Brian McFadden by Brian McFadden

Brian McFadden

Comments (20) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Jase99

    Jase99 said, 5 days ago


    “Cyber Bullying?”

    Cyber bullies use social media to bully their victims—spreading rumors, posting embarrassing pictures of you online, et cetera. It doesn’t happen in real time and you don’t even have to even have an internet connection to be a victim of cyber bullying.

  2. opednance

    opednance said, 5 days ago


    $4 pills at Walmart do not work for all. IUDs are expensive and a better choice for older women due to risks for the Pill after the age of 35.
    The Hobby Lobby decision sets a bad precedent. Should Jehovah Witness owners be allowed to block blood transfusions? Should Christian Scientists just pray for you as medical care?
    Percentage of the wealthy that inherited their money is increasing. The gap is widening. CEOs, top execs and share-holders are getting money at the long-term expense of the workers that actually WORK.
    Look at the numbers of the WORKING poor.

  3. old1953

    old1953 said, 5 days ago


    Again with the facts! I’ve now got proof that Republicans live in a different world, there’s dozens of articles on Republican media today about “heat disappearing in deep oceans halts global warming”. So either they live on a planet where the law of conservation of mass and energy has been repealed (disappear?) or the oceans aren’t part of that “globe” as ocean temperature increase isn’t “warming”. Different laws of physics apply, obviously. So it’s just a different world where their facts are the only facts.

  4. braindead08

    braindead08 GoComics PRO Member said, 5 days ago


    “Income inequality? So tired of hearing about it.”
    “Turn the computer off.”
    Good solution.

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

    Baslim the beggar says, "Vanished is not vanquished." GoComics PRO Member said, 5 days ago


    While it is true that the heat is going to the deep oceans, you are right that it just means that it really is global warming. The idea that if you can’t feel the heat in the air, then there is no problem is like the child closing his eyes and saying, “You’re not there!” And works just as well.

    Then there is the evidence found for methane emissions from the ocean floor. The article ends by saying that little of the methane reaches the surface, instead, some of it reacts with oxygen dissolved in the oceans to produce CO2 (and H2O). Oh, great! Ocean acidification from below as well as above, with the added bonus of removing oxygen, killing oxygen users as well as oxygen producers (plankton at the surface).

    Oh, and since the methane is from clathrates on the ocean floor at depths where the heat is now going… expect more of same, not less.

  6. BrassOrchid

    BrassOrchid GoComics PRO Member said, 5 days ago

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

    The heat comes from the lack of fresh water resources and will continue to build until the seas are so warm that water vapor is pushed into the farthest reaches of the world, creating incessant snows that build into massive glaciers, storing all that thermal energy as potential kinetic energy in fresh water resources that will cool the world so much that the ice will become the dominant feature of the world for as long as it takes for the cooling to cut off the source of water vapor by cooling the seas, which will then remain cool due to receding ice for thousands of years as deserts grow and the atmosphere warms until it once again warms the seas and repeats the cycle. Sediment deposits on the ocean floor indicate that the Sahara transforms from lake and grass lands to desert and then back again on a period of roughly twenty thousand years and has done so for many, many cycles.
    But the comic was actually quite adept at poking fun at the seriousness with which humans approach things which are less than serious and for which they have little probability of affecting an outcome they prefer.

  7. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, 5 days ago


    You have certainly proved you can say what you want, regardless of facts, let alone empathy.
    1. Abstinence EDUCATION does not work.
    2. IUDs are not cheap. Some women need birth control pills or devices for MEDICAL reasons having nothing to do with pregnancy. But even if that’s the only reason, why should only women incur costs for something men are involved with (and note that some states have tried to charge women for RAPE KITS).
    3. Income inequality. Gee, I’m SO sorry that you are “tired of hearing about it.” Reality check: our government and processes are biased towards those who have money now. The whole point of income inequality is that your claim that “you can make money too” is NOT true — it is far harder. As for the claim that most are first generation wealthy: “A 2011 study by Edward Wolff and Maury Gittleman found that the wealthiest 1 percent of families had inherited an average of $2.7 million from their parents. This was 447 times more money than the least wealthy group of people — those with wealth less than $25K — had inherited. In between the wealthiest and least wealthy groups, inheritance levels ran in exactly the direction you would expect: the wealthier a group of people was, the more they had inherited.” (
    Incidentally, the claim that most of the rich made it themselves comes from Forbes…and it is not correct.

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

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


    references to published work?

  9. BrassOrchid

    BrassOrchid GoComics PRO Member said, 4 days ago

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

    You can look it up. I’m not selling anything or trying to force adoption of pointless policies. And there isn’t a single socialist web site that has gathered all the “evidence” in single easy-to-swallow form.
    I’d suggest starting with the idea that glaciers and running water are vast reserves of kinetic energy, and that the energy they represent is not free energy derived from the magical power of cold, requiring a dense and humid atmosphere representative of vast reserves of thermal energy, which can neither be created nor destroyed according to the laws of thermodynamics. Low CO2 in the core samples from ice represents conditions during a period when the atmosphere was dense with water vapor, requiring greater thermal energy than we see today, contrary to popular belief.

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

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


    Your hand-wavy argument is not satisfying. I want a technical analysis. The processes involved are not as simple as you would have people believe.

    I want a reference to scientific literature, not politically motivated blogs or rags.

    Your blasé reference to “socialist web site” indicates a lack of scientific grounding. That’s a big fail.

  11. BrassOrchid

    BrassOrchid GoComics PRO Member said, 4 days ago

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

    I’m pretty sure you can look up conservation of energy on your own. You cannot move water from the seas without thermal energy. And you cannot move it far inland without enough atmospheric heat and pressure to get it past the first bit of cold it encounters.
    Did you know that it gets cold enough to create frost in the desert at night? Pharaohs used to have their servants scrape frost from pillars set in pits to make sherbet. If there were sufficient water vapor, it would rain every night in the desert. It does not.
    If there were sufficient water vapor, it would snow in Greenland all winter. In the present day, they get little snow, and most of their precipitation comes in the summer, when it falls as rain and erodes the glacier further.
    It is a known fact that the summer heat near the equator results in tropical storms, which form because the vapor plume of the warmed waters reaches a vapor ceiling and returns to the seas before it can ever get to land to green the deserts or add mass to glaciers.
    The fact that you believe conservation of energy to be mere hand-waving says all anybody really needs to know about AGW.
    The world will warm from a lack of fresh water from a lack of thermal energy in the seas until there is sufficient thermal energy in the seas to reverse the process, and it will then take thousands more years to cool the world again.
    Earth will reach its maximum thermal signature regardless of our industries, and the result will be an ice age. We might slow it or speed it by several years, which is absolutely meaningless in terms of a multi-millennial cycle. You can search for any of the things I have mentioned. Educate yourself, or do not educate yourself and allow the popular media and common knowledge to be your guide.

  12. BrassOrchid

    BrassOrchid GoComics PRO Member said, 3 days ago

    It’s not a contest. You need thermal energy to create vapor and transport it. If atmospheric density is too low, then you can’t maintain water except at its lowest energy state, and not in open air. You cannot have continental glaciers forming in a cold world with a thin atmosphere. I don’t really have to prove that there was an ice age, or that it resulted in glacial recession, desert encroachment and localized superficial and atmospheric heating. But there seem to be many people trying to prove otherwise. And the Sahara cycles are documented and findable.
    You cannot prove that man’s contribution to atmospheric warming is significant or will change the course of climate over all. The AGW arguments, substantive each in their own light, do not add up to the advertised whole. I don’t have to prove anything, as I am not asking for funding or demanding changes to public policy or practices to impose my will upon the world.

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

    Baslim the beggar says, "Vanished is not vanquished." GoComics PRO Member said, 3 days ago


    Lots of broad statements…
    No, it is not a contest. It is, however, about you claiming everything backs up your idea without providing substantive arguments.

