2010-12-10 10:16:16Climate cartoons
John Cook


I've been thinking more and more about climate cartoons, how powerful they can be in communicating a simple message to the general public. I'm not acting on it just yet but for now, am going to collect cool climate cartoons in this thread for future reference. Saw this classic today - love the flat earth punchline.

And quote from the cartoonist:

This one goes out mostly to the legions of editorial cartoonists who have penned cartoons to infer that the continued existence of snow is an ironic sign that climate change is a hoax. People may have their quibbles with global warming and its dour prognosis, but pointing to snow as exhibit A in the discussion says more about you than it does about global warming. Also if you really want to use my (free) awesome debunking tool, I suggest you laminate it or something.

2010-12-10 14:26:20More climate cartoons
James Wight


There are some good cartoons in this thread at ClimateSight. My favourites are:



Also, Marc Roberts' cartoons are spot on. Here are a couple of my favourites:


 And my all-time favourite (which apparently belongs to Nature):

2010-12-10 19:11:14Thread at the Manpollo-forum


We have a collection of cartoons (and other more or less funy tidbits) at the Manpollo-forum. This link goes to the most current page of it:



2010-12-11 17:07:39
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey

Not a cartoon, but oh-so-funny anyway:

Commentator: Welcome to all those who have just joined us for the Grand Masters Chess Championships. Competing today in Round 2 are the Climate Scientists in defense of their title against the Skeptics. With me I have a former Nobel Laureate of Politics to comment on the game. How do you see the game so far?

Laureate: Well the skeptics, playing black, are in a rather weak position at move five, being a knight, a bishop and two pawns down.

Commentator: A very poor start I'd say.

Laureate: Indeed, indeed. But black is about to move, and I think we might begin to see the skeptics bringing in some tactical play.

Skeptic: Queen's bishop to King's rook six.

Scientist: What!? You don't have a Queen's bishop, I took that three moves ago!

Skeptic: I mean, King's bishop to King's rook six.

Scientist: You can't move there that's not on the diagonal.

Skeptic: King's bishop to Queen's rook six then.

Scientist: You can't move there either, you're jumping over your own pawn!

Commentator: An interesting sequence of play there by the skeptic?

Laureate: Yes, a double bait-and-switch, followed by a classic excluded middle, which was popularised by Baliunas in the late Nineties.

Commentator: Employed also with her protege Soon in their joint successful 2003 championship I believe.

Laureate: Well that match was assisted by the bad refereeing of de Freitas who later moved to the skeptic team.

Commentator: The scientist didn't fall for it this time though.

Laureate: I'm not surprised, its an old tactic now, but combining it with a double bait-and-switch is novel. But the skeptic will have to make a legal move soon, the referee is clearly unhappy.

Skeptic: Knight c6 to b3.

Scientist: Wait! You haven't put the bishop back.

Skeptic: I'm not playing the bishop, I'm playing the knight.

Scientist: You moved the bishop, the bishop was there.

Skeptic: Referee! He moved my piece! He's interferring with the board! That's illegal!

Scientist: I was only putting the bishop back ...

Skeptic: See he admits it! He admits to interferring with my pieces!

Commentator: Astonishing play!

Laureate: Yes. That's a new deployment I've not seen before. The scientist did move black's bishop, which is illegal. It is a correct call.

Commentator: The referee has stepped in and is moving black's bishop back to where it was. But the skeptic is arguing that the referee has incorrectly positioned the piece. And they are both being shown a yellow card! Amazing! So that's a poor show by black, it should have just been white's card.

Laureate: Yes, may be. But I think that both the scientist and the referee have failed to notice that the knight move was in fact illegal. Yes. It looks like the rather flustered scientist is resuming play, and hasn't noticed the deception. So that yellow card may have been a calculated distraction by black that has paid off.

Commentator: So the scientist is attacking the knight with a pawn push, an easy defense?

Laureate: True, its not clear how the skeptic can capitalise on that illegal knight move. Let's see what he does now.

Skeptic: Queen's bishop to g3, check!

Commentator: Oh!

Laureate: Oh? I'm not sure what happened there. Black has two bishops on the board. The black Queen's bishop has been replaced.

Commentator: You mean the skeptic put the bishop back on the board during that fracas?

Laureate: Must have. On the wrong square too.

Commentator: Well the scientist is calling foul, but the skeptic is calling to the referee stating that white is interfering with the board again. How exciting! Let's go to the mike.

Skeptic: See, he's blatantly touching my piece and interferring with the board again. He is constantly interferring with the board!

Scientist: I wasn't touching it! I was pointing at it!

Skeptic: Red card! Red card! Red card!

Scientist: I wasn't touching it!

Referee: He wasn't touching it, he was only pointing. Where did that bishop come from? That was captured. Did you replace it on the board?

Skeptic: No.

Referee: How did it get there?

Skeptic: He put it there! I saw him.

Scientist: What! Me? That doesn't make any sense. Why would I put your bishop back on the board?

Skeptic: See he admits it! He put my piece back on the board to discredit me!

Scientist: I didn't!

Skeptic: He's a liar! He's always lying.

Referee: Well, whatever, I'll remove it.

Skeptic: No. I'm playing crazyhouse rules.

Scientist: What!?

Skeptic: We're playing crazyhouse rules. A captured piece can be replaced on the board in crazyhouse rules.

Scientist: But ...?

Commentator: That's another new tactic, changing the rules mid-game.

Laureate: Yes, the skeptic is really pulling out all stops this game. With a one game lead, the skeptics need to hold their advantage after a poor start to this game.

Commentator: The perplexed looking scientist appears to be agreeing to now play by crazyhouse rules.

Laureate: Well it does seem a rather strange tactic by the skeptic, since white has captured the most material. Unless. Oh, no. It can't be. Yes, it seems the skeptic is arguing that the captured black pieces are his to play!

Skeptic: Knight to b3, checkmate!

Scientist: That's not checkmate!

Skeptic: Checkmate! Its checkmate!

Scientist: Its not even check! It wasn't even your move. Or your piece!

Commentator: And now a huge argument has broken out. The referee is stepping in. The skeptic is accusing the referee of bias, allowing white to get away with interference, deliberately repositioning his King's bishop incorrectly, falsely acussing him of replacing the Queen's bishop, and not awarding the checkmate. Now he's shouting wildly, rearranging the pieces on the board to make checkmate, and stomping off claiming victory. Well what do you make of that?!

Laureate: Well, I have to say that given their long history of unorthodox play, this is the most extraordinary game by the skeptics I have seen yet. Very effective.

Commentator: Yes. The Blogsphere is going wild, with the skeptics claiming another victory, howling abuse at the scientists for their dishonest interference in the game, and calling for the resignation of the referee for his clear bias. The scientists appear to be too dumbfounded to have even started blogging yet.

Laureate: Yes. I have to agree. The scientists are two games down now.

Commentator: But officially, they're aren't. I assume there will be a replay of this game.

Laureate: Very unlikely I think. If the scientists challenge this, they'll be labelled as cheats and sore-losers. They'll have to accept this as a defeat.

Commentator: Do you think the scientists will make a come back in the next games.

Laureate: Its hard to see how they can. Let's face it, the scientists just don't have the skill the skeptics possess in this modern form of the game. Scientists cannot win while they persist in sticking to old notions of agreed rules and fair-play, but if they adopted the skeptics tactics on the other hand, they would be slaughtered for hypocrisy. Its a catch-22 situation they cannot win.

Commentator: You don't think the public will ever side with the scientists.

Laureate: Hardly at all. Most of them don't understand the rules of chess anyway, which is why the skeptics are romping home in these televised games.

Commentator: Well, thank you very much for your comments. That was a former Nobel Laureate of Politics. Back to the studio.


Source: https://sites.google.com/site/climatechangecomics/home/comic-2


2010-12-11 17:47:44David Horsey Cartoons
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey

Some of his better pieces on Global Warming:




Plus this one from Mike Luckovich:



2010-12-16 12:32:02Very long cartoon giving overview of climate change science and skepticism
John Cook

2011-01-03 12:24:52Another reason to act
John Cook

2011-01-03 13:06:57
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey

Life gives ya lemons, make lemonade.  Global warming melts the Arctic, use those excess polar bears to make panda bears:


What the heck: sometimes an experiment gets so screwed up ya just hafta starts over:


2011-02-22 08:02:13From Lexus 6
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey

 Found here:


2011-05-25 09:25:19Science vs politics
John Cook


A friend emailed me this cool cartoon:

2011-09-01 11:29:21Cartoons: 'false balance'
Dan Friedman



See http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/sciencetoolkit_04

2011-09-10 01:30:05SNAFU?
John Hartz
John Hartz

Daniel Bailey posted six David Horsey cartoons on Dec 6, 2010. The first five are blank. Can this be fixed?

2011-09-12 02:02:05Alternative energy
Dan Friedman


2011-09-25 02:30:57Doonebury, Sept 25, 2011
Tom Smerling


Doonebury has a great toon appearing tomorrow, 9/25/11.   

Not to be missed!

"An Honest Man" (businessman tells right-wing politicans to stop being wimps, stop hiding behind ignorance about climate....just be honest that short term economic gains are more important than the future of the planet, etc.)

Not yet appearing on the web - only in the print advance copy.