A cartoon on who funds and puts out this wacko climate change denying science
For those numpties who thought this cartoon ridiculous, check out today’s article in The Guardian, which describes how ExxonMobil “is continuing to fund lobby groups that question the reality of global warming, despite a public pledge to cut support for such climate change denial.”.
In an article on the Guardian website, Ward writes: “I have now written again to ExxonMobil to point out that these organisations publish misleading information about climate change on their websites, and to seek guidance on how to reconcile this fact with the pledge made by the company. I believe that the company should keep its promise by ending its financial support for lobby groups that mislead the public about climate change.”
Arctic Circle Cartoons 
I’m an American, or what I call ‘Merican Mutt since I’m a racial mix. So, there’s some language differences I see here on the blog-toon that keeps me interested.
Ex:
What’s “numptie”?
I went to UrbanDiction.com because I ddin’t think I’d find it in the OED. Or a regular AM. English dictionary. Listed were 3 entries: 1)Scottish for idiot; 2) numb-nuts / short person; 3) Australian for drunk Aboriginal floosie.
Which of the 3 applies, or should there be a fourth entry?
By: Rudy Toledo on July 2, 2009
at 4:42 pm
Yes, I found that out when I discussed this with my American editor. I’ve reverted to using “sceptic”, or “skeptic”, as you would say, but I don’t like this, as it gives them too much credibility. I don’t like “denier” as it associates them with holocaust deniers and they don’t have the same intent to do harm.
The meaning I intended was no.1. It is a term that has crossed the border into England, but hasn’t got across the pond.
I began to use it after reading this:http://bit.ly/ThE4L
By: arcticcartoons on July 2, 2009
at 11:58 pm
Thanks for the English-to-English translations & spellings!. Otherwise, I’d have thought the pronunciation would be like “septic tank”. {How often does “sc” sound like “sk” when an “e” follows? Or, am I displaying Am. idiomatic preference w/o knowing it?}
With your citation, I’d say a 4th entry is needed to better reflect the contemporary connotation.
By: Rudy Toledo on July 3, 2009
at 3:36 pm
You aren’t being scurrilous, are you?
ha-ha!
By: arcticcartoons on July 4, 2009
at 2:26 am