Calvin and Hobbes by Bill Watterson for September 04, 2008

Sounds like he’ll be a Democratic Candidate.

Oh, yeah.

Well, at least the GOP doesn’t accept the global warning manifesto as the gospel. There are more and more people in the science field questioning “global warning”. In fact, 35 years ago there were people warning us about “global cooling”.

Actually he fits the classic Democrat pattern. His Concern For The Environment makes him a vocal activist for putting strict limitations on OTHERS.

what was the actual date of this strip?

Your comments are not quite as funny as the strip.

Well mine is!!

Calvin and Hobbes ran from Nov. 1985 - Dec. 1995. Not that long ago really.

Yeah still miss watterson though

Bitter partisan rankling on the C&H page?? For shame…

Just because the ice caps melted doesn’t mean they can’t freeze again at a later time…

wtf yall talking about

cfortunato: I like your logic.

Who was the most vocal and outspoken proponent of “carbon footprints” and “carbon credits”? Al Gore. Who owns the majority of the carbon credit companies? Al Gore. Coincidence? Ah. Haha.

Pull your head out of your arse.

Scientists do no question global warming. They accept it as fact. Real scientists anyway. if they changed form cooling to warming, informaiton changes. That’s science. It’s not static. Say bye bye to Greenland’s Ice Sheets. There’s our Global Waring proof. Or has all the melted ice gone on holiday to Jamaica, mon?

Back to the Comic: She should be haooy calvin’s becoming concerned about the environmnet. Especially so she’lls top diving him around everywhere.

Remember, kids: You’re only a “real” scientist if you never disagree with or mount logical arguments backed by hard data and verifiable mathematical models against what the liberal masses claim is “true”!

Again, I like the reasoning here. Every single scientist in the world agrees that man-made global warming is a fact because the ones that don’t aren’t actually scientists. That’s brilliant! Now, if only we could get the bleeep empirical evidence to correlate nicely. Like the fact that temperatures in Greenland were higher in the 1930s than they are now and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING catastrophic happened as a result of it. Nah, that’s too inconvenient of a truth, so we’ll pretend it doesn’t exist – isn’t that right, mrprongs?

The North Pole has become an island for the first time in human history as climate change has made it possible to circumnavigate the Arctic ice cap.

Left / Right… it ain’t about politics anymore.

hobbesknows: So what?

Seriously, so what? What’s going to happen if the north pole melts? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Nothing is hinging on whether or not the north pole remains frozen.

Yes, global temperatures have gone up somewhat (between about 0.6 and 1.0 degrees C) in the last hundred or so years. But the idea that this was caused by humans or that this is somehow catastrophic is laughably ignorant.

Fact: More CO2 in the atmosphere means a more lush, thriving ecosystem.

Fact: Water Vapor is responsible for roughly 90% of the total greenhouse effect because it reflects and absorbs many of the same wavelengths as CO2 and many more besides. (If you don’t know what I’m talking about, you don’t understand how the “greenhouse effect” works and shouldn’t be arguing in the first place.)

Fact: Temperatures and CO2 levels in the past have been MUCH HIGHER than they are now, yet nothing world-ending took place.

Fact: A warmer climate means more plants and more animals. This equates to a more livable ecosystem. The world is a BETTER place because of “global warming” and “higher” CO2 levels. And you people want to STOP that.

Tell me again that this isn’t political.

Fact: Every major scientific organization now accepts the reality of man-made global warming. I swear. You can find a list of concurring organizations here:

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm

Of course, this was not the case in 1995. Watterson was ahead of his time.

I’m in the tropics, and we had such a hot summer, that on a certain night, it was so hot, not a single person in the entire city was able to sleep. Consequence? no business, school, nor office opened on time the following day; and even the pigeons showed up late at their usual feeding places.

Now, about the comic strip, it’s very true, and that’s why it’s supposed to be funny. However, the thing is back in 1980 the greenhouse effect and the melting of the polar ice caps was something that was going to happen. Now it’s 2008. This is something that *is* happening. People who thought that never in their lifetimes would have to face the issue are arguing it fiercely, and suddenly it’s not funny anymore.

TerryBlack: Well, you’ve got me there. If “every major scientific organization” believes it, they must be right (disregarding the subjective definition of “major”). Why would they all believe something if it wasn’t true?

Wait! Maybe it’s because people have been MAKING STUFF UP!

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/

Here’s a fun tip for you: the mathematical formulas and computer models being used by all of the “major” scientific societies are wrong. How do I know? Because independent researchers have tested them and proven them to be inaccurate. Most global warming “climatologists” construct mathematical systems where the amount of energy “trapped” by CO2 rises linearly with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This has been proven to be false. The warming trend rises logarithmically with the amount of CO2. In other words, the more CO2 we put into the atmosphere, the less “extra” heat we get as a result of it.

Additionally, the computer models used by the global warming alarmists that projected catastrophic warming trends as a result of increasing CO2 levels are plain wrong. When given data from the 70s and 80s and told to produce what SHOULD have happened in the 90s and 00s, they are completely off. If they can’t accurately predict what already happened, why do these scientists continue to rely on them to predict what will happen in the future?

You go ahead and keep trusting the “scientific” consensus on Global Warming. These organizations are being spoon-fed this b.s. just like you are, so I don’t see any reason to believe them any more than I believe you.

Here’s a nice data sheet with some actual, factual information:

http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html

And Pokefan_Frank: I didn’t realize one hot summer night means the world is ending. If you don’t like the heat, get out of the tropics.

Oh geez… It’s a friggin’ COMIC STRIP FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!

I’d really hate to see what kind of conversations you guys have over The Far Side…

ffgtown: Whoa, 60 meters?!? Where in the world do you get your facts? Where is all this water supposed to come from? The north pole? No such luck, it’s all floating ice and won’t impact global sea levels. Greenland? The sea levels might rise a little bit if ALL the ice melts and ALL of it goes into the ocean. The south pole? Yeah, that enormous land-borne ice sheet would do the trick if it was anywhere near hot enough to melt (hint: it’s not).

Have some fun with the calculator on this page and, heck, maybe even read some of it. It’s good stuff:

http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/sealevelcalc.html

Edit: The underscores automatically turn into italics and I don’t know how to stop them. There should be an underscore on either side of “level”.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question473.htm

though it aint melting now whos to say it wont later. you are more than welcome to check up on what i said that is what the internet is for. i learned that in eviromental science and i just typed the question in and the first sight had the answer to back it up. it will say on here exactly as i said

So…you found an article that said exactly what I said? I guess that makes sense, since I was right.

Here’s an interesting piece from the article:

“In 1995 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a report which contained various projections of the sea level change by the year 2100. They estimate that the sea will rise 50 centimeters (20 inches) with the lowest estimates at 15 centimeters (6 inches) and the highest at 95 centimeters (37 inches).”

This estimate has actually dropped recently, though I don’t have the actual numbers handy. The point is, though, that “cities underwater” is not a possible scenario for, say, almost 9000 years at the current rate of warming (which will not at all continue for 9000 years, which I hope is obvious to you). Twenty inches would be substantial if it actually happened, but I think 100 years is gradual enough for people to move back a little bit. You people act like the sea level will rise 20 inches overnight and drown millions of people.

“hobbesknows: So what?

Seriously, so what? What’s going to happen if the north pole melts? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Nothing is hinging on whether or not the north pole remains frozen.”

Seriously? You are confusing your argument my friend. The North Pole melt is not a causal factor, rather it is a result. But that’s not the argument you want to have, is it, so you lead with a straw man.

“Yes, global temperatures have gone up somewhat (between about 0.6 and 1.0 degrees C) in the last hundred or so years. But the idea that this was caused by humans or that this is somehow catastrophic is laughably ignorant.”

What is laughable is that you extrapolated from my comment to once again introduce your own agenda. Did I say anything about human causation?

As for your talking points, or should I say “facts,” they have been consistently examined and either nuanced or refuted. See, for instance, the May 16, 2007 article in New Scientist regarding climate myths espoused by warming deniers. I won’t provide links as I’m sure you’re familiar with this article already… since every one of your “facts” is addressed in it.

“(If you don’t know what I’m talking about, you don’t understand how the “greenhouse effect” works and shouldn’t be arguing in the first place.)”

Hey Moe… bullying doesn’t help your argument. Interesting rhetorical flourish though - pretend your opponent doesn’t “get it” and then dismiss his or her opinion altogether. You do realize that’s a fallacy, don’t you?

“And you people want to STOP that.”

“You people”?! I don’t think that even requires comment - but just to be on the safe side: you don’t know me and I have said nothing that would make it otherwise, assumptions based on a single issue say more about you than I think you realize.

WOW! You people are intense!

Sure, hobbes, the facts I gave were refuted by the same people who are making billions of dollars off of the common knowledge that those same facts are untrue. That’s reliable. Sure, you say that these “facts” were refuted by independent research, but I ask, where did they get their data? Where did they get their information? Where did they get their models? From Al Gore and co. Should it surprise you that they refuted these claims? It shouldn’t.

You made it sound as if the north pole melting was a bad thing, which I was arguing against. If you didn’t mean that, I apologize for misunderstanding you.

I wasn’t trying to insult the reader, claim that they had no knowledge of the subject, et cetera. I was merely stating that you shouldn’t be arguing for or against “global warming” if you don’t actually know how it works. I wouldn’t try to argue that if tachyons exist they travel backwards through time because I don’t know enough about quantum mechanics and special relativity (though I know a little).

The discussion up until you posted was an argument about a) whether or not global warming (or “climate change”) was anthropogenic (man-made) and b) whether or not global warming was a threat. I merely took your post in stride with the others and used it as a launching point to address some additional topics. I didn’t intend for you to take it so personally.

Edit: The “you people” remark wasn’t addressed at you specifically, but at the whole “global warming is killing the planet” group. If you’re not a member of said group, I wasn’t referring to you, so it shouldn’t bother you.

guys its just a comic strip… sure i have opinions on global warming but im not gonna argue it with some random people commenting on calvin and hobbes.

I think it’s hysterical. I just picture Bill Watterson sittin’ around…reading these comments…thinking: “WOW! It’s just a comic strip, guys…you’re supposed to think, laugh, and get over it!”

Because we’re totally arguing about the strip itself and not the ideas posited therein. >.>

I just clicked back a day to see where the conversation ran off to… Hilarious. What do you guys do for a living? Seriously, I think someone must be working too hard and needs a vacation… FAR away from their computer!

Catastrophic: I’m actually in college right now. I usually just take a couple minutes to read the strip every day because I love Calvin and Hobbes, but I never miss an opportunity to rant and rave (like a lunatic, some probably think) about global warming. :)

The original date of this strip is 23 August 1987.

How about we ask the people of Galveston TX New Orleans LA and Mobile AL whether Global Warming caused the increase of Hurricane Intensity et Cetra

Environment

Is he like, Al Gore’s adopted son?

He preaches against it, but doesn’t practice it.

wow

science

Global Warming