Al Gore, Climate Change.
Mallard's Right-Wing Calculus:
- Outrageous, damnable behavior which calls into question the very position of the person who made the claim (but is in no way just an empty-headed ad hominem attack): Former Vice President Gore makes a statement which is, at worst a fairly honest mistake. And even if it were an outright lie, does nothing to alter the mass of scientific evidence that climate change is man-made.
- Fearless truth-telling: Sarah Palin manufactures the Lie of the Year, which is demagogued relentlessly by Republicans and their propaganda network, in a crass effort to manufacture outrage and anger and rile people up to protest against their own self-interest.
12 comments:
Well, Tinsley DID have the courage (by which I mean hypocritical gall, which is as close to courage as Mr. Truth-To-Power will ever get) to accuse Hopey-Changey of fearmongering, even after Palin's OBAMA'S DEATH PANELS WILL KILL YOU GRAMMAMA!!!1 nonsense (not to mention the entire fear-based Cheney-Rove Maladministration).
Misquotes? How many knuckledraggers still insist Al Gore claims to have invented the Internet? I'm honestly surprised Tinsley didn't regurgitate that particular slice of stale baloney; perhaps he's saving it for tomorrow's strip.
Also: It's cold outside tonight! Therefore, climate change isn't real!!!1 The hurricanes didn't destroy America! That means they didn't happen!!11
Tog: If it's any consolation, today's Lola has you covered in the it's-cold-ergo-no-climate-change department, even calling out Gore by name, unusual in that strip, which isn't usually overtly political. It also happens to be just above Mallard in the alphabetical order I usually view them in. Ick.
Oops, I broke the link. I almost never do that! Here we go again.
I'll admit that for Tinsley, that's a pretty good caricature of Al Gore - though I can't tell if he's supposed to have a goiter or if he's storing acorns in his cheeks like a squirrel.
Weird. Even in claiming that Al Gore's version of of global warming is made-up, he can't do it without admitting that there ARE experts to (mis)quote, and thus actual global warming.
To the rightwing, truth or falsehood never matters.
It's the party line, all day, every day.
Cheers!
JzB
I do a lot of climate related internet stuff and have some background there going back a long time. I've literally had to deal with the "it's cold in the winter so there's no global warming" thing dozens of times.
What part of that being insane isn't getting out there? the sun is shining now, so the theory of night-time must be wrong. Look at that helpless baby - the alarmist theory of human growth and development isn't making him walk and talk now, is it?
A single error of any sort on the side of Tin's enemies discredits their entire worldview.* Naturally, no such rule applies to anything Tin's side says.
* footnote: scratchy, scrawly scribble
Tinshley needs a better scare story than a non-scandal about when the Arctic will be ice-free; I recommend The case of the IPCC Horror Fish
Funny how, for Tinshley's ilk, "it's what our intelligence people told us!" was an acceptable cover for that itty-bitty Mespotamian misadventure the previous White House crew got us into, with the WMDs and the yellowcake and the seekrit meetings between Hussein's boys and al-Qaeda and things of that nature. Yet somehow, he remained oddly silent.
But Al Gore, he's a dirty dirty liar and everything is fine and as soon as Brucie gets his license back, he's leave it running and gonna burn gasoline 24-7 because there's nothing wrong with that!
The depth of the stupidity demonstrated by the non-scientists who blindly accept "global warming" is staggering, as is their willingness to mis-characterize the arguments of those who don't buy into AGW. No, it's not because it's winter that we don't buy into AGW, it's because the science isn't there.
Hey TinzAnon --
Yeah, it is, and has been for a while. Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it disappears.
The last time I checked, within the past 6 months, there were 493 peer-reviewed scientific papers (i.e., not the illiterate droolings of people like Caribou Barbie and Crybaby Beck) that were between neutral/slightly supportive of the hypothesis to flatout agreeing with the hypothesis.
So, how many peer-reviewed scientific papers were there in the same check that disproved the hypothesis? If you guessed ZERO, you win the prize.
493-0 seems to me to be fairly solid evidence that something is, indeed, going on.
And you base your disbelief on what, exactly, besides the fact that it's cold in the winter?
Post a Comment