Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts

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

Powered by Squarespace
« Scruton on HSI | Main | Hansen and the cost of carbon »

To an incredible degree - Josh 162

Click image for larger version

Cartoons by Josh

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (45)

Best cartoon yet Josh, in my humble. Perfectly addresses the last redoubt of the warmists - that your opinion is worthless if you are not part of their closed shop. Bravo!

Apr 13, 2012 at 4:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterCarnwennan

Seconded. Josh, I never thought I'd say this but you're wicked. This really puts the boot in when it hurts.

Apr 13, 2012 at 4:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Drake

Probably inspired by the "You get an ology, you're a scientist!" 1987 BT advert.

Many climatologists about in their early 40's?

Apr 13, 2012 at 4:26 PM | Unregistered Commentersimpleseekeraftertruth

The reflexology lady resembles Judith there a subliminal message in there somewhere?

ps expect the wrath of bald men!

Apr 13, 2012 at 4:35 PM | Registered Commenteromnologos

Bwahaha! Brilliant, Josh!

Apr 13, 2012 at 4:46 PM | Registered CommenterSimon Hopkinson

BTW...since great minds etc etc, here's a blog post of mine along the same lines: "The Duning-Kruger Fallacy"

Anybody and everybody can use a variant of the following: “Since you are not an expert in the field, your skepticism about it is derived from you overestimating your own knowledge about it“. [But] if the DK argument were valid, we would all be forced to believe in all sorts of religions, since it would be impossible to know more about the Bible, the Qu’ran, the Mahabharata more than [the] respective (believer) scholars

Apr 13, 2012 at 4:47 PM | Registered Commenteromnologos

ps expect the wrath of bald men! omnologos

Not this one, I just applauded Josh's craft.

p.s. wasn't there something in the press about homoeopathy being bunkum by a professor of that bent a couple of days ago?

Apr 13, 2012 at 5:00 PM | Unregistered Commenterivan

The definition of Hansenkoism:

1. Imagine there's is a phenomenon called 'back radiation' which increases the IR energy absorbed by the atmosphere 15.5 times more than reality [it's true: see Trenberth et al 2009].

2. Calculate equally imaginary dangerous warming but because we can't actually measure it, claim it's offset exactly by imaginary cooling by polluted clouds plus some bare aerosol cooling.

3. The only part that isn't imaginary is the cost.

4. They all lived happily ever after.

5 The End.

Apr 13, 2012 at 5:36 PM | Unregistered Commentermydogsgotnonose

I agree with Carnwennan, Josh - your best yet. Thanks.

And, omnologos, thanks also to you for the link to your blog post. Great minds indeed.

Apr 13, 2012 at 6:08 PM | Registered CommenterRobin Guenier usual :)

Apr 13, 2012 at 6:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterSunderlandSteve

Brilliant stuff Josh!

I think that for some exponents, (no names, no pack-drill), Astrology and Climatology could really be combined - into Climastrology.

Apr 13, 2012 at 6:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterDougS

Stan Kelly Bootle said of another CS, -

'A study akin to numerology and astrology, but lacking the precision of the former and the success of the latter.'

Apr 13, 2012 at 6:42 PM | Registered CommenterChuckles

Omnologos, I was going for a young long haired male yoof.

But I am going to have to make the larger image much larger... so you can see the very last joke ;-)

Apr 13, 2012 at 6:43 PM | Registered CommenterJosh

Ahr ahr Josh - just seen it :)

Apr 13, 2012 at 7:24 PM | Registered Commenteromnologos

O/T but I’ve just joined the Campaign against Climate Change’s Sceptic Alert Troll Patrol. All four of today’s targets are Bishop Hill Posts. I’ve been instructed to come here and tell you why global warming is actually happening and why it's not a big conspiracy.

That’s all.

Apr 13, 2012 at 7:25 PM | Unregistered Commentergeoffchambers

Well done, Geoff! Who could disagree with that? ;-)

Apr 13, 2012 at 7:41 PM | Registered CommenterJosh

There was a PhD from Penn State
Whose stats he did always inflate
His methods confusional
Were always ILLUSIONAL
For t’was on thin ice he did skate.

Peter Walsh, Apr 2012.

Apr 13, 2012 at 7:45 PM | Registered Commenterpeterwalsh

Josh: When's the book of collected works coming out? I'd pay money for it!

Apr 13, 2012 at 7:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterMessenger

What? Where are the others? Captain Monbiot said there’d be battalions of us. Corporal McStone? I think they’re making fun of us.

