John Stringer Cartoon

Like this:

Like Loading...

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment30

Election 2017
Humour
Cartoon
John Stringer

Comments (30)

Login to comment or vote

Captain Mainwaring

That’s enough John. Give it a rest.
11 11
Log in to Reply
Report
July 31, 2017 10:09am
- PJM
  
  Don’t rest, John. Keep exposing the climate fraudsters!
  
  Michael Mann should be in the state pen, not in Penn State!
  
  18 5
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  July 31, 2017 10:14am
- KevOB
  
  He’s a few years too late.
  
  3 0
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  July 31, 2017 12:11pm
Jigsaw

Good one John! The renaming is likely to go on in a russian doll fashion for many years yet before they finally give up on it.
17 1
Log in to Reply
Report
July 31, 2017 10:11am
- PhilBest
  
  They’d even have a go at “catastrophic anthropogenic global cooling” again if the planet stubbornly obviously cools for long enough (as it can under the entirely natural cycles that are true “science”); and they will still be in denial about why almost no-one trusts them anymore.
  
  5 3
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  July 31, 2017 11:01am
Maggy Wassilieff

California in drought – Global warming
California in flood – Climate Change

Snowless winters – Global warming
Snowed-in all winter – Climate Change

Arctic melting – Global Warming
Arctic iced-in – Climate Change

40 years of lou$$$y $cience
27 3
Log in to Reply
Report
July 31, 2017 10:17am
- PhilBest
  
  40 years of building a “97% consensus” by using taxpayers money as an incentive.
  
  8 2
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  July 31, 2017 11:04am
- Mr_Blobby
  
  I remember when it was Global cooling.
  
  Then it was Global warming.
  
  Then somebody realized that we were still coming out of the last ice age and had hundreds of thousands of years of warming before the next cooling down cycle.
  
  Now its called climate change.
  
  To hot, cold, wet, dry, it must be caused by climate change, who would have known.
  
  5 2
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  July 31, 2017 12:49pm
G152

You left out the Preying Mantis ready to destroy the legend
6 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 31, 2017 10:29am
Bullion

Whatever you want to call the phenomenon – it is still very real:
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure-spm-4-l.png
4 23
Log in to Reply
Report
July 31, 2017 10:35am
- Bullion
  
  All the down-tickers science illiterates? Do you also think vaccines cause autism? GMO is bad? Fluoride is bad for you? Earth is 6,000 years old? The earth is flat? Hey, let’s pick and choose what to believe in no matter what the science says!!!!!
  
  4 18
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  July 31, 2017 10:55am
  - Maggy Wassilieff
    
    All the down-tickers science illiterates?
    I doubt it. I have a B.Sc.1st class hons , & a Ph.D and years of working with science communication.
    
    Do you also think vaccines cause autism? – No
    
    GMO is bad? – Overall no,,,,, but I wouldn’t approve of world-wide release of a GM-modified Anthrax or Smallpox organism. (Define your examples!!)
    
    Fluoride is bad for you – You do realise,fluoride is an ion… I wouldn’t advise drinking Hydrogen fluoride (HF) aka Hydrofluoric acid – good for glass etching,
    
    but if you mean low concentrations of NaF in toothpaste – No (be specific)
    
    Earth is 6,000 years old – no
    
    Earth is flat – no.
    
    I’m sure other KBers… could add their own comments.
    But you make the mistake of assuming that because someone advocates one thing, they must adhere to a host of other beliefs.
    Major logic fail.
    
    21 1
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    July 31, 2017 11:19am
    - Bullion
      
      Yes, sure I should be more specific. Fluoride in water, at the dose your council puts in – you will die of water intoxication first before you consume a lethal dose of fluoride.
      
      At the same time, I would take it that most KBers don’t have ideological based stances on certain scientific theories due to political leanings (that’s something for most KBers to bash the Greens with) except for climate change.
      
