Mike Luckovich for April 15, 2012

….I really, REALLY hope you’re kidding.

Not just sad, that’s fecking terrifying. I wish I could say it’s surprising. On the other side of things, my husband’s had a few students who thought that Sherlock Holmes was a real person. >_<

This is true; they employed someone specifically to answer letters for a while. However, now there is a Sherlock Holmes Museum with the official address of 221B Baker Street (which did not actually exist back in the day). I’ve been there, and had a chat with “Dr. John Watson” in the sitting room — he comes by once in a while…http://www.sherlock-holmes.co.uk/

Even “The Meaning of Lila” is taking on global warming.

Even more scary is thinking about these people going to the polls and voting!!!

NASA has between 18,000 and 23,000 employees but 49 disgruntled astronauts wrote a letter and that is big news.

And only bible thumpers are delusional enough to think a 60 degree winter is normal.

All moot points tigger. I know you’d like us to focus on your little straw man; but, the fact is that using carbon based energy sources CONTRIBUTES to what MAY be natural cycles. It’s foolish to keep insisting on this form of energy that speeds up the process, pollutes our air and water and causes international conflicts that result in the deaths of many people, innocent or not. We have a chance to demonstrate rational self interest by moving on to greener, replenishable forms of energy, it will create jobs and protect the environment. Who are you protecting?

God has domain over all so that what the evil ones do on earth does not matter for, in the end, the rightous will be saved.

“You mean me??Second Comment! Yay! (hee-hee)”

Excellent!

I hope some other commenters read your link to the uk website.

Not strange at all since most of them are liberals and democrats, who think that history is irrelevant and should not be taught in school.

The difference seems to me to be between teaching:That is what we did because this is what we wanted to happenAnd teaching:This is what we did and this is what actually happened.One is Civics, the other is History. One is theory, one is praxis.Most likely you were taught the former and told it was the latter. But don’t worry, everybody gets that until they go to college (and often even after). It’s not a local phenomenon.

Thanks, nothing could prove my point better.

Every so often, there is a warm year. This is expected. The issue is that the warmer years happen more and more often; and they get warmer and warmer when they do. The assertion that 1912 represented a warmer ocean than today is simply false. It represented a warmer ocean than normal. But what we have today has far surpassed it. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=icebergs-still-threaten-ships-100-years-after-titanichttp://businessmirror.com.ph/home/life/25772-titanic-today-might-dodge-better-but-would-encounter-more-icebergs Facts. It never ceases to amaze me how many so-called conservatives accuse “liberals” of never reading or learning, and yet themselves show an appalling ignorance of what is actually out there, or seem to have no ability to logically analyze it.

It does not matter the truth of science or the ignorance of the masses, when the time comes the righteous will experience rapture to heaven (as Irish Eddy would agree in one way or another). So stop worrying and start enjoying life. If the un-righteous destroy our environment it will not matter as long as you are righteous; just ask any tea-totaling Republican.

You know one of the things that really astonishes me? The fact that the people who actually base almost their entire worldview off of religion try to discredit science by calling it religion.

No amount of independent examination of the evidence will ever convince you that global warming and climate change is real, I know, because it is a matter of faith to you that it isn’t. But still, I’m still kind of amazed that you haven’t spotted the irony of basing your own life on religion on the one hand, and discrediting religion as being ‘evidence-free’ on the other.

Well, yeah. I mean obviously. But here’s where it circles back to being a bit daft again: if you ask the typical fundamentalist why their religion is right and everyone else’s is wrong, or why something like Young Earth Creationism is supposed to be considered a serious ‘theory’, then they usually come back with a claim that there is “so much evidence for it.” Now, generally that evidence is “because the Bible says so”, and logically that’s about on par with “Bob is right because Bob says he’s right”; and plainly this is a group of people with no good grasp of what ‘evidence’ actually means or how one goes about evaluating it; but nevertheless, you do get some impression that they at least think that the concept of ‘evidence’ has value when evaluating religion. But then, they call something they want to discredit a “religion” purely on the basis that they are claiming there is no real evidence for it — which does, let’s face it, carry the implication that religion in general is not a thing one builds on evidence. Which surely then includes their own, as part of the class. ………..Ok, y’know, forget it. I’m tying my brain in knots trying to think the way that not-thinking works.

Thank you for proving that we do in fact come from the apes ..clearly you were on all-four yesterday!