Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Reversion to the disreputable | Main | Who do you trust? »

It's a knock out - Josh 274

Apparently one single post by Judith Curry needs thirty alarmist posts to rebut it, so says Victor Venema. Yes, her arguments are that good and alarmism is that weak! 

Cartoons by Josh

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (23)

Nice one, Josh, especially the 'natural ingredients'.

'Venema' is a tough moniker, though. It sounds to me like a particularly hostile medical procedure...

May 2, 2014 at 2:05 PM | Registered Commenterjamesp

Easily somewhere in your Top 5, Josh.

May 2, 2014 at 4:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterJEM

But Josh, she's American - surely it should be "Skeptic"?

May 2, 2014 at 5:11 PM | Registered CommenterRobin Guenier

When I enter it into the world leading authority website on the subject (not) I find it is pronounced "skeptik".

However, this is really difficult. The supposed etymology is 'from Latin scepticus "the sect of the Skeptics," from Greek skeptikos'.

If as suggested it comes from Latin, that would suggest the latin "Sc" would be correct, however it appears to come in with the meaning "member of an ancient Greek school that doubted the possibility of real knowledge," in which case if referring to the Greek word the "sk" would be correct.

(Indeed, come to think of it, this c or k argument might have been the reason I set up as the original conversation was one with my children about the redundancy of "c" in the English language.)

However, when we talk about "skeptic science" v. "sceptic science", we add a new controversy as the SC in science and skeptic are used very differently.

So, thinking about it the real oddity is "science" which is pronounced "sie-uns".

"Sceptic science" - three "c"s one hard, one silent and one pronounced as an S.

May 2, 2014 at 6:12 PM | Registered CommenterMikeHaseler

If looks could kill, they probably will,
in games without frontiers,
War without tears,

It's a knockout.....

May 2, 2014 at 7:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterRightwinggit

Just turned to May in my Josh calendar, and lo and behold it's Nige! How prescient is that.

May 2, 2014 at 7:38 PM | Unregistered Commentermike fowle

Historically this has been true. Look at how many "concerned scientists" felt required to join a "union" to review Bjorn Lomborg. One notable Peter Gleick, who probably counts as two, given Gleick's sock-puppet.

May 2, 2014 at 9:10 PM | Unregistered Commenterpouncer

Think of the spray can as Curry's patented stain remover. Removes the worst stains from the reputation of climate science. You know like the CG1 team's stains and the associated IPCC's stains . . . heh heh heh . . .


May 2, 2014 at 10:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Whitman

I do sense the use of "critical theory"?

Meaning that for some the basis for debate is political or ideological?

May 3, 2014 at 7:28 AM | Unregistered CommenterSanta Baby

Mike, four 'c's.

May 3, 2014 at 7:59 AM | Unregistered Commenterrhoda

But...she's a disinformer...Mikey tells me so.

May 3, 2014 at 8:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterJay Currie

30:1 sounds like 97% to me.

May 3, 2014 at 9:21 AM | Registered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Judith Curry, Donna Laframboise, Jo Nova, that's not equality - that's unfair!

Realists and the scepticism of great minds who think alike, heterodoxy, it's a conspiracy................. ;-)

May 3, 2014 at 9:37 AM | Unregistered CommenterAthelstan.

o/t but I cannot help but lace in Courtillot talks here and there: They are a refreshing rebuttal of any Leftist Scumbag's droppings.

May 3, 2014 at 1:56 PM | Unregistered Commenterptw

Judith Curry is very brave to have taken on the corrupt IPCC Climate Alchemy Establishment. It also appears that she developed that courage by reading comments to her blog, the thoughts of the many highly-qualified scientists and engineers Worldwide who have shown that the 'consensus' is based on incorrect physics.

We have lived through our era's version of the 18th Century 'Phlogiston' debate which was also pushed by someone whose religious fanaticism over-ruled scientific objectivity. Hence, despite empirical data showing there is probably no significant CO2-AGW, 'the team' is inventing yet more fake physics to keep Obama's billions coming their way.

The present fight is whether the forces of oppression will start to imprison dissenters before the former are voted out of power. This is why scientific bodies like the RS are being stuffed with political pawns like Stern.

May 3, 2014 at 4:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterTurnedoutnice

Great cartoon.


You are right about Judith Curry's bravery and that the orthodoxy is driven by corruption and lies, not ideology.


Anyone who sees this subject from a political / ideological stance is an irrelevance. That's why I reject Lawson and every corporate tool journalist from the Guardian.

May 3, 2014 at 6:31 PM | Unregistered Commenteresmiff

esmiff is moonbat.

May 3, 2014 at 8:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterAthelstan.

esmiff - please clarify what stance(s) you do consider relevant ... ?

May 3, 2014 at 8:49 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A


Thanks for allowing me to promote my Monbiot website. I'm not Moonbat.

Maybe I'm Michael Mann.

May 3, 2014 at 8:52 PM | Unregistered Commenteresmiff

Martin A. Any stance that is based on the facts, not on political ideology or the need to look cool in the case of Guardian readers. For example, the Pielke family, Curry, Richard Tol, Jonathan Jones et al. Also left leaning deniers like me, David F. Noble and James Heartfield.

May 3, 2014 at 9:06 PM | Unregistered Commenteresmiff

The chattering class are on about delivering the message.
Good scientists deliver the goods.
Only the latter matters.

May 4, 2014 at 2:16 AM | Unregistered CommenterGeoff Sherrington

Great cartoon and many thanks for the link to an excellent article by Judith Curry.

May 4, 2014 at 2:40 AM | Unregistered CommenterOwen Morgan

Mr Montford, could you maybe snip the hilarious pun on my name in the first comment? Do we really want the climate "debate" to sink to such a level?

In case anyone is interested: I could not care less who is blogging at the CCNF and only pointed out that it would be hard to get the same ratio as in the scientific literature. A considerable part of the dissenters is blogging, while only a minute fraction of the scientists is blogging or even reads blogs. I had already clearly stated so in the comments at Climate Etc. well before the cartoon was published.

May 6, 2014 at 10:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterVictor Venema

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>