Project Wonderful Banner

Friday, January 29, 2010

Those damned Books

What's Mallard raving about today?

Al Gore, Cold Weather.

"See, it's freezing cold right now, so the Earth can't possibly be growing warmer. Plus, it's dark outside right now, so the Earth is in constant darkness., the fire helps with that also"

By the way, Mallard, NASA says you're full of shit.

26 comments:

GeoX said...

If Global Warming Is Real Then Why Is It Cold? Congratulations, Tinsley--you've shown yourself to be even more of a worthless fucking hack than I could have imagined.

Tog said...

That's Bruce in the center panel.

Bruce can't just declare outright anymore that climate change isn't real; the right's already given that up in favor of "can't possibly be man-made...uh, for some reason we haven't settled on yet." So he has to be coy about it--well, at least what he THINKS to be coy, anyway.

What's next? Revisiting the old "AL GORE EXHALES CO2! THAT MAKES HIM A HYPOCRITE!" nonsense for the eight hundredth time?

Tsk, I was hoping Mallard would move on to rooting through Chantel's panty drawer today. (Not because I find toon panties sexy, but because I wanted to see how low Bruce would stoop in that set of strips.)

deepbeep said...

Mallard's not a "book burner"... he's just trying to dispose of Chantel's body!

Also, what GeoX said. I've always given credit to Tinsley for refraining from the IGWIRTWIIC cartoon. Sadly, the last shred of respect I had for him has been burned up -- along with 58,000,000 tons of fossil fuels per day, which has no effect whatsoever.

Neo Tuxedo said...

deepbeep skrev:

I've always given credit to Tinsley for refraining from the IGWIRTWIIC cartoon.

You were giving him too much credit. Years and years ago, when there were wolves in Wales and uncles at Christmas, and this blog didn't yet exist, Brushie came out with one of those lumps of jauddle he's pleased to call poems:

"To those who believe global warming's the truth...
And won't welcome any dissenter...
Come on over here...
And blow in my ear...
I could use some hot air this winter..."

Kip W said...

Mallard rejects those pointy-headed, cross-eyed scientists and their alarmist claim that burning books inside could possibly lead to any kind of problem. We can only hope the next shibboleth he'll bravely take on will be the foolish prejudice against pissing in light sockets.

Steve--O said...

So we have two choices here. Tinsley's either a) Stupid or b) intellectually dishonest. My 13 year-old understands that we have in America things known as "seasons". It's colder in the wintertime. This fact has absolutely nothing to do with global climate change. I guess Tinsley's getting his scientific information from Jim Inhofe.

dlauthor said...

Once again, Mallard, if you're too cold, there are plenty of available options.

rewinn said...

Global warming deniers hate their children; it's that simple.

Or, to put it another way, the love their ideology more than they love their kids.

As Dr. Hansen points out in is new work, "Storms of My Grandchildren", AGW evidence cannot be countered by rational argument, but it is still countered by stuff like today's "comic". Why do the deniers persist? Some have obvious financial incentives, other have emotional problems with admitting that Al Gore can be right, but at any rate, motivation is not the issue.

Results is the issue.

And the result of denying AGW is to help pass on to our children and grandchildren an Earth less and less suitable for human life.

Of course, Mallard isn't human and he isn't alive.

exanonymous said...

So I assume that because man is not responsible for any global warming, that Mallard will do the responsible thing and give money to the Kivalina village that is rapidly losing land due to unusual storms during seasons when they are normally protected by ice. It's in Alaska, he can make a side trip to have Palin's pastor free him from witches and look at Russia.

On a different note, at a scientific conference one of the researchers referred to a "trick". It should be noted that the "trick" had its methods laid out publicly in his paper and was a code line to check results that were reached a different way to verify. Also, the experiment was already a success and funding wasn't an issue since he was tenured.

However, because he used the word "trick", by I am now going to completely ignore the Lorentz force.

RevG said...

If you burn books, you are a book burner. End of discussion.

Anonymous said...

I'm not a book-burner. I just think these Jewish books are degenerate!

muddyriverlover said...

Mallard is both unfunny AND unoriginal:

http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoon/display.cfm/80495/

Seriously, must we put up with this crap every winter?

HT said...

Such a delightful illogical fallacy I have to put up with everyday from my step family. Yeah, anyone that thought global warming meant that the earth was going to turn into a desert wasteland was and always will be a fucking retard.

Frank Stone said...

