Josh writes: On Wednesday the BBC’s Newsnight interviewed Emma Thompson on the newsworthy topic of left wing activists protesting about drilling for oil in the Arctic. And refugees. And voting for Jeremy Corbyn, hopeful candidate for the Leadership of the UK Labour Party.
Emma clearly did not have a clue what she was talking about – even Richard Betts, from the UK Met Office, said she was wrong (good on you, Richard). Ed Hawkins, Climate Scientist, also tweeted “what Emma Thompson said was scientifically inaccurate & implausible.”
Sadly Emma had not got the memo on coal not being the ‘dirtiest’ fuel. It isnt, biofuels and wood burning stoves are worse – the Guardian is not very keen on them either.
Newsnight’s Emily Maitlis suggested Emma get herself arrested. Hmm.
[Update: added Ed’s Tweet]
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m not sure I want to click that interview link, as I’m afraid my IQ will drop several points just by watching.
/snark
Aeee wantched it adn noting hapneped to mee.
Following a cup of coffee with a shot of espresso that was an eggselendt start to my day.
I used to start my day with a beer but now that I’m old I wait until at least 10:00 am.
+1
Thanks for the laugh… great way to start a Friday!
uh huh!
Goodness.
I guess that I can find something I don’t like about the diet of a subset of London-based actors.
I am not sure – but I don’t think that makes me an expert on their diets . . .
Smile.
I’m a celebrity.
And – you all live on Planet Mushroom!
Auto – and, yeah, /Sarc
PaulH – There’s a pill for that:
This pill is guaranteed to help you believe in climate change as ordained by the Church of the IPCC.
I watched ET being interviewed by Joshi on SKY a few months ago. She was marching against Climate Change ®. I have to say she is as thick as a brick, maybe two bricks. Utterly clueless but totally certain she understood everything and was right.
I understand she went to Cambridge and graduated with some luvvie degree or other but “airhead” doesn’t even begin to describe her.
English Literature, a reasonably serious degree from our top university. She’s written some excellent film scripts and acted in some good films but ignorance of science is characteristic of that set and explains much about the BBC and our politicians too.
Just ignorance of science?
They rely on “experts” (of the correct political persuasion, of course) to inform them about sciencey stuff. And because they’re entertainers, they are hyperconcerned about bad publicity and petrified of being viciously attacked by the type of people who regularly bash UnCorrectThinkers.
They rely on “experts”, but only those “experts” who tell them what they want to believe.
Is “climate jackass” an official degree program these days?
I mean, sure, you can go to a trade school and study “climate lying”, but is that really going to help you earn top grant dollar funding in the coming years?
They also have this misunderstanding that normal people actually care what they think and will change their views just because Emma was wonderful in….(insert some film or something of your choice).
She’s a talented and award winning screenwriter.
But she doesn’t understand science. Instead she takes the word of the authorities.
That means she has poor judgement.
It doesn’t mean she’s an “airhead” or just to be derided as stupid.
There is no fault in being ignorant. Being ignorant is simply a lack of knowledge on a certain topic. It could be poor judgment that allows someone to flaunt ignorance as subject matter knowledge or could be narcissistic delusions of grandeur. Regardless of the reasons for her words, they do make her look stupid.
Some synonyms of stupid:
unwise (ill-advised, thoughtless, irresponsible), foolish (silly, ludicrous, laughable, asinine, daft), unintelligent (thick, slow, obtuse, imperceptive …)
Would it be O.K. to deride her through the use of the above adjectives?
Well, “unwise (ill-advised, thoughtless, irresponsible),” seems fitting.
But those words do not mean, “unintelligent (thick, slow, obtuse,”.
Taking the word of the authorities is by definition stupid, and anyone who does so qualifies as an airhead.
MarkW,
I don’t even think that she can be said to be repeating the word of any authority. What she has been saying is either coming from some other direction entirely, or the authority line has gotten so twisted and exaggerated through her emotional state that she truly is thick and imperceptive.
MCourtney: What I would dearly like to see is a non-actor (a real ham) speak out on acting styles, modes and methods, not to mention screen-plays (Mr Ernest Wise’s plays come to mind) and see just how she would react to that.
Harry Passfield, surely we would agree that the ill-informed person is foolish.
But we wouldn’t say that they were stupid.
We wouldn’t say that the person who is ill-informed about acting knows nothing about anything.
For example, David Beckham can’t act but he knows about taking free kicks and English patriotism. Is he stupid?
He’s a celebrity who campaigns (successfully for the 2012 Olympics) but he is not listened to about quantum mechanics. Why mock him if his views on quantum mechanics (whatever they may be) were reported?
So don’t scorn an achiever in one field for being weak in another and not knowing it.
Specialism creates the impression of stupidity. Because they are less learned and confodent they appear foolish. They may even be foolish.
But they aren’t stupid.
Emma Thompson is not stupid – her record shows that..
MCourtney: You respond with attitude, it seems. Yes, I like ET as an actress (her Sense and Sensibility is great – and I’m a big fan of Austen). My point was similar to yours: being great in one field, especially one in the public domain, does not mean that one has the ability to spout on things outside that brief. Yes, one can have opinions – as we all do – but no one listens to mine or adds weight to them because of who I am, a nobody. That said, I’ll listen to ET’s views on acting, and on climate if what she said was measured. But it’s not. She’s being used.
Harry Passfield, it seems we do generally agree.
My apologies if I came across as too aggressive.
My culture is to defend those who are insulted (especially ladies – we Courtneys are somewhat old-fashioned that way).
And Emma Thompson was wrongly sneered at as stupid. I had to ride out assertively. That’s just my way.
Sorry.
Mama says, “Stupid is as stupid does.” – Forrest Gump
“But handsome is as handsome does, we say” – Samwise Gamgee
“Tiny is as tiny does” – Frank Zappa
It must have been the Magic Roundabout influence in her childhood.
(For those too young or foreign, her father was the voice of the English version of Magic Roundabout – DuckDuckGo it)
“Magic” as in Magic Mushrooms.
The characters were all stoned.
As further clarification – this was typical ’70s BBC. Magic Roundabout was a prime-time children’s program, but covertly based upon drug-culture.
A bit like thenother old favourite, Captain Pugwash. And don’t ask…….
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/70scartoons/magic/magic1.jpg
Silver Ralph: “A children’s programme”? Oh b&gger! It had so many levels, didn’t it? Time for bed, Florence….
The Magic Roundabout was … magic. A kid’s program. Aimed at the ~4 to 5 years old group, but watched by people from 4 to 94. England basically came to a halt when this was on (about 4pm if I remember right). It was the narration that did it. The original French soundtrack was for kids. The English dubbing which never has any relationship to the original soundtrack was pure … magic. Mostly, it was done on the fly, and not recorded. A huge loss IMHO.
A bit off-topic Silver Ralph, but hilarious though they were, the Captain Pugwash double entendres were actually an urban myth.
>>the Captain Pugwash double entendres
>>were actually an urban myth.
You mean the Grauniad was lying to us back in 1991? Surely not….!
/sarc.
Exemplifies my father’s reason that women should never had the Vote. It involves the brain, gravity and an additional orifice. You’ll figure it out.
[/sarc ?? .mod]
When your daughter looks at you with the big blue eyes and wants to know why it wasn’t until 1920 that women were able to vote in the US, I will tell you THE ANSWER.
In the early days of the Republic, generally only men who paid taxes (ie owned property) could vote. Gradually, the states dropped these requirements and adopted universal suffrage for the men. The 15th Amendment prohibited the states from denying the vote to black men in 1870, after the Civil War. In the Wyoming Territory, women had the vote in 1869. Many states followed suit. It was adopted at a federal level in 1920.
You too can avoid thoughlessly stumbling in word and getting into trouble with the ladies.
“you look at the science – our temperature will rise 4 degrees Celsius by 2030”
Alex has transcribed it all here:
https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/2015/20150902_nn
extracts:
Emma: “No, because we’ve been negotiating with Shell for years, and there’s been so much obfuscation and so many lies, actually, and so much greenwash. They’ve absolutely put lip service to – “Yes, yes, we’re interested in renewables, yes, yes, yes”, but they’ve continued without cessation to extract, and they’ve continued their plans to drill in the Arctic. They have plans to drill until 2030, and if they take out of the earth all the oil they want to take out, you look at the science – our temperature will rise 4 degrees Celsius by 2030, and that’s not sustainable. ”
Emma:
“Our refugee crisis – which, let me tell you, if we allow climate change to go on as it’s going, the refugee crisis we have at the moment will look like a tea party, compared to what’s going to happen in a few years’ time. Because if we allow climate change to continue, there are going to be entire swathes of the Earth that will become uninhabitable, and where are those people going to go? Where do we think they’re going to go? We’re looking at a humanitarian disaster of proportions we simply can’t imagine. ”
————
why/how does a celebrity Greenpeace activist/spokeperson, get to go on the BBC and attack Shell, without any balance (from Shell) anyway… let alone talk about what the science says…
we (UK) are racist as well..
