Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 12:00 AM ET, 02/18/2011

Hard choices

By Tom Toles

c_02182011.gif

***

Friday rant: Hot money edition

Here's some actual climate data for you. Human activity causes bad rain events. This data point will have zero effect on the climate change deniers' point of view, however, because they have special opaque umbrellas that prevent them from seeing ANY data points that do not confirm their deathgrip on their existing position: There are NO data that confirm climate change and can NEVER be any such data. How do I know this to be the case? Because they can't acknowledge that there is any pro-change evidence right now. It's all just cardboard mental images of evil, lying scientists. Where YOU AND I might click through to that Slate story and see words and information, they will only see a blank area of screen. Maybe they will project into that empty space an image of Al Gore in a tutu to grind their teeth at, but the actual information will be invisible. They will be sure to fire back with a witty riposte that there are no puddles in THEIR yard, so there!

Why have these people succeeded in controlling the debate on this? Actually, they haven't. They are just a sideshow, though a mighty maddening one. The real answer lies in this OTHER story. Another old story. It's not what the teeming trolls are saying about this that matters. It never is. The policy preferences of the wealthy are what matters. The wealthy have calculated that they will be able to dodge the unpleasantness of the climate disaster that will come bearing down on the rest of us, and that they can make a tidy profit on their energy stocks while they are at it. The climate trolls are busy carrying their stormwater for them. Go figure. When the rains come in earnest, the trolls will discover the drawbridges to those estates are up. Surprise! "But, but, but..." Too late! --Tom Toles

***

sketchicon_ver1.jpg

s_02182011.gif

By Tom Toles  | February 18, 2011; 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: "Charge! (it)"
Next: Difficult delivery

Other Syndicated Editorial Cartoons:

Comments

Actually, it's not the fossil fuel burning that's causing the pro-ported AGW.

It's the increased number of human bodies.

That climate temperature hockey stick everyone keeps touting is the same as the population hockey stick. Keep adding 98.6 degree furnaces at an exponential rate to the environment, and it will heat up.

Add the methane AND the CO2 given off from 7 billion flatulent, breathing humans, and you have a greenhouse gas increase as bad as any burnt oil or coal.

Posted by: mhoust | February 23, 2011 8:44 AM | Report abuse

~~~~ That, or depend on actual Science; and we all know where that pernicious road leads.
Posted by: jonroesler~~~

No, 'we' don't know where that pernicious road leads.
Why don't' you explain?

Posted by: bertzel | February 21, 2011 9:57 AM | Report abuse

The only way to really know is to take a trip over to the 'other' planet Earth, the one that is always exactly on the other side of the sun from our own Earth and which has no human inhabitants but is otherwise exactly like our own, and measure the unspoiled climate there. That, or depend on actual Science; and we all know where that pernicious road leads.

Posted by: jonroesler | February 20, 2011 12:03 PM | Report abuse

@dalyplanet | February 18, 2011 9:10 PM

Come on. you've already said the agree that the earth is warming. You also said that CO2 is responsible, at least in part. Now, you deny those things. Don't you ever take a stand??????

You want to get off carbon fuels completely, independent from AGW??? Assuming AGW were not happening, I have no idea why you would take such a position, other than the fact that petroleum is a finite resource and Wikileaked cables suggest that maybe SA has 40% less petroleum reserve than we previously thought.

As fbrewer1 wrote: "I'm afraid I have to consider your participation in this forum nothing but contrarian sniping." You take positions, then abandon them when you are losing the debate. then come back to take the previous position once again when you think it's safe---apparently hoping people will forget. I don't forget...well, sometimes. I....can....tell. You're a conservative, a Tea Partyer. You can't make sense of the world, can't adapt to it. No critical thinking skills. You can't find work, because you're not trained to do anything and can't adapt as needed. No wonder you're trying to go back to the days of our founding fathers, although I'd be surprised if you had the skills to function in the world of even the 1950s. In this world, you have to adapt--the world will not stop for you. If the U.S. does not move forward we are pretty much screwed...and we'd deserve it.

Pay your taxes.

Posted by: ptgrunner | February 19, 2011 3:17 PM | Report abuse

good job, yet again, avoiding topic tho :-)
planet.

Posted by: bertzel | February 18, 2011 10:45 PM | Report abuse

and I guess this really is not the place for discussion.

right

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 18, 2011 9:59 PM | Report abuse

ok planet...scanned thru your doc. dated '07 I believe...anyway, I thought you were against farm subsidies?
Are you now saying you were enrolled and now have had it relinquished?
Are you an 'actual' farmer or do you just own land that was previously ag zoned but you know longer use property as such?
Too little info on your part there buddy!
and I guess this really is not the place for discussion.

Posted by: bertzel | February 18, 2011 9:57 PM | Report abuse

Bert just google minnesota Green Acres and it may be clearer or not with you.

or this link

http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/ped/2008/greenacressum.htm

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 18, 2011 9:42 PM | Report abuse

