Because I Don’t Need to draw a Picture.


  • December 21, 2015 at 12:01 am

    Is it child abuse or educational to let the kiddies watch that station? Shouldn’t it have a parental control on it?

    [deviously answering my own questions]

  • December 21, 2015 at 12:07 am
    John M.

    Science is NOT a consensus… It is empirical research and repeatable phenomena!

    • December 21, 2015 at 9:40 pm

      The validity of Piltdown Man was consensus for decades in Science. Even after the Piltdown hoax was revealed and admitted, it was defended by so called scientists because they had invested their reputations in it…..Same with global warming.

  • December 21, 2015 at 12:22 am
    Muzzle Blast

    We’ve seen “scientific consensus” before, just ask Galileo.

  • December 21, 2015 at 12:45 am
    Delilah T

    Climate? Climate is a NOAA holy word! You will not use it if you do not believe in it!

    Was it Mark Twain who said ‘What we expect is climate. What we get is weather’?

    If 100% of all politic individuals would sew their mouths shut for a year, the hot air would dissipate into space and we’d be in the end of this interglacial period in the blink of an eye.

    Can’t wait to see that happen.

    I really do like how the NYT ‘cleaned up’ an article quoting pResident Peking Lame Duck’s statement that he didn’t know about the Paris attack (or was it San Bernardino?) because he doesn’t watch much cable TV. They took that part out and put in something that covered his idiotic ass, as usual.

    These geniuses have blathered on and on about the volume of warm water in the Pacific and el Nino, but not about how it got that way. And despite the influence of deep submarine quakes off Japan’s coast, they’ve failed to take into account that this may ‘warm water’ may be the result of volcanic venting. It’s going on under the Arctic ice cap on the Gakkel Ridge, too. Has been since 2006. I keep track.

    Earth is a nice place to live. But Gaia can decide to ditch our species if she wants to, in a heartbeat. Do any of you know how to raise your own food and preserve it? If not, get a copy of ‘Stocking Up’. Tells you everything you need to know.

    It took me a while to figure out how come the libretards are so freakin’ dense. It’s because their brains shrink significantly from lack of use.

    • December 21, 2015 at 1:00 am

      Mother Nature is a bitch; by my count she’s tried to kill us at least twice*.

      (*Climate cooling driving us out of the water after partial aquatic-adaptations and the fact that unlike 99.99% of all other animals, we don’t produce our own ascorbate/vitamin C.)

    • December 21, 2015 at 1:32 am

      Undersea volcanic venting – I had forgotten about that. Of course, after solar radiation, axial tilt, volcanic activity above ground, vegetation amounts globally this will also be called irrelevant to climate change as big SUV’s and coal-fired power plants are the only things that affect Earth’s climate.

      Two, considering the quality and location of temperature sensors (how accurate will a thermometer that is surrounded by concrete, asphault and burning jet fuel be?) and the shortcomings (that they will never admit) of the climate models it is surprising that they are taken so seriously still.

      And – to tie this in to yesterdays ‘toon – #3, the Larch…

  • December 21, 2015 at 12:45 am

    That 97 percent involved 79 climatologists at a conventional. Not valid legally or scientifically. About 10 percent of all scientists in the world would need to be polled to arrive at a justifable stat.

    • December 21, 2015 at 1:03 am

      And regardless of a “valid” consensus, all it takes is one guy publishing countervailing, reproducible results to make it completely irrelevant.

      (Of course I know from experience that politics, not testable truth, holds a lot of sway in scientific discourse – especially when as much funding-money and prestige is on the line as in the current climatology field.)

    • December 21, 2015 at 1:38 am

      The burden of proof is not on skeptics of a scientific hypothesis. The burden of proof rests with its proponents to demonstrate that it systematically explains the observations. [The defender of alarmist ‘climate consensus science’] confuses the observations with actual tests of the hypothesis. He bizarrely thinks that the AGW hypothesis is upheld unless skeptics can disprove the observations and produce a replacement hypothesis. Science had never worked this way. Science cannot work this way. Politics do work this way. Logical fallacy is to a politician what a Brunton Compass is to a geologist.

      — David Middleton, (15 December 2015)

      • December 21, 2015 at 9:51 am

        Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.- Carl Sagan

        Except, of course, when referring to “climate change” used by progressives to demand Absolute Power Forever. As Sagan and Company did in the 1980s when they used the “Nuclear Winter” hoax to demand unilateral disarmament of the West. Unfortunately for their grand plans (and the USSR), Reagan didn’t buy into it.

        In refusing to hand over raw data for the CBO to check, a NOAA admin last week sneered “Politics must never be permitted to influence the search for truth”.

        Pardon me, but that’s bovine excrement on a galactic level. To quote one of the few scientists I trust any more (even if he is fictional);

        Archaeology is the search for fact… not truth. If it’s truth you’re looking for, Dr. Tyree’s philosophy class is right down the hall.

        -Dr. Henry Jones, Jr.

        I’m a sort-of “scientist” (crime lab nerd, medically retired). And if I’d tried half the BS they pull in the name of “climate change” in court, I’d be behind bars for a variety of counts regarding falsified evidence, suborning perjury, and etc.

        BTW, in the quote above, Sagan was referring to UFOs in his book and TV series Cosmos. But, a decade earlier, when he co-authored Intelligent Life in the Universe with I.S. Shklovski, he was a 100% “True Believer” that we were being “visited” about every other Tuesday, as he disparagingly said in Cosmos.

        As far as I could tell, all that had changed on the subject was who was paying his freight. The university that paid for ILITU was four-square in the “Beautiful Aryan Space Brothers” camp, because of the “ban nukes now” message from the “UFO contactee” movement. PBS, that paid for Cosmos, was more skeptical. Hence, he said whatever got him the grant, basically.

        Pretty much like today with “climate change”. The money comes from -surprise!- politicians who really want the power they’ll gain from pushing Draconian measures to “Stop Global Warming”.

        And the “social scientists” in question (very few are actual “hard” science types) want the dough, the influence, and that warm fuzzy feeling that they are Changing The World and Creating Utopia.

        So what if everybody else ends up living in mud huts, spreading night soil in rice paddies, and dying before age 40? Keep in mind, you’re dealing with a bunch of primitivist romantics who think they’ll be living in castles in a neo-feudalist, agrarian socialist state. And lording it over everybody else.

        Just don’t ask them to explain how they’ll still have their tech toys, limousines, and jets to Doha for Rabelaisian romps celebrating their “specialness” without a bloody tech base. Most of them don’t even know what the term means.

        Yes, we are in the throes of one of the classic “Murphy’s Laws”;

        The world is divided into two types of people. Those who understand what they do not control, and those who control what they do not understand.

        clear ether


      • December 21, 2015 at 9:52 am

        OK, how the (censored) (bleep) did I screw up the quote?



      • December 21, 2015 at 1:26 pm

        “Hence, he said whatever got him the grant, basically.”

        Done by every scientist during Grant Re-submission season, ever. The ones with integrity will still present their results as the most singularly important thing that was ever important and the incompetent ones will pour perfume on piles of BS. Everyone walks around the halls looking like a nicotine addict searching for the last cigarette on earth. It doesn’t help that you basically have to write a book to fill out the grant paperwork – even if you’ve already written everything out for previous publication. Afterward it’s all smiles and professional curiosity again, but good lord it’s grim when Grant time comes around.

        “Global Warming” is different though, because in most other fields a dis-proving result is only going to affect the career and prestige of a few people and everyone else is agnostic. In “Climate Science”, if it’s not The End Of The World(tm) then almost everyone stops getting paid and Senators don’t want to be seen with you anymore.

        Separately, I’ve recently had that html quote tag betray me as well.

    • December 21, 2015 at 10:17 am
      Otto Didact

      Couple of nice vids over @ YouTube from PragerU. The founder of Green Peace does a nice job blowing away AGW.

      Here are all PragerU’s vids:

  • December 21, 2015 at 12:57 am

    “…keep it secular…”

    They are selective about their leaps of faith ain’t they?

    • December 21, 2015 at 10:21 am
      Otto Didact

      Ah, are you aware that a “quantum” is the smallest possible division of something? For instance, a bit (binary digit) is a quantum of digital data. The very phrase “quantum leap” is highly oxymoronic. How can one “leap” the smallest amount?

      • December 21, 2015 at 12:26 pm

        Just means lack of continuity actually, but a leap’s a leap.

        I didn’t say “quantum”, but you’re right that the term has come to be misused as a synonym for “giant”. Some probably think it makes them sound smart when it really does quite the opposite. I guess ol’ N. Armstrong was pretty smart, as he used “giant leap” in the proper, if metaphorical, context.

        But yeah, my point of course, and it has always amazed me, is that so many smart folks will readily accept that which is not or cannot be proven when the subject appeals to them (global warming, space aliens, etc.) while rejecting out of hand and even crassly deriding that which they reject out of hand or do not understand (divine design, creationism).

  • December 21, 2015 at 1:34 am

    “…for our viewers?”

    “I Dunno. Are they still up?”

    Senator Cruz is being interviewed on Sprout now?

  • December 21, 2015 at 1:34 am
    B Woodman

    I wish I could find the original article, about 10? 15? years ago, when the Libtards REALLY started getting wound up on this “glo-bull warming” crap. But the gist of it was, that no matter what we do (or DON’T do) to the earth, IT WILL SURVIVE! We can kill ourselves off as a human species with poison, radiation, a bio-virus. We could even nuke the entire world into atomic winter and kill off every species in the air, on land, and under the water — but the earth will continue to rotate around the sun. Eventually, another species may rise up and take our place.

    So this whole crap about “save the earth”, isn’t about saving the earth. It’s about “save our current lifestyle”.

    • December 21, 2015 at 6:31 am

      I like the part about “we are going to Fundamentally Change America” but we are terrified that everything won’t stay exactly the same as it has been for my entire life.

  • December 21, 2015 at 1:39 am

    Engaged a jerk on the radio a few years ago in Jacksonville, FL. I could hear that he was getting angry so I asked him, point blank, what he wanted to do and his response was funny (sort of). He wanted to bulldoze most of the city and return to what it was 200 years earlier; swampland.
    These people are not pro environment, they are anti human.

    • December 21, 2015 at 1:51 am


  • December 21, 2015 at 1:48 am
    Morgan Michaels
  • December 21, 2015 at 2:57 am

    Too many do know, yet do it anyway. control is control. That is the object of politics.
    The good of people has nothing to do with the establishment politicians.
    Those that know not, well, they cause much damage in this world.
    From a faith based position, which once was common, this man, who Harvard Law Professor and arch liberal enemy said was the best debater he had ever seen at Harvard, has done rather well at presenting truth in a Republican abandoned hearing.
    Lies are allowed in political speech say the US Supreme court. The Climate Hustlers all lie. That urbanization effect of concreter caused temperature readings is subject to denialist behavior by lying democrats and other leftists.

    I missed mentioning that the theme of the 34th Coconut Grove King Mango Strut this Dec 27, 2015 at 2 PM in downtown Coconut Grove (capture by Miami in the 1930’s) is The Farce Awakens. (Great minds think alike.)
    There is room to march in somebody’s group. Always. Or just watch. I was asked into two groups so far, make that three. 🙂 Someone should drag a dead elephant (fake or stuffed) down the street in memorial of the dead GOP.

  • December 21, 2015 at 7:21 am
    Bill G

    The science deniers also feel they are not required to show their math…back when they did show some of it Freeman Dyson said that while he knew nothing of climate science he did know mathematical modeling and that theirs was invalid. But someone broke their hockey stick and they’ve stopped being willing to play with the big boys.
    The Constitution forbids establishment of a State Religion, but these Gaia worshipers have as little respect for that document as they do for the scientific method.

    • December 21, 2015 at 1:31 pm

      Those people do not worship Gaia. They worship feudalism, with them at the top of the heap.

  • December 21, 2015 at 9:37 am

    Interesting. For years I maintained and repaired a computerized weather station in the middle of nowhere on the airfield. When due to 9/11, I left that job, the “Government” (they would not say “who”) was installing a brand “new” computerized weather station.
    It was nicely sited next to a very busy highway and just off the end and side of an active takeoff end of a runway.
    It tended to be noticeably warmer there. I spent my days in maintenance time all around the runways to be able to feel it.

    • December 21, 2015 at 10:56 pm

      And long before that happened many of formerly rural weather monitoring stations became suburban monitoring stations. I recall seeing a picture of one in upstate New York which was once in a field but now was right next to an A/C unit and the restaurant’s drive through lane…..

      Glo-bull warming, anyone?

  • December 21, 2015 at 12:07 pm

    Perhaps I am just being snarky… But I think Cruz missed a word on his reply… I dunno are they BOTH still up?

  • December 21, 2015 at 10:11 pm

    I noticed comments were closed for Sunday’s Ex-Party piece but too bad we couldn’t say the same about our liberal party the way Britain’s “Iron Lady” did.

    • December 21, 2015 at 11:06 pm

      It was said at one time of Sarah Palin, “Reagan in a skirt”.

      I liked Sarahcuda and still do, but that turned out not to be true of her.

      Lady Thatcher however, was mighty close…God I loved that old broad.

15 49.0138 8.38624 1 0 4000 1 300 0