Jen Sorensen for October 28, 2014

  1. Albert einstein brain i6
    braindead Premium Member over 9 years ago

    Your basic Republican/Fox “news” viewer.

     •  Reply
  2. U joes mint logo rs 192x204
    Uncle Joe Premium Member over 9 years ago

    LOL, some of our regular posters don’t seem to see themselves being made fun of.

     •  Reply
  3. Missing large
    ajnotales  over 9 years ago

    I wonder if “Quinn” is paid to take these dumps all over the GoComics pages? I call them “Koch Kraps…”

     •  Reply
  4. John adams1
    Motivemagus  over 9 years ago

    Sigh. We have THOUSANDS of scientists, all finding data in a host of different fields — atmospheric physics, ocean studies, biology, geology, etc., etc. — that ALL point in the exact same direction. If this were Vegas, the casino would have thrown you out long ago.The agreement of conclusions (not opinions, DATA) is now 99.989% among authors of published, peer-reviewed scientific papers: the Earth is warming in ways not predicted by normal climate cycles, and humans are the primary cause of that warming.http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/08/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-only-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warmingAnd in this study, it is truly a case of the exception which proves the rule (in the proper sense of “proving” as “testing” the rule): the one, single scientist who explicitly rejected anthropogenic global warming was a Russian scientist publishing on behalf of their oil & gas industry. What disturbs me almost more than the fact of AGW itself is how thoroughly people are rejecting science as a way of understanding the world. Some just say “I don’t believe it.” Science does not require your belief! Others claim that scientists have some kind of belief system or faith. This is provably not the case. What makes scientists happier than anything else is DISPROVING something that “everyone knows” or believes — including previous scientific findings!For those of you who say things like “I’m not a scientist, but…” — put a period after the word “but.” And ideally, before the sentence. Go READ before issuing a statement you KNOW to be in conflict with science.And this rejection seems to be in BOTH political parties — righties don’t want to believe in AGW, lefties don’t want to believe in vaccines. What the heck is going ON here?

     •  Reply
  5. Picture 1
    Theodore E. Lind Premium Member over 9 years ago

    FOX World is truly a wonder to behold. Logic and truth are in full suspension and you can imagine the world to be anything you want it to be. Almost like a fairy tale.

     •  Reply
  6. Penguin hero
    grainpaw  over 9 years ago

    Climate Change is a vast, complicated subject covering many disciplines which no one person could understand the whole of. It’s no wonder that those who had trouble with eighth grade science class find that it hurts to think so hard. So they take the easy way out.Here you will find 176 denier arguments explained in one sentence. Each of those sentences is a link to a page with a fuller explanation, graphs and charts, and a comment section where scientists have at it over interpretation of data, fine points, etc.http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

     •  Reply
  7. John adams1
    Motivemagus  over 9 years ago

    No, you have completely misunderstood what I said. 1. Global warming is NOT a religion, because it does not REQUIRE belief. YOUR belief is religion — not AGW.2. I have no idea what you are talking about with Obama. I am looking at the 9000 scientists in the study I posted which you should really look at before making strange, random assertions.3. I would be careful what references I use, if I were you. Your first had several errors, a misattribution of intent, referred to the nonexistent (because it was DECISIVELY disproven THREE TIMES) “Climategate” and had a clear dog whistle for anti-Semites.As for your second, sorry, John Coleman has a degree in Journalism, not meteorology (despite what he claims) and does no research AT ALL in the field of meteorology — let alone CLIMATOLOGY, which is the real science in question here. Let me know when you are able to admit powerlessness before the facts.

     •  Reply
  8. 300px little nemo 1906 02 11 last panel
    lonecat  over 9 years ago

    I would be interested to hear what the technologically savvy here have to say about the new developments in fusion:

    http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/energy/stories/how-a-viable-nuclear-fusion-reactor-really-could-change-the-world

     •  Reply
  9. Penguin hero
    grainpaw  over 9 years ago

    Harley has nothing to contribute but right wing distortions, lies and hot air. The actual info has come from the left.

     •  Reply
  10. 300px little nemo 1906 02 11 last panel
    lonecat  over 9 years ago

    Thanks, Baslim, that’s helpful. If — and this is a big if — this turns out to be the real thing, it could make a big difference.

     •  Reply
  11. John adams1
    Motivemagus  over 9 years ago

    You haven’t debunked anything. You’ve merely restated the same insults over and over again. You don’t seem to HAVE a point other than that you don’t “believe” in something that doesn’t require your belief and is a fact.Keep commanding those waves, Canute.

     •  Reply
  12. 300px little nemo 1906 02 11 last panel
    lonecat  over 9 years ago

    Exactly. I remember my Dad telling me in the mid 1950s, “The science is understood, it’s just an engineering problem”, as if that meant fusion was just around the corner. Well, he wasn’t an engineer, and I think he didn’t have a sufficient respect for the intractability of the practical. So I’ve been waiting since the mid 1950s, and I’m not going to celebrate victory until it’s a little more clear. But wouldn’t it be nice!!!!

     •  Reply
  13. Missing large
    manteo16nc  over 9 years ago

    A circular cartoon. You agree with it if you are the same type as Jen Sorensen; if not, you don’t. Not going to convince anyone. Feel good liberalism.

     •  Reply
  14. Img 20230721 103439220 hdr
    kaffekup   over 9 years ago

    Not in the slightest circular. All she’s saying is that some of you will believe anything other than the truth.And we see it every day.

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment

More From Jen Sorensen