Tom Toles by Tom Toles

Tom Toles

Comments (57) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. PianoGuy24

    PianoGuy24 GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    So, is it cooling down like we were told in the 70’s or warming up like Al (Chicken Little) Gore says. Or, is the Earth just doing what it always does in it’s regular cycles with it’s relationship with the Sun?

  2. Michael wme

    Michael wme said, over 1 year ago


    You’re absolutely right.

    Back in the ‘50s, PhD students in meteorology would pick one day of the year, climb up to the bottom of a glacier and drive a stake. When they came back on the same day of the year three years later, they noted if the glacier was above or below (about 50/50 back then) and extrapolated for their dissertation: If the ice was a foot lower, in 5,280 years it would be a mile lower, with ice covering much of the US; if it were a foot higher, in 5,280 years the glacier would be completely gone, and the US would be tropical.

    Now, of course, all those glaciers terminate much higher up the mountain than their highest termination in the ’50s. And one can no longer get a PhD in meteorology with a dissertation that supports global cooling, as some did in the ’50s. But that will certainly change.

    Some of us can remember, back in 1600, when lots of explorers easily found the Northwest passage, but, getting on in years (they’re now in their four hundreds) they always forgot where it was, and weren’t able to find it again until this millennium. But we’re sure PianoGuy24’s right, the Northwest passage just keeps opening and closing every few years. No evidence at all of any serious warming, other than the normal cycle.

    And New Jersey hasn’t gotten cold enough to kill the pine beetles since 1996, when those beetles were usually killed off every few years. Again, just normal weather. Seventeen is just a few years, and we’re sure they’ll all get killed off in a year or two, as usual.

    (And the New York Times says that an economist says that the economy is so resilient that climate change won’t have any serious economic effect, so nothing to worry about, even if the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps slip off into the ocean.)

  3. Doughfoot

    Doughfoot said, over 1 year ago

    Science deals mostly in probabilities, not certainties. But a wise man plays the odds. What astonishes me about “deniers” is their willingness to stake the future of the planet on a long shot, and act on blind faith to do it.

    They are so certain that they can infallibly predict the future that are willing to literally risk the future of the planet rather than admit the possibility that might be wrong and take precautions accordingly: precautions not based on the assumption that AGW IS a problem, but based on the acknowledgement that it MIGHT be a problem.

    What other threat would they simply ignore? I lock my door at night (and perhaps take other precautions) not because I expect someone to try invade my home, but because I know it is possible, though I have never been the victim of crime. I haven’t had an auto accident in years, but I wear a seat belt. The TSA has not, as far as I know, stopped a single terrorist plot against an airplane: should we drop all those airport security checks?

    Just because you don’t want to be a Chicken Little does not mean you have to be a Pollyanna. One is as bad as the other, and a person with a little wisdom, a little skepticism, will neither panic over a threat nor ignore it.

    Not to mention the simple fact that most all the things the “Chicken Littles” want us to do, increase efficiency and move from finite and dirty to infinite and cleaner sources of energy, are all things that will be good for the economy and the planet in the long run, even if AGW is a mistake.

  4. Doughfoot

    Doughfoot said, over 1 year ago

    Oh, I know, here’s a metaphor some folks will like.

    Climate change deniers are the Neville Chamberlains of our age. The Churchills are pointing to the ever growing aggression of Nazi Germany, and urging us to spend lots of money arming ourselves and preparing for war, but he is called Chicken Little, an alarmist and a warmonger. The evidence that Hitler’s ambitions will not be confined to occupying the Rhineland, Austria, the Sudetenland, are growing all the time, but Chamberlain say we will have peace in our time! The fact that some countries have already suffered can be ignored if they are not OUR country. Rather than inconvenience themselves with higher taxes and military conscription, the Chamberlains simply deny the threat is real, or insist that the present lull will be permanent, or that it will all balance out in the end, and Germany will go no further. … If course, that Germany would invade Czechoslovakia and then Poland was a lot less inevitable or predictable than GW is, and I am being rather unfair to Neville Chamberlain, who was less blindly optimistic than the GW deniers are being.

  5. JmcaRice

    JmcaRice GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    We could start by shutting down all of the coal plants; now that Robert Byrd is dead.

  6. lisapaloma13

    lisapaloma13 said, over 1 year ago



  7. lisapaloma13

    lisapaloma13 said, over 1 year ago


    Well said. Not to mention the $$$ that could be made by those who put profits over the future by investing in efficiency instead of being dinosaurs and insisting in continuing the same lifestyle. Let-s be mammals instead.

  8. Kip W

    Kip W said, over 1 year ago

    Twist, writhe, quibble, deny. Somebody makes a pertinent analogy, so attack some element of the analogy! HA! Did it! Now we can continue to avoid commonsense measures (somewhat akin to not drinking from the cesspool) that we should be taking anyway, as grownups living on a planet.

    And why is it so important? Because it might cut into our third quarter profits! Once again, we see that GOP stands for




  9. Enoki

    Enoki said, over 1 year ago

    Or, in my case you need to change it to “It’s not man made CO2…” and the last panel would read “I told you so!”
    Anthroprogenic CO2 is not the cause of climate change.

  10. lonecat

    lonecat said, over 1 year ago

    I’m not a scientist, and I’m open to argument on both sides. I have found so far that those who argue for climate change are more persuasive. But that could change. Here’s an interesting article — written so that a non-scientist can understand it, but with good solid references to the scientific literature. Can I see something comparable from the other side?

  11. Robert Landers

    Robert Landers said, over 1 year ago

    So, according to all of the Rapid Global Climate Change deniers on this site, hooray for pollution!! It is a good thing for profits!! We should have more of it!! And while we are at it let us use up all of the hydrocarbons that we can use for such civilization making items as chemical plastics. I am certain that future generations will be very reverential towards this generation for such greed as we exhibit now, so that they can not breath the air, drink the water, or even live on the heavily polluted land. Hooray for our side, let our greed end human existence, with the kinds of comments being made by the deniers here, humanity is the biggest pollution of all. So let us see that it ends!!!

  12. ahab

    ahab GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    Heck! The marines and the D.O.D., and our military are preparing for the AGW effects. Misinformation from the usual sources is expected, as greed drives their engines.

  13. ahab

    ahab GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    Fight the misinformation trolls!

  14. Robert H. Boyer

    Robert H. Boyer GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    Toles is usually ridiculous in this he is oblivious to the fact that the planet has warmed less than one degree in fifteen years. The earth warms and cools to the same mechanism that affect the residence of this earth, i.e. there are natural cycles government by our furnace 93 millions away in conjunction with the magnet fields of the earth far above man’s feeble powers to affect one way or another.

  15. lonecat

    lonecat said, over 1 year ago

    @Robert H. Boyer

    One degree in fifteen years is huge. Over a century, would that be over 7 degrees? Do you have any idea what the effect of a 7 degree difference in average temperature would be?

  16. Load 15 more comments. | Load the rest (42).