Good morning, and Happy Sunday! Here were my top five seven favorite political cartoons this week. Be sure to vote for your fav in the poll at the bottom of the post!
by Gary McCoy at Townhall.com…
by Eric Allie at Townhall.com…
a twofer by Michael Ramirez at Townhall.com…
by Henry Payne at Townhall.com…
by Gary Varvel at Townhall.com…
by Jim Morin at GoComics.com…
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I bet Ex-GOP hates the one about Obama’s policies regarding weather and climate.
Del –
Yawn
S&P was so jolted by the news that the market was steady for the week.
I’m voting for #2 this week.
Del, Ex-RINO lives in a world where the economy is based on currency trading and not real goods and services. So the only thing he ever bases his economy on is the performance of the stock market. And according to data that was manufactured by progressives, global warming is ‘settled science.
truth –
Del is a very smart individual (one of the top three smartest people that have commented on this thread) and can ask me questions directly if he has questions for me.
If you have comments or questions for me, I invite you to ask them to me directly.
Thanks –
I don’t understand number 4 or what it’s trying to convey, can someone explain it to me?
Climate change has MASSIVE amounts of evidence for it (science is never settled whether or not politicians say that, the beauty of science is that theories can always be modified according to new evidence). Over 95% of scientists in the relevant fields agree that anthropogenic climate change is happening. It’s not a debate among experts at this point, it’s a debate on what we can do to fix the damage we’ve caused.
I trust the extreme preponderance of experts in the relevant fields rather than GOP pundits and some oil company employed engineers for my scientific information.
DLPL,
Climate change? Wasn’t it global warming? And before that weren’t we entering another Ice Age?
Yeah, maybe its time to play it safe and just stick with what’s been going on since the dawn of creation: Climate change.
No one will explain to me what’s going on with the amnesty piñata?
Yawn. This is like, the third or fourth week in a row where they’ve all been utterly pathetic. Barely a shadow of a premise for any of them. They are really reaching, stretching, and it shows. Maybe if they took a look at the gop.
Will someone please explain the piñata of children?!
dlpl
Piñatas are a tradition at Mexican birthday parties.A piñata is a hollow paper mache figure that is filled with candies. The piñata is suspended by a rope and blindfolded children are given a club to use to break open the piñata and release the candies.
.
In the context of the cartoon the piñata is live children who on one left hand are a favorite ploy of liberal humanists: the unassailable victim.
.
On their other left hand liberals carelessly use these children as expendable political props in their macabre guerilla theatre.
.
liberals have two faces like they have two left hands and two sides of their mouth with which they spew lies with their forked tongues.
.
Only fool would believe these unaccompanied children have traveled over a thousand miles un-noticed by the Mexican government and with no third party financial assistance.
.
the boRAT does not care any more for these children than he did for Kerrmitt Gosnell’s victims.
.
This is the real face of the democRAT party.
Mary,
The Statists will ‘always’ find a way to steal your money. Ice Age 20 years ago. And now it’s global warming cause they snapped a picture of a polar bear floating on iceberg.
Did you just make that up ken or is the cartoonist in the same category as you?
‘kenthebirther2’? Going after Cruz now are you?
Michael Voris clips are funnier than these sunday funnies.
Ken I know what a piñata is. That wasn’t what I was asking.
Still don’t get what you or the cartoon are going on about.
DLPL, that cartoon is pretty hard for me to figure out too. I think that it is trying to say that the recent influx of under-age unaccompanied immigrants is a result, and perhaps an intentional result, of Obama administration policies; for one. Or at the very least, the result of blithe, gleeful negligence on Obama’s part. There has been a huge increase in unaccompanied minor immigration in recent years, due in part to a perceived change in policy, as two years ago, Obama opted to defer deportation of certain “dreamer” underage immigrants who crossed into the US prior to 2007, which opportunistic smugglers have claimed means that the US border is open to any children who can make it across. Recently Biden actually went to Central America to emphasize that there has been no policy change that says that minors who get into the US will be granted amnesty or anything of the sort. But in the situations these children are coming from, any perceived rumor of hope is better than staying put.
Some who make it over the border will, in deportation hearings, qualify as refugees since they are fleeing violence – but it is still a concern for the US, both due to the huge swell in the demand for immigration legal resources, court time, etc, and due to the question of how to deal with unaccompanied minor immigrants who are allowed to stay, as far as integrating them into the community, making sure they have access to schooling, stopping them from disappearing into an underworld of unfair labor or sex work, etc. The vast, vast majority of these children are coming from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, all countries that rank in the top five in the world for murder rates. There has been no corresponding surge in children immigrating alone from Nicaragua, Mexico, etc.
I think that the cartoon is trying to imply that the understandably heart-wrenching fact of tens of thousands of unaccompanied children surging the border each year, to escape some of the worst violence and gang activity in the world, is actually directly and intentionally caused by Obama in an attempt to “guilt” or emotionally manipulate US voters and Congressmen into passing a bipartisan immigration deal approved last year by the Senate (which would provide a path to legal status for immigrants already in the US). Republicans are currently claiming that Obama has inflicted a cruel and unnecessary humanitarian crisis on these children by “telling them” that they can come to the US without actually granting them amnesty, and I think this cartoon is trying to say that not only did he do this, but he did it on purpose just to pressure Congress into passing legislation.
