGW, than Gerald Ratner to sales of cheap jewellry

Feb 5, 2011 at 11:16 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charley

Josh 10/10 as usual!

Its going to get harder though, Gavin is going the same way as Hansen. There's little fun to be had ridiculing the ridiculous. Gavin's latest indignant outburst is just, well, bizarre, what will he do next!

Feb 6, 2011 at 12:52 AM | Unregistered CommenterGSW

Gavin doesn't say "the science is settled", he says "97% of climate scientists agree the science is settled".

Feb 6, 2011 at 3:40 AM | Unregistered CommenterSimon Hopkinson

On the serious side for a second - I had not seen this before. Have I missed it??

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p41.htm

I am told that 32,000 scientists (9,000 PhDs) are signed up to this.

Yes Dave, it has been around for a long time and it is potent, The "real climate scientist" will say that most of these are not climate scientist. This is absurd. Scientist as a whole are a conservative, (not talking politics) lot, who tend to take pride in not coming to premature and unfounded conclusions. CAGW is highly charged politicaly with immense policy recommendations, so qualifed scientist decided on their own to look at the evidence, and they are NOT impressed, and they are qualifed to form an opinion.

Feb 6, 2011 at 5:44 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid

Does Josh have any plans to publish a book of his cartoon's, it would be an ideal stocking filler for next Xmas.
John Lyon

Feb 6, 2011 at 10:34 AM | Unregistered Commenterjohn Lyon

Yesterday I was told to 'sling your hook' and 'run along now' . Such is the standard of rhetoric amongst Bishop Hill devotees. So whilst Josh is undoubtedly a talented artist I have to say his choice of subject matter seems a little inappropriate , since we are not all laughing together.

Feb 6, 2011 at 11:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterHengist McStone

You were invited to up you game or leave Hengist.

Regrettably you did neither.

Feb 6, 2011 at 12:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Hengist

If you don't like the way I run things here, you are under no obligation to participate. I'm also not sure you should be criticising the rhetoric on this site. Your own site's standards seem quite poor on this front.

Feb 6, 2011 at 12:26 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

I did not have settled relations with that science.

Feb 6, 2011 at 12:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

Hengist,
You own your quotes, and you have a right to an accurate representation of them, no doubt. By extension, you have a right of reply when your words are not accurately represented.

However, if you say something, and its precis conveys something you do not intend to convey, it is you who needs to think hard, before protesting. You have control and ownership of how someone might interpret, before you say something, and not afterward. Painful as it may seem.

Did Gavin declare that his refusal email was not intended to be viewed and interpreted for public consumption? In his letter to New Scientist, he does not make this point.

In any case, he has informed New Scientist. They will have to respond.

For the rest of us mere mortals however, Gavin only appears as an unreliable witness. Why does he not want to stand behind his own words, though not intended for public consumption it might have been to begin with? His email to the organizers pretty much says "science is settled", although arguably, you can choose your own three words to summarise it.

The people on the consensus have been spoilt for long, by being able to wield tight control over what is said in the media, either by quote or by interpretation. It is a constant theme in their menu of concerns. The present episode is a fallout of expecting such control.

A more natural balance would be to allow reporters and journalists some breathing space. They are answerable not only to their sources, but to their audience as well, and to their conscience too.

I think you will find that people will engage if you stop talking about them, and start talking to them. They don't want to hear your opinion about them.

Feb 6, 2011 at 12:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub

Brilliant, Josh! Your getting better and better - though, I didn't realise Gavin was so prepossessing? Meanwhile back to Muppets in Space - can't believe how much I love this film!

Feb 6, 2011 at 1:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterLewis Deane

The creed of the CAGWers:-


Science is what scientists do when building on the settled findings of previous scientists.

It is for present scientists to decide who is a scientist worthy to be so named and numbered amongst their peers.

Those who disagree and seek to refute the established view of the scientific establishment are just anti science.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science, for such a posse of peers, in not a matter of conjecture and refutation but reputation and declaration.

Feb 6, 2011 at 1:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterBob Layson

David @ 5.44am Feb 6

Yes thanks for your take on that David. I agree with your comment entirely.

I spent 40 years in Meteorology so the title Climate Scientist doesn't impress me at all.

I have been a sceptic since the beginning and I have not seen anything to change my mind at all.

I still say that the recent post of Jo Nova's tells you all you need to know, especially as the second graph was produced by one Phil Jones ( the name rings a bell). I am sure you will have seen it already but it is worth revisiting.

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/01/the-warmest-year-antidotes/

I still think Jo Nova's approach of keeping it simple, and asking where is their proof, allied to pointing out that it isn't happening, is the right one.

Feb 6, 2011 at 1:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterRetired Dave

@ BBD

What I said I meant

has that settled?