“…you look at the science – our temperature will rise 4 degrees Celsius by 2030, and that’s not sustainable. ””
It is her argument that is not sustainable. As the tropics don’t warm, it would mean the 4 degrees would be proportioned mostly towards the poles. If our winter warmed by 4 degrees C maybe 20% of it would be above freezing. That would be great. We could farm much further north in Ontario.
Has anyone told Thompson that the IPCC’s central guess (based upon unrealistic assumptions, to say the least) is three degrees by AD 2100, ie 85 years, with a range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees?
Thus her assertion of 0.267 degrees per year presumes warming 7.63 times more rapid than IPCC’s central figure of 0.035 degrees per annum?
I see the problem is that we have replaced royalty with celebrity. Actors, comedians, sports figures, et al certainly have a right to their opinions, but they have a platform that is disproportionate to their knowledge of anything but their own specialties. It’s made worse by a society that depends on social media rather actual education for their knowledge of history, politics and particularly science.
Yes.
The followers of the Actors comedians and sports figures are generally stupid (intellectual limits), and/or airheads.
The celebrity figures that attempt to step up to lead, if not airheads themselves, are calculating assholes.
I would give woman the benefit of the doubt and call her an airhead.
Yep. And, that is why we should all be preparing, for good or ill, for President Trump. Celebrity, for youthful ET fans, is the Elder Wand.
“…we have replaced royalty with celebrity.”
Aren’t knights “royalty”? If so, Britain is actually busy synthesizing the two, as in Sirs… Ralph, Robert, Sean, Michael, Kenneth (former hubby to Emma), Paul, Bill, etc
http://www.ranker.com/list/famous-people-who-have-been-knighted/celebrity-lists?page=3
Sustainability is key: When Her Majesty shuffles off… the dubbing sword shall see such use as it shall not soon see again in our lifetimes, I’ll warrant.
Ms Emma Thompson another celebrity millionaire who loves to demonstrate her huge ignorance. I am afraid I have heard her and her equally daft friend, Vivienne Westwood, rant on so many times in the past. Both remind me of the Mad Cat Lady on the Simpsons.
I shall give the dubious pleasure of watching her Newsnight rant a miss.
I will take Josh’s word for ET’s lack of knowledge, I have no wish to waste 10 minutes of my life listening to someone whose fame is only exceeded by her ignorance of basic science. I am also sick of the “celebrity” culture, that sets in stone any of the moronic utterances of these people.
Luvvies are lunatics, almost without exception. They don’t have to know meaning of the words they’re spewing out, they just have to emote.
Hi Josh,
I never saw her look so good.
ET as Purdy (the lovely Joanna Lumley) is how it looks to me.
It is called Grantham Disease after Jeremy Grantham. I actually know him and he is not malicious, but science and climate are not his fortes. I had to explain to him why cold fusion was very highly unlikely when that happened. Stern and the rest of them are going for a ride on his wallet.
I wonder if he is in too much of a hurry to “leave a legacy”? Many of us (at this blog, obviously) think that “the world’s greatest problem” du jour is not even close to being global warming and climate claptrap.
The truly great philanthropists of the past left their wealth to things like genuine education, not something like carbon-trading that they expected to profit from in their own lifetime.
But Syrian refugees are white people.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4cmjg7RKEKc/UbDYswFB9lI/AAAAAAAAEjI/5Ew3swDsMcE/s1600/1-DSC03596.JPG
I mean, really. Those looking whiter than this in Europe or anywhere are either cheating or seriously sick.
Need to find a better buzzword than “racism”.
The term is Caucasoid. Has little to do with melanin conc.
Nationalism?
However I do think there is a bit of racism in air; and the Syrian flood of refugees is certainly putting the Schengen treaty into a test. Europe has very nationalistic recent history, and not all of it has been that positive. For example, Russian invasion in eastern Ukraine and Crimean peninsula is highly nationalism-driven. Sweden, on the other hand, behaves as the public social affairs office for the whole Europe, taking a huge amount of immigrants despite everything. Poor Swedes. They will have hard aftermath.
You don’t have to take 500 million refugees into Europe to be ‘nice’. These people should be helped in their own lands, where they belong. The problem is that eejits like William Hague and Hussain Obama backed the wrong horse in Syria.
Any fool with half an eye to the history of the region could have told them that there were worse people and groups in the region than the semi-secular Assad regime. Assad was fighting terrorists. What would the USA do, if 50,000 armed terrorists took over Chicago? Surrender and give them the keys to the White House?? I think not. (Some may say they already have taken the city…)
As I have said before, Assad and his Alawites have been the persecuted minority in Syria for 1,200 years, ever since the army of Big Mo arrived in the region. But I thought that the West supported persecuted minorities? — Ah, yes, but not when the persecuted minority fights back – that’s just not cricket. (Check out Obama’s view on Israel too.). Persecuted minorities, should know thier place, and remain persecuted, so that the West can pretend to help them.
