Another exemplar of popular culture treatment of global warming:
Let’s file this under “not terribly helpful” and, like the vast majority of comic strips today, “not terribly funny.”
Climate Progress
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Get ThinkProgress email alerts
About Joe Romm
Joe Romm is a Fellow at American Progress and is the editor of Climate Progress, which New York Times columnist Tom Friedman called "the indispensable blog" and Time magazine named one of the 25 “Best Blogs of 2010.″ Read more.
Subscribe to Climate Progress by Email
Top Posts on Facebook
- Romney to Nevadans: I Don’t Know ‘What The Purpose is’ of Public Lands
- NASA: Human Activity, Not Solar Activity, Drives Global Warming and Returning to 350 ppm Is Needed to Stop It
- Bombshell Study: High Methane Emissions Measured Over Gas Field “May Offset Climate Benefits of Natural Gas”
- Canadian Government Poisoning Wolves to Slow Rapid Declines in Caribou Population Near Tar Sands
- The Great Carbon Bubble: Bill McKibben on Why the Fossil Fuel Industry Fights So Hard Against Climate Action
Climate Progress's Tweets
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 Think Progress | Contact Us | Donate
Yeah the pop culture version of Climate change is pretty dim, but the confusion is a mirage. We pretend like global warming is confusing because we can’t stand to look squarely at what we are doing. Environmentalists must convince the population that we can face this challenge, that we can preserve the planet. Only then will we stop pretending like we are melting ice cream.
don’t you just love nuclear power…
Sellafield: the most hazardous place in Europe
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/19/sellafield-nuclear-plant-cumbria-hazards
…
The disused plutonium reactors at Sellafield are a ‘slow-motion Chernobyl’, according to Greenpeace
Just curious, why haven’t you referenced that two thirds of the people in America don’t believe GW is caused by man? It seems a pertinent point that the media overkill hasn’t worked.
info here:
http://environmentalrepublican.blogspot.com/2009/04/sea-change-23-believe-global-warming.html
[JR: I blog on the polling all the time. I'll blog again shortly. Rasmussen is an uber-conservative pollster -- witness the absurd sentence in his "objective" article on his poll "Most Democrats (51%) still say humans are to blame for global warming, the position taken by former Vice President Al Gore and other climate change activists." It is the scientific literature that says humans are the primary cause of warming in the past half century. Rasmussen's polling mostly reflects the fact that conservatives have been suckered by the conservative-led disinformation machine.]
Rasmussen is always the most accurate polling site. That’s pretty lame to say it’s a right-wing conspiracy. I’m in the business, I see it daily that facts are not supporting the hysteria. I personally have been involved in discussions where people who wrote reports are not convinced.
This pretty convincing that theentire GW issue was overblown:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517035,00.html
I’m for sane environmental policy and I make money by those regs. I would make more if they passed stricter regs but it would halt projects, put people out of work and cost the consumer hundreds.
Example A:
Which polling firms had it right and which had it wrong:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html
Rasmussen, CNN, McClatchy and Fox were closest. Zogby–a celebrated lib polling firm was way off.
[JR: And yet they push anti-scientific right-wing talking points? So you'll pardon me if I don't take their "scientific" polling on a scientific issue seriously.]
Please, Scott–post a few more times. I’m almost convinced.
Scott, ‘media overkill’ is applied to any subject that the MSM and its users find interesting. It’s a sign of quantity of coverage,and could never be a measure of quality of coverage. Why hasn’t media overkill translated into support/belief/trust in AGW? Because the subject matter is technical,its implications are complex and largely negative, while most of the overkill is repetitive and low-quality,with a large element of disinformation,as Joe’s work on this blog over the years has revealed. The Fox link is an example of a failure to represent the issue and the interviewee’s full statements accurately.
If AGW was immediately obvious [or if not obvious,then consensually positive] in its effects,everyone would ‘believe’ in it.
Throw out both extremes (Conservative Republicans + religious freaks on one side and Gore + Greenpeace on the other) convince the remainder to talk real instead on passions and a lot more progress would be made.
[JR: Classic false equivalency. Let's throw out those who push anti-scientific disinformation AND those who try to explain what the science actually says.]
I know it’s technical and that’s where we have the GW advocates playing fast and loose. I own an environmental consulting firm and know air issues. The fact that EPA named carbon dioxide as a harmful gas is ludicrous.
The discussion here took a totally different turn than usual (oh no, it’s actually the exact same).
W.R.T. the comic post, The Simpsons touched on this last night. Lisa did a project on society in 50 years and had a nervous breakdown, and ranted in class about AGW (including acidification IIRC). She turned to medication to make herself feel better.
It wasn’t funny, but probably better than this Sherman’s Lagoon.