Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 12:00 AM ET, 12/14/2010

All we want

By Tom Toles

c_12142010.gif

***

Anybody else notice this?

It doesn't matter, I guess, but since it happens every year, that either means nobody has considered this, or it's on purpose. But the fact of the matter is, the National Christmas Tree is, well, weird-looking and unattractive. Did somebody actually DECIDE that the way to go would be to shear it into the shape of a melting rocket ship and swath it in a grocery-style mesh bag of lights? It doesn't look like a tree, or like anything else, either.

natlchristmastree.jpg

I'd go along with conservatives on this one in saying that apparently the government can't do anything right, but conservatives probably think this instance is just fine, so long as the government is in the business of promoting a particular religion. Conservatives like to talk about the Constitution getting everything right, except the parts they don't agree with, like the separation of church and state, and more lumpy installations of religious symbols please! --Tom Toles

***

sketchicon_ver1.jpg

s_12142010.gif

By Tom Toles  | December 14, 2010; 12:00 AM ET
Categories:  Economy and jobs  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Clearly a problem
Next: Unhealthy relationship

Other Syndicated Editorial Cartoons:

Comments

Now would you care to describe the similarity of trick and trickle without the use of trickery??
Posted by: bertzel

My Reply...
Trickle down economics was a trick that tricked a whole lot of people.

More in particular, when you add ism to a word it is intended to modify that word.
Adding le to trick changes the word without any intent to refer to the meaning of the original word.

On the subject of editing…
When I was on my College's newspaper staff, I was told by the editor; edit, edit, edit.
I spend more time editing than anything else. By the way, the or of editor modifies the word edit.
It has nothing to do with the word oar.

While I am rowing down this stream, on the subject of economics…
When you have a growing population with a developing technology base; it is not necessary to increase taxes and it is necessary to have more money in the system.
Economics is a man made idea that is dynamic and has to change with the needs of the society.
We need to control the economy not the economy control us.
Dave

Posted by: OchamsRazor | December 15, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

yeah dave, sometimes my fingers try to move as fast as my thoughts...doesn't work well all the time. Case in point; I also typed world instead of word in same post.

As for your brainwave of thought....by taking the word trick and adding le thereby creating the word trickle...guess it too has the same meaning...

socialism n. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of industry, capital , and land by the community as a whole.---socialist, n., adj. ---socialistic adj.

That would be from a real book with actual pages made from paper (poor tree)
The Random House Dictionary

Now would you care to describe the similarity of trick and trickle without the use of trickery??

Posted by: bertzel | December 15, 2010 9:40 AM | Report abuse

Pretty heavy stuff there Dave, especially when my post wasn't addressed to you anyway. You don't really know the definition of socialism, do you?
Posted by: pararanger22

My Reply...
Every social system is a combination of socialism and capitalism. You can't have one without the other. You add ism to social and you get socialism.
If you were not blinded by fear you would not support the Republican traitorism.
Dave

Posted by: OckamsRazor | December 15, 2010 2:17 AM | Report abuse

There is a differnce between being Social and being a Socialist. Socialist does not derive from the world Social as you have chosen to make it....yes...do use a dictionary once in awhile.
Posted by: bertzel

My observation…
You might want to look up the spelling of difference in the dictionary.

When you add ism to social you get socialism.
Socialism is any social system as well as a particular social system.

so•cial [sṓshəl]
adj
1. relating to society: relating to human society and how it is organized
2. relating to interaction of people: relating to the way in which people in groups behave and interact
the social sciences
3. living in a community: living or preferring to live as part of a community or colony rather than alone
social insects such as ants
4. offering opportunity for interaction: allowing people to meet and interact with others in a friendly way
a social club
5. relating to human welfare: relating to human welfare and the organized welfare services that a community provides
social services
6. of rank in society: relating to or considered appropriate to a rank in society, especially the upper classes
7. sociable: tending to seek out the company of others (informal)
a very social person

ism

ism [ízzəm]
(plural isms)
n
system of belief: a movement, doctrine, or system of belief (informal)


[Late 17th century. < -ism ]
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Every social system is a combination of socialism and capitalism. You can't have one without the other.
Dave

Posted by: OckamsRazor | December 15, 2010 2:00 AM | Report abuse

ptgrunner

your trained professional status may be in question here - perhaps you debate with conservatives has already driven you insane - reading your constitutional post today

Posted by: dalyplanet | December 14, 2010 7:56 PM
-------------------------------------------------
dalyplanet,

I get it...you are confused by the "logic" that conservative constitutionalists use to undercut "separation of church and state". I admit that I understand it, but don't agree with it. If you don't understand conservative constitutionalism, you can't understand either the argument made against "separation of church and state" or my argument against a "connection between church and state." I use their "logic" to undercut their argument. It's actually REAL SIMPLE. I don't agree with "conservative constitutionalists" and think it's a fraudulent rationalization to allow them to promote their religion, and I believe that those who wrote the Constitution had something in mind other than a strict, literal reading of the Constitution.
Sorry you can't understand all this. Maybe I didn't explain it very well...or maybe you just a Tea Partier who can't function w/o Fox News telling you what to think.

Posted by: ptgrunner | December 15, 2010 12:05 AM | Report abuse

'Tis the season. Ho. Ho. Ho.

Posted by: bertzel | December 14, 2010 10:02 PM | Report abuse

ptgrunner

your trained professional status may be in question here - perhaps you debate with conservatives has already driven you insane - reading your constitutional post today

Posted by: dalyplanet | December 14, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

@pararanger22 | December 14, 2010 11:04 AM

It's safe to say that you could not refute my argument. So you attack me personally. Your reference to the "no-good GOP" sounds about right. I don't read Huffington and I drink coffee only moderately.

Posted by: ptgrunner | December 14, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse


@dalyplanet - You said, "...I am seeking facts straight from the horses mouth so to speak."

I think you're being more than a little disingenuous as to which end of the horse you're seeking information from.

Posted by: fbrewer1 | December 14, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse

The Big Tree, by the way, is an appropriate modern expression of Christmas on so very many levels...

Posted by: jonroesler | December 14, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

It's nice to know that climate change has somehow morphed from a scientific hypothesis to be proven or disproven (facts ALWAYS win that battle because facts are what science is about), to a political issue to be voted upon. If it's a scientific issue, see, the sooner we act, the better off our children will be.

If it's merely a political issue, on the other hand, we can simply vote for what we want to be the truth, and that will become the truth for everyone. Until we vote again to change our minds. And again. And again. Reality itself becomes like putty in our hands... kinda like talk radio listeners. Convince enough people, and your side wins. That is so cool!

Can we make cancer and heart disease political issues? Oh. Oops. Been there, done that, still working on it. DOES cigarette smoking cause cancer and heart disease? PROVE it!

The point being that, if we can't even agree on causality, there's no way we're going to begin to do anything serious to effect solutions. Which is really the point, is it not?

Voting on science. That's rich.

I would never have thought, thirty years or so ago, that the reality of the practical economic limits of recoverable fossil fuels would actually turn out to be a GOOD thing... but there it is.

Posted by: jonroesler | December 14, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

In the article: "Conservatives like to talk about the Constitution getting everything right, except the parts they don't agree with, like the separation of church and state."
- First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedon of speech or of the press; . . . ." The words say there shall be no establishment of a National religion, and provides 'protection' of the exercise of religion from the Federal Government (Congress). The term 'Separation of Church and State' is incorrect. It is more like 'Separation of State from adversly affecting the Church/Religion', not Separation of the Church/Religion from affecting the State.

As to Climate Change and CO2, if I may brorrow from the New York's Gov. race: The temperature out there is too damn low. What many refuse to admit is CO2 is the building block for plant life, and plant life is necessary for animal and human life. So no CO2, no you! Is not that warming??