(say it out loud)

Feb 6, 2011 at 1:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterAnoneumouse

Shub, At the root of reconciliation you need trust. Ive read nothing about this affair that suggests the manner in which the organizers of the Conference are gaining the trust of the mainstream scientists. Even Fred Pearce described it as lopsided towards the skeptical camp. Your suggestion that the onus was on Dr Schmidt to place an embargo on his own email is absurd. Climate scientists are getting used to having their emails read, but it is dishonest to deliberately precis them to convey a different meaning than one intended.

It is normal practice to quietly accept any refusal to attend , since the main outcome of the Conference on Reconciliation has been the fallout from Dr Schmidt's email my conclusion is the Conference on Reconciliation cannot be taken seriously.

Feb 6, 2011 at 1:26 PM | Unregistered Commenterhengist mcstone

Anoneumouse

I'm not sure what you are asking, so I cannot answer you.

Could you be more precise?

Feb 6, 2011 at 1:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Hengist

my conclusion is the Conference on Reconciliation cannot be taken seriously.

You place too high a value on 'your' conclusions and 'your' views.

Feb 6, 2011 at 1:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

@BBD I probably do, because I am unimportant. But that doesn't make my conclusion or my views incorrect .

Feb 6, 2011 at 1:37 PM | Unregistered Commenterhengist mcstone

Hengist

1. We are in the wrong thread - go back to 'the big cutoff' for more.

2. See Rog Tallbloke's comment there, explaining exactly how the 'paraphrase' problem arose.

3. Read Gavin's own words carefully. He makes it absolutely plain that - in his mind at least - the 'science is settled'. Which is what Pearce paraphrased him as saying (emphasis added):

None of the seemingly important ‘conflicts’ that are *perceived* in the science are ‘conflicts’ in any real sense within the scientific community, rather they are proxy arguments for political positions.

4. Stop conflating the debate about the above with the value of the Lisbon Workshop.

Isn't it odd that the 'sceptics' propose and enact an exercise in reconciliation, and all you can do is attack and denigrate it. Why is that?

Feb 6, 2011 at 1:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

BBD

Hengist says you are wrong, because he is right and that's a fact.

Pure Gavinology!

Feb 6, 2011 at 2:03 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charley

..97% of Hengist agrees that BBD is wrong..

Feb 6, 2011 at 2:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterSimon Hopkinson

Hengist, could you make a stab at summarising Gavin's refusal to attend? Then we can compare it to Fred's.

I will add to the cartoon too if you like, tho' that might just be a bridge too far.

Feb 6, 2011 at 2:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterJosh

Hengist also believes he has evidence of the BBC being anti-green!

Feb 6, 2011 at 3:37 PM | Unregistered Commentersimpleseekeraftertruth

SSAT

I've just been to take a look. Just more pressure being applied to an already open door.

What is it with the carbon activists and victimhood syndrome?

They have the entire world media shrilling climate alarmism with a massed choir of politicians in antiphony, and STILL I hear whining.

Feb 6, 2011 at 3:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

SSAT and BBD,

Do you suppose he has comments turned off? Hope so, since it's "0 Comments" all-around.

Feb 6, 2011 at 3:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn M

@ BBD

don't worry about it. Intellectual pygmies R us

Feb 6, 2011 at 4:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterAnoneumouse

John M

Well, the blog software insists on a Google account, which puts lots of people off. Did for me.

Please see my response to his latest bit of self-justification (on his own blog) on the 'big cutoff' thread.

Feb 6, 2011 at 4:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

From Hengist's site

"Thus establishing an important tenet that a person's background is relevant to assessing their credibility."

This advocates discrimination because of someone's background.

Hengist, this belief could get you into trouble, I think we have laws about that sort of thing

Feb 6, 2011 at 5:15 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charley

BBD

I agree on the 'victimhood syndrome' idea. You meet it in all sorts of places: I was once accused of "ruining the sex-life of his generation" as it was "my generation that invented AIDS"!
On AGW, these 'victims of irresponsible consumerism' believe they have science with them and don't like it challenged as it lessens their claim. They picked the wrong whinge though.

Feb 6, 2011 at 5:19 PM | Unregistered Commentersimpleseekeraftertruth

The saying has been modified: "You can lead a horse to drink but you can't make it water".

Feb 7, 2011 at 4:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterGeoff Sherrington

Josh, you are a hero!

May I propose a new topic for your cartoons? I reckon that the twin pillars of AGW are (a) The unstable-equilibrium fallacy with its "tipping point" and (b) Climate sensitivity fallacy, the notion that CO2's effect dwarfs the other candidates such as solar, volcanos and ocean/air oscillations.

Can you come up with a drawing which depicts AGW's vulnerability to those factors being exposed as hokum?

Feb 10, 2011 at 12:02 AM | Unregistered CommenterBrent Hargreaves

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):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>