Tony Auth by Tony Auth

Tony Auth

Comments (13) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. mextea

    mextea said, over 2 years 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, over 2 years ago

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

  3. Kaffekup

    Kaffekup said, over 2 years ago

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

  4. lonecat

    lonecat said, over 2 years 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.

  5. NormN354

    NormN354 GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years 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.

  6. Doughfoot

    Doughfoot said, over 2 years 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.

  7. Doughfoot

    Doughfoot said, over 2 years ago

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

  8. Zuhlamon

    Zuhlamon GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    Here’s a link to a study definitively linking climate change to human activity.
    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).

  9. echoraven

    echoraven said, over 2 years ago


    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.

  10. SABRSteve

    SABRSteve said, over 2 years ago

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

  11. Cynthia

    Cynthia GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago


    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…

  12. William Bednar

    William Bednar GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years 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”?

  13. stringmaster

    stringmaster said, over 2 years ago


    are you a professional idiot, or just an amateur?

  14. Refresh Comments.