Phil Hands by Phil Hands

Phil Hands

Comments (14) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Robert Landers

    Robert Landers said, almost 3 years ago

    The same science that is the basis for the very internet that the science deniers will use to attempt to debunk such a cartoon!!

  2. narrowminded

    narrowminded said, almost 3 years ago

    True science never excepts theory as law simply because of consensus. True science always sets out to disprove theories. It is by surviving the light of stringent scientific opposition that a theory can become law. The ‘toon should read “many scientists BELIEVE….” PROVE the theory to be law using the scientific method, not propaganda, or shut up and leave us alone. Stop alarming people with outlandish hypothesis based on political agendas, faulty data and cultural correctness. The left couldn’t care less about law, can we say Obamacare, the law is anything the left says it is and that can change at anytime.
    There is nothing scientific about this controversy.

  3. narrowminded

    narrowminded said, almost 3 years ago

    “Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels;
    it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.”

    Michael Crichton

  4. ckmphipps

    ckmphipps said, almost 3 years ago

    @Robert Landers

    It’s interesting how people like yourself and Phil Hands like to assign opinions to the opposition and then insult and ridicule them for that opinion. The truth of the matter is that most of us who haven’t stepped fully on the global warming bandwagon are skeptical not of the rise in temperature of the earth as much as the percentage of it that is a natural fluctuation and the percentage that is man-made. There is also the inherent danger in taking drastic steps to stop or reverse a global phenomenon when our knowledge of the consequences of any major change might unintentionally have on things. It is also entirely possible that the earth, itself, has built in mechanisms to regulate its own climate within certain boundaries. This polar vortex, for example, while certainly nothing new, has had the effect of shifting a significant amount of cooling air across a large section of normally warmer parts of the planet. That might be one of many natural reactions to temperatures rising overall.
    Naturally, you won’t take any of this into consideration because the science is settled and science never needs to make adjustments for new information or hypotheses.

  5. jmattadams

    jmattadams GoComics PRO Member said, almost 3 years ago

    This past Summer had much fewer days above freezing in the Arctic than normal. We had a deep freeze in Texas in early December. There was a devastating freeze in South Dakota in October. For all of those things, it’s got to be pretty darn cold in the Arctic, right? Yet, melting ice caps are the latest explanation by the climate hoaxers. Explain to me how polar ice caps can melt when the temperature is -50F! “Well you see, Matt, while surface temperatures aren’t warming, the earth’s core is…because of fracking!!! We must ban oil and gas before it’s too late for my children and polar bears.” Climate Hoaxers, making it up as they go along since the global cooling scare of the 20th Century.

  6. Enoki

    Enoki said, almost 3 years ago

    Some scientists think that the changing albedo of the planet is a major cause. Others say jet contrails contribute. Some say that the reduction in particulate pollution is partially to blame.
    Just because some dunderheaded dork read an article in some magazine and spouts some of it off doesn’t equal confirmation….

  7. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, almost 3 years ago

    A general was curious about what his auditors, accountants, and budget analysts actually provided him. He went to the accountant and asked… “What is 2+2?”
    “Approximately 2 plus approximately 2 is approximately 4 said the accountant.”
    He asked the auditor the same question.
    “Exactly 2 plus exactly 2 is exactly 4” answered the auditor.
    The General then went to the office of his Budget Analyst.
    “What is 2+2?” he asked.
    The budget analyst looked at the officer and after a moment, stood up. He went to the door and after looking up and down the hallway, closed and locked the door. Then he went to his window, looked out briefly and closed the blinds. Then he went to the chair next to the General, sat down, and in a whisper asked….
    “How much do you want it to be?”
    The science… the data, numbers, records, and computer models upon which millions if not billions of dollars have been spent in an effort to come to educated conclusions… states clearly that our climate is changing at an increasing rate. But those who feel it is too expensive to make the changes needed to slow or reverse this ever more costly pattern look at the numbers and try to tell us what they want the numbers to mean.
    The failure of the Arctic to keep the polar vortex IN the Arctic is going to cost the USA 5 Billion this week alone. NOAA says that Climate Change caused by Global Warming has changed the Arctic temps making it harder for the North Pole to keep the Vortex AT the North Pole. The satellite images show the vortex breaking up and splitting off to the south over North America and Europe.
    I always state my hope that I am just worried over nothing, but too many scientists and sources I trust continue to worry. I fear that those who deny the ever more costly effects of Climate Change are, like the Danish King who sat in his throne telling the tide to stay away from him, are going to be in over their head if they wait too long to take action.

  8. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, almost 3 years ago


    “There’s nothing scientific about this controversy.”
    True. Because Anthropogenic Global Warming is not controversial — to the scientists who actually study it and know what they are talking about. The certainty that global warming is human-caused has been raised to 95% by climate scientists. The “controversy” is merely political, not scientific.
    The sign should read that many scientists have CONCLUDED on the basis of DATA. There’s vast amounts of data. You ignoring it does not mean it doesn’t exist. To fight the deniers, most climate scientists are even putting their data up for anyone to see.
    Check out Richard Muller’s change from prominent (and qualified) skeptic to accepting AGW. Check out
    And until you do, you are not entitled to claim that this is merely propaganda. It isn’t.

  9. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, almost 3 years ago


    Crichton is hardly a notable resource here, as he deliberately misrepresented what he learned about climate from a leading expert to write a propaganda piece against it.

    Also, anyone who has read Crichton should know that he is utterly anti-science.

  10. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, almost 3 years ago


    But the thousands of scientists who have been studying all these things — including albedo — DO think AGW is occurring.

  11. Enoki

    Enoki said, almost 3 years ago

    Is… That jet contrails are NOT CO2 and therefore a different potential or real cause of Climate Change.
    Each and every other potential or real cause is ignored by the Gorebal Warming bunch in favor of just the CO2 explaination. That’s my argument.

  12. eugene57

    eugene57 said, almost 3 years ago

    Gresch said, about 7 hours ago
    “I have heard…”
    And there you have already lost all credibility.

  13. Robert Landers

    Robert Landers said, almost 3 years ago

    I have a much more general question. Just what would be wrong with changing the technology of our civilization over from burning fossil fuels? After all, the technology of burning fuel in internal combustion types of power or energy generation is a very old one (just about 150-200 years now). Newer and more sound types of such power for our civilization are becoming more and more inexpensive and efficient all the time. If this trend should continue, by the end of this century human civilization will be all electric, with that electrical power being generated by environmentally friendly means: wind, solar, geothermal, tide, and yes, nuclear (with eventually fusion, which for all practical means eliminates the problem of radiation). This would mean that almost all pollution (it is impossible to eliminate every possible bit of human pollution, as that would mean eliminating humanity itself) would be eliminated. Would that not be a far better human civilization for humanity and even all other forms of life on this pretty planet to live with? As a question for those that seem to oppose this (mainly any type of deniers). Exactly what would be wrong with that???

  14. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, almost 3 years ago

    I am repeating this, but it is important for those who think there is any meaningful doubt about the reality of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW):
    New study: 9,135 of 9,136 authors of peer-reviewed climate articles support global warming. One (1) rejected it.
    This is based on a story of 13,950 articles on “global warming” OR “global climate change.” Previously it was noted by this author that only 24 articles explicitly rejected the theory (that’s 99.828% support for AGW).
    This study went to the authors of those studies.
    ALL DATA IS AVAILABLE BEHIND THIS LINK. The author says “Anyone can repeat as much of the new study as they wish—all of it if they like.”
    That’s 99.989% of publishing scientists who agree AGW is real and happening.

  15. Refresh Comments.