Neil Young And Regina Puddles

A couple hours ago Hofmeister  and I went out to grab a coffee. On the way to the cafe, we bumped into a team from local TV, out on the Scarth St. mall filming streeters for tonight’s news.

Their  question for the public was something along the lines of “What do you think of celebrities who take up causes?”

As we chatted about this important topic — celebrities, not the causes they support — I undid my jacket. I was a little warm, probably because I was over-dressed for today’s above-zero temperatures. Which, by the way, are a tad above the average Jan. 17 high-11°C.

Ya know… it borders on journalistic malpractice that a lot of today’s media coverage on Neil Young’s Regina went out of its way to avoid the issues he’s actually raising money for and drawing attention to — namely, Treaty rights and fighting global warming-causing tarsands development. Look at page A6 in today’s Leader-Post, for instance. Mandryk chases a tangent about rhetoric, Gormley is, well, his usual pro-Conservative, global warming denying self and the political cartoon is total propaganda that looks it was commissioned by a pipeline company.

It’s a flat-out bullshit page that’ll live in infamy as glaring example of a daily paper totally blowing a story.

You’d think that some media outlet besides Prairie Dog would have noticed that on the same January afternoon that Young is in town talking about global warming, there are puddles on city streets and sidewalks.

But I guess that would be expecting too much.

Just checked the temp: as of 4:39 p.m., it’s plus-2°. Happy climate change!

Author: Stephen Whitworth

Prairie Dog editor Stephen Whitworth was carried to Regina in a swarm of bees. He's been with Prairie Dog since May 1999 and will die at his keyboard before admitting his career a terrible, terrible mistake.

16 thoughts on “Neil Young And Regina Puddles”

  1. I don’t know if it’s my head or my heart that aches more when I think about exactly the kind of BULLSHIT you are pointing out, Whitworth. Gawd help us all. And, gawd save the Prairie Dog, indeed the only alternative!

  2. Climate and weather are not the same thing. It doesn’t help the cause to confound the two. It’s bullshit when the deniers point to a particularly cold day (or even month) as evidence against climate change, and it’s just as shitty to point to an unusually warm day as evidence for climate change.

  3. It is early in the year but I think Murray M gets the ‘ballad of a thin man’ award for 2014. To quote Neil’s cousin Bob “there is something happening here ,but you don’t know what it is. Do you Mr Mandryk?”

    Good for all those who helped raise some bucks to help fight another ‘Hiroshima’ right next store.

    BTW it was one helluva show.

  4. Brad, I’ll try harder to ensure that Steve caveats any “phew, it’s hot, how about that global warming?” comment with “but of course weather isn’t climate” if you promise to caveat any “hey, weather isn’t climate” with “of course anthropogenic global warming is real and a problem.”

    I know you know it is, I just don’t want any of the Enemies of Science to feel triumphant when you score a point on ol’Whitworth.

  5. Paul: if you think that correcting Stephen for saying what he would condemn others for saying is the equivalent to denying climate change, you must have flunked Logic 101. If you meant your remarks as a joke, OK, but otherwise they insult Brad’s demonstrated intelligence, and other readers’.

  6. I find it interesting that our beloved Brad talks about how Neil Young fact are wrong but they don’t mention how they are wrong , except of course the “money thing” which, again benefits-you guessed it-the oil companies. Hummmm! Please sheeple please.

  7. Well that’s some fine pedantry-while-the-world-burns there, Brad! When one lives on a planet spiraling toward catastrophic warming while the powers that be — the oil industry, governments and apparently Saskatchewan’s daily papers — fight action to stop it, one goddamn better be willing to use powerful, if imprecise, observations to make important goddamn truths resonate with ordinary readers.

    You, Brad, know full well that *I* know full well that climate and weather are not the same thing. And Barb does too. I’ve written it enough times. You guys don’t need a standing disclaimer from me.


    Good comment, Paul.

  8. You’re busted, Stephen, and you know it. The more you’re in the wrong, the harder you bluster. It’s hardly pedantry to point out hypocrisy.

  9. I assumed using the term “denier” instead of “skeptic” would have clearly established my position on the anthropomorphic global climate change “debate”. Not to mention using “the cause” rather than “your cause”. To make it explicit: I stand with scientific consensus and all reasonable people in identifying AGCC as a) as close to a certainty as can exist and b) the greatest challenge we face.

    That said: bad arguments are bad arguments, whether they are made for or against a proposition I agree with. In addition, using weather as support for the existence of climate change opens the door for assholes to use similar arguments, lest they accuse the obviously correct side of hypocrisy. I stand by the following: being right for the wrong reason is only marginally better than being wrong.

    Now, back to drinking.

Comments are closed.