Another great cartoon from Marc Roberts:
Climate Progress
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Get ThinkProgress email alerts
About Climate Progress
Edited by Joe Romm, we cover climate science, solutions and politics. Columnist Tom Friedman calls us "the indispensable blog" and Time magazine named us one of the 25 "Best Blogs of 2010." Newcomers, start here.
Joe Romm's New Book
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga.
Joe Romm has pulled together the secrets of the greatest communicators in history to show how you can apply these tools to your writing, speaking, blogging — even your Tweeting.
Subscribe to Climate Progress by Email
Powered by NewsWhip
Got a Hot Tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Climate Progress Archives
About ThinkProgress | Contact Us | Donate
Yeah, who needs government regulations like speed limits and traffic laws. Get the gubmint out of our lives and get rid of them!
That’s a nice metaphor to explain the deniers’ logic. But seriously, this kind of recklessness can boomerang too. Thanks for this great cartoon.
The EAARTH MATTERS
http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20101128-OPINION-11280350
“You might be a nitwit if you are certain the proven increase in the polar bear population is a further sign that they are an endangered species. You might be a nitwit if you see no relevance in the double-digit scientific inaccuracies in “An Inconvenient Truth.” You are a nitwit if you don’t know that conservatives reuse, recycle and repurpose. It is an old Yankee custom predating the “greenies” by decades”
This editorial begs for a careful response. Would anyone, here a CP, care to respond or suggest how I might respond effectively?
Chris
#3 no response is necessay. The article defeats itself.
#3 The art or beauty of articles like the one quoted is that it seems like it is something, but it offers nothing. It is magical, a mirage of sorts. It does demonstrate a great seperation of the world in the authors’ minds from the world that we actually live in. (I did read the article.)
One day soon I trust that a HIGH LEVEL DISCUSSION of extant scientific evidence of human population dynamics and human overpopulation of the Earth happens in many places. Sooner or later discussions of this kind have to occur, I suppose, despite the fact that free and open speech of what looks to me like the very last of the last taboos is forbidden by “the powers that be”, the ones who value money, power and position before all else and exclaim their dishonest and duplicitous ‘work’ is, of all things, “God’s work”.
My concern for children, much less grandchildren everywhere is this. If the children in our time are “sold” the aberrant idea that economic success is what really matters, that arrogance and avarice actually rule this world, then from now here I expect those who are still young will follow a clearly marked and soon to become patently unsustainable primrose path to perdition and destruction, a path that has been adamantly advocated and religiously pursued by self-proclaimed masters of the universe.
Let us not allow the ‘economic success’ that is derived from “bigger is better” and “the biggest business is the best”, and from insider trading, hedging, dark pools of capital, CDOs and other dodgy financial instruments, market and currency manipulations, ponzi schemes and economic globalization by the masters of the universe to be confused with the works of God, as given to us in The Creation and disclosed to us in science.
Despite all the efforts to foment confusion and uncertainty by economic theologians, demographers and other smarty and clever minions of the wealthy and powerful, I trust we can agree that The Creation and science itself are utterly different from the artificially designed, ideologically flawed, manmade global economy that is organized and managed by the masters of the universe for their benefit primarily. Regarding this single thing, can there be even so much as a shadow of doubt? As for demography, it appears to provide a politically useful and economically attractive platform for looking at “the growth rate decreases” of human population numbers in one place after another and then for broadcasting this ‘scientific’ evidence everywhere as if these data provide actual assurance of the end of global population growth soon. All the while the demographers willfully ignore unchallenged scientific evidence of the skyrocketing increase of absolute global human population numbers. Demography is not the practice of science; it is a ruse. Demography is dangerous because it is so very misleading. The ‘empirical’ evidence derived from demography serves the selfish interests of the wealthy and powerful among us by disguising rather than disclosing the actual challenges posed to humanity in our time by the unbridled growth of the human population worldwide by approximately 75 to 80 million annually as well as by the gigantic scale of the global population that is projected to reach 9+ billion, likely during the lifetime of my children.
Chris @ #3
Here’s an article that lists the players in the Gore/British judge affair:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003944163_gorefilm12.html
Chris, I’d carefully followed this lawsuit and saved lists of sources, but a fried hard drive wiped out my files. As I recall, Gore et al did indeed have to correct some 9 to perhaps 14 flaws and errors in “An Inconvenient Truth”, mostly rather minor. The judge then approved the movie for use in UK schools, labeling Gore’s film “broadly accurate”.
Let me keep digging… check back in a day or two.
Ray Kondrasuk
Eau Claire, Wisconsin
The last frame should be…
WATCH OUT for the guy with the “DON’T TREAD ON ME” FLAG, ern.
Chris @ 3,
Paraphrasing Peter Sinclair from his “Climate Denial Crock of the WeeK” series, it’s time to employ a seldom-used analytical technical and actually read the Gore/British schools judgment:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html
Scroll down to point # 22 where Justice Burton states:
” I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant’s expert, is right when he says that:
“Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.”
The inaccuracies are addressed with a hard copy guide to promote discussion of the film’s supposed weak points, all listed in detail by Burton.
Chris, I hope this helps.
Ray Kondrasuk
Eau Claire, Wisconsin, USA
Ray Kondrasuk