Rick McKee, editorial cartoonist for the Augusta Chronicle, sends me this political cartoon about climate change which he posted on his Facebook page and the WUWT Facebook page.
It sums up perfectly what is wrong with our current political leadership: they are more worried about climate change than they are immediate threats with a clear and present danger.
SOURCE: https://www.facebook.com/rick.mckee?fref=photo
According to Breitbart, Hillary Clinton made the comments at a recent paid for speaking engagement in Las Vegas. I guess when you get that kind of money, you’ll say anything for hire.
The topic is explosive, not so much for the climate change part, but for the other two elements in it. Commenters should be be warned that we’ll snip any inappropriate comments.
Great cartoon, right on the money.
Hillary also leads from behind, picking her meme of the day by polling the plebes.
So while she prattles on about social justice, climate changing and promotes other activities that act like rust to our social institutions. The real world has out paced her again.
These cowards are always a day of year late and completely out of touch.
But she and her fellow progressives will insist it is not their fault.
If you miserable taxpayers would have the decency to answer those constant polls , honestly and transparently, then she would know where to lead you.
So those of us who refuse to answer polls are the reason Hillary and her kind are so stupid.
See it’s all our fault.
But it has been apparent for years that our progressive friends will never recognize evil.
They make every excuse for evil people, they excuse the zombie like evil of massive bureaucracy and say such nonsense as ;”We need to find the root causes” of people who plant bombs in civilian crowds.
There is no word for evil in their world.
Yet all their political cures for our society are destructive to our society
I am coming to feel these apologists are actively enabling those who wish us ill and seek to kill.
Imagine she was not talking about climate change but about an asteroid about to strike Earth in 50 years. 97% scientists agree that there the asteroid is out there, some believe it will strike earth, some think it will miss. There is no perfect scientific evidence for either. Now, what is bigger threat, terrorism or the asteroid? The answer is not how things are, but how you believe things are. In reality, they’re unrelated.
Of course in case of this site, it obviously hits the spot.
So if “97% of scientists” agreed on an asteroid’s approach to earth, then you could be sure that the 97% wasn’t measured by bogus, intellectually dishonest survey.
The thing about the trajectory of orbiting objects is that there’s no fatuous attribution to man-made causes by those who wouldn’t recognize an over-fit model it it hit them in the head. The positions of objects in the solar system have been accurately predicted for centuries.
On the other hand, if astronomers consistently made incorrect predictions about the position of the moon, it would be hard to get excited about the next headline-grabbing “asteroid impact”.
The fundamentals of astrodynamic calculation are well established, have been successfully demonstrated in millions of instances and continue to be used on a daily basis with no debate as to measurable positional accuracy beyond a given small degree of remaining uncertainty – one yet below the uncertainty that existed over 50 years ago which was in itself so small back then that it had no impact on our first manned missions into outer space.
In stark contrast, climate calculations are not established at all, have no demonstrated success at predicting climate and their predictions have a range of uncertainty that exceeds the bounds of a threshold that is thoroughly subjective, unmeasurable and untestable – “good or bad”.
So no – you are wrong. A parallel that begins to look fair would be 97% of 12th century scientists all working for the same church all agreeing on an asteroid strike without the slightest idea of how gravity behaved, admitted ignorance of the the complexity of celestial mechanics, no mathematical means to prove their prediction and ZERO demonstrated ability of having ever predicted an asteroid strike in the past. All that and they really would have had little idea of exactly “how bad” such a strike would be but certainly support their church leader that continued funding was needed to determine such detail citing every geologic formation in view as being the result of an asteroid strike and that asteroid strikes were God’s will so WHO WOULD DARE TO CHALLENGE GOD???
Ebola cases are doubling every 28 days, on analysis of current figures. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_West_African_Ebola_virus_epidemic) If this were to continue, the entire world population would be infected by May 2016. To hell with climate change and asteroids.
If you think Billary is a problem, imagine how you will feel when Obama’s wife is announced as her running mate.
How is ISIS a threat, exactly? Narcissistic and stupid journalists are not worth sending our boys over.
Yeah, let’s not worry. Why bother even analyzing their intentions until after they have taken over Pakistan nukes.
