Tony Auth by Tony Auth

Tony Auth

Comments (16) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. mextea

    mextea said, 8 months ago

    scientists who claim “consensus” to prove climate change are NOT scientists…scientists do NOT need consensus…they require facts and proofs.

  2. narrowminded

    narrowminded said, 8 months ago

    Freeman Dyson. A true scientist. Google him. "nuff said.

  3. Michael wme

    Michael wme said, 8 months ago

    There is absolutely no climate change. Every single day, since we have had accurate temperature readings, there have been some new highs and some new lows, and that hasn’t changed.


    Some people count the number of new highs and new lows, but those people are all atheists, since St Augustine makes it clear that everyone who counts is a Satan worshipper.


    And it gets colder every winter. That also proves there is no climate change. In order to see climate change, one must take the average global temperature, adding up the temperature reading from every single official thermometer and dividing by the total number of official thermometers, and then comparing year on year, while adding and dividing and comparing numbers are only done by G_dless atheists. Without averaging, all we have is that winters are cold, so there is absolutely no global warming.


    Yet another clear and obvious proof that those trying to use ‘climate change’ to scare decent citizens out of their money is that several ships were trapped in the Antarctic ice last year. The total area covered by ice in the Antarctic region has been increasing, and the only way to calculate the volume of a solid is by measuring the area of its topmost surface. So there is absolutely no climate change.


    And, while shipping companies only found the famed Northwest Passage in this millennium, in the late 15th, century, and in the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, many explorers came to the European courts, announced they had found a year-round passage of open water, got lots of money to accurately map how ships could find and cross that year-round ice-free Northwest Passage, and then vanished without a trace. Only a cynic would say the explorers were all lying. There has ALWAYS been a year-round ice-free Northwest passage, but it wasn’t until we had GPS, Google Maps (which, co-incidentally coincided with vast amounts of CO2) that anyone managed to find that Northwest Passage so it stayed found (and then only in late summer). So again, irrefutable proof that there is no such thing as Global Warming!


    Finally, there is Ms Shelley’s scientific research paper that shows that, once one goes north of the frigid zone, the polar region was tropical in the early 19th century, so, again, there is no climate change unless it’s getting colder.

  4. Kaffekup

    Kaffekup said, 8 months ago

    Ah, the RWNJs, fighting every day to leave a dirty, depleted world for their children.

  5. Baslim the beggar says, "Vanished is not vanquished."

    Baslim the beggar says, "Vanished is not vanquished." GoComics PRO Member said, 8 months ago

    @narrowminded

    Even Einstein got things wrong. As did Newton.

    This is why, contrary to the comment above yours, science is done by consensus. The mere fact that a brilliant scientist says something is or is not true is insufficient proof of anything. Dyson admits he is not an expert on climate. I know he has looked into the question during JASON studies. It should be noted that another JASON, Richard Muller, went from being a skeptic to a firm believer in AGW after analyzing the data. (And did so with money from the Kochs, among others. )


    If you want to understand the role of consensus in science, read some of the works of John Ziman, like Reliable Knowledge and The Force of Knowledge.


    Ziman gets mentioned in this article on science and consensus, which is an exceptionally good discussion of how modern scientific debate is carried out. As opposed to the yelling and screaming of political hacks.


    Note that the author leads off with a mention of Einstein throwing a tantrum when a paper he submitted to The Physical Review (the most important Physics journal in the US), was submitted for peer review. But the peer reviewer (H. P. Robertson) was right and Einstein was wrong. Einstein later made at least some of the suggested changes. That’s how peer review works.


    I have seen no posts from the denier side who actually seem to understand this. Major fail.

  6. lonecat

    lonecat said, 8 months ago

    Another thing some don’t seem to realize is that science can be quite difficult. The general outlines of global climate change aren’t that hard to understand, but when you get into the details, there’s a lot to know. I’m working on it (right now I’m working through another book by David Archer — this one is “Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast” — I recommend it highly) but I’m nowhere near being able to make authoritative statements, and that’s why when it gets technical I defer to those of you who do know the science in some detail. And yet we often find posts from deniers that are obviously bizarre, and yet posted with great confidence.

