Joel Pett by Joel Pett

Joel PettNo Zoom

Comments (28) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Ottodesu

    Ottodesu said, about 3 years ago

    I believe that most of the planet’s climate change deniers live in the USA.

    Is it a coincidence that most scientifically unaware folk such as creationists also live there?

  2. Ottodesu

    Ottodesu said, about 3 years ago

    BTW the population boom passed some time ago. Assuming no disasters, nearly all families on the planet will be 1-2 children and total population will peak at about 9 billion at about 2050 and then decline.

    That’s still a lot, and will be exacerbated by everyone getting healthier. Of course, the USA can do its bit by getting rid of nationalised health care, and help hasten its decline.

  3. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, about 3 years ago

    As one who believes in climate change and man’s impact on its worsening, it saddens me to know that those who disbelieve the findings of over 90% of scientists will continue to do so until they are effected personally, or until things get so bad that restoring a better norm may be impossible. A Time magazine special edition a few months ago showed some of the many ways we can slow, even reverse, this threat. But since the gun isn’t in the face of everyone, only those looking down the barrel are concerned, and the others are ambivalent. The willingness of corporations and unions to put jobs over caring for our water and food sources is insult to injury.
    It is my sincere hope that the deniers are right and the cycle will moderate and reverse. As I look at the statistics, the features these new storms bring, the reports from other nations, et al., I can only see a savage future for our children and grandchildren that will make deficits and debt inconsequential. I would really like to be wrong. We’ll talk more in a few years.

  4. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, about 3 years ago

    It doesn’t matter. Until you are effected or proven right, there is nothing I can say to you that will satisfy you. I did do a quick search, but while 97% of papers on the topic have supported its existence, there is nothing I found to tell me what doctorates the scientists carried.
    Do you believe that climate change doesn’t exist at all? Do you believe that we are in part of cycle? If so, How long do you think this cycle will continue? If it is going to last a long time, or get worse, how bad should it get before you would want to see actions taken to help those who live just above sea level or who live in areas of extreme weather?
    You are quick to attack messengers, but rarely provide options.
    Some I’ve presented in the past, and mailed to my legislators, is to plant more trees, to create a water “interstate system” to take water from flood prone areas to drought effected areas and areas effected by firestorms. Homes that are built on foundations that are more like barges than regular homes would lift a home above flood waters during storms and floods as the waters rose. Poles built into the ground and the home would keep the home from floating away.. Homes made totally out of stone and metal would prevent losses during firestorms. Expanding forested areas and grasslands to help filter CO2 out of the air. I can continue.
    What ideas do You bring to the table? What suggestions have YOU sent to your legislators? And why do you attack the messenger when the message is one of civility and the quest for solutions to problems?
    There’s a lot of questions there. But all of them are worthy of an answer.

  5. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, about 3 years ago

    You say – Don’t worry about climate change because mankind will destroy itself with weapons first?
    Most wars are over control of resources, religion and national pride are just rallying cries.
    As a parent and grandparent, I am concerned about all of these issues.
    I also believe in erring on the side of caution.
    re: the environment, I ask you the same questions I asked Onguard.
    Regarding nuclear war.
    I pray and write.

  6. dannysixpack

    dannysixpack said, about 3 years ago



    a characature of a joke!

    why don’t you try .04% concentration of ricin, or arsenic, or zyclon ‘b’?

  7. mikefive

    mikefive said, about 3 years ago

    It isn’t the amount of CO2 relative to the rest of the atmosphere that makes CO2 important. It is CO2’s absorption of long wave (infra-red) radiation that is causing atmospheric warming. Small increases in CO2 have a disproportionate affect on warming as compared to other atmospheric gases.
    •A more in depth explanation of this can be found at:

    If you want a more technical explanation than the default intermediate article, click on the advanced option. The discussion following the articles is also quite informative.

  8. jack75287

    jack75287 said, about 3 years ago

    Humanity has a slight effect on climate I grant you, but this summer in Texas is expected to be a mild one and other places as well. We know there is a lot of bias in the scientific community in favor of Global Warming, it brings in money for them and pays a lot of salaries.

    If the anti climate group is right this warm tread we are in well end soon. If not then we will be proven wrong. You cannot measure what some say is a 30 year trend with what 120 years of data. Lets take a deep breath and make sure we have a not more info.

  9. jack75287

    jack75287 said, about 3 years ago

    Ok so how did we get from one to the other?

  10. mikefive

    mikefive said, about 3 years ago

    Ten of the last eleven years have been the warmest on record globally. Only 2011 was not in the top ten and it was eleventh. (Data compliments of NOAA)

  11. D PB

    D PB said, about 3 years ago

    The hard data quite simply doesn’t support the theory of global warming. The theory and all the models are wrong. There hasn’t been any of the predicted warming in nearly two decades but that doesn’t matter if you can get your fingers in your ears quick enough and do a bit of chanting. For supposedly scientific people, what they don’t appear to understand is actually quite simple. If you try to positively test a fundamentally wrong theory, then it’s easy for someone to pick out the flaw in your supposed proof. It’s for that simple reason, we win every time, Buster, every time.

    The scientific method works on a blindingly simple basis. You make a conjecture about how something works, which is a fancy way of saying you’re taking a guess, and then you test it in the real world. You think up experiments, which will check if the results predicted by your guess actually occur in the real world. If the results from the experiments match what your conjecture predicts, then your conjecture gradually tiptoes forward to being crowned Miss Scientific Theory of the year. The band strikes up. There’s a diamante tiara, applause, lots of tears, cheers, a tiny bouquet of pink flowers and a heartfelt thank you to Mum and Dad, without whom etc etc. I’m sure you get the idea by now.

    However, if experimental results differ from predicted results, your pet theory goes the way of deely boppers, culottes and the Dodo. A different sort of tears. Big Al the jerry jewboy Einstein nutshelled the whole idea in his usual succinct fashion – a thousand experiments can’t prove I’m right but it takes just one to prove I’m wrong. His crack about God not playing dice still worries me, but I’m in danger of digressing.

    If there’s no earthly way anyone can test your guess, never mind disprove it, then it cannot be termed a scientific theory. It’s therefore just an unverifiable belief, like alien abduction, crop circles, children not knowing what snow is, predictions of searing Summers and mild Winters, the complete melting of the North Pole by 2013, or what the weather is going to be like in a hundred years time. By the way, spot the Al Gore prediction in that lot.

    When you’ve got a really great theory, and the only snag with it is that Mr. Scientific Method keeps saying no, you’ve still got some ways forward but they’re all a little bit shady. Numero uno is just to lie your head off. You tell them you’ve done the experiments and the theory checks out. Of course, you’ve been frigging around with the data or the results, perhaps even both. The downside of that wheeze is replication.

    Other tedious sciency types want to repeat the experiment using your data and methods, so you really have to work bloody hard to think up reasons why they simply can’t have what they need to reproduce your results. It’s propriety data, it’d be a breach of non-disclosure agreements, it’s been deleted, I can’t find it, it’d be a mortal sin, I left it on the school bus, my Granny’s just died, the dog ate it, it’s down in Missouri having an inappropriate relationship with a nun – take your pick. In the end, some of the suspicious types even resort to serving you with Freedom of Information notices. Bastards. What a bunch of ungrateful swine they are. After the usual legal delaying tactics, they’ll eventually get their hands on the data and your ass is pretty much grass from that point on.

    Another way forward is to insist your theory is so crucial and pressing, it doesn’t need that old fuddy duddy scientific method straitjacket proof. Mann, that’s all so out of date nowadays. You invent something called post-normal science (stop sniggering you gang of real scientists at the back of the room), which basically says if your theory is morally or politically virtuous, you shouldn’t be expected to actually do something so boring and yesterday as to prove it; it’s a shoo in.

    Okay, I’ll admit it’s not a good out, nobody can seriously discuss post-normal science with a straight face or without pissing themselves. You’d have to be a complete idiot.

    The last, and silliest resort, which they’ll eventually be driven to arrive at, is throwing it back at the skeptics and demanding that they disprove a negative. What on Earth does that mean, you might ask?

    Let’s skip the formal logic explanation and go with an example. You meet someone and they tell you they have an invisible golden Wombat floating 3.145 feet over their head. You look and of course there’s no Wombat there, golden or otherwise. You tell them there’s nothing there. They absolutely insist there is. Perhaps it’s not only the Wombat who’s high. After a bit of debate, they come back with their killer argument – well, prove it isn’t there. Silence. Of course, there’s no possible way you can do that, which is somehow and inexplicably taken by them as a clincher that the golden invisible Wombat does actually in fact exist. Yup, I know, brainless, but let’s just move it along here.

    You see, you can’t disprove a negative. There’s simply no way, Jose. That simple abuse of logic is so often the essential reason, if I could risk using that word in this line of argument, for the longevity of all blatantly ludicrous conspiracy theories.

    They are advancing a conjecture, which they insist is a scientific theory, and that means they’ve got to play the science game. They try to positively test it and we shoot the tests down every time. No matter what “tricks” they pull in the name of the “cause”, the real world data, no matter how much they torture it, simply doesn’t conform to the theory’s predictions. For them, going down the avenue of asking us to disprove the theory isn’t correct, would be an explicit admission we’re talking about a belief rather than science, though they’ve unconsciously edged towards that disaster a few times. That escape route is closed for them. The irony is that them even asking a skeptical scientist to disprove the theory of global warming would probably involve giving him some significant funding, which as far as I’m aware, would be a first.

    Hat tip to Pointman, brillant

  12. omQ R

    omQ R said, about 3 years ago

    I know at least one Albertan who understands anthropogenic climate change.

  13. mikefive

    mikefive said, about 3 years ago

    @D PB

    A rather lengthy and seemingly erudite post, but I see no data to disprove global warming and I’ve seen much data to say that there is global warming.

  14. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, about 3 years ago

    Doing the same thing repetitively and expecting a different outcome is the definition of crazy.
    “Concerned” does not mean “afraid” or “obsessed”.
    Your nonchalant attitude reminded me of an old song.

  15. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 GoComics PRO Member said, about 3 years ago


    9 billion is way too many. it may reach that or not but it won’t last long. The rich will survive on the backs of the poor. The rich causes it, the poor pays for it. But the very rich will be protected from the rest of us.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (13).