Disastrous Profits


Bizarro 08-10-14 hdrWEBBizarro 08-10-14 WEBBizarro is brought to you today by Graffiti.

In this imagination of the not-too-distant future, I indulge the climate change deniers with a world in which they still run things. Corporations have found that there is still more money in pollution than in intelligent energy solutions, and so the human population of Earth is left wearing expensive contraptions to protect them from the hostile environment.

Yes, I know that the climate of the Earth changes naturally and our species’ time here is likely limited one way or another, but to hasten this rare paradise’s demise for the sake of a few extra million bucks in the pockets of a handful of already-filthy-rich executives is simply idiotic. And yet, many of us continue to pretend it isn’t happening and that the whole thing is a plot by scientists to get their names in the paper.

Buy a really nice color print of the above comic here.

PALEOZARRO: Way back in the last century, I did this Sunday cartoon about a different kind of idiocy, also relating to the so-called “end of the world.” All of these scenarios is actually the end of humanity’s world. The planet will go on quite happily without us.

Bizarro 08-15-99 EndOfWorldWEB


64 thoughts on “Disastrous Profits

  1. Hey there, you seem to have forgotten that your job is to be funny, not to be an asshole.

    Wise up and leave your colonized mind out of it.

  2. THANK YOU. I have been looking for an image to properly express my feelings that the Most Powerful Polluters never really (privately) deny Climate Change; they’re actually counting on it and planning for it to maximize future income and profits. The Denialism is more about eliminating Public Science as a competitor for the Private Science that they own. (What? Me? Conspiratorialist? This hat isn’t tinfoil, it’s duct tape.)

  3. I’m surprise the sign doesn’t read:

    “Last man on Earth. Ladies, line forms to the right.”

    ; D

    But then again, I’m gay. So, … I guess the better panel / joke would be a prominently out gay man pursued by mobs of women? Perhaps that guy from InSink after crash landing back on earth via Virgin Galactic flight to find himself on the Planet of Amazons?

  4. Wow. You cannot believe how very very grateful I am that I am a) not related to you and b) don’t know you personally. Thanks, you made my day!

  5. Wow. You cannot believe how very grateful I am that I a) am not related to you and b) don’t know you personally. Thanks P. Gauge, you made my day!

  6. I agree with you completely and your cartoons will be seen by a few more people. But, will Bunny Pie Repair go out of business?

  7. There won’t be another ice age for a while; the planet will be too warm. Ice ages were characterized by CO2 levels of 200 ppm; it’s twice that now. Oh, I forgot, it’s a hoax and a conspiracy. How silly of me. Always being confused by facts. I should watch Fox more often; they’re the real experts.

  8. Oops. My previous comment should have read “Well said DAN.” I am not agreeing with P. Gauge. That would make ME an asshole, and that would not be funny.

  9. According to the latest estimate, the Earth is 4.54 billion years old. Inasmuch as our species didn’t appear on this planet until somewhere between 6,000 and 1 million years ago, it would appear that the Earth got along pretty well without us for the greater part of its history and will, as you say, go along quite happily without us for billions of years more after our species is gone. For some reason, I find this comforting.

  10. Exactly. I follow your blog to stay up to date on your comics. I think your opinions are fine. I don’t think it’s your job to worry about my opinion of your opinion at all. You are funny, & good at observing the human condition often with a Bizarro twist. Keep up the good work. Critics are everywhere of everything… Hmm, good source for comic panels. lol

  11. Wry, black humour. Perfect. Thank you for “doing your job” so well. It’s always a pleasure to see your cartoons. Best regards

  12. http://plasticparadisemovie.com/

    Your strip is timely for us since we just viewed this documentary last night. Everyone should see this. It makes you rethink every purchase you make in the future. Recycle, recycle, recycle and purchase only what you really need. It’s good to see a moral lesson now and then.

    Bravo, Bizarro.

  13. Politics aside, I was really struck by the composition of the global warming cartoon — the washed-out, almost abstract background, the strong shading on the suits, the black shadows underneath the figures. Yours is the best-drawn, most detailed comic in paper, Dan, but this is really stellar. The purse is a nice touch, too.

  14. Wow, you stepped into that one. That may be the latest denier strategy – that global warming is delaying the next catastrophic ice age. Those brave, unselfish carbon generators with their bold plan to save the planet! I feel ashamed now for caring about the planet. LOL

  15. Give the goob some cat scratch fever…. Meow! I’d a told the DB to stick to ‘Faux Views’ and quit trying to read as it’s obviously not working. Cool panels, Dan.

  16. Poignant – You have any idea what that word means P. Gauge? What Dan says is exactly where we are heading. You may want to checkout the film Idiocracy. If you can’t wrap your pea brain around the fact that humans are cooking themselves then you should go drive your gas guzzling truck off a cliff.

  17. I used to believe the planet was heating up and that man was causing or accelerating the process by releasing too much greenhouse gas. I also believed that it was very unlikely that the world would get together and deal with greenhouse gas emissions in time to make any difference. Your comic is funny and kind of supports that belief.

    In the recent 5 or 6 years the story we have been hearing from the climate change believers has gotten a little too thin, too polished and a little too much like the Y2K hysteria that proved to be almost complete BS. I am an engineer so I don’t like to be told to believe something because some politician (or an oil executive) told me it’s true and only a moron would deny it.

    Anyone expressing certainty about climate change or the cause of it should probably be ignored. No one really knows and I’m getting tired of hearing that everything wrong in the world is caused by climate change (extreme heat, extreme cold, floods, droughts, undrinkable water in Ohio…).

    I have no idea if the study in the link below is legitimate but if it is we have been fed a pack of lies about the 97% of climate scientists that think man made climate change is real. According to this study it’s 97% of scientists that had an opinion one way or the other while about two thirds expressed no opinion. I only trust the two thirds that told the truth which is that they don’t know.


    I suggest you keep an open mind and view all information for and against a little more critically, especially from anyone with a vested interest. While I have no way of knowing if the study in the link above is legit, I also have no idea if anything anyone says on either side of the issue is legitimate info.

    To be clear, I am not a climate change denier. I simply deny that anyone really knows. Climate is probably not measurable over years or even decades. It probably takes centuries or millennia to see the climate change. What most people refer to has climate change is really just weather change. Every time someone says “clearly the climate is changing” I ask them to explain it to me and not one person has been able to clearly explain something that appeared to be so clear to them seconds earlier.

    Regardless of the affect on climate I think we should be conserving all of our natural resources, they are all finite.

    I have enjoyed your comics for decades and your blog for many years and while I don’t always agree with you (how boring if I did) I’m glad to have you challenge some of the things that are “clear to me”.

    By the way I believe at least 97% of oncologists believe that tobacco products cause cancer even though I think that you have denied that in the past. My mother was a smoker that died from lung cancer so that was as close as I came to no longer reading your blog, but what fun would that be? I’m a vegan, atheist, gay rights supporter and former New Yorker living in SoCal so I figure we have a lot more in common than not:-)

    • You make several good points, thanks for your thoughtful comment. Regarding tobacco, I suspect that cigar smoking (which you don’t inhale) and that second-hand smoke are very minimal cancer risks––much less so than the anti-tobacco lobby would have us believe. Clearly, cigarette smoking is a big cancer risk.

      On the recent TV show, Cosmos, Neil deGrasse Tyson explained very well how climate change is measured from a scientific standpoint and how carbon emissions in the 20th century mirror rising average temps. I was a fence-sitter until I watched that episode, but now I’ve heard enough to be convinced we’re making a mess of things.

  18. No punch line, no hidden pictures, no bunny, no pie, not even a dog! Just a political statement.

    While I am a supporter of carbon reduction and a concerned environmentalist, I must admit that you disappointed me today. Matching wits with your cartoon to find the hidden objects is one of the high points of my Sunday afternoon. You also usually manage to slip in some background jokes like “Kaboom Laxatives” which are hilarious. Alas, there was none of that today. Just a blatant swipe at the petroleum industry and government laxity. Sigh. Perhaps you should develop a sideline business of political cartoons if you want to make statements. Dr. Seuss did that, after all, and still found time to be amusing. Hopefully you will, too.

    • Your point is well taken, but sometimes a cartoon occurs to me that isn’t as “funny” as it is editorial and there just isn’t a good place for background jokes so I leave them out. Tomorrow will be funnier. :^}

  19. P. Gauge, may I recommend Beetle Baily – it is funny, keeps to a specific category of life – the army – and finally will never stir-up any emotional response which will require you to come to a blog and type a rather amusing comment from your un-colonized mind.

  20. Love all your work. I just don’t want to post the same comment every day. I can’t think of anything new to say when I behold the brilliance of your thought process. I also admire the excellent draftsmanship.

  21. The heat suits would only postpone the inevitable, seeing as they release further heat into the environment – the laws of thermodynamics are inexorable. On the other hand, they might be a drop in the bucket compared to the hot air produced by politicians. :-)

  22. colonized? can i rent a time-share in your mind colony? i wouldn’t normally be so forward, but i figure that once you’ve allowed colonies one more part-time renter shouldn’t matter so much.

  23. Trolls should suddenly become as ugly as their comments, if they aren’t already. Love your sense of humor! It is really sad that so many people are illiterate when it comes to science.

  24. Regarding today’s (Monday’s) strip: what a pile of below-knee! Maybe he’d like some head cheese with that, or perhaps just some finger food.

    As for climate change, just look at the many, many comparison photos of glaciers and ice caps around the world.

  25. I love these. The only thing I find difficult to handle is the inability to see the big noses on the cartoon people in the gas-powered suits. Hope to meet you at the next Reuben banquet.- Rich

  26. If you recall, representatives from tobacco growing states made exactly the same arguments with respect to the link between cigarette smoking and cancer that oil company lobbyists and their representatives in congress are making about climate change, i.e., that the “science is not in”. Back in the 80s CEOs of the major tobacco companies swore before congress that “nicotine is not addictive” even though documents found later showed that they were lying through their teeth. If you are willing to subject millions of humans to pain, suffering and death for your own profit (and that costs the rest of us billions in medical insurance) then it is not hard to believe that there are people willing to put the good of the planet at risk for the sake of their own bottom line. A good question for deniers to ask is what motive would scientists have for lying about climate change. And please don’t give me that bull about grant-grubbing scientists because that is not the way the funding process works (yeah, I’m a scientist). The reason for oil companies to lie, on the other hand, is obvious.

  27. Thanks for the link to the Iopscience abstract. You should read it. Of the abstracts (which is the only part of the paper the authors analyzed) it is true that only 1/3 gave an opinion (that does not mean the authors did not have an opinion, only that they did not express is in the abstract). They went on to say that of the scientists who expressed their opinions only 0.7% rejected anthropogenic global warming and another 0.3% were unsure of the cause. The last line of the abstract says that ” the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.” In other words, the scientific view on global warming is nearly unanimous. Either you did not read the article, you did not understand it, or you purposely mischaracterized its findings.

    • Jimbo,

      Insulting me and discrediting me by misrepresenting what I wrote is probably an effective technique since most people won’t go back a read what I wrote. Most people posting here are on board with your ideas so it was hardly necessary.

      Maybe you missed the part where I said “I have no idea if the study in the link below is legitimate but…”.

      I was simply exploring one possible source of the much quoted 97% of climate scientist number that is spewed frequently as of late. As it turns out 32.6 + .7 + .3 = 33.6 and 32.6/33.6 = 0.97 or 97%. Since you quoted the exact same numbers I suspect you already know that I was not mischaracterizing anything.

      Have you ever heard anyone say 97% of scientists with an opinion? I have not heard anyone refer to the number of scientists that do not agree as vanishingly small. It’s always 97%. If you have another source to explain the 97% please share it.

      When I hear someone say 97%, I want to know where the number came from. Is it 32 out of 33? 97 out of 100? 9,700 out of 10,000? I never expected it to be something like 32.6 out of 100 which it may well be. This sounds like Common Core math. I also want to know what the background is of everyone in the sample. Are the 3% paid for by Exxon? Most people probably assume they are so they write them off (as I would) but I need to be sure before I dismiss their findings.

      I suspect most people that hear 97% of scientists believe humans are causing global warming actually think that means that there is a 97% chance that they are right. Of course this is not what the 97% means and I’ve never heard anyone estimate the degree of certainty which is probably far less than 97%.

      I’m 97% sure you don’t agree. Hopefully you are living the low carbon life you seem to believe is absolutely necessary. Personally I’m going to keep an open mind and try to minimize my impact on the environment while I continue to wade through the all in BS and propaganda that has nothing to do with science.


      By the way, Neil deGrasse Tyson should stick to explaining black holes and the weather on Saturn:-) I’m guessing you don’t agree with him on GMO food.




  28. While I think you are wrong about your cancer risk with cigar smoking I hope like hell you are right:-) You may not have a much higher risk of lung cancer but there are lots of other nasty cancer options. I have a couple of data points that could suggest a link to emphysema and lung cancer from second hand smoke but that’s hardly scientific. I can’t stand the smell so I’m glad I don’t have to much any more. Right or wrong, I’m pretty sure you get the denier tag compared to the scientific community on this one.

    By my last count there were 55 comments including one denier (P. Gauge) and one not sure (me). That’s over 96% in support of climate change being real and man made (OK some didn’t really say where they stand). The 97% that we hear all the time is really just a marketing term like 4 out of 5 dentists. As I mentioned earlier it’s also likely to be intentionally misleading. And of course, science is not a democracy and you probably filtered some comments. Regardless, the marketing plan seems to be working.

    I’m sad that only P Gauge was specifically called out but some of the later comments may have been targeting me as well. Reading through the comments I saw a lot more name calling (idiots, pea brain, troll) than supporting info. In fact the only supporting info I recall was the comment about the pictures of glaciers (not really supporting info since there was only a claim – no links). When my wife and I spent time in New Zealand 5 years ago we hiked a glacier. The guide told us that the glacier was receding at the time but that it grows and recedes on various cycles and the current process was not unexpected. The only way to be sure that the ice caps and glaciers in total are shrinking is to have photographic evidence of all of them frequently (monthly?) for many decades to see if there is a total pattern. Al Gore showed a few photos that could have been cherry picked in his movie which proved nothing to me. Show me monthly pictures for 50 years and then show me the same things for every glacier and we’ll talk. Or you can just shout me down and call me a trolling pea brain idiot (not you but the commenters).

