Ben Sargent by Ben Sargent

Ben Sargent


Comments (37) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Tim Culberson

    Tim Culberson said, 5 months ago

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

  2. Enoki

    Enoki said, 5 months 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, 5 months ago


    “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.

  4. filhodeangola

    filhodeangola said, 5 months 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, 5 months ago

    Oh no a big bottle of H2O be afraid, it is the 1# cause of drowning you know.

  6. Harleyquinn

    Harleyquinn GoComics PRO Member said, 5 months 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, 5 months 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, 5 months ago


    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, 4 months ago


    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, 4 months 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, 4 months ago


    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, 4 months 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. mdavis4183

    mdavis4183 GoComics PRO Member said, 4 months ago

    Funny hmow Sargent is against deforestation when thousands of acres f rain forest are being cut every month to plant crops to make ethanol.

  14. momsaid

    momsaid said, 4 months ago

    If you leave out the extensive Antarctic ice, the lower-than-ever solar flares, the expanding Arctic ice cap (that Gore said would be all melted by now), and the record low temps across the globe…yeah, you might believe the drivel in this comic!

  15. Baslim the beggar says, "Vanished is not vanquished."

    Baslim the beggar says, "Vanished is not vanquished." GoComics PRO Member said, 4 months ago


    You display an amazing inability to connect the dots…

    On another toon, you brought up contrails:
    What causes contrails? Water vapor produced by combustion in engines fueled by fossil fuels.

    Again you bring up the heat produced by the engines of human industry. What powers most of human industry? At this time fossil fuels.

    What is another product of that combustion? CO2 (and yes, depending on the source, other gases).

    Your claim (unsupported) is that the amount of heat that is radiated by the earth is fixed.
    That is simply not true. The amount depends upon factors such as the total amount of greenhouses gases. That would include combustion products like CO2 and H2O as well as the “waste” product CH4.

    Reduce the greenhouse gas concentration and more heat is radiated to space. Increase the concentration, more heat is retained.

    The data shows that the rapid increase of CO2 began at the same time as the industrial age. It has increased 45% over the pre-industrial age values. It has increased as much in the past 60 years as it has been found to increase in natural increases, except that those increases took on the order of 10,000 years. (Oh and the pre-industrial value of about 275 ppm was after a natural increase from 190 ppm. The other peaks in the last 400,000 years behaved similarly (lows of 180-200 ppm to highs of 270-300 ppm).

    Civilization went from a few thousand (I’ll be generous and call it 10,000) combustion engines in 1800 to on the order of 1,000,000,000 at the present time. (And that’s just cars, trucks, buses) Add ships, planes, power plants, and the energy consumption, and waste heat and waste gases have increased even more than the mere number of engines would suggest.

    The concentration of another greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, CH4, has tracked human population growth. It is produced not only by humans, but by their livestock, and for a good part of the industrial age was another waste gas, but from mining coal, and from oil production, which liberated the gas from deep below the surface. Oil rigs’ practice of burning off methane simply meant that water and CO2 were produced, as well as waste heat.

    So why is the heat being put on CO2?

    1) It has a much higher concentration than CH4 (a more potent greenhouse gas by a factor of 25). The ratio of CO2 to CH4 in the atmosphere is roughly 400 ppm to about 2 ppm. Even allowing for the increased greenhouse efficacy of CH4, it is secondary.

    2) The atmospheric life time of CO2 is ~100 years versus 12 years for methane. So once you up the CO2 it will hang around a lot longer.

    3) For those who want to argue about water vapor, consider the lifetime of water vapor in the atmosphere. 9 days. Yep, not 100 years or 12 years, but 9 days. This is why it is not a scary addition to the atmosphere. Wikipedia has this to say:

    Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for clear sky conditions and between 66% and 85% when including clouds. Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not significantly affect water vapor concentrations except at local scales, such as near irrigated fields.

    That means the focus should be on either reducing CO2 production or reducing all energy use.
    The latter is guaranteed to solve the problem, particularly because it will be lethal to a significant portion of the population. Rational people do not support such a solution. And that includes the great majority of the people who read and post here, regardless of political bias.

    To reduce the carbon dioxide emissions, requires evolving rapidly away from fossil fuel use. I actually favor nuclear power for this. But not with reactor designs currently used. They are simply too dangerous. There are designs for thorium reactors and even uranium reactors that, when they do fail, fail in a manner which will not lead to 3 Mile Island containment breeches, much less Russian reactor roulette, or the failures of the japanese reactors.

    Wind, hydro and solar can be an improvement on fossil fuels, but they all have issues. Solar is still a bit expensive, but it is coming down. However, human energy consumption keeps increasing, and all of those face very real limits. Solar can only capture a relatively small fraction of the light on earth. (75% ocean, and lots of terrain far from ideal) The other two are even more limited.

    Fusion power is always 20 years away. (But there may be hope.)

    Bottom line: It will be necessary to reduce carbon dioxide emissions worldwide. The effects of that excess CO2 will linger for centuries.

    For those who think that the excess CO2 will be good for increasing plant growth, that will be small potatoes compared to the adverse effects. For example, in the northern hemisphere the difference between summer and winter levels of CO2 is only about 6 ppm. Think about that. Plant growth and death in an entire hemisphere (the one with the most land, by the way) makes only a small difference in the CO2 concentration. In order to counteract the man made increases, you would have to have super-duper-hyper-miracle grow to increase vegetation… and then where would you get the necessary water?

  16. Load the rest of the comments (22).