Nick Anderson by Nick Anderson

Nick Anderson

Comments (63) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Darsan54

    Darsan54 said, 12 months ago

    Geeee, it’s cold outside during winter. What a surprise!! And last summer when we were going thru record heat waves?

  2. ConserveGov

    ConserveGov said, 12 months ago

    We should spend billions to figure out why its so cold instead of helping people get jobs and educating our youth.
    Sincerely,
    Democrats.

  3. Harleyquinn

    Harleyquinn GoComics PRO Member said, 12 months ago

    http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ZZ9tXlJaL.SL1500.jpg"
    so what is long term? 20 years? That is about as long as things have been flat. 30 years? That could be a cycle? and what is this magical ideal number we humans think is the right number? what is that magical number that was famous in that it was the number in which we were running a fever? What is the base line?

  4. Harleyquinn

    Harleyquinn GoComics PRO Member said, 12 months ago

    And if we are going to throw around labels, cus that is what libs do, they label groups in order to either control or deny or just plain out hate. But If we are going to label I would like to go with what I call myself. That is a Heretic in the Church of Gorbull Warming. thank you very much!
    Next up the libs saying all “conservatives” hate clean water and clean air, if only they would follow their messiah Obama in taxing anything thing deemed bad for mommy earth, they could repent and lead a CO2 neutral life.
    So says the movie of inconvenient lies and special effects.

  5. Gresch

    Gresch said, 12 months ago

    Why Nick… even the toon hedges a faulty position by stating it about “climate CHANGE” deniers instead of “Global warming” deniers… you know Mother Nature can be a fickle b*tch….

  6. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, 12 months ago

    The Polar Vortex, according to several websites including the weather channel and NOAA, is loosely described as an artic ‘hurricane’ where cold temps keep high winds circulating at the North pole. This occurs at the south pole as well, but we are being effected by what is happening to the north right now. Because artic temperatures have been warmer than usual, the vortex is less stable and is breaking off large patches of wind and cold that move south into North America and Northern Europe. NOAA considers this another symptom of climate change caused by global warming. We seem well entrenched into this pattern so, we will have ample opportunity to see if this is a cycle or not.
    Opinion and research supporting the views of deniers is in the minority. A large majority of scientists and gov’t leaders from other nations are, along with folks like me, being lumped into a group made up of fools, idiots, and doomsayers. We are accused of having an agenda at best or being stupid at worst.
    I fear we shall learn who was right and I hope that those who think like me are wrong. For if we are right, and things continue as they are, those who stood in the way of making an effort to slow or reverse this pattern will find themselves suffering the same fate as the rest of us.
    I returned from California last weekend. I saw signs of drought everywhere and the water being used to water the oranges, avocados, almonds, and many other crops by which I drove is coming from many miles away, depleting lakes, reservoirs, and aquifers. I talked to people who make their money off of farming, recreational lakes and canoeing, and they all complained that it has been years since they had sufficient rain and snowmelt.
    And while many said they didn’t used to believe in climate change, they say they do now.
    Nothing makes a believer better than being directly effected by that which was once denied.
    Respectfully,
    C.

  7. Michael wme

    Michael wme said, 12 months ago

    I tried to find it and failed, but there was a marvellous debate about Lord Monkton’s study that there has been no global warming for the last 17 years and the response by skeptical science. A fierce battle of wits between unarmed opponents.


    Lord Monkton found that the global warming, meaning the average temperatures for the entire globe, showed a statistically insignificant increase over the last 17 years. Sceptical science replied that, just because it’s statistically insignificant, it’s still positive, so it’s clearly evidence in favour of global warming.


    There’s a reason why statisticians do not accept statistically insignificant results. And reasons why healthcare providers say we MUST accept them under the Hippocratic Oath: a healthcare provider must never do anything that might hurt




    the healthcare provider’s bank balance.




    Which is why one should be sceptical of any scientist who claims statistically insignificant results are true. And of any scientist who claims statistically insignificant results are false. Statistically insignificant means we don’t have a clue.


    (And, in the case of Lord Monkton’s study, he only gets insignificant results by carefully selecting his data set.)

  8. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, 12 months ago

    @Genome Project

    oh please….

    Well ok.

    1. Yes. lib is a label. for a liberal and rather mild at that. now “tea bagger” THAT is a label..LOL

    2. nope can’t do it because I won’t be looking at the congressional record today. HOWEVER, the Obama administration has targeted energy production – specifically the coal industry – with the new and improved “regulations” on CO2 emissions. Much better than any ol’ tax….

    Quit being a fool

  9. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, 12 months ago

    @Respectful Troll

    gee, you sound so….respectful and all.

    It’s a given that the climate changes. Why do we know? Well gee, how about some big examples like the fossils from sea life being found in the arid regions of the world, the evidence of glacial movement in temperate zones, the astounding finds of tropical remains found in arctic environments and so on. Sure all anecdotal but cool none the less. No you don’t have to trot out all the “science” to convince me that the climate is changing.

    Now global warming well…….. OK. I’ve seen the graphs and the studies. Like this one article points to.

    https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years

    Averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures warmed roughly 1.53°F (0.85ºC) from 1880 to 2012, according to the (IPCC)

    Yep gettin’ hot alright.

    Oh I know that a small change has a profound effect on “stuff”.

    So tell me. What exactly is the “perfect” climate? Why does a faster change (the only part of the current hoopla I agree with) mean trouble? Will we be smart enough to understand and prepare for the entire cycle? If you stand in front of a charging water buffalo, can you stop it with one finger on it’s nose? (don’t laugh, I know a kid in Thailand that can…but it IS his buffalo).

    follow the money.

  10. ODon

    ODon said, 12 months ago

    Doc – I don’t get my information about climate change from Al Sharpton. Nor do I go to the various commentators at Fox.

    The internet allows for a wide search of actual scientific research by actual scientists trained in the various fields of earth science. Research these reports, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

  11. lonecat

    lonecat said, 12 months ago

    I have been attempting for past several days to inject a little actual science into the discussion, and I have asked those who don’t believe in the theory of global climate change to post their science in reply. So far I have received zero serious replies from the deniers. Zero. Ziltch. That’s not a single one. I am open to reading serious refutations of the theory. Have a good day — I’m off to work. See you sometime this evening.

  12. michael

    michael GoComics PRO Member said, 12 months ago

    @Michael wme

    Its hilarious your link to a “study” showing no global warming was pushing “holistic dentistry” and cancer cures.

  13. lisapaloma13

    lisapaloma13 said, 12 months ago

    @Respectful Troll

    I always appreciate your remarks.

  14. Radical Centrist

    Radical Centrist said, 12 months ago

    Who would you prefer to be wrong – the pro-business global warming "skeptics’ or the main body of science which sees global warming as a real problem worthy of our concern and remedial action? One problem is the phrase “global warming”. Think of this diabeties analogy: the problem with this health problem is not simply one of too much blood sugar or too little blood sugar; it’s the complex inability of a diabetic’s body to maintain a stable balance between these two extremes. Therefore, a better phrase for our ecological problem would be “chronic global climate instability”. However, this phrase is probably too complex for most of the masses to comprehend.

  15. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, 12 months ago

    @Bruce4671

    There is no perfect climate, Bruce. But we are accustomed to making our plans and building our cities based on the climate we have, not the climate we are going to have. That’s the problem.
    If we are going to have far more variable weather, we have to be ready for that. If we are going to have higher water levels — and, along the way, higher tides and more vulnerability in severe weather — we have to be ready for that.
    And if we are going to have more severe weather, we have to be ready for that.
    And if the places we are used to growing wheat and raising meat animals suddenly become less viable — we have to be ready for THAT.
    And we aren’t getting ready for that because (among other reasons) fossil-fuel companies and conservatives in this country (not elsewhere) are fighting discussion of the science tooth and nail.
    The faster the change, the harder to react to it.

  16. Load 15 more comments. | Load the rest (48).