~~~ @ dalyplanet......I'm sorry. I'm afraid I have to consider your participation in this forum nothing but contrarian sniping. You make unsupported claims, cherry-pick data to exclude a comprehensive view of a complex issue, and engage in logical fallacies in attempts to bolster untenable positions. In other words, you argue here from an ideological agenda, and play games to deny facts and reason.

I'm disappointed.

Posted by: fbrewer1 | February 18, 2011 3:06 PM ~~~

I agree.

looks like a twofer--what the hell.

Posted by: bertzel | February 18, 2011 9:34 PM | Report abuse

~~~ @ dalyplanet......I'm sorry. I'm afraid I have to consider your participation in this forum nothing but contrarian sniping. You make unsupported claims, cherry-pick data to exclude a comprehensive view of a complex issue, and engage in logical fallacies in attempts to bolster untenable positions. In other words, you argue here from an ideological agenda, and play games to deny facts and reason.

I'm disappointed.

Posted by: fbrewer1 | February 18, 2011 3:06 PM ~~~

I agree.

Posted by: bertzel | February 18, 2011 9:32 PM | Report abuse

~No bert no back taxes. The last Gov no tax increase TPawlenty just raised property tax via the back door by restricting the in town ag tax break program.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 18, 2011 9:17 PM ~~

in town ag tax....again, thanks for the clarity...you win.

Posted by: bertzel | February 18, 2011 9:28 PM | Report abuse

No bert no back taxes. The last Gov no tax increase TPawlenty just raised property tax via the back door by restricting the in town ag tax break program.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 18, 2011 9:17 PM | Report abuse

PTG

Surrender no way!!! I am pragmatic enough to see all the noise you true believers have created on the issue and I believe there is a better way to create and use energy resources and have for decades. I want to see a new way of providing services that carbon consumption has allowed. The time is right at this point and I am concerned that modifying the old way will prevail over looking for and implementing new better less energy intensive ways to provide the services humans require. This will require thinking outside the present way of doing business.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 18, 2011 9:10 PM | Report abuse

~~`Minnesota 'modified' the green acres tax last year removing me and 6452 other smaller land owners from a plan that has been in place for decades. I now have a next door neighbor with 240 acres that pays less tax than I do~~

I don't know what 'green acres' tax you are referring to. I do know, as a land owner that there are tax breaks for those who 'conform' with certain standards according to ag. and/or dnr. Those 'conforming' standards are not always in the best interest of the landowner/land either. However property tax should not be what causes one to 'lose' their property unless of course they do not pay....you owe back taxes there planet??? and if so is that on business or property?
then again perhaps you are just 'picking' on certain topics from the past?

Posted by: bertzel | February 18, 2011 8:48 PM | Report abuse

Minnesota 'modified' the green acres tax last year removing me and 6452 other smaller land owners from a plan that has been in place for decades. I now have a next door neighbor with 240 acres that pays less tax than I do. Hopefully the legislature will fix the fix his year and my tax will equal my neighbors because it will take years to recover from spending for representation at tax court.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 18, 2011 8:35 PM | Report abuse

92% ? in one year? really? on ag. zoned land? 92%? gee...maybe Wisconsin isn't all that bad :0

Posted by: bertzel | February 18, 2011 8:18 PM | Report abuse

I was thinking that was an emphatic NO !! I am not on board there bert. Property taxes have increased 17% for me this year and 92% on my little farm in a declining real estate market and tax court is now my only option. The state is playing chicken hoping that my costs will exceed my savings or I can't afford to buy a solicitor.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 18, 2011 8:11 PM | Report abuse

as usual, thanks for the clarity in your post planet.

Posted by: bertzel | February 18, 2011 7:54 PM | Report abuse

bertzel

Minnesota's new Gov Dayton has a plan to tax the rich more that may raise 8% of our budget hole, fortunately the House and Senate will not go along this year. Meanwhile the Gov and some of the legislature are looking for 1 billion in new bonding for pet projects 700 mil for a stadium 500 mil for light rail to nowhere 500 mil for university and college remodeling 250 mil for trains that run empty 300 mil for property tax rebates for renters 100 mil for the zoo and on and on for the next two year period. Minnesota has a spending problem not a revenue problem.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 18, 2011 7:47 PM | Report abuse

@dalyplanet..I just read an article stating that Minnesota plans to raise taxes to offset budget shortfall...you on board with that?

Posted by: bertzel | February 18, 2011 6:31 PM | Report abuse

@ billh39 | February 18, 2011 6:11 PM

LOL!

Posted by: bertzel | February 18, 2011 6:29 PM | Report abuse

RE: Climate Change, Economics and Taxes

Is it a fallacy to assume that all intelligent men are rational?

Is it also a fallacy to assume that all irrational men are dumb?

Posted by: billh39 | February 18, 2011 6:11 PM | Report abuse

@dalyplanet | February 18, 2011 3:03 PM

Yeah........unfortunately, NH is not the world. Globally: 2010 was tied with 2005 as the warming year on record, and Jan. 2011 had the 17th warmest. You understand that we are talking about GLOBAL WARMING, not NH warming. Right?!?!?!? Really, this is not rocket science! I just don't know how you an get things so confused.

And BTW, you have already surrendered on the issues of global warming and CO2 as the cause of GW. You can't go back to those issues...UNLESS you have compelling new data. Stay with on this. OK?

Posted by: ptgrunner | February 18, 2011 5:15 PM | Report abuse

~~~Yes bert, I talk to a lot of state employees, thanks.
And I'm sorry I don't have "comebacks" that you approve of. I've said all that I need say on the topic of this bill from the governor. I don't comment for your approval.pdog~~~~

Not that you don't comment dog, just not to my posts to you. difference.
tho I must say this comeback really is typical of you and oh so original.

Never meant for you to run away with your tail between your legs dog...come on, lets do lunch after all we are practically neighbors. Hey, I'll even let you buy if that would make you feel better : )

By the way...I don't post links on blogs.

I tried the numbers, data, graphs, before...actually concerning education in my area...anyway, didn't do anything except give the heads up to board members to remove the item from the table so I could not discuss it at a meeting...convenient for them and a total waste of my time.
So how 'bout that lunch dog...chuckle

Posted by: bertzel | February 18, 2011 4:05 PM | Report abuse

fbrewer

The link also provides solutions to reduce the need for new coal generation in the US but does little or nothing to shut down existing carbon based generation esp coal. What about new world energy needs. One third of Humans have no electric today and this will change soon. Baseload for the future?

The other elephants, Transportation, Industry.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 18, 2011 3:30 PM | Report abuse

fbrewer1

Thank you for the excellent link you provided yesterday. I have been looking at some of the information this evening. Many of the projects \ plans provided are viable and are completely different than the government plans.

Your response link solution is what I have been looking for from the many posters here. Perhaps I have not been asking the right questions.

As you can probably tell I am not in favor of growing fuel on productive cropland.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 15, 2011 7:26 PM |

You must have missed this.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 18, 2011 3:17 PM | Report abuse

The climate alarmists continue to baffle me PTG refusing to accept the science if stopping CO2 emissions.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 18, 2011 3:11 PM | Report abuse

@dalyplanet - You asked the loaded, two-valued question several times as to what would replace fossil fuels. I provided a link to a source that would provide ample information about that. You did not acknowledge that, and you simply dropped your question, rather than explore the issue.

Some more of those facts that you so proudly to refuse to be confused by?

I'm sorry. I'm afraid I have to consider your participation in this forum nothing but contrarian sniping. You make unsupported claims, cherry-pick data to exclude a comprehensive view of a complex issue, and engage in logical fallacies in attempts to bolster untenable positions. In other words, you argue here from an ideological agenda, and play games to deny facts and reason.

I'm disappointed.

Posted by: fbrewer1 | February 18, 2011 3:06 PM | Report abuse

PTG

only the 37th warmest in the NH even with the cooked books of urban heat island effect.

only the 29th warmest global land temp so the top third temp wise.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 18, 2011 3:03 PM | Report abuse

sherm1

Maybe take a look at the link I posted. A little math there but good even without. I like my science to be science not statistical analysis. It talks about the physics of rain and storms.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 18, 2011 2:48 PM | Report abuse

The climate change deniers continue to baffle me. They refuse to accept the science of climate change. Yet they will go to any climate change denier Web site, read a few "blurbs" claiming the most absurd things, and accept those blurbs as gospel without any understanding or review of what's being said. Worse, these same people propagate these lies by climate changes deniers throughout the Internet. They need to no more than go a a Web site such as Skeptical Science (http://www.skepticalscience.com/) to find a "refudiation" of most climate change denier arguments. SS would refudiate all such arguments, but even Skeptical Science can't keep up with all the nonscience--another new word, combining "nonsense" and "science"--that the denier crowd comes up with.

Individual extreme precipitation events, such as the ones we experienced in the U.S. so far this winter, can't be attributed to CC. But, my opinion is that we can expect more of this sort of thing in the future. Who says CC doesn't really affect humans?

And according to the World Meteorological Organization, "2010 equals record for world’s hottest year and the “data confirm the Earth’s significant long-term warming trend.” Where I live Dec. 2010 was quite cold, but at least the previous 9 months were warmer than normal. This is more evidence, but not proof in itself, of global warming.

Globally, Jan. 2011 had the 17th highest temperatures on record (since 1880).

And apparently, GOP has announced a new climate strategy: abandon earth. You don't get to go...this is just for the wealthy, those "worthy" of being saved.

I don't live in Northern VA anymore. Never took the Metro anyway--I walked or biked when in DC. But DC is the capital of this country. Why can't we have a world-class, or a properly functioning Metro in our country's capital? Same reason that there is such a large population of homeless people in DC--I guess people just don't want to pay for it.

Posted by: ptgrunner | February 18, 2011 2:44 PM | Report abuse

There is no Wall St. lookin' in Minnesota or Wisconsin. Dumb legislators caved to or bought votes of special interests, teachers or some public unions. The direction they are going now does not work. Some of these unions accept legislation to adjust and continue a viable system going forward, some do not. In Wisconsin teachers are not facing reality and are not accepting needed change.

These teachers are like the alarmists here that refuse to accept reality that modest conservation and a 'smart grid' will not reduce CO2 'pollution' over the next 25 years. "If only government just spent a little more the problem would be solved." Some problems don't get fixed that way including Banker Bailouts.

Obama follows Bush down the same bad path. Walker unlike the rest of the politicians has the nuts to do what all of the US needs to do right NOW.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 18, 2011 2:38 PM | Report abuse

A True Christian: boy, I never realized that those thousands of scientist that accept the global warming theory are just high school dropouts with phony Phd credentials.

Tom, after you take that chemistry course, please come back to us and explain all that Hollywood bullshit about heat trapping CO2, ice melts, ocean currents, atmospheric phenomenon etc, etc. I'll respect your knowledge if you get a grade of gentleman C or higher.

Posted by: sherm1 | February 18, 2011 2:08 PM | Report abuse

I can not get my PDF link to work so here is a HTML version from a website. This explains the physics of rain and makes clear the fallacy that warmer air soaks up more water. "I can't be changing the laws of physics Captain"

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/17/regarding-thermodynamics-and-heat-transfer-why-al-gore%E2%80%99s-comments-to-bill-o%E2%80%99reilly-at-fox-news-are-wrong/

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 18, 2011 2:05 PM | Report abuse

daily planet, maybe down the road an anti global warming tactic will be developed that makes use of the skills and breadth of Minnesota public employees. Public funds allocated for this use may alleviate the pressures on pension funds. (Just like interest free money from the Fed helped the bankers pass out 20 billion in bonuses last year.)

Examples could be intensive educational efforts to indoctrinate the public at large about energy conservation practices, monitoring energy consumption, support actions to ameliorate agriculture deterioration due to global warming, develop and implement relocation programs for habitats turning unsuitable due to global warming.

When things start turning to crap no one, except those betting on crap, looks to Wall St for help.

Posted by: sherm1 | February 18, 2011 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Yes bert, I talk to a lot of state employees, thanks.

And I'm sorry I don't have "comebacks" that you approve of. I've said all that I need say on the topic of this bill from the governor. I don't comment for your approval. I merely comment on the world as I see it. Obviously you agree with the idea that the wealthy can continue to garner all the wealth they can, while middle class workers take the brunt of the pain of our economic woes (caused by those same wealthy corporations). So we will have to disagree on this.

The only other thing I have to say is to post a couple of references that debunk this idea that state and local government workers make so much more and have it so much better than the private sector.

http://epi.3cdn.net/8808ae41b085032c0b_8um6bh5ty.pdf

http://www.slge.org/vertical/Sites/%7bA260E1DF-5AEE-459D-84C4-876EFE1E4032%7d/uploads/%7b03E820E8-F0F9-472F-98E2-F0AE1166D116%7d.PDF

Have a nice weekend.

Posted by: PrairieDog60 | February 18, 2011 12:55 PM | Report abuse

dfritzin

Have you read it.? I am having trouble getting in to the single paper purchase site and dont want to spend 199.00 for a subscription. Do you have a link or are you just saying to look .

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 18, 2011 12:44 PM | Report abuse

dalypanet, you could not have said it better.
I read the Slate "report" (more like propaganda piece) online and what is clear to the CAREFUL reader is that the headline and other pronouncements in the story are clearly crafted to distort and mislead.
As an aside, but related to the general topic, ... where are all those massive, monster Katrinas that we were all told were going to be happening??.. what's it been 5 years +/-??.... Just curious. You know, Tom???
***************************************************************
Perhaps you should read the original article in Nature?

Posted by: dfritzin | February 18, 2011 12:36 PM | Report abuse

~~~State employees are mostly upset about collective bargaining rights, in place in WI since 1959, suddenly being stripped by this bill. pdog~~~

Oh really. Have you actually talked to any of these state employees? I have...teachers. All I am hearing is how upset they are because they will now have to pay in more for health care and retirement....also, in same breath say yes, our benefits right now are excellent....well guess what, other union members already have had their benefits slashed. Why do state employees feel they should be treated better than other union members? Personally dog...your rants are rediculous and you never have a decent comeback...just sayin'
If I might also add...I know a lot of non-union workers who get the same pay and benefits as some union workers in comparable jobs....
You can follow the money when it comes to the unions as well. I voted for Obama last time around but I most likely will not again.

Oh and Toles..per your toon contest...how 'bout 'big bang 2011 style'.

Posted by: bertzel | February 18, 2011 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Tom,

Your rant is PROOF that you don't understand how science works. The study deals with 50 years of data and uses that as "proof" that global climate change is happening and these events are directly cuased by it. Let me be the first to call BS! The planet is, what, a couple BILLION years old?! And in a 50 year span we expect that we can prove that global climate change is the reason behind some weather events. How rich! How many zeros are in front of the decimal you get when you divide 50 by 1 or 2 BILLION? The data would be ignored just rounding to the correct significant figures.

Tom, go take some college level courses in real science, like chemistry and/or physics and some real math classes, especially statistics, and then come back and tell us ALL how the amount of data being used for proof of GCC is appropriate. I don't mean that you have to get a degree in math or science, just take a few classes and report back to us. Maybe THEN you'd understand why there's so much skepticism from those of use with a scientific background.

Posted by: ATrueChristian | February 18, 2011 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Tom, your sketch toon is right on. Evidence our governor here in WI. He rams through a bunch of tax breaks totalling around $117 million dollars last month, then comes to state employees and says, "Oh, we are several hundred million short. I'm taking more from you."

State employees are mostly upset about collective bargaining rights, in place in WI since 1959, suddenly being stripped by this bill. State and many local government workers have taken a 3% cut for the last three years from furloughs, so it's not like they haven't given anything. And most I know are willing to give more. But the 8% cut now being proposed is more than many can handle. Many families are two-teacher families, who will both be hit by that cut. How would your family fare if your household income droped by 16% in three years time?

Meanwhile, WI's corporate tax is half of what it was just a few years ago. And many corporations in WI pay NO income tax at all, while they sit back and enjoy another upswing in corporate profits this year. So what do you think will hurt the economy more...a corporation having to pay 2 or 3% more in taxes, or several hundred thousand workers losing 8% of theirs? No extra money for big ticket items. No extra money for going out to eat. No extra money for taking a trip. No extra money for college tuition for the kids. You think there will be some ripple effects in the economy? In my community alone, it's estimated that this will remove $21 million dollars from the local economy over a year.

Walker and the Republican party are once again proving their desire to help the rich get richer on the backs of middle class America, while simultaneously stripping those Americans of employment rights they've had for 5 decades, and fought hard for in the decades preceeding. The WI Senate has no filibuster, so kudos to the Democratic State Senators who left the state in an effort to buy some more time and focus some more attention on the tone and the overreach of this governor and this bill.

Posted by: PrairieDog60 | February 18, 2011 12:00 PM | Report abuse

No one is saying the climate isn't change. The climate is perpetually fluctuating in and out of many thousand year long ice ages. Anthropogenic climate change proponents would suggest human activity can influence this process. That is of course absurd. If the climate cools, the climate cools. If the climate warms, it warms.... we couldn't affect it if we wanted to. If we devoted all of our efforts globally to change the climate we wouldn't be able to make a difference. Only liberal hubris could convince one to think otherwise. How foolish you all are.

Posted by: jtg24 | February 18, 2011 11:49 AM | Report abuse

sherm1

I am just now looking at some hard insider numbers for Minnesota's public pension plans. There is NO way to continue on the current path as people live longer and too much was given earlier on, leading to pension bankruptcy in 25 years.

There are very few to no tactics to reduce CO2 emissions that direct wealth to anyone other than corporations. Directing money to non corporate entities or individuals may be a viable solution but there is no plan with this element in it.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 18, 2011 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Tom, you ever in a bar that had a player piano? After a few good drinks you would start shouting requests in the direction of the piano, then got pissed because your requests never got played.

Well the whole ball of Tea Party/Right Wing/Palin/Bachman/Beck/.... is just like that player piano. Every once in while a rep of the top 1% would install new perforated song sheets - the last being a ballad about the evils of public employee unions.

Most of the rich no doubt believe that the global warming science is correct (you can't get rich betting on the tooth fairy). Their main concern is that they stay wealthy enough to move to the "What-Me-Worry Archipelago" when the time comes. And that means fight any idea, legislation, public personality, etc. that hint of wealth distribution. Every tactic to reduce global warming involves using some wealth for public purposes - aka wealth distribution.

I wish Obama would sober up and quit requesting "Tea for Two" from that funky upright.

Posted by: sherm1 | February 18, 2011 11:15 AM | Report abuse

The worst result of this 'scientific' paper is that now every weather event will now be 'proof' of climate change by the evil lying press.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 18, 2011 11:01 AM | Report abuse

dalypanet, you could not have said it better.
I read the Slate "report" (more like propaganda piece) online and what is clear to the CAREFUL reader is that the headline and other pronouncements in the story are clearly crafted to distort and mislead.
As an aside, but related to the general topic, ... where are all those massive, monster Katrinas that we were all told were going to be happening??.. what's it been 5 years +/-??.... Just curious. You know, Tom???

Posted by: Shrimper | February 18, 2011 9:54 AM | Report abuse

"The policy preferences of the wealthy are what matters."
There may come a point when they discover, to their great chagrin, that you cannot eat money.

Posted by: Capn0ok1 | February 18, 2011 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Let me see if I understand this; initially we were all going to fry due to 'human activity'. Then we were all going to freeze due to same. Now we are all up for drowning as a result of the pesky, out of the ecosphere, species known as humanity. I expect that next meteor showers, solar flares, and leprosy will be a result of human activity.
Rant's with little or no direct proof of questionable effect and certainly no solution except a roll back to the stone age will do little to move folks toward more expensive transport, electrical generation, or any other purported 'cause' of these unsubstantiated calamities. Statistics are not reality and seem to change with each new study, depending on whose 'grant' is being used to justify same.

Posted by: hbeavers | February 18, 2011 9:26 AM | Report abuse

DirtFarmer1

The alarmists have no viable solution. There is NO fix for transportation and potentially 40% of the fix for electricity is off the table as it is 'dirty and dangerous'. Most alarmists are just noisy bells alarming without understanding of the magnitude of carbon consumption.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 18, 2011 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Wha' hoppen?
This "Friday Rant" was published on Thursday.
(We can get a man on the moon, but we can't...)
:-)

Posted by: GeneTouchet | February 18, 2011 9:06 AM | Report abuse

Okay, let's say climate change is not caused by solar and cosmic activity, geologic activity, changes in ocean currents, and all the other stuff that caused climate change before humans existed. What's your solution? Stop burning fossil fuels? Run all economic activity only on windmills and solar panels? (Remember enviros say we can't use nuclear, either.) Force everyone to forage for food, or grow their own?

Posted by: DirtFarmer1 | February 18, 2011 8:54 AM | Report abuse

They did a dry run at a certain bridge in New Orleans when folk tried to escape the deluge. Not a lot of difference between that and oppressive dictators abroad, it seems to me. I guess they think that Switzerland will be the last place to be flooded so maybe storing their assets there is a good idea. And it is -- if they want to buy a lot of watches (no Swiss chocolates, though; the place where they used to grow the raw material is now a kelp farm).

Posted by: gr321 | February 18, 2011 8:47 AM | Report abuse

There is plenty of blame to go around in the climate change discussion. While there are deniers to be sure, there are equally inane people and positions who REFUSE to recognize that the Earth is continually changing without human intervention. The north pole is moving closer to Siberia and it's not due to climate change. The last ice age did not end because man was burning fossil fuel. Volcanoes did not erupt and foul the atmosphere and kill off dinosaurs because someone was driving a gas guzzling automobile. It's presumptuous to assume that human activity is responsible for EVERY change. Climate change advocates diminish their effectiveness by insisting that every heat wave, every rain storm, every snow fall, et. al. is due to man's gluttony for fossil fuel. If they were more reasonable and thinking in their process they'd have more people on their side.

Posted by: evergrin1 | February 18, 2011 7:50 AM | Report abuse

Rain rain, come again some other day?

Communities need planning. That includes drainage and places for water to go when it is unexpected. Right now, look around your community and imagine a ton of rain on every yard. Then ask yourself "where WILL IT GO."

Montgomery County has catch lakes and basins and is ready for some rain.

What are you ready for?

And who do you ask if you want an expert opinion?

Posted by: GaryEMasters | February 18, 2011 7:37 AM | Report abuse

So Mr. Toles sets up the "denier" and makes a new hole in the straw figure. Kudos.

Next thing to try is to prove you are smarter and wiser than you were last week. Open your mind to more possible futures and problems.

That will be an accomplishment to be proud of.

Posted by: GaryEMasters | February 18, 2011 7:33 AM | Report abuse

Toles

The subject of your rant is proof that liberals OWN the media. This story went out from the AP yesterday and hit ALL the papers and print today and I predict will be parroted all over the TV news and read by every radio news reporter by tomorrow. And And the actual report is not even seen by any of those reporting it. The only way to see it is by purchase and it couldn't be bought this morning yet. You and the rest KNOW it is the truth because you saw it on Slate. One soon to be published papers press release is more proof positive of humans messing up mother earth. Plus the study may have some flaws as the time period studied only considered a very limited time period so data so may be cherry picked. We don't know because the paper is not available. The other paper considered one flood event in one tiny geographic area and concluded it was 'caused' by climate change. This type of 'science' only diminishes your argument as it is sensationalism.


Posted by: dalyplanet

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

Right on. Nice work.

Posted by: pararanger22 | February 18, 2011 7:01 AM | Report abuse

Tom Toles Blog--Feb 2011--Pararanger says he graduated from college.

Posted by: billybeer6

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

I did graduate from college. I have my certificate right here - fell out of my box of Cracker Jacks...

Posted by: pararanger22 | February 18, 2011 6:59 AM | Report abuse

Democrats are on the run in Wisconsin
Florida says no high speed rail
Alaska says no to Obamacare
U.S. House defunds 9 Obama Czar positions

A good day to go golfing....not a hard choice

Posted by: bignoisylawnmower | February 18, 2011 6:43 AM | Report abuse

@quiensabe: "The "Science of Evolution," guarantees the specie will survive, Tom."

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

The species may very well survive but that is no guarantee for survival of any individual member of the species. (Hint: Google 'Malthus'). Perhaps the six billion or so now on this blue marble will be reduced to one billion.

That's still a large number.

Where do you want to put your wager, Q?

Posted by: DougMUSN | February 18, 2011 5:46 AM | Report abuse

The "Science of Evolution," guarantees the specie will survive, Tom.

Posted by: quiensabe | February 18, 2011 1:20 AM | Report abuse

As the Wisconsin State Democrat Congress people flee to Illinois to avoid voting will the minority U.S. Democrat Congress flee to Canada to avoid voting when President Palin sends down her budget? Will Canada let them in? Will they run to Mexico? Stay tuned as a big jumbo sits at Reagan .......

Posted by: jornolibist | February 17, 2011 10:15 PM | Report abuse

NY Times--Dec 1958 --Frozen Key to Our Climate; The world's ice masses may be ushering in a fifth Ice Age.

NY Times--Jan 1961 --Scientists Agree World is Colder; But Climate Experts Fail to Agree on Reasons for Change. After a week of discussions on the cause of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: It is getting colder.

NY Times --Oct 1961 --Earth's Weather Growing Colder; The earth is undergoing "a persistent cold wave" that began in the Nineteen Forties, a United States, weather man told a symposium on climate this week.

NY Times--May 1967 --Weathermen Try to Explain the Why of Spring That Never Was in 1967 - In the year 1816 the year without summer, they called it snow fell in New England and parts of New York in June, July and August. Crops failed. People were impoverished and mystified.

NY Times--Jul 1970 -- U.S. and Soviet Press Studies of a Colder Arctic; The U.S. and the Soviet Union are mounting large-scale investigations to determine why the Arctic climate is becoming more frigid and whether the extent of that ice cover contributes to the onset of ice ages.

NY Times--Jan 1972 --Climate Experts Assay Ice Age Clues; After invading Nebraska and Colorado, the armadillos, faced with increasingly frigid weather, are in retreat from those states toward the Mexican border. The winter snow accumulation on Baffin Island has increased 35 per cent in the last decade.

Tom Toles Blog--Feb 2011--Pararanger says he graduated from college.

Posted by: billybeer6 | February 17, 2011 9:07 PM | Report abuse

One other thing Toles, it is NOT evil lying scientists but evil lying MEDIA that report an extremely slanted polarizing viewpoint that prevents people from coming to some agreement on this subject.

One other one other thing, what is your viewpoint on the cure for this alleged climate catastrophe. Curly light-bulbs or something more substantial.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 17, 2011 9:02 PM | Report abuse

Toles

The subject of your rant is proof that liberals OWN the media. This story went out from the AP yesterday and hit ALL the papers and print today and I predict will be parroted all over the TV news and read by every radio news reporter by tomorrow. And And the actual report is not even seen by any of those reporting it. The only way to see it is by purchase and it couldn't be bought this morning yet. You and the rest KNOW it is the truth because you saw it on Slate. One soon to be published papers press release is more proof positive of humans messing up mother earth. Plus the study may have some flaws as the time period studied only considered a very limited time period so data so may be cherry picked. We don't know because the paper is not available. The other paper considered one flood event in one tiny geographic area and concluded it was 'caused' by climate change. This type of 'science' only diminishes your argument as it is sensationalism.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 17, 2011 8:48 PM | Report abuse

That's it, Tom. I'm buying Alcoa on the open tomorrow...

Posted by: sold2u | February 17, 2011 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Tom,

Your "outtake" was hilarious and quite appropriate. Voodoo economics at work, were up is down, and out is in.

Posted by: bushidollar | February 17, 2011 7:53 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

© 2011 The Washington Post Company