Related Articles

9 Comments

  1. 1

    Marcus Toynboyale

    The F You video is tremendous – by not falling into the trap of being a bit naff, with too many obvious giveaways. It’s subtle and restrained in style, but also packs the punch with the simple idea of F You. More of this kind of thing, please. Anything to break the endless earnest back and forth.

    If anyone’s interested we had a piece on good v bad satire (concerning Big Tobacco in our example) here: http://livefromgolgafrincham.org/2014/02/12/pulling-the-powerline/

    Reply
  2. 2
    Melissa Sweet

    Melissa Sweet

    A reader has suggested adding the work of the Yes Men in the US to this list – they are culture jamming activists who use the tactic of “identity correction” – impersonating representatives of companies, governments, and international institutions to criticise the absurdity of their discourse.

    According to an article at The Conversation:

    In October 2009, The Yes Men staged a press conference, pretending to be the United States Chamber of Commerce. The group announced the Chamber had decided to support substantive legislative action on climate change. The Yes Men also published a press release, and established a website.

    Read more here: http://theconversation.com/coal-in-court-whitehaven-climate-change-and-civil-disobedience-15991

    Reply
  3. 3

    cartoonmick

    In-depth studies, carried out over the last 45 seconds, confirm there is a direct link between the climate and politics.

    Both climate and politics change over time !! A fact confirmed in the afore mentioned in-depth study.

    “Man” is the main cause of all political change, therefore “Man” is the main cause of climate change.

    The climate is seen as a problem if a particular political party is in power, whereas there is no problem at all to be see with the climate if the opposite party is at the helm.

    So, the simplest way to solve any climate problems is to keep that party “who see no problems”, in power.

    Not only will this save the Earth from certain destruction, it will save a lot of money in the national budget as there’ll be no need for climate science committees, reports, analysis, action etc.

    Prior to the 45 second in-depth study, a cartoon was created, which may, or may not, conflict with the theme of the above summary.

    That climate change cartoon is here . . . . . . . .

    http://cartoonmick.wordpress.com/editorial-political/#jp-carousel-775

    Cheers
    Mick

    Reply
  4. 4

    Thomas Turk

    The original basis for the 97 % ‘scientists concur’ claim was Margaret Zimmerman’s paper. She sent some heavily loaded questions to 10,257 earth scientists. 3,146 thought it was important enough to reply, the rest chucked it in the bin.

    For the question “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”, she excluded all but 77 of the responses. Of those 75 answered Yes, hence her 97 % assertion, whereas it is actually 2.4 %, or 0.75 %.

    In contrast, the temperature databases still show no significant warming for 95 % of the planet over the last 16 years which still invalidate 97 % of CMIP5 models.

    The Cook et al paper is similarly flawed.

    When we had a couple of mild winters a few years ago, we were told that it was a clear sign of AGW. Then we had a run of very cold winters and the explanation was that AGW causes more extreme seasonal variations.

    After a couple of very dry years, we were told that, because of AGW we would have to get used to living in an arid Mediterranean climate and start planting olive groves. When the floods came we were told that higher rainfall is a characteristic of AGW.

    A few years ago, we were told that AGW was reaching a tipping point beyond which it would become uncontrollable and accelerate catastrophically. Now we’re being told that, actually, there has been no appreciable rise in temperature for the past two decades.
    We were told that the science was conclusive and that the argument was over. But when the Met Office’s co-conspirators at the University of East Anglia were caught lying and distorting the evidence, we were told that this was just the usual discussion between scientists about the inevitable scientific uncertainty. They can’t have it both ways.

    Sceptics are denounced for not being climate scientists (though many are) but we are expected to believe the crook Pachauri (a railway engineer), the witless Gore (a politician for goodness’ sake), the utterly discredited Stern (who claims to be an economist) – and now that deluded dreamer Rowan Williams!!!

    The examples of inconsistency and dishonesty are endless but the climate scammers are like economists – they rely on the public’s poor memory. Very few people remember their predictions long enough to notice how completely useless they are. How many islands and coastal cities were going to be inundated by the turn of the century?

    The following quote may help to put things into perspective:

    “As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval…the trend shows no indication of reversing.”

    This is an extract from an article in Time Magazine in 1974. The irreversible climatic upheaval the scientists were talking about was the coming of a new ice age as a result of GLOBAL COOLING

    Isn’t it time that someone put a stop to this nonsense?

    Reply
  5. 5

    The Pedanticist

    For crissakes Thomas, you can cherry pick data to your hearts content and prove that he earth is flat and the sun orbits it.

    You say Cook is flawed? Why? Of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of ‘global warming’ and ‘global climate change’ published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it. The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.

    Have a look at the basic science – you could start in 1896 with Svante Arrhenius then apply a bit of logic. Is the greenhouse effect real? Are we pumping greenhouse chemicals into the atmosphere? Where do those chemicals go? (hmmmm – not as many trees as there used to be… Maybe the ocean can absorb more CO2 – whoops!).

    As for your assertion that there has been no temperature rise over the last 20 years… Sorry but that is just blatantly wrong. Satellite data may not be picking up temperature rises because they have been measuring upper tropospheric temperatures. To quote from skepticalscience.com http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm
    :There’s also a tendency for some people just to concentrate on surface air temperatures when there are other, more useful, indicators that can give us a better idea how rapidly the world is warming. Oceans for instance — due to their immense size and heat storing capability (called ‘thermal mass’) — tend to give a much more ‘steady’ indication of the warming that is happening. Records show that the Earth has been warming at a steady rate before and since 1998 and there is no sign of it slowing any time soon. More than 90% of global warming heat goes into warming the oceans, while less than 3% goes into increasing the surface air temperature.

    “Even if we focus exclusively on global surface temperatures, Cowtan & Way (2013) shows that when we account for temperatures across the entire globe (including the Arctic, which is the part of the planet warming fastest), the global surface warming trend for 1997–2012 is approximatley 0.11 to 0.12°C per decade.”

    So stop cherry picking, open your eyes and your brain and TRY and develop some understanding of what’s going on. Really, it ISN’T THAT HARD!

    Reply
  6. 6

    Chris Hartwell

    Naturally Mr Turk, you can provide proof of all your claims, yes?

    Reply
  7. 7

    ShitsGottaStop

    Mr. Turk,
    Just so you know; the time you spent writing that piece of denialist garbage is unrecoverable. You will never get it back. And most readers here won’t get past paragraph 2.
    Congratulations.

    Reply
  8. 8

    Reechard

    Love the film
    Thomas Turk..
    You are one Mr Bolt’s useful idiot who swallow cherry-picked data with gusto. Most have failed elementary science 101, let alone the Advanced Atmospheric Physics module. What are you?

    There is inconsistency, yes, because this is SCIENCE.
    SCIENCE involves managing such inconsistency in a way that is HONEST and TESTABLE by the greater scientific community.
    Results found wanting are reviewed, dropped, learned from.
    There is usually a sound reason for such aberrations, which when understood, add much to our body of knowledge.

    Two such glaring examples.
    1) The recent plateau (10 years in last 100) in warming is gleefully pointed to by deny-listers as validating evidence of their desperate faith based world view.
    The real reason for this temporary slowing is that increased Trade Wind activity has increased mixing and heat up-take by the surface layers of the ocean, then pushed them deeper. There to thaw frozen methane hydrates (you can look that one up).
    2) The recent cold winter in N America was similarly no cause to crow. Warming of the Arctic region resulted in a LOSS in the normal temperature gradient between the Arctic and the equator, which resulted in instability of the polar vortex.
    See? Scientific explanations.
    Not based upon faith and fraudulent guessing, nor bought with the filthy fossil fuel industry (aka Kochs) billions. On that point, formal and informal “peer review” rules out or quickly catches and corrects bad or bodgey data. Very few would think it worth throwing a life time of work and reputation away for a few $$s.
    You appear to believe in UFOs on the basis of scanty data yet deny global warming based upon much much more… Oddly inconsistent of you.

    Reply
  9. 9

    Reechard

    Understand the Australians f or Coal are trying to suggest they deliberately set out to ‘provoke’ a response of this kind… Gotta love them spinmeisters, they keep spinning..

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

© 2015 – 2019 Croakey | Website: Rock Lily Design

right-share-menu

Follow Croakey