Reblogged this on Maley's Energy Blog and commented:
Yes, indeedy.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2014/09/military-experts-isis-el-paso-ft-bliss-danger-terrorist-attack/
http://www.inquisitr.com/1454452/isis-jihadi-carries-severed-head-across-u-s-border-stunt-shows-how-easy-it-is-to-get-into-america/
But not to worry, President Obama has just recognized this threat and said he would immediately plan to “degrade and destroy” ISIS.
Later he revealed details of this destruction plan, which will certainly have those jihadists shaking in their boots: He will form a committee with other UN nations to discuss the threat and try to figure out a way to reduce ISIS to a “manageable problem”. Yes, that means ISIS would no longer be a “threat”, but just a “problem”, which OHB can easily manage between (and during) his rounds of golf.
But nobody’s explained the cartoon with Hillary in the hand of the big terrorist. So this is a subliminal to illustrate deniers are the terrorists?
> … nobody’s explained the cartoon …
Ok, the terrorist is thinking that Hil is a “denier”, because she is “in denial”. That is to say, she is denying that ISIS is the most urgent issue facing our nation, and the world. That’s what ISIS wants us to believe, at least, and, at most, is a bigger threat to world peace and stability than all the other jihadist threats combined (because in a sense they are all the world’s jihadists combined).
Why is this funny? Because it is ironic that liberals like Hil use the term “denier” in an attempt to discredit climate skeptics, yet she seems to be denying the scope of the ISIS threat.
So it’s ironically funny that this big terrorist is calling her a “denier”.
Got it?
I guess I’m the only one who thinks this cartoon both confuses the issue plus paints anyone who disagrees with Hillary’s alarmism as a murderous fanatic.
Cartoons always are something of a Rorschach test, I suppose.
It’s safe to say that there’s a school of people who see the intent of the cartoon as lampooning Hillary for blithering on about the “dangers” of “climate change”, for which the evidence is shaky and the supposed catastrophic effects include a hilariously absurd spectrum of horrors, while completely ignoring the very harsh reality that a bunch of savages have captured sophisticated weapons and have clearly said that their goal is to kill all non-Muslims. They have the motive, they have the means, and with our completely porous southern border, they will soon have the opportunity to inflict death and destruction on innocent people.
I think even Thermogeddonites might recognize that “climate change” will take a very distant back seat in the wake of a major terrorist attack. But, of course, the objective of many Thermogeddonites overlaps with the objectives of ISIS: to destroy America, and perhaps all of Western civilization, so it’s little surprise that they are out in force trying to muddy the waters about what real threats confront us.
> … anyone who disagrees with Hillary’s alarmism as a murderous fanatic.
Red herring.
Anyone, including a murderous fanatic, is entitled to disagree with Hillary. But that does not mean that anyone who disagrees with Hillary is a murderous fanatic.
You should hope that only a very small percentage of the Hillary-disagreers are murderous fanatics. Otherwise, “it’s worse than we thought!”.
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see:
http://www.tpnn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ISIS-McCain-ad.jpg
“Red herring”
A red herring is something placed to mislead from a key point to confuse and obfuscate.
I seriously think this cartoon is not as near as brilliant as most here do. Sorry you also misunderstood my intent.
also: “You should hope that only a very small percentage of the Hillary-disagreers are murderous fanatics”.
not sure of your intent so I won’t comment other than the absurdity value is top level.
Brilliant might be overstating it. Let’s stick with “amusing” and “apt”.
The absurdity is your original claim that the cartoon paints _anyone_ who disagrees with Hillary as a terrorist.
I view that as an inference falsely derived from the cartoon which misleads those who might read your comment. Perhaps there is a more precise term for that kind of fallacy, but red herring seems to fit, IMHO.
Since you and Brad Rich both seem to be unable to see the humor in the cartoon, you apparently are looking at this with the same mindset. I’m guessing that you both have liberal viewpoints, i.e. are Democrats, admire Hillary, dislike climate skeptics etc. Am I right?
If so, is it possible that this mindset makes it impossible to see the irony portrayed in the cartoon: liberal epithet thrower becoming the epithet throwee?
Perhaps a government grant to study this disorder is in order.
🙂
Perhaps this will help establish the complete context for understanding the cartoon: After Hillary uttered those words above in the cartoon at Las Vegas on Sept 4, the very next words out of her mouth were: “No matter what deniers say”
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-calls-out-climate-deniers
So if you see no indignity in this usage of the D-word, then yes, you might not understand the cartoon.
As Mrs. Clinton would undoubtedly say “It’s just a word, what difference does it make?”