Posted by: Xman2 | December 14, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

bertzel you saw that little pun, Illuminating might be better though

PrairieDog60 thanks for the link

Posted by: dalyplanet | December 14, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

I don't know dog...I suggest you check out ANY website concerning Maurice Strong and Hara....I would also think you to be a bit more lax too dog...you do know that the paper industry is, I believe, the biggest industry coming out of your state. It seems to be going under, due in part, to the 'green movement' which could also be described as some other type of movement...but I won't go there. Anywho...I would think you to be more concerned with the jobless situation....

~~~~Daly...I would personally like to thank you for not calling me Illuminating...ya know with the talk of that tree and all.

Posted by: bertzel | December 14, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

And I thought Redskins Insider had heated, largely mindless discussion. ;^)

Posted by: WorstSeat | December 14, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

dalyplanet, let me walk you through this slowly. There is a website called Skeptical Science. Here's the URL (that means the address you type in at the top of your browser).

http://www.skepticalscience.com

Now, if you look at that website, you'll see a little column at the left called "Most Used Skeptic Arguements". You can click on any of those and they will take you to a page addressing some of the arguments you seem to favor against the idea of global warming.

On each of those pages, there are usually a few tabs. One will say "Basic", one may say, "Intermediate", and one may say "Advanced". Usually the Intermediate and Advanced tabs will provide links that take you DIRECTLY to the research paper or papers that discuss the issue. (So this should put to rest your harping about "real evidence".) There is also a lively forum discussion at the bottom of each page that features some good banter involving skeptics like yourself.

There are many other places to find more information as well. If you haven't found them, you're not looking very hard. Journal of Climate, Astrophysical Journal, Proceedings from the National Academy of Sciences, etc. Hopefully this will satisfy your deep need for "real evidence". Unless of course, you choose to just not believe the evidence. Then here's the site you need to check out;

www.foxnews.com

Posted by: PrairieDog60 | December 14, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

bertzel your point has been the most enlightening.

bbabcoc1 I have been there but will review.

dagrubb824 I have been to your recommended sites before, the pew is fluff, the EPA states the facts fairly well, but I am really looking for the support for IPCC reports.

jhnnywalkr you have no links to duel with. You appear to be the blind follower(or is it blond)

PrairieDog60 I think it was me using the phrase "in my opinion". Your post appears to be entirely opinion while I am seeking facts straight from the horses mouth so to speak. Most of what is out there is edited or compiled and simplified for the masses consumption

I am not sure that cancer is the right word to use for CO2 but if it is, stopping the use of fossil fuel will be much more painful than giving up your first born.

The data sets available are not very good from the past and world climate modeling is very new compared to medicine and much more complex. There is an "agenda" if you believe it or not and I truly want to separate facts from fiction.

Posted by: dalyplanet | December 14, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Ugly is subjective.
It's a wonderful light sculpture using "seasonal" colors and supported by an arboreal scaffolding.
Lovely! And non-denominational.
What more could one ask?

Posted by: GeneTouchet | December 14, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

True, Tom, that is possibly one of the ugliest National Christmas Trees I have ever seen.

However, I, like you (and other posters here), see the garbage bag like mesh of lights that makes the tree look like it is wearing a glow-in-the-dark condom as a metaphor for recent governmental behavior in general.

Posted by: amethystmarbles | December 14, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

pararanger, Wow...your level of animosity and X-Files-like conspiracy theories regarding climatologists is a bit overwhelming. Oh, and by the way, you countered your own point nicely in one of your posts by using the phrase "in my opinion". When talking about science, it's nice to have an opinion. But until you are a recognized, published scholar on the subject of climate change, it is no more than that...an opinion.

The same scientific method that is responsible for the medications you take, nutrition information for your diet, the technology in your cell phone, the laboratory process that analyzes the water you drink for any dangerous pollutants, the operation your loved one needs to make them well, etc....all these things go through rigorous peer reviewed processes. There are always a few scientists who have different results. But the peer review process keeps correcting the science and moving things forward.

All of your "opinions" about the degree of change, the level of certainty (science is seldom 100% certain about anything), exact predictions for the future, etc, are being or have been explored in the literature. The dozen or so climate models that are out there are constantly being corrected with new information as the time scale of study lengthens and new research evolves. This research can be found in many places. Check the web for journals, check "skeptical science" which always points at the actual research.