    Climate models are at least open to criticism both within the modeling community or elsewhere. As real instruments of science, they make specific predictions which can be tested against real historic data. (For the uninitiated, that sounds contradictory, but the model runs start at some point in the past, and run to some point in the future. If a model cannot come close to the climate of the past times that have data, then who would accept a prediction of the future. So you have to model the past.) You provide sweeping statements of no real value.

    Climate modelers do know that more heat makes more water vapor. That is one of the concerns. But it is offset by uncertainties in cloud formation, particularly high cirrus. The uncertainties, for the uninitiated, come from lack of data. New satellite measurements are helping with that,

    You cannot have continental glaciers forming in a cold world with a thin atmosphere.

    A very imprecise, and for most people, a misleading statement. “Thin atmosphere” implies low density, but here are two points.
    1) Atmosphere with water vapor is less dense than atmosphere without, at a given temperature (below the dew point). This is because the molecular mass of water vapor (H2O) is less than that of N2 or O2, the primary constituents of the atmosphere.
    2) Continental glaciers start at the top of mountains, where the atmosphere is certainly thinner (and colder) than at sea level.

    Most people would interpret your “cold world” to mean cold air world, neglecting the effect of warm oceans. As residents of upper New York state are all too aware, it is cold air from the arctic passing over the relatively warm water of Lake Ontario which advects water vapor, which turns into heavy snowfalls.

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

    Baslim the beggar says, "Vanished is not vanquished." GoComics PRO Member said, 3 days ago


    I am breaking this up into two parts because some people do not like really long posts.

    It is not that I find all your ideas absurd; quite the contrary, there is substantial truth in some of them.

    The natural glacial cycle (1 in a crude sense, the Milankovich cycle; 2 no human effects) depends upon variations in the amount of sunlight incident at the earth’s surface. There is good reason to believe that this is astronomical in origin. Precise details are still a matter of debate.

    Let’s assume that we start at one of the lowest temperature points in the cycle. CO2 is also low at that time. The data seems to indicate that in the natural cycle CO2 lags temperature. That would be because the source for increased heating at this point in the cycle is an increase in solar radiation at the surface. As things progress, the warming continues, and CO2 also increases, which helps warm the atmosphere further. Glaciers melt. Oceans warm, albeit slowly.

    At some point, the natural increase in solar radiation diminishes and things start to cool off. CO2 also falls, helping to accelerate the cooling.

    The oceans, which are great thermal baths, retain heat far better than the atmosphere. So while the relatively cold air flows across the still relatively warm waters, it advects water vapor, which is then deposited on land and water. Because of the cooler air, the moisture is increasingly turned to snow — which is more readily retained because of the cooler air and reduced solar input (and that does not mean the sun is weaker, just that the effective solar heating is reduced. Solar output variations do occur, but no ones if there is any long period variation (~120,000 Years) but we do know about the other effects ).

    Repeat over thousands of years, and you get glaciers.

    We have good data on the glacial cycle for a period over the last 600,000 to 800,000 years.

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

    Baslim the beggar says, "Vanished is not vanquished." GoComics PRO Member said, 3 days ago


    The above provides a reasonable description of the natural glacial cycle or climate variation.

    There can be disruptions due to volcanoes, which can cause wide scale cooling, but usually over just a few years. But it is thought humanity came near to extinction because of such an event, so nothing to sneer at.

    But humanity bounces back. And finds more reasons to consume first wood, then fossil fuels.

    The difference in CO2 levels between the low temperatures and the high temperature in the ice core data is about 80 ppm over the last 800,000 years. Those changes take thousands of years according to the data. The largest amount was about 315 ppm.

    Evidence shows that the current peak level of about 280 ppm existed for many thousands of years, up until the 1700s. It is now 400 ppm, with an increase of 80 ppm in the last 50 years.

    That increase can be tied to the increase in the number of internal combustion engines in the world, which are now as numerous (at least) as humans.

    That 80 ppm increase is the same as would occur naturally over a period of thousands of years.

    CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it does increase heat retention in the atmosphere. The increase in CO2 is an anthropic effect. It will have an influence on the natural cycle, because CO2 takes thousands of years to be removed from the atmosphere by natural processes.

    To dismiss AGW out of hand is stupid.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (5).