Ben Sargent by Ben Sargent

Ben Sargent

Comments (43) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Tim Culberson

    Tim Culberson said, about 1 year ago

    Deforestation is awful, as is over fishing and just pollution. But I am doubting Gore’s Global Warming

  2. Enoki

    Enoki said, about 1 year ago

    “Climate disaster?!” Where is that happening? Where are the tens of millions of “Climate refugees” that the IPCC said would occur over a decade ago?
    .
    Aside from the inanity of that claim (Climate disaster), we can add to potential causes, albedo, sun cycles, poor data and lack of information, Carnot heat engine theory, among other potential causes…
    .
    But, don’t try and tell the Progressives and other “True Believers” of Gorebal Warming that! They will stick their fingers in their ears and start chanting to avoid any debate that might challenge their own religious beliefs.

  3. Uncle Joe

    Uncle Joe GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    @Enoki

    “Where are the tens of millions of “Climate refugees” that the IPCC said would occur over a decade ago?”

    Mostly in southeast Asia & the Pacific islands.

    http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2183695/kiribati_and_the_impending_climate_refugee_crisis.html

  4. filhodeangola

    filhodeangola said, about 1 year ago

    “Denialists are driven by a range of
    motivations. For some it is greed, lured
    by the corporate largesse of the oil
    and tobacco industries. For others it is
    ideology or faith, causing them to reject
    anything incompatible with their fundamental
    beliefs. Finally there is eccentricity
    and idiosyncrasy, sometimes
    encouraged by the celebrity status conferred
    on the maverick by the media.”

  5. Harleyquinn

    Harleyquinn GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    Oh no a big bottle of H2O be afraid, it is the 1# cause of drowning you know.
    “Denial”
    http://www.laughright.com/1210/ray-stevens-global-warming-song/

  6. Harleyquinn

    Harleyquinn GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    Oh no more heretics in the church of Gorbul warming, must label them Deniers.. They refuse to pay for the sin of CO2.

  7. Harleyquinn

    Harleyquinn GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    You want to why that “denial” ingredient is so bitter to the liberal? We the Heretics do not like to be classified along with such things as Deforestation and assumptions of polluters. I happen to fight hard for the reclaiming of Wet Lands. Fun fact, a healthy wet land is CO2 Neutral. So when the shake down artist Al Gory came out with his Sci Fi horror flick, the funds that could have gone to Wet Lands dried up. So I am just a bit bitter!

  8. martens misses all her friends

    martens misses all her friends GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    @Enoki

    You have mentioned the Carnot theory several times. I am curious to know how you think this is applied to explain the present climate change data (I am assuming that you were serious when you said that you accept the phenomenon of climate change but not the anthropogenic interpretation)? Also, do you exclude the increasing acidity of the oceans due to increased levels of carbon dioxide from being the result of the activities of mankind?,

  9. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, about 1 year ago

    @Enoki

    We’ve discussed this before. I am reading the science, nothing else. If you think climate scientists ignore the SUN, then you are at best naive and at worst disingenuous.
    1. One of the pieces of evidence for AGW is that we were warming despite a solar cooling point in the solar cycle.
    2, Albedo is always one of the factors considered; it’s one of the reasons that deforestation is bad and the shrinking of the ice caps is very bad. (And why painting roofs white is good, as they are starting to do in California and elsewhere.)
    3. What poor data? There are thousands of people gathering data, and the data gets better every year. Richard Muller, the former skeptic (funded by the Koch Brothers — not exactly a progressive group), did a huge study to correct for some perceived weaknesses in the data and not only confirmed the AGW hypothesis, he found it had been underestimated.
    There is no inanity to the idea of “climate disaster,” though perhaps it is better stated as many, many disasters as a consequence of significant culture change.

  10. Enoki

    Enoki said, about 1 year ago

    @martens misses all her friends

    The Earth can essentially be thought of as a carnot heat engine. That is you have energy being introduced to the planet and a heat sink to get rid of the waste energy left over, space.
    Since the rate at which the Earth can dump waste heat into space is essentially fixed as we produce more energy (heat) on the planet we will slowly force it to warm up.
    Currently we produce from all sources about 10^11 hp or 10^34 kw per day on Earth. While this represents just a fraction of what the Sun delivers in 24 hours it does represent an increase and one that is growing expotentially.
    That is how it is applied.
    .
    Ocean acidity is not planetary warming and a seperate issue from that.
    .
    As for albedo, most studies do not account for it in any way shape or form. Painting roofs of buildings white is done primarily to counteract urban heat island effect, something that solar arrays massively increase in their vicinity.
    .
    Poor data. We have accurate temperature data for just a few centuries of the Earth’s existance. The data for longer periods is largely extrapolated from secondary sources like ice core samples, tree rings, or the like.
    This is one reason why so many of the available studies and models have done so poorly in predicting the long term changes in climate.
    .
    Bottom line; If CO2 is really the cause then nuclear is the answer to fix our energy needs and eliminate that as a major pollution source. Solar and wind WILL NOT WORK. They are simply too expensive, too unreliable for base load usage, and not going to be made available in anything close to the quantity needed to even begin to make a dent in CO2 production.
    If it isn’t then we should be looking at other potential causes and working to reduce those. I would think we should look for potential causes and ways to reduce those that are inexpensive first before proposing massive expensive fixes that may not work like many are now.

  11. martens misses all her friends

    martens misses all her friends GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    @Enoki

    Thank you for your reply. The one problem I am having with your Carnot engine theory is the proposition you made that dumping heat is a fixed value. As I understand the role of greenhouse gases, this is exactly the point on which they act to re-radiate heat absorbed by earth’s surface in all directions such that a significant amount is returned to the earth’s surface rather than radiated out into space. Also, I don’t think a in-and-out energy balance can be useful in looking at this problem. The energy retained by earth over time and the form in which it is retained is variable.

  12. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    While Al Gore did try to bring some light on the issue, anyone who immediately brings up his name as “the issue”, proves they’re totally ignorant, and unwilling to accept any facts on the issue (or any other issue by reason of their lack of reason).

  13. ahab

    ahab GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    @martens misses all her friends

    It’s a waste of time discussing AGW with denialists. www.nytimes.com/2013/12/04/science/earth/panel-says-global-warminng-risks-sudden-deep-changes.html

  14. ahab

    ahab GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    @DrCanuck

    The same congressmen who said tobacco smoking was safe, are the conservative congressworms backing big oil and coal in the anti-AGW debate,and feeding from the same trough! safehttp://www.upworthy.com/someone-put-2-examples-of-anti-science-politics-side-by-side-the-results-are-damning?c=fea

  15. ahab

    ahab GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    @Enoki

    “As for albedo,most studies do not account for it in any way,shape,or form.” Well sir, Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate by Murray L. Salby printed by the Cambridge University Press, a lauded college textbook, and Climate Change by Gavin Schmidt and Joshua Wolfe, and just about any other textbook you find on AGW discusses albedo in its major points! http://www.skepticalscience.com/earth-albedo-effect.htm

  16. Load the rest of the comments (28).