Troublemakers – Part Two

Moriarity296Pat Moriarity is another one of my blasphemous cartoonist pals I ran into at this year’s Alternative Press Expo. Pat and I were roomies at the notorious “Green House” in Seattle, an unassuming structure that housed many of the city’s inkslingers during the nineties. It was located in the Ballard neighborhood, just a short drive from downtown to the south or Puget Sound to the west.

Patrick was just starting his comics career when I moved in. He had secured a job with Fantagraphics Books as a graphics designer, which gave him access to some of the giants in our industry. His first comic, You and Your Big Mouth, featured stories written by R. Crumb, Charles Bukowski, Burne Hogarth, (illustrator of Tarzan and author of volumes of how-to art books) recording artist Henry Rollins and other lesser known characters. Pat illustrated the stories in his own unique style.

In the above sample from his story “Change You Can Believe In”, Pat wades into the muddy waters of climate politics. Without endorsing one side or the other, he presents the arguments pro and con and allows readers to decide for themselves. This has become the ultimate heresy from the warmer perspective. Just last week, the LA Times announced that they would no longer publish “denier” letters to the editor. Further debate is verboten.

 

This entry was posted in Culture, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Troublemakers – Part Two

  1. rl crabb says:

    You can gawk at more of Pat’s art at his website…
    http://www.patmoriarity.com/

  2. Greg Goodknight says:

    To come to the defense of the LA Times, what they have written is “Saying “there’s no sign humans have caused climate change” is not stating an opinion, it’s asserting a factual inaccuracy”, and they are right.

    There is no doubt CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and there is little doubt that, all by itself, it will cause (all else being equal) about 1.2C temperature rise (about 2 degrees F) for a doubling. What is in play is the response of the planet to that perturbation. If it’s less than 2C, there is no danger. The latest IPCC report had to drop their lower bound from 2C down to 1.5C where it had been before the last report. In nearly 35 years, the warmist estimate of climate sensitivity has remained in the same range despite on the order of $90 billion of spending to determine how dangerous the stuff is.

    Astrophysics professor and accidental climate scientist Nir Shaviv put it this way:
    http://sciencebits.com/AR5-FirstImpressions

    Climate realists, real or imagined, need to lose the “hoax” word to have a better chance to get their letter published in the LA Times. As a consolation prize, it looks like the San Jose Mercury News is softening up:
    “”The more I researched the causes of change in wildlife populations and local climates, the more I became appalled by the amount of bad science that was too easily published simply because it agreed with the prevailing bias of climate catastrophes”
    http://www.mercurynews.com/pacifica/ci_24317137/avid-environmentalist-challenges-climate-change-alarmists-book-event

  3. Well I’ll be …, nothing less than the LA Times telling its readers that certain areas of science are now taboo, and not open to further exploration, debate, or discussion. I wonder if such an editorial policy qualifies the newspaper for special dispensation from the IRS or NSA under this administration.

    • Greg Goodknight says:

      I made the mistake of posting with two links, thus being stuck in moderation hell since 12:51PM.

      In preview, George, I agree with what the Letters guy at the LA Times actually wrote, and it wasn’t that certain topics were taboo.

  4. Chris Peterson says:

    There are some scientists who disagree with the premise that we are causing warming, but the majority of that reported “opinion” comes from those with a vested interest. Once again we have “journalists” triangulating the news. Equal time to those who disagree on subjects they have no expertise on is wasted space.

    • Greg Goodknight says:

      There are lots of scientists who have noticed the satellite record has seen no statistically significant warming over the last 17 years, and there are lots of scientists who dispute the IPCC process and politically directed summaries.

      And tell me, why does astrophysicist Nir Shaviv have no expertise but astrophysicist James Hanson does?

      It’s the usual… if you support the IPCC conclusions, you are an expert, if you don’t, you are not. Some of the IPCC experts don’t even have PhD’s yet, grad students who support the status quo make do in a pinch.

      • Chris Peterson says:

        It is indeed difficult to discern which of the two camps are the flat-Earthers, history having shown us the error of group-thought on more than one occasion.

        In the early days of the last century, when cars were going ever faster, the collective scientific opinion was that if a man went over 60 MPH, he would suffocate. Makes you appreciate the 17,500 MPH that the space shuttles achieved to make low orbit.

  5. Chris Peterson says:

    We were also told in history class that Greenland was so named because they were having problems getting people to move there.

    • Ryan Mount says:

      Vacationing Hank: Well this sucks. This whole place is cold and covered with ice. I thought you said this pace was green, Mildred.

      Mildred: Please Hank. Next time, I’ll book the vacation. You were so excited to see this “Greenland” place. And you said, “Hell no, I’m not going to any place called Iceland. It’s probably worse that visiting your Aunt Alice in Montreal. The winters there are longer than death.”

  6. Robert Lovejoy says:

    Charles Bukowski? Charles Bukowski? Is that drunk still alive or did he drink himself to death years ago. I remember once going down to a small coffee shop in the late 60’s in the seedy part of Long Beach to hear him read some of his work. He was so drunk he could not speak and his writings and books were pure junk. Swearing at his listeners was not the way to influence people back then. He had notoriety but no talent. And no money. And no class. Just like Sid Vicious or Johnny Rotten.

    • rl crabb says:

      Not to worry, Robert/Laurence, Bukowski’s been pushin’ up daisies for many years, although you may run into Zombie Bukowski in the bar around Halloween. He’ll be the one wearing the bloated liver costume.

      • Robert Lovejoy says:

        Figured he was in the Marble Orchard somewhere. I don’t believe in dissing the dead so I must apologize to you, Charles, and his faithful following. Time to say something nice about the dearly departed. He had brief flashes of brilliance and had much potential. I am currently holding in one hand a copy of Factotum as I type with the other hand. Rather than donating it to the Smithsonian or to our local library, I think I will hang on to it. Might be worth something….someday.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

What is 10 + 15 ?
Please leave these two fields as-is:
Please solve this math problem so we know that you are a human :-)