Matt Wuerker by Matt Wuerker

Matt Wuerker

Comments (65) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Wabbit

    Wabbit GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    Yes it’s too bad you are Not cute.

  2. lisapaloma13

    lisapaloma13 said, over 1 year ago


    Oh, a few of us might survive to adapt. You and I won’t be around to see what we become, though, another hundred thousand years or so from now.

  3. lisapaloma13

    lisapaloma13 said, over 1 year ago

    @Genome Project

    Amazing, isn’t it? I think I’ll make statements about economics or NASCAR or something I know next-to-nothing about and have no desire to study enough to learn about.

  4. ossiningaling

    ossiningaling said, over 1 year ago

    Well if temperatures continue to rise, however slowly, all the climate survivors will develop leathery skin, so win-win!

  5. Michael wme

    Michael wme said, over 1 year ago

    There are two magic words climate change deniers have to say to be credible. I haven’t heard them yet.

    And there are six magic words that must be said if one denies that the climate change is caused by humans. I haven’t heard the six yet, either.

    The database of all temperatures is available for anyone to download and load into Excel and test for global warming. And guess what? The test says it’s real!

    Magic words, anyone?

  6. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, over 1 year ago

    @Michael wme

    Well put.

    “The good part about science is that even if you don’t believe in it, it still exists.” —Neil deGraffe Tyson

  7. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, over 1 year ago

    @Michael wme

    magic words…right.

    The basic premise is that the current rise in greenhouse gases is not “natural” because it is caused by “human activity”.

    Here are some not so magic words.

    Yes, human activity has an effect on the environment and thus any change in that environment – climate included – has been affected by humans in some way.

    BUT, in order for it to not be “natural” one must then classify human activity as not natural. What? Humans are not part of the equation but are some aberration and should not be on the planet at all?

    OK, so IMO (ha) any climate change is “natural”.

  8. D PB

    D PB said, over 1 year ago

    @Michael wme

    Trend 0.09C (0.52C/century)

    Statistically insignificant, you do know what that means, right?

    Oh and the RSS dataset shows a completely flat trend.

    Your argument is invalidated by the data.

  9. The Wolf In Your Midst

    The Wolf In Your Midst said, over 1 year ago

    The climate change situation certainly puts the lie to the people who love to say “We have to make hard choices now so that our children have a better world”. What they REALLY mean is “making the poor suffer so my kids will be rich is one thing… but making changes to keep my kids from living in hell on earth might hurt MY pocketbook! Forget that!”

  10. Robert Landers

    Robert Landers said, over 1 year ago

    @Michael wme

    Thank you, that is a very thorough and excellent site. What the deniers do not seem to realize is that it takes very little temperature change from 0 degrees centigrade for ice to melt. And the world’s ice IS melting. But because there is so much of this ice it seems to be melting at a relatively slow rate, but it is melting. This will have a very negative affect upon our weather patterns even within our own lifetimes.

    So, not only do we need to reduce our hydrocarbon pollution of our atmosphere (and there are also other equally important reasons for doing this that have nothing to do with Rapid Global Climate Change) but we should also at least start to get ready for the affects that are inevitably going to take place regardless of what is now done about the main problem itself!!

  11. Rad-ish

    Rad-ish GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

     photo extinctionchart_zpsa68494b0.jpg

  12. apfelzra

    apfelzra GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    @Debt Free

    Reptilian liberals, maybe.

  13. apfelzra

    apfelzra GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago


    Of course we can, given one or two billion years of future evolution.

  14. apfelzra

    apfelzra GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    @Jeff H

    Where do you obtain your information to make such a foolish statement? The hottest worldwideaverage temperatures on record have occurred mostly in the past decade.

  15. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, over 1 year ago

    Wow, the deniers are trying to use “science!” Unfortunately, they don’t know how…which is typical. Kind of defines deniers.
    Folks, the most eminent and QUALIFIED denier, Richard A. Muller, did research to test his concerns (which is what science is about), and despite being funded by the Koch brothers, said the following:

    "“Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.
    [The Berkeley project’s research has shown] “that the average temperature of the Earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.”

    And onguard is actually trying to claim because CO2 is a small percentage of the atmosphere, it doesn’t matter? Say, onguard, if you removed all of it, it would matter a lot since plant life would become extinct.

  16. Load 15 more comments. | Load the rest (50).