Chip Bok by Chip Bok

Chip Bok

Comments (65) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Mephistopheles

    Mephistopheles GoComics PRO Member said, almost 2 years ago

    Well said MStevenson – Even the global warming alarmists have been distancing themselves from the UN study because it is so full of junk science and unsubstantiated claims that they don’t want their names associated with it.

    The sky is not falling.

  2. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, almost 2 years ago

    @Mephistopheles

    You and MStevenson are making things up — or talking to each other instead of to real scientists (well, that’s obvious). The IPCC study has been shown to be consistently conservative in its estimates of the progression of global warming.
    http://ncse.com/blog/2013/09/ipcc-reports-are-lagging-indicators-science-0015082
    In a study of 2100 actual climate science research papers, 97.1% of those papers which expressed a view said that global warming is happening (that’s a given these days) AND that humans were a primary cause. Many of the papers expressed no view on this point explicitly, but when they asked the authors they got almost precisely the same number (97.2%):
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
    If you are watching FoxNews, or indeed other outlets of mainstream media such as CBS, you may feel the nonexistent “debate” is more equal. That’s because they don’t present anything like a balanced set of talking heads on the subject. On FoxNews, 69% of people talking about climate change doubt AGW, as opposed to 3% among actual climate scientists. and 77% of those people speaking against AGW on Fox have NO CREDENTIALS WHATSOEVER to even discuss it.
    http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/10/10/study-media-sowed-doubt-in-coverage-of-un-clima/196387
    Good luck supporting YOUR views. You’re way, way outnumbered.

  3. lonecat

    lonecat said, almost 2 years ago

    I don’t have expertise in any of the sciences connected to climate, so I don’t feel that my opinion on the topic is worth much. I do, however, have expertise in my own field; I know what it is to really know a field and what it is not to know. Within my own field there are experts with whom I disagree, but I respect their positions, even though I disagree. We can try to work out where the disagreement lies and see if we can come to a better understanding. I also know that there is something like 90% or more agreement within my field; the disagreements are interesting, but they sit on a very large consensus. But when people who really don’t have the slightest idea what counts as knowledge in my field make grand pronouncements full of ignorance and misinformation say really stupid stuff, well, I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about what they say. And when people who clearly don’t have the slightest understanding of climate science comment on it, I don’t take their comments seriously.

  4. martens is fed up

    martens is fed up said, almost 2 years ago

    @lonecat

    Very well put, lonecat (as usual!). We saw another excellent example of the value of expertise on Toles the other day. That time it was by Doughfoot with reference to American history, an area in which he has been studying and teaching for 30 years. There is really no substitute for deep knowledge of any field which takes time and work.
    “Subject 101” doesn’t come near being adequate for real understanding.

  5. ahab

    ahab GoComics PRO Member said, almost 2 years ago

    @martens is fed up

    Seeing is believing. http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/

  6. ahab

    ahab GoComics PRO Member said, almost 2 years ago

    This along with habitat fragmentation, pollution,and poor resource conservation is driving the sixth great extinction event. http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/10/science/earth/by-2047-coldest-years-may-be-warmer-than-hottest-in-past.html

  7. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, almost 2 years ago

    Hmm: “weather fluctuation”. In my home town the diurnal temperature (cold to hot/night to day) was a fluctuation of over 50 degrees F. yesterday. In my daughter’’s home town near Wellington N.Z., the diurnal fluctuation has only been about 5 degrees F.!!


    The average “denier” I’ve seen post doesn’t have the ability to understand what diurnal fluctuation is, and apparently a thermometer is above their technical skill to operate.


    I only have over 4 decades of experience with both education and applied observation of that knowledge in the fields of biology affected by climate change, and it’s causes, so hey, what the heck would I know?


    Given the geography in my region, the “weather forecasters” have an average accuracy, especially in winter, of about 50%. It’s about those mountain ranges that break up the patterns coming off the Pacific, and create variable microclimates that change with even minor changes in pressures, and wind directions, among other things. But our CLIMATE over the last 60 years has been following a pattern of increased temperature, and decreased rainfall, especially in winter. These changes have been more dynamic than the paleobotany history over the last 6,000 measurable years has shown. Changes that took several hundreds of years (to over 1,000)to occur, have now occurred in in under 100 years, and that isn’t a good sign.

  8. Michael wme

    Michael wme said, almost 2 years ago

    The fools who believe in global warming are taken in by two incredibly foolish false things: data and statistics. Most of us know that data and statistics are just the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus for liberal loonies. Just because regression shows there is a 99.999% certainty that the world is getting warmer, if you’re going to believe in regression, you’ll believe anything.


    (Of course, there are two magic words my old professor said could be used if you’re a climate sceptic, but none of the deniers know or care about those words, nor should they. Everyone who says there IS global warming believes in data and statistics, so we can just ignore them, and we don’t need any magic words.)

  9. comicsssfan

    comicsssfan said, almost 2 years ago

    Global warming is going to have to become drastic before most believe it.

  10. martens is fed up

    martens is fed up said, almost 2 years ago

    @comicsssfan

    And at that point the mechanisms of extinction will be well underway. When change is rapid, mass extinctions happen. When change is gradual, adaptation to those changes and evolution can occur. I think the present rate of change is too rapid for any realistic adaptation by H. sapiens.

  11. Stipple

    Stipple said, almost 2 years ago

    @dtroutma

    “isn’t a good sign”
    If you really have the knowledge base you claim, then you know we are almost 90% through a large extinction event.
    Nothing is going to stop it at this point.
    So why not deny it?
    Your kids, my kids, death is coming sooner rather than later.
    Thinking about it only causes sadness.

  12. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, almost 2 years ago

    Harely: what was the population of the Earth in Jeffereson’s day? Did he have electriity? Did he drive an F-350, either gas or diesel? How many times did he take a 747 to Europe? How many plastic bags did he bring home from the grocery store? (btw: hemp was a valuable product, and they didn’t even have to smoke it!) Did he use natural gas, or whale oil and candles? What percentage of the United States, and North America was in old growth forest? How many native grasses were covering the Great Plains to the west of his colonies, which Lewis and Clark found?(How many remain today?) How many irrigated fields depended on deep wells and electric or gasoline pumps to deliver water to crops? How many acres were converted to agriculture? How many acres of native jungle had been cut down to provide for palm oil? How many acres in South America had been burned to provide for livestock grazing? How many grizzly bears were in what was to one day be California? How many rivers were damned to provide for electicity or water storage for cities over 100,000 in population, what we call SMSAs or Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas?


    Things have changed since Tom’s day, like how many back then had semi-automatic pistols that could fire up to 30 rounds in seconds, or rifles that could reach out and “tough someone” at over 1,000 yards?


    Our environment, culture, and society have changed greatly, and the industrial revoluton wasn’t even a gllimmer in old Tom’s eye. Even inventors like Ben Franklin couldn’t have begun to imagine today’s society, or the impacts of our technology on the planet, let alone the population growth USING that technology.

  13. martens is fed up

    martens is fed up said, almost 2 years ago

    @Stipple

    In fact, that is my point. As a biologist, I really can’t see any way to change the march of events. Our species extinction won’t happen in my lifetime or maybe in the next few generations, but it’s going to happen. The real question is whether our line will produce a new species adapted to the new conditions. Everything dies…the only question left is what lives after? And that is the point of not denying it.

  14. TJDestry

    TJDestry GoComics PRO Member said, almost 2 years ago

    Yeah, it’s like evolution. All the real scientists believe it, but that just proves it’s phony.

  15. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, almost 2 years ago

    Oh, nice try! Too bad that (1) the author is not qualified to write on this topic, (2) he makes assertions that are not supported by data, and (3) he cherry-picks a “skeptical scientist” whose work has been described as “meaningless” by his peers.
    Nice try! And you have failed again!

  16. Load 15 more comments. | Load the rest (50).
Calvin and Hobbes 30th Anniversary