Or you'll sink like a stone

Continuing on the subject of why some things aren't funny. ...

This cartoon ran on Sunday's editorial page. That's Sunday, April 15, 2007.

We'll get to the content in a bit, but first let's talk about the joke itself. Chicken Little ... get it? Al Gore and the IPCC and, you know, all those folks in lab coats and low-lying areas, they're like Chicken Little. They think the sky is falling but it was just an acorn. Get it?

It's been so many years that it's hard to remember, but a joking reference to climatologists as Chicken Little may once have been mildly amusing. It might once have been drolly witty as a passing reference -- a bit of comic garnish for some larger meal. Once. But the second time not so much, and not as the main course, the primary joke. Bob Englehart's umpteenth reheating of this stale fare is just sad. If you're going to commit comic plagiarism, at least steal from better source material. Or steal from an original that's actually original.

Hard to believe The Hartford Courant actually paid him for this.

Even sadder, it seems ExxonMobil didn't pay Englehart for this. The fossil-fuel giant is offering $10,000 to scientists to publish exactly this kind of piffle, but it seems Englehart is working for them pro bono (shades of Ezekiel 16).

In his blog entry for this cartoon, Englehart seems to think it's funny because he's being a bad-boy rebel, challenging the religious dogma of what he calls "the global warming hysteria." He seems to think he's not just funny, but courageous for taking on this powerful establishment.

This is a strange and unconvincing pose -- rebellion on behalf of ExxonMobil et. al. Like Englehart, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., darkly suggests that his denial of climate change is a brave act of rebellion against Big Science and other powerful conspirators. Here's Inhofe's desperate attempt to portray himself as a rebel bad-boy:

"Stop and think about it: It's all about money. What would happen to the Weather Channel's ratings if people weren't scared anymore?"

So Inhofe thinks global warming is an international conspiracy intended to boost ratings for basic cable since, of course, The Weather Channel is so much more lucrative than ExxonMobil.

(Before Googling around to find the above quote -- which I first read in the print edition of Mother Jones -- I hadn't realized that The Weather Channel was so vilified by right-wingers. The Scientific American blog has a run-down.)

To Englehart's credit, he works in what is probably the only American city in which powerful corporate entities side with the scientific mainstream on the subject of global warming. Hartford, Conn., is home to some of America's largest insurance companies. For those insurers, as Sen. Inhofe would say, "It's all about money." They cannot afford to be wrong about this, so they have carefully evaluated the evidence for and against climate change. Having done so, they have concluded that it's a very serious threat.

That response is significant. Insurers have a much larger stake in this question than the basic-cable barons of The Weather Channel, but this vast financial interest required them to take a serious, disinterested look at the evidence. Inhofe's essentially Marxist analysis provides a basis for skepticism when evaluating statements from ExxonMobil or from those profit-mad money-grubbers at the Sierra Club, but that same consideration of profit-motive reinforces the credibility of the insurance industry's position.

Unfortunately, Englehart's glib dismissal of the sober conclusions of scientists and actuaries alike doesn't so much make him a courageous rebel bad-boy as it makes him, well, an idiot. So while his recent cartoon doesn't provide a basis for us to laugh with him, at least it allows us to laugh at him.

Incidentally, the photo on the right (by Matthew Jonas) was taken the same day this cartoon appeared in our paper. That's not exactly ha-ha funny, but the decision by the paper of record in a state with a median elevation of 60 feet to publish Englehart's unfunny science-denial on the same day the state is overrun by massive flooding is, at least, bitterly ironic.

Comments

[ako]

The thing is, no matter how much evidence you summon, they can make the exact same joke. Take any possible supporting authority, and alter the first bubble accordingly.

"NASA's on our side. So it must be true."
"MIT's on our side. So it must be true."
"Two hundred climate researchers are on our side. So it must be true."
"Some scientific journal's on our side. So it must be true."
"Every scientific journal's on our side. So it must be true.
"Some new study's on our side. So it must be true."
"Every study's on our side..." and so on, and so on, and so on.

[the opoponax]

how is Inhofe's critique Marxist, exactly?

i mean, in terms of Marxist theory, not just the sorta facile comparison that Marx was generally against things being "all about the money", and that's Inhofe's critique? it sounds more like a Stalinist analysis, really. anything that is successful at all, period, even in a nominal way, is inherently suspect, as long as it fits the party line.

[the opoponax]

oh, and regarding the Weather Channel and what would happen to its ratings if people weren't scared anymore -- nothing. everyone would still watch to get their local weather forecasts, which is the main reason people watch, anyway, unless they're diehard weather nuts. any really fierce scary weather is going to be covered locally for people directly affected, and as a part of the national news if it's really a big deal. the vast majority of the Weather Channel's broadcast time is spent giving local forecast information and updates on general weather conditions across the country, anyway.

[hapax]

opo, I think that Fred was getting at the idea that "economics is the driving force behind history" part of Marxist theory, not the "owning the means of production" part.

Although, when you think about it, "owning the means of production" pretty much sums up Exxon-Mobil's stake in global warming.

[Matt McIrvin]

There's that strange emphasis on the UN again. As far as I know, the reason people generally trust the IPCC is not so much that it's UN-affiliated as that it's at least an attempt to summarize the collected judgment of all the world's qualified experts on the subject. But if you're going to rile American conservatives, mentioning the UN is the way to do it.

[ako]

I will say, the Weather Channel Plot to drive up ratings is the absolute funniest excuse for denying Global Warming that I've ever heard.

[X]

Although, when you think about it, "owning the means of production" pretty much sums up Exxon-Mobil's stake in global warming.

Hapax made a funny, hee hee. V. clever.

Now what are the odds* that if one teeny study ever comes out so much as suggesting that, say, Christians live a tetch longer, or that house wives are happy, Inhofe will be found the next day astride the Senate, manuscript in hand, DEMANDING that unbelievers / feminists learn that SCIENCE HATH PROVEN...

(and if that study was from Canada, that "Internationally, scientists agree...")

* 1:1

[Bugmaster]

Inhofe will be found the next day astride the Senate, manuscript in hand...

Greeeat, now I'll have Inhofe/Senate slash stuck in my head all day...

I think that conservatives pretty much assume that "international scientists" is synonymous with "UN", because UN tells the rest of the world what to do; only America remains unsullied by its influence. It makes as much sense as the Weather Channel conspiracy.

[DonBoy]

They're wrong: it's Accuweather that has the real power.

[MichaelR]

Ah, yes, the breed of right winger that somehow thinks that being down-home country folk with simple homespun wisdom makes them more qualified on any given subjects than those fancy-pants scientists, what with all their ivory tower educations and knowledge and charts and facts.

Please forgive me for this outburst, but it's one of those things I feel very strongly about: the fact that these dumbfuck shitkickers who wear their willfull ignorance as a sign of pride are allowed to have any kind of meaningful input, let alone set policy, drives me up the damn wall. We'd all be better off if it were permissible to say "you don't know what the hell you're talking about, when you can come back with studies and proof, which we already know you won't because you hate and fear science, then you'll be allowed to join the discussion. In the meantime, shut the hell up and let the adults talk!"

Ah, feels good to just let all that contempt boil forth. Now I see why some people are wingnuts, letting that bile flow can be habit forming...

[Axiomatic]

I've always said this entire Global Warming is justa plot by Big Solar Cell companies to attack the small-town oil industry.

[Matt McIrvin]

We'd all be better off if it were permissible to say "you don't know what the hell you're talking about, when you can come back with studies and proof, which we already know you won't because you hate and fear science, then you'll be allowed to join the discussion. In the meantime, shut the hell up and let the adults talk!

I think it is often permissible to say that, but they then come back with captive experts and strange think-tank efforts at muddying the waters, and start talking about how the Man persecuted Galileo. The same kind of thing you see with creationism, basically, only with more money on the anti-science side.

[Michael Bloom]

Hey, maybe the answer is for the insurance companies to use all the money they're responsible for to buy up controlling interest in Exxon/Mobil and fire their PR staff. A research budget for cost-competitive photovoltaic cells might not be a bad idea either.

[happy housewife]

Gee, X, I didn't realize I was supposed to be sad...

[Mouse]

I can't find who said it, but in a New York Times article, some idiot said that being a global warning denier was like being a christian in the first century AD. [headdesk] Yeah, because you can't walk down the street without seeing a denier crucified or fed to the lions for their beliefs. Anyone in favour of giving them a one-way ticket to Saudi Arabia, where they string you up for being a christian, just so these whiners can finally experience some real persecution?

[Indiana Joe]

On the other hand, Englehart has a very good cartoon today.

[mecki]

Englehart seems to think it's funny because he's being a bad-boy rebel, challenging the religious dogma

I had a similar experience while watching the extras for 'Thank You for Smoking.' The movie is pretty funny, and also pretty accurate, showing the power of argument over facts, and how the smoking lobby cleverly twists arguments into a form where nobody can answer them. Not really satiric, in the end, but made some good points about the state of our political discourse - I thought.

The filmmakers, on the other hand, seemed to think that they were doing something profoundly transgressive, darkly satiric, extremely un-PC etc etc.

And this in a movie about smoking where you don't see a single lit cigarette.

Sorry, this isn't rebellion or bad-boy behavior.

[Angelika]

@ mecki: If while producing a piece of art the artists are not convinced they are producing something exceptionally worthwhile and profoundly deep, the result can't be other than shallow. - Which does not say, that the result always lives up the the artists' dreams (and the expectations of the critics).

[Rob]

I think you profoundly misunderstand Thank You For Smoking. You don't see a single lit cigarette because the movie is told from the point of view of the main character. It is a demonstration of his persuasive power, and the subtle persuausive power of media in general. You're not supposed to think about it until after the movie is over, while you're halfway through patting yourself on the back for being smarter than all those rubes in the movie. Only a superficial reading of the film could really make you think it is pro-smoking. It most definitely is not, and the lengths they go to to obscure the facts of smoking are how they express that.

I think we all know, at least any of us who have ever smoked and quit know, that the main character casually quitting smoking without a second thought half way through the film is preposterous beyond belief.

[the opoponax]

though i have to say it does annoy me when spoiled white artist types assume that simply by saying unpopular things that they are these grand freedom fighters, etc etc. as if making a movie about how crappy the tobacco industry is were the same thing as being in the french resistance or something. it's not exactly a subject that hasn't been covered before.

[Angelika]

Englehart's unfunny science-denial
Englehart is actually not completely denying science. He suffers the unfortunate combination of knowing a little bit too much to be innocently ignorant and understanding way too little to make sense out of his knowledge.

In the long term, we are moving towards the next ice-age, Englehart got that one correctly. He is also right, that higher carbondioxide and methane concentrations in the atmosphere can mellow the cooling caused by reduced insolation. Englehart's problem is that he is challenged in his perception of orders of magnitude. Apparently, a hundred, a thousand and tenthousand years are all the same to him, if he assumes that the greenhouse gases blasted into the atmosphere now, will prevent an ice-age 10000 years down the road.

[Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little]

Tangentially, I seem to recall from my recent visit to the Chicago Field Museum and their Evolving Earth exhibit that we are still, technically, *in* the most recent ice age. Does that ring any bells with anyone else, or did I make that one up when I wasn't looking? (cf. Wiki)

(I say "tangentially" of course because it's fairly irrelevant to the issue of global warming. Preventing the next ice age should not be anyone's priority.)

Also, following the links to the Weather Channel Blog's rebuttal to the Climate Change Deniers, how does one satisfactorily rebut that one comment where the idiot's all like "oh, *now* it's Global Warming, but, like, two decades ago everyone was worried about the hole in the ozone layer. How come no one's talking about THAT anymore, huh? Obviously they're both just chicken-little fads and *next* decade they'll be saying something else...."

[cjmr's husband]

@Nicole,

The same way we computer scientists deal with the "Y2K was just a scam!" people. Very patiently say:

The ozone hole is still there. It is no longer an issue. We found out what we were doing wrong, and we stopped doing it.

[X]

Happy housewife: Gee, X, I didn't realize I was supposed to be sad...

