Drew Sheneman by Drew Sheneman

Drew Sheneman

Comments (35) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. DjGuardian

    DjGuardian said, over 5 years ago

    HA! okay, that was funny.

    So here’s a logic problem. If increased temperature causes more moisture, which in turn causes more extreme and longer colds… how do those things not eventually offset each other?

    The water is a coolant as is, especially, snow. If the increased heat caused more of both, then the more of those both would cause greater cooling. Hence, a balance.

    Btw, the planet has been hotter than it is believed to be now, yet it cooled despite us.

  2. ARodney

    ARodney said, over 5 years ago

    Easy. More moisture doesn’t cause extreme and longer colds. It creates localized extreme weather, hotter and dryer some times, wetter and colder other times. But on average, last year was the hottest year in recorded history, as was the last decade, and the change has been rapid.

    It may have been hotter some time in the days of the dinosaurs, but the changes were gradual, and life had time to evolve to adjust. Our crops are going to be toast in a few hundred years, as are the world’s fisheries (though there the problem from ocean acidification due to CO2 is worse than the heat). A species cannot evolve in two or three generations. Our descendents will have a lot more serious things than one country’s deficit to curse us for.

    If you’re really curious about the things you raise in the post, there’s plenty of good, scientific information on the internet if your mind is open to evidence-based science.

  3. jkshaw

    jkshaw said, over 5 years ago

    Reminds me of the Greeks having a debate about how many teeth were in a horse’s mouth which was going on and on. And so one of them asked why they didn’t stop debating and instead all troop out and COUNT the teeth. This infuriated the debaters so much that they beat the guy up.

    Moral – don’t spoil our fun.

  4. stevenaricker

    stevenaricker said, over 5 years ago

    Well said Rodney. It’s also useful to note that ove the past century, the globe has only warmed about 1 degree. That is an amount, that on a day to day, or even season to season basis, can easily be drowned out by random variation. Even if it was a constent 1 degree everywhere (which it is no) if it was “Going” to be 25 degrees, and instead is 26 degrees, that is still cold enough for snow.

    So then, why the big deal? I mean 1 degree is less then the difference between the floors in my house.

    Well, the planet is a really, really, really big place. The amount of extra energy that has to be retained to raise the average temperature 1 degree is enormous. And weather extremes are driven by energy imbalances. The more energy available the system, the more weather you have. Example A being heavier snow. (athough I think it is way to early to conclude that the heavier snow patterns are definately driven by global warming,)

  5. DjGuardian

    DjGuardian said, over 5 years ago

    ^^ sorry… check the original graphs created by your global warming scientists. It was not the hottest and certainly not believed to be the hottest while man was on the earth. But just like so many things science has drawn up, there’s no empirical evidence to any view… just the best logical deduction that can be made.

    As far as “recorded history”… there may be some credence. But with the hundreds of climatologist, geologists and other stating that its been cooling for most of a decade and/or debating the accuracy of the results. What we have is a conflict if data and a conflict in reading that data (as well as conflicts of interest) as well as the purposeful destruction of data and falsely created data.

    Other than the drama, one of the major problems has been that many of the worldwide temp sensors have been out of commission for extended periods of time. Others, have been found under exhaust vents, on concrete or tar and other things which create a false temperature. Move 5 ft to either side and the temp could be dramatically different (especially with shade or if under a water run off or heating vent, etc.)

    Don’t get me wrong, in Florida it has seemed much hotter than usual until this last year. I myself complained for years. But history is riddled with heating up and cooling off.

    The issue still comes back to this, scientist continue to be wrong time and time again. Common sense rarely is. Scientists often craft results for the money, common sense never does. Science requires consistent, complete and accurate data to obtain a complete and accurate result. We don’t get much of that either. This is why there is so much debate, even between scientists and professionals.

    So when we can have a perfectly proven and agreed upon scientific result that lines up with common sense and is not concluded upon for political purposes or personal fame/wealth… then I will agree.

    Till then, I’ll stick with common sense and skepticism.

    The irony is that religion is a faith based on a perception of certain evidences. Atheism is the skeptics view of those perceptions. Global warming as been the faith of atheists and most religious are the skeptics. I just find that funny.

  6. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, over 5 years ago

    Dj, where do you get your data? I get mine from mainstream climate scientists, 97% of the total group, who know what they are talking about far more than you possibly could using only “common sense” and “skepticism.” Neither ignorant denial or contrarianism count as skepticism. Ignoring scientific data can be considered a lack of common sense (though common sense also said planes wouldn’t fly, the atom couldn’t be split, and we couldn’t go to the moon).
    You wrote, hilariously: “scientist continue to be wrong time and time again. Common sense rarely is.” Are you vaccinated? Do you take medicines of any kind? Do you wear glasses? Have you ever been helped by a weather report? Do you drive, watch TV, use a computer (obviously)? Here’s the difference between science and common sense: Science WORKS. Common sense doesn’t.
    Your view of science, by the way, is also completely wrong. Science is never “complete.” Science continues to evolve. For example: Newton’s view of the universe incorporated Galileo’s. Einstein’s explained a few exceptions in Newton’s formulation. Quantum mechanics explained things that Einstein couldn’t. None of the denied what went before; they explained the previous theories and additional data better. As for your insults to scientists: real scientists NEVER NEVER NEVER craft results “for the money.” For two reasons: first, you would be found out quickly. Ever heard of “replicability?” That’s a key factor in a scientific finding: can it be done twice? That’s what killed “cold fusion” - no one could duplicate it, and efforts started the day they announced it. Ever heard of “peer review?” That means to get published, you must submit your paper - and, if necessary, your data - to colleagues in your field who are deeply knowledgeable and can critique your findings and interpretations. Second: what money? Scientists aren’t paid particularly well. I am, but I am a scientist in business (assessing top business leaders), and even then I would never consider faking data, and have gone out of my way to point out those whose data I consider suspect. Global warming is the very antithesis of faith: data that counteracts previous expectations (the nonexistent “cooling trend” that should be occurring but is not) leading to a disturbing but important conclusion.

  7. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, over 5 years ago

    My REGION of the country is (and has been for some time) setting new record highs for “winter” temperatures, and low rainfall (snow), while other regions are seeing climate change in their REGIONS, not just locality. The global impacts of human “industrialization” and consumption, are vast, varied, and undeniable- by any “scientific” evaluation criterion. Only those unwilling to face facts, favoring proponents of myth spreading rather insane denial are willing do destroy their environment on unsubstantiated “faith”.

  8. DjGuardian

    DjGuardian said, over 5 years ago

    ^^ you say common sense doesn’t work… you must not know what common sense is.

    Studies for decades have either proved what common sense already knew… or the study was wrong (often proved as such years later).

    But you made a point… “mainstream scientists.” That’s like saying “mainstream media.” Have you ever seen any of the docs or studies by climatologists, professors, geologists, ect., from all over the world that prove many if not all the theories wrong? Of course not, they didn’t get gov’t funding or “mainstream” promotion because they bucked the “desired” belief.

    The difference between you and I is I look at both as a skeptic. As such, only the most logical and convincing argument holds true. Naturally I have my bias, as do you, but I am far more willing to change (i have been all my life) if the facts and best reasoning is against me or my theory.

    Read Ian Plimer’s “Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science.” It’s riddled with footnotes and scientific findings and charts, etc. Being a scientist that shouldn’t be too difficult or long to read.

    There are tons of books on both sides of the debate, but none as well documented as that one on either side.

    But you’re right, no one has EVER faked data for money, achem “Inconvenient Truth.”

    Once politics and greed drives science, science usually stops being science.

  9. walruscarver2000

    walruscarver2000 said, over 5 years ago

    Dj, God I hate it when I have to even partially agree with you, but I’m old enough to remember when we were worrying about “a new ice age”. Of course, we were also worrying about overpopulation in the US, but that was before the boomers started collecting Social Security.

  10. Magnaut

    Magnaut GoComics PRO Member said, over 5 years ago

    science bought and paid for…..look at the granting agencies

  11. Cynthia

    Cynthia GoComics PRO Member said, over 5 years ago

    ^^ Nobody ever fixed data for money?

    Not even the tobacco industry?

  12. cdward

    cdward said, over 5 years ago

    Common sense tells us that actions have consequences - dumping garbage pollutes. Screwing with the climate will change the climate. That’s common sense.

    Fantasy is to say that what we do has no impact, and therefore we can keep on throwing whatever we want into the environment without further thought.

  13. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, over 5 years ago

    Dj, no offense, but you are proudly proclaiming ignorance of science. Why should I bother to accept anything you say about it or scientists? Especially since I am one? Rejecting the mainstream for the sake of rejecting the mainstream and claiming a conspiracy is the oldest trick in the book. You really need to read a bit more about how science works. Try Stephen Jay Gould, for example, or perhaps Carl Sagan, or even James Randi (www.randi.org), a real, world-class skeptic. The amazing thing about science, which distinguishes it from every other human activity ever created, is that it is designed to question itself. And it does amazingly well at that.
    Your assertions that I am biased and you are not is, in itself, evidence that you do NOT do what you say. You are not basing this on evidence, you are basing this on a proud declaration that because you disagree with the mainstream, you are somehow wiser. This is a naive stance at best. We’re not talking about mainstream media or politics here, we’re talking about science, and that operates under different rules.
    And by the way, contrarians get plenty of funding for their research, or you wouldn’t be hearing about them. In fact, bleeep near the easiest way to get funding is to have a bulletproof proposal to take down an existing theory. And by the way, global warming deniers get LOTS of funding from the petrochemical and coal industries. Funny how you don’t seem to think of them as bought and paid for – though they are. But coming back to contrarians - there is example after example of scientists who proposed something that radically changed our view of the universe, and when they put forth their data, the “mainstream” will turn. It doesn’t even take all that long. Einstein shattered conventional physics in 1910; within a decade it was assumed, and new challenges came forward. Wegener proposed plate tectonics in 1912 and was widely considered a flake because he had no mechanism for it. By 1950, it was accepted science because of new data.

  14. Spaghettus1

    Spaghettus1 said, over 5 years ago

    Motive, I think the ridiculously large number of deniers in the US is a good indication of some problems in primary and secondary education, n’est-ce pas?

  15. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, over 5 years ago

    ^Yes, I think so. And note how public schools are on the chopping block. No wonder we’re the only country in the world with so high a percentage of disbelievers in fundamental science like evolution. And no wonder we are falling behind in basic science.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (20).