30 thoughts on “Doonesbury takes on climate-change denialism

    1. I periodically see posts containing nothing more than, sub, in them and wonder what they are intended to convey. I have the feeling that most everyone knows but me.

      Can you please explain your post to me?

      1. Sub is short for subscribe which is what many of us write when we want email notifications in case of new comments, but have nothing to add to the thread.

  1. The creationists and the climate change deniers are the lysenkoists of our times. Which lets you know the role model of the politicians who listen to them.

  2. Curious, innit, the overlap between those who reject Evolution and deny anthropogenic climate change? One is reminded of Karl Rove’s famous quote:

    The aide [Karl Rove] said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” … “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”


      1. We can change the quantum nature of our faith-based reality to forge a new genetic consciousness!

        …now, if you’ll excuse me…I need to go find some mouthwash….


  3. I just love these cartoons. The best remedy against creationists, climate change denialists, etc. is information combined with ridicule.

  4. At least one of my two Christian Right siblings has a slightly less than 50% chance of grokking today’s strip. Both would be instantly and deeply offended by the TB/creationist strip. Neither would ever agree to glance at much less read a Doonesbury in the first place, though, so while the humor greatly pleases me it is, sadly, denied the opportunity to inform them.

    1. “At least one…has a slightly less than 50% chance of…” I have no idea what this is supposed to convey. That they probably both won’t get it? Or that there’s a chance that one of them might not get it, but it’s close to fifty-fifty?

      1. I mean to say that one True Believer sibling will understand the allusion to 1 scientist of a hundred who denies warming occurs (it’s actually closer to three out of 100 last I heard, if I want to be literal instead of figurative, and thereby avoid correction by Prof. Pedant). This does not shake her faith that all proceeds according to His plan, of course, and secular science is wrapped around the axle over something not to be feared.

        The other of the two, always an excellent student who earned an MA in a social science field, since the born again experience is so resolute about relying solely on Christian radio and FOX for “information” that the reality that only 3% or less of scientists polled deny warming could well be a fact this sibling is unaware of.

        For both AGW is an impossible lie that flies in the face of God’s hand on the tiller and His Genesis promise, naturally.

        Grok throws people sometimes, too … http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grok

  5. Wick-ed.

    That reminds me of how you see the difference between a skeptic and a creationist.

    A skeptic worships libraries and thinks books have value. A creationist worships one book and thinks it is all he/she needs.

  6. For some strange reason, the Karl Rove quote reminds me of Deepak Chopra and his ilk.

    As an old, wannabe librarian, I love the quote:

    “A skeptic worships libraries and thinks books have value. A creationist worships one book and thinks it is all he/she needs.”

    1. Not so strange. Both rhetorically place themselves outside – and above – the Reality-based Community, in order to exploit the gullible. They sneer at our ‘naïve realism’ and laugh all the way to their numbered account in a tax haven.

  7. I have a question. I have been ill off and on for a while now and unable to keep on top of everything, so please excuse my ignorance. When we first began to speak about climate change and global warming, the result of the warming was the belief that it would trigger a new ice age. All the data and models for this made sense to me then. So whats the deal now? Hot and wet or really cold? What type of wardrobe should I invest in?

    1. One that floats.
      If our planet were Lovelock’s ‘Daisy World’, rising heat would favour increasing albedo and homeostasis would rule. On our actual planet, there are also positive feedbacks (e.g. warming and melting lowers albedo at high latitudes, releases stored methane, and increases wildfires adding soot to remaining snowcaps…) and a credible mechanism to get the next glaciation back on schedule does not seem to exist, outside bad science-fiction.

  8. Climate change deniers are straw men. Hardly anyone denies that the climate changes, it has been changing for millions of years. Climate change alarmism is the thing that some are sceptical about and that is a somewhat different matter.

  9. As an aside, I think people should stop looking for Bigfoot and instead try to find something else that’s apprently extremely rare:

    A Doonesbury strip in which the last panel doesn’t have exactly two people speaking.


Leave a Reply