Ben Sargent by Ben Sargent

Ben Sargent

Comments (31) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. braindead08

    braindead08 GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    The most important thing is to pump as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as fast as possible. Anything else is, you know, business strangling government regulations.

  2. TJ

    TJ said, about 1 year ago

    Turn off all the volcanoes too while you’re at it.

  3. 4my10851cs

    4my10851cs said, about 1 year ago

    Dino, in the background, was Long gone before man came along. Just remember the last thing we has was “global cooling”.

  4. mdavis4183

    mdavis4183 GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    Man caused global warming/climate change is a lie Sagent bought and retells.

  5. Wabbit

    Wabbit GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    Why don’t republicans ignore scientific proof. Why at least, do they risk it?
    or why does it even matter why?
    If we can make it better,
    then we should make it better,
    even if it was caused by dragon snot?

  6. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, about 1 year ago

    The fact that many people choose to ignore science does not hide the fact that science exists. All ignorance carries a price. Willful ignorance is usually more costly.

  7. Michael wme

    Michael wme said, about 1 year ago

    Once upon a time, about 10,000 years ago, primitive troglodytes planted grain. The grain transformed the solar rays beating down upon it into calories. Of course, those troglodytes and their domestic animals had to input calories to plough, plant, weed, and harvest, but they got far more calories out of the grain than they put in.


    Modern man is not so barbaric. Modern man inputs far more calories (from fossil fuels) into the crops than are extracted from those crops. Without those fossil fuels inputting most of the calories, the world would lose most of its food supply.


    So it’s fortunate that, as Nocera of the New York Times tells us, the world produces far more fossil fuel each year than we consume. There are plenty more dinosaurs where the one in the cartoon came from.


    Or we could bioengineer triffids which would supply all the oil we need, and which grow efficiently without requiring any energy for ploughing or sowing. In fact, I think triffids are the perfect plant, with absolutely no drawbacks.

  8. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    BTW: just as “global cooling” WAS what killed off the dinosaurs as the result of a collision with an asteroid, our pumping of chemicals into the atmosphere causing warming is no less dangerous for the survival of species. Remember, folks, plants are dying off in many areas, “weather” cycles ARE changing, and reptiles, amphibians, mammals, birds, and many species we depend on for survival ARE at risk, but hey, who cares about the Endangered Species Act? Until humans stand at the head of the list, profit will remain more important to many folks.

  9. benbrilling

    benbrilling GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    Just how many droughts, super-storms, dead corals, etc. will it take to convince these deniers?

  10. hippogriff

    hippogriff said, about 1 year ago

    4my10851cs: We has? Your grammar isn’t any better than your science.

  11. echoraven

    echoraven said, about 1 year ago

    Not going to argue the global warming point, as someone else here so eloquently put it “why risk it”. My issue is the blanket 3 million year statement, in the last 30 years there has been a massive increase in environmental awareness, and in turn regulation to curb pollution. I remember seeing pictures of larger cities in a haze of smoke from decades ago and much clearer skies in present day…
    .
    Is the cartoon honest or an exaggeration?

  12. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, about 1 year ago

    @onguard

    You are mixing up two things. There are natural cycles, which enable us to see the difference it makes to have 400 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere; and there are unnatural impacts on those cycles.
    It is quite clear based on study of NATURAL cycles that having this high a CO2 level is bad. You can see that REGARDLESS of whether you believe humans caused it or not. Therefore: we should investigate our options to reduce CO2 levels and/or take some drastic impact on the climate.
    An absolutely overwhelming tsunami of data and research have made it clear that humans DO and HAVE an impact on the CO2 levels, and that we are therefore contributing to that clearly bad outcome. Therefore: we should investigate our options to reduce CO2 levels and/or take some drastic impact on the climate.
    There is no (sane) option for “ignore it and pretend it goes away.” Whether it is natural or not, this level of CO2 is bad for human civilization, because rapid climate changes produce direct changes in agriculture, land use, land availability, and comfort levels, which in turn lead to major political shifts and destabilization of countries.
    Case in point: the “little warm period” in the Middle Ages led to the Viking invasions, which had a dramatic impact all over Europe.

  13. Charles Mills

    Charles Mills GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    @mdavis4183

    Good and simple reply to the lie.

  14. Lynne B

    Lynne B GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    @echoraven

    The cartoonist is spot-on. We know what the CO2 levels were for the last several hundred thousand years because we have actual atmospheric gas bubbles to test, which were trapped in the polar ice that was laid down then. Previous to polar ice, however, we have several proxy measures for how much oxygen and how much CO2 was in the atmosphere (including the composition of stone that was laid down as sediment at the time, and/or the analysis of chemical isotopes in the fossils of organisms which were alive at the time), plus extrapolation from what we also know that the climate had to have been at the time, because of what lived where. — We know that the earth had to have been at certain temperatures because of the types of plants and animals which existed at various latitudes. And unlike what the “skeptics” continuously insist, geologists and planetary scientists have been quite clear for decades about the fact that certain temperatures couldn’t exist on earth without a correspondingly high level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.


    Anyway – we passed the 400 parts-per-million (ppm) mark for CO2 in the atmosphere on the 9th of May. It is the highest atmospheric level of CO2 since the Pliocene, long before there was any polar ice at all; it is the first time we’ve hit that mark in all of the time that humans have existed as “Homo” anything, much less sapiens.


    It’s a milestone that an awful lot of scientists were unhappy that we hit.

    Read more:
    an example of figuring out what ancient CO2 levels were


    More about climate then and now, and this ‘milestone’

  15. Lynne B

    Lynne B GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    @mdavis4183

    You poor confused thing.

    Creationism is a lie. Human-driven climate change is just what all the evidence tells us.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (16).