  7. NormN354

    NormN354 GoComics PRO Member said, 8 months ago

    Why don’t you go straight to the shilling for Nuclear. The whole AGW scam is about imposing “Techno-Terror” on the world by the 1% ers. Uranium fueled reactors that need fuel processed in the United States as the only source of electricity is their goal.

  8. Doughfoot

    Doughfoot said, 8 months ago

    In the 1930s in Germany, “science” disappeared. There was only bad “Jewish science” and good “German science.” Data and findings were judged only by the membership of the scientist in one ethnic group or another. In the Soviet Union, loyalty to the party line (or lack thereof) sometimes determined whether you research finding were regarded as good or not.

    This seems to be where we are heading at times. Scientific research is judged not by the rigor of its methodology, or the logic of its conclusions; rather it is judged by the conformity of its conclusions with the judge’s political ideology, and the scientist’s ideology is presumed based on the conclusions he arrives at through his research. Conservatives presume that those who credit AGW are liberals; liberals presume that those who doubt AGW are conservatives. None of which is necessarily true.


    How about a little more healthy skepticism? If I were on the beach in a strange country, and a siren sounded, and 90% of the locals around me said it was the tsunami warning siren, and 10% of the locals said it was not, I would head for high ground even though it would cost me a day at the beach that I had long looked forward to: not because I “believed” the one group or “disbelieved” the other group, but because I would rather take the chance of looking foolish than take the chance of being dead.

    If someone says that AGW might be a mistake, and a misinterpretation of the data, I could listen to them. But when someone with an abundance of cocksure arrogance tell me there is no such thing and its all a scam, and part of some world-wide conspiracy, then I know not to take them seriously. Or to put it another way, AGW skeptics are way more to be credited than AGW deniers. The latter only show themselves up to be fools.

  9. Doughfoot

    Doughfoot said, 8 months ago

    Dealing with global climate change may not be expensive (especially compared with the alternative).

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/18/opinion/krugman-salvation-gets-cheap.html?hp&rref=opinion

  10. Zuhlamon

    Zuhlamon said, 8 months ago

    Here’s a link to a study definitively linking climate change to human activity.
    .
    http://crooksandliars.com/2014/04/bombshell-study-links-epic-california
    .
    There are plenty of … people… who are eager to deny empirical evidence, and a smorgasbord of right-wing media choices (notably FOX News) fervently stoking their myopia.
    .
    You’d have better luck getting Harley to post or acknowledge a pro-Obama viewpoint than get the concept of global warming embraced by Deniers, who are incapable of changing their minds – perhaps because they don’t have one.
    .
    (or at least anything resembling an open mind, anyway).

  11. echoraven

    echoraven said, 8 months ago

    @Zuhlamon

    FOX NEWS SQUAK FOX NEWS, try something new.
    .
    Taking care of the environment is GOOD BUSINESS. It develops new technologies, as we’ve seen with the advancement in batteries (less disposing of, less in landfills), hopefully we’ll see advances in solar technologies to reduce dependence “on the grid” which would be good not only for the environment but consumers in general and hopefully places like California would not see “rolling blackouts”.
    .
    Give me eco friendly tech. Please.

  12. SABRSteve

    SABRSteve said, 8 months ago

    The cartoon reminds me what was being said back in 1970.

  13. Cynthia

    Cynthia GoComics PRO Member said, 8 months ago

    @Doughfoot

    I’m with you on this.

    If global warming is not real, what’s the worst that can happen? Total economic collapse because the gods of money are angry? Get real, people! There was an economy before capitalism, there will be one after.

    If global warming is a thing and we don’t do nothing, though…

  14. Rx71Wm29

    Rx71Wm29 GoComics PRO Member said, 8 months ago

    “scientists who claim “consensus” to prove climate change are NOT scientists…scientists do NOT need consensus…they require facts and proofs.”
    #
    But doesn’t providing facts and proofs imply that the "scientists” have an audience (typically other scientists) which further implies seeking consensus? Otherwise, to whom are they providing the “facts and proofs”?

  15. churchillwasright

    churchillwasright said, 8 months ago

    @Rx71Wm29

    Follow the grant money.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (1).