    I’m watching a Neil deGrasse Tyson series on Netflix called The Inexplicable Universe. It’s fascinating.

    As far as I can know he’s an astrophysicist which does not make him an expert in climate science. I found Cosmos on Netflix (sorry, no cable TV at our house) and could not find an episode that was clearly about climate change. I watched episode 9, The Lost Worlds of Planet Earth. Toward the end he pointed out that we are releasing lots of carbon that has been trapped in the earth for 100s of millions of years and that the added carbon in the atmosphere will warm the planet and make things pretty bad. The funny thing is that’s what I used to tell people before I became a cynic.

    If this is what changed your mind I say dig a little deeper. There was really nothing provided but conclusions. You have to accept a lot on faith which is not how science works.

    I also found a YouTube clip where he tries to explain the difference between weather and climate (see link). He’s walking a dog and while the dog is wandering all over the place (weather or Jemima) he is walking in a consistent path. This is a gross over simplification of the process of measuring climate from weather data. To be more accurate he would have to have millions of dogs on leashes of various lengths and then curve fit the dog data to come up with the climate line. Trust me, it’s hard enough to curve fit a small sample size.


    I’ve never heard anyone explain how they measure the average temperature of the planet or the oceans. It’s an extremely complex system that does not lend itself to measuring averages. Assumptions have to be made and the results are only as good as the assumptions. It was very warm in California this winter but very cold back east, What the hell is the average? You don’t just add up a bunch of temperatures and divide by the number of readings. It’s not that simple since temperature can vary widely over short distances and time. I moved 6 miles in SoCal and it’s 10 to 20 degrees warmer here most days than my old house. Do these measurements count equally? Probably not, you need a weighted average but I’m not sure how you weigh them.

    All climate models have lots of assumptions and many of the assumptions may be wrong. Remember Katrina? We were told that we’d be getting several huge hurricanes every year due to global warming but all I remember is Sandy in the past 10 years (which wasn’t even called a hurricane). Of course if that butterfly in Asia hadn’t flapped it’s wings…

    As a chemical engineer I don’t think I’ve ever been accused of denying science. I did leave the field many years ago because I was disgusted with the practices. I’d gladly put my scientific knowledge up against any of the name callers that posted comments. I’d also gladly compare my life style to any of them since it’s clear that most people seem to believe we’re destroying the planet with carbon and it appears to me most are also doing almost nothing to make much of a difference. For example, a person who told me that it was clear the climate is changing (a person who barely passed basic high school science) just bought a convertible Mustang. Not exactly a high mileage vehicle never mind the resources that go into building it.

    So I’d rather be an idiot denier that is growing a lot of his own food, driving a small car that gets great mileage, not eating farm animals rather than be a believer that goes on dumping tons of carbon into the air.

    I watch a lot of science shows on Netflix. I’m almost done with the NDT show on the universe, I recently watch one with Steven Hawkings and will watch Cosmos next (not bad for a science denier). On many occasions in all of these series you will hear about some scientists of the past that went against the scientific community at the time and years later they were proven to be right. It happens a lot and sadly it’s scientists that seem to shout them down normally. This time it seems to be everyone shouting.

    One problem I have with all of the science shows and most of the reporting on climate change is how they talk about things that they can not be certain about in very certain terms. Seems a lot like religion. I just heard Tyson say the we know that the universe was the size of an atom and very hot back when the universe was formed. Really, He knows for sure? In cosmos he talked about geologists that were certain there were land bridges and that there as not a single continent at one time. Oops.

    All science has some uncertainty. Conclusions presented without any mention of the degree of certainty should be viewed very skeptically.

    When is the past time you heard about something good that will come out of climate change / global warming? I don’t think I ever have. If we are warming and the overall affects are bad there has to be something good somewhere. If you realize how one sided the coverage is you may decide to be a little more suspicious of what you are hearing. While the oil industry is trying to protect it’s profits by denying global warming there is a lot of money being made on the other side. Our government is spending billions with little to show for it. Switching from coal to gas is not really the answer unless you make money from gas.

  29. Hello!

    I seem to have “fallen off” your mailing list (and when I tried to re-enroll was told I’m already on it…however I haven’t been getting anything for several weeks).

    I know you’ve been on vacation (hope you had a great time!).

    Have you stopped sending out notifications — or can I get all paranoid now & think I’ve been scrapped…? :(

    Got here via Facebook (NOT my favorite route!)

    • To be honest, I don’t operate or understand the mailing list so I don’t have an answer. I’m sure you’ve not been expunged from it, so I’m guessing it’s just because of some other computer voodoo reason. Hopefully it is working again now?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *