Ted Rall by Ted Rall

Ted Rall

Comments (47) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, about 1 year ago

    Nailed it!

  2. Enoki

    Enoki said, about 1 year ago

    Gorebal Warming is also “settled” science according to Gorebots. Buy his book! Watch his movie! Believe! Tom Cruise does….
    .
    Oh, sorry that’s Scientology…

  3. ODon

    ODon said, about 1 year ago

    Hating Gore is given more weight than scientific research.
    Go figure…better yet go read.

  4. jrmerm

    jrmerm said, about 1 year ago

    If science was continually wrong about predicting phenomena such as planetary movements and lunar/solar eclipses we might say that the heliocentric model needs a little rethinking. But it’s not and it doesn’t. If the man caused global warming concept allowed someone to build reasonably accurate, VALIDATED climate models, we would have to admit its validity. But it doesn’t and we won’t. As for Al Gore, his movie contained at least half a dozen major problematic statements.

  5. Craig Linder

    Craig Linder said, about 1 year ago

    Here’s a place where Rall’s natural tendency toward gross overstatement is well served. The anti-science crowd is often so unhinged in their criticisms that it’s hard to parody them without going to extremes.

  6. Rx71Wm29

    Rx71Wm29 GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    Maybe “idiocentric” would be more accurate!

  7. jrmerm

    jrmerm said, about 1 year ago

    The controversy over man caused global warming is in several respects very reminiscent of the AIDS/HIV argument of the late 1980s. There was a big split at that time between the alarmists who claimed HIV was rapidly spreading into the general population and those skeptics who insisted that it never would spread significantly beyond the initial high risk groups. Some similarities: (1) alarmists say something is, or could be, happening but refuse to release the data and methodology that lead them to this conclusion, (2) alarmists say that something radical must be done now, now, now, there is no time for rational discussion or people will die in large numbers, (3) many of the alarmist supporters, especially the media, accept outrageous claims with no thought or hesitation, (4) skeptics are accused of being heartless monsters who want to kill. What is a new wrinkle is that this time there is an open, blatant effort to silence and destroy the skeptics.

  8. Habenero Hound

    Habenero Hound said, about 1 year ago

    @jrmerm

    You forgot to point out the fact that we’re still waiting for the AIDS/HIV epidemic to hit heterosexuals. Just like a 100 years from now we’’ll STILL be waiting for the sky to fall due to climate change.

  9. Craig Linder

    Craig Linder said, about 1 year ago

    @Habenero Hound

    It has hit heterosexuals, just not very prominently in the United States. In many other parts of the world, the heterosexual population has been heavily infected.

    http://bmb.oxfordjournals.org/content/58/1/7.full

    It’s not all that low even in the U.S.

    http://www.hvtn.org/community/straight.html

    It’s foolish to take an anti-science stance when you don’t even have the fact straight.

  10. jrmerm

    jrmerm said, about 1 year ago

    @Craig Linder

    Yes, you are absolutely right. The hysteria and controversy was over the threat to the US. Right from the start there really wasn’t much interest other than purely scientific in the Haitian and African experiences. But a significant majority of the heterosexually contracted HIV infections in the US are due to contact with a high risk individual. Look at the CDC report.

  11. Habenero Hound

    Habenero Hound said, about 1 year ago

    @Craig Linder

    Wait a minute – I’m pro science. That’s why I don’t buy into the global warming hype. Or the HIV hype. And BTW, I stand by my comment. Remove bisexuals and intravenous drug users from your list of infected heterosexuals and you won’t be left with much of an epidemic.

  12. jrmerm

    jrmerm said, about 1 year ago

    @ReasonsVentriloquist

    This is a false argument. The transmission rate in the US from females to males is way too low to develop a significant level of infection between low risk heterosexuals. Look at the CDC Surveillance Report Tables 1a and 2a.

  13. omQ R

    omQ R said, about 1 year ago

    @Habenero Hound

    said: “Remove bisexuals and intravenous drug users from your list of infected heterosexuals and you won’t be left with much of an epidemic.”


    …have you looked at HIV+ prevalence in other countries? It tends be hitting the heterosexuals way more. It’s still very much an epidemic in many African countries, for instance.


    Try not being so parochial.

  14. Craig Linder

    Craig Linder said, about 1 year ago

    @omQ R

    I already directed him/her there, but it seems to have made little impression.

    I wonder what sort of blinders s/he has on regarding the evidence for climate change? S/he claims to be on the side of science but denies climate change even though the scientific community that studies it is not only becoming more and more certain about the anthropogenic causes but also keeps revising their predictions upward rather than down.

  15. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, about 1 year ago

    @Enoki

    Al Gore isn’t a scientist, but the people he speaks about are and showing their findings, not his. So using him as some strawman scarecrow is pathetic. Shows you don’t have any science behind you. Just the money grubbing Oil companies.

  16. Load 15 more comments. | Load the rest (32).