Greater than 90% of climatologists and atmospheric scientists are convinced of global warming's reality. And they are convinced within 95% confidence limits...about the best that science can do. Even your doctor or surgeon will tell you that, whatever they're going to do to you, has a 5% chance of failure. Do you ignore them and say "I'll take my chances with this cancer at home. It's my opinion that you're wrong and the solution is beer."? Yes, you're entitled to that opinion. Is it rational or researched? Are you qualified to reach that conclusion? No...but you're welcome to it, and you can keep spouting it to anyone listening. That is, until the point where you can't talk or breathe anymore because the cancer is destroying your body's ability to function.

The cancer of too much greenhouse gas (not just CO2, but CH4, N2O, and others) is slowly destroying our planet's ability to function properly. Yes, the planet will survive. But do we really want to alter it to the point where it can't adapt fast enough to the change, and therefore can no longer support the diversity of life it should? I, for one, don't think this is a good idea. So, I do what I can to cut down on my use of carbon-based fuels. No one is asking for your first born; merely that you recognize that carbon-based fuels are a problem, and do what you can to move away from them. This is not an "agenda", it's merely a plan toward sustainability.

Posted by: PrairieDog60 | December 14, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: ptgrunner

I actually read your post about the separation of church and state several times looking for an angle...something to debate you on. I understand the part where you are dissing Conservatives but your point is ... what is your point? Either you've had way too much caffeine or not enough booze. I'm guessing you stayed up too late blogging against the no-good GOP on Huffington and now you're into your 2d Starbucks foofoo Latte.' Exciting.

But in my own self-interest, I think I'll go have something to drink (it's almost 1700 here in the UK) so maybe your post will be more useful later. I doubt it but at least I'll feel better.

Posted by: pararanger22 | December 14, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

That's an Xmas tree? "Ugly" doesn't begin to describe it. Must be one of Obama's socialist creations!

The hypocrisy by conservatives on the Constitution--not to mention death, taxes, spending, global warming, etc.--has long been evident. Conservative constitutionalism--the NY Times has referred to it as Radical Constitutionalism--actually puts them on thin ice on most issues more than they would think. Let's take separation of church and state. It's true that the phrase "separation of church and state" does not actually appear in the Constitution. Words to that effect seem to appear in the Constitution, unless you prefer to ignore that fact. So let's ignore that fact...temporarily. Conservative constitutionalists say that, if the actual wording of the Constitution does not permit something, the government should not be doing it. But separation of church and state requires nothing from the government. A "connection between church and state" would require that the government do SOMETHING. So shouldn't the phrase "connection between church and state" occur in the Constitution? Neither that phrase, nor anything remotely like it, occurs in the Constitution. Therefore, a "connection between church and state" does NOT exist as one of our country's guiding principles. There is no "connection between church and state." Well, that's using the logic of conservative constitutionalists...something that would drive most people insane, and should not be attempted at home. It's OK for me since I'm a trained professional. But my major point is that conservatives should not be allowed to frame the debate on church and state, or on any other issue, in the manner that THEY choose...because that can drive a person insane.

Posted by: ptgrunner | December 14, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

I just Googled the last decade of National Christmas trees, and other than differences in the decorations, they all pretty much look like a melting rocket ship. Which of course, doesn't look like a Christmas tree.

Loved the cartoons.

Posted by: DailyPostReader | December 14, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse

It would be more interesting if you actually produced any of your rock-solid climate change information you buffet your arguments upon. Guess you're only blog deep like most of the folks on here (although dagrubb824 seems to have some courage).

Posted by: pararanger22 | December 14, 2010 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Nope. Just lazy. Besides, this is more fun and probably just as effective, honestly. I get tired of playing dueling links on the Internet.