Luckily for Brucie, the "global warming is a hoax because it still gets cold in winter" bandwagon was rolling slowly enough that he could catch up with it after waking up from his latest "research" bender.

Anonymous said...

The notion that "AGW evidence cannot be countered by rational argument" will come as a shock to a large number of eminent scientists, including Nobel Prize winners. That claim should be a shock to any scientist who recognizes that science only advances by considering whether a prevailing theory can and should be questioned. A geocentric universe was once overwhelmingly accepted, and it took courage to argue otherwise. If only Tinsley argued against AGW, I'd say he was full of crap, as usual, but there are many legitimate scientists who question it. The issue is not is not as simple as "2+2 =4 and only crazy people think otherwise." Nor of course are the rational skeptic's doubts based on the fact that it's cold in winter. Oversimplification (and demonization) of your opponent's position is a deplorable tactic whether used by Mallard or by an AGW proponent.

Tog said...

Gist of Anonymous' post: "we'll have to agree to disagree." (Yeah, reposting the same link, but anony demands it.)

Suddenly the Nobel Prize means something, everybody! Tinsley would disagree.

Nobody here is saying a theory should not be questioned.

What the Denial-At-All-Cost crowd is saying, on the other hand, is: "there is a question, therefore, do nothing." I must note that I suspect this group has a large crossover with (1) the group that regularly cites the ticking clock from "24" as justification for action on another topic, and (2) the crowd that believes the UN puts fluoride in your drinking water to make you homosexual.

"Smoking is harmless. No proven link!"
"Ozone depletion is a hippie fantasy and nothing can be done about it!"
"Recycling is a scam! It will destroy the economy!"
"Weapons of mass destruction! Satellite evidence! Headlines read from space! Mushroom cloud!"
"Global warming is a hippie fantasy! No proof!"
"Okay, not a fantasy. But not man-made! Cow farts! Meany sun! Axis wibble! Do nothing! Do nothing! It's a scam! It will destroy the economy! No proven link!"

Can you understand why there's so little respect for the other side on this issue? It's not a matter of demonization of anyone who disagrees; it's exasperation with long-term resistance from obstinate knobs who, as Rewinn noted, are determined to set their ideology above all else, including survival.

CasualBrowser said...

Actually Anon, the basics of global warming ARE as simple as 2+2=4. Burning anything that was in the earth deposits it's byproduct into the atmosphere. This means that there are more molecules up there than before. Since said molecules aren't pumping up the atmosphere balloon style, their addition increases the density of that atmosphere. A denser object has more molecules to hold heat, and can therefore hold more, and transfer more to objects it touches (conduction) like the earth. A simple example of this is cooking. You can reach into a 350 degree oven without harm because the air inside isn't dense enough to transfer it's heat to your hand quickly enough to hurt you. Conversely, reaching into a cooler pot of boiling water, 212 degrees, will give you first degree burns. This is because even though the substance is cooler, there's many more molecules to pour their heat into your cells.

Our atmosphere can hold more heat because there's more molecules in it than there used to be. It's simple to comprehend (if you're willing to allow your brain to do that). The complexity is in the MYRIAD nuber of ways that different scientists, and different types of scientists, have come to the same conclusion about global warming. Unfortunately, they're scientists, and don't normally have to explain such things to the lowest common denominator of the public. This leaves most of them siting charts, graphs, and numbers that explain nothing to the masses. THEY only know that somebody in a white coat is making their heads spin.

Neo Tuxedo said...

Anon skrev:

The notion that "AGW evidence cannot be countered by rational argument" will come as a shock to a large number of eminent scientists, including Nobel Prize winners.

Scientists in what discipline, exactly? I mean, "a large number of eminent scientists" dispute evolutionary theory, but as I recall, almost none of them are in the biological sciences. Actually, I'm surprised TOGGG! didn't mention them as the third group that has a large overlap with the global warming deniers.

rewinn said...

Sorry, Anonymous coward, but if you want to refute AGW by rational argument, give it a try.

You can't.

Unless and until you come up with an entirely new set of facts, including some hitherto-unknown physical properties of matter, you can't gonna have a rational argument.

See, that's where your "geocentric universe" argument falls to the ground. Ancient science lacked a lot of information; we know a lot more about matter and energy today than back then and what we know about them isn't gonna change in such a way as to put our Earth back at the universe's center. That's the way adding to knowledge works.

