Chris Britt by Chris Britt

Chris Britt

Comments (14) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    Well, to be more exact, the damage started some time ago, and not just with the impacts of storms. Desertification, floods, and species disappearing has been happening for some time, but while monitored by the science oriented, has PROVEN problems, that’s been debunked falsely by profit, or “faith” oriented folks with a lot more money to spend on PR.

  2. pirate227

    pirate227 said, over 1 year ago

    Buckle up.

  3. ARodney

    ARodney said, over 1 year ago

    The science has been clear for almost thirty years now, and gets stronger every single day, with every single measurement. But still on Fox News you get four times as many deniers as you do actual scientists. This is the biggest problem facing humanity, and we need to get the deniers out of positions of authority in any way possible.

  4. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    ^Hmmmm, Cora, watching NBC again (No Brains Contained)?

  5. Baslim the beggar says, "The past is the enemy of the future."

    Baslim the beggar says, "The past is the enemy of the future." GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    First of all I am not a denier. Those familiar with my posts have seen that I post data, not opinion. And the data shows AGW to be true.
    And a new study indicates that there is no recent cooling/nonwarming trend because temperatures in the arctic are under-reported. That the arctic is warming is obvious. Less maximum sea ice extent, permafrost melting, etc. Since this is the region that is warming fastest, gaps in the temperature data there will cause the global warming rate to be underestimated.


    .

    That said, I think that citing fairly singular instances of strong storms, as proof of global warming is just giving the deniers fodder for fueling their fantasy.


    .

    A more rational approach is to look at the data.
    Here is a good set of data on hurricanes.


    .

    Go down to the long table and click on the header to get a plot. Generally, the plots do not show a significant trend to the eye except for the number of named storms.


    .

    As discussed in the article, this is because of satellite data. The numbers are for The Atlantic Basin. This means that storms far out at sea which do not have an impact on land are counted now whereas they were generally unknown before satellites, and before radio.


    .

    And then there is the following from the IPCC report:

    Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin… In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low.


    .

    The above quote was found on a skeptics website, but I have verified that the portions quoted are correct.

    Editorial cartoonists exaggerate and inflame (both left and right). Don’t get your science from an opinion piece.

  6. wolfhoundblues1

    wolfhoundblues1 said, over 1 year ago

    just like every 50,000 year cycle. man did not cause the others. man did not caus ethis one.

  7. Baslim the beggar says, "The past is the enemy of the future."

    Baslim the beggar says, "The past is the enemy of the future." GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    @wolfhoundblues1

    And what 50,000 year cycle would that be? One that you made up?

    While Vostok data shows a few episodes of peaks in CO2 greater than 275 ppm.

    Why there is one spike there of 20 ppm in only … 800 years.

    And changes of 80 ppm took several thousand years! Whereas since 1960 the CO2 concentration has gone up more than 80 ppm! And the current value of 400 ppm is much higher than any value in an even longer time than 400,000 years.


    .

    Natural?
    When the current rise above the 280 ppm mark just happens to begin when industrialization started?
    (Razzberries!!!)

  8. goweeder

    goweeder GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    Don’t get your panties in a twist; It’ll be okay. When the planet has been made inhospitable to life (at the rate we’re going (it shouldn’t be too long), all the deniers will be dead, and there will be no one to hear them anyway. Because there will then be NO life on the earth

  9. churchillwasright

    churchillwasright said, over 1 year ago

    @goweeder

    You must be one of those I see in Times Square with one of those “The End Is Near” placards.

  10. churchillwasright

    churchillwasright said, over 1 year ago

    @DrCanuck

    Yes, because we all know that tornadoes in November are unheard of and never happen…

    Except for the fact that in the real world they are not rare and happen rather frequently.

  11. churchillwasright

    churchillwasright said, over 1 year ago

    Take a deep breath. People die every day. I don’t think that’s what GOWEEDER and that guy in Times Square are talking about, though.

  12. churchillwasright

    churchillwasright said, over 1 year ago

    I’ve been away for a few days. Did I miss anything?

  13. martens misses all her friends

    martens misses all her friends said, over 1 year ago

    @DrCanuck

    As I said, some ugly stuff going down here. I don’t think either of us want to be any part of it.

  14. omQ R

    omQ R said, over 1 year ago

    @martens misses all her friends

    A monitor/moderator/website admin can easily identify the IP address(es) of posters thus quickly identifying sock puppets. Also, a monitor can see whether or not I’m posting from my workplace or my home residence and whenever I’m out of the country.
    While IP addresses need not be static, in this age of constant 24/7 broadband connectivity, it is more than likely that a poster’s IP address will be constant, if not always from a restricted range assigned to their ISP.


    So. What to make of the rhetorical query recently made? Veiled threat? A wagging finger? Has this alleged established sock puppet engaged with its master (i.e. creating a straw-man argument for instance) or simply adopted a persona, with comments directed to all, that is 100% satirical and is obviously a literary device? The latter of course. And if the open secret is revealed, what then? Would the other regulars see it as a loss to the forum? I certainly would.


    Now, the newer sock puppet. What purpose has he? Simply to create straw-man arguments? That’s a rather poor show.


    You’re right, it is getting uglier and uglier.

  15. Refresh Comments.