Apr 13, 2012 at 7:49 PM | Unregistered Commentergeoffchambers

Is that a snowball earth I see there?

Imagine the carbon tax that must have lead to that state!

Apr 13, 2012 at 8:03 PM | Unregistered Commentershub

Is that the question time panel, the question time producers or the question time audience?

Apr 13, 2012 at 8:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

You can see the troll target list at

They seem obsessed by Bishop Hill and Christopher Booker. All very strange.

Apr 13, 2012 at 8:13 PM | Registered CommenterJonathan Jones

Jonathan Jones
Thanks for that link. They are very depressed right now that is obvious. Fascinating looking around it. But the Bishop needs to try harder- not made it yet to the Hall of Shame!

Apr 13, 2012 at 9:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

A brilliant encapsulation of the whole climate farago. Take a peek at where I have encountered the philosophy of, "they do not agree with us so cannot be not real scientists..." as pointed out by Carnwennan, here:

I only wanted an answer to a simple question, and have yet to get it, but have had a whole lot of insults; I know I should give up with it, but would appreciate some help, as they do appear to be figuratively on the ropes, now.

Apr 13, 2012 at 9:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterRadical Rodent

I've been trying to persuade/remind tweeting) Desmogblog to put Andrew Montofrd into their denier disinformation database... they did say he is on their list.

You would think after over 2 years of the release of 'The Hockey Stick Illusion' they would have gotten around to it.. But not yet.. maybe they don't want to mention the book to their readers
;-) ! ;-)

Apr 13, 2012 at 9:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

the Campaign Against Climate Change noticed Andrew Montford in Nov 2010:

I did suggest at the time that Andrew sends them a signed photo, of course if they did put him in their Halls of Shame, they would have to say why and risk people actually becoming aware and reading 'The Hockey Stick Illusion'. ;-)

I have receved hundreds of sceptic alerts since then.. which begs the question are their followers unable to think for themselves, 'right I'll check Andrew Montford, Delingpole and Booker every day', because that is virtually the only people the CaCC send links out about. ;-)

Again thanks to Mark Lynas for stepping down from their advisory board, (he did say he had very little to do with it anymore) he also said to me that the Hall of Shame was shameful.

The CaCC does seems to be stuck at left wing student politics level.

Bit more here:

Apr 13, 2012 at 10:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Re Jonathan Jones

They seem obsessed by Bishop Hill and Christopher Booker. All very strange.

Most of them can't count past 'B'

Apr 13, 2012 at 11:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterAtomic Hairdryer

Nice Josh!

Apr 13, 2012 at 11:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterJeff Condon

Climatology will spell be the rune of science one day!

Apr 14, 2012 at 12:33 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoyFOMR

Darn this old brain.
Climatology will spell the rune of science one day!

Apr 14, 2012 at 12:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoyFOMR

Barry Woods:
“Mark Lynas stepped down from the board of CACC...”
Which only leaves Monbiot. And he’s on paternity leave. So that explains the silence of Hengist McStone.
It’s no joke being a troll. I joined up to fight the Koch brothers, and the very first sortie they send me out to attack an undefended cartoon.

Apr 14, 2012 at 1:18 AM | Unregistered Commentergeoffchambers

Good one, Josh. Brutal!

Apr 14, 2012 at 1:54 AM | Registered CommenterMique

nice one, josh.
here's the undemocratic EC/EU being baited by Big Bank/Big Oil to change the rules, yet again!


13 April: Platts: Frank Watson: EU carbon trading system needs major overhaul: Deutsche Bank
The EU Emissions Trading System needs fundamental reform if it is to be capable of sending a long-term price signal for low carbon energy investment, Deutsche Bank said in a report Friday.
Europe’s flagship policy tool to combat climate change not only needs adjusting to cope with an oversupply of carbon allowances, but also requires a structural overhaul to make it fit for purpose, Deutsche Bank commodities research director Mark Lewis said in the report.
Specifically, the system must be made more responsive to economic conditions, or risk failure to send price signals that investors can use, he said, noting “enormous” capital outlays required to build a low-carbon economy.
“The EU ETS is the only commodity market in the world where demand varies in real time but supply is fixed for years in advance,” said Lewis…
***”Of course, the true impact of the EED could be greater or smaller than this, and this is precisely the problem as far as the current configuration of the ETS is concerned: the impact of all of the key demand drivers (economic growth, weather patterns, and the EU’s policies on renewable energy and energy efficiency) is unknowable ahead of time, and yet the supply of EUAs is fixed years in advance,” said Lewis.
“That is why the system ends up being hugely over-supplied if demand crashes, and why EUAs have recently fallen to a new all-time low,” he said...
David Hone, chairman of the International Emissions Trading Association and senior climate change advisor at Shell in October 2011 said the EU ETS is fully functional and well designed, but is being stifled by overlapping climate and energy policies at EU and member state level.
Hone warned that Europe’s planned investments in carbon capture and storage are under threat from low carbon prices, which are a key revenue generator for planned CCS demonstration projects.
The European Commission had not immediately responded to requests to comment Friday on industry calls for structural reform of the EU ETS.

Apr 14, 2012 at 2:17 AM | Unregistered Commenterpat

I wonder what intimate knowledge Josh has of homoeopathy? Despite the derision poured over the medical practitioners of this system of medicine there are still millions of people seeking and getting help from homoeopathy every year since its inception nearly 300 years ago. The socalled climate change sceptics might just consider that there could come a day when homoeopathy comes back to centre stage when the antibiotics lose their power over bacteria. This is a process on its way and will potentially cause havoc. Just as the antics of "The Team" are not eliminating the anti CAGW supporters, the derision poured on homoepathy practitioners and supporters will never succeed. Josh and company are "listening" to the "medical experts" in the same way as most people think "climate change" is real because of the noisy pronouncements of "the experts" i.e. "The Team".

Apr 14, 2012 at 8:14 AM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Peter

John Peter

Probably best not to get embroiled in arguments over the efficacy of homeopathy, suffice it to say that I recommend this recent very thoughtful piece by Edzard Ernst:

Apr 14, 2012 at 9:35 AM | Registered CommenterQ

I remember coming out of a meeting in the City in July 2010 at which I introduced Steve McIntyre to a few of my old friends. Steve used the analogy of homoeopathy for Team science at one point. One of the people there offered to give us a lift to Soho, where Booker was due to thank Steve by giving him lunch, and as we went off to the car park this friend said to Steve: "One of these days someone you talk to will be sympathetic on the flaws of climate science but really big into homoeopathy." Prescient words :) But I have no problem joining hands with John Peter or anyone else, if they want to reverse dreadful policy making in pursuit of impossible control over a climate we just don't even remotely understand.

I actually came on because I was amused by this on the top left of the page Jonathan Jones pointed to:

One Million Climate Jobs Caravan

Those jobs, they're all going to come out of that caravan folks. That's about as credible as any other such claim we hear. Congralutions again to the Bish for becoming such a focus for these people and for graciously allowing them to provide free advertising for his book.

Apr 14, 2012 at 9:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Drake

It seems to me inevitable that Homeopathy, Reflexology, Astrology, and CO2-Obsessed Climatology will all have their claimed successes, and these will reinforce the beliefs of followers. But I am astonished that the last-mentioned does not seem to have had any successes yet. The homeopathists can point to cures subsequent upon tiny doses of chemicals acting in mysterious ways. I suppose the reflexologists and astologers can also produce their own success stories from the real world. The carboxyologists on the other hand have only got computer models to hold up to our view when we ask for evidence of the great power of tiny doses of their chemical on the mighty climate system. It is merrily going along just as if the increased dose was of no consequence whatsoever.

Apr 14, 2012 at 10:25 AM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

John Peter, a very thoughtful comment, thank you. I have minimal knowledge of Homeopathy, Reflexology or Astrology and include them here because the major complaint from their critics is there's no evidence they work. But of course you can be an expert in whatever 'ology' it is and so surely be able to trump said critics with your expert knowledge of the subject.

Rather like parts of Climate Science.

Apr 14, 2012 at 11:47 AM | Registered CommenterJosh

I'm Sagittarius - and Sagittarians don't believe in Astrology....

Apr 14, 2012 at 5:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid

Troll patrol to CACC base: For George’s eyes only:
Today’s targets just received. BishopHill: Hansen and Josh 162. (Apparently yesterday I attacked the wrong joke by mistake - sorry).
Is there some subtle strategy involved in attacking threads that have gone dormant? Shouldn’t I be going for their front line?

Sorry, that wasn’t meant to be posted here.

Apr 14, 2012 at 5:41 PM | Unregistered Commentergeoffchambers

Clever one David...I like it!

David said:

I'm Sagittarius - and Sagittarians don't believe in Astrology....
Apr 14, 2012 at 5:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid

Apr 14, 2012 at 9:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterPeter Walsh

<B>Genuine statement through current NASA employee ...

"My son is a nuclear physicist with NASA and knows GHG theory is bogus and NASA distorts AGW data. BHO won’t allow Civil Servants to express skepticism. James Hanson is actual spokesman for NASA on GHG theory, picked by Al Gore and BHO"

This was said by a father to a contact I have who spoke personally with that father on April 13th.

Apr 15, 2012 at 2:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterDoug Cotton

Laughing at the antics of the warmists may be amusing. However, ridiculing other disciplines harms the arguments proposed on this site.

Ridicule is not part of the scientific process; it certainly isn't proof. Secondary messages can do more harm than expected.

To take one of the disciplines mentioned, homeopathy, the reference given by Q on Apr 14, 2012 at 9:35 AM, ends with:
"What I did discover was perhaps not fundamental but nevertheless important: patients can experience significant improvement from non-specific effects. This is why they get better after seeing a homeopath – but this has nothing to do with the homeopathic sugar pills."

In my experience of over 40 years of receiving and seeing others receive homeopathic remedies, there ARE significant improvements from very specific symptoms. This includes humans and cats!

I have heard that in India it works with short consultations, in the order of only 5 minutes. The short consultations are due to lack of money and too few practitioners. Not proof, but another lead to follow before knocking something that appears to be little understood or known by the cartoonist.

Surely, the "but this has nothing to do with the homeopathic sugar pills" is wishful thinking and should not be treated as proof; remember: Nullius in verba.

At least the Guardian article has not continually dissected a homeopathic consultation and treatment until it falls to bits or used a theory to prove that observable phenomena cannot have taken place!

One of the problems is that it is very easy to design an experiment that shows something doesn't work: try me doing some open heart surgery!

Apr 15, 2012 at 7:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterRobert Christopher

Robert Christopher, many thanks, I think I covered this in my comment above but if you could post some scientific refs of evidence of Homeopathic benefits that would be great.

If there are none then I think the point of the cartoon is made, that the various areas listed above are, from a scientific point of view, hypothetical and lack an empirical evidence base.

That is not to say that Homeopathy, in particular, does not have value. I don't know enough about the subject to say, but clearly many people believe it does. But is it a science? As far as I can see it is not. But do enlighten us ;-)

Apr 15, 2012 at 8:31 PM | Registered CommenterJosh

Homeopathy is not a science, it is a method of treatment. It doesn't have to prove anything; it needs to treat the patient, successfully.

Many people find it helps them where other treatments do not work or make the situation worse. When I started using homeopathy, in the 1960's, Valium was the drug that "solved all your problems". No wonder I thought that homeopathy was a better bet!

In the Guardian article that I quoted there is a comment from Zojo on 3 April 2012 @ 4:48PM which does offer useful information:
"People seem to be under the misapprehension that all mainstream medical procedures are evidence based. This is far from true. There has been a lot of evidence based work in the past twenty years, but there are still areas that are essentially based on "custom and practice", which is how medicine started and developed, including all the complementary and alternative types.

It is interesting how easy people find it to assign effects to "placebo" without apparently realising that this effect is itself scientifically unexplained. So saying homepathy is impossible to explain scientifically and so must be a result of the placebo "effect" is no different than saying it cannot be explained, but it has an effect.

We are no further forward, and the idea that spending time with a practitioner who takes an interest has a positive effect is itself unexplained scientifically, so we are back to the beginning again. Why not accept that we don't understand how these things work at the moment, but they help some people and allow individuals to choose, rather than trying to force some rigid and artificial real/unreal scientific/unscientific dichotomy on to everything?

Mainstream doctors kill or harm plenty of people (possibly more than "quacks") and a lot of drugs have very serious "side" effects and are of dubious value, because the commercial pressures of pharma sometimes supresses or hides results that are not positive, but the way to address that is through better regulation, a more open testing regime, patient information and education. Surely the same should apply to other forms of medicine? If I want to try homeopathy, provided I can access accurate information about it, that's my choice."

In other words, don't worship science. It is not the only method of advancing knowledge. After all, humans didn't do that badly before the Renaissance.

Just because 'science' cannot explain it at the moment, it does not mean that it has been shown to be not true, or true, for that matter! Remember the experts stating that gastric ulcers were not caused by a micro-organism? It took a lot of courage to investigate the cause in an area that was being ridiculed. Another case of Nullius in verba!

It is obvious that we do not understand what is going on. I can admit it. I would like to know the mechanisms.

Why do many appear to be under the impression that if it cannot be proved, usually in a double blind test, then it is wrong to practice it and OK to ridicule it, even though there are no side effects?

When a discipline is stereotyped and ridiculed there will be less chance that its methods will be given serious study, so it is an effective method to stop the advancement of science!

Apr 15, 2012 at 10:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterRobert Christopher

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>