Sunday, May 16, 2010

Now a new bear sub-species - Ursus bogus maximus

Instead of running that image of Ursus bogus, why didn’t Science magazine choose this shot instead? It’s by the same artist, and is far more heart-wrenching on account of the tragically immobile wind turbine. (Via Shub Niggurath.) Meanwhile, the original photoshopped poley is causing grief for warmenist Peter Gleick, as Bradley Fikes reports:
When blogs (including this one) pointed out Science’s photo blunder, Gleick got quite irate — not at Science for its carelessness — but at those who pointed out the mistake.

Warmies are always sensitive to the pointing out of mistakes. So would you be too, if your worldview was based on them. Speaking of worlds, please enjoy the global travels of our peripatetic poley. I like to think of him as the people’s poley.
UPDATE. The NYT’s Andrew Rivkin:
Polar bear pictures, particularly, have proved problematic. Remember the image of the bear struggling in the waves circulated by an environmental group awhile back? The waves were from the prop wash of the helicopter overhead.

We also remember the NYT’s polar bear problems. They went on for quite some time.

Posted via email from Garth's posterous

No comments: