It's usually the sub-editors who write the headlines to newspaper pieces.
So rather than blame John and Anne Nuttall for "Icy peaks mock global warming" (Saturday 28 Feb, page 4 of Weekend pullout) above their piece on walking along the Pennine* Way [it contains a straightforward account of where they walked and how you can follow them], I'd take a pop at the dominant sub.
The obvious question to ask is ; which part of "global warming" are you having trouble with?
Did the recent Australian heatwaves and subsequent bushfires happen on another planet?
The follow-up question would be: "Why did you need to inflict your scientifically illiterate prejudices loose in a newspaper which has editorialised on the importance of climate change action in the (distant) past?"
Buffoon.
* Not "Penine", as it originally appeared in this post (see comment 1 below)
P.S. Meeting up with my cartoonist friend Marc this morning, reminds me that he tackled this little-bit-of-local-snow-puts-paid-to-global-warming tosh in a cartoon last year.
Posts
Is this the Ungreenest Government ever?
13 years ago
2 comments:
Penine??
Spell checker?
Buffoon.
If you have to be critical rather than constructive then at least get it right yourself.
Hello Anonymous,
thank you for helping me to get it right. I've corrected it and left a note to that effect. It was an ironically stupid oversight on my part. People in glasshouses should take more care when throwing stones, I guess.
I would be interested to know why you think criticising the idiocies of headlines like that is not constructive? Do you think that newspapers should be able to print scientifically illiterate rubbish like that without being challenged?
I would also be interested to know what it is that you are doing that is constructive "rather than" critical. Anonymously or otherwise.
Post a Comment