Michael Ramirez for November 30, 2015

Heh! Good one!

Somehow Ramirez once again forgets what actions have been taken, including thousands of military strikes.

Obama has done more against ISIS than Bush did against Al Qaeda. Ramirez should learn from the weekend’s events that telling lies about people has consequences. There’s a reason for that “false witness” commandment.

More an issue of multitasking two critical issues than choosing either or.

So maybe sunscreen would be as effective.

“We can’t indiscriminately bomb them, but we can’t have 75% of our sorties return without strikes — that’s just wasteful.”Gotta drop those bombs on something, eh? The days of carpet bombing cities & dropping napalm on civilians is past.

Ramirez again demonstrates he worships ignorance. The Syrian revolt DID occur largely because climate change and drought wiped out what for centuries had been productive agricultural lands.

Bangladesh and many other low lying coastal lands with often fragile ecologies ARE beind destroyed, NOW, as a result of climate change, ocean acidification, pollution from such as oil spills, and other environmental factors caused by human activity.

That the CIA and the Pentagon planners recognize that climate change DOES represent a greater threat than a single group like Daesh/ISIL, because MANY such groups will rise as social struture collapses when the environment does, as in Syria, the future risk DOES demand action, NOW.

One day Ramirez will look beyond his simplistic “every problem is separate from the other” mind set and realize that environmental issues and terrorism are intrinsically linked. When you look at a list of the areas/nations in the world with the most instability and terrorist organizations and then you look a list of the areas/nations of the world dealing with severe environmental problems you’ll discover that they are the same list. That can’t be a coincidence.

Now is the time to get all right-minded conservatives to agree to block all foolish “climate change” initiatives put forward by the government. This will assure that in future years, as New Yorkers swim down Wall Street, they can blame Obama for not showing leadership in a crisis.

^^Dave: exactly.

And Trout, there is also this you should read before you start sounding the alarms about how wrong-minded those of us are who challenge climate change as the clear and present danger.

Sorry about the string of posts. Here is a bit more of an impartial article about climate change.

It is the right of “deniers” to worship ignorance under the First Amendment; it is NOT their right to ignore the facts, studied for over 50 years that prove anthropogenic climate change is real, and a threat to world peace and stability, and proclaim the proven science of human impacts, by various means, aren’t real.

Emperor Rush and the moron brigade can’t make their distortions and outright lies, reality.

You obviously didn’t read the link.

RE: He works for 0bama.You sure are up on current events aren’t you?Gates was a hold over form Bush during his first term, then after he left he wrote a book that wasn’t all that flattering of the POTUS.Also, did you check the link I provided?The facts on the ground back up his statement.

Michael; I was not aware of GOCOMICS during the early 2000’s. I have a question for you. How did you treat pres Bush?On second thought, I don’t really want to know.

I honestly feel Obama has a hidden agenda… and it is not a positive one for our country!!

A single day’s increase or decrease of the sun’s energy output completely undoes billions of dollars worth of misspent money combating “global warming/cooling”. It’s all about justifying control and research grants.

The “fast” rise to which you are referring is approximately 1 degree. And it’s no faster or slower than the rest of the cycles. After all, how is it that we had the industrial revolution, before any form of carbon control was implemented, and yet we had a cooldown? No, it’s not human caused, and it’s certainly not unique. The speed is apace with the Earth’s history.

I submit that we don’t need troops on the ground. What is lacking is stopping their supply of money, and striking their supply lines. We don’t have the guts to blow up their oil fields or stop the people who are selling them weapons.

Spot on Martens. Scary, but exceedingly well informed.

Scientists of all stripe need to be shouting this from the highest peaks. Unfortunately, that’s not how most scientists work. Reality, in all its non-linearity and ambiguity make them cautious by nature. But this really is too important for modest humility.

I always appreciate your forthright, no-nonsense commentary. Please keep it up. Thanks.

The problem is you are making a conclusion from inferred data, and providing those inferences as proof. There’s no “smoking gun,” that we can point to that confirms this alleged climate change is the end of days or that it is approaching an extinction-level event. There’s only anecdotal evidence that still bucks the theories. Part of this boils down to trust. I have NASA, providing anecdotal evidence that the Earth is going through its normal routine. We have scientists who provide anecdotal evidence that we are crossing a tipping point. The problem I have is those very scientists had their emails aired to the public… emails that came out and in effect said, “The data doesn’t fit the model, so discard some of the data so it does.” Whether they did or not is immaterial. The very fact that conversation exists in the minds of our science community erodes my trust in their professionalism and their true independence, and instead infers an inherent bias. This bias may be beneficial to their funding; after all, scientists rely on wealthy donors to fund their research, and climate change supporters have very deep pockets. I am simply skeptical, and I don’t trust the source any more.Compound this with the fact that the methods many on the left employ when pushing their climate-change agenda, and it paints a very ugly picture. A recent poll showed something like 29% of democrats want to see people who disagree with climate change charged with a crime. For having a different opinion!? Talk about a rabid mentality. Since when is it a crime to disagree with someone? And when people are so vitriolic in their response to dissent, it’s frequently because they know their argument is either precarious or untenable. And twclix: I’m not saying we should invade, bomb, and ultimately knuckle-drag our way through. But when dealing with savages, those savages don’t understand higher thinking. You can’t have a debate with a dog that is rabid, and you certainly can’t give it a hug to make the rabies go away. It’s wishful thinking that will ultimately cause you harm … or worse. Sometimes, the only language some people understand is violence. In our current situation there are only two outcomes that are available based upon reality: Either we surrender to them, they run amok, and ultimately destroy our way of life, or we eradicate them. There is no higher-minded solution, no matter how much you or I believe there should be. I’ll put it to you this way: How do you convince a die-hard Christian that God does not exist? Faith is a crazy thing, and once people scratch that itch, they never want to stop scratching it. I’m not supporting religion per se, but I am saying that people of faith (regardless of what that faith is) routinely do not renounce their beliefs. Sure, you may have one or two here or there, but by and large they will not be dissuaded from their decisions.Is this a failure to evolve? Sure. But how do you solve it in our current situation? We can’t just build a wall around them and lock them in (To do so would require employing violence). We can’t build a wall around the USA and other western countries (because that won’t work). We can’t convince them all to leave us alone (because that’s contrary to their faith-based beliefs). We can’t ignore them (because they will just continue to murder our people). There is no plausible solution to dealing with ISIS or other terrorist organizations that fits the mold of what you are proposing. They don’t have better natures. Their leaders focus entirely on whipping their devotees into a lather so they can unleash terror upon the rest of the world. I don’t see how, given our current technology level, we resolve this without the use of naked violence.

Martens, I’m not saying that you are playing politics, but I would venture a guess there are many who are. And when you are given the option of being paid for your work, but that work produces results your employer doesn’t like, what is the outcome? Again, I’m not saying that the scientific community is in the back pockets of politicians, but when there are studies that refute the “established theories” are published, and they are immediately condemned as unserious or unscientific, it raises a lot of red flags for me.I’m familiar with the scientific method. In there, the theory is either proven or disproven by the data. But the data, in this specific argument, has evidence of tinkering with the data to fit the theory, at least once. In a different perspective, you believe your spouse is being faithful to you until you find out she cheats on you. Once she cheats on you, can you completely trust her again? The answer is no. Same thing here. Look guys, I’m not saying your points are invalid. We obviously need to do better. But I am saying that it doesn’t make them infallible. We have a great deal of information that shows correlation, but there is no conclusive connection that proves causation. A scientist’s job is to challenge the accepted truth and see if there’s more to it. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is still a theory. There’s also a lot more to it that we don’t understand. After all, we are still working on understanding why matter has mass, right? We’ve been chasing that dog for a LONG time. So how can we have a relatively short stint of climate research being conducted and now suddenly we are 100% certain that mankind is what’s causing climate change? That doesn’t seem somewhat suspicious to you guys? For one, we do not have empirical evidence to conclusively rule out the Earth’s warming trends for the past measure of history since we weren’t there, nor did we have sophisticated technology that was able to record that information accurately. How do you explain previous heating patterns like we’ve seen a few hundred thousand years ago? We clearly had nothing to do with that.Right now, it should be labeled a Climate Change Theory. But there are a lot of people right now that treat it like it is Climate Change Fact. But we do not have causation. Yes, we have CO2 being produced as the result of combustion, in both animal life and technology. But there is not certain proof that condemns mankind as the sole and proximate cause of the change in temperatures over the next century.And yes, I know, hydrocarbons when combined with Oxygen and Heat generate CO2, heat, and water. Thanks for the chemistry lesson. I may be an accident reconstructionist, but I’m not an idiot. ;P

I would like to add that this conversation has been very interesting. Despite my little smart-a** comment to you Baslim, you do bring up valid points and I always love an intellectual debate.

Wraithkin, Martens and Baslim are arguing from facts and from a deep understanding of the processes involved. Notice they have not made any political inferences from their analyses. Political inferences are an entirely different matter from informed analysis of the facts. One “might” come to various political conclusions based on an interpretation of the facts, but it is quite far to the reasoned and informed arguments they have mustered in the attempt to educate you.

I know that may feel as though it is insulting, but this is the way science works. There is a substantially high level of basal understanding one must have to even participate in this type of scientific discussion. These are subjects that are complex and multifaceted, and not given to easy analysis. Political opinions are a dime a dozen and not subject to more the objective empirical testing that is at the foundation of the empirical method. If you are unwilling or unable to provide an in-depth rebuttal of the specific points raised by Baslim and Martens, then any pseudo-scientific conclusion you come to is automatically suspect. I’m sorry, but that’s the way it is.

On my, more philosophical issue of violent Islam, we will never see eye-to-eye, and because these are matters of moral and political opinion that is largely unable to be tested and factually demonstrated. However, we must remember the nature of our neurology and how we function as large primates. I have a view that admits to the brutish nature of man and seeks ways to mitigate that nature. I do not feel threatened by radical Islam. Even terrorist acts, while threatening, and occasionally dangerous to a small number of people need to be taken in context. I agree that Islamic violence is an issue, but while they want to make it our issue, we should refuse to do so, not to “coddle” the terrorists, but because it is the most likely way to defuse matters instead of inflaming them. In the case of the so-called Islamic state, this cancer will not spread unless we aid and abet its spread. Our violent actions do just that. I am willing to be persuaded otherwise, but in my experience this is a more enlightened way of considering the issue. My experience base in this matter includes a very long history of dealing with Muslims in the GCC, and in watching the action-reaction dynamic in human interaction.

However, unlike the scientific arguments mustered by Martens and Baslim, these are simply opinions of mine that have “apparently” been proven time and time again by events and not subject to the sort of scrutiny that Baslim and Martens have provided to you about anthropogenic climate change.

You can rebut me simply by saying you disagree and that’s that. If you wish to rebut the arguments Baslim and martens have mustered, then I suggest you make no mention of politics or the motives of scientists, and stick to rebuttals involving the facts and interpretations of those facts they have set forth. With references please, and detailed explanations of the evidence and processes that describe the evidence.

You are obviously a very thoughtful person, so please consider your confirmation biases and your current level of understanding of the chemical, physical, and statistical processes at work. If you confine yourself to rebutting the scientific evidence, please do not inject politics until you have presented your scientific rebuttal effectively—which you have not so far done. Again, I’m sorry to be this blunt, and appreciate your willingness to engage in a real discussion instead of throwing around mindless epithets. Question: have you ever come to the conclusion that you are wrong based on a reasoned argument put forth by someone you initially disagreed with? FYI – Scientists do it all the time.

Last comment on this, because I got behind at work yesterday and I need to catch up today. I’m not refuting your data points. I’m referring to the connection that mankind producing this carbon is what’s causing the temperature increase solely at the severity that is causing the klaxon to be sounded. We cannot separate the natural rise in temperature from the rise caused by mankind. That’s what I’m arguing. You can’t answer the “How much” question because you can’t prove it, even with your data points. Yes, temperatures are going up. Yes, there is an increase in carbon isotopes. But no, you cannot irrefutably prove that the temperatures are going up at the pace they are going up because of carbon. You believe they are, but the correlation of CO2 in the air to temperature increases is not proof of causation. Simple reason why it’s not possible to prove your theory on Climate Change: We don’t have a control. We don’t have another Earth that has gone through the same things ours has with the same population ours has, but without all the technology. We have no way of separating out man-made from nature-made when it comes to temperature changes. All we can do is infer from historical patterns (polar ice measurements) and draw correlations from CO2 output and compare it to global temperatures at various locations. That is why I’m calling it a theory. I’m not challenging the data points you are pointing out. I’m challenging the assumption that the rise in temperatures is the cause of mankind, and more importantly, how much of that rise is caused by mankind. If you can’t accept the possibility that you may be wrong, that the severity of impact we have on the Earth is only a theory, then with all due respect, your hubris is adversely impacting your ability to approach this objectively.