Nick Anderson by Nick Anderson

Nick Anderson

Comments (20) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Rottiluv

    Rottiluv GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    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.

  2. alff-steinberger

    alff-steinberger said, over 3 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.

  3. alff-steinberger

    alff-steinberger said, over 3 years ago

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

  4. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, over 3 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.

  5. Ken M

    Ken M GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 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.

  6. Kylie2112

    Kylie2112 said, over 3 years ago

    @alff-steinberger

    Agent provacateur is a way of being funny :)

  7. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, over 3 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.

  8. alff-steinberger

    alff-steinberger said, over 3 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.

  9. lonecat

    lonecat said, over 3 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.

  10. Jase99

    Jase99 GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    “Just like liberals don’t believe in an ultimate supreme being of the universe. But we won’t talk about that because you can’t tax it.”

    You are once again ill informed. What a surprise. Many liberals believe in the existence of God. Many are Christians who may or may not personally oppose abortion and/or find homosexuality distasteful. The difference is they don’t believe in forcing their beliefs on to other people. That is part of being an American is all about; being able to live side by side with people who believe differently than you. “Conservatives” can oppose gay marriage, abortion, and all the other “liberal” ideals all they want, but they need to stop forcing their believes onto the rest of us.

  11. STLDan

    STLDan said, over 3 years ago

    You should really pull your head out of the sand. 95% of the Worlds climatologist agree that MAN MADE global warming is occurring yet you believe the data funded by big business so they wont have to spend the money to clean up the damage they are causing to OUR planet. I bet you are a smoker and during the 70s you lit up and said “Dont believe all these extremeist critics about smoking and cancer, look at all this research that R.J. Reynolds has put out, it’s totally safe!” GET A CLUE!!!!!!!!

  12. STLDan

    STLDan said, over 3 years ago

    @Ken M

    So there are scientists on both sides eh? You need to do a little research. 95% of the WORLDS climatologist agree on global warming. So yes there are scientists on both sides, the real ones who do valid research make up 95% of them and there are the 5% paid by the Koch brothers. GET A CLUE!!!

  13. Rockngolfer

    Rockngolfer said, over 3 years ago

    I think the guy in the cartoon is the head of the House Science Committee.

  14. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    The election results weren’t a falling wall, unfortunately. Folks like Coburn and Inhofe, McConnell and Graham, and the ever sadder McCain are still around, wailing, whining, and fuming, while denying reality, and the needs of the American people, and the world. It is so sad that in the 21st Century, so many Americans are still willing to accept the science, and social policy moving toward feudalism, of the 13th.

  15. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, over 3 years ago

    @lonecat

    Really like this idea Lonecat!!
    I may quote you on this in future rants. I’m wondering if one of our local institutions of higher learning would be interested in ‘hosting’ such an event. The publicity alone might inspire them, and who knows, people could learn something.
    I wonder if my senators would like to be part of such a thing.
    There used to be televised debates in my area, and I think they still show one now and again. I recommend a series from the late 80’s called The Bill of Rights: A Delicate Balance. A round table of twenty or more top minds of that period debate a hypothetical situation.
    Really liked the teach in idea.
    C.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (5).