I thought he meant I was wasting time with my quip about the strip’s artwork, but his attempt to use a big boy word misfired a bit. Dilatory is more deliberate procrastination than idle timewasting. But, hey, Sir Douglas Watts’ time is valuable, so, of course, I was *way* out of line in putting words on the intertoobs that took precious, precious milliseconds from his important life as message board hall monitor.

I’d be fully prepared to tell dead-tree comic pages to go screw off, if it weren’t so difficult for webcomic artists to come up with a viable funding model.

I didn’t care much for Cathy, but when Guisewite retired, she ended it. Period. Unlike Lynn Johnston who seems to be just redrawing her old For Better Or For Worse strips, or the vast Peanuts Empire which is just endless reruns. For pity’s sake, people, go buy the books if you need your stupid Peanuts. Let some new talent have a chance.

Yeah, I read The Comics Curmudgeon blog a lot.

Regarding comics, I’m amazed at the huge amount of talent to be found in webcomics. Obviously some are lousy, but the good stuff does tend to float to the top. I’d be fully prepared to tell dead-tree comic pages to go screw off, if it weren’t so difficult for webcomic artists to come up with a viable funding model. Syndication is still the thing to shoot for, it seems.

So, who would you rather have “attempting to influence policy in our government”? A “communist sympathizer”, or a “young Earth creationist”?

Do I have to choose? How about neither? Both are attempting to impose ideologies that are contrary to our societal values of personal freedom and rational inquiry.

To be clear, I’m not saying that McCarthy was a saint, just that being wrong 95% of the time still gives you a better record then that of Jenny McCarthy

Wow! That was really called for. So sorry I offend your… er… whatever it is in your little mind I offended, Mr. Net Cop, sir.

Martha Says: I always thought The Family Circus was a bit off:

They may be melon headed monstrosities, but my beef with zombie comics like Family Circus is they take space on the comics page away from potential new talent.

For one thing, Joseph McCarthy was right on one count – there were in fact Communists and Communist sympathizers attempting to influence policy in our government. Evidence has since shown that at least a few of those people were on McCarthy’s list – certainly the sympathizers if not a few actual spies.

“Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.”

Back then, you probably could have torn several pages out of any large city’s phone book and come up with a list with “at least a few of those people” who were “Communist sympathizers”. (And you could probably do that today as well.)

So, who would you rather have “attempting to influence policy in our government”? A “communist sympathizer”, or a “young Earth creationist”?

And, as for global warming, everyone knows it’s due to the drop in the number of pirates. Though perhaps Ms. McCarthy would claim that vaccines cause global warming?

Anyhow, vaccines are a Good Thing, on account of preventing vast amounts of suffering, pain and disability.

@ Patrick: please don’t feed the troll.

Do you mind if I poke him with a pointy stick instead?

In this movie we discover why we didn’t go back after Apollo.

That’s easy. Money and apathy.

Thought experiment: ban China and India from increasing CO2 emissions (i.e. GDP). Assume rising food prices due to AGW.

“To limit warming to about 2K, the reduction in CO2 emissions needed is closer to 90%, IIRC.”

Possible; it’s been several months since I studied the matter, so I may not remember the exact numbers. The point is however that the target level is non-zero. Anyway, if you want to stop at 2K you need a different emission target then if you want to stop at 3K or 4K (or 6K). The problem is that, IMHO, the lower targets are not achievable anyway (barring a nuclear war destroying 90% of industrial capacity), so going after them only prolongs the decision paralysis. And we _are_ running out of time.

The alarmists say that if draconian CO2 reduction measures are not passed, then X billion people will starve due to AGW. Problem is, that the proposed drastic measures would starve Y billion people, and from the look of it, X ~= Y.

Do you have any actual evidence for that claim?

Oh, and speaking of CO2 reductions, if you actually look at the carbon cycle, you will see that there is a certain amount of human-produced CO2, which the CO2 sinks can accept without increasing the atmospheric content. This is about 40% of current emissions, IIRC, so getting there would not be easy, but it is non-zero, as some alarmists claim.

