Recent Comments

1. about 11 years ago on Jeff Stahler

   what took you so long… that should have been a couple years in the making now. In the end, I just feel really bad for Miley and her family. I know her father really feels like garbage for trying to be a friend rather than a father for all those years.

2. about 11 years ago on Rob Rogers

   wow… this is just another disgusting and shameful toon by Rob Rogers. It’s beyond stretching or bending the truth, it’s at best disgracefully obtuse. Rob should be ashamed. It’s vile and unfounded.

3. about 11 years ago on Jim Morin

   First it’s sit… then it’s beg… then it’s role over… then next, play dead… if there’s even a hint of truth to this toon’s claim/opinion it is a scary thought. I don’t envy the folk who have to make all the decisions… I just hope the make the right ones for all our sakes.

4. about 11 years ago on Jen Sorensen

   I guess it’s supposed to make fun of both sides but I think it does a disservice to reality. The worst is probably the depiction of fracing causation. But i guess everyone has some kind of biased opinion which may ignore some fact or potential possibility.Example, the Alaskan pipeline has been a success. It has done some surprising good in the region because the moose and such enjoy the warmth and its led to far more mating and growth that species. However, there is the potential for a calamity, as with most things. But there is a much greater potential that any calamity that occurs via the pipeline would be man made and purposeful. Thus, it is possible.Fracing, most of the claims against it are overblown. I’m still not convinced that it’s wholly harmless or the system is as perfected as it can be, but the current presumed negative effects are overblown.Coal is a dirty business. However, advancements have created options such as “clean coal.” It’s not perfect, nothing is, but it’s a heck of a lot cleaner than the old way and still far more effective than the other “clean” options. Wind was missed… though birds certainly wouldn’t miss their loss… and too few miss the blades. Plus, it’s not a great source of power, it’s ugly and noisy.Solar, well it’s definitely ugly and doesn’t really provide much power and requires water and chemicals regularly to remain clean enough to operate at potential.Water is effective but limited in output as well as source and can definitely cause harm to the environment by us holding the water back. But there are benefits too.The big problem, especially with “clean” options, is the inability to store energy. Whatever isn’t used is wasted, and solar won’t help you out when there’s no sun to provide power… or wind for the the windmills, etc.At this point the best and most efficient power sources are oil, gas and coal. We should be trying to ensure they are safer, cleaner and cheaper rather than jumping on board a ship with huge holes in its sails.

5. about 11 years ago on Steve Breen

   I read everyone’s comments and i get the opinions. But how do any explain the reason why John Muir are depicted overlooking the forest fire? I guess I don’t know who that is.

6. about 11 years ago on Chris Britt

   This is just a disgrace of a toon Chris. I only allow so many disgusting obtuse, vitriolic and/or outright detestable statements of untruths/lies before the toon is dropped from my list. I don’t mind seeing difference of opinions and even funny toons at the expense of one side or the other, but there are lines that just can’t be crossed. This is simply an egregious lie. Whether it was invented out of some kind of fear of being wrong, losing favor, whatever, or if it is simply based out of a decrepit moral character… something seems to be the reason why untruths such as this not only occur, but become a standard talking point and argument, however baseless.You should be utterly ashamed and should be publicly shamed.

7. about 11 years ago on Tom Toles

   Edit: on paragraph 2 the phrase “In the case of ice caps melting i have no respect for anyone claiming detriment of flooding because 1st grade science is able to disprove that theory.” is directed to the Polar caps, not mountain caps. Poor clarity on my part.

8. about 11 years ago on Tom Toles

   Actually, it does not stay the same. The frozen mass is actually greater in density and size than the liquid form. That’s why when you put a bottle of water in the freezer the ice causes the container to expand and possible break because the ice expands. When it melts it returns back to its original state, what doesn’t evaporate that is. that’s elementary science and it’s sad no one gets that.This doesn’t mean that melting caps, if that were to happen, would not have an effect. Certainly if any massive and quick melt occurred, which is not scientifically back not even by the most extreme theories of a minute increase of global temperature over a hundred years, the effects would be likened to a river overflowing from a severe rain. It can be disastrous in the immediate vicinity, like a volcano explosion, but would flow somewhere eventually. In the case of ice caps melting i have no respect for anyone claiming detriment of flooding because 1st grade science is able to disprove that theory. The only real potential detriment of flooding would occur from ice caps on mountains melting.~The other aspect of science not discussed is what are the potential problems and benefits. Example, science shows that when large chunks of the southern ice shelf broke off that life ended up thriving in what were once lifeless waters. This was caused by the mineral deposits that traveled with the glaciers. This ended up being a benefit and no towns or shore were flooded or harmed in the process… and we did have the largest break several years back. I have no clue what the potential effects of cap melting would mean scientifically and according to the history of nature studies. But it’s near impossible to get objective science anymore. Nowadays science starts with the conclusion and then builds information to prove, in theory of course, the conclusion – all without accounting for other potential data that may not fit in to the desired model or might wholly refute the entire theory. This is not science, this is fantasy.~In my grade school science program, I sought to prove that the Energizer battery lasted the longest and my controls were the same manufactured flashlights, two of each testing group (two EG, two Dura, two generic, etc.) and equal time the flashlights were on in 30 min spans.In the end, the Energizer did last the longest, because I wanted it to. I just did little things like turning it on last and off first, and subjectively judging the dimness of the light created vs the Duracell at the end of the studies allotted time. This is the same type of fraudulent science I see and hear all the time nowadays and it’s sad, if not sick.

9. about 11 years ago on Tom Toles

   I found what you said as interesting and am trying to read past the torch throwing… no pun intended.~I respect your experience but you didn’t really explain the benefits of your personal experience. You just threw out a lot of political talking points and stuff. You were describing an important aspect of thinning via prescribed fires and the battling back of being able to do so by timber companies. That is an important piece of information. Expound on that if you can. You traveled very briefly over a bunch of years but I didn’t get a developed thought. Did the land grabs by the gov’t and regulation by protection agencies solve the problem of needed prescribed fires? Did they exacerbate the problem? Were other groups then and now standing in the way for it to happen? ~You threw in some Reagan era stuff… what actually occurred? Was there a documented deforestation in the states? What are the percentages of forest before, after and since?~I’m no tree hugger nor an abuser. I just want to know the facts to be able to make sound and reasonable judgements. With that said, what is the sound scientific proof that current wild fires are directly and absolutely the sole cause of global warming?The next problem is dealing with the thousands of scientists, predominantly in the directly related fields of study, that not only do not agree with the Global Warming theories, but use the scientific method to destroy every aspect of the theories surrounding global warming and climate change. Let us not forget some important aspects of science, such as being testable, measurable, objective, and resolving all possible rebuttals and variables, etc. The simple fact that definite conclusions of 10 years ago and every year since continue to change logically concludes that there is an error and a definite, absolute statement of fact cannot be attested. Thus, it remains a theory at best, a faith based belief at the worst. But a fact, it is not yet proven to be. ~The interesting thing, dtroutma, is that you presented alternate explanations for the wild fires that have nothing to do with global warming… such as improperly thinning the forrests with a lack of controlled burns.

10. about 11 years ago on Speed Bump

    Still can’t get good reception and all the call still sound like garbage.