Here are a few recent cartoons from Josh that you may have missed, particularly if you don’t follow him on twitter.

Update: I should have mentioned that there is a “Donate” button on the CartoonsByJosh homepage!

… and here’s another brand new one!



    “Marshall is in no doubt that ‘flying is the single most destructive thing you can do’. And ‘because there is a direct relationship between emissions and impacts, we should be able to predict how many people will die for each additional tonne of C02 we emit’.”

    @climategeorge #Calagary @climateOutreach #GreensGoByAir

    “To find out more about the real climate impacts of flying, I turned to George Marshall, founder of the Climate Outreach and Information Network. In his readable and reasonable book, Carbon Detox, Marshall explains why planes are so toxic to the climate. It’s not only because they burn such large amounts of fossil fuels, but it’s also because the fuel burned by jet engines causes nearly three times as much damage as the same amount of fuel burned by a car at ground level.

    ‘The very high temperatures inside jet engines create nitrous oxides, which are very powerful greenhouse gases,’ says Marshall, ‘310 times more powerful than carbon dioxide.’ So that “five percent” acknowledged by the airlines actually has the impact of something more like 14 percent of the UK’s carbon dioxide emissions. Bad enough? There’s worse. ‘Jet planes also produce vapour trails called contrails… These, too, are heat trapping, especially at night.’

    In case that hasn’t pushed the percentage up high enough, Marshall reminds us also that these figures are based on the amount of flying in the mid-2000s, though the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research expects air traffic to double over the next 30 years – and then, says Marshall, its climate impact ‘will swamp all other government targets to deal with climate change’.

    That’s a terrifying thought. The UK is supposed to be lowering its emissions 80% by 2050 – and everything its population does to reach that target will be erased by flying! Why is the government not banning planes? Instead, they’re building more air-travel capacity. It makes no sense.



  2. Ah but no country counts flying in its emission. They’re THAT dedicated to their cause. Warmists get very grumpy if you suggest they could give up flying.

    Great cartoons as usual Josh.


  3. Calgary? They’re venturing into the mouth of the fossil fuel dragon aren’t they? No doubt they’re all basking in the warmth of renewables these cold nights.


  4. Barry, George Marshall rarely flies. That’s official. It’s what he told a journalist in New York on his second trip to the Americas within a year, a trip that also took in Venezuela and California. The following year he flew to Australia and toured North America to publicize a new book that included a few prods at globe-trotting environmentalists and repeated the boast about his infrequent flying. Poor tortured Marshall was aware of the contradiction (if not of the meaning of ‘rarely’):

    I fly rarely and I always try to justify each flight. But as that word justify reveals, I am also prone to constructing a narrative that can resolve the inner conflict I feel every time I sit on a plane. It is all immensely frustrating because I must admit that I love travel and, in my pre–climate change days, I flew a lot. So I know very well that flying is addictive.

    You and your narratives, Mr Marshall. Just say ‘No’.

    (I wonder what these particular narratives are like. The book doesn’t say. ‘Yes, I am flying again but it is important that I fly this time because flying is an enabling frame for the important narrative I have to tell about framing narratives about flying’?)

    Liked by 1 person

  5. The delusion that flying is so dangerous is belied by reality:
    where is the damage?
    We humans like flying around Earth and do so in increasing numbers.
    Yet the “climate”, no matter how many sweet sounding righteous lies Hayhoe peddles, is still not doing anything of any significance.
    So it is safe to bet that Marshall, like McKibben, Hanson, Mann, Hayhoe, and the other climate hyoesters, can be safely dismissed if reason and reality are the goals.


  6. But Barry what does it all mean? It looks like English but is it a new tongue emanating from the minarets of Bristol? Will a few pints at that pub clarify the erudition?


  7. Alan, what does it all mean? Well, according to ‘Biosemiosis, Technocognition, and Sociogenesis: Selection and Significance in a Multiverse of Sieving and Serendipity’, Kockelman, 2011 – which, frankly, I’m surprised you haven’t read – technocognition is how one selects when considering relations between relations, so presumably Lewandowsky’s talk will be about boosting the already incestuous nature of peer-reviewed psychoclimatic literature by encouraging even more self-citation by his little family of frequent co-authors.

    Either that or it’ll be about new ways to censor.


  8. Josh has just produced another new cartoon, see update at the end of the post, on the Yale climate communication project’s idea of dividing people into ‘Six Americas’.


  9. Vinny but yes, Kockelman, 2011 is a seminal work that I have consulted extensively when pondering the inner workings of my Scottie Terrier’s mind when it turns to look at what I was looking at. But the necessity for a whole new lexicon escapes me (especially because my Scottie only understands about 50 words, and deliberately ignores 29 of them). I think the psychoclimaticists are all ‘avin a larf.

    The fact that you believe you understand the term “technocognition” means you should stay away from that pub- you’ll be expected to buy a round.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. It’s a huge reason for optimism that Josh is so much funnier than any cartoonists in the mainstream media, (except Matt in the Telegraph)
    It may be difficult to believe, but Steve Bell in the Guardian was once funny, in the days when it was difficult to find something funny to say about Thatcherism. Josh is doing the same service for Climatism.

    I was intrigued by his bewilderment about the Italian election. Surely the left stopped representing the people when the people became deplorable?

    Don’t believe the official version of the Italian election, which has the populist 5 Star Movement down as “centrist” because it refuses to do a deal with centre left or centre right. It’s far left, and the populist League is far right. But the far left wants to restrict immigration because that’s what people want, and the far right has just elected Italy’s first black MP. Why shouldn’t politics be more complicated than the Guardian leader writers want?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.