Monday Mirthiness – chill your drink while wailing about the polar bears and sea level rise

WUWT readers may remember when Ursus Bogus made an appearance in Science magazine, and the hilarity that ensued from it.

image

The embarrassment for Science was that it was a Photoshop job.  There’s also the penguin version of the stock art. Science subsequently admitted:

The image associated with this article was selected by the editors. We did not realize that it was not an original photograph but a collage, and it was a mistake to have used it.

Well, some enterprising company has taken that hilarity, and turned it into something you can annoy/entertain your warmist friends with at your next party….

From the blog entry at WellDoneStuff:

polar_bear_ice_cube

Chill your drink while also reminding yourself that global warming is killing off polar bears as these arctic ice cube molds melts away. The molds are easy to make, just add water, freeze them, then watch them melt to nothing – just like their real life counter parts!

Available at Amazon.com here

About these ads

37 thoughts on “Monday Mirthiness – chill your drink while wailing about the polar bears and sea level rise

  1. Wow – what fun! You can even try placing the frozen ice bears in club soda to see if the excess CO2 has a deleterious effect on the poor critters…

  2. “then watch them melt to nothing – just like their real life counter parts!”
    Geez, I never realised that penguins and polars melted.
    Just shows how much I know !

    Imagine, they get hungry, dive into the water to get some food and melt to death !!! Poor dears.

    I’m sure major news outlets will soon be picking up the storey. They could call on Bill Nye to explain how the new (weird weather) inverted Coriolis effect has caused the water to be warm enough to melt penguins and polar bears.

  3. How divorced from lived-in reality are these people that they could not immediately recognise a self-evidently photoshopped image? What kind of ivory tower are they huddled away in? Does that guy never look at this new thing they call the internet? What feckin planet are they on?

  4. Of course there exist far worse examples in the media coverage of the Middle East. There was the celebrated case of the Reuters photographer whose image of three plumes of smoke over Beirut was instasntly recognised as one plume of smoke replicated (along with background buildings) using the simple clone tool, by every amateiur photographer who saw it. Not before it was published around the world as factual by the blind idiots kniown as picture editors. The snapper was fired and Reuters deleted NINE THOUSAND other fake images of his fromtheir archives.

    I have faked images such that you wouldn’t believe the person in the street shot was photographed elsewhere in a studio. But we aren’t talking about such subtlety here. We are talking about the utterly obvious and very obviously fake.

    Worse than the dumbass failure to spot obvious and simple photoshop is the failure to notice set up shots staged with the same models in different locations. The classic being “green helmet guy” who appeared in numerous scenes of supposed mayhem inflicted by terrible Zionists on innocent civilians in Lebanon, in various guises, but usually wearing the same green helmet. The same series of fake reportage also sickeningly featured the recurrent use of a particular dead child who had been removed from an ambulance and used as a prop in various shots in different positions, being “recovered” from several piles of rubble repeatedly.

    No point even starting on to thetopic of how a couple of demolished buildings in Jeneen were photographed creatively from various angles to give the impressionof an entire district having been flattened.

    Photography is a creative process.

    After over a century of photography in the mass media, folk still dont get it.

  5. No self-respecting CAGW skeptic should have any warmist friends – acquaintances maybe, but friends, no! Now relatives are a different story, you’re stuck with them.

  6. Mike Jowsey, until some hydrographic organization or something renamed all waters surrounding Antarctica the Southern Ocean, one of the oceans bordering Antarctica was the Atlantic, South Atlantic to be a little more precise.

  7. Mike Jowsey says:
    Just a note regards the penguin on an iceberg in the Atlantic: Emperor penguins live in the Antarctic, stupid.

    Yes but you have to cater for the Bill Nye demographic in the market. There are people out there with money to spend on novelty ice cube makers who are deeply concerned that Antarctica might sink under the sea just like Atlantis did. Continents that start with the letter A are known to be unstable and to do that from time to time.