Posted by: jhnnywalkr | December 14, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Tom, thanks for mentioning how stupid the National Condom Tree...er I meant Christmas Tree looks. I thought I was the only one who on first seeing it said, "You've got to be kidding!" It looks like no effort was put into decorating it. The arguement is that it is decorated that way because it is a live tree doesn't hold weight with me. I've seen plenty of live trees better decorated then that. I think the most likely answer in government bureaucracy: "We've always used the condom-lights so we keep on using the condom-lights no matter how ugly they look as stated in Federal Regulations CL-472-LA-Z-793K-aa-48, subsection JRK-3817.54 and we can't do it any different until these regulations go through a thourough reveiw to determine proactive metrics to initialization of coniferous illumination or until a Congressperson slips into the Defense Authorization Bill a clause to allows said decorating to be a "No-Bid" Federal Contract for that Congressperson's second cousin's business 'Billy Bob's Fly By Night Tree Decorators' which will consist of one flung-on-the-tree strand of partialy burnt-out lights which will cost the Tax Payers over $2.7 million per year and which will make you long for the old condom-lights!"

Posted by: dre7861 | December 14, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: dagrubb824

["I wouldn't post anymore comments, pararanger. The internet was developed by "scientists"! Don't turn on the tv or get in your car, either. It's that dang ole "science" again! Extended exposure to it might indoctrinate you into their "scientist"ic socialist Hitler youth camp! To answer your question, close to none of the same scientists warned us about the Y2K bug, since climatologists are different than software engineers. They are the same scientists, however, that convinced George HW Bush that global warming was important enough to act on; that got annoyed when Republicans and fossil fuel salesmen changed the term to "climate change" to make it less scary (though they implicitly still believed in it); and are now angry and bewildered that 42% of the country (you) wants to side with the 3% of climatologists who say global warming isn't happening. That's an even smaller percentage than that of Ohioans who approve of Boehner's tan, btw.
Funny how the GOP was better at science 20 years ago than they do today. Maybe it has something to do with school budgets getting slashed in the 80s."]

---------------------

Actually, I'm very happy with science and scientists and their commitment to their work. Unfortunately, there are too many scientists that have made climate change political in order to level the playing field between first order Nations (e.g.,US, China) and developing Nations (e.g., Bangladesh, Indonesia). It's been a very useful strategy that 'scientists' and the Liberals in the US have used to ram down our throats as scientific fact before there was any empirical or political debate. Climate change folks are just ticked off that they're losing the debate.

I find it hard to believe that the GOP and fossil fuel bunch coined the term 'climate change.' Do you actually have any evidence of that? More likely, it was a reaction by the same scientists and politicians to the adverse reaction to the term global warming in the 90s when we had some harsh winters. These folks (& you) change the rules (and the message) as you see fit. That doesn't seem like a scientifically based theory to me - seems more like science on the path of least resistance, more easily identifiable as something politicans do.

I'm glad you decided to provide some evidence in your other post but I would discontinue the 'hitler' analogies to yours truly. Ockamsrazor started that bull but I don't perceive you to be in his bush league. I can handle the name-calling but that is over the top.

Posted by: pararanger22 | December 14, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Hey, you're right Mr. Toles. It looks like an "electric burka."

Posted by: ahowl7mx | December 14, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

jhnnywalkr wrote:

["Y2K? You mean the problem we averted by acting in advance of it happening? Interesting choice."]

--------

It would be more interesting if you actually produced any of your rock-solid climate change information you buffet your arguments upon. Guess you're only blog deep like most of the folks on here (although dagrubb824 seems to have some courage).

Posted by: pararanger22 | December 14, 2010 10:05 AM | Report abuse

dalyplanet, there are thousands of papers in the scientific literature about climate change science, include several whole journals dedicated to the subject. I suggest you start with the International Panel on Climate Change Working Group 2 Report, "The Physical Science Basis". It is a good introduction, and will help you find out where to start in the peer-reviewed literature. Also try googling "climate model fingerprinting".

Posted by: bbabcoc1 | December 14, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse

I'll be more helpful and less snarky. Here are three non-partisan sites with hard data (you can argue about the EPA, but the people doing the actual work aren't politically appointed):

The Pew Center on Global Climate Change: http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_technical_papers.shtml

The US EPA: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html

Posted by: dagrubb824 | December 14, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse

TT -- How about this: "Cousin It at a St. Patty's Party?"
PS -- Where in the Constitution does it specifically say that we can't have stuff like nativity scenes on public property? And ya-no-wut else, TT? You should be thankful that the Second Amendment gives you the right to shoot at that stuff.

Posted by: dudeupnorth | December 14, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

How many of these same 'scientists' briefed us on the certain calamity of Y2K dude?

Get it?

Posted by: pararanger22 | December 14, 2010 8:34 AM | Report abuse

Y2K? You mean the problem we averted by acting in advance of it happening? Interesting choice.

Posted by: jhnnywalkr | December 14, 2010 9:44 AM | Report abuse

~~~I'm sure the Park Service would love to hear any suggestions or recommendations for how to make the tree prettier without killing it. ~~~

Yeah...use LED lights...dah.

~~~Posted by: OckamsRazor

["My thoughts on the Subject...
You must be a sociopathic, anti-social and anal retentive Hitlerite who is trying to destroy the foundation of our society. We are all socialists if we live in and enjoy the fruits of social organization.~~~

There is a differnce between being Social and being a Socialist. Socialist does not derive from the world Social as you have chosen to make it....yes...do use a dictionary once in awhile.

Posted by: bertzel | December 14, 2010 9:43 AM | Report abuse

I wouldn't post anymore comments, pararanger. The internet was developed by "scientists"! Don't turn on the tv or get in your car, either. It's that dang ole "science" again! Extended exposure to it might indoctrinate you into their "scientist"ic socialist Hitler youth camp!

To answer your question, close to none of the same scientists warned us about the Y2K bug, since climatologists are different than software engineers. They are the same scientists, however, that convinced George HW Bush that global warming was important enough to act on; that got annoyed when Republicans and fossil fuel salesmen changed the term to "climate change" to make it less scary (though they implicitly still believed in it); and are now angry and bewildered that 42% of the country (you) wants to side with the 3% of climatologists who say global warming isn't happening. That's an even smaller percentage than that of Ohioans who approve of Boehner's tan, btw.

Funny how the GOP was better at science 20 years ago than they do today. Maybe it has something to do with school budgets getting slashed in the 80s.

Posted by: dagrubb824 | December 14, 2010 9:42 AM | Report abuse

As I understand (from the Park Service Rangers), the tree is draped with the net of lights because it is a live tree. If they were to string the lights around the branches of the tree, as one might with a tree at home, the heat from the lights would kill the tree. I'm sure the Park Service would love to hear any suggestions or recommendations for how to make the tree prettier without killing it.

Posted by: Ender4 | December 14, 2010 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Well, I've had two thoughts today. Second, the problems of Y2K were generally averted because corporations (including the evil ones) spent a whole pile of cash correcting faulty software code. Does it seem like over-reacting in hindsight? Maybe. But the point is to anticipate potential problems and address them before they happen. And if some consultants make it out to be much MUCH more than it really is, well, that's just because they see an opportunity and want to get your business.
Which brings me to my first thought. Why do some folks (probably a lot of folks, actually) invest their hard-earned cash without doing their own thorough research? And by thorough, I mean looking into all the details of the companies they are researching, interviewing mass numbers of consumers and generally spending enormous time and effort to get a better return on what is really not a lot of scratch? It's because we have other people to do that for us. And there are lots of them. They determine what (they think) is a good value and point us in that direction. Sometimes they are right; sometimes they are wrong. But we take them at their word and give them our money anyway. Because they are professionals and they have more expertise then us and there are a lot of them saying the same things so it sounds like a good idea.
So how is this different from the issue of climate change? I think on a personal level people can wrap their heads around a recommendation to take action, like when an inspector tells you your house has termites. But as challenges become more abstract like, the schools need more nutritional lunches or our highway infrastructure needs replacement or etc., it seems too easy to be swayed by naysayers who have their own agendas. Like protecting the money of the wealthiest 1% that got them elected.

Posted by: Rudesan | December 14, 2010 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Clearly jumping forums here,I see.
Whatever. It is obvious you people cannot discuss any type of situation other than arguing over who is right concerning 'climate change' or which politcal party is going to destroy us, socially AND economically. So be it.

As for the never-ending-global- warming- jargon; I have found Maurice Strong and Hara to be quite interesting...as you all say, follow the money.
I'm also interested in heading somewhere safe (considering I am an American)as well as warm (did wake up to temps -17 this morn, without wind) so is Cancun the hotspot?
Just askin'...

Posted by: bertzel | December 14, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: jhnnywalkr,

["dalyplanet, it's called google. Use it. Whatever anyone posts here will be dismissed by you as biased, or conjecture, or untrustworthy because you don't know or don't understand the specific "parameters" to this part of it or that part of it, or you will say there's another agenda at play, or whatever else you have to do so you can dismiss it. To you the very scientists and the organizations behind them are just making up all this for more funding anyways. I'm sorry you can't believe what appears, to you, such a small change in our atmosphere can have such a big effect. However, that doesn't mean it doesn't, and that's why we have scientists who do nothing but figure this stuff out all the live long day. I take blood pressure medicine. This puts a tiny amount of a chemical into my body every day. Somehow this brings down my blood pressure. I don't understand it, but someone whose job it is to know does and they gave it to me and they were right. Get it?

----------------------

Actually, jhnnywalkr, dalyplanet seems pretty capable of internet info shopping to me. He asked for 'hard science' to help him define why you and the rest of the climate change lemmings continue to believe in this ruse. Let me spell it out for you: cite the actual book(s), newspaper articles, web articles, magazine articles, TV shows, et al that define YOUR belief in climate change theory. You do that and I'll read each and every one of them and I'll give you my reasoned feedback on whether I'm with you or against you. Invariably, when I ask this question, I get zip other than pithy comments like 'do your own research' or 'check Wikipedia' or 'the NY Times editorial stated' or 'Slate & Huffington Post codify...'. These types of answers clearly underscore that many of you climate change fanatics haven't done any research on your own.

Secondly, your argument that scientists have been given an infallible sword of Damacles to splice through all the chaos in the world and provide the 'only' book of knowledge on climate change is just bull.

How many of these same 'scientists' briefed us on the certain calamity of Y2K dude?

Get it?

I'm waiting (though it is probably a waste of time/you'll chicken out) on your top climate change material selections from which you shape your immortal views.

Posted by: pararanger22 | December 14, 2010 8:34 AM | Report abuse

Tom,
You are marvelous! I look forward to seeing your cartoon every day.
Plenty of material it seems, even though we were kind of worried that with Obama in the white house, all would be sane and we could get back to our lives without the insanity in DC. Just shows how wrong we can be.

Posted by: dmkuil | December 14, 2010 8:29 AM | Report abuse

Tom — Spaceship? Yea, sorta. I'm seeing one end of an ear of corn wrapped in illuminated green husks and colored sprinkles. Not exactly the tree I remember from my childhood. Who picks these trees? Surely the Obama family doesn't trek into the wilderness like the Griswold family and pick the tree themselves. The have an expert picker, right? Maybe this expert is from Alaska...
Have a great holiday, Tom. Love your cartoons!

Posted by: medholm1 | December 14, 2010 8:19 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: OckamsRazor

["My thoughts on the Subject...
You must be a sociopathic, anti-social and anal retentive Hitlerite who is trying to destroy the foundation of our society. We are all socialists if we live in and enjoy the fruits of social organization.
The only way you can get away from socialism is to live in a cave and have no contact with anyone else. The liberals had balanced accounts until the conservatives came to power and generated trillions of dollars in debt with their greed and criminal preemptive wars. The conservatives have destroyed our credibility, our economy, our security, our liberties and our moral principles.
Now they want to blame the whole mess on the liberals. I forgot to mention conservative lies and deception. The only way out of this mess is being prevented by Guess who? Conservatives. Dave

---------------------
Pretty heavy stuff there Dave, especially when my post wasn't addressed to you anyway. You don't really know the definition of socialism, do you? Actually, it's clear you were the biggest kid in 7th grade all 1/2 dozen times you tried to make it through. Just don't forget the 'N' in 'nowledge' and you'll be fine. Let's see - probably have to time-stamp some of your arguments to glean any useful point here...hmmm... Apparently you forgot Jimmy Carter and 20% inflation. He was a Liberal too, moron. Clinton had balanced budgets because he had to cut deals with a Congress controlled by a budget cutting GOP. I give Clinton his due but giving him all the credit is unintelligent (there is a 'Dave IQ' them developing here...). You and the rest of your Liberal hand-out, big government, mentality diaspora have owned Congress since 2006 and had 2 years to do SOMETHING to improve conditions in the economy. Guess what? Your all-world, all ego, America-hating team fumbled badly and you were spanked in the election. It's over, you lost.

So go back to the basement and ask your parole officer for a bologna and cheese sandwich (w/miracle whip) and a juice box; take a nap; and dream of the good old Dems-in-Charge days that you made up years ago Tinker Belle. It's great to be in denial, isn't it? It will be okay, I promise.



Posted by: pararanger22 | December 14, 2010 8:16 AM | Report abuse

What does the Church of Socialism worship? The Church of Socialism worships themself because they think they are God wanting to control every facet of human existence from womb to tomb.

Posted by: jornolibist | December 14, 2010 5:29 AM | Report abuse

tom -- actually, the Christmas tree doesn't promote anyone's religion, unless your religion is some old German tree worshiping cult, or perhaps even the pre-christian Roman Saturnalia.

Better get your facts straight.

Posted by: summicron1 | December 13, 2010 11:57 PM | Report abuse

dalyplanet, it's called google. Use it. Whatever anyone posts here will be dismissed by you as biased, or conjecture, or untrustworthy because you don't know or don't understand the specific "parameters" to this part of it or that part of it, or you will say there's another agenda at play, or whatever else you have to do so you can dismiss it. To you the very scientists and the organizations behind them are just making up all this for more funding anyways.

I'm sorry you can't believe what appears, to you, such a small change in our atmosphere can have such a big effect. However, that doesn't mean it doesn't, and that's why we have scientists who do nothing but figure this stuff out all the live long day. I take blood pressure medicine. This puts a tiny amount of a chemical into my body every day. Somehow this brings down my blood pressure. I don't understand it, but someone whose job it is to know does and they gave it to me and they were right. Get it?

Posted by: jhnnywalkr | December 13, 2010 10:25 PM | Report abuse

yogione1 and all the other warmers here,

I appreciate reasoned argument regarding 'climate change'. Please post links to 'real science' that may persuade me to be less skeptical of the warmers claims. So much so called science is only anecdotal stories regarding proof of climate change. The recent NY Times article posted here and widely distributed elsewhere was just a report of 'it rained a lot here so it must be climate change' but not science.

It is hard for me to believe that a change from appx. three hundredths of one percent to four hundredths of one percent of a trace gas can alter the climate significantly.(.00028 to .00038 as a whole number of total atmospheric gas)

Measuring global average temperatures accurately over the last century is not possible as the measuring locations are not evenly distributed or even the same over time. With satellites this is improving but there are still problems. But the old data sets are not the same as the new.

Climate is a long term weather pattern and there has not been a long enough period of study to state with certainty that climate has changed in my opinion. The amount of change claimed is also very small thus far, making the worries of some seem out of proportion to the good that has come from fossil fuel. The soon to be coming 'tipping point' as far as I know is only a computer model. Show me the model parameters as I have not been able to find them.

Please post links to actual hard science.

I have no relationship with any denier group or industry but have become skeptical after seeing "An Inconvenient Truth" and the exposure it garnered. This film had an agenda beyond the science of global warming. I am not a troll and can read difficult material. Show me the proof.

Posted by: dalyplanet | December 13, 2010 8:37 PM | Report abuse

In the picture, the x-mas tree looks like one big unopened umbrella studded with rhinestones and sequins. Thankfully, none of the trees look like Dick Cheney in jeggings.

Posted by: bushidollar | December 13, 2010 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Maybe it was a budget issue: Maybe it saved big bucks to not fully unbundle the tree ... making the condom-of-lights easier to slide on ...and cheaper/faster to pull off after the festivities fade?

Posted by: NonHarp | December 13, 2010 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Well Toles, I too noticed what an ugly x-mas tree that is. Bet the tree was much better looking without the netted 'crap' draped over it. Is there even an actual tree under there? Glad someone made mention of that eyesore.

Posted by: bertzel | December 13, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company