Assad’s Alawites are the Yazadi, with guns. So you can be sure that if the Yazadi got some weaponry and defended themselves, they would be condemned too. There is no pleasing some folk….
R
Nationalism is a better term, yes. However, the fact is all representative democracies are built as nation states. Even the U.S. of A. is one nation under God, remember?
Now, nationalism may sound nasty, but constitutional democracy does not. The fact is, you can’t have one without the other, not in practice.
Supranational entities like the EU, not to mention the UN, are inherently undemocratic &. unconstitutional.
It is not nationalism to uphold long fought for European values (shared by several countries overseas).
For example, it is absolutely intolerable to have sharia law in Europe, no matter what the Archbishop of Canterbury says, not even by choice, not even for a select group of citizens, not even for the sake of “social cohesion”, not even for a minute. It took several centuries of heavy infighting to arrive at the idea of a secular state or separation of church and state and it is not for sale for any price.
Similarly, freedom of expression is a non negotiable value, so any attack against it is utterly intolerable. There can be no controversy about it, our political stance should be rigid to the last ditch in this respect.
Also, basic forms of traditional European dress code should be observed in public contexts, especially faces should be visible. No discrimination against women is tolerable, not even for those claiming to submit it on their own free will. The same way we would never tolerate persons selling themselves to slavery, not even voluntarily.
While we are at it, migrants should make an effort to speak the language of the country they intend to settle in, that’s non negotiable either.
And so on and on in the same vein. Those who want to live in our societies, should accept these self evident principles unconditionally.
Spot on !
Regards,
WL
Calling this woman a moron is an unfair insult to morons worldwide.
A rise of 4 degrees by 2030 ?? That’s a degree every 4 years. Which would take some doing given that there hasn’t been any rise for nearly 2 decades.
Haha … or maybe she is a little mixed up between a ‘degree centigrade’ and a ‘degree batchelor of science’ .. they take about 4 years.
……and it’s only risen 0.7c in the last 100+ years!
What about last 1000 years?
Nice touch on the teeth, lovely shade of yuk.
I hope not to insult the British folks here, but that is par for the course in Britain. Doing anything in the way of dental work does not happen. Sadly, most Europeans have the dental health of a stray dog. Not the best idea for the health of the individual, but it seems to be customary over there.
No offense taken ShrNfr, sad but true! However in the in the forty odd years years I’ve spent on this side of the pond I’ve noticed that straight teeth trump straight talk hands down… especially in politics!
As a UK dentist, I have to disagree with you, I would also disagree with the assumption that in parts of the USA, families interbreed! We need to dispel these notions to combat the greater evil, that AGW is happening!
[ ??? .mod]
Charlie boy is half German and half Greek.
“Charlie boy is half German and half Greek.” & 97% of us Brits think he’s half baked !!
Apparently you’ve never been to West Virginia. 😉
Actors and actresses are people who make fortunes convincingly playing respected characters and historical figures known and loved by all in English speaking countries.
However, this acting at good, principled individuals is so difficult for them, that when they get older and have more seniority, they are able to play more villains. This is much less of a strain on their abilities and requires much less acting on their parts. In fact they are truly brilliant at it. For example, Uma Thurman plays Medusa in Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief:
Sneak a Peak
Medusa Chases Percy
Or Cate Blanchet as the wicked step mother. And so on.
Josh,
How about doing a cartoon about the climate scientists unable to leave a remote cabin in Arctic Russia due to being surrounded by polar bears? Link as follows:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3219727/Besieged-pack-polar-bears-Arctic-researchers-left-trapped-remote-Russian-base-surrounded-aggressive-predators-hunting-food.html
You couldn’t make it up!
Now, I know I’m getting old, but weren’t we told they were nearing extinction (sadly, I mean the polar bears not the climate scientists). Those bears, apparently, seem healthy enough for the scientists.
Ian
Nice story, thanks 😉
I picked up this gem beach combing the net littoral. “When Al Gore was born there were 7,000 polar bears. Today, there’s only 30,000 of them left.”
Excellent!
Love it, can you post the source please, we should spread that gem about
The root I chased down was https://www.facebook.com/TheStatistIdiot , the photo is
I made a copy:
http://wermenh.com/climate/Polar-Bear-7000-30000.jpg
It is nice to see that the news programs are providing jobs for handsome/pretty mentally challenged men and women.
It is all in fun until there is real climate change. Why there is no CAGW problem to solve and why the planet is about to abruptly cool in 2 minutes 22 seconds.
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/rahmstorf_grl_2003.pdf
http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/440/1/012001/pdf/1742-6596_440_1_012001.pdf
Nice one William! A fine example of AGW cherry-picking!
1470 is an interesting number when deducted from 2020 or thereabouts (Nov 2nd will do):
http://www.longrangeweather.com/500ad.htm … http://www.longrangeweather.com/550ad.htm
How’s that dipole asymmetry coming along BTW? Interesting times.
I am aware that over population of the world is a growing problem, if Emma Thompson addressed a Worldwide audience, millions would lose the will to live. Problem solved.
Emma should do what she doe’s best, acting at which she excels!
Having written screenplays, she is obviously more creative than most actors, the majority of whom are famous for a) winning the genetic lottery, and b) being lucky at an audition.
As my screenwriting teacher told us in college, its not that actors are dumb, but its not exactly a pre-requisite for fame. They recite words written by others, in a way that is directed by others. They are well-lit, well-dressed, well-made up, well-wigged and have multiple takes to get it right. Sound engineers make them sound good (and even then, are often overdubbed by non-famous, non-genetically acceptable actors). And he was also an actor.
Ask yourself: when was the last time you saw a screenwriter (other than an actor or director moonlighting) interviewed on any of the 200 or so talk shows?
Exactly.
Just last week Curt Shillilng tweeted an accurate statistic. He apparently is no longer welcome on ESPN (at least for the rest of the season).
Yet Ms Thompson (of whom I am a great fan) can spout nonsense, and it will enhance her career.
Why is it that in some cases its bad for a person to use his or her fame to get something noticed, but not others?
One of the great ironies of life, and part of our stone-age minds we seem incapable of ditching.
Sorry, that should be “its not that actors are dumb, but being smart is not exactly a pre-requisite for fame”
I believe Mark Steyn’s book is having the effect of emboldening and bringing these otherwise quiet climate scientists out to be critical of bad AGW science and remarks made about it. Mark has given the silent ones some courage and you will see a lot more of this. I believe the book has started the end game that was too slow for getting there with scepticism alone.
She flaps her gums about climate and has absolutely no clue whatsoever what she’s talking about. That makes her a moron.
Emma may be a box of bolts when it comes to thinking things through, but she’s a celebrity, and a large plurality of voters look to celebrities for guidance. This connects to that Yale Program for Climate Change Communication study I wrote a bit about on Wednesday’s Josh thread. The survey indicates that 74% of people think CO2 out to be regulated as a pollutant, and 63% think limiting CO2 from power plants is a good idea but only 35% think anyone is being harmed by climate change. The responses are incongruent and indicate confused, non-logical, free-form thoughts. Emma is on the left-hand tail of the bell curve of the clueless, but the majority of people make up the rest of that distribution.
Sorry…Thursday’s Josh thread.
On a local popular downtown street here in Mountain View CA I’ve frequently run across pairs of Greenpeace representatives hawking for support on the sidewalk. They are always in pairs; one catches pedestrian traffic in one direction and the other the other direction; they stay within a few steps of each other. I’ve been approached every time I walk by. I was approached more than 10 times in last several months.
One GP rep will give me opening lines that are usually confidently assertive, but when my initial response is to express open skepticism or if I just do some quiet/ subdued laughing with a negative head shake, then the other nearby GP rep senses it and together they go very defensive and get emotionally mean. Passersby slowdown and rubberneck.
For me it is very important to stay civil and keep a cold emotional neutrality compared to their somewhat emotional state. I quietly remind them that they initiated unsolicited advocacy toward me that is quite offensive to me.
John
I tend to ask them where they have come from and when they say from X which is Z miles away act admiringly. When they catch on (not often) I comment on their ability to walk such a distance in a reasonable time. To their admitting to using a car I mutter something like “Hypocrite” or “Planet murderer” and stalk off in a dudgeon.
Climate prat of 2015, an early burst towards the tape.
Pointman
I’d say she’s no more than a pratlet.
ET has played a wide variety of roles in films but, in real life, she seems to prefer to play a clown…any clown.
Four degrees centigrade by 2030? Only an absolute, total, complete imbecile could believe that. How do I know that? Well, because a friend of mine and I were absolute, total, complete imbeciles. That’s how. But, notice how I described it as a past tense malady. I think we’ve graduated from imbecilitis.
Almost 20 years ago I was babysitting the 5