Skip to content
  • 12judges

    I get the gist of the biology textbook in the cartoon, but it really should just be ‘scientific method’. Narrative is not scientific method. Scientific method is postulation based on known format and function of natural phenomena from which a hypothesis can be formed, and then tested against the anticipated reaction of those natural phenomena. Specifically this is one of the prime reasons ‘replicability’ is so important. If it’s not replicable, the hypothesis is not valid, nor the assumption, nor the underlying function of the natural phenomena.

    – Climate science has demonstrated serious errors in replicability.
    – A preponderance of scientists with the same hypothesis and conclusions CAN STILL BE WRONG.
    – The climate data we do have is replete with false negatives and positives of all kinds.
    – The climate is overwhelmingly complex and its observable phenomena are the result of forces still not entirely understood by science.
    – The inability to conclusively prove a hypothesis and then transitioning to shouting down/narrative reinforcement is a sign the hypothesis IS NOT valid, not vice versa.

    The scientific method – like so much else culturally – has been hijacked by people with a personal axe to grind, a narrative to push, and dogma to reinforce. It’s not science. It’s anything but.

    These people shriek about Darwin while having more in common with the Catholic Inquisition.

    • Cyberman

      Well said

    • Indra Kaw

      Nice.

    • NPC the Clown

      To qoute a wise man.
      “The physical sciences still have reality on their side [while the political science doesn’t].”

      • And Climatology (the church of AGW) is political, not science.

        • SomeGuyNamedDennis

          Except it’s not. It’s science that’s used for political aims.

          Leftists fucking hate me, because I believe in biology. Fellow conservatives hate me, because I also believe the hard objective facts about gun laws not improving crime, the world being round, and the world changing temperature. It’s impossible to be a goddam rational human and not be ostracized by one side or the other. You all should join me in believing things that are provably correct, like 90% of these comics, and stop being so polarized.

          • You are a shill. “Conservatives” are against gun laws, because they don’t work and because they’re unethical and immoral, not to mention unconstitutional.

            “Conservatives” believe the earth is round. We also believe that dinosaurs existed, and in plate tectonics.

            The world has been warming for over 10,000 years, without any station wagons or minivans to help it. There is ZERO data to support AGW. None.

          • Thrust vectoring

            Gun laws not improving crime? Should they improve crime? The hard data says that gun laws and crime are two independent things. Only data obtained by nitpicking a country suggests otherwise. You never see data from Switzerland in the discussion about gun laws, yet Switzerland is one of the countries with the most gun-owning citizens in the world thanks to their national militia(the swiss army is divided into regular army and militia, out of which the militia is the biggest part, every mentally and physically able adult is bound to receive a training and is given an assault rifle, which he maintains until the age of 28 when he has an opportunity to either buy it off or return it) and yet has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. There are countries with strict gun laws and extremely high crime rates, there are countries with less gun laws and extremely high crime rate as well as countries with strict gun laws and low crime rates and countries with almost no gun laws and countries with less gun laws and low crime rate. There is almost no correlation between gun laws and crime rate unless you create one by nitpicking and picking odd definitions of crime.

          • zsolmanz

            If Switzerland is a good example, then the US should follow it:

            1) Mandatory military service (which I would argue teaches respect)
            2) No purchase without a permit
            3) Strict vetting (sometimes including psych profiling) before issuing permits
            4) Weapons handling tests prior to issuing permits
            5) A record (canton) of everyone who owns a gun
            6) Zero open carry, and it’s super-tough to get concealed carry permits
            7) To translate Swiss law into American terms, there is an explicit exlusion from Second Amendment rights if you use the First Amendment to express a “violent or dangerous attitude” (which is determined by the gov). In other words, say something the gov doesn’t like and it’s no guns for you.

            Yet the same people who hold up Switzerland as a brilliant example of “gun laws are useless” would put you to a firing squad for suggesting any of the above (except perhaps point 1 or 6).

          • Thrust vectoring

            Sure, i second that. And militia as an army, no regulars,just for home defense. No global policeman!

          • Zon Kuthon

            Polarization is inevitable. You are either on a side already or you’re about to get shoved onto a side. Weak centrists like you defend nothing.

      • Which is probably why this department is the first to die in unusually large numbers when DACA/Puente programs start at schools.

    • Pedro

      You also have to consider the fact that science is not a activity of truth-claiming, but of making best guesses with available data, they striver for ever more correct statements about the world, not universality. Therefore, it is usually understood that, in science, if there is a preponderance of scientists publishing papers stating “x is correct”, there is good chance that “x” is correct because of the nature of inductive logic. This fact can also be a pitfall where science accepts a wrong statement because of presently available data and then treat it as a correct statement. But also note is a exception, not a trend.

    • Albionic American

      The pro-capitalsm right really should embrace climate science because it supports the right’s dominator model for dealing with nature. After all, a technologically advanced civilization should have the ability to control its planet’s climate. Climate scientists have apparently discovered the control knobs for us.

      • Thrust vectoring

        Just if this was true and the climate scientists really discovered those control knobs…

    • Justin Welborn

      Yeah, but also, look at this:

      https://xkcd.com/1732/

      Scroll down to the slope of the solid line.

    • SomeGuyNamedDennis

      Yeah, but also this:

      (click to expand and scroll down to the slope of the solid line)

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7db470b8249df240b47a8e41efad53a8051ad8b7db0fa531d2e290b5fbd9746c.png

      • Hendrik Vanderstijn

        What this one fails to account for is that historic temperatures are averages of long periods, whereas as recent temperatures are much more information dense. In all likelyhood temperatures in the past were much more volatile than they look in this graph, which also means that the current trend could be far less indicative of future trends than it seems to indicate at first glance.

  • FrJanos

    This comic reminds me of the classic pasta, where a liberal atheist ALCU lawayer and abortion clinic doctor professor holds a lecturre about Karl Marx, but first calls upon everyone to praise Charles Darwin. And then a christian, conservative, patriot marine veteran elite stands up to him.

    What I mean is, you assume that one side has all the traits you don’t like and the other has all the traits you like. Or in short: “You belive in this? Then you must belive this completely unrelated other thing too!”

    But it’s just not how real life works.

  • Oh, this one is good on so many levels. Subtle, too.

  • Major Matt Mason

    SCIENCE!!!

  • QuickshooterMk2
    • Taha Ghassemi

      Evolution says that races that survived probably had heritable traits that allowed them to survive and reproduce better than races that went extinct. So what?

      • QuickshooterMk2

        30 shekels and 40 agorot have been trasffered to your account
        thank you for shilling schlomo

      • Dave M

        You are literally in almost every comment section being the biggest sub 80 IQ [email protected] on the planet. Is this a parody account?

        • Taha Ghassemi

          Dave, no

    • You can’t love science without saying, “Fucking” because everybody online is a “fucking” retarded child.

      • QuickshooterMk2

        you talk like a fag and your shit is all retarded

  • Albionic American

    Darwin’s life shows that upper-class Brits in his time lived like today’s stereotype about backwoods American white people whom our elites want us to despise. He married his first cousin, Emma Wedgwood, around the time they both turned 30, and I haven’t run across anything to indicate that Charles had any premarital sexual experience, despite the years he spent away from England living like Indiana Jones in South America. So imagine Charles as a 30 year old virgin at the time of his marriage.

    Despite the Darwins’ late start, they had ten children, which get them into Duggar territory, and seven of them lived to adulthood. Given the high child mortality in Victorian times, they had a pretty successful family. And the Darwins have about 200 living descendants now, the last time I checked.

    Yet today’s progressives and liberals who claim to admire Charles Darwin denigrate the traditional and fertile way he lived. Instead they want today’s Charleses to become sterile hedonists, gays, bugmen and transgenders who watch porn and collect comic books; while they want today’s Emmas to become sterile career women and cat ladies who police the internet for Nazis.

  • Mister Twister

    Want to learn what actually controls most of climate change? Read up on Wallace Thornhill.

  • UnforcastedStorm

    Why not both?

  • olican101

    Are boomers still trying to pretend like biology has anything to do with gender?

    • ssgtnelson

      …. yes.

  • Twilk9

    And if stonetoss had any knowledge of actual science, he would know that sex/gender still isn’t that simple. But he doesnt.

    You see it in all animals, not just people. Horses that are genetically female but act Male and believe they’re male because of chemical or physiologic changes. All animals.

    But hey, why actually learn about science when you can make a comic?

Primary Sidebar