Celebrity Activism Cartoons
Two cartoons from Blunt, which are topical:
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Blunt, cartoons, Climate ChangeCelebrity Activism Cartoons
132 Responses to “Celebrity Activism Cartoons”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
August 6th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
I’ve said it before and i’ll say it again,
The world is going friggin nuts.
August 6th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
The ever expanding hunt for “Manbearpig” continues.
I’m sooo serial.
August 6th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
I think you left out the vast majority of scientists from the “actorvists” side DPF.
Hmmm… what to read into this post.
[DPF: I did not leave out anything. It is a cartoon done by a cartoonist. I don't exercise editorial control over the cartoons]
August 6th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
I think jarbury we can assume it is a clumsy attempt to be as offensive as possible, so people stop talking about the Double Dipper of Dipton, and get all upset at this instead.
[DPF: You get so pathetic. Can't you ever just debate the issues without swiping at me. First of all your logic that posting on one topic means people stop talking on another is inane. But secondly the cartoons were sent to me at at 12.44 pm unsolicited from the cartoonist. So how your paranoid little brain turns that into a conspiracy to do with Bill English I really do not know. Next time why don't you try less sneering and actually debate an issue]
August 6th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
I’ve said it before and i’ll say it again,
The world is going friggin nuts.
Always has been you should read ” Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds ” by Charles Mackay published in 1841.
Global Warming isn’t in it because it hadn’t been invented yet but one chapter deals with a mass evacuation of London when the populace became convinced (for no good reason) the Thames was going to inundate it.
August 6th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
I see your point, that we need to approach the science from an objective viewpoint. After all, the science has preceded the weather and the politics in this case and we need to look at it on a evidence based approach.
Personally, I accept that not all scientists will agree as to cause and effect, but i have been amazed how accurate the predictions I saw made in the 1980s have proven since. Maybe not so much in NZ, but in Australia we are seeing year on year changes.
I’d be really happy if these people are correct- but I wouldn’t be betting the planet on their views.
August 6th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Me AND Jarbury get the doubtful benefits of your thoughts?!?
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
I don’t know DPF, you are hardly posting up a storm of condemnation that the Dark Sith Lord of Financial Restraint has been caught out gorging himself at the public teat. If I had a whole research unit at my disposal I might even go back and do a little count up at how many posts you have made on, say, Helen Clark’s charity painting and do a little compare and contrast with your stunning near-silence on Bill English’s bit of double dipping, just so we could round out the debate.
But I don’t, so I shall merely content myself with assuming this is merely an attempt at deflection.
[DPF: Well first as Helen's painting fraud was before I was blogging, not much. Secondly God knows what the issues have in common. Helen's painting fraud was nothing to do with saving taxpayers money. And in terms of MPs expenses you will find I have always taken what I like to think is a balanced approach to them - justifying those which I think are reasonable, pointing out ways MPs can gain from them and suggestign ways to fix it, and condemning those which have no good rationale such as travel perks for ex MPs]
August 6th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
I will concede one thing though DPF. The rise of the blogger more or less coincided with Helen Clark’s government. The boot has never been on the other foot, so i suppose it IS both a new and an unpleasant experience for you.
[DPF: Unpleasant? What are you on about. Tom don't think I am like you. I love blogging. And I have no problems criticising National when they stuff up - in case you missed it I criticised John Key this morning.
At some stage National will be thrown out - that is politics. Having worked for a PM when she lost office, it will be comparatively easy to be merely a blogger when your party loses office.
The only thing that could really be unpleasant for me would be Winston getting back into Parliament.]
August 6th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
I’d be really happy if these people are correct- but I wouldn’t be betting the planet on their views.
You would take the views of Xena the warrior princess and Sheryl Crow over PHDs who have spent a lifetime studying the earths atmospheric systems?
I hope you are restricting yourself to one square of toilet paper per poo then.
August 6th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
I have no problem at all with people who pretend to be someone else for a living having an opinion, no matter how misguided that opinion is.
I simply pay no attention to that opinion.
I do have a problem with the idiots who publicise that opinion as if it had veracity.
They should be shot – slowly
August 6th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Andrei,
You missed my point. As a scientist myself I would never take non-scientific dogma to be indicative of anything. I agree with DPF that we treat celebrities as people with opinions and science as a way of understanding why and how things happen.
As I talk to scientists and people in various parts of the world I see climate change (not global warming- thats a completely different thing) as a completely plausible theory. I see phenomena in both hemispheres and especially the Pacific to show that things are changing. Of course, you as an individual need to make up your own mind as to what CO2 increasing past 390 ppm is causing- but I wpuld never base anything on what a celebrity thinks.
August 6th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
“I’ve said it before and i’ll say it again,
The world is going friggin nuts.”
There is a strong evidential argument that our actions are having a potentially catastrophic affect on the earth based on scientific methods and studies by well renowned scientists and scientific organisations which the projected cost of doing nothing vastly exceeds the lost productivity of doing something, and the action to do something is seen as nuts.
I would say the narrow mindedness of many of the posters here re global warming / climate change / call it what you will is going nuts.
I am not professing to be an expert, I am not saying there is unanimous agreement but I do know the majority of the scientific community think there is a causal link between our actions and the earth warming at the rate it is. Further it is projected (not definitively known but projected) that the effect of this warming is going to disproportionately affect those who have not contributed to it, due to their positioning near the equator.
I think ongoing debate is always healthy, it is how the academic community work, constantly looking over others conclusions for errors, its how we progress. But when you have something which projected results are terrible, and it is the current mainstream hypothesis by specialists in that area, action is warranted.
I see action like insurance. We are not sure what is going to happen, but we cannot afford some of the projected outcomes, accordingly this is when commercially you would take out insurance. Yeah sure the baby boomer generation can, they will be dead long before the results are realised and so some of them don’t care, those who are not worried about the impact on their children’s children just their relative wealth today, and I have no surprise that many of them are the exact groups who oppose any change. The most spoilt generation in the history of western civilisation they have accurately been described as.
Bring on the red thumbs; I know its hitting too close to the mark.
August 6th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
When I see an apparently-arbitrary list, I have to wonder what the criteria were. Is that every skeptic with a degree that they could find?
[also: someone who knows celebrities -- who is Jesus? And who is in the Judas position?]
August 6th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Jesus is Dan Quayle isnt it? Cant recognise Judas.
I’m sure in real life Dan Quayle doesnt think he is anyone as low down the pecking order as Jesus.
August 6th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
So who do you trust on the threat to the Pacific Islands. A young actress hosted by Greenpeace or an actual expert?
SEA LEVEL IN THE SOUTHWEST PACIFIC IS STABLE
Posted 4 August 2009
“Graphs of sea level for twelve locations in the southwest Pacific show stable sea level for about ten years over the region. The data … suggest that any rise of global sea level is negligible….. Sea level studies have not been carried out for very long, but they can indicate major tectonic components such as isostatic rebound in Scandinavia. ..Modelling to show alarming rates of sea level rise (associated with alleged global warming) are not supported by primary regional or global data. Even those places frequently said to be in grave danger of drowning, such as the Maldives, Tuvalu and Holland, appear to be safe”. – New paper by Cliff Ollier, University of Western Australia.
LINK to download pdf here http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/paperncgtsealevl.pdf
August 6th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
The actress of course. It is the vibe.
August 6th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
@Tom Semmens – mate, you got owned by DPF in your first comment – the fact that you kept coming back for more puts you on the same level as Clayton Cosgrove in the SFB stakes.
August 6th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Jesus = Al Gore, although if he’s not careful he will be usurped by the Obamessiah, lol
August 6th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
BChapman said…
As a scientist myself I would never take non-scientific dogma to be indicative of anything. I agree with DPF that we treat celebrities as people with opinions and science as a way of understanding why and how things happen.
There are various scientists. Just being called a scientist, doesn’t qualify you to just comment on any branch of science. See, that NASA pro-warmist scientist Prof. Gavin Schmidt (from RealClimate) who is worshiped by warmists around the world regards himself as a scientist, but actually he wasn’t formally trained as a Physicist or any branch/domain of physical/natural science. He studied mathematics, so he is a mathematician and not a scientist. I had challenged Prof. Gavin Schmidt on a post he made at RealClimate about 2 years ago, where he dismissed a finding from a paper of a skeptic scientist which concluded that climate sensitivity was over-estimated. I pointed out exactly what was wrong with his assumption of models, and after I corrected him, he realized that he was talking to or trying to confront someone (Falafulu) who knows feed-back control system theory (its application in climate system feed-backs) inside out, he weaseled and evaded answering the problems I pointed out, in which he turned to arguing in terms of evidence using statistical hypothesis testing (blind-faith) to justify his position. I stated that Physics starts from the first principles and not the other way round of blind-faith reliance on hypothesis testing. He then banned me, from posting more comments at RealClimate, since he knew that I embarrassed him on that specific forum thread. The man from the island (me) had managed to embarrass a top NASA scientist on a public forum. It has been 2 years, since my confrontation with Prof. Schmidt, so I hope that he has brushed up on his knowledge on feedback control system theory, just in case the man from the island will visit RealClimate again for a debate and he must be prepared.
There is nothing wrong with being a mathematician doing scientific work, since great mathematicians in history had reached monumental achievement in their contributions to science, such as Paul Dirac (theoretically worked out the existence of anti-matter which won him a Nobel Prize), John von Neuman (huge contributions to Physics, Computing, Mathematics & Economics) and others, but there is something wrong when they become mouth-piece for lobbyists, where foundations/principles of scientific works are simply thrown out the door. This is what happened to Dr. Schmidt, he is a mouth-piece for Greenpeace.
August 6th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
“So who do you trust on the threat to the Pacific Islands.”
The only threat to the pacific islands recorded so far is the slow sinking of previously active volcanic columns sinking back into the oceanic crust.
Its called Geology, and it has nothing to do with Keisha or her marine mammal friends!!
August 6th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
BTW, there is NO EVIDENCE to support AGW. (a computer model is not evidence, nor is doctored data nor data gathered from sensors located in the middle of asphalt parking lots)
August 6th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Lets see what those well informed twosome have done in the past to show good judgement?
DOUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If their personal lives are as well thought through as their reasoning on this matter, THEN THEY GOTTA BE RIGHT.
What a shame idiots are charged for their air consumption, then they may take a breath before wasting good atmosphere.
August 6th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Acting in 1 movie = 1 PhD in ecology, didn’t you know?
August 6th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
I wonder how many emissions have been generated during the production and transmission of Outrageous Fortune or Whale Rider?
Lets see these celebrities lead by example.
August 6th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
No, no, no Beven, you don’t understand, it’s not for them to do, but to tell us what to do – don’t you see the difference?
August 6th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
About 400 skeptical climate scientists wrote to congress recently.
As opposed to the few dozen responsible for the ‘summary for policymakers’ in the IPCC 4AR.
August 6th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Greenpeace is a lobby group. They have an obligation to their donors to use that money in the most effective way possible. A televised campaign with well-liked NZ actors was presumably judged more effective than one fronted by scientists of unproven charisma.
Is anyone here seriously suggesting that Greenpeace should have gone with an inefficient use of resources over an efficient one to achieve their goals? Climate-change sceptics on Kiwiblog are hardly the target audience for the campaign.
August 6th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Phhttt Global warming is different from climate change, oh my, the predictions made by the alarmists 10 years ago have not come to pass – never mind change the words and carry on with the rhetoric as before.
Yes – Climate change is a plausible theory – the idea that the climate has changed even in historic times is not new. It goes back to the 1880s at least – based upon studies of historical agricultural records such as the Domesday book from the late 11th century which revealed that England was growing crops back then that could not be grown in the late 19th century (or today for that matter) , it being too cold!
See since climate change is something that is unavoidable and will happen regardless of what we do or don’t do by using that phrase you can’t loose.
This is all politics very little to do with real science which is based upon skepticism, considered conclusions with the uncertianities in them documented and quantified as far as they may be.
Which of course is why they are using airhead celebrities to push it, rather than far less photogenic academics who might speak in guarded terms of probabilities and confidence intervals for example.
August 6th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
What a ridiculous and disingenious argument put forward in the “Actorvists” cartoon. The inference that the climate change debate is a case of celebrities versus PhDs is pathetic. Yes, if you are swayed by the opinions of a celebrity without looking at the facts yourself then you are an idiot but there are plenty of scientists, researchers, PhDs etc on the “actorvist” side of the argument. I agree that there is genuine scientific debate about the causes of climate change, sugesting otherwise (as the cartoon does) is pretty lame really.
August 6th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Philonz, it’s a cartoon, read into it what you will.
August 6th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
there is NO EVIDENCE to support AGW.
Neither is there against it then.
Comparing scientists with actors is like comparing apples with lollipops. A more valid comparison is considering how many scientists believe there could be some ACC compared top how many think we have no effect at all.
August 6th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
I love those “here is a list of scientists who agree with me, therefore I’m right” statements. My two favourites are
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/#presentsci
and
http://ncseweb.org/taking-action/list-steves
August 6th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Watch these crazy actors fly thousands of miles to line up for a role in the movie version Michael Crichton’s State of Fear………I can smell the hypocrites from here!
August 6th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Yeah, go DPF! Making a mockery of the Climate Change contingent! You’re the man!
Key swings at the Whale Rider girl and you swing on his coat-tails. It’s awfully admirable!
August 6th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
“there is NO EVIDENCE to support AGW.
Neither is there against it then.”
So the burden of proof is on those who don’t subscribe to AGW/ACC?
You truly are desperate.
August 6th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
So you would agree that ‘a scientific consensus’ is meaningless?
August 6th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Ongoing science, in the form of the CLOUD experiment at CERN, the ARGOS buoy network and of course atmospheric measuring will prove/disprove cataclysmic AGW. Until the results are in neither we or anyone else should devastate their own economies.
AGW appears to be a cause that the green left have bet their whole future on. I think it’s a colossal rort.
The scientific jury is still out.
August 6th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
As I blogged back in June Robyn Malcolm who is great on Outrageous Fortune needs to zip it http://diehardmooloo.blogspot.com/2009/06/note-to-celebrities-stfu.html and as I also blogged in July, the situation appears only to be worsening http://diehardmooloo.blogspot.com/2009/07/not-another-one.html . What ever the matter climate change, rugby, fashion, cooking it really doesn’t matter. If you know nothing STFU. Stop trying to use your celebrity to pedal someone else’s point of view. It shits almost as much as insurance line funeral plan ads on TV.
August 6th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
“So you would agree that ‘a scientific consensus’ is meaningless?” To the posters of KiwiBlog yes, unless it agrees with their beliefs then its scripture like.
Absolutely love how one eyed some posters are (note some), it amuses and scares me.
Saying a model is not evidence when it is based upon data is so misleading. On that basis all of economic theory would practically fall through some”evidence” filter.
Dont worry however mr Herman Poole debating this issue at KB is like debating abortion in a church. Those who are open to debate are silent and those who believe in the righteous of their path scream it loudly ignoring any fact which may get in their way.
August 6th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
>> I love those “here is a list of scientists who agree with me, therefore I’m right” statements. My two favourites are
> So you would agree that ‘a scientific consensus’ is meaningless?
All I’m saying is that showing the size of the group of scientists supporting one proposition is meaningless without also showing the size of the group of scientists who support the counter-proposition.
When one group is several orders of magnitude more populous than the other (like in the creationism / evolution debate) it’s a powerful argument to give more weight to what the overwhelming majority say.
/no, I’m not saying “blindly follow the majority”
August 6th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Which begs the question, who does control the publishing of cartoons on Kiwiblog?
August 6th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Some people spout the line ‘scientists agree’ or ‘the scientific consensus is’.
A list of scientist who disagree serves to refute these comments.
August 6th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Incorrect. Other models are verified against real life data.
Climate models have never been run out against real life data to confirm that they work. In fact for the last 10 years the models have not been predicting correctly.
August 6th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
“Which begs the question, who does control the publishing of cartoons on Kiwiblog?”
The Standard has already told us: Roger Douglas, Ruth Richardson, and the Business Roundtable.
August 6th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Also, what is the source for this consensus or supposed list of scientists who agree?
The skeptics have pinned their flags up, so it is up to AGW crowd to prove their numbers.
The heads of the IPCC do not speak for scientists without some form of democratic representation. Plenty of the scientists they claim as supporting their reports simply do not.
A report done a couple of years ago showed that less than 10% of scientists were totally convinced of AGW.
August 6th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
At one stage there was only one scientist/astrologer who claimed the earth was round and not flat. Without a model.
There are now a few more that agree, and there are better and better models.
Someone once suggested a theory called evolution. Now the vast majority of scientists agree he was on the right track.
August 6th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
“Incorrect. Other models are verified against real life data.
Climate models have never been run out against real life data to confirm that they work. In fact for the last 10 years the models have not been predicting correctly.”
And further to this, the data that is used in the climate models has been doctored to produce a desired end-result, ie the infamous ‘hockey stick’ chart. And not forgetting that a significant proportion of the temperature gathering sites are situated in car lots, close to airconditioner heat exchanges, close to buildings etc thus ‘polluting’ the data.
If the evidence for AGW/ACC is so clear, then it should be left to speak for itself. However there is no evidence, thus the AGW/ACC fundamentalists have to contrive the evidence to support their cause.
August 6th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
A commenter called “Pat” made an excellent point at The Standard yesterday.
He noted that it was a really bad piece of advice from John Key to Ms Castle-Hughes that she “stick to acting”, given that she’s a really crap actor.
I can only concur.
August 6th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
“A report done a couple of years ago showed that less than 10% of scientists were totally convinced of AGW.”
I’m surprised any are totally convinced. But more like 90%+ seem to think there could be anything from a minor to a major problem.
August 6th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Kimble has a conspiracy theory going…something to do with a one armed man perhaps ?
August 6th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Cerium
Both Galileo and Darwin reached their conclusions through scientific observation.
Scientific observation does not support AGW/ACC.
Like I said, desperate.
August 6th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
What was she bad in?
August 6th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Two of the silliest people you could ever meet
August 6th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
“Scientific observation does not support AGW/ACC.
What scientific observation? All scientific observation? Has scientific observation proven there is no AGW/ACC?
If I burn some coal can I prove that I release energy that was stored a long time ago?
It’s harder to prove the affect of the resulting air pollution, some of which is air particles that will block the sun, some is gas that may have a greenhouse effect. Is the net effect proven to be zero?
What happens when I have no coal left and the air clears? Is the net effect still zero?
August 6th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Thats fine Cerium. But I would suggest the threshold to justify massive financial upheaval is somewhat higher than ‘there could be a minor problem’.
August 6th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Nevermind if the jury is out or not.
The method for combating climate change as endorsed by the Greens, Greenpeace and various worthy spokes-actors is cutting emissions. This has been tried before, in the UK it increased the carbon footprint by about 20%. Emission caps are a proven failure, the bigger the cap the more expensive the resulting failure becomes, but thats all a larger target means. If you believe that climate change is a real and present danger, then Castle-Hughes is endorsing a plan to kill it faster.
http://www.sei.se/news-a-events/news-archive/1276-carbon-dioxide-emissions-associated-with-uk-consumption-increase.html
August 6th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Yes people who are worried about AGW and trying to speak up about it are ridiculous, and should be ridiculed. Not listened to.
Vox pop is seemingly ok when it has the “right” point of view…?
August 6th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
All good questions Cerium. You still have failed to provide any evidence to prove AGW/ACC.
August 6th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
All scientific observation Cerium.
Scientific observation has proven that for many millions of years, the climate has fluctuated across a range from 5-15 degrees celscius.
Has scientific observation proven that a meteorite will not hit your house?
The burden of proof rests with AGW, not with the status quo continuing as it has for millions of years.
August 6th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Cerium said “I’m surprised any are totally convinced. ”
Too right. The whole point of scientific inquiry is that you’re never “totally convinced” – you’re always reassessing the current theory as new information becomes available. Only dogmatists are totally convinced.
August 6th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
There seems to be a few dogmatists here then. Convinced we should just keep on polluting until we have nothing left to pollute with.
By the time we can prove we are stuffed we will be stuffed.
August 6th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Cerium – where have I said that we should keep polluting? I’m all for reducing pollution, recycling, reducing wastage, clean water, sustainable logging etc etc
However, there is no evidence to support AGW/ACC, thus it a nonsense to wreck our economy and way of life on the basis thereof.
Plants love CO2.
August 6th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Let me state here an important point for those who don’t have a background in Physics, so that you understand the discussions better. The aim of Physics is to discover the underlying laws that govern the Universe. The more generalized a physical theory is, the more closer it is to those fundamental underlying laws. Climate science is far from it (genralization), not even close and for those warmist scientists and their cheerleaders (inclluding lawmakers & politicians) are saying that the debate is over, is just simply a way to shut down the debate.
Jeff83 said…
On that basis all of economic theory would practically fall through some”evidence” filter.
Jeff, again economic theory is not yet generalized, but it is moving towards that way. Econo-physicists think that the foundations of current economic theory which is largely based on equilibrium dynamics, is insufficient or completely wrong. Based on empirical evidence, they believe that equilibrium doesn’t exist at all in the market place (or at least time-dependent ). Econo-physicists, suspect or think that there is some more fundamental underlying laws that govern the market that are yet to be discovered. When those more fundamental laws are simplified, they then reduced to what we observed today in the market place predicted by the current economic theories, exactly the same as when Quantum Mechanics & Relativity Theory (more fundamental) are simplified, they both reduced to Newtonian Mechanics (less fundamental). Here is a good article from a group of physicists, that should be a good read for you if you’re an economist. The paper concluded that , there is little or nothing in existing micro- or macroeconomics texts that is of value for understanding real markets.
Response to Worrying Trends in Econophysics
My point here, is that any theory that is more generalizable compared to competing ones, should be trusted more than the one that is less generalizable, be it economics, physics or whatever discipline. As of today, climate science is not generalizable enough at this stage that we can trust its predictions.
August 6th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Whoever wrote “Saying a model is not evidence when it is based upon data is so misleading” is wrong.
Daily meteorological forecasts are made with the aid of many different models, and we all know how much they can vary! Considering these short-term models are much more accurate and proven from experience, who logically would base the economy of a country on a 50 year projection?
Some people need to understand that modelling is merely one result out of many possible outcomes.
August 6th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Rather convenient isn’t it. Sounds a bit like an insurance sales pitch.
August 6th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Or Pascal’s Wager.
August 6th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
No, because there is a significant cost to to the AGW belief system.
August 6th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
“And not forgetting that a significant proportion of the temperature gathering sites are situated in car lots, close to airconditioner heat exchanges, close to buildings etc thus ‘polluting’ the data.”
And this is very true – the urban heat island effect has only increased in the last 30 years.
Add to that the fact that when automatic weather stations were phased in in the 80′s, many were moved and not placed in scientifically accurate locations (ie certain height above grass, away from trees, buildings etc). You cannot accurately compare the two sets of data.
August 6th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Cerium, you are living proof of the succes of the AGW crowd in capturing the conversation. You are now a prisoner to their ideas rather than your own. To conflate “pollution” with “greenhouse gasses” is the shallowest of mistakes.
You will probably find overwhelming support on this blog for action to reduce pollution as in the release of materials which directly damage the environment.
But what you miss is that the shifting ground, AGW becomes Climate Change, the role of CO2, the effect of methane, the demonisation of carbon (boy would you be buggered without it) not to mention the straight out lies and misinformation (hockey stick graphs anyone?) the fact that no climatic effects have been correctly predicted or proven means that there are a whole big bunch of people who could actually be doing some good by promoting pollution reductions and cleanup are running round in circles like headless chooks looking for something that isn’t actually there.
If there is anything to despair about in humanity’s future it is that.!
August 6th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Rick Rowling said…
All I’m saying is that showing the size of the group of scientists supporting one proposition is meaningless without also showing the size of the group of scientists who support the counter-proposition.
I completely agree with you here Rick. It just means that scientific researches & debate should let fly and go on till a definitive answer is reached. The debate shouldn’t be stifled by one group (IPCC worshipers) calling skeptic scientists, holocaust deniers. Let the evidence speak for itself instead of trying to suppress the opinions of the skeptics.
Rick Rowling said…
When one group is several orders of magnitude more populous than the other (like in the creationism / evolution debate) it’s a powerful argument to give more weight to what the overwhelming majority say.
I disagree with you here. From history, Einstein tried to submit his paper on Special Theory of Relativity (STR) to major scientific publications at the time, but it was rejected, based on the consensus amongst the top physicists who peer reviewed submitted materials on behalf of those publishers, that STR was absurd and it was something from a fantasy story that shouldn’t be warranted for publication. Hehe, but the great scientist who was unknown to the world of Physics at the time, persisted in his effort to find a publisher that would have understood what he proposed in his paper so they could have given him a chance. His paper finally ended up on the desk one of the great scientist at the time, Max Planck who read Einstein paper, and realized that Einstein’s piece of work must be published. STR paper ended up being published on Annalen der Physik (a German Physics Journal) which was an obscured science journal at the time. STR elevated this journal to be a highly regarded international scientific publication, after Einstein’s paper had finally reached the Physics community in which it took a while before it sank it to the minds of those scientists that STR is something revolutionary.
Again my point here is that the number of scientists that agree or disagree with you is irrelevant. Einstein once quoted, that it only took one person to prove him wrong. Consensus & numbers are irrelevant.
August 6th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
The only way to halt the effect of the growing human population on our physical environment is to restrict, even reverse, population growth. Blindingly obvious, but it’s treated like the elephant in the room by people exhorting us to piss in the wind by using fewer plastic bags, restricting vehicle use and so on.
August 6th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Love the post. Keep it coming.
August 6th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Fearlessly Independent
An Interview with Ian Plimer
by Robert Tracinski and Tom Minchin
In our recent article on the “intellectual climate change” in the global warming debate in Australia, Tom Minchin and I mentioned the key role played by geologist Ian Plimer of the University of Adelaide. Plimer’s book Heaven and Earth, which is now available in America, is an authoritative scientific refutation of the claims of human-caused global warming, and it has helped turn the tide of public opinion down under against the environmentalist hysteria.
This is crucially important in Australia, a nation that derives 80% of its electricity from coal and would suffer an economic catastrophe under any version of “cap and trade” energy rationing. It’s also important for us here in America, because it shows that it is possible to counter the all-pervasive global warming propaganda campaign.
The influence of Plimer’s book is particularly interesting because it is not a light introduction to the topic. It is a thick book, chock full of science. Plimer’s prose is quite readable, but there’s so much detail it can be a lot take in. Yet that is part of the point of the book. It is not so much a primer as a comprehensive reference, with chapters organized around answering all the questions an intelligent layman might have about the factors that influence climate, under the headings of “History” (of warmings and coolings), “The Sun,” “Earth,” “Ice,” “Water,” and “Air.” If the book is comprehensive in its scope, that is because everything science has discovered about “history, archaeology, geology, astronomy, ocean sciences, atmospheric sciences, and the life sciences”—Plimer’s list—refutes the global warming dogma.
Continues here;http://www.nzcpr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=32&p=23434#p23434
August 6th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
ps, there is a very good primer on Climate Change called A Global Warming Primer, by the National Centre for Policy Analysis.
It has useful graphs on just how much of the Earth’s atmosphere is Greenhouse Gas (no more than 2%) and how much of that Greenhouse gas is human caused (one quarter of 1%).
Very eye-opening (especially page 8). Even if all human activities were immediately shut down tomorrow, 96.6% of the carbon dioxide would not be affected.
(The NCPA receives no money or input from any private company or Govt agency).
August 6th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
The only way to halt the effect of the growing human population on our physical environment is to restrict, even reverse, population growth. Blindingly obvious, but it’s treated like the elephant in the room by people exhorting us to piss in the wind by using fewer plastic bags, restricting vehicle use and so on.
Jumping junipers – you ever heard of Paul R. Ehrlich, he was an insect guy. In the sixties he was a cheerleader for the scare of those days, AGW having not been invented yet.
Anyway he calculated there would be mass famines in the eighties including all the rich nations due to over population. Woeful pictures were painted of mass starvation from Los Angeles to New York and how desperate remedies were required NOW or it will be TOO LATE. He actually likened the growth of the human race to cancer.
He wanted the Government to control who got to breed and when by putting contraceptives in the water supply.
Luckly this nuttiness did not get as far as AGW has got but a lot elite intellectuals and UN types went for it – as they would of course.
Anyway none of the dire stuff came to pass when he said it would. The thing is the AGW nutters have learnt from this which is why the real scary stuff is fifty to a hundred years in the future. But even as it is their more moderate projections haven’t been realized either – which is why AGW is morphing into Climate Change.
August 6th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
“The science is missing from Ian Plimer’s “Heaven and Earth”
I agree with Barry Brook that Ian Plimer’s approach to climate science in Heaven Earth is unscientific. He starts with his conclusion that there is no “evidential basis” that humans have caused recent warming and that the theory that humans can create global warming
is contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics, astronomy, history, archeology and geology.
He accepts any factoid that supports his conclusion and rejects any evidence that contradicts his conclusion. ”
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia.php
August 6th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Celebs care more about careers than the planet. Tell them that there’s a “save the snails on mars” campaign which they can front on TV and their agent will have them in front of the cameras in a flash
August 6th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Can some of you brainy AGW believers (yes I know an oxymoron) explain to a simple lay person how sea levels are rising in the South Pacific but the rest of the world shows no upward shift sea levels. If this is so this defies the law of physics as I was taught that water always finds it’s own level. Example, a siphon will only work when one water level is lower then the other. How can we have islands been flooded by high water levels in some parts of the globe but not in others, the level of the sea must be the same all over the world unless affected by the pull of the moon. These islands must be sinking there is no other way seawater could swap them, water can not form it’s self into hills or mountain ranges it must be of a constant level throughout the world, anything else is impossible.
August 6th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Anyway none of the dire stuff came to pass when he said it would.
What about the dire population projections? That have been coming to pass every year.
If we had the equivalent of WW1 and WW2 casualties every year we would just about stay static.
August 6th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
The deniers have taken what has become the standard approach. If you can’t prove them wrong then they must be right. It’s not a coincidence the same approach is taken on “intelligent” design, and Obama’s birth certificate, as it was with Iraq’s WMD.
They also make out the alternative option is to be a “believer” when there are a wide range of opinions in what causes there could be, what problems there could be and what the effect of them could be.
They make it sound like their opponents are involved in a conspiracy, have secret agendas. Standard tactic, trying to divert from their own involvement.
Are there big business interests in stoking up the “controversy”? Standard tactic. We get sucked in by advertising. And we get sucked in by invisible lobbying. Similar to all the cigarette smoke that has been sucked in.
Sucked in by the majority of scientists?
Or sucked in by the moneyed lobbyists?
Socialism has proven to be a failure.
How long will it take unbridled capitalism to do the same?
August 6th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
“What about the dire population projections? That have been coming to pass every year.”
For starters they havent turned out to be dire. And… well… thats about it, really. Nice insta-fail Cerium.
August 6th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Cerium, the problem with population predictions is that people don’t take into account the work that this extra population will do. There is more than enough physical land space for more people. Plus the more people there are, the more workers we will have – more people = more farmers, more plumbers, more growers, more builders etc, etc. More people cultivating and growing the food and other things we need.
The human race can support itself, no matter how many of us there are, I think.
August 6th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
“The deniers have taken what has become the standard approach. If you can’t prove them wrong then they must be right.”
Actually, the fact that they are DENYING automatically makes their position, “You havent proven YOU are right.”
Again, nice insta-fail. Three-peat?
August 6th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
The human race can support itself, no matter how many of us there are, I think.
NZ is roughly the same size as Japan. Would you be happy for us to have the same population? That would be 25 times what we have now. Enough land to produce enough food?
August 6th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
“He starts with his conclusion that there is no “evidential basis” that humans have caused recent warming…”
[Oops, my mistake, I missed this one.]
Its what is known as a null hypothesis, Cerium.
Three-peat complete! The insta-fail trifecta!
August 6th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
The population problem is already solving itself. Like a lot of things, it appears wealth fixes it.
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen.html
August 6th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Jumping junipers – you ever heard of Paul R. Ehrlich, he was an insect guy. In the sixties he was a cheerleader for the scare of those days, AGW having not been invented yet.
Butterfly guy to be exact. The perfect basis to become an expert on human population
I always like the arachnids more
August 6th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
An interesting post from Falafulu Fisi but no surprise there.
RealClimate is a propaganda website that was set up by a PR firm and is run by the high priests of Global Warming from NASA.
Like most of the fanatical global warming websites it brooks no disagreement from the party line and censors or bans from posting scientists who question its science. However, this is a very poor PR tactic which has the effect of alienating most normal scientists who expect open debate, alternative theories, conflicting evidence and evolving understanding as part of science.
It has proved entirely counter-productive in the long run and has simply driven most intelligent, open-minded people to other sources where there is genuine, open and free debate – irrespective of the local preferred views.
August 6th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Incidentally, has everyone seen the amazing ocean satellite photos on Google Maps these days? You can see all the underwater volcanoes – some with atols perched on top – and the deep ocean trenches crystal clear:
http://maps.google.co.nz/maps?utm_campaign=en&utm_source=en-ha-apla-nz-google-gm&utm_medium=ha&utm_term=google%20maps
August 6th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Don’t you love the term “deniers”.
If you want to BELIEVE the world is coming to an end, feel free.
Can’t the rest of us BELIEVE what we want to?
I also want the 40 percenters to practice what they preach – cut their car use by 40%, 40% less power usage and so on.
Set an example to show how great it will be. Every little bit counts you know – YOU can make a difference.
August 6th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
..apart from the fact that 97% of the land surface on Earth is empty….
August 6th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
“I also want the 40 percenters to practice what they preach – cut their car use by 40%, 40% less power usage and so on.”
Actually it is 40% from 1990 levels, so they would have to reduce their car usage from 1990 by 40 percent etc.
August 6th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Another so called celeb activist who’s movies or tv shows I have not watched and will not be watching……….
August 6th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
How long will it take unbridled capitalism to do the same?
There’s no such thing, Delirium. Unless you thought the US was some laissez-faire paradise last year (snort!) or in 1929 (Hahaha!).
August 6th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
“..apart from the fact that 97% of the land surface on Earth is empty….”
Empty of what? You mean not paved, not farmed, not in wildlife reserves, what exactly?
August 6th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
The IPCC computer models dont even work when tested to predict the earths tempreture 50 years ago. The data they predict for the future has no basis.Its that simple.The models are wrong.
August 6th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
It’s going back a few years now, but you may remember Chris Morris’ “Brass Eye” on the dangers of the Eastern European drug “Cake”…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwylBRucU7w
Celebs make such knowledgable, informed spokesmuppets don’t they?
August 6th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Looking at Al Gorge on TV1 tonite me thinks he ate every one of those beautiful feckers at that table.
Now thats a fact
August 6th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Where do porn stars stand on the issue of global warming? When will they start making adverts?
August 6th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
“Where do porn stars stand on the issue of global warming?”
Apparently John Homes death was out down to his pole shrinking..
August 6th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
What seems missing from all the climate prediction models (well at least missing from the explanation) is what happens when (not if, it’s happened before in a cyclical fashion) the ice caps melt and the sea level rises. Seems obvious to me that the extra weight in the ocean basins would cause an imbalance against the weight of the ‘floating’ solid land. This would then cause plate adjustments which would result in volcanic activity. Volcanic activity causes cooling through ash etc. The cycle continues.
August 6th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Basically we are fucked, if the ICE cores teach us anything then to ‘fight’ global warming, or fight an ice age, is to intervene in the natural order of the planet.
August 6th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
What was that sound????
…. oh, a dog whistle. Thought so.
August 7th, 2009 at 12:05 am
jarbury
If you and I live forever we will get to reflect on the validity of the science in the early 2000′s. Other prophets of doom will have come and gone as they have before and all the time stuff would have been changing. So the science is settled then? I’m a ‘AGW’ skeptic, get over it. Do some digging on climate prediction science over time. Come back to me when the science is settled.
August 7th, 2009 at 12:13 am
Cerium said…
The deniers have taken what has become the standard approach. If you can’t prove them wrong then they must be right. It’s not a coincidence the same approach is taken on “intelligent” design, and Obama’s birth certificate, as it was with Iraq’s WMD.
You should learn of what First Principle is, in its application to physical science, before you spew out your ranting here. Try to be more informative about scientific methods first before plunging into illogical unsubstantiated assertions.
August 7th, 2009 at 12:29 am
ok…….. After the pacific forum people from kiribati are really going onto to much about global bullshit.They think there islands are shrinking………… they want to move to new zealand or aussie.UMMMMMMMMMMMMMM better life welfare???? i think they should move inshore.Like maori settlements over the centuries who had to move into land.The sea rises and falls over centuries etc,The moon and the sun have tital effect over the earth.I think island nations should hop onto what ever the no name whale rider and robin whats here names shows big moon chins………………………………plenty of room there
August 7th, 2009 at 1:29 am
The believers seem to rationalise things like Mao Tse Tung.
I know we will have a campaign to massively improve the grain harvests by killing all the birds.
Hmmmm. That will work, won’t it?
Leave Nature alone. Co2 is not a pollutant.
The only Global problem we have is over population in poor countries.
That is linked to Pension Provision.
They have loads of kids to ensure food and shelter in their old age.
The developed world of course pays taxes to Governments so that they (Government) can have Gold plated pensions.
AGW is linked directly to All Gores super fund. (Joke)
August 7th, 2009 at 1:31 am
The Whale Rider actress went to the Solomon Islands to explore the devastation caused by AGW.
Anybody know what she actually found? We know that water levels haven’t risen!
August 7th, 2009 at 7:35 am
All scientists should be skeptics. They readjust their ideas based on new evidence and indications as they become available.
I’m not a scientist, I simply don’t know with any certainty the validity of the ACC claims. I’m skeptical about a lot of it, but I think there is a possibility some of the current science could be partly right.
Would those that claim there is absolutely no significant ACC consider exercising a bit of skepticism about their position?
August 7th, 2009 at 7:49 am
Fletch’s “97% empty” claim seems to be a reference to only about 3% of the planet being urbanised, Fletch, how much of this “empty” planet do you think we should urbanise? If we go for 100% the planet could support over 200 billion people!
Burt and Glutaemus Maximus both say we should leave nature alone and not to interfere in the natural order of things, um, yeah, got that.
August 7th, 2009 at 7:54 am
Lawrence Hakiwai. If you’re proposing they just look after their own lives that defeats the purpose of what they’re trying to achieve.
They live to tell you how to live, what to do, what to say, what to eat, how to dress, what to drive, how strong your shower is ……
These pricks cannot help but interfere in your life
August 7th, 2009 at 8:10 am
I am skeptical about the status quo of global mean temperature fluctuations between 5-15 degrees celcius Cerium.
Same as I’m skeptical about other observed phenomena such as gravity is down and the earth orbits the sun.
August 7th, 2009 at 8:36 am
I’m skeptical about how how genuine your skepticism is Brian. Only being skeptical about what you disagree with isn’t skepticism. Yesterday Rick called that dogmatism.
August 7th, 2009 at 8:39 am
Cerium, why do you post here?
Not like you will be an opinion former on this blog.
Best if you retreat to the Standard!
Idealogue!
August 7th, 2009 at 8:46 am
“Best if you retreat to the Standard!”
Agree. Kiwiblog is completely flooded with posts from this insipid patronising condescending self obsessed extreme left BORE.
August 7th, 2009 at 9:09 am
from the herald this morning – Key says he’ll chat to Keisha
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10589176
This gets on my goat.
When are will the rest of us be invited to have a chat – oops thats right not all of us are low rate, know nothing celebrities. What a fucking joke?
August 7th, 2009 at 9:29 am
@ cerium “What about the dire population projections? That have been coming to pass every year.”
Go back and read “The Population Time Bomb” – we were all supposed to be fucked ages ago. Didnt happen. We didnt run out of oil or iron, we arent all standing shoulder to shoulder, there’s plenty of food to feed everyone.
August 7th, 2009 at 9:30 am
People should all be grateful that Cerium and PhilU comment here, Red will always look for a target and he shifts his sights from left to right.
August 7th, 2009 at 9:37 am
Shunda barunda (689) 23 1 Says:
August 6th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
I’ve said it before and i’ll say it again,
The world is going friggin nuts.
Yep!
August 7th, 2009 at 9:39 am
“We didnt run out of oil or iron” – can you guarantee we won’t?
“we arent all standing shoulder to shoulder” – maybe not all of us, yet
http://coolstuff.floristone.com/china-beach.html
“there’s plenty of food to feed everyone” – that statement speaks for itself
August 7th, 2009 at 9:41 am
There is plenty of food to feed everyone. It’s just not getting to many of them.
August 7th, 2009 at 9:51 am
@ Ryan actually it mostly is. Not too many people starve to death nowadays. But those that dont get it live in largely non-democratic and/or non-capitalist societies so it’s pretty much self inflicted.
@ Cerium that’s not really a rebuttal of any sort. But the short answers are “yes”, “any fool can show localised crowding” and “wtf?”
August 7th, 2009 at 9:59 am
Greg, are you saying that as long as we have enough oil and iron and space and food during our lifetime then stuff rest of the world and our kids and grandkids?
There were 923 million hungry people in the world in 2007, an increase of 80 million since 1990, despite the fact that the world already produces enough food to feed everyone – 6 billion people – and could feed double – 12 billion people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation
Can’t always trust the wiki but…..I could have been wrong on the food production capability. Projected population by 2050 is about 9b. But – it would take a 40% reduction in ingestions by the affluent
August 7th, 2009 at 10:07 am
About 300 million of those hungry people are in the US judging by the size of them.
August 7th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Mass and Energy are conserved Cerium. It just so happens that at the moment there is so much oil and iron underground that it is far cheaper than reprocessing what we have already extracted.
August 7th, 2009 at 10:44 am
If john key meets whale rider girl for a chat on global bullshit then he should also meet mike hunt,wayne king,dick hertz,eric tyle, justin case,tim burr and pier nuss
August 7th, 2009 at 10:47 am
You forgot Gavin Head
August 7th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Talking about ‘rent-a-mob’ for your latest green cause.
I recall some TV show in the states where a mock ‘latest threat to the world’ type campaign was setup to see who would by in. This guy started a petition outlining the ‘dangers’ of Di-hydrogen oxide to the environment. The number of Keisha C-H types that signed up was incredible, and scary.
[Obvious note: Di-hydrogen oxide = H2O = water]
August 7th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Bullshit, by Penn & Teller.
August 7th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Non-democratic, maybe. But not part of the global capitalist economy, with plenty of capitalist FDI in their country?
August 7th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Providing a counter to the Greenpeace campaign: http://signoff.org.nz/
August 7th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
“..KiwiGreg (450) Vote: Add rating 4 Subtract rating 1 Says:
August 7th, 2009 at 9:51 am
@ Ryan actually it mostly is. Not too many people starve to death nowadays. But those that dont get it live in largely non-democratic and/or non-capitalist societies so it’s pretty much self inflicted…”
like..you are fucken kidding..aren’t you..?
“..it’s pretty much self inflicted…”
..eh..?
gag-inducing ignorant..!
phil(whoar.co.nz