Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Fallback follies

By Tom Toles


Al Gore's igloo

Funny while it lasted! (See today's sketchpad.) Ha ha! Climate isn't completely ruined YET! It was cold for few days! Al Gore is FAT!

Okay, but don't environmentalists do the exact same thing but the other way around? Don't they point to a hot day as “proof” of global warming? No. And we don't say that Al Gore is skinny, either. More about that in a minute (not Al Gore's weight but weather-related tactical arguments.) But first of all, the warmth of a given year isn't the real issue, anyway. Certainly the evidence for the warming trend line is compelling, not that that seems to make any impression on deniers. But current warming is really only contributing evidence, not the core feature of the science. The main issue is that carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping gas and we're putting more and more of it into the atmosphere. Even if the temperature trend line were stubbornly flat, carbon dioxide is still a heat trapping gas, and we're still putting more and more into the atmosphere.

Now, as to whether environmentalists are guilty in pointing to freakish weather as evidence of warming, think about it this way. If you know that the wiring in your apartment building is faulty and no fire has broken out yet, but a building a few blocks away happens to be on fire, are you wrong to point out to your neighbors, "That's what I've been warning you about."

Is that really the same as a guy who says he doesn't believe in faulty wiring making a joke about his too-cold refrigerator? A joke that never stops seeming hilarious to him? --Tom Toles



By Tom Toles  | April 7, 2010; 12:00 AM ET
Categories:  GOP, Health care  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Has Vince Gray missed the point?
Next: The enemy of my enemy

Other Syndicated Editorial Cartoons:


No Tom, it is not a few cold days that lend credence to AGW skepticism. It is the past 10 year cooling trend that lends credence to skepticism. Fanning that skepticism further are the emails documenting that CRU scientists deliberately fudged the temperature record to hide this cooling trend. Please, educate yourself some and go read those emails. In those mails the CRU scientists refer to the cooling problem, and discuss what adjustments they have to make to the raw temperature data to hide that problem.

This is serious scientific malpractice, Tom, and you are aiding and abetting the ignorance on the issue.

Are you aware that Al Gores wonderful ice core data shows temperature peaks 800years before CO2? Think about that some. If CO2 is causing a rise in temperature, should it not peak before temperature?

Are you aware that 150 million years ago CO2 levels were 1000-2000ppm, around 5 times todays level of 380ppm? Guess what the temperature was then? Did you guess that the world was globally 1 degree celcius cooler than today? Does it not bother you in the slightest that a theory which predicts icecap melting and death of entire ecosystems if the CO2 goes up by 50-100ppm can not explain why a 1000ppm increase did not destroy life and resulted in a cooler planet?

Please look beyond the IPCC literature, and those sources that use the IPCC literature as a primary source. Recall the IPCC receives its funding under the premise global warming is a problem and requires an institution like the IPCC to study it. If we had spent a fraction of the billions that have been wasted on computer models at the IPCC on something worthy such as low tech energy sources for sub saharan Africa, the world would be a much better place. The IPCC is a lobby group, Tom. It is in their interest to make the problem seem real and imminent.

The skeptics who deny this theory face the same kind of thrashing Galileo did from the religious community when his telescopes showed the moon was not a perfect celestial body. They have been branded as heretics, they have been personally attacked and denigrated. They have had their careers ruined by editors excluding them from publications. They have not gotten rich blowing the whistle on global warming. This is very different then the Manns of the world who get TV appearances, command vast sums of research dollars, and are heroes to the enviromentalists.

Science is by its very nature a skeptical endeavor. The way one removes skeptical challenge is by refuting through reason and data the arguments made by the skeptic. The AGW people have not done this, instead opting for the low road of personal attacks, altering data, and lying about it.

Please cease being a part of the problem on this topic Tom. Please read outside sources to learn the skeptical arguments, and become aware of the immense frustration the skeptics have with being ignored and demonized by people like you.

Posted by: Wiggan | April 8, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Tom Toles gets it right both in his cartoons and his short comments. He gets it right in a simple, common sense sort of way.

The science of global warming (or climate change) is very complex, granted, and what precisely should be done about it is also complex, but it is pretty clear that it is something to worry about and to start to take action against. We don't need to wait for 100% proof of global warming as a science. Even with a more qualitative "It's almost certainly true" or even "There is a significant chance that it's true", the consequences are potentially so dire that we should be more pro-active about it. It is astounding that a tiny minority of voices expressing skepticism about global warming can result in rejection of the great body of evidence supporting global warming, and resulting in total inaction on the topic. What is the point of supporting science if one doesn't listen to what scientists have to say? Witch doctors and shamans are much cheaper.

Posted by: DavidH3 | April 8, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Tom try something new......Why doesn't Tom ever mock the democrats for driving 20 mpg vehicles when 42 mpg vehicles existed for 3 decades? Gore drove a 300 horse 17mpg Cadillac DTS in his movie, An Incon. Truth. Why didn't he show off a smaller car like a 40mpg Aveo, Yaris or Fit? Obama bought his 4th SUV, Bob Beckel, the democratic strategist at Fox bought a 15mpg, two ton, pearl paint, ( made from natural gas ) AC, JEEP. Why not a 42mpg Geo Metro? Why doesn't Tom mock him for contributing to higher CO2 emissions? If we use 135 billion gallons of gas a year, and if us democrats consist of half the population, then we should be responsible for the 70 billion gallons of gas we use. If Tom doesn't want to increase off shore drilling and if he will not criticize his own party for using all that gas because they, the democrats refuse to drive smaller cars, ( which would reduce imports 2 mbd ) then why does he constantly hate big oil? BIG OIL didn't MAKE Rachel Maddow and Senator Schumer, Bob Beckel, my 5 liberal neighbors, Gore his Caddy, Rangel his Cadillac to buy such inefficient vehciles, did they?
Rachel Maddow didn't by a 42 mpg Chevy Geo Metro many years ago. She bought a 17mpg truck. Why not mock her also? Was Cheney right? Conservation is a personal virtue. Why did Senator Schumer allow his wife to drive a 17mpg SUV? Do a cartoon on this.... Yet he doesn't want to get his gas from here. He wants to get it from Angola, 3000 miles away. Think of the unnecessary co2 this creates?. Joe Vecchio, real liberal, fair and balanced.

Posted by: Gasolinejoe | April 8, 2010 10:58 AM | Report abuse

FriendlyTxn is correct... IF the global warming trend is human-caused, we would expect to find a direct mathematical correlation (which could easily be graphed) between the beginning of civilization (and an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. And then a serious upward spike on the same graph(s) corresponding with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Which we do.

As to "punishment," I don't recollect anyone suggesting industries be taxed or regulated to the point where they are put out of business. Did someone suggest that?
Meanwhile, unlimited permission to pollute with the justification that, "Anything less puts us out of business," is also not a reasonable expectation.

MUST everything be all-or-nothing?!?

Posted by: jonroesler | April 7, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

The question is not whether or not there's a warming trend but whether or not it's anthropogenic (human-caused). The question is not whether or not we need to have clean air, water, soil, etc. but whether or not we need to punish the developed countries by taxing and regulating their industries to the point they are put out of business.

By the way, what genius or geniuses thought Al Gore would be a great spokesman for the environmental cause? He was one of the most divisive, polarizing figures from the 1990s, someone whose own personal carbon footprint probably equals 20 or so Indian citizens.

Posted by: FriendlyTxn | April 7, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Toles is a hack.

Posted by: cfw730 | April 7, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Toles, you're funny...and not in a "ha ha" way.

Posted by: quiensabe | April 7, 2010 4:48 AM | Report abuse

Thank you Mr. Toles for another great laugh, your comics often have the ability to encapsulate my sentiment of the political climate in a couple humorous lines.

Posted by: smisson | April 6, 2010 10:31 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company