Friday funny bonus – 'Madlands' wins photoshop disaster spot

Alek O. Komarnitsky writes:

Anna Rose’s “Madlands – A Journey to Change the Mind of a Climate Sceptic” got featured on Photoshop Disasters.  (After looking at the cover, it is easy to see why- Anthony)

At least they don’t have Hurricanes rotating the wrong way – ala Al Gore.


If you can judge a book by its cover, the book itself isn’t likely to be much better.

Australia seems to be quite a hotbed of anti-scepticsim these days. We have Lewandowsky try to paint us all as nutters with shoddy surveys full of fake data, and Anna Rose trying to convert us.

I expect pods in the back of a truck next.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jeff Norman
September 14, 2012 8:42 am

A missionary’s work is never done.

Wincell Rodgers
September 14, 2012 8:43 am

And it was poorly Photoshopped as well.

September 14, 2012 8:45 am

If you can judge a book by its cover, the book itself isn’t likely to be much better.

The book has a glossy cover.

September 14, 2012 8:46 am

Nevermind her legs.
I mean, really…what kind of skeptic would be convinced by what is a page-turner for FLANNERY? Talk about writing for the wrong market.
Unless it’s the usual choir-preaching garbage.

Jim G
September 14, 2012 8:52 am

Take care that you don’t have a pod under your bed. I will be checking under mine regularly.

Kurt in Switzerland
September 14, 2012 8:54 am

Good one. Maybe the dinghy has quarters below the main deck and/or it’s resting on an iceberg.
Question the sailor whose hands are hidden. BTW, neither of the polar bear’s prey seems terribly concerned about their predicament. The two in the boat definitely have the poorest chances.
But maybe the book is a good read – so far it’s getting 5/5 stars!
Perhaps it should have been named “Madwaters” though.
Will her adversary come out with his own book?
Kurt in Switzerland

September 14, 2012 8:58 am

if only she had worked an anti gun theme into it as well she could have doubled her US sales .

Kurt in Switzerland
September 14, 2012 9:00 am

There is a book review on Jo Nova’s site (and it’s not pretty).
Kurt in Switzerland

Mike Bromley the Kurd
September 14, 2012 9:04 am

“a rare personal insight”-Tim Flimflammery.
Thank goodness!

September 14, 2012 9:05 am

Looks pretty nice to me! Azure blue placid ocean filled with ocean wildlife, where short sleeve attire and icebergs coexist in a serene setting. I would have had a bigger boat however.

September 14, 2012 9:11 am

Even the seal and the polar bear look confused by the strange half-lady.

Juan Slayton
September 14, 2012 9:11 am

Could be a background for a new Geico ad….

Geoff Alder
September 14, 2012 9:20 am

I imagine that if the polar bear were to leap into the water to chomp the dopey-looking seal, that little rowboat could overturn. And they aren’t even wearing life jackets! Maybe the polar bear’s menu change would save the seal for another day.

September 14, 2012 9:23 am

“Australia seems to be quite a hotbed of anti-scepticsim these days. We have Lewandowsky try to paint us all as nutters with shoddy surveys full of fake data, and Anna Rose trying to convert us.”
Australia has its own fascinating brand of socialist lunatics. They even import them from Wales.
I’ve seen Anna Rose, I think, in an ABC(?) film pairing warmists with skeptics. Was she the one who had Morano against her? I think she didn’t get to say a word.
Ah, here it is.

September 14, 2012 9:42 am

” A Journey to Change the Mind of a Climate Sceptic”
So she wrote an entire book to change the mind of one skeptic? That was ambitious! And most likely a complete failure, as she will not change even one pragmatic (skeptical) mind.

Susan P
September 14, 2012 9:42 am

Look, it is so warm at the North Pole they don’t even need jackets!

nutso fasst
September 14, 2012 9:50 am

The guy in the boat…is that Sir Real?

September 14, 2012 9:51 am

The following is a review of Anna Rose’s book and a response to Rose and the other fanatic followers of the extreme AGW movement.
“Madlands” by Anna Rose claims to be, “A journey to change the mind of a climate sceptic”
It’s not. It’s a book about politics, pure and simple. Anna Rose is a young (29 at time of writing) lawyer and a far-left wing radical climate activist. She is married to Simon Sheikh of the union-funded, left-wing GetUp! political lobby group, so there is little doubt as to her political leaning. Whilst it is only to be expected the author would present a view on “the climate” from her perspective, one would have hoped some semblance of balance may have been exhibited, both from a science and a political point; again there is little or no evidence the author has made any attempt at “balance”.
Unfortunately, much of the 357 pages is devoted to irrelevancies having nothing to do with climate and consequently wastes a substantial amount of the reader’s time. … …Perhaps some readers may find it interesting to read of Rose’s childhood, the meals she ate while traveling, the clothes she wore, her encounters with activist friends and her thoughts while flying in carbon dioxide producing jumbo jets; I found it boring and a waste of time.”
Anna Rose, I am sure your heart is in the right place, however, as you are part of a movement of uniformed fanatics, you and other the followers are directly and indirectly responsible for cauing significant harm to the environment and to other people on this planet. It is ironically that the so called “deniers” must stop this madness.
First there is no extreme GW issue to solve. The world is not and will not warm 1.5C to 5C due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2. The planet resists climate forcing changes by increasing or decreasing the amount of clouds in the tropics which reflects more or less sunlight off into space. That is called negative feedback. Negative feedback explains why CO2 is rising and the planet is not warming has stalled (see satellite temperature data). The IPCC general circulation models have code that amplifies (positive) the warming due to a doubling of CO2 to get the 1.5C to 5C warming for a doubling of CO2. If there is negative feedback the amount of warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is less than 1C with most of the warming occurring at high latitudes which will cause the biosphere to expand.
There is no extreme AGW or GW warming problem to solve.
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000-2008) satellite instruments. … …We argue that feedbacks are largely concentrated in the tropics, and the tropical feedbacks can be adjusted to account for their impact on the globe as a whole. Indeed, we show that including all CERES data (not just from the tropics) leads to results similar to what are obtained for the tropics alone – though with more noise. We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. The results imply that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity…. …However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1C (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of wellmixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007)…. ….This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5C to 5C and even more for a doubling of CO2. Model predictions depend on the ‘feedback’ within models from the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds. Within all current climate models, water vapor increases with increasing temperature so as to further inhibit infrared cooling. Clouds also change so that their visible reflectivity decreases, causing increased solar absorption and warming of the earth….
A New Global Warming Alarmist Tactic: Real Temperature Measurements Don’t Matter
What do you do if you are a global warming alarmist and real-world temperatures do not warm as much as your climate model predicted? Here’s one answer: you claim that your model’s propensity to predict more warming than has actually occurred shouldn’t prejudice your faith in the same model’s future predictions. Thus, anyone who points out the truth that your climate model has failed its real-world test remains a “science denier.”
As plants eat CO2, all life on this planet is dependent on CO2, higher levels of atmospheric CO2 is very beneficial for plants and for us, as there is no dangerous warming. Higher levels of atmospheric CO2 is win-win. The so called deniers are on the side of biosphere, the environment, third world countries, common sense, economic sense, and so on.
Not only is increased atmospheric CO2 beneficial for the entire biosphere, the idiotic, insane, “green” energy programs are very, very, expansive scams which cause significant damage to the environment, do not significantly reduce CO2 emissions which is not a problem anyway.
The following is a brief overview of the most idiotic of all “green” scams the conversion of food to biofuel. (It is estimated that roughly 200 million people in third world countries are now suffering from nutritional deficiencies or starvation due to the Western countries biofuel mandate.) Hansen and his followers (including Anna Rose) are responsible for the food to biofuel fiasco. As there is a fixed amount of land on the planet to grow food for human consumption the massive mandated percentage of transportation fuel that must be biofuel requires that virgin forest be cut down to grow food to be converted to biofuel.
Currently roughly 40% of the American corn crop is now converted to ethanol. If one includes the total energy inputs to convert corn to ethanol (energy to fertilize the crop, to plant the crop, to cut the crop, to harvest the crop, to grind the crop, to triple distill the ethanol and so on, there is a net increase in CO2 to power ones car from ethanol rather than traditional gasoline.
As 40% of the American corn crop is converted to ethanol there is less corn to export and the same is true of other Western countries.
The Western countries have no surplus food to convert to biofuel, so they must either purchase food from third world countries or they must indirectly cause virgin forest to be cut down to grow food to convert to biofuel. The cutting of virgin forest is the single largest source of increase CO2 emissions.,9171,1725975,00.html

September 14, 2012 10:20 am
September 14, 2012 10:21 am

Susan P says:
September 14, 2012 at 9:42 am
Look, it is so warm at the North Pole they don’t even need jackets!

It works as long as it’s sunny and there’s a not a breath of wind. I clearly remember the bright, warm (-15 F.) day when I was lightly clad about half way between the airstrip and the camp. A helicopter pilot, who saw that I was obviously suffering from the heat, kindly hovered his machine over me to create a bit of a cooling breeze.

DirkH says:
September 14, 2012 at 9:23 am
… I think she didn’t get to say a word.

Au contraire. She called Marc a liar and refused to talk to him. Then, of course, she didn’t tell him what his lies were supposed to be. As Marc said, you can’t defend yourself against that kind of nebulous claim. It makes the blood boil. I once heard Monckton refer to that kind of thing as intellectual baby talk.

Dan B
September 14, 2012 10:45 am

I’d call her behavior more a petulant tantrum.

September 14, 2012 11:32 am

And I used to shake my head at silly Hollywood sript writers and their conspiracy stories of govt. and corp. big brother tackics of control and cover up. They left out the freelance and nonprofit attack orgs from the list and it turns out they are REAL!!!!

Mac the Knife
September 14, 2012 11:40 am

The little boat isn’t the only dingy thing in that cover photo!!!!

September 14, 2012 12:11 pm

Was reminded vaguely of the cutout animations from Monty Python’s Flying Circus. Kept waiting for the big foot, and the rude noise.

September 14, 2012 12:12 pm

I found her attitude and behaviour puerile, extremely rude and ultimately stupid, not to engage with a gregarious person such as Mr. Morano in even the slightest semblance of debate just illustrates her complete lack of social etiquette let alone her lack of scientific knowlege.

September 14, 2012 12:27 pm

NASA: Global warming 1880-2012 in 30 seconds
Someone get fire extinguisher, the world is on fire

Steve C
September 14, 2012 1:03 pm

nutso fasst says: (September 14, 9:50 am)
The guy in the boat…is that Sir Real?

Billy Liar
September 14, 2012 1:37 pm

We appear to have a generation (20+ year olds) of ‘communicators’ of climate science (you know who I’m talking about, both male and female) who seem to think they are much better liars and propagandists than they are.
Why do they think people are so easily duped?
Please don’t tell me the world is full of dimwits and the clueless.

Hot under the collar
September 14, 2012 1:54 pm

The best and most accurate part of the front cover is the comment “a real page-turner” – after reading the review above (aka William) I should imagine the quicker you turn the page to get to the rear cover the better.

September 14, 2012 2:05 pm

Cover done by a primary school child, because the writer wasn’t up to that stage yet.

September 14, 2012 2:08 pm

And Billy.. “Please don’t tell me the world is full of dimwits and the clueless.’
Sorry dude, but yep, theres an awful lot of that type floating about..
down here (Australia), they have somehow got into political power.

September 14, 2012 2:23 pm

What a facile coward – at least Nick Minchin had the confidence and grace to listen to all her so-called experts including the tiresome Oreskes – none of whom had any science to spruik by the way.
But the cowardly little advocate of the “church of climatology” simply stamped her foot and refused to even speak with people she obviously knew were far more than her intellectual equal and actually might have some scientific knowledge.
For the love of Mike – Oreskes is such a scientific “heavyweight” she thinks Beryllium is a HEAVY metal.

September 14, 2012 2:32 pm

omnologos says:
Unless it’s the usual choir-preaching garbage.

You have to ask?
She has undoubtedly been getting back-pats & warm congrats from her cozy circle of like-“minded” friends – innumerate 20-something liberal arts grads who fancy themselves educated and informed.
Mencken still said it best: “An intellectual is someone who has been educated beyond their intelligence.”

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
September 14, 2012 2:53 pm

“And now for the unveiling of the winners of the Al Gore Climate Change Communication Challenge. First up, we have a poster by Ms. Rose’s kindergarten class!”
*clap clap* “…photoshop…” *clap* “…ah come on, my dog could’ve..” *cough* *clap*
Remember, everyone is a winner when science defeats skepticism!
Now just so all of you individuals acting in a parental capacity are aware of it, all our participants will be receiving two awards but they will only be keeping one of them. One is the Certificate of Accomplishment signed by Al Gore himself that they can keep, and the other is a free carbon credit the children will be sending to Al Gore to offset the production of their Certificate. Isn’t that marvelous?

September 14, 2012 3:17 pm

Aw now, I am not so sure they did such a bad job on the Photoshopping. I went to the video with Morano, and if possible, I think Anna looks much better in the book cover. Your thoughts?

Gunga Din
September 14, 2012 3:24 pm

The subject aside, if I saw that cover on a book I’d expect it to be a joke book. Really.
The subject NOT aside, I guess it is.

September 14, 2012 3:30 pm

I found a copy of “Madlands” incorrectly shelved under “Biographies” in a bookshop last week. Tutting to myself, I reshelved it. Under “Science Fiction/Fantasy”. Fixed.

Peter Crawford
September 14, 2012 3:42 pm

Hey Hooper, we’re gonna need a bigger boat…

September 14, 2012 3:43 pm

I’m sorry, did I miss a joke about “climate sceptics” someplace?
I understand the internet has become a cesspit but I’m skeptical about our stance being filled with wild infections…

September 14, 2012 3:44 pm

“Australia seems to be quite a hotbed of anti-scepticsim these days”
Because those Academic climate change fanatic loons can basically say what they want in Australia now virtually unchallenged. It’s full steam ahead for the Climate Change Global Warming Reich.
The Austalian Marxist/Facist Govt is now trying to censor any freespeech critism of their Loonie Carbon tax and Global Warming Policies, even here in New Zealand.
We’ve got enough Fanatic Academic Loons of AGW/CC as it is here. At least we can still refute their garbage under freespeech. Unlike some aspects of it in Australia!

September 14, 2012 4:02 pm

commieBob says:
September 14, 2012 at 10:21 am

DirkH says:
September 14, 2012 at 9:23 am
… I think she didn’t get to say a word.
Au contraire. She called Marc a liar and refused to talk to him. Then, of course, she didn’t tell him what his lies were supposed to be. As Marc said, you can’t defend yourself against that kind of nebulous claim. It makes the blood boil. I once heard Monckton refer to that kind of thing as intellectual baby talk.

Well, I first mentioned my recollection and then searched the video and watched it only after posting my comment. Yes, I was wrong. No, it doesn’t make my blood boil. The way she sold herself will leave viewers unimpressed. Morano won. That’s perfectly fine with me.

September 14, 2012 4:06 pm

BTW, she’s calling us “mad”.
That’s projection.

September 14, 2012 4:24 pm

Observations on two dingies in a dingy….
You need not wear a lifejacket….if you are an airhead….
and polar warmists need no coats…

September 14, 2012 7:46 pm

Maybe she could soften up the skeptic by firing up a cigar with him?

September 14, 2012 8:31 pm

This is the new version of the Green Boat. Save the forests by using your legs like a duck, reducing the need for wooden paddles. It also provides a good heat sink keeping your metabolism low due to hypothermia. Given the water temps at those latitudes, almost certainly earning your nomination to the Darwin Awards!

michael hart
September 14, 2012 8:36 pm

And they went to sea in a seive, they did.
In a seive they went to sea.

Jason Calley
September 14, 2012 8:55 pm

The cover photo proves that CAGW enthusiasts do not have a leg to stand on.

September 14, 2012 9:42 pm

Now the reprint can be stamped with “Award Winning”

September 14, 2012 9:52 pm

WUWT has sunk to a new low – mocking that nice young woman with the amputated legs.
We should all be ashamed.

Brian H
September 14, 2012 10:57 pm

The original TV show was a badly edited farce. I assume the book is no different.

September 14, 2012 11:23 pm

My 12 year old daughter could design a better cover than that. Fear not, we’re up against morons. The funny thing about Photoshop is the fact that it announces itself when someone shallow and devoid of imagination tries to use it.

September 15, 2012 3:45 am

The polar bear isn’t hungry because he’s already had a fine meal. Yummy! Loins of corn-fed long pig!

September 15, 2012 5:16 am

Such a journey IMO would be very short. It would only look at AGW contrary data and marvel at the paucity thereof.

anarchist hate machine
September 15, 2012 6:12 am

I’m beginning to think it’s not malice that the warmists harbor….it’s just that they’re too stupid to learn anything.
A new and improved, upgraded brand of retard.

September 15, 2012 6:42 am

“…creatures and authors displaced by climate change…”
Just how many authors have been displaced by climate change? I think we should be told.

John West
September 15, 2012 8:37 am

How do you change the mind of a skeptic anyway? Perhaps some sort of brain injury that erases all knowledge that doesn’t fit the CAGW meme would do it. Other than that, I don’t see it happening. I mean what would it take to change my mind other than not knowing about LIA, 70’s Ice Age Scare, missing hot spot, logarithmic CO2 heat flux, logarithmic relation between heat flux and temperature, negative feedbacks (thermostats), geologic pre-history of the planet’s climate, lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature, recent plateauing of global average temperature, recent peaking of ocean “heat content”, recent hiatus of stratospheric temperature drop, (mis)behavior of “scientists” supporting CAGW, the conflicts of interests of those supporting action on climate change, the lack of behavior reflecting a belief in CAGW from those that support action on CAGW?
So, here’s what it would take to change my mind:
1) The Zohnerism has to stop, showing supportive facts while leaving out non-supporting facts demonstrations an advocacy (bias) as opposed to objective information.
2) The suppression by any means of contrary conclusions must stop.
3) The funding, publishing, and acknowledgment biases must stop.
4) The appearance of the hot spot and a resurgence of stratospheric cooling.
5) Compelling observational or experimentally based evidence that feedbacks enhance warming globally.
6) Compelling observational or experimentally based evidence that warming is net detrimental globally.
7) Compelling observational or experimentally derived evidence that the climate is not either an amalgamation of coupled damped oscillating systems or a chaotic system with two strange attractors.
8) Those advocating I do with less, DO with less themselves FIRST. (Lead by example.)
9) Encourage debate and discussion.
10) Be civil. (Incivility often reveals deception or weak position.)

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights