Nick Anderson by Nick Anderson

Nick Anderson

Comments (26) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Fairportfan2

    Fairportfan2 GoComics PRO Member said, almost 2 years ago

    Gotta spend your time denying something that rational people know is true … that’s the Republican way.

  2. ReFlex-76

    ReFlex-76 GoComics PRO Member said, almost 2 years ago

    Of course, Climate Change is hitting all of us, not just the deniers.

  3. ReFlex-76

    ReFlex-76 GoComics PRO Member said, almost 2 years ago

    Step 1 in fixing Climate Change: ignore the deniers. If they’re not gonna lead, they’ll have to get out of the way.

  4. Michael wme

    Michael wme said, almost 2 years ago

    I note that this cartoonist has stopped talking about warming, and just says ‘change.’ Who can argue that the weather doesn’t change? This should stop all the critics. Even global warming deniers can’t deny that the weather is always changing.


    And Rove was absolutely right: those polls taken on November 6 were just as wrong as the biased polls that showed President Obama would be re-elected. It was the corrupt dimlibs who refused to unbias the November 6 polls and stole the election for President Obama. The Founding Fathers knew it was wrong to let women or men who didn’t own property vote, but the dimlibs counted those illegal, unConstitutional votes anyway.

  5. Rottiluv

    Rottiluv GoComics PRO Member said, almost 2 years ago

    @Michael wme

    1) are you actually saying that voting against the way polls tell you to vote is “stealing an election”?

    2) I always love to hear from those who support serfdom. Usually they’re serfs (AKA working poor) who somehow think they’d be the top of the ladder if serfdom came back.

    3) There’s a difference between climate and weather. Climate is long term, weather is what is happening day to day. Whether or not you “believe” that humans are causing global warming/climate change is one thing, denying it is just sticking your head in the sand. Oh and whether or not humans are creating climate change? I personally don’t care, I would however enjoy breathable air and I’m rather addicted to potable water.

  6. MortyForTyrant

    MortyForTyrant said, almost 2 years ago

    @Rottiluv

    Hey, pssst, look up the term “agent provocateur”… That’s what Michael is (in contrast to being a troll), as well as “Neocon Man”. I love them both :-)

  7. MortyForTyrant

    MortyForTyrant said, almost 2 years ago

    @Michael wme

    “Climate Change” is not the same as “weather change”, the later occurs seasonally. But the expression “climate change” is much better than “global warming” for scientific reasons, it is more inclusive. Climate change can cause more snow around the great lakes and AT THE SAME TIME cause droughts in Texas. So if someone tries to argue “there can be no global warming, it’s snowing outside my window!” with “climate change” you at least stand a chance to lead them back to the real world – after you’ve smashed their AM-radio…

  8. alff-steinberger

    alff-steinberger said, almost 2 years ago

    @Rottiluv

    It was supposed to be a joke – the comment of “Michel wme”, that is … I suspect that he does know the difference between climate and weather, and was just teasing a bit.

  9. alff-steinberger

    alff-steinberger said, almost 2 years ago

    @MortyForTyrant

    Hold on – isn’t “Michael wme” just trying to be funny? No one could seriously hold the views he expressed-

  10. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, almost 2 years ago

    If a person believes in climate change, no matter what the cause, and survives a major weather incident like Sandy, the Midwest tornado season last year, the dust storms in the southwest, etc… it is unlikely they will suddenly decide there is no such thing as climate change.
    If a person does not believe in climate change and survives the same incidents, there is a very good chance they will reconsider the possibility.
    As weather becomes more dangerous, the number of people concerned about it will increase.
    The question is this- how bad will things have to get before enough people agree to start responding. I believe we can create jobs and new technologies that will have significant impact on how bad things might get, but I also feel that the amount of time we have to do this without going through significant pain is diminishing.
    This cartoon displays an extreme example of an extreme opinion and this view is increasingly a minority in our country. This is another reason we need educated people serving on the Science Committee in Congress. One of the men vying for the job doesn’t think anything can be done about climate because it is “caused by solar flares”, an opinion disproved by actual scientists.
    Respectfully,
    C.

  11. Ken M

    Ken M GoComics PRO Member said, almost 2 years ago

    Just wondering… how have solar flares’ effects been disproved “by actual scientists?” Can you cite this? I think actual scientists exist on both sides and most of the ones citing the sun’s influence on our climate are not talking about solar flares, but rather the solar cycle, which is well documented, and how it heats and cools during various periods. There is a proven effect… how much is still debatable by “actual scientists.”

    Yes, climate change is real, but it is way too complex to pigeon hole. Anyone remember the Ozone Hole? The mini ice-age predictions of the 1970s? The fact is, some people disagree with popular opinion for good reason, not simply to be a denier.

    Finally, the motivation to do better as people needs to come from the people and not the government. In the past, the innovation has largely come from the private sector (Thomas Edison, Alexander Bell, The Wright Brothers…) first, then adopted by government. Rarely has it developed the other way around.

  12. Kylie2112

    Kylie2112 said, almost 2 years ago

    @alff-steinberger

    Agent provacateur is a way of being funny :)

  13. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, almost 2 years ago

    @Ken M

    Good post Ken M,, thank you.
    Here’s one of a couple of sites that support my comment, tho there are others that contest it. Such are the dynamics of this topic.
    http://phys.org/news189845962.html
    I also agree wholeheartedly that humans need to be the solution, not government. However, patent law will need to be changed in order to prevent companies from sitting on technologies that might improve life on our planet, but competes with the “product” of the holding company.
    Government has almost given grants to businesses and universities who have explored new ways of doing things, but it was the actual people dong the science and research that made the changes. Government can be a good faith partner, but business makes it fly.
    Thank you again for your comment.
    Respectfully,
    C.

  14. alff-steinberger

    alff-steinberger said, almost 2 years ago

    @Kylie2112

    FYI – Well, “agent provocateur” might sometimes be used to mean someone with a joke in mind – but the usual meaning is more one of troublemaker – as, from wikipedia,“More generally, the term may refer to a person or group that seeks to discredit or harm another by provoking them to commit a wrong or rash action.” – or, “Un agent provocateur est une personne chargée secrètement de perturber l’activité d’un groupe” – Michael wme was just being funny, no? no harm intended.

  15. lonecat

    lonecat said, almost 2 years ago

    I remember (showing my age) that in the period before the big Vietnam anti-war protests, there was a period of what was called Teach-Ins, mostly on college campuses — the idea was that scholars on both sides of the question of US involvement in Vietnam would have a debate. Eventually there was a nationally-televised debate as well. The Teach-ins had a bug influence on the development of the movement — the anti-war activists had a solid basis in history and political science. I wonder if there could be something similar for climate change. (I’m also thinking of the Huxley-Wilberforce debate about evolution.) I’m not assuming that the format would have to be a debate — it’s not clear that you could find enough reputable scientists who would take the NO side — but a big education campaign of some sort would be helpful. The questions are fairly complicated, but we need the broad support of intelligent non-specialists if we are going to make the necessary changes.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (11).