Tom Toles by Tom Toles

Tom Toles

Comments (42) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Robert Landers

    Robert Landers said, almost 4 years ago

    While it is true that leaving a high debt for future generations is certainly troubling, leaving a world where you can not breath the air, drink the water, of even live in the limited amount of land left by rapidly rising oceans, is going to be a disaster for future generations of such magnitude that I am certain they will hate us much more for doing that than leaving a high debt!!!

  2. Stipple

    Stipple said, almost 4 years ago

    You are being silly, read what you just posted.
    Now, think about it some.
    Yes, everyone will be dead and hate no one.

  3. Mark

    Mark said, almost 4 years ago


    I think I just pulled a rib muscle…

  4. Lynne B

    Lynne B GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    The problem is that the groups and individuals paid to muddy the public understanding of the climate problem (like Marc Morano and Steven J. Milloy) have succeeded, succeeded wildly in fact – and it has been relatively easy for them, because unlike even “cancer from smoking”, climate is an extremely complex thing, there is a lot of variability in the system anyway, and the results of all that we do may not even be seen in our lifetimes (depending on how old you are). So it is very easy for them to claim that “everything that is happening is natural” or “humans can’t affect this system” – even though that is really not what the working science has concluded.

    Additionally, because a large problem tends to demand large action in response, they can play into the modern paranoia about “government” and conspiracies, to convince people that the science is all an excuse to add taxes and run people’s lives (somehow ignoring the fact that the scientists involved all have to live under the same governments and pay the same taxes, for a start).

    But with the public confused about what climate change is and means and how it works, then the powers on the top of the heap in the current status quo, who obviously are the ones who profit from the status quo, can keep people from agitating against the status quo. And THIS is even easier because the status quo is for the most part a comfortable consumer lifestyle that no-one WANTS to change.

    It is only at the point that people realize that the status quo carries its own costs and impacts on quality of life – like insane food costs and rising insurance costs and increasing economic disruption from storm damage, for example – that people might be able to relate the problem to something they genuinely need to take action on.

    Unfortunately, at that point it’s a little like a smoker quitting after the emphysema has developed.

  5. narrowminded

    narrowminded said, almost 4 years ago

    I’m re-reading Jules Verne’ “Mysterious Island”. The “theory” that day was that the earth, as all planets, will continually cool as the sun diminishes in strength and the internal heat at the core cools. Once the core reaches a certain temp. The energy of the sun won’t be enough to support life. The earth is doomed to this fate.
    Global warming, now climate change(really, what does that mean) is pure political crises mongering by the left that frightens people so as to gain power over them.
    The tyranny of fear.

  6. richardelguru

    richardelguru GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    narrowminded (shallow too by the looks of it). Guess what, scientific understanding develops over time. Basing your argument on hundred-plus-year-old theories, especially if you are getting them from hundred-plus-year-old science FICTION is just plain daft.

  7. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, almost 4 years ago


    Do you realize how idiotic your “argument” makes you look? You are trying to claim the work of thousands of research scientists working in a host of fields with the most advanced sensory and analytical technology in the world, research going over decades, is somehow less relevant than a work of fiction based on theories with a hundred and fifty years less data? Why? So you can claim a liberal conspiracy?
    Man, use Occam’s Razor!

  8. magicwalnut

    magicwalnut GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    @Lynne B

    I used to have a neighbour…a military man, if I remember correctly, who said, “I don’t care. I won’t be here.” Which appears to be the prevailing sentiment.

  9. Robert Landers

    Robert Landers said, almost 4 years ago


    Oh, then I must be wrong, as that would be so much better!

    All of the human race does not have to die to have our civilization disappear and everybody that is left live in abject misery!!

  10. lonecat

    lonecat said, almost 4 years ago


    He also wrote a book in which the center of the earth is hollow.

  11. Robert Landers

    Robert Landers said, almost 4 years ago

    @Robert Landers

    However, you are nowhere near the level of stupidity of Ima. It is entirely possible to be able to stop our selfishness without cutting out market forces or capitalism. Recycling, conservation, improving both electricity generation and public transportation are just a few of the methodologies that ordinary capitalism is fully capable of using to stop the exponential rate of Global Climate Change.

    The only thing that would be bad is to do nothing, as some of the ultra conservatives here have advocated. Rapid Global Climate Change is a real problem, and will only get worse until humanity does something about it.
    People that deny science such as Ima are living in a fantasy land of their own choosing. And it IS their descendents that will pay the price!!!

  12. markjoseph125

    markjoseph125 GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    Well, this and your other comments are full of the usual idiocy, ignorance, and right-wing paranoia. However, I must admit that I do enjoy you using the word “religion” in a negative sense. Like the fundagelicals who insist that christianity is not a religion, with the clear connotation that religion is a bad thing.

    Taking for purposes of discussion that religion is faith-based and science is evidence-based, even your premise is wrong, however. Check the following: (which shows that of the 13,950 peer-reviewed articles on climate science in the last 20 years, only 24 reject global warming. Hmm, that does not sound like a religion to me). (How scientific illiteracy endangers democracy). (Why politicians must not elevate opinion over science).

    I think you need a bit of help with scientific thinking, evidence, etc. The best book I know on the subject is Carl Sagan’s “The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark”.

  13. hawkeyec

    hawkeyec GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    One of your best of the year.

  14. Lynne B

    Lynne B GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago


    Just address one point that seems to confuse you:

    The terms “global warming” and “climate change” have both been in use in literature and discussion since the late 70s/early 80s, at least. They specifically refer to two different aspects of the phenomenon.

    1. “Global warming” refers to the fact that the total heat content of the atmosphere, averaged globally, is rising.

    2. “Climate change” refers to the result of global warming, given that the atmosphere does not warm evenly, and temperature increases in some places and increasing temperature differences between regions drives weather, and anomalous weather means that over the long term, climate is changing.

    I hope that helps clear up the confusion some. As I said, both terms have been in use in the discussion for decades; I’m sure the fact that they have often been used almost interchangeably has not helped you, but it is not true at all to claim that one is now being used because the other has been somehow discredited. That ain’t the reality at all.

  15. lonecat

    lonecat said, almost 4 years ago

    This is a good cartoon. Whatever the economic solution may be, it has to take ecological concerns into account. The economy in a hundred years — or fifty years — is going to be completely different, because it will be driven by ecological problems.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (27).