AGW deniers must posits some sort of mystic mumbo-jumbo principle that will suddenly leap out of the darkness and save the earth from the same physics that make Venus a hellhole ... even hotter than Mercury which you will note is a lot closer to our Sun ... but to argue that such a thing might exist is precisely the sort of irrational belief that leads gamblers to spend their children's college funds on lottery tickets. It requires completely ignoring the past history of our earth which is explained in big deal in Hansen's book, which I recommend you read before pretending to be able to speak on this subject.

In my close observation, AGW deniers today have a gut level knowledge that AGW is real, for the same reasons and with the same degree of confidence that they know cigarettes cause cancer even as some of them deny it. The verbalized denials of both phenomena come from the same emotional conditions: the preference for their ideology over their health, and the health of their children.

This is not "demonization"; it is an observation in practical psychology. You canNOT persuade someone who WILL not be persuaded. Facts do not matter to AGW deniers.

The "thousands of scientists" you cite do not exist. There are a few industry hacks, like Richard Lindzen who, not incidentally, also deniers the evidence that cigarettes cause cancer. It's not that he isn't a smart guy; he like most deniers merely have an emotional defect.

You may be being fooled by the practice of AGW deniers of citing papers that add to our knowledge of AGW as "proving" AGW is wrong; for one example, a study correcting the ocean temperature records for the use of different measuring instruments during WW2 has been cited as "proving" that AGW is false. It's a complete non sequitur but those who do not WANT to believe make the leap of faith because they want to.

It would be an interesting phenomenon if it weren't threatening to kill our grandchildren.

Kaitlyn said...

Where is the joke?

We don't see any shorthand for "winter" or "cold" - are we just to go ha ha, "Al Gore (which means global warming, which in turn means no more winters)" and "freezing" in the same panel!

It's so funny. Don't you have a sense of humor? Sheesh.

That being said, I hate this comic. Today's, I mean. I love books, I would never burn a book, even one I disagreed with. There are better ways to warm up, and someone will want them - the library, schools, a friend or family member.

Anyone see "The Day After Tomorrow"? They burned books for warmth, but they were trapped in a library. Still, *wince* at the idea.

Of course, I am unnaturally overheated. It is 27 F outside. I have had the window open wide all day. It is 70 F inside, and I am in shorts with the fan right next to me.

WV - cyashi. Reminds me of something, but I'm not sure what.

I hate chuck asay said...

I hope that scientists, one day soon, discover a way of massively expanding our lifespans--not, merely, because there is no afterlife; but because the Neocons will have to choose between seeing the world that will be destroyed by their wars and fanaticism, and dying, hoping that their insincere specious beliefs were right.

Word verification: Belum, similar to vellum, a substance that may line some of the last places we go: Coffins.

I hate chuck asay said...

Why the hell is anyone agreeing with this cartoon? I know that the weather is much too cold, but Tinsley is encouraging book burning! Burning books is the crudest form of censorship! Tinsley would demand that we do the same with C.D.s, D.V.D.s, movie cameras and radios, but he is so out-of-touch with technology that he does not know about any of those things.

I hate chuck asay said...

Why the hell is anyone agreeing with this cartoon? I know that the weather is much too cold, but Tinsley is encouraging book burning! Burning books is the crudest form of censorship! Tinsley would demand that we do the same with C.D.s, D.V.D.s, movie cameras and radios, but he is so out-of-touch with technology that he does not know about any of those things.

CW in LA said...

'Anyone see "The Day After Tomorrow"? They burned books for warmth, but they were trapped in a library. Still, *wince* at the idea.'

Slightly off topic, but thanks, Kaitlyn, that was how I responded to that scene, too.

Oh, and the Tinsh is a terrible person. I wouldn't even burn one of his books, if such a one could be found.

wv: spegan - a vegan who further limits consumption to spinach.

GeoX said...

I wouldn't burn a Mallard Fillmore book, but I would attempt to deface the characters and then give up in disgust as I realize there's no way I can make them look worse than they already do.

exanonymous said...

A "rational argument" does not constitute a scientific rebuttal. Anyone who has taken a beginners course in special relativity or even dealt with quantum mechanics knows this. Appealing to common sense or logic is nothing but trouble.

That usually comes as a shock to the average non-scientist. And why specials on how the government built a secret vacuum to film faked moon landings sound so convincing.

There is continued, supported work to find alternative reasons for global warming or even determine if in fact the climate is warming. No one stopped once the first wave of AGW hit public perception. But the fact is that a consensus was made and that consensus is what is currently relied upon by those who don't have time to list all disclaimers, error bars, percentages, disagreements and peer reviewed articles dealing with the topic.