Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Didn't see that coming

By Tom Toles

c_07302010.gif

***

Friday rant, Declaration of Incoherence edition

Apparently now we not only hold SOME truths to be self-evident, but also just about ANY POSITION we happen to prefer. It's pretty self-evident that Obama is not a U.S. citizen because we don't like him. It's clear that he wants to take everybody's guns away because that's what a president who isn't a real citizen would do. He's somehow against white people because he just MUST be. The economic rescue package didn't do any good because it was Democrats spending money. It's Democrats who are the worse deficit offenders because Republicans keep saying so. Tax cuts pay for themselves because we don't like taxes. Climate change is a hoax because we don't like the implications.

Even the most cursory examination of evidence is now too much to ask. Climate change deniers continue to send me their strange little clutch of misleading factoids and sly questions as if I had never seen that stuff before. But it's pretty clear that they have not themselves read the overwhelming case for climate change, or simply are unable to evaluate or even grasp the concept of PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE. It's not that the political spectrum drifts left or right, it's that's it is cascading into absolute fantasy. It is impossible to engage in debate with these strange fevers, because they emanate from HOT HEADS. Excuse the cold water, but all opinions are NOT created equal. -Tom Toles

***

sketchicon_ver1.jpg

s_07302010.gif

By Tom Toles  | July 30, 2010; 12:00 AM ET
Categories:  DC, Metro  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Tag team
Next: The deficit dances out of control

Other Syndicated Editorial Cartoons:

Comments

Tommy- We all know- "all opinions are not created equally" Yours are the most despicable.

Posted by: dblument | August 4, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

bobbo2,
Does that mean you didn't like my suggestion for a rangle/wilson toon? Well, harumpff to you then.

Actually, its someone else's idea. Dont be surprised if you see something like that because the hypocrisy is so clear. Hypocrisy is the mother of the best editorial toons. Its just unfortunate that the right keeps missing the joke. (Think i heard that comparison of ethics cases from jon stewart?)

I'd like to see toles draw one like that too because he has perceptive qualities that remind us of the obvious facts that too-often are forgotten when they're right under our noses.

Posted by: 26Charlie | August 2, 2010 9:12 AM | Report abuse

bartzel,
Good for you for donating to haiti. I have to admit following the rush limbaugh route, but dont share his total lack of (immoral) empathy. (I dont have an income).

The argument against blowing big money on a wedding is one i agree with - morally or otherwise. While i cant speak from experience, the rich elite do seem to be obligated to spend a set minimum percentage of their wealth on things like weddings to verify/maintain their image in society.

Some reasons BJ (billy-jeff) clinton deserves a little slack here are:
- He has only one daughter and the amount spent was probably not too extravagant if its only a small % of his total wealth. (We dont even know if the clintons paid all of the expenses, since the other elitist family is rich too. And PLEasE dont get mad if i remind you they can have less moral guilt if they justify the expenses paid by the "extra money" from the tax cuts they didn't need)
- Another is they risk being labeled as oddball wackos if they're perceived to be frugal with their only daughter's wedding expenses. (I wouldn't be one of the critics - i'd certainly be their "wacko").
- Third is to consider what the full impact of BJ's involvement with haiti is likely to be. If it approaches 500 million, then that wedding will look so small time. For a reference, how much did the other haiti contributer, W bush, spend on his daughter's wedding? Does W's involvement in the haiti updates factor into your sentiments?? (its ok if you guys didn't fuss about W's similar lack of morality because that sentiment is expected.)

I believe they're valid points and am honestly relating them calmly. I hope you dont get mad if people differ with you - because i dont.. Like GW, its not too serious an issue to me and certainly doesn't merit becoming emotional about it. Its not a rant either. Same for these other issues. So, (after rereading) when someone tells us we need to calm down when we were when writing something, then isn't it reasonable to assume that judgment is anything but a projection of their own emotions - unconsciously
? Its good that calming remedies were included.

Regardless of how i feel, music tips are always appreciated and will usually get listened to. I do the same thing, but try to include a link as a courtesy so ppl wont have to search for it (which they wont).
[Link in the toles blog comments test follows]
Calming to wakeup boogie music - be happy. Its one i uploaded, so should meet the rules criteria. (Copy and paste link.)
youtube.com/watch?v=afwjLISZYUM

A timely coincidence: I dont agree with any of the comments about EJ being "agitated" at 4 minutes in. To me, they aren't good at judging other people's emotions. He might be calling the staff's attention to a reoccurring distortion problem - for all of a few seconds. The whole band is mellow, including the drummer.

Posted by: 26Charlie | August 2, 2010 8:59 AM | Report abuse

Dear 26Charlie, Hey dude, I was just kidding man, chill out.

Posted by: bobbo2 | August 2, 2010 4:31 AM | Report abuse

26charlie, I usually do not respond to "such rantings" as yours, however I will make an exception. First of all, I have given monies to the Haiti fund through the Clinton foundation...I have since recieved many "up to date" emails concerning the "welfare" of Haiti...I still cannot understand 'blowing' millions of dollars on a wedding when one has seen first hand the devistation others are currently dealing with! Morality has to account for something, does it not??!! No matter who the hell you are..

I also can understand your "desperation" as far as "global warming" is concerned. Has not science predicted that the state of
California will soon cease to exist???
If I were you, I would move inland asap.

Also, I will suggest listening to some music...that always 'calms' my anxiety. If you don't mind I will make a recommendation for you...now don't get all political on me , cuz they are very good....
Russian Circles-Station....the music truly calms the soul...

Posted by: bertzel | August 1, 2010 9:42 PM | Report abuse

bobbo2:
"Please Mr. Toles, please do a cartoon about Rangel and Waters. If you do I will park my Briggs and Stratton for a month and use scissors to cut the grass."

I think a good one would depict how the right was in a state of glee when the black caucus was involved in an ethnics defense, while they were ignoring two other cases of ethics involving their favorites, that were far more severe - enough to verify their hypocrisy. They seem to have a great deal of difficulty seeing even the most clearest examples of that, for some reason.

I'm replying more to your suggesting using scissors to cut grass though. Not having a lawnmower this year has given me experience with this subject (with my kind of bermuda grass). Walking on some grass will keep the length down. Pulling the taller grass out by hand (wearing gloves) is far easier than using scissors and doesn't make your hands sore after clearing only a few square feet. A big NO to using scissors though.
I've found pulling the grass out by hand (a sq meter at a time) has a side benefit in that the action cleans the gloves of dirt that gets stuck in the latex folds. This is a new experience for me and i'm not too proud to share it - its just a bit humorous.

This is not a recommendation to pull grass out by hand (people used to weeding alot know this isn't too difficult). Finding a weedwhacker for a monthly cutting, might be one.
Curbing a lawnmower sure is miniscle though. Try offering him a sacrifice that benefits the planet more.

Posted by: 26Charlie | August 1, 2010 8:56 PM | Report abuse

bertzel
My bad - i was influenced by your commendation of bobbo's post, which lamented the expense of the wedding, due to the clinton's "elitist" status.

Yes, blame the elitists for having any kind of party that requires guests to travel to an event, because the cost to the planet will be more severe than the norm. Is there any doubt how credible their concerns are, when they are so selective making them?

I'd think it was a better lament to cite the monitary expense the elites spend for events, when some of it would go farther if donated to haiti. Trimming a million dollars off of a 3-4 million$$ wedding cost shouldn't be too traumatic.

You wouldn't argue that the clintons have alot more money to blow on that, thanks to their paying less tax - no sacrificing during a time of war, etc. While everything's not about taxes, The extra money the rich have because of tax cuts they didn't need, can act as an incentive to throw more lavish parties - and thus cause more lamenting about the fossil fuels burned (only in that instance).

The lamenting priorities/excuses here are just as screwed up. Consider how much money would be going into haiti without BC becoming personally involved. Most people dont know he had gotten a private international program for haiti development initiated, just a week before the earthquake. Someone tell me thats not worth commending - or that W bush could have made up the difference.

Posted by: 26Charlie | August 1, 2010 8:14 PM | Report abuse

pararanger22,
Can you agree that climate science debate should never have been made into a political argument - and this is what makes people so closed minded about it?

My primary interest in climate science has been very limited - specifically, what the ocean surface temp is at the closest beach to me - scripps pier in sandiego (4 crow-flying miles). GW sounded nice because it might warm up the ocean enough to enable more periods of warm water than just the 2 month window of 69 deg+ temps we currently have. The surface water temps fluctuate too much. Cold water sucks, so thats why checking the water temps online ensures the hunt for a parking spot near the beach will be worth it.

Point is, my links to the scripps pier water temp have increasingly become broken, due to the scripps oceanography websites changing so often to accomodate more and more remote climate data. Finding the link again for my narrow interest exposes me to the volume of raw data that is being gathered - and offered online for anyone to make their own calculations with. Given the new data volume, the future promises to have fewer disagreements with climate calculations - whatever it is (except for the ideologues) . At least i hope so. I'll go with the science. Its too bad we cant utilize more credible science for every contentious issue.

My hope is climate change will cease to be the political issue it is today, where one side wastes bandwidth to call the other side "know-nothing luddites". Thats such a loser for a "debate".
But there also isn't enough space here to cite the pertinent evidence. What percentage of the ideologues will click a link to that evidence they claim doesn't exist - and will the 2% that do click it, read for more than 10 min?

What i'll keep doing though is seeking what i dont know - specifically, what the new right wing (the hard core ideologues, influenced by falsehoods - which aren't the same people today as "conservatives") believes will be the worst case situation, if say, the initiatives to reverse climate change weren't necessary? Will it be so bad if the evil gummint's pressure on industry to produce products in a way that pollutes the environment less? Dont forget that every change made doesn't restrict good arguments being made against it, using the available scientific data.

Posted by: 26Charlie | August 1, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

ThisIsReality,
Time for the right to get serious then and step up to scream what it is we are supposed to do with all the spent nuclear fuel. You guys need to get coordinated too - one of you tells me its the left that believes they can control everything. Luddites everywhere, eh?

Speaking of which, the right believes nuclear energy merits permanence in america's energy plan because americans can master the risks - just as they can for offshore drilling. God is their only regulator and so nothing can go wrong because he blesses america.

We've seen how wrong that arrogance can be with offshore drilling. The BP gusher is going to look like a picnic compared to the first real serious nuclear accident. Remember that the safety controls are managed by human, who are mathematically prone to errors.

Its just a matter of time till the whole world is spoiled by one accident that takes as long to "fix" as the gulf spill (if possible). How good are the french safeguards (and does god bless france too, ...luddites???) Radiation distributed around the world like volcanic dust will be far worse for mankind than an oil slick in the gulf. Is one accident per decade acceptable? Luddites are the ones who dont care to consider alternatives to taking serious risks because god will protect them from harm.

Posted by: 26Charlie | August 1, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Tom, you should be thankful to many of the commenters here. How lucky can one be to write a thoughtful rant and immediately be proved right by the very people who disagree with you.

Ah, but someday the true and intelligent conservatives will recover from the shock of being displaced by certified loons and begin forcing us to defend our positions with pointed, but respectful, questions that might even require us to rethink our beliefs.

Oh, how I look forward to that day.

Posted by: Trakker | August 1, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

26charlie....
My reference to the Clinton wedding had to do with Humanity NOT taxes.
You are right....It has NOTHING to do with the planet earth.....only politics, taxes, and arguing about who is right when it comes to "global warming" matters....my bad.

Posted by: bertzel | August 1, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Consider the modern house with a heater and an air cooler. Suppose a demented but alert space alien were to survey this house. They would find our heater, see how it works and conclude that the heat will ruin the lives of the people if it is July. But there is also a cooling unit that is ignored. And the heater will be needed in January.

We have found the Earth's heater. But what cooling will come from sun spots or even dust in space?

Until we know all the systems, we should be cautious nd not claim to know all the answers.

We could be wrong.

It would be better to get ready for both a warmer future and an ice age.

Posted by: gary4books | August 1, 2010 8:48 AM | Report abuse

Please Mr. Toles, please do a cartoon about Rangel and Waters. If you do I will park my Briggs and Stratton for a month and use scissors to cut the grass.

Posted by: bobbo2 | August 1, 2010 7:22 AM | Report abuse

With the Left it is all about control. Control of the energy sources that we use. Control of the money that we spend on energy. Control of the vehicles that we use. Control of the price of energy. Control of the debate about energy. Control of the debate about climate. It goes on and on. Freedom gets in the way of the Left. Alternative views get in the way of the Left. While they tell us how to live, their elite live their privileged lives with their big houses and big planes and big vehicles. I have news for the Left. Their control is slipping away. I am waiting for the Left to pull other cards from the deck to use to attack those who do not follow their agenda. It is inevitable. Anyone care to guess what the next card will be?

Posted by: bobbo2 | August 1, 2010 7:17 AM | Report abuse

["Magazines like "Nature" and "Science" are about a 10 minute read because of the leftist bias. Empirical science needs no magazine or cartoon proof? Why is it so hard for the Washington Post to publish one piece of substantiated scientific evidence proving man made global warming? Including a picture and a name of the lead scientist, peer reviewer and critic. We have all heard of Archimedes, Aristotle, Niels Bohr, Nicolaus and Copernicus so why is there no picture of a real scientist taking credit for, supposedly, the biggest threat to the entire plant?"]

Insanecommenter has it Right!!

Look, Tom Toles and 26 Charlie: Cite the Evidence!!

Belly aching about Conservatives not supporting climate change theory isn't helping anything but your political views. If you truly care about the planet, get into a real debate. In every political poll, there are numerous declared independents that are probably sitting on the fence in their climate change views so why not try and convince them by dishing out a supported case for climate change theory?

I agree with 26Charlie that a lot of folks on the right aren't going to read it or just immediately counter your thoughts but NOT EVERYONE will if you make a good case.

As Toles knows, I'm Conservative but I'm also open-minded to well crafted, well supported arguments regarding Science. If you REALLY believe in it, lay your cards on the table. Until then, your tactics of just calling the Right stupid, won't change a thing.

Posted by: pararanger22 | August 1, 2010 3:33 AM | Report abuse

Ummmm, 26Charlie, it's carbon MONoxide that'll kill you in a garage with your car going, not carbon DIoxide.
And a solution was invented decades ago to solve whatever problem that climate change may be: nuclear power. Of course, the know-nothing Luddites screaming about climate change are the same people who screamed about nuclear power. It just shows they're not serious.

Posted by: ThisIsReality | July 31, 2010 11:39 PM | Report abuse

The results from watching Spain and "green" jobs shows that it will hurt the job market. For every one green job produced it cost 2.2 regular jobs. And only one it ten "green" jobs became permanent. We can expect 9 jobs lost for every 4 created. Wind turbines are expensive, do not work constantly, and hurt the environment. Birds, even bees, which polinate the planet are in danger from wind vortices. The Left's ideas to correct climate change cannot be proven to work, cannot be proven to be needed, and can be proven to damage the economy and people's livlehood. The planet earth has had climate change for billions of years before man arrived. It will have billions more after man is gone. The Left thinks that it can control anything. It can't.

Posted by: bobbo2 | July 31, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

insanecommenter: "
"Magazines like "Nature" and "Science" are about a 10 minute read because of the leftist bias. Empirical science needs no magazine or cartoon proof? Why is it so hard for the Washington Post to publish one piece of substantiated scientific evidence proving man made global warming?"
"""""""""

That should be an easy no brainer answer - rather than not using the brain, too easily.
If the post ran what you ask for, then would you spend more than spend 10 min reading it before rejecting the empirical evidence (brought by leading scientists) if you detected "leftist bias"?
You've claimed to doing this whenever you sense reality having a liberal bias.

If one cant read more than ten min of the other side's empirical argument, then there isn't a fair chance for a reasoned debate - nor is 10 min enough time to find what the leading arguments are. This is self limiting one's self to make conclusions based on emotions, or believing (Your) ideology trumps empirical data.

How many of ya'll believe your ideology is best because god favors it too?

Posted by: 26Charlie | July 31, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Question for the deniers:

How many of you believed the US had to invade iraq because the future might have a "mushroom cloud on the horizon"?

If you didn't believe that, then fine. But what about the fallback arguments if each was/is wrong. The bushies believed there'd be an atomic war (as if invasion was the only recourse possible - and enabled by the easily frightened bush supporters ... who are presently the climate deniers?. Do say.) Being wrong about climate change will just leave us with alot of effort made to halt the progress towards dirty air and water and turn that bad trend around.

Pursuing something that may never happen - climate change: Will only leave us with a cleaner environment and alot of steady jobs achieving that end.

It will create new jobs, as the sensible industrial countries are demonstrating. Look at the frivolous risk the too-scared right thought was reasonable, when they could see no other way to deal with a few stinky arabs than to move our military to the other side of the globe, chasing ghosts in a wasteful game that has to last for 30 years to get results - while AQ plans and operates elsewhere.. Result was, we're left looking like fools of bin laden, who's greatest hope was america overreacting to 9-11 and bankrupting itself in the process.

Posted by: 26Charlie | July 31, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

The earth has had eons of climate fluctuations - i haven't seen anyone disputing that science.

But theres only been one cycle that has earthlings dumping massive quantities of CO2 gas into the atmosphere. What science is Ok to ignore about this circumstance: the science that suggests CO2 contributes to a greenhouse effect or the science that shows it has no effect, even in a laboratory condition (if that study exists)? Never mind the science that says "CO2 in the atmosphere is natural" because even you cant claim too much of it isn't harmful.bad for you. Doubters can sit in their (closed) garaged car while the motor runs to learn this.

Posted by: 26Charlie | July 31, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

bertzel: "What I cannot fathom is how someone can visit Haiti on a regular basis and yet turn around and "blow" 3-6 mill. on a wedding without batting an eye!"
""""""""""""""

Earth to bertzel, do you think tax cuts for the rich means they Dont have alot of extra disposable cash to blow, after taxes (on whatever)? The clintons aren't the only ones spending lavishly.

You would have to believe the overwhelming majority of the rich roll their tax-returned, surplus money into "making jobs", instead of putting it to selfish pursuits (That would include contributing their obligatory $hare as gratitude to the politicians granting it to them - pro-quid-pro).

Posted by: 26Charlie | July 31, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

bobbo2, good point about the Clinton wedding.
What I cannot fathom is how someone can visit Haiti on a regular basis and yet turn around and "blow" 3-6 mill. on a wedding without batting an eye!
Some people and their priorities....never ceases to amaze me : (

Posted by: bertzel | July 31, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

I wonder how "green" Chelsea Clinton's wedding will be? At three million dollars I am sure their will be a tremendous amount of fossil fuels burned to transport the merry makers. SUVs for the attendees, helicopters for security, lots of jet arrivals from far away places, etc. I do not fault little Chelsea for wanting her special day to include all of the in crowd nor do I want to politicize the event. However us commoners are supposed to be responsible when it comes to the planet. Elitism=hypocrisy. Maybe all the electricity required will be produced by a portable wind turbine. I wonder how many modes of transportation Al Gore will use to get there? I doubt that there will be many Prius' in the parking lot. Or is the plural of Prius Prii?

Posted by: bobbo2 | July 31, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Blue Two1
Wow, that is quite the “mouthful”.

I don’t agree that Right wingers” have the “edge” when it comes to “reality” or what is perceived as “reality”. Each individual person “creates” their own reality in their minds….who are you to claim they are wrong and you are “the truth”? Perhaps you are the one with “the lying eyes”…

Life itself is quite shocking and ever changing. How one chooses to “deal with it” is there own right… unless, of course, you believe in “mind control”. That would be so much easier wouldn’t it? To have all agree with you no matter what the topic and or outcome would be paradise perhaps, for you maybe, not for all.

“Even as ocean water laps at the base of the Empire State building”…sounds almost poetic but then bam, you through “mama grizzly bears” into the mix…another “self serving” attack.

I’m sure you don’t care for my critique and I really don’t care either.

Now if you excuse me I have some running to do and an Ark to work on…not the Ark you are referring to in your sense of reality but, an Ark none the less.

Toles, you are slacking again!!!

Posted by: bertzel | July 31, 2010 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Right wingers have created in their own minds the world they want to live in. They so badly want to live in that world that it has, for them, replaced the world they actually live in. Whenever reality briefly intrudes, it shocks their system. They exclaim "Who you gonna believe? Me or your lying eyes?" Even as ocean water laps at the base of the Empire State building, grizzly mama bears will deny global warming has anything to do with it. It's simply a repeat of the Biblical flood. Build your arks, you all.

Posted by: BlueTwo1 | July 31, 2010 4:53 AM | Report abuse

The preponderance of evidence shows that climate change is caused by solar and cosmic activity, which has been the case since long before humans existed.

Posted by: DirtFarmer1 | July 30, 2010 10:16 PM | Report abuse

Instead of discussing climate change, why not a discussion of Congress change. Seems that the swamp that Speaker Pelosi said would be cleaned has two in it now instead of just one. Good ole Maxine Waters is in trouble now. Between her and Rangle the Democrats have some splainin' to do. I think that a political cartoon is order Mr. Toles. Or does this problem not fit the agenda again?

Posted by: bobbo2 | July 30, 2010 9:15 PM | Report abuse

I SURVIVED CLIMATE CHANGE 2010
Climate change happens humans don't cause it

Posted by: insanecommenter | July 30, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

Magazines like "Nature" and "Science" are about a 10 minute read because of the leftist bias. Empirical science needs no magazine or cartoon proof? Why is it so hard for the Washington Post to publish one piece of substantiated scientific evidence proving man made global warming? Including a picture and a name of the lead scientist, peer reviewer and critic. We have all heard of Archimedes, Aristotle, Niels Bohr, Nicolaus and Copernicus so why is there no picture of a real scientist taking credit for, supposedly, the biggest threat to the entire plant? Until then hoax city! PS: Political science needs cartoons and magazines as props.

Posted by: insanecommenter | July 30, 2010 7:41 PM | Report abuse

For the people who think they have credible evidence against AGW...

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.short

Posted by: AugustWest1964 | July 30, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse

insanecomments suggests that "... the Wash Po print just two pieces of all this evidence proving man made global warming..."

I suggest that you read the past 10-15 years of the journals "Nature" and "Science". A lot of climatological studies have been published in those journals, and each of those papers contains multiple citations to additional studies published in other journals. You should be able to fund these journals in your local university library, maybe even your public library if you're lucky. If you don't have the background to understand the details of the papers, each of these journals has an overview section in which the papers are summarized. You can probably also ask someone on the faculty to help you with the details.

Not a single one of the studies I have seen in these journals over that period suggests that human activity isn't associated with global warming.

Posted by: apn3206 | July 30, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Here's an idea (not new, but not answered yet, either): Let's turn the conversation around.

Flat-earthers claim that humans are NOT responsible in any significant way for climate change, and even that climate change doesn't exist, in the face of a scientific consensus that we are and it does.

Fine. You've made the claim. Back it up. Where is the science to back up the claim that climate change does NOT exist? That it is NOT human-caused? Where are the studies proving this? The peer review?

While you're at it, please explain to me why your homes have chimneys, because you clearly believe that burning fuel results in, well, no effect other than the availability of energy that was not there before. No smoke, no pollution, no excess heat, no nothing. Just energy.

It's, like, magical! Right?

Posted by: jonroesler | July 30, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

The greatest mystery that hounds me is how the neo-cons of the teabaggers can on the one hand scream for "drill baby, drill" for oil that has been created from bio-matter after billions of years, and yet with the same breath speak with an utter distain at scientists claiming that the earth is only 10,000 years old! And they can do it without even so much as a smerk on their face! It is absolutely incredible to witness these new "e-tweeter-diotes" in action.

Posted by: matteopaulo | July 30, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

It would seem obvious that just wanting to believe something doesn't necessarily make it true. All of us probably make this mistake at one time or another. But people who do it constantly, and seem to have no concept of rational reasoning whatsoever can, in my opinion, fairly be called "stupid". It's not just a matter of being wrong, it's a matter of not even knowing what "wrong" means, and even being proud of ignorance. Truely, not everyone's opinion deserves to be heard.

Posted by: DaveHarris | July 30, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

dclark, good post. Let me add to it. Fossil fuels are finite. They are running out. They are not unlimited. They are becoming harder to get at, so we have to do things like drilling in deep water or ruining pristine environments. Or carving up the land, making it unusable for anything, in order to get at shale oil. And then processing that shale oil is an incredibly energy and water-intensive process that creates a lot of pollution.

So the question is, do we keep doing what we're doing until the market economy for oil hits the "way too much demand and not enough supply" point, which WILL happen (free-market types should know this)? At that point, oil becomes so expensive that farmers can't afford to farm, trucking companies can't afford to ship, and commuters can't afford to drive to work. We had a little taste of this effect when gas hit $4+ per gallon for a while. Imagine it at $10 or $20 or $50 a gallon.

So, do we start shifting away from fossil fuels now by building a sustainable economy based on renewable energy so we're more prepared when gas prices go up and don't come down? Global warming aside, that's reason enough for me.

If you're really so convinced global warming is a hoax, are you also convinced that we will never run out of fossil fuels? If so, your delusions are starting to reach the "need to seek professional help" stage.

Posted by: PrairieDog60 | July 30, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

HumanisPatriot, you are really Nancy Reagan, right?

Posted by: vacarollm | July 30, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Toles, please, step out of the box. Look for example at alternatives to the bipartisan call for "austerity". I put it in quotes because it's a qualified austerity they propose, namely austerity for me but not for the policy crafters or their financiers.

There is NO shortage of money--for the simple fact that the government can create as much money as it needs out of thin air. Somebody in the Treasury Dept just has to enter the correct character strokes on the right computer and - wa-la - the Federal Reserve conjures into existence as much money as is needed.

Inflationary you say?

HA - you haven't been paying attention. We're in a DE-flationary spiral. The money supply has been steadily SHRINKING. This economy needs NEW MONEY, not a redistribution of tender from my pocket to Lloyd Blankfein's.

Increases the debt?

OK, eliminate the step involving the Federal Reserve. Instead of issuing Treasury Bonds and trading them for legal tender, just declare (Congress can do this) the bonds themselves to be legal tender. End the Fed, and one more parasitic bureaucracy bites the dust. Good riddance. Call in and retire the existing bonds, and say goodbye to the national debt.

Comrades, when you hear corporate mouths, such as the columnists at the Washington Post, tell you to sacrifice and accept austerity, look the [expletives] in the eye and reply calmly, "No thanks."

That's all.

Just Say No.

Posted by: HumanistPatriot | July 30, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

One of the things that gets me about the "Climate change is a hoax" -ers is that they don't stop to think that maybe doing things without hurting the environment is just a good thing to do anyway. Even IF climate change is a hoax, isn't it a good idea to start figuring out cleaner, alternative ways of obtaining energy? Shouldn't we already be trying to conserve water and keep our air clean? Shouldn't we figure out ways to dispose of our waste that doesn't hurt impoverished communities? - Or engineer ways to create less waste to begin with? These things are all good ideas regardless of where you sit on the idea of climate change.

Posted by: dclark2 | July 30, 2010 9:23 AM | Report abuse

Absolutely GREAT posting. Both drawings & especially the write up raise your entry to an all time high!

Posted by: malvo1 | July 30, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

One of the big lies is that responding to climate change will involve a huge loss of jobs. By creating an new field, we'll offset many of those losses. Of course, we didn't care when those jobs were lost in heavy industry, in textiles, in information technology, in furniture making, ect., and not replaced. As part of the global economy, we could be leaders in energy innovation but we are mired in politics by those who prefer "clean coal", an oxymoron if ever there was one.
Too bad the old white GOP base will die before their dreams come true, a planet that becomes hostile to human life. Oh by the way, look to the 1200 deaths in London during one smog incident in the 50s and the smog alerts in LA into the early 70s where day after day children couldn't even go out for recess. Of course, there are no recesses anymore. We do affect climate on a macro, mesos and world scale regardless of what the naysayers posit.

Posted by: sander | July 30, 2010 8:40 AM | Report abuse

Yeah, all those changes in migratory patterns, they're just bullsh!t, right? All that loss of the polar icecap, just a figment of our imagination.

But tax cuts increase revenue.

Keep shouting it as loud as possible and even the thinnest slices of baloney eventually become the God's honest truth when you live in a world where you create your own reality.

The new Repuglican/Teabagger mantra: Proud to be Ignorant!

Posted by: tennesseemoonshiner | July 30, 2010 8:00 AM | Report abuse

The problem is that there is often more to consider - not less. And it is not wise to rehash your points if you are leaving stuff out.

For an example, it is clear we are in a warming trend. What is not clear is that may not be the only climate trend. CO2 and warming works. But sun spots and cooling may also work. We have to be ready for a cold future, just as much as we need to be ready for a warmer future.

But the key problem is that many never see that warmer may be inconvenient (Like DC moves to Laredo climate) but ice will kill most of us.

Get a sense of proportion.

Look for more questions to ask.

"OK what next?"

Posted by: gary4books | July 30, 2010 7:01 AM | Report abuse

Apparently you must have an idiot's license in order to comment, but I'll attempt to buck that trend. Sorry for all the morons out there Tom. Unfortunately, they procreate at an alarming rate. I weep for the future of our Idiocracy...

Posted by: drumdominic | July 30, 2010 6:33 AM | Report abuse

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

I believe global warming is real and my own car is telling me something: "Objects in mirror are nearer than they appear". It would be lovely, justaguy43, to have the luxury of waiting 10,000 years. We are VERY LIKELY to see real consequences in our lifetimes.

My main argument for GW is stolen from Blaise Pascal's argument for the existence of God. If he believes, he wins; if he disbelieves, he can lose greatly. Yes, pricing carbon would change prices on energy, but it would also change BEHAVIOR, moving us toward a less consumptive stance, more respectful of the earth. Mother Nature bats last, and she always bats 1,000.

Posted by: DougMUSN | July 30, 2010 5:45 AM | Report abuse

Perhaps you don't grasp the concept that real science is not based on "PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE". The evidence being offered is unreliable, inconclusive, and factually questionable. AGW is by no means "settled science", nor is it even very good science.

Posted by: Star_King | July 30, 2010 4:22 AM | Report abuse

You seem to have metamorphosed into an unreflectively partisan Dem, willing to swallow any amount of koolaid as long as it has a D on. Perhaps you always were, and it just didn't show up during BushCo's tenure, but I'd prefer to think you weren't.

Were you less partisan, it might open the minds of the hard-of-thinking to your warnings about the climate disaster, and perhaps even cause the total loonies a moment's actual thought. Surely it's worth a try?

Or does your job depend on you always assigning sole blame to the GOP, as per the Dems' party line? ("It's not our fault--we could get so much done if it weren't for the mean ol' GOP. Just give us a 200-seat majority in the Senate, 500 seats in the House, the Presidency, SCOTUS, Uncle Tom Cobley and all, and you'll see what we can do! Until then, the mean ol' GOP will keep us from doing anything for anyone except the wealthy. Sorry.")

Posted by: _Mairead | July 30, 2010 3:11 AM | Report abuse

So much of the problem the Left has with climate change is what they want to do about it. Their methods and remedies will cost the American people dearly. It would cost jobs, greatly increase the cost of energy for everyone, including those who have trouble now paying their bills. Technology is the answer if there is a problem. But not the Draconian, economy wrecking, wealth redistributing ideas of the Left. One real problem that I have is the rush, the iminent disaster scenario, we are all doomed stuff. It just doesn't wash. And the Al Gores need to walk the walk not just talk the talk.

Posted by: bobbo2 | July 29, 2010 9:14 PM | Report abuse

Toles, do a cartoon or write a blog or have the Wash Po print just two pieces of all this evidence proving man made global warming along with the names and pictures of the lead scientists associated with the two pieces of evidence followed by printing the name and picture of one of the peer review scientists who approved the evidence and then the name and picture of one scientist who doesn't agree with the evidence and you would be making a small a start to disproving the hoax called man made global warming. Looks like you and the Washington Post are pushing an anti capitalist agenda? What's the difference between a socialist and a communist? Marx said he used the word communist because the word socialist was already taken.

Posted by: insanecommenter | July 29, 2010 8:43 PM | Report abuse

I have waited a long time, but reading your comment today, Mr. Toles, I had to finally say something (not that my thoughts really matter, like yours do).

I am a multi-degree Ivy leaguer, and frankly a very liberal person in many ways. I agree with most everything you say, BUT ...

Let me describe a scenario. If you looked at the stock market for a 1 minute period, could you conclude it was an upward or a downward trend? An intelligent person would say, "can't tell -- that timeframe is TOO SHORT as related to the time period that we consider (i.e. days or weeks or months ... )

The snapshot of even 1,000 years is too short a time period for the earth's clock. Blink your eyes. That is like the last 200 years in the earth's life cycle compared to OURS.

Can we improve our environment by eliminating fossil fuel consumption and by changing our habits? Pollution in "the now" is something I am all for eliminating. But, you cannot say it is causing climate change based on earth's well-established massive cycles.

Michael Crichton's 'State of Fear' really is a good read. Fiction, but well-reasoned and full of FACTS as basis.

Go ahead and blink -- another 200 years just went by and who knows if we will be heading to the next Ice-Age. Probably will in another 10,000 years or so ....

Posted by: justaguy43 | July 29, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

quiensabe, every government that collects taxes and provides services redistributes wealth. Even republican governments.

Posted by: Kevin71707 | July 29, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse

What we do about the problem may be the "gimmick", and that's a political issue. Don't mix that with the perpondrance of evidence thats already on the table. That is the issue that needs to be addressed. What we need to do is decide if we (the collective WE) are going to do anything about it, or decide to ignore it and/or leave it to future generations to deal with.

Posted by: ebtnut | July 29, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Amen - preach it, brother!

Posted by: SubRosa2 | July 29, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

See the current boodle discussion at the
Achenblog

Posted by: ebtnut | July 29, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Sam Harris said, “The core of science is not controlled experiment or mathematical modeling; it is intellectual honesty. It is time we acknowledged a basic feature of human discourse: when considering the truth of a proposition, one is either engaged in an honest appraisal of the evidence and logical arguments, or one isn’t.”

Posted by: jonroesler | July 29, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

OK. I'm ready for my name calling session. Y'all get ready. I do indeed “grasp the concept of PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE.” It's just that the whole thing is a gimmick to redistribute wealth and not necessarily to the poor. But, Tom, you like that don't you? Let's cap and tax till the cows come home. That way the government can better do their job in central planning. You'll like that, too, Tom.

Posted by: quiensabe | July 29, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company