Tom Toles by Tom Toles

Tom Toles

Comments (26) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. PianoGuy24

    PianoGuy24 GoComics PRO Member said, almost 3 years 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. Doughfoot

    Doughfoot said, almost 3 years 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.

  3. Doughfoot

    Doughfoot said, almost 3 years 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.

  4. JmcaRice

    JmcaRice GoComics PRO Member said, almost 3 years ago

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

  5. lisapaloma13

    lisapaloma13 said, almost 3 years ago



  6. lisapaloma13

    lisapaloma13 said, almost 3 years 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.

  7. Kip W

    Kip W said, almost 3 years 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




  8. Enoki

    Enoki said, almost 3 years 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.

  9. lonecat

    lonecat said, almost 3 years 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?

  10. Robert Landers

    Robert Landers said, almost 3 years 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!!!

  11. Robert H. Boyer

    Robert H. Boyer GoComics PRO Member said, almost 3 years 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.

  12. lonecat

    lonecat said, almost 3 years 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?

  13. emptc12

    emptc12 said, almost 3 years ago

    Magazines such as “National Geographic” and “Scientific American” have treated climate change as verifiable fact for years. Go to their websites to read numerous such articles. Other reputable publications agree. Programs on public television discuss it all the time, and present it as true. And for various reasons, they increasingly consider the change as man-made.
    Their findings are based on measurements taken for decades by thousands of dedicated observers. Why are scientists presently so disrespected? How did they become Cassandras? The misuses of scientific findings are the fault of Industry and Government. Real scientists are trying to alert us to dangers caused by those institutions.
    Satellite imagery with amazing capabilities additionally supports the existence of present climate change and its relatively recent acceleration. Super computers of enormous power generate simulations of global interactions in the air and water. They show that the Earth’s layers of atmosphere and depths of ocean are more complex than ever imagined. They show the fragility of the air envelope and how a few degrees and tons of pollutants can defile it.
    I suspect energy industries count on widespread scientific illiteracy and innumeracy to delay action to slow climate change; or even to protect ourselves against it lest they weaken their past arguments. They have politicized the issue. They have enlisted the unwitting aid of those citizens with otherwise reasonable suspicion of government activities. Added to the efforts of those who intentionally obscure the known facts, it is a disgrace.
    Month after month I read the postings of “deniers” on these sites. I hate to bother writing in response to such foolish comments. But they are increasing in number. As the comments seem to have developed into silly puns and clever sarcasms, and attacks against Al Gore – nothing but smirking displays of ignorance, as far as I’m concerned — I can’t help but write something. These are serious issues, and prompt actions are needed. I would put my real name up for future generations to see that I tried to improve things for them. Would you deniers? I mean, really?
    Deniers seem to rely on personal “observations” and pseudo-science. They are witting or unwitting agents of the effort to maintain business as usual at any human cost. What scientific periodicals do they read? What math or statistical analysis do they understand? Do they get skewed information off the Internet, or conservative radio, or television commercials? Much of that is cynical dis-interpretation if not outright bogus.
    Or do they take bits and pieces of limited understanding of science to construct fantasies to support their preconceptions? That’s the most harmful, I think. Anecdotal evidence is often the most persuasive and the least valid.
    Democracy and our republic system are wonderful things, but our democratic process should not let a majority of ignorant citizens impose bad actions on us just because they are in the majority. And we can’t seem to rely anymore on politicians as objective, informed representatives to do what is right but unpopular. Many are so corrupt they would allow anything to happen just to stay in office. Cannibalism, even, as Mencken once suggested.
    So put aside your smug prejudices, deniers, and do some serious reading. Unless you are complete fools your opinions will be at least modified. Your descendants will then be less likely to despise you.
    I seldom let my anger show, but this time I can’t help it.

  14. nordwonder

    nordwonder said, almost 3 years ago

    Hah! The quality of the protests against the reality of climate change is a testament to the depth of their analysis. Stubborn ignorance will offer little comfort in the face of reality. Sadly, the rest of us could suffer as a consequence.

  15. Robert Landers

    Robert Landers said, almost 3 years ago

    Simply put, a super nova as close as 4 light years would kill every living thing on the planet Earth. The Earth itself would continue to exist, but as a burned out cinder. What a wonderful future that would be!!

  16. Load the rest of the comments (11).