      2 5
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      July 31, 2017 11:25am
      - Maggy Wassilieff
        
        @Bullion
        
        At the same time, I would take it that most KBers don’t have ideological based stances on certain scientific theories due to political leanings (that’s something for most KBers to bash the Greens with) except for climate change.
        
        Why don’t you take some minutes/hours… to read through the archives of KB and find out yourself about KB commenters and their views?
        
        I think you might find a diversity of views, education, experience, ideologies, and backgrounds.
        
        6 0
        Report
        July 31, 2017 11:40am
      - Mr_Blobby
        
        Stop drinking the water retard.
        
        and Take cover the climate is changing.
        
        4 0
        Report
        July 31, 2017 12:52pm
      - PhilBest
        
        There has been more than one study done to investigate the correlation between CAGW belief / skepticism and “general scientific knowledge”. Every one of them shows that skeptic laypersons are more scientifically literate and believer laypersons are less scientifically literate.
        
        The CAGW fraud relies on ignorance and political wishful thinking among the public and media journalists and other activists. It is smart and knowledgeable people who are a threat to this and all other political frauds, not stupid people.
        
        4 1
        Report
        July 31, 2017 3:23pm
  - realityczech
    
    “GMO is bad? Fluoride is bad for you?”
    
    Bullion they are the views of the climate alarmist Greens. You can add hysteria over Cell Phone Towers and Fracking. While telling us the world is ending due to mans sins against the earth mother.
    
    They make the creationists looks sane !
    
    7 1
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    July 31, 2017 12:34pm
    - Peter
      
      Indeed. The green view of the world is galloping mentalism.
      
      Central to their ideology is the lie that nature is a “fragile whisp of tears on the cheek of a child”. Anyone who has spent any time in nature, rather than looking at some of it from a cafe, will know it is a vicious megaforce that will rip your head off and spit down your throat. Humans must do all they can to fight it back in order to merely survive.
      
      Nature will win in the end. It couldn’t care less about humans. At best, we harness it, for a while.
      
      4 0
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      July 31, 2017 1:58pm
  - DifferentPerspective
    
    Only science illterates think that “consensus” is a word that makes any sense in a scientific context. The whole scientific method is not premised on ‘feelings’ and ‘beliefs’ it is based on ‘proof’. You posit a theory, you provide your results, then the scientific community line up and see if they can repeat your results. If they can’t – your theory is bullshit. If they can – then the theory is proven.
    
    None of the models for climate change hold up under honest scrutiny – which is pretty damning given that all the public funding is splashed around to find “supporting” evidence and anyone who suggests the science is bad gets zero funding and sent to Coventry.
    
    Man made climate change is the new religion and the climate alarmists are the new zealots.
    
    4 1
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    July 31, 2017 6:08pm
- Jigsaw
  
  ‘Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing’ -begins one of the articles your refer to….I mean how hopeless is that? Argument and the testing of theories and concepts is at the heart of science-especially science outside the limits of the laboratory.
  
  10 2
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  July 31, 2017 10:58am
  - PhilBest
    
    Exactly, and when scientists know they will lose their job FOR arguing, and know that journals won’t publish them, you certainly don’t have “science”.
    
    7 2
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    July 31, 2017 11:03am
  - Bullion
    
    How many scientists do you think still argue that the Earth is flat, or that evolution is real, or that the Earth is over 4 billion years old etc. etc.?
    
    Like evolutionary science, scientists are not debating whether evolution is true or not but rather studying the various mechanisms of evolution and improving our understanding of evolution. (just replace evolution with climate change in that sentence)
    
    1 10
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    July 31, 2017 11:06am
    - Magoo
      
      Ever heard of a strawman argument Bullion? People resort to them when they’ve lost a debate & have nothing to back up their viewpoints.
      
      4 1
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      July 31, 2017 1:55pm
- realityczech
  
  Why Politicized Science is Dangerous
  
  Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.
  
  This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.
  
  I don’t mean global warming. I’m talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago.
  
  http://www.michaelcrichton.com/why-politicized-science-is-dangerous/
  
  We have learnt nothing
  
  3 0
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  July 31, 2017 12:27pm
- Magoo
  
  Bullion:
  
  Here’s a graph from the IPCC AR5 report:
  
  http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_FigTS-14.jpg
  
  Source: Figure TS.14, Pg 87, Technical Summary, Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis, IPCC AR5 report, 2013.
  
  The subsequent temperature has spiked due to the temporary natural weather phenomena know as El Nino (2015/16), but has now returned to pre-El Nino levels.
  
  Which is correct, the theoretical climate models that are falsified by the 4 surface temperature datasets, or the temperature datasets that falsify the climate models? Also, what does the ‘97% consensus’ agree on, the surface datasets or the climate models, & if the climate models which one?
  
  The Summary for Policymakers in the IPCC reports is rewritten by UN politicians & bureaucrats and is unsubstantiated by the empirical evidence in the rest of Working Group I. The actual science in the IPCC AR5 report confirms the following:
  A ‘hiatus’ in warming since 1998
  
  No increase in extreme weather.
  
  No accelerating sea level rises.
  
  No tropospheric hotspot (i.e. no positive feedback from water vapour).
  
  Try reading it, if you dare. As for scepticalscience.conjob – no wonder you’re down the garden path. Stick with the actual science in Working Group I, not the propaganda from environmental activist bloggers.
  
  6 1
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  July 31, 2017 1:32pm
  - PhilBest
    
    VERY well said, Magoo.
    
    We only know because of leaked copies of the Draft Reports and Reviewer comments, that the final Summary for Policy Makers that the bureaucrats write for the media useful idiots, is an utter and willful misrepresentation of “the science” and the scientists. The whole process is shrouded in confidentiality, and the IPCC even moved from New York to Geneva when they discovered that US “official information” laws applied to them. This is really, really the behaviour of squeaky clean people with nothing to hide, ay?
    
    3 1
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    July 31, 2017 3:27pm
realityczech

“science” news:

Temperatures refuse to rise, exterminate polar bears, melt the icecaps, engulf coastal cities or make Tim Flannery seem rational.

People unwilling to act on the climate-crisis narrative should be assisted with drugs that improve and promote conformity, according to eminent bio-ethicist Professor Matthew Liao, of New York University, who also wants to see parents dosing their children with hormones and diets to keep them shorter and less of a burden on the planet.
http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2017/07/climate-science-comes-short/
5 1
Log in to Reply
Report
July 31, 2017 12:22pm
Mr_Blobby

I don’t think the Planet really gives a shit about man.

Same for the Oceans that make up two thirds of the surface.

The Planet will continue to circle the sun for some time yet, regardless of what we do.
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 31, 2017 12:54pm
simonway

I hear quite often that the boffins came up with “climate change” to replace “global warming” as the name.

Google have a tool called “Google Ngrams” that lets you search all the published material that Google has on file (in its Google Books and Google Newspaper and Google Scholar databases) to see how common a particular phrase is, and how its usage changes over time.

Here is a Google Ngrams comparison of how common each of the phrases “global warming” and “climate change” were in English-language publications from 1970 to 2008. (2008 is as late as it allows you to search.) We can see that, although “global warming” did look like it had already substantially fallen behind by the year 2008, it’s obviously not right to say that “climate change” was a neologism made up to rename the idea. “Climate change” appears to have been a phrase in common use the whole time. So the people who go on about “climate change” being a new renaming are distorting the facts.
3 1
Log in to Reply
Report
July 31, 2017 2:04pm
- Maggy Wassilieff
  
  Climate Change has always been an active area of Geological/Paleontological study….
  So of course that term has been in use for decades….
  
  but the point being made in the cartoon is a direct reference to the change in usage associated with the science behind “man-made” global warming/climate change.
  
  2 1
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  July 31, 2017 8:08pm