So basically Obama is beating a bunch of kids up (bait-and-switching them at the border, “cruelly” giving them “reason” to leave their homes, etc) in order to beat “amnesty” out of the government.
“Over 95% of scientists in the relevant fields agree that anthropogenic climate change is happening”.
False. Percentages quoted in the media showing 90% or more are not of scientists in relevant fields but of authors who publish in academic journals. This number has been quoted quite erroneously in the press. The majority of scientists in the US and other western countries work for employers other than academic institutions and do not publish in liberal academic journals.
dlpl,
It’s about exploiting ‘unaccompanied children’ to obtain amnesty for the more than 12,000,000 illegal ADULT immigrants who are already in the USA.
.
The democRATs are warehousing these children in ‘political sweat shops’ around the country and insidiously portraying it as progressive compassion.
TS 11:30PM
A polar bear floating on an iceberg? Why I never…..
In the meantime TS, you may want to buy stock in Bean-o.
Ranchers and farmers across the country will need to give Flossie and Buttercup their daily doses to prevent global warming, eh another ice age…I mean climate change.
Thank you for the explanation Alexandra, I feel marginally less stupid now.
Sorry Eric, I meant 97%: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
“Percentages quoted in the media showing 90% or more are not of scientists in relevant fields but of authors who publish in academic journals.”
Many, if not most, people who work in scientific fields publish in academic journals, ESPECIALLY those who work in fields like geology and climatology. Do you think these papers are all being published by people who have never worked in their field (you can’t exactly publish research if you’ve never done research!). And it’s not just peer-reviewed research that supports it, it’s basically every organization relevant to the subject at all. It’s simply willful blindness at this point to deny it.
Go argue with NASA, not me. I swear the reason Republicans oppose this so hard is because Al Gore talked about it.
“most, people who work in scientific fields publish in academic journals.”
Incorrect, earth/atmosphere scientists are hired by railroads, airlines, state departments of highway, power companies, military branches, aircraft factories, engineering firms, cruise lines, energy consulting firms, agriculture consulting firms, agricultural co-ops, county extension agencies, environmental agencies, NOAA, NASA, NWS, oil companies, weather forecasting companies, FAA, etc. Most do not publish in academic journals. Academic researchers are a fraction of all earth/atmospheric scientists.
“it’s basically every organization relevant to the subject” Now you’re changing your assertion. You said at first it was scientists. When you say “every organization”, what organizations are you talking about? Government agencies who invest in alternative energy sources? The UN who advocates population control?
Okay, a lot of the people you mentioned DO publish. Especially those who hold Ph.Ds and do research at their companies. I know a couple at a local manufacturing plant that do quality control and waste water management who publish their findings on the effects on the environment, I imagine there are a lot of privately employed scientists who do the same in their fields, including climate scientists. And a LOT of the information that is aggregated from private companies as well. And non-profits do research on this stuff too, not just government organizations and academic organizations.
Really, I’m gonna trust NASA when it comes to this kind of stuff, and the 97% of studies that support anthropogenic climate change. I’ve seen zero evidence of why I shouldn’t. Zero. Literally all I’ve seen from opponents is either “studies” from oil company engineers (who have a vested interest in anthropogenic climate change not existing) or just “the climate always changes over time” arguments, which don’t mean anything.
“a lot of the people you mentioned DO publish.”
Yes, that is very true. However, a lot does not necessarily mean most. Scientists who work for agencies or companies other than academia do not have as much incentive to publish in academic journals as professors who pursue tenure or make a career of securing government funding.
There is ten times the scientific backing that humans are causing climate change than there is for the issues people bring up on this site and back by science.
One fringe study comes out about abortion links to issues, and it gets posted and grabbed as ‘fact’ – and yet climate change because of humans – the jury is still out?
These sorts of things is why people get laughed at.
I’m laughing at some of you right now. I’m not trying to be mean – it’s just so illogical it is funny.
Dear Ex-GOP: Thank you for the generous compliment. That was a gift, and I appreciate it — You didn’t have to say that to make your point. We really need to get together for that beer some day. I will make it happen, if you want to!
===============================
To the rest: We are in a long-term trend of global warming. It started around 1830 or so, when the “Little Ice Age” trend broke. We know it is real: Melting polar ice and rising oceans are incontrovertible evidence.
It is likely that the main cause is the burning of millions of years’ worth of fossil fuels during the last century. There are pretty good reasons to accept the link.
There are two ways to get stupid with this:
Stupid #1: To deny that the warming trend exists. There will be cyclic weather (El Nino and La Nina) during the warming trend, and some years will be colder than others. The ice is still melting.
Stupid #2: To imagine that some political policy will stop the trend in short years. If we make an orderly transition away from fossil fuels, it will take centuries for the warming trend to slow down, level off, and start a cooling trend. Millennia, perhaps.
The cartoon about Obama plays to people of the Stupid #1 sort, and I expected that Ex-GOP would be rightly angry about that. (Gritching about the Sunday Funnies is one of his favorite hobbies.)
I didn’t expect Ex-GOP to look to Wall Street for a reaction — SURPRISE!. Wall Street knows that Obama is a lame duck (as in “really lame”), and they barely notice anything he says nowadays. Obama is not going to impact the investor’s future at all.
In case you’re wondering why I’m being so flippant is because I view all this “human caused” climate change as laughable. I find it necessary to apply my grandma’s words of wisdom: If we didn’t laugh we’d cry.
I have one question. What exactly is a “normal” climate? Keep in mind we represent but specks of dust in the history of this planet and the climate. Who is to say exactly what the climate should be doing? Maybe we have been experiencing an aberration for the past several hundred years.
I’ve read that climate change is what forced our ancestors out of Africa. How pray tell did that happen? I certainly don’t think our primitive ancestors were driving SUVs or using gas lawn mowers. Was it the long term effect of dinosaur methane? I bet they could really let them rip.
The climate is a force of nature about which we understand little and have no control of, any more than we control hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, or volcanoes.
That being said, on this issue I will continue to live by my grandma’s great words of wisdom.
I have a personal opinion that global warming is God’s providence for humanity. The sweet spot for agricultural productively will move a bit to the north, across the wide expanse of Alaska and Canada and Russia. We will be able to feed billions more people on Earth.
But that will mean that we must cooperate peacefully, to get the food from the growing regions in the northern hemisphere to the teeming billions in the southern hemisphere.
Humanity will need to be much more Christian than we currently are. 300 million Americans already kill a million of our own children each year, just to avoid the expense of raising them. And we are one the richest and most Christian cultures in the modern world.
What it amounts to Mary, is that if a rock falls from a cliff face there’s not a whole lot we can do about it apart from deal with the outcomes/impacts. But if someone throws a rock from a cliff…..
Anthropogenic climate change deniers are like those who wouldn’t see any point in doing anything about someone throwing those rocks.
Reality,
So tell me, exactly what is a “normal climate” and who determines it?
Also, how do you explain climate change when our ancestors were, well, throwing rocks?
Reality,
You anthropogenic climate change chicken littles remind me of our primitive ancestors who thought they could end eclipses by shouting at and throwing sticks at the moon as it covered the sun. Well it worked didn’t it? The moon moved on.
Some things never change.
So few words, so many categories of wrong. Well done. Including conflating the metaphor with the root, give yourself a little pat on the back. More original than some of your multi-character scripts!
‘normal climate’? That’d be whatever the climate is without anthropogenic input. You know, what mother nature does.
“Also, how do you explain climate change when our ancestors were, well, throwing rocks?” – cute. You think rock-throwing causes climate change? Those ancestors didn’t have factories, cars etc. pumping stuff into the atmosphere.
“You anthropogenic climate change chicken littles remind me of our primitive ancestors who thought they could end eclipses by shouting at and throwing sticks at the moon as it covered the sun. Well it worked didn’t it? The moon moved on.” – that’s funny. Then they found science and stopped shouting and throwing sticks. Well some of us did anyway.
“Some things never change.” – and others do. So if we do something about those throwing rocks off the cliff we may prevent the impacts being so dire.
Which, despite your little literary diversionary punt, brings me right back to…..anthropogenic climate change deniers are like those who wouldn’t see any point in doing anything about someone throwing those rocks. ‘Cos some fall down anyway.
Reality,
You didn’t address the question. What is “normal climate”. Please tell me specifically what it consists of, not what it doesn’t consist of. Also has the climate been consistent for millions or billions of years? If it hasn’t, how do you explain this?
Exactly Reality, our rock throwing ancestors didn’t have SUVs, factories, etc. So what caused the climate to change? Why did we experience the Ice Age?
I answered your question quite clearly, including what it consists of.
What do you mean by consistent? Exactly the same every day forever? Well it hasn’t been like that, it’s been consistently what it is according to mother nature – without anthropogenic interference until recent times.
What caused the climate to change? Mother nature. Non-anthropogenic stuff. The ice age was due to mother nature. Do you think it’s a good idea for us to cause one? Or anything else?
Meh, some rocks will fall so why bother stopping people throwing them. That’s how it goes isn’t it?
Reality,
You described a “normal climate” as that without anthropogenic input. What Mother Nature does. What does she do?
So you acknowledge the climate has not been consistent and Mother Nature determined this. So Mother Nature does indeed control the climate.
Did dinosaur flatulence influence the climate? Throughout history, humans burned wood, cut down forests, and decimated wildlife. Cities and towns were open cesspools. Did this effect the climate? When was it Mother Nature and when was it man made?
“What does she do?” – whatever she wants.
“So you acknowledge the climate has not been consistent and Mother Nature determined this.” – no.
“So Mother Nature does indeed control the climate.” – she has done until we went industrial.
“Did dinosaur flatulence influence the climate?” – maybe, I wasn’t there, were you?
“Throughout history, humans burned wood, cut down forests, and decimated wildlife.” – indeed. How many? What sort of toxins did wood-burning expel compared to large-scale industrial activity?
“Cities and towns were open cesspools. Did this effect the climate?” – not particularly. The problem was adressed though, why do you think that might have been?
“When was it Mother Nature and when was it man made?” – when we went large-scale industrial.
It wasn’t a tricky metaphor you know :-)
Reality,
So Mother Nature does what she wants? Does that include changing the climate?
OK, the climate has not been consistent over millions and billions of years. Why is that?
Mother Nature did fine until we went industrial? Does that include the Ice Age? How about the mini ice age of the 13th century which was preceded by a global warming trend? How about the climate change that forced our ancestors out of Africa?
Well, since we now hold cow flatulence responsible for climate change, I’m curious as to whether or not dinosaur flatulence was also a problem. Put simply, I’m trying to show how absurd and laughable you people really are.
Can you be certain that thousands of years of burning wood and destroying the forests, as well as open cesspools spewing methane didn’t effect the climate? Public sanitation certainly wasn’t, and still isn’t, universal.
So tell me, when did Mother Nature take a back seat to humans when it came to the climate?
“Does that include changing the climate?” – indeed. It’s her role, not ours.
“OK, the climate has not been consistent over millions and billions of years. Why is that?” – I’ve already disagreed with you on this point, why try it on again?
“Mother Nature did fine until we went industrial? Does that include the Ice Age? How about the mini ice age of the 13th century which was preceded by a global warming trend? How about the climate change that forced our ancestors out of Africa?” – well those were all mother nature’s work so obviously she was doing fine. Are you demanding the right to induce a warming trend or an ice age?
“Well, since we now hold cow flatulence responsible for climate change, I’m curious as to whether or not dinosaur flatulence was also a problem.” – how fartie were dinosaurs compared to cows? What did their flatulence contain? How many dinosaurs were there compared to cows?
“Put simply, I’m trying to show how absurd and laughable you people really are.” – after what you’ve just written you’re mistaken about where the laughter is coming from :-)
“Can you be certain that thousands of years of burning wood and destroying the forests” – none of which contained the sheer volume and range of chemicals that industry has been spewing into the air. You do realise that don’t you?
“as well as open cesspools spewing methane didn’t effect the climate?” – did they?
“Public sanitation certainly wasn’t, and still isn’t, universal.” – are you doing anything to help? Again, not a fraction of the toxicity and volume of chemicals spewed by industry.
“So tell me, when did Mother Nature take a back seat to humans when it came to the climate?” – do you really not understand this?
Reality,
I’m glad you’ve come to the conclusion that the climate is controlled by forces of nature, what we have referred to as Mother Nature. Its what I’ve said all along.
Also, that warming and cooling trends are the result of the forces of nature at work, always have been, always will be.
You actually question whether cow flatulence is effecting the climate? Its worse than I thought.
How does human pollution over centuries compare to the forces of Mother Nature, such as perpetually erupting volcanoes and lightening induced forest fires? Her forces have been at work millions or years longer(and still are) than our piddling few centuries. You do realize that don’t you?
BTW, you have yet to tell me specifically what a normal climate is and who makes this determination.
It is always best to ignore the troll.
Mary: “Normal Climate” is defined by the relativists. It means “This climate that I am enjoying right now. I am relatively comfortable and acclimated to it.”
To this bunch, a cooling trend is just as bad as a warming trend. Climate change is not the sort of change that they can believe in.
So they are willing to believe any politician who promises that he can deliver favorable weather.
For those of us who are concerned about the future — for the sake of our children and grandchildren — We are much more worried about the mounting debt and economic collapse.
The debt crisis is a far more pressing problem, and one that we can actually solve. I wish Obama would make himself useful and throw a few words at this.
Hi Del,
Excellent advice and commentary.
Thank you.
A little disappointed seeing people getting beat intellectually, so then resorting to calling an active member of the site a “troll”.
A little chicken-sh*t if you ask me.
Can’t mentally beat him, so bail in a cowardly way.
What’s with that Mary/Del?
How nicely disingenuous of you Mary. Mother nature *has* been the deliverer of climate. But we have reached the point where we are impacting on it through our actions.
“You actually question whether cow flatulence is effecting the climate?” – where did you get that idea? You stated it, I asked about the dinosaurs.
“How does human pollution over centuries compare to the forces of Mother Nature” – oh we’ve got some catching up to do. Do you think we should continue to try to do so? And what about the quality of the air that we breath and the water that we drink? Shall we pollute away and then say ‘go on mother nature, clean it up’? A ‘piddling few centuries’ that have had serious impact – you do realize that don’t you?
“BTW, you have yet to tell me specifically what a normal climate is and who makes this determination” – I have done so. Either you have chosen to ignore it or it was beyond your ken.
“It is always best to ignore the troll” – I mostly do.
“Normal Climate” is defined by the relativists. It means “This climate that I am enjoying right now. I am relatively comfortable and acclimated to it.” – no Del, that’s just wishful thinking in your head. Normal climate is the climate which occurs without being impacted by the activities of mankind.
“So they are willing to believe any politician who promises that he can deliver favorable weather” – oh yes, which ones are those?
“For those of us who are concerned about the future — for the sake of our children and grandchildren — We are much more worried about the mounting debt and economic collapse.” – an unliveable planet not so much eh? Money and the economy are short-term conditions, the planet we live on not so much.
“I wish Obama would make himself useful and throw a few words at this” – he has. And the rag-tag mob of festering loons known as the GOP have stuck their tongues out.
Reality,
You never did explain what Mother Nature’s role concerning the climate was, only “you know, what Mother Nature does”and “whatever she wants” do not qualify as answers. Kindly show me the post where you address this.
Exactly what does a normal climate consist of? Again, show me the post where you address this.
We have some “catching up” to do with Mother Nature in the pollution department? Mother Nature has been polluting for milllions of years and still is, we don’t have a prayer of catching up to her. The climate continues to do what it has done for millions of years, change. Why should it stop now?
“You never did explain what Mother Nature’s role concerning the climate was” – that’s not exactly what you asked. You keep altering the question each time I answer it. Why is that do you suppose?
“Exactly what does a normal climate consist of? Again, show me the post where you address this” – June 30, 2014 at 9:06 pm – which you acknowledged at June 30, 2014 at 10:08 pm.
“Mother Nature has been polluting for milllions of years and still is” – indeed, yet not with the range of toxins that we have been producing.
“we don’t have a prayer of catching up to her.” – that’s a risky assumption.
“The climate continues to do what it has done for millions of years, change. Why should it stop now?” – I don’t know of anyone who has said it would or should. But that doesn’t mean we should carelessly have a negative impact on the climate and the environment in general. It’s that whole ‘why bother stopping people tossing rocks when some are gonna fall anyway’ mindset of yours again isn’t it. Why not apply that to abortion?
Reality,
“normal climate” “That’d be whatever the climate is without anthropogenic input. You know what mother nature does”. You tell me what it doesn’t consist of, not what it does.So what is a normal climate? What are the temperatures supposed to be, the lengths of the seasons? Please specify what mother nature does. I acknowledged what you said, I didn’t agree with it.
Reality 9:26PM: “Mother Nature has been polluting for millions of years and still is” indeed, yet not with the range of toxins that we have been producing”.
Reality 7:15PM: “How does human pollution over the centuries compare to the forces of Mother Nature?”-oh we’ve got some catching up to do. Do you think we should continue to try to do so?
So which is it Reality?
You can ask the same question as many different ways as you like, you’re still only going to get the right answer, not the one you’d like. You appear to know about ice ages, warming periods and volcanoes so why keep asking?
“So which is it Reality?” – they’re not mutually exclusive.
Reality,
I don’t “like” any particular answer, I just want a straight honest one. You have yet to define for me what a normal climate is and what it consists of.
“They’re not mutually exclusive”- Uh Reality, its called contradicting yourself.
“You have yet to define for me what a normal climate is and what it consists of” – your claim simply isn’t true, I have done so.
“Uh Reality, its called contradicting yourself” – no, they are quite obviously not mutually exclusive. No contradiction. Try reading them again.
It’d be nice if you could exhibit some consistency. One minute you claim to know all about something, the next minute you claim you need all sorts of questions answered!
The consensus among scientists and scientific organizations that human causes global warming is monumental. “No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points (that humans effect climate); the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position”
Why does a position in the “pro life” camp also mean that you have to deny overwhelming evidence of this?
“Why does a position in the “pro life” camp also mean that you have to deny overwhelming evidence of this?”
It’s not a “pro-life” thing, it’s a Republican/conservative thing. For some reason utterly beyond me, most Republicans just will always oppose the ridiculous amount of evidence for anthropogenic global warming. I think it’s a party line thing and because it would cost some big businesses money to switch to forms of energy that lessen the effects.
The only reason you see it more often than you should on a pro-life blog is because most pro-lifers are Republicans and/or conservative (though those demographics are finally changing, thank goodness we’re getting some diversity). You don’t see liberal or Dem pro-lifers denying climate change.
GL and DLPL,
I have presented sources time and again that dispute this anthropogenic global warming nonsense but for some reason people choose to disregard them.
OK, let’s look at it this way: In the past 40 or so years we have gone from an impending ice age, to global warming, to climate change. If that doesn’t tell you the “experts” don’t know what the heck is going on or if anything is even going on I don’t know what else will.
So they will wisely stick to “climate change” since the weather and climate have been changing for billions of years. Nothing like sticking to the tried and true.
As I read through this thread, I notice assertions keep changing. “Most scientists believe in global warming”. “Most scientists believe in climate change.” “Most organizations believe in global warming.” “Humans impact climate.” “Climate change is bad.” Anyone who questions one point is then a “denier” who disagrees with every point. Hardly scientific discourse.
Is there evidence humans affect climate? Yes. Is there a consensus that the change is significant or that it is bad? No.
DLPL, I inferred from your comments that you believe the only people who disagree with any of the above statements do so for political reasons because of Republican funding. Many people don’t agree with the alarmist predictions because the models are not consistent (drought here, no maybe there, or wait, we don’t know. Or maybe it’s flooding. We’ll have hotter winters. Oh wait, since the winters were colder, we have to assert it’s climate not weather events. The ice caps will melt. Or wait, since the polar ice is growing, it must mean global warming equals cooling. Oh wait, it means more “extreme” weather events everywhere, yeah that’s it. Climate *does* mean weather events.)
Also, I see evidence the other way — people believe climate change and believe it’s bad because it is the talking point of liberals. Asserting humans affect climate and that change is bad places restrictions on hydrocarbon energy producers and consumers, turning them to alternative energy sources which puts money into a lot of politicians pockets. Also, alarmist predictions increase funding for academic institutions. Any university researcher who asserts that natural climate variance will mask anthropogenic change just won’t receive federal funding.
“It’s not a “pro-life” thing, it’s a Republican/conservative thing.” Hardly. It is a dissenting scientist thing. Also, DLPL, GL, Reality, etc, your comments are very borderline personality disorder “splitting”. To you, either a person “embraces” or “denies” the talking points of climate change. For you it appears there is no in between. However, to me, a skeptic who doesn’t embrace the talking points believes the talking points don’t match up with a lot of other evidence, and a skeptic is not a denier.
Reality,
Let’s hope you’ll have better luck explaining your contradictory statements than you have had explaining what constitutes a normal climate.
“I have presented sources time and again that dispute this anthropogenic global warming nonsense but for some reason people choose to disregard them.”
Probably because we look at them, and then look at the 97% of other peer-reviewed sources that say otherwise, and go with the consensus.
“Hardly. It is a dissenting scientist thing.”
What dissenting scientists? The vast, vast majority of scientists are not dissenting. And I don’t know how to respond to the claim it’s not a conservative vs liberal culture battle thing when it really, clearly is.
“Also, DLPL, GL, Reality, etc, your comments are very borderline personality disorder “splitting”. To you, either a person “embraces” or “denies” the talking points of climate change.”
Please don’t accuse people who disagree with you of having mental disorders or engaging in thinking errors tied to disorders. I’ve recently been diagnosed with a rather severe one (was misdiagnosed for years with major depressive disorder, apparently it’s bipolar disorder instead). It’s not a kind or effective debate tactic and I didn’t expect it out of you. I can have a mental illness and still be capable of rational arguments.
“However, to me, a skeptic who doesn’t embrace the talking points believes the talking points don’t match up with a lot of other evidence, and a skeptic is not a denier.”
You can be a skeptic, but if you are ignoring 97% of peer-reviewed research because…. ??? it seems like denial to me. There comes a point when skepticism becomes denial and I think anthropogenic climate change skepticism has passed that point.
“Let’s hope you’ll have better luck explaining your contradictory statements than you have had explaining what constitutes a normal climate.” – good job I don’t have any contradictory statements to explain then isn’t it. Then again, the fact that you couldn’t grasp what constitutes normal climate despite being told probably explains why you couldn’t grasp the fact that statements which aren’t mutually exclusive aren’t contradictory either.
Reality,
I am well aware you cannot tell me what constitutes a normal climate. No need to convince me.
Also, feel free to explain your contradictory statements at any time.
DLPL,
I have shown you source after source, plus you can google “global warming hoax”.
Also what exactly is going on? 40 years ago we were entering another ice age and after this past winter I’m convinced. But its been global warming for several years. What happened?
How did we go from impending ice age to being overheated?
Maybe because the “experts” are totally clueless?
Our primitive ancestors thought they saved themselves by throwing sticks and shouting at the moon. We think we’ll save ourselves by controlling cow flatulence.
I just can’t. Someone else take over here.
Mary I like and respect you so I really can’t discuss climate change with you ever again because I’m just going to end up being rude and sarcastic, and that would be wrong of me.
Thank you DLPL,
But I hope you will look at alternative opinions.
Apologies DLPL if it sounded as if I was describing you per se with my BPD comment. My comment was meant to point to the arguments of “embracer” vs “denier” as very black and white splitting. Who said anyone who doesn’t fully embrace the alarmist mindset “ignores” anything? I’ve probably attended more meteorology / climate conferences and read more journal articles than the majority of reporters from whom most people get their information. Again, nearly all of those 97% I have looked at get their funding from liberal academia and federal grants and could be biased. I hardly ignore their research; I just don’t let them or the media do my thinking for me. The research you espouse doesn’t satisfy a lot of unanswered questions. I agree with Mary, I hope you look at alternative opinions.
I have looked at alternate opinions, why does everyone always act like I’m functionally retarded? I’ve looked at the stuff you guys talk about, it’s unconvincing compared to the mass of evidence for anthropogenic global warming and it’s effects. I don’t understand why I should ignore the mass of the evidence for the fringe. That makes no sense at all.
DLPL,
What the alternative opinions show is that not everyone is in agreement, as well as evidence to the contrary.
Far from being “functionally retarded” I have tremendous respect for your intelligence and wit.
Again I ask you to consider why it is no one can get it straight if we’re cooling or warming and why we’ve gone from “global warming” to “climate change”. Maybe because it covers all bases?
I really can’t talk about this anymore, I’m working on not being snotty and sarcastic and I’ve explained myself multiple times so I think the conversation is done. No prob Mary we’re always cool. :)
Indeed we are my friend! :)
If you have failed to absorb the explanation of what constitutes a normal climate Mary, then ‘well aware’ is not the appropriate term.
As for what you haven’t grasped about the two distinct statements, I’ll give you some help:
Bar A sells a far wider range of alcoholic beverages than Bar B.
Bar B sells a greater volume of alcoholic beverages than Bar A.
Now, tell me where these two statements are mutually exclusive or contradictory.
“why we’ve gone from “global warming” to “climate change” – this has been explained to you before. Global warming does not always mean every region gets warmer. It can in fact make some areas cooler. The change has numerous effects. So when some areas did get cooler, the numpties who wish to deny climate change latched onto it and said ‘hah! So much for global warming.’ Therefore, a more accurate descriptive term of the impacts was used.
Reality,
You have not as yet defined for me what a normal climate is, which would consist of weather patterns and seasonal temperatures, to name just a few factors, not “you know, what mother nature does”.
No Reality, you tell me how YOUR statements are not contradictory.
The reason it has gone to climate change is to convince people like you that global warming is still taking place. You see when you go from impending ice age to overheated planet in a matter of a decade or two, people begin to wonder. Do these “experts” have any idea what they’re talking about?
So now, no matter what happens, all bases are covered. Its “climate change”.
“You have not as yet defined for me what a normal climate is” – I most certainly have. Your failure to grasp it is not my problem.
“you tell me how YOUR statements are not contradictory”
Statement 1 – “How does human pollution over centuries compare to the forces of Mother Nature” – oh we’ve got some catching up to do.
Statement 2 – “Mother Nature has been polluting for millions of years and still is” indeed, yet not with the range of toxins that we have been producing”.
Statement 1 tells us that mother nature is still probably a greater polluter by volume. Statement 2 tells us that we pump a greater range of toxins than mother nature. They are distinct. No contradiction, no mutual exclusivity.
I’m a bit disappointed that I need to make it so simple for you.
“The reason it has gone to climate change is to convince people like you that global warming is still taking place.” – no, it’s to accurately reflect what is taking place so that the deniers don’t dishonestly exploit terminology, as I explained.
For example – “You see when you go from impending ice age to overheated planet in a matter of a decade or two, people begin to wonder.”
“Do these “experts” have any idea what they’re talking about?” – by a heck of a margin over the deniers.
Climate change is what it is yes.
Reality,
Not quite.
Statement 1 tells us MN has a few years on us when it comes to pollution, like a billion or 2, give or take.
Statement 2 says essentially the same thing as statement 1, though doesn’t quite give MN her due. Its more like billions and not millions. I stand corrected.
Mother Nature has been polluting for millions/billions of years, yet we produce toxins greater than millions/billions of years of ongoing volcanic eruptions, lightening induced forest fires, asteroid strikes, earthquakes, oil seeping into oceans…
A real stretch there Reality.
I think your statement that we have catching up to do is the correct one of the two.
I’m a bit disappointed I have to make this so simple for you.
Reality how did we go from impending ice age to overheated planet in a matter of a decade or two?
“Statement 1 tells us MN has a few years on us when it comes to pollution, like a billion or 2, give or take.” – that’s a reasonable summation of what I said, yes.
“Statement 2 says essentially the same thing as statement 1” – not at all. It quite clearly says that we produce a greater range of toxins, that’s all.
“Mother Nature has been polluting for millions/billions of years, yet we produce toxins greater than millions/billions of years of ongoing volcanic eruptions, lightening induced forest fires, asteroid strikes, earthquakes, oil seeping into oceans…
A real stretch there Reality.” – it might be but it’s not what I said.
“I think your statement that we have catching up to do is the correct one of the two.” – both statements are correct.
“I’m a bit disappointed I have to make this so simple for you.” – apparently it’s not simple, you’ve gotten it confused.
“Reality how did we go from impending ice age to overheated planet in a matter of a decade or two?” – did we?
Reality,
The stretch is your suggestion(It quite clearly says that we produce a greater range of toxins, that’s all) that our piddling few centuries of industrial toxins in any way compares to what MN has produced, and otherworldly forces in the form of asteroids and meteors have produced over billions of years.
I’m not the one who’s confused here.
“Did we”?
Uh, yes we did. In the mid 1970’s we had warnings of an impending ice age. A decade or two later we’re overheated. Any idea how that happened?
So you don’t understand the difference between range and volume. Pity.
“In the mid 1970?s we had warnings of an impending ice age. A decade or two later we’re overheated. Any idea how that happened?” – perhaps you should be listening to the scientists.
Reality,
Listening to the scientists? What for? They can’t figure out if we’re freezing or overheating. No wonder they decided to go with “climate change”.
I well understand the difference between billions of years and a few piddling centuries.
“They can’t figure out if we’re freezing or overheating.” – it’s not them who can’t figure it out.
“No wonder they decided to go with “climate change”. – and you accuse EX-GOP of things not registering!
“I well understand the difference between billions of years and a few piddling centuries” – well that’s nice to hear, not that it’s at all relevant to the statements concerned. Perhaps now you could focus on the difference between volume and range, which is relevant to those statements.
Reality,
OK, so who exactly can figure it out and how in a matter of a few decades did a supposed climate trend completely change course? And you can’t figure out why they went to “climate change”. Maybe because they don’t know for certain what, if anything, is going on? Maybe because computer models aren’t accurate? Maybe because of conflicting data and opinions?
Well Reality, whether or not its relevant is a matter of perspective. But I will give you an “A” for effort in attempting to explain contradicting statements.
“how in a matter of a few decades did a supposed climate trend completely change course?” – it didn’t.
“And you can’t figure out why they went to “climate change”. – well I can. But obviously you can’t, despite being given the information.
“I will give you an “A” for effort in attempting to explain contradicting statements” – after giving you so much guidance on this, at this point I am quite content to sit back and let you persist in displaying your inability to discern between volume and range.
Reality,
It didn’t? Are you suggesting the “experts” are wrong since according to them we were facing an impending ice age just a few decades ago? So the climate must have made an about face if we now have global warming. Which is it?
As I said Reality, you deserve an “A” for effort.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/
No, I’m not suggesting the experts are wrong. You are cherry-picking some of the elements elicited by climate change. And that is further demonstration of why the term was changed.
And at this point I can only deliver you a “Failed”.
As you can see from this link Reality, everything old is new again. Also, maybe you will understand why they play it safe and call it “climate change”.
Mary –
I just wanted to confirm here before unsubscribing to this thread – but your contention is that the 6+ billion people in the world pumping chemicals into the air have not had any sort of effect on temperatures and the planet? That’s the bottom line of your argument? I don’t need a Maryish, rambling type statement – a simple yes or no would be awesome.
Reality,
Either the “experts” were wrong or the climate did an about face. Which is it?
EGV,
Tell me, were the experts wrong or did the climate do an about face?
What I see from the link Mary, is that you have a propensity to seek ideologically driven information that suits your view rather than that which is true and accurate.
I’ve explained it to you so that you could understand. It seems I may have overestimated you. Have you even looked up what ‘volume’ and ‘range’ mean yet?
I haven’t been reading the conversation to even know what you are referencing – just seen a few highlights. I’ve seen this conversation between you and others on the board about 40 times before…just flip the subjects around.
Anyway, I’ll ask again – is your contention is that the 6+ billion people in the world pumping chemicals into the air have not had any sort of effect on temperatures and the planet? That’s the bottom line of your argument? I don’t need a Maryish, rambling type statement – a simple yes or no would be awesome.
“Either the “experts” were wrong or the climate did an about face. Which is it?” – neither. You are wrong. And you will be while you take your information from sites such as the one you linked to.
Don’t hold your breath Ex, Mary thinks that two distinct and unrelated statements, one about volume and the other regarding range, are mutually exclusive and contradictory.
Reality,
History is what it is and we’ve been down this road before as we prepared to enter another ice age…according to the “experts”. Isn’t it interesting that the same “solutions” that apply to “global cooling” also apply to “global warming”? So please answer my question, were the experts wrong or did the climate do an about face?
Keep working on those contradictory statements. They have indeed proved a challenge for you.
EGV,
Well if you read my link and my posts, then you will realize that I don’t believe a few piddling centuries of industrialization compares to billions of years of Mother Nature and her polluting. Even Reality admits we have catching up to do with her.
Not all of the world’s 6 billion people are industrialized, but instead live primitively.
Also, “experts” can’t seem to figure out what’s going on. So tell me EGV, are they wrong or did the climate do an about face over the past few decades?
Reality,
Facts bite don’t they? So you resort to your tried and true childish antic of jumping up and down and screaming that you don’t like my source. The fact you don’t like a source doesn’t prove its wrong.
“So please answer my question, were the experts wrong or did the climate do an about face?” – I did answer your question. It’s not my problem if it’s not the answer you want. I’m not here to support mistakes.
“Even Reality admits we have catching up to do with her.” – which doesn’t mean we’re not having a negative impact.
“Facts bite don’t they?” – yes. Do let me know when you feel it.
“So you resort to your tried and true childish antic of jumping up and down and screaming that you don’t like my source.” – uhuh, and your persistent ignoring of information would be…..
“The fact you don’t like a source doesn’t prove its wrong.” – of course not. The source does that all on it’s own.
“Keep working on those contradictory statements.” – OK, I’ll let you know when I make one.
“They have indeed proved a challenge for you.” – yes, I’ve yet to make one.
Your challenge is to find out the difference between ‘volume’ and ‘range’. I’ve helped you all I can on this for now Mary.
Reality,
Nice try.
LOVE the one about Hilary, the poor little Match Girl. LOL
Goes right along with her ridiculous “flat broke” statement.
I wonder who they think they’re fooling.
Mary – I didn’t ask about people in comparison to mother nature. I asked about people.
Yes or no?
EGV,
I clearly gave you my answer. I don’t think our few piddling centuries of industrialization, along with the fact the entire world is not industrialized, or 6 billion people makes any difference.
BTW, are you aware that around 10,000 years ago North American Paleo Indians endured a major warming trend, which was hugely beneficial, followed by the return of the ice? Strange, since the Paleo Indians didn’t drive SUVs or use gas powered lawn mowers.
Seems MN has a long history of this kind of activity.
Del you gave me some Food for thought on your June 30th, 8:02 p.m. post.
Please feel free to keep right on going Mary :-)