Frazz by Jef Mallett for December 15, 2014

It’s called science. However now you have the right to deny science based on your own opinion.

@Nabuquduriuzhur – People are still making lots of money from the doomsday scenario called “The Book of Revelation” and that has been going on for a couple of thousand years, wouldn’t you agree?

I think people who reject science should at least be self-consistent and also reject science’s products: cars, airplanes, antibiotics, vaccines, pasteurized milk, etc. After all, if they don’t believe in the reasoning that underlies these products, why should they trust them? (Oh, yes, I know, there are some people who’ve rejected vaccines… how’s that working out? I read something about a town in Michigan…)

Looks like an El Nino winter in Michigan….Warm……I’m a winter guy, but for some reason, after last winter I can’t find the energy to complain…..It’ll get us eventually…..

that’s right… 1935 was more like last year http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_North_American_cold_wave

One of the interesting facets of human psychology is that we are so willing to hold fast to the beliefs we have, even after being presented with evidence that contradicts our beliefs. Human beings don’t like change. It’s unsettling.

Science deniers will be the final unravelling of this once great country.

Ah, these geniuses who understand climate better than the last century of international research does, like the geniuses who understand biology better than two centuries of international biological research. Admirable, truly admirable.

Too many ignorant people proud of their ignorance.

OK all of you “climate change deniers are just ignorant” types. Come down off your high horse for a minute. I have a science degree (not in climate studies), and I respect science, and I do believe in climate change..it’s why we’re not in the Ice Age anymore. But here’s why I’m a doubter about the “crisis” part of it. Too many news items about things like misplaced temperature sensors. Too many conflicting news stories (NASA satellites showing more heat escaping into space than previously thought, IPCC reports showing Antarctic ice caps are GROWING, not shrinking, etc.). Of course, climate change advocates have responses to each piece of evidence contrary to their view. But who is correct? Each side claims “scientific data” to be on their side. Sounds to me like the science isn’t as settled as it is supposed to be. Also, just what is the climate SUPPOSED to be ideally? Sorry to get sucked into this on a discussion board about a fun comic strip!

Big Al stuck his nose into the arguments with his book & the movie. Big Al can’t possibly be left out or the source of his immense fortune would be suspect. For all his blather, he bought a huge estate in Virginia with its huge carbon footprint. Big Al’s mouth is definitely where his money came from. Or something like that.

Thanks for a very respectful reply! Yes, I have heard that, especially about one pole growing and one shrinking. Seriously, I am actually pro-environment, but I want to be concerned about things that are verified. That’s why I have issues when I hear about things like sensors being placed near asphalt areas, etc. What’s the real data? Impact on animals, such as sea life? Is that due to climate change or overfishing (overpopulation as a more proximate cause than warming). Glaciers retreating? But haven’t they been since the end of the last glacial age about 10,000 years ago? Animals and humans (and pre-humans) have been moving depending on the climate and other environmental factors for epochs. I respect efforts to address problems. It’s just my nature to be suspicious of people telling me to panic without looking at the entire picture. And I can’t help thinking that the current “panic” is partially due to how we’ve built our civilization…how do you move a billion dollar skyscraper away from the rising water, which may or may not rise anyway, depending on if warming is natural or manmade?

B.D.: Not yet 2,000. Revelation was written in the late 200s CE. On the other hand, Daniel has been a favorite hunting grounds too, and was written during the Exile. “Plain language code” is fairly old during various tyrannies in world history, and seems to be successful in confusing the tyrant’s censors in all that time.

Hey, B.D. — Well said!

{sigh} When science is treated like a “debate” in which whomever shouts the loudest wins… it a) diminishes the progress we have made in understanding our world, b) gives folks who are “absolutist” thinkers a platform to proclaim their polarizing “all-or-nothing” view of life, and c) is demeaning to those of us who strive so hard to make new discoveries.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++1) The vast, vast majority of current scientists that examine the data about climate change see strong association between our extensive use of fossil fuels and the inordinately rapid rise in overall global temperatures. Therefore, the current thought on GLOBAL WARMING is that it is occurring… it is not up for argument because that is what the current data show. As more data collecting research occurs, the ideas of global warming will either be further supported, refuted, or something intermediate that shapes the idea in a different way. Science and scientific thought is determined by the data, not by shouting or politicizing, or being some sort of long-winded pundit. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++2) (And, for another scientific idea that is also prone to the shouting "debate) The vast, vast majority of current scientists that examine our geological, fossil, and taxanomic records sees strong evidence that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is supported very well by the known data that have. So, currently, science sees the Theory of Evolution as currently the most correct explanation of our origins. As we garner additional data, the theory will be further supported, refuted, or something intermediate that reshapes the idea in a different way. Again, that is how SCIENCE works…. it is not determined by shouting, politicizing, nor being a pundit. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Science is a process of thinking. Scientific ideas can never be “proven” as the process of science is such that it can only disprove anything. To not understand the very nature of what science is and is not dooms most folks to sounding foolish to scientists. But, very sadly, many of these politicizers of science are lauded by the overwhelmingly science-phobic general public.

Humans are remarkably adaptable and resilient creatures. There are a variety of methods of both food and energy production that we are not currently utilizing to any great extent. Resource pressures creep up gradually for the most part. I expect that will cause us to adapt. As existing methods become more costly, new approaches will become viable. Fossil fuels in agriculture are primarily used for fertilizer production and for mechanized planting and harvesting. Most of those needs could readily be converted to solar and other renewable energy sources. There are also organic sources of fertilizer that can be used as a resource which are mostly a waste disposal issue at present. Arable land and fertile soil are more limited, but by no means tapped out. Climate change will impact which areas can most effectively be farmed, so we’ll see how that plays out, bearing in mind that areas where the climate has been too cold for farming may have developed different soil types than we are accustomed to farming. Methodologies that seem too expensive now will suddenly be appealing. I don’t see a long-term or massive world food crisis, because with enough ingenuity and effort, there are plenty of alternative approaches. Large scale hydroponics and aquaponics, rooftop and backyard food production are the tip of the iceberg in terms of underutilized food production strategies. There is also a great deal of waste in large-scale beef production that could be eliminated if eating patterns were to change – which would be likely if food started to become scarce and prices rose. Finally, the earth’s population is also starting to stabilize. I would guess that we will reach equilibrium in a century or two at most.

Thanks! I’m an introvert by nature, and I’ve just recently started joining the online debates. Usually, it’s in other forums, though…although you are right…Frazz is the perfect comic to foster these discussions. Won’t usually see these following “Ben” :)

You asked for speculation, so that is what you got! :-) As for the global population numbers, I am just looking at trends in the data points. The rate of population growth has been slowing for some time, and is negative in some developed countries. The UN medium projection shows stabilization with a population of a bit more than 9 billion before year 2100. That seems a bit optimistic to me, but here are the references you asked for.

http://www.census.gov/population/international/data/idb/worldgrgraph.php

http://www.futuretimeline.net/subject/society-demographics.htm

So many comments and so much energy used in response to a simple joke about using an out-of-date reference source.Makes me want to revert to the geocentric flat-Earth universe of years gone by. Oh those wonderful epicycles…

It’s possible. I choose to be optimistic. It may take major levels of loss before humans adapt, but I fully believe that we will choose to do so in the end.

Now, back to the Ozone layer…

Earth to NG-49! Wake up! Big Al brought himself up. I merely commented on what he did and his profiteering. Diversion your backside, Bubba. You can whine all you want, Big Al put himself on record and has grinned all the way to the bank.

Goodnight Hokie! take the hint