Lalo Alcaraz by Lalo Alcaraz

Lalo Alcaraz

Comments (22) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, 3 days ago

    Those candles are lit on the other end too!

  2. agrestic

    agrestic said, 3 days ago

    Hey, who put the trick candles (video) on our planet?!?

  3. sueamarlucan

    sueamarlucan GoComics PRO Member said, 3 days ago

    Read an interesting book the other day. “Dark Winter” by John Casey.

  4. agrestic

    agrestic said, 3 days ago

    @sueamarlucan

    Yes, Mr. Casey definitely plays to the confirmation bias of those who would like to think that global warming is not happening. Keep in mind that this guy who extreme (and extremely gullible) conservatives tout as a “climatologist” is actually a self-proclaimed space shuttle engineer (though not a confirmed one) and holder of a degree in management, not a trained climate scientist. He has also never bothered to try publishing any of his findings in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Even climate skeptics like Tom Nelson and Leif Svaalgard have gone so far as to call Casey a “hoax”. His “organization’s” website is, um, minimalistic.


    Here’s what real, live climate scientist Benjamin Kirtman (U. of Miami) has to say about Casey’s notions:


    “It looks to me that Casey is confused about global dimming, which actually seems to be in a reversal… As for the ‘global cooling’ Casey is arguing for, all evidence is to the contrary. Indeed, ocean heat uptake has continued to steadily rise since the 1950s, and there is no plausible physical process (including changes in solar output) that would end this trend in the near-term (10-30 years). Casey’s ‘Summary Climate Assessment’ has some unsupportable statements. For example, Casey’s assessment states that ‘Integrated Global Atmospheric Temperatures continue to show a long term COOLING trend that began in 2007. (100 year trend).’ This is untrue (by far, 2001–10 is the warmest decade since the 1850s) and it is not mathematically possible detect a 100-year trend with seven years of data. The assessment goes on to state, ‘The rate of oceanic temperature decline has been slightly reduced over the past year but is expected to continue its long-term decline.’ This is also untrue — July 2014 ocean temperatures are the warmest on record.”


    I’ll just add that this March, and indeed the first quarter of 2015, were easily the hottest on record. In other words, Mr. Casey is a charlatan who should be trusted about as far as you can shot put him.

  5. sw10mm

    sw10mm said, 3 days ago

    The lie has continued since 1970.
    .
    Harvard biologist George Wald even warned in 1970 that civilization would end within 15 to 30 years unless immediate action was taken.
    .
    Stanford University Paul Ehrlich also predicted in 1970 that the death rate would “increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
    .
    “Ecologist Kenneth Watt [said] that at the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable,”
    .
    “Barry Commoner said the decaying organic pollutants will use up all the oxygen in America’s rivers, thus causing all the freshwater fish to suffocate.”
    .
    Kenneth Watt warned about the impending ice age. Quote, ‘The world has been chilling sharply for about 20 years. If present trends continue, the world will be 4 degrees cooler for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.’”
    .
    The lies continue to this day, yet libs remain so easily swayed for they do not learn and are doomed to repeat their mistakes.

  6. hippogriff

    hippogriff said, 3 days ago

    sw10mm: And things were done to slow down the predictions. Your statements show your straw-grasping, just as your icon shows your “solution” to everything.

  7. Kaffekup

    Kaffekup said, 3 days ago

    Hey, nothing’s changed since the 70’s, right? And we certainly can’t know more than we did then, right?
    So let’s put on our bell bottoms and jump in the Gremlin and head to the disco. I’ve got the latest Elvis 8-track!

  8. sueamarlucan

    sueamarlucan GoComics PRO Member said, 3 days ago

    @agrestic

    The ‘charlatan’ thing could be used to describe the people YOU agree with. It’s all a matter of who is interpreting the data they see and assuming the data has not been ‘fudged’. Besides that, liberal progressives could be described as ‘extremely gullible’, too. Who’s to say? Certainly not me or you, right?

  9. sueamarlucan

    sueamarlucan GoComics PRO Member said, 3 days ago

    @Kaffekup

    Forget Elvis. As much as I love him, it was Donna Summers and the BeeGee’s that was tops in the disco’s back then. I still have some hip-hugger bell bottoms packed away some where….

  10. agrestic

    agrestic said, 3 days ago

    @sueamarlucan

    The ‘charlatan’ thing could be used to describe the people YOU agree with.


    Yeah, no, it couldn’t. My assumption is that you value education, since you were a long-time teacher. Casey doesn’t have the relevant education to make his claims. (His claims also include the ability to predict earthquakes and volcanoes. Something he has never substantiated.) Also, when people whose side you’re supposedly on are calling you a hoax, that’s a big ol’ three-acre red flag.


    If you want to claim the charlatan tag for “the people I agree with,” you need to present proof. But just like Mr. Casey, you haven’t actually provided any.


    It’s all a matter of who is interpreting the data they see and assuming the data has not been ‘fudged’.


    If the data actually had been “fudged,” maybe. But it hasn’t been. And a super-consensus (over 97%) of actual, real-live climate scientists, including those who used to be skeptics, has studied the hell out of the data and come to the conclusion that the globe is warming.


    In other words, it’s established fact. The debates now are around the details. Just like evolution is an established fact, though there is still science happening about the details. Or like the existence of subatomic particles is an established fact, though there is still science happening about the details. You (hopefully) get the point.


    Besides that, liberal progressives could be described as ‘extremely gullible’, too. Who’s to say? Certainly not me or you, right?


    The fact that Fox News viewers have been found to be demonstrably less informed than people who don’t watch news at all, and much less informed than those who listen to NPR and the like, shows that you’re attempting to truck in false equivalencies. The truth indeed has a liberal bias.

  11. sueamarlucan

    sueamarlucan GoComics PRO Member said, 2 days ago

    @agrestic

    Dismissal of any possible supposition other than yours is your stock-in-trade. It must sound like a bell ringing in your brain. Fun, fun, fun.

  12. agrestic

    agrestic said, 2 days ago

    @sueamarlucan

    Hmm…sounds very much like someone’s engaged in a bit of projection again.


    There’s a difference between suppositions and knowledge based on carefully collected data. The latter, for instance, has much more validity as truth. Casey is disastrously wrong about climate change, and he and his sort are part of what has been keeping us from actually working to prevent it from happening or even preparing for its consequences. And this is just as their funders, the fossil fuels industry, likes it. I do wonder if those coal and oil magnates ever actually think about what their children and grandchildren will be facing just so those guys can put another few million in their personal bank accounts.

  13. sueamarlucan

    sueamarlucan GoComics PRO Member said, 2 days ago

    @agrestic

    You are assuming that only the stuff you read is the correct version. You do that a lot. Ring-a-ling-a-ling…hear it? Sure you do.

  14. agrestic

    agrestic said, 2 days ago

    @sueamarlucan

    You’re assuming that I only read stuff that supports one point of view or another. You do that a lot. Which means, once again, you’re wrong an awful lot. But hey, maybe you’d also like to be someone who reads things from multiple sides of the debate. If that’s the case, just click here for a good list of books on climate change.

  15. sueamarlucan

    sueamarlucan GoComics PRO Member said, 2 days ago

    @agrestic

    Ring, ring, ring….the bell is ringing. I make a simple statement about reading an interesting book, nothing about my position on the subject and you cannot help but to write an entire missive on how wrong I am, assuming you already know what anyone believes. The bell has rung and all you did was see how high you could jump. Your turn.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (7).