I don’t deny climate change. I oppose what some people are trying to accomplish in the name of the consequences and alledged dangers of climate change.
We have 7+ billion people on the planet right now. In my lifetime I remember when it was a huge deal when we hit the 5 billion mark. It wasn’t that long ago, actually. Mid to late 80s maybe? We, as humans, are changing the ever-living fuck out of everything on this planet. Climate included. Humans change stuff: Get used to it, or get over it.
Speaking of the late eighties:
I remember the exact same thing being said about ozone layer depletion and CFCs, the huge hole in the ozone layer above the arctic circle? That if we quit using CFCs right then and there (mid to late 80s?) the problem would still be getting worse for the next hundred years or so, due to the rate at which the CFCs rise into the whateversphere.
That “hole in the ozone layer” was roughly equivalent, in validity, as that of the “texas sized island of garbage” floating in the ocean. Somewhere. Somewhere.
Speaking of the 70s (mid to late). I remember seeing a movie at the theater called “Day of the Animals”: the plot was that the animals off in the woods or a state park somewhere (and then people) all turned crazy and vicious due to (yep) ozone layer depletion frying everyone’s brains. Bad SciFi/Horror starring Leslie Neilsen? Sure. Scaremongering that makes its way into our collective psyche? Definitely.
Finally, again speaking of the 70s (early 70s this time). I also remember the PBS public service announcements about mountains of trash, burning bays (Boston maybe?), babies peeling and eating lead-paint strips off the wall like they were potato chips, roads choked with trash and Iron Eyes Cody, the Jewish (correction: Italian) Injun, crying (and probably rusting) his Iron Eyes out. That was real, the trash I mean, here in America. We were dumping everywhere, anywhere, and with no end in site. Things are better now. They could be even mo’ better, but the thing is this: Ruben Bolling isn’t telling the whole story, or even part of it, with his divisive, lame-assed kneejerk “mock the straw man / stereotype” strips each week. And this newest strip is no exception. When folks like Bolling hammer away at various issues (in this case, with “climate change SQUAWK climate change”) they seem to take not agreeing to be outright disagreement. There is a difference. Case in point:
Crazy Cat Lady: “Everyone should spend all of their income on taking care of homeless cats”
Joe Lunchpail: “But I can’t do that. If I spent all of my income on tending to homeless cats, I couldn’t pay for my home or my car or my food or my clothes. I’d lose my job. I would then be broke and homeless and wouldn’t be able to take care of one homeless cat, let alone every homeless cat in the country. Sure, we should take care of homeless cats, but we have to do it responsibly, and in moderation.”
Crazy Cat Lady: “YOU HATE CATS!!!”
Now add to that “you’re a confederate-cap wearing American-flag-lovin’ fat bald fuckhead and should burn in hell for hating cats” (or for “destroying the planet”, rather.) What hogwash. Because some of us don’t agree 100% with and completely tow the Climate Change party line, we are destroying the planet? Think about that for a second. Because that’s what this strip (and even some commenters here) is/are essentially saying: Climate Change deniers are bringing about the destruction of the planet simply by…not believing in it to the degree that Climate Change adherents want them to? By not agreeing that it (Climate Change) is dogma. Undeniable, inarguable fact, to whatever degree is decided by the adherents, pre-argument?
That’s fanaticism. And scary as hell, coming from the “rational” side. Irrational rationalism, perhaps?