The English Blog : Climate Change Hoax cartoon

scienceblogs.com · Mar 1, 2026 · Collected from GDELT

Full Article

Well the odds were stacked in his favour to get one of them right. Ya like the environmental community does not have a long ugly history of false claims? Also to promote this cartoon while the overhyped threat of global warming falls by the wayside seems a bit weird. Me thinks you need a new gig. "Also to promote this cartoon while the overhyped threat of global warming falls by the wayside seems a bit weird. Me thinks you need a new gig." - Ray. Oh yeah? http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100517_globalstats.html "The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for both April (2010) and for the period from January-April (2010), according to NOAA. Additionally, last monthâs average ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for any April, and the global land surface temperature was the third warmest on record." Dappledwater, (stagnent?) The threat of global warming in the eyes of the public falls somewhere below jock itch. Get over it, you have lost the debate. Furthur claims simply paints yourself as one of those weird bearded dudes in a sheet proclaiming the end is nigh. Best to move on...say Alar, oh wait been there done that. DW Well, looks like Ray is right. Because the general public doesn't accept 'global warming', then the debate is over and it simply doesn't exist. Or.... and here's a suggestion for you Ray. Just because the general public doesn't believe in something, does not make it go away. AGW is not tinkerbell. It will exist whether people accept it or not. Would you like to debate that based on science, rather than ignorance (or is that all you are armed with?). Ray's been watching too many Roadrunner cartons Mandas, he's run over the edge of the cliff and thinks if he doesn't look down, he won't plummet. DW post 3, has Trenberth found his missing heat yet? You gonna stump up for some deep ocean monitoring equipment Crakar?. Unless someone does it'll remain unanswered. People have whole heartedly responded to threats in the past, wars, floods, disease etc. Convince them of imminent harm and you will see action. Global warming has failed to do that, if fact it's become a bit of a joke. DW, you don't seem to give the general public much credit for recognizing the scam of awg. They have and it was your lack of convincing science that led to that failure. The cartoon speaks to that failure. Its warm! great, that is so much better than cold. Incredible. While I don't know you personally, Ray, the argumentation style used suggests to me what I've seen so often in debating with AGW deniers. Its unlikely, for example that you read extensively or are practiced in logical thinking. The appeal to popular opinion as evidence against AGW is a dead giveaway that your primary source of information on this is most likely Fox News or a similarly unsophisticated resource. Maybe you heard it from your local pulpit; I admit I can only speculate, but I cannot help but wonder. On that note, one thing I have never been able to track down is any specific polling information suggesting a correlation between global warming denial and Christian fundamentalism. The ideological overlap seems intuitive enough but I'm not aware of any of it being verified. (Our dear Crakar, an avowed atheist obviously would not fit the generalization.) Paula Kirby, the ex-Christian author of this WP editorial linked below, suggests that any link between religious dogmatism and global warming denial stems from "childish modes of thinking", by which she means a simplistic faith in God solving our problems: http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/paula_kirby/2009/1… I can sympathize with her at the personal and intellectual levels--as an ex-believer myself and as one who is dismayed at the overwrought confidence in AGW skepticism that someone such as yourself can display, Ray. I would also add slightly to Kirby's wording. AGW denial is not just, like religious dogmatism, indicative of "childish modes of thought", but a gullibility for childish *arguments* for a preferred position. Its not just that religious zealots/global warming deniers are ideologically overlapped, but that they will believe the *dumbest* things that allegedly vindicate their preferred position. And while the appeal to popular opinion might not be the biggest fallacy committed in defense of AGW denial, it ranks competitively. Skip, you wasted five paragraphs saying nothing except this in the sixth. "And while the appeal to popular opinion might not be the biggest fallacy committed in defense of AGW denial, it ranks competitively." How would you then rate the over hyped consensus or, in other words, popular opinion among scientists? Is that not a fallacy committed against science? Hint, a consensus is meaningless to science. A majority consensus among voters however is huge and will define the direction if any we take addressing climate change. Hint, a consensus is meaningless to science. Uh huh. You need to believe that don't you? Ray, you're parroting something from Michael Crichton/American Enterprise Institute . . . can't think of other possible sources offhand. Ray, do you disbelieve in macro-evolution? Do you believe that Genesis is literal truth? I am genuinely curious. It would be an incremental answer to my rhetorical question. A majority consensus among voters however is huge and will define the direction if any we take addressing climate change. No argument here. But it has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of anthropogenic global warming. Nothing. I'm not even clear from anything you've written yet that you even understand that simple fact, although perhaps you do. skip I see you are arguing with a brick wall again - except that in this case the brick wall appears both more flexible and more intelligent. Mind you, Ray isn't even sure of his own position. He consistently denies that climate change is occuring, but at post 10 he states: "...Its warm! great, that is so much better than cold..." which obviously shows he accepts the climate is warming but thinks it is a good thing. So here's a challenge for you Ray - tell us what you really think is occuring, then back it up with some sort of evidence. Perhaps then we can have a rational debate with you rather than just this dogmatic position based on some sort of preconceived worldview. Mind you, even though Ray may think that warmer is better, I am pretty confident there would be a LOT of species in the world who would disagree, and a little thought on the effects on various ecosystems and the flow-on effects on human activities such as agriculture and fisheries might change Ray's mind on climate change being a good thing (assuming of course that he is capable of such thought). Correct! it has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of awg. Neither the questionable opinion of a large number of climate scientists nor the public's rejection qualify as fact. But the public votes and polititions are well versed in that reality. Perhaps had you adhered to fact instead incrementally shriller demonizing of those scientist or anyone who dissagree with the awg theory and rhetorical BS when confronted with a legitimate questions (see above)it would have worked out better for you. "Hint, a consensus is meaningless to science." - Rong Ray Ray, you have to stop getting your information from the cartoon network, the universe is not an observer based reality like Roadrunner and Wily Coyote cartoons. The world is not how you would like it to be, and certainly science isn't the way you would like to imagine. Consensus is indeed important in scientific circles, if we didn't have that progress would not eventuate, humans would still be living in caves squabbling, via grunts, over how to start fires. Maybe that still happens in your neck of the woods?. Look at Bohr's model of the atom for instance, there seems to be a great deal of consensus over that, and it lead to the development on the atomic bomb. Do you still think consensus is meaningless? - don't answer, that's rhetorical. "Mind you, even though Ray may think that warmer is better, I am pretty confident there would be a LOT of species in the world who would disagree" - Mandas Yup, it looks like Rong Ray is in the early stages of denial, he hasn't yet developed the full blown affliction that affects Crakar v. 25,. Yes, he neglects to mention that previous sustained global warming events have initiated Mass Extinction Events, such as the Paleocene- Eocene Thermal Maximum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PaleoceneâEocene_Thermal_Maximum "But the public votes and polititions are well versed in that reality." - Rong Ray Do CO2 molecules, shortwave & longwave radiation care what humans think?, or do you expect it will have no effect upon them?. I did not post the cartoon, take that point up with Cody. Blood letting was also approved by a "state of the art" medical consensus. How does that and many other examples fit into your point? Climate science is in it's infancy, the public has obviously not bought into disasterous panic and has in fact refused to be even bled. Are you willing to call all of us rong? Carefull, you risk painting yourself a fool. Ray Let me be the first to reply and state that, yes, I am willing to call of you deniers 'rong'. I will risk being painted as a fool - but am very confident that it will not be me who is shown up as holding dogmatic beliefs which are in complete contradiction to every piece of information available. I think this statement in post #16 sums up Ray's position succinctly: "....Correct! it has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of awg. Neither the questionable opinion of a large number of climate scientists nor the public's rejection qualify as fact...." So looks like Ray thinks that the opinions of the scientifically illiterate general population (especially those who watch that greatest of oxymorons - Fox News) hold much greater sway than those of people who spend years o