Comments (31) Jump to Comments Form

1. 

   believecommonsense said, 7 months ago

   that little “boy” sure looks like an old man

2. 

   Dale Hopson said, 7 months ago

   “Al Gore’s Global Warming”?
   It that like “Alexander’s Ragtime Band”?

3. 

   tracht47 said, 7 months ago

   This is quite a bit of a stretch.

4. 

   Dale Hopson said, 7 months ago

   Some area have robins all year long… and the Latin name for them is turdus.

5. 

   dtroutma said, 7 months ago

   They’re having massive fires in Texas. We had tornadoes around Christmas. Wet is dry, cold is warm, wildlife are running out of habitat, and plants are even confused. How is climate change Gore’s fault? Right, shoot the messenger, even when he’s right. Raymond Dasmann was talking about this (climate change- but weren’t sure of the direction at the time) in the mid-1950’s.

6. 

   churchillwasright said, 7 months ago

   That was before Global Cooling, right? I’d say it’s a good thing that we didn’t listen to the “visionaries” of the time and melt the ice caps!

   Newsflash: fires and tornadoes are not new phenomenon.

7. 

   dtroutma said, 7 months ago

   church- the time of year IS a new phenomenon. This is exactly what the newer models have been predicting. I’ve worked with these folks for a while-paleobotanists, geologists, biologists, foresters etc.

8. 

   Dale Hopson said, 7 months ago

   D’uh, that is why it is called climate CHANGE!

9. 

   Anthony 2816 said, 7 months ago

   So Stayskal devoted dozens of strips claiming that winter proves global warming doesn’t exist (studiously ignoring the warm winter that California had).

   So now he’s telling us that summer proves that global warming does exist, right?

10. 

    HOWGOZIT said, 7 months ago

    No 28–just “Gore’s” global warming–not what really is happening.

11. 

    wbr said, 7 months ago

    in late 60 and 70 the talk was coming ice age

12. 

    Tigger said, 7 months ago

    Boooooo

13. 

    Anthony 2816 said, 7 months ago

    I’ve never seen Stayskal’s cartoons make a distinction between natural global warming and natural-plus-man-exacerbated global warming.

    He’s one of the tiny minority that says there’s no global warming at all.

14. 

    Corosive Frog said, 7 months ago

    One-trick pony. Not good enough to be put to stud.

15. 

    fennec said, 7 months ago

    CF, well put!

16. 

    etocme said, 7 months ago

    I find it funny that Climate change went from a theory to fact almost overnight…when something happens that quick there is usually large sums of money (and sometimes control) involved. I can come up with as many scientist that refute the so called “climate change”.

17. 

    Anthony 2816 said, 7 months ago

    “Theory to fact almost overnight” = strawman.

    “Large sums of money” - follow the trail of who’s funding the anti-global-warming crowd, and then ask yourself, “Why?”.

    “refute the so called “climate change” - The debate is no longer over whether it’s occurring. The debate is whether we can affect it by reining in pollution.

    You didn’t mention: Why are you so much in favor of pollution?

18. 

    etocme said, 7 months ago

    Anthony, your so called global warming is a cyclical event….and when you libs tried to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes with global cooling and ice ages in the seventies, they didn’t buy it. And you got lucky selling this warming thing…which is proven to be a weather related trend.

19. 

    Anthony 2816 said, 7 months ago

    You make no sense. In one post you say there’s no global warming. Now you say there is, but that it’s “cyclical”.

    What possible benefit would it be for “libs” to claim an ice age, and then a few years later claim global warming? Have you ever tried to give it any thought at all?

    It’s obvious the oil companies want to keep their product flowing, so that’s why they’re the ones funding all the anti-global-warming research, a question you skipped.

    Speaking of skipped questions, why are you so much in favor of pollution? How does that benefit you?

20. 

    cdward said, 7 months ago

    There’s no doubt that there’s climate change, likewise that the science of climatology is vastly more complicated than anyone here can grasp. However, regardless of how much the current round of climate change is caused by natural forces, it is absurd to think that human activity has no or negligible effect. That’s like saying we can do what we want with no consequences. The question is, what do we do to mitigate those consequences so that the smallest number of people is negatively affected.
    I suspect the reason many on the right scoff at climate change is because they have much to lose if it’s taken seriously. It will cost them money in the short term to become cleaner. Industries don’t like that kind of change – especially since studies indicate that those who will be most adversely affected by climate change are those in poor agricultural societies. Be leery of scientific studies financed by industries. Just like those funded by the auto industry that showed airbags didn’t save lives. Or those by tobacco industry scientists showing that smoking was healthy.

    Oh, regarding cooling and natural climate change: “The combined effect of natural climate forcing, solar variation and changes in volcanic activity, probably had a warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 but a cooling effect since.” [Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.]

21. 

    charliekane said, 7 months ago

    Wayne, here’s a couple of quarters. I want you to call your mother, and ask her to give you a new idea to do cartoons about.

22. 

    danielsangeo said, 7 months ago

    “Scientists were predicting an ice age back in the 70s!”

    No.

    No they weren’t.

23. 

    fennec said, 7 months ago

    Daniels is quite right. The article from Science that most of these deniers cite states that there appears to be a 7000 year cycle of warming and cooling, and that we should be starting the cooling phase. However, they specifically state that projection of this into the future ignores the effects of man-made climate modification. Also, please note the time scale, 1000’s of years, not the decades to 100 years we’re looking at now for the predicted change. In fact, the man=made effects may just be a blip on the earth record, but what comfort is that if we have destroyed our civilization and maybe even our species?

24. 

    Freezing said, 7 months ago

    danielsangeo says:

    “Scientists were predicting an ice age back in the 70s!”

    No.

    No they weren’t.

    Yes.

    Yes they were.

25. 

    danielsangeo said, 7 months ago

    Freezing: Who was claiming “ice age”? Where did they claim it? Can you provide any citations for that assertion?

    Oh, and for anyone that might be wondering how I came about my onscreen name. It is actually in reference to an old e-mail address I had. When I first started out online (nigh on back in ‘94!), I needed an onscreen name. On TV at the time was Karate Kid. So, my onscreen name became “DanielSan”. Later, I got a Geocities webpage and my e-mail address was danielsan(at)geocities(dot)com. When they were bought by Yahoo, I had lost my password so I created a new Yahoo e-mail address at danielsangeo(at)yahoo(dot)com. So, my GoComics name is danielsangeo.

    Just in case y’all were wondering. :-)

26. 

    Freezing said, 7 months ago

    OK DanielSan,

    Where were you back then? I assume you weren’t around, otherwise you wouldn’t have asked the question. For those of us who were around and paying attention, we can’t get the drum beat out of our heads. It was that pervasive AND not to be questioned.

27. 

    danielsangeo said, 7 months ago

    If it were as pervasive as you say, you should have NO trouble providing citations.

28. 

    fennec said, 7 months ago

    Here is the link to the Wikipedia entry:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
    It supports Danials statements, not Freezing’s, and contains a large number of archival references. I also was alive and in scientific research at the time, and I do not remember any such consensus as Freezing describes.

29. 

    churchillwasright said, 7 months ago

    Here’s Newsweeks article from ‘75

    http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

30. 

    fennec said, 7 months ago

    churchill, read the Wikipedia entry. It specifically says that the lay media misinterpreted the archival scientific articles and the scientific consensus. Newsweek is not an archival scientific journal.

31. 

    Freezing said, 7 months ago

    Hmmm. And Wikipedia is a scientific journal? Right, who would believe anything a rag like Newsweek would report. Unless, of course, the report conformed with your ideology. Fennec, you couldn’t be more correct. There wasn’t consensus back then, just media hype. Then as now.