Matt Davies by Matt Davies

Matt Davies

Comments (23) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    Ah, cue the deniers.

  2. ConserveGov

    ConserveGov said, over 3 years ago

    I can’t believe it’s hot today!!!
    Just more leftist propaganda.

  3. BrassOrchid

    BrassOrchid GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    I have noticed that the runoff from glaciers has increased greatly due to runaway warming. If the runoff was the same or reduced and the glaciers were retreating, then I would have to observe this as proof that the glaciers were not being fed, rather than that they were succumbing to increased heat, as the most reliable of sources, my political leaders and news editors have hastened to assure me. I sat down to do the math on how much heating would be required to decrease a stable and dynamic glacial system to the degree observed, but decided that the mathematics were a lie, just like the laws of thermodynamics. A benevolent group whose only goal is world peace and the salvation of mankind by global domination would never lie to me.

  4. ARodney

    ARodney said, over 3 years ago

    The sun warms the Earth, but climate change is not caused by the sun. This sort of thing has been studied by scientists. If the sun were suddenly hotter, there are ways to measure that, and it simply hasn’t happened. We are burning fossil fuels. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. CO2 is at the highest level ever in human existence, and is ramping up constantly. The Earth is at it’s warmest point in thousands of years, and the rate of change is unprecedented in known history. There is no point in that chain of causality that has not been scientifically proven, yet conservatives point at the chain and say “that cannot possibly be true,” yet cannot point to a single valid problem with the overwhelming evidence. Conservatives are less credible on this than on most of their drivel.

  5. Paul Harvey

    Paul Harvey said, over 3 years ago

    It’s too bad we can’t do something about the sun warming us. Dang sun keep messing things up.

  6. Paul Harvey

    Paul Harvey said, over 3 years ago


    Wrong, CO2 levels have been many times higher before, check the ice samples. When CO2 levels were higher is was much much colder.

  7. Anthony 2816

    Anthony 2816 said, over 3 years ago

    Your graph shows “temperature oscillations”, not actual temperatures. Why is that?

  8. Anthony 2816

    Anthony 2816 said, over 3 years ago

    I’m Coraryan, and I still can’t understand the difference between weather and climate.

  9. heenalu

    heenalu said, over 3 years ago


    Time for you to go back to school. The sun does change and there are records to prove it. It runs in cycles. Man’s contribution amounts to less than 1%. Good luck making your change.

  10. d_legendary1 Demands Dr.C's Release

    d_legendary1 Demands Dr.C's Release said, over 3 years ago

    “Actually, if one is going to deny global warming, there are two magic words one must say. Sadly, I haven’t heard a single denier use either of them.”

    Does it start with F and ends with World (though that would be three words and they say it all the time, just not outright)?

  11. d_legendary1 Demands Dr.C's Release

    d_legendary1 Demands Dr.C's Release said, over 3 years ago


    The sun changes to what exactly? Genders?

  12. Mr. Ngn33r

    Mr. Ngn33r GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    @me9970…because of “particulates” reflecting more energy than retained by CO2…
    A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. Some of the 7 later admitted errors and retracted their conclusions.

  13. Anthony 2816

    Anthony 2816 said, over 3 years ago

    “Support your claim that the temperatures are not “Actual”. Oscillations = Change”

    The support for my “claim” is clearly written on the graph you gave us. The temperature curve does NOT show absolute temps, it shows oscillations in temp. You don’t seem to understand that oscillation actually means the temps are going up and down. All you’ve shown is that the temps move both up and down to a lesser or greater extent at different times…and from the look of the graph, even that is a sketchy correlation with CO2 levels.

    But what you haven’t shown is any relation between actual temperature and CO2 levels…you need a different study and a different graph for that. Did some anti-science website tell you that this graph showed something it doesn’t, and you didn’t bother to check?

  14. D PB

    D PB said, over 3 years ago


    So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “97% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3,000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

    Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

    That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

    The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?

    That Scientific Global Warming Consensus…Not!

    You won’t like it, it challenges your dogma.

  15. BrassOrchid

    BrassOrchid GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    @D PB

    G. Harry Stine pointed this out in 1994. But you can’t stop a growing religious movement by application of hard science. Science is whatever they claim it is, and any evidence that does not support their theology is not real science.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (8).