  8. Tim Clark says:
    February 11, 2013 at 1:04 pm
    Do they make one of seal pups you can dye red??
    ——–
    If they have a mold of a seal we could make ice from the warmist’s red koolaid.
    cn

  9. With books, there are some advantages in separating fact from fiction, even stating so on the book cover.
    With photography, there are similar advantages. The problem is that cheating is so much easier with altered digital photography.

    It’s disgusting to see major publishers too lazy to create and enforce simple rules that require altered imagery to be labelled as such. It would seldom need more than a little symbol like the copyright symbol and an affirmation signature by the photographer on a simple form. National Geographic is one of the few magazines that has adequate published guidelines, for which they are to be commended.

    As a former President of the Plagiarism and Ethics sub-committee of the Australian Photographic Society, I’ve had to do deeper research than most. It is very clear that failure to separate photographic fact from fiction is equivalent to telling lies deliberately. It has no benefit to honest society, but potential for much harm to all society.

  10. I kinda like that polar bear shot … er … reshot (and the ice cubes). If they’d redo both and throw in The Titanic they’d be perfect!

  11. Geoff Sherrington says:
    February 11, 2013 at 7:36 pm
    With books, there are some advantages in separating fact from fiction, even stating so on the book cover.
    With photography, there are similar advantages. The problem is that cheating is so much easier with altered digital photography.

    It’s disgusting to see major publishers too lazy to create and enforce simple rules that require altered imagery to be labelled as such. It would seldom need more than a little symbol like the copyright symbol and an affirmation signature by the photographer on a simple form. National Geographic is one of the few magazines that has adequate published guidelines, for which they are to be commended.

    As a former President of the Plagiarism and Ethics sub-committee of the Australian Photographic Society, I’ve had to do deeper research than most. It is very clear that failure to separate photographic fact from fiction is equivalent to telling lies deliberately. It has no benefit to honest society, but potential for much harm to all society.

    ===============================================================
    We used to say “A picture is worth a thousand words.” Unfortunately, we can now also say “A picture can confirm a thousand lies.”

  12. Re Geoff Sherrington…I am dismayed by and will in future be citing those words as an indication of how even people “in the business” dont get it.

    It is in most situations impossible to photograph something, anything, any way, without making jusgements as to how to do that which introduce an element of creativity or interpretation. Even a robot on Mars delivers images that are an interpretation based on the requirements designed into it for the purpose of the project. There is never any such thing as a non-interpretive or “objective” image. The mere fact of choosing what to include and exclude from the image frame is a bias in representation. Your prepostrous warning label would have to be applied to every photo ever made.

    When it comes to photo-shop like this, anyone with any visual sensibilities and an awareness of the use of photography from the simple familiarity with it on the web should be able to see its a visual conceit at a glance. Its no use blaming the photographer for the ineptitude of the viewer.

    I am reminded of the case of Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle and the fairies. An intelligent man, inventor of Sherlock Holmes, Conan-Doyle was totally, publicly and stridently convinced that images knocked together by two young girls in their back garden were proof of the existence of fairies. Anyone today looking at those pictures can see at a glance that the fairies are crude, flat paper cut-outs. We have acquired that much visual awareness of photography. But people like the guy who thought the polar bear image was real exhibit a visual illiteracy comparable in contemporary terms to that of the famous fairy loving author.

    Its not photography that is at fault but the crude perceptual facilities of those who take it literally.

  13. I wonder why the ‘alarmists’ are also very quiet on the subject of the ‘melting Arctic sea ice..’..?
    Probably because it has refrozen to a COMPLETELY average figure – unless of course the satellite-based graphs LIE on that section of the curve…
    Facts are such a nuisance when trying to tell a good story, aren’t they..?

  14. Jim south London says:
    February 11, 2013 at 12:21 pm

    Pass the sick bag.Anyone else cant stand those Coca Cola save a Polar Bear adverts everywhere

    —————————-
    Yeah, same here. Have they stopped putting CO2 in Coke now? If not, they must be one of the biggest contributor producers/users of CO2

Comments are closed.