Gort and Klaatu’s Climate Slamdown

The terrific climate cartoonist Marc Roberts has a humorous take on Copenhagen.  It’s a big image to load, so I’m putting it all below the jump — Click to Enlarge:






7 Responses to Gort and Klaatu’s Climate Slamdown

  1. Leland Palmer says:

    Wow, inspired cartoon.

    Very revealing of the climate change negotiation process to this point, I think.

    Let’s hope that the Copenhagen process is a little different, and that the worldwide consensus that is emerging makes a difference.

  2. Marc Roberts says:

    Thanks for posting this in it’s entirety, Joe. Much appreciated. The piece was commissioned by the New Internationalist magazine, without whom it would have stayed on the drawing board,

  3. Robert says:

    Just a short technical note to help out the cartoon visual experience! To increase the image size just double click the cartoon to double the image size and make it far more readable! More great works! Yahoo!!

  4. Terrific cartoon

    For those of us requiring a larger view – I can only see the first page enlarged. But I did see a slightly larger view at:

  5. Leif says:

    Looking forward for your take on the brawls over there Joe. Don’t forget to pack your gas mask and hope to hell that it does not degenerate to that. Wish that I could be there as well but will be there in spirit and will make an extra effort to lower my carbon footprint so you can travel with a clear conscience.

  6. MarkB says:

    For some reason I’m not able to see or respond to Judith Curry’s guest post, but I caught her commentary elsewhere and wanted to respond. There are some logical disconnects in her essay that I wanted to highlight, and I hope she will respond:

    Dr. Curry: “The quickest way for HADCRU et al. to put Climateaudit and the rest of this tribe out of business is make all climate data and metadata public and make every effort to improve the datasets based on all feedback that you receive. Do this and they will quickly run out of steam and become irrelevant ”

    There are a few fallacies here. First, the vast majority of climate science data is public domain. Is anyone naive enough to believe that making the small fraction of remaining data public will shut down the denialist sites? Does she not understand that data and methods that are fully open to the public are dismissed or attacked dishonestly by this crowd, when they are at odds with their pre-conceived views? She doesn’t seem to acknowledge that there’s a huge media market for global warming skepticism, and making the remainder of the information easily accessible (much of which climate scientists don’t have control over) won’t affect the popularity of these outlets.

    Dr. Curry: “Particularly on a topic of such great public relevance, scientists need to consider carefully skeptical arguments and either rebut them or learn from them. Trying to suppress them or discredit the skeptical researcher or blogger is not an ethical strategy and one that will backfire in the long run.”

    Actually, skeptical arguments are most certainly considered and addressed in the peer-reviewed literature, so it’s difficult to ascertain what she’s referring to exactly, but one might guess the emails involving the Soon/Baliunas issue, which has been discussed at length at RC. This was an attempt by skeptics to game the peer-reviewed system by submitting poor work to a particular editor they knew would be uncritical of it. It was absolutely right for scientists to expose this. But they didn’t simply by complaining to the journal. They also wrote a 13-author rebuttal to the paper in question, published in EOS. This convinced editors of the journal that there was a breakdown of the peer-reviewed system.

    Skeptical arguments are addressed routinely in such venues, at scientific conferences, and yes, blogs.

    Lastly, I would encourge Dr. Curry to look at ClimateAudit with a much more critical eye and apply the values standards to anyone engaged in climate science discussion or research. Reading through private email exchanges between scientists over 10-15 years inevitably lacks context. While much of this is being added by scientists most familiar with the discussions, a key element missing are the private emails of the skeptics side. We would inevitably have further context added by reading private mails from Soon, Baliunas, McIntyre, etc. regarding the topics discussed. As it stands, we only have one side of the story.

  7. Edward says:
    does not work on this computer.

    [JR: Works for me on Firefox and IE. Click to enlarge.]