Mike Lester for November 21, 2023

  1. Sunimage
    Sun  5 months ago

    Don’t fall for any of that climate change hoax.

     •  Reply
  2. Screenshot 2024 04 15 at 5.55.42 pm
    Fern Rhizome pumping out fiddle-heads  5 months ago

    Exactamundo, Mike!

    ====

    The science cannot be questioned!

    Well, then it’s not science.

     •  Reply
  3. 9dmn
    GOGOPOWERANGERS  5 months ago

    Stupid take is …

    Stupid

     •  Reply
  4. Albert einstein brain i6
    braindead Premium Member 5 months ago

    OK, Lester, go ahead and prove there is no climate change.

     •  Reply
  5. Me avatar
    rbullfogg  5 months ago

    Has anyone thought that it is a cycle of change. As happened in the past.

     •  Reply
  6. Missing large
    Denver Reader Premium Member 5 months ago

    This comparison makes no sense. First, most dummies won’t know Eratosthenes. Second, his peers didn’t question that the Earth was round. Third, this says to me that the scientist is correct while the population scorns him. Yet the consensus agrees with climate change and the scientists (though the degree of climate change is still debated). Fourth, is this suggesting Lester agrees that climate change is happening? That seems opposite his point of view.

     •  Reply
  7. 392945134 10222966427101539 7291125585212099960 n  1
    FJB  Premium Member 5 months ago

    I do trust the science, but coercion is not science, censorship is not science, faked data is not science, manipulating results is not science, cherry picking studies is not science, fear mongering is not science.

     •  Reply
  8. Missing large
    aristoclesplato9  5 months ago

    The climate models used to justify climate change do not include the effect of clouds – and they happen to cover an average of 67% of the world’s surface.

    If the models included the clouds, the whole CO2 narrative would fall apart. So the scientists decided there will be no clouds in our future. Even as the oceans boil off.

     •  Reply
  9. Cigar smoker
    Jack7528  5 months ago

    These days if you go against the weather Gods you lose your job at some College or University. The science journals that are funded by these same colleges will say what they are told. That is the state of modern science.

     •  Reply
  10. Missing large
    brit-ed  5 months ago

    Utter bull as usual. It was never the consensus that the earth was flat. It was however, religious doctrine that the earth was the center of the universe and many scientists got into a lot of trouble from the idiotic christian powers for saying so. Climate change feels a lot like that.

     •  Reply
  11. Missing large
    piper_gilbert  5 months ago

    Climate change, like COVID doesn’t care if you believe in it or not. It will kill you anyway.

     •  Reply
  12. Missing large
    thelordthygod666  5 months ago

    Lester can’t be that stupid.

     •  Reply
  13. Yin yang
    Havel  5 months ago
    Circular reasoning and cherry-picking facts at its finest. The “experts” above spouting their usual bromides about science, yet failing to provide any science that says different. Because the scientists are all on the dole. And, refusing to address the increase in CO2, just falling back on “the earth’s climate always changes”.
     •  Reply
  14. So long charlie brown copy
    mlester101 creator 5 months ago

    “I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

    Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

    There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

    “The planet is not in peril. … I believe there is no climate crisis.” — Dr. John Clauser, 2022 Nobel Prize laureate in physics in a recent speech.

     •  Reply
  15. Missing large
    thight1944  5 months ago

    We need to listen to the whole speech to understand why he said what.

     •  Reply
  16. Missing large
    thight1944  5 months ago

    Plus the earth’s climate has been changing ever since the planet was formed. “Climate crises” might be closer to the truth, but using a one or two word phrase to explain a complex situation is basically horse hockey.

     •  Reply
  17. Picture
    Ontman  5 months ago

    So suddenly whatever you think matters?

     •  Reply
  18. Can flag
    Alberta Oil Premium Member 5 months ago

    Earth’s climate has been changing over the long term since the beginning. The rate of change is a bit of an unknown. The last ice age must have come on within the lifespan of several generations of animals. Else, we would not be finding frozen animals embedded in recently melted permafrost.

    As thight1944 mentions above “Climate Crisis” is apt, because it’s affecting humanity. But, the problem really boils down to the fact, “we” as a species are too successful and have populated (with associated pollution) our planet to a point that increasingly is not sustainable.

    Nature, long term.. has solutions to overpopulation, disease kills off animals, perhaps.. climate will do it to us.

     •  Reply
  19. Database download 512
    jader3rd  5 months ago

    That’s not how it works. Skeptics are always happy for new evidence to change the concensus.

     •  Reply
  20. Picture
    ChristopherBurns  5 months ago

    Nine out of ten doctors say you have cancer, but Lester wants you to listen to the one who says you have a cold.

     •  Reply
  21. Missing large
    lsnrchrd.1 Premium Member 5 months ago

    Change the name on the tunic to Dr. John Clauser instead of Eratosthenes, and change his statement in the deep yellow speech balloon to In my opinion there is no real climate crisis, and you’ve instantly got yourself an accurate ‘toon.

    Instead of ideological non sequitor.

     •  Reply
  22. Picture
    ChristopherBurns  5 months ago

    One more thing, Mr. Lester. Eratosthenes did not prove the world was round. The Greeks knew the world was round. He used the fact that the world was round to estimate it’s circumference and diameter. He was pretty darn close.

     •  Reply
  23. Agent gates
    Radish the wordsmith  5 months ago

    Lester is in total denial, last year was the hottest on record.

     •  Reply
  24. Boyknifeoutlet
    Retired engineer  5 months ago

    So much ignorance of science on display here. In science, evidence rules, and the consensus among climate researchers was arrived at by following the evidence. That doesn’t constitute proof, but if someone wants to challenge the prevailing theory, they need to demonstrate a flaw or provide contrary evidence that can itself be tested. Making flowery speeches does not constitute evidence. Furthermore, there are no organizations funding research with the requirement that predetermined outcome must result. Valid research institutes make the source of their funding known and traceable. As to the cartoon, no scientist ever said the earth was flat. Even the ancient Greeks knew it was round, and by the time of Christ every seafaring nation knew it.

     •  Reply
  25. Missing large
    Vidrinath Premium Member 5 months ago

    Mike are you really the right messenger for this?

    You have trouble with 81 million being a larger number than 74 million.

    You have trouble with 306 being a larger number than 232.

    That’s counting.

    Climate change has a lot more math and science.

    Perhaps you should stick to denigrating young people and moderates. You know how much that helped you in the 2022 mid-terms. Do it some more.

     •  Reply
  26. Missing large
    lawguy05  5 months ago

    Soooo much REAL damage has been done by the climate change HOAX.

     •  Reply
  27. Missing large
    momochan  5 months ago

    “When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him,” Jonathan Swift. Truer than ever.

     •  Reply
  28. Missing large
    DangerMan  5 months ago

    But Eratosthanes is not arguing with scientists, he’s arguing with the religious doctrine of his day. Just like the people who claim climate change isn’t real. Jim Inhofe once argued that we don’t need to worry about running out of oil because God will just make more.

     •  Reply
  29. Marx lennon
    charliekane  5 months ago

    One question, Mr. L:

    About how old is the earth?

     •  Reply
  30. Rustfungus2a
    Cerabooge  5 months ago

    Editorial Cartoons By Dummies.

     •  Reply
  31. So long charlie brown copy
    mlester101 creator 5 months ago

    TODAYS HEADLINE: CNBC has dismantled its climate desk and will no longer have staff dedicated to covering climate change.Non-Running Politics

    Wonder why?

     •  Reply
  32. Video snapshot
    Baslim the Beggar Premium Member 5 months ago

    Well, I see the amazing stupidity of people claiming that because CO2 was much higher in the past then it is now means that we should not be concerned by the unmatched rate of increase of CO2 now.

    So you denier “geniuses,” what crop foods that humans depend upon for survival were present in those high CO2 eras? Extend that list of foods to include the ones that the animals we raise for food consume.

    Human agriculture developed under relatively moderate conditions of climate. We have continuously selected the variations which do best under what was a short interval of the time life has been on earth. Consider those new varieties of apples. They generally take decades to get to the point where they are marketable. But the rate at which the average global temperature is increasing is increasing and will continue to increase as long as we keep adding greenhouse gases. Adaptation by living organisms will not be able to keep up.

    Note: Nearly every one of the deniers claims higher CO2 will mean plants grow better. For your typical non-scientist denier (well represented here), that consensus of belief is enough. But this belief has been proven false in more than one scientific study on, for example, rice. Rice, which is a prime food for a lot of humanity. Finding things out like that requires scientific research, not blowing stuff out your second butt (located under your nose).

    And it is not a consensus of belief among scientists that the globe is on average warming. It is measurable data. Botanists are finding that plants in the wild, if they can, are moving to higher ground to find temperatures where they will better thrive. Plants do not have politics, not even the fig farmer’s figs.

    cont’d

     •  Reply
  33. Video snapshot
    Baslim the Beggar Premium Member 5 months ago

    As for Clauser and clouds, well, the planet will be here even if humans are eliminated, so that’s not a profound statement. As for clouds, that subject is complex and not well understood. Climate scientists know that they do not have the same handle on clouds as other phenomena. One of the reasons it is expensive to run the big climate models is that there are some parameters that must be varied from run to run to investigate their effect on the results. In the past couple of weeks, some new and important findings have emerged. From actual research, not opinion (and not from modeling).

    As for the models, they keep getting better. But they have not been wrong in predicting warming. The amount of warming may vary from run to run, but the only way to get them to cool (other than unphysical changes) is to remove the increase in greenhouse gases.Then, there would be a very slight cooling. Well, that ain’t happening.

    Deniers used to claim Hansen’s 1988 models predicted too much warming to match real world data. But a few years ago, the code was reflected to include the effects of the 1990 Montreal Protocol on hydroflourocarbon reduction. The models, with the improved data yielded temperature increases which were spot on!

     •  Reply
  34. 3holycow
    cbgoldeneagle2  5 months ago

    Yeah I bet all the lefties & global climate clowns want you canceled for telling the truth about false climate crisis. Earth has been changing for 4 billion years and we will not be able to change that!!!

     •  Reply
  35. Pine marten3
    martens  5 months ago

    I get sooo tired of the people who constantly harp on the “constant change” without having the slightest concept of what those changes have meant for biological organisms. Have none of these people ever considered what Darwin meant by selection factors? Have none of them looked at the details of previous major climatic changes to look at the time frames? The causes of the previous extinction events were all due to massive rapid climate change that outran evolutionary adaptation for a large number of species. The point is that this current change due to AGW is orders of magnitude faster than even the Permian Great Dying which is thought to have been on the order of 65000 years. We’re talking decades now, and rate of change matters big time. H. sapiens will not have the time to adapt, including all the species H. sapiens relies upon for survival.

     •  Reply
  36. Missing large
    claybennett creator 5 months ago

    pro·jec·tion /prəˈjekSH(ə)n/: the tendency to ascribe to another person feelings, thoughts, or attitudes present in oneself, or to regard external reality as embodying such feelings, thoughts, etc., in some way.

     •  Reply
  37. Missing large
    buckyteeth  5 months ago

    I forgot. The comic guy knows best. lolol How funny!

     •  Reply
  38. Missing large
    The Dem Veteran   5 months ago

    Clause did his work in particle physics in 1972.His singular opinion does not negate the work of experts in the field of climatology who are working with current recorded data.

    Comparing a scientist in the field of partical physics to someone who works in meteorology is like comparing Mike Lester to Rembrandt. They both draw for a living but it is still somehow……different.

     •  Reply
  39. Missing large
    jqmcd  5 months ago

    You can win Nobel prizes and still be pretty dumb. In any case, scientific consensus isn’t just a bunch of people deciding to agree on something, scientific consensus comes about when the majority of experiments and scientific results point to a given conclusion. Einstein was right, not because a bunch of guys decided he was right, but because countless experiments have proven him right (so far).

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment

More From Mike Lester