Doesn’t work that way. If we reduce our emissions to 40% of their current levels, those emissions will still be partitioned between the atmosphere and the various sinks. To limit warming to about 2K, the reduction in CO2 emissions needed is closer to 90%, IIRC.

All the analyzes I have read identify the 6K and above realm as catastrophic. 3K implies major economic and social problems, however. And, even the 6K increase doesn’t make the planet uninhabitable. (Although there are claims that going above 6K would trigger massive CH4 release, giving us Venus).

BTW, there’s a very useful site called globalwarmingart.com which has a lot of useful graphs, including temperature changes for different emission scenarios.

In reality, each doubling of CO2 results in the increase of temperature by 3K (or whatever the current best estimate of climate sensitivity is). This is a major problem, but far from catastrophic.

Sorry, but is is catostrophic.

Because the famous CO2 graph scene is intentionally misleading. Gore carefully avoids defining the relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature, so people naturally assume that it is linear. So when he shows the CO2 spiking, the audience reaction – and you can see it in the movie – is “OMG, we’re gonna fry!” Also, the vertical axis on his graph does not start at zero, which overemphasizes the CO2 increase. So the scene is manipulation at its finest. In reality, each doubling of CO2 results in the increase of temperature by 3K (or whatever the current best estimate of climate sensitivity is). This is a major problem, but far from catastrophic.

Another problem with climate alarmism is that it is completely counterproductive. First off, the climate is not yet in equilibrium, so even if we stopped emitting CO2 today we are still committed for further warming, until the new (higher) equilibrium temperature is reached. (IOW, we are colder than we should be given the present CO2 concentration). Second, fast reduction of CO2 emissions is technically impossible. The alarmists say that if draconian CO2 reduction measures are not passed, then X billion people will starve due to AGW. Problem is, that the proposed drastic measures would starve Y billion people, and from the look of it, X ~= Y. IOW, we have painted ourselves into the corner and we have only bad solutions and worse solutions.

So basically the only workable way out is to start building nuclear power plants as fast as we can (and pray we didn’t massively underestimate the climate sensitivity and won’t trigger too much positive feedbacks before we hit the new equilibrium). But, curiously, the very groups who support the CO2 reductions are the same ones which oppose nuclear power, and instead try to force expensive dead ends like carbon storage and trading.

Of course, Al Gore doesn’t tell you all that, because he wants to sell you his pet idea of CO2 trading. And that’s the problem.

I don’t think cap & trade is going to solve the AGW problem either. But that’s not what Bruce the troll was saying. Seems like he doesn’t believe AGW exists at all. And he was way OT to boot.

BTW, Kris, if you believe AGW is real and is caused by human CO2 emissions, then why do you label An Inconvenient Truth as ‘alarmist’? Thou doth protest too much, methinks. And in doing so you reveal your true colours.

During the Cold War, multiple left-wing political organizations in Europe campaigned for unilateral nuclear disarmament. Historical research has demonstrated, that these organizations were in fact funded by the Soviet intelligence using covert, and not-so-covert channels. (E.g.: A French journal, Liberation, was at the time edited by some prominent left-wing activists; the Soviet government purchased massive number of copies and distributed them to libraries in Eastern bloc countries). To make matters more interesting, the French cultural elite has been almost completely affiliated with these left-wing movement — e.g. Liberation was edited by none other than Jean Paul Sartre.

So in retrospect, the danger imagined by McCarty was real. His problem was that he was shooting blindly, and nailed a lot of innocent people.

Actually, Bruce @15 is spot on. Please do yourself a favor and read the proposed COP15 agreement. You may realize that it would do nothing to actually reduce CO2 emissions, while significantly benefiting certain organizations trading derivatives. Curiously, a major stockholder in one of these organizations is also the maker of a well known AGW alarmist movie. Interesting, eh?

Oh, and yes, global warming is real and caused by human CO2 emissions. Surprised, huh?

Joe McCarthy was a monster who destroyed people lives without a thought. Jenny McCarthy, as wrong as her is, is just a mother trying to find answers and believes she is helping people with a problem. As popular as she is she will never reach the level that Joe McCarthy did.