You missunderstand. It would be a perfectly reasonable finding that housewives are happy (I think I'd enjoy it myself). Were it published, though, loud mouthed idiots would automatically stretch it to mean "only housewives are happy," and then, if conservative, leap to the unwarranted conclusion that all women should be housewives.

So I was taking an extra jibe at him by implying that even at the moment that he would stand up and trumpet a scientific finding as The Truth, he would do so by using piss poor science.

[sigh] Everyone knows jokes are funniest when they've just been explained, right.

[X]

I thought that no-cigarettes in the movie was a clever meta thing. One of the main plot points is that Aaron whatsHisFace wants to sponsor a movie in which Brad Pitt will be seen smoking, thus glamorizing it. It's only at the end you realize that this whole movie about smoking they didn't put a single curl of smoke. It's their way of saying that while they walk the rhetorical line of pro/anti within the movie (which is where the humour and goodness in it comes from), their ultimate stance is that they didn't do the thing that the smoking advocate within their film wants to achieve.

Ok, it's not Hamlet, but I thought it was pretty effective. Why's everyone so bitter about it here? Did the film makers ever run around acting out a hero complex? I've not seen any of that from them. It just seems like a smart funny film. Which is soemthing, frankly, we could use more of.

[KCinDC]

I don't understand who watches the Weather Channel anyway. I mean, I used to turn it on maybe 20 years ago to see what the weather was, but I'd invariably not be paying attention during the 1 min out of every 15 that they actually had the local weather. Then I'd have to wait through another endless batch of ads, ski reports, and other babble. Nowadays we have this thing called the web that can give you up-to-date weather whenever you want it without your having to wait. The Weather Channel seems as obsolete as printed zip code directories. Then again, I thought the same would be true of the Home Shopping Network, which always seemed to me like looking at a catalog while someone else slowly turned the pages.

[Ryan Ferneau]

And Big Corn is only pushing ethanol because it's in their interests! Facts are only worth using when they're in your interests.

[Matt McIrvin]

how does one satisfactorily rebut that one comment where the idiot's all like "oh, *now* it's Global Warming, but, like, two decades ago everyone was worried about the hole in the ozone layer. How come no one's talking about THAT anymore, huh?

I don't know how one satisfactorily rebuts it to the idiot, but what I'd say to an intelligent person is that people don't talk much about the ozone hole because action has already been taken. Once the science was settled, many, many countries signed onto the Montreal Protocol to limit ozone-damaging CFCs (this was far easier to do than limiting greenhouse gases probably will be). The ozone hole's still there, but it ought to gradually repair itself.

That said, in the 1990s there was a contrarian fad to claim that human damage to ozone was a fraud and volcanoes emitted far more ozone-destroying chemicals than humans ever could. It was a claim that originated in a pseudoscience journal published by whackjob Lyndon LaRouche, was picked up by Dixy Lee Ray and became something like conservative orthodoxy once Rush Limbaugh started repeating it. For a while, it was a really reliable indicator of an ignoramus in Internet discussions of the environment. Inevitably, it mutated into an equally bogus claim about volcanoes causing more global warming than humans, which I still hear occasionally.

[Ryan Ferneau]

But, but, I heard the stuff they replaced chlorofluorocarbons with was worse than the chlorofluorocarbons, so we are still doomed! Oh no!

[Bugmaster]

The same way we computer scientists deal with the "Y2K was just a scam!" people.

To be fair, a lot of it was a scam. I've actually seen "Y2K Compliant" stickers on chairs. Yes, because chairs will magically explode at the turn of the millennium (-1), unless they're properly patched.

My second-favorite Y2K claim is that cars will stop working and crash on 01/01/2000, because of the Y2K bug. AFAIK, most cars are controlled by a small microcontroller (8 bit, maybe, though probably more by now), which experiences a mini-Y2K every second or so (though, again, probably more by now).

[Josh]

opo -Marxism, in this country, has long been in competition with Christianity as a force to attract the stigmaphiles (on good days) and the millenial fanatics (on bad ones).* It's natural that a Christian will feel a rivalry.

*There were brief periods, especially the Popular Front years of the Thirties, during which Christian Marxism made sense to enough Americans that there were preachers in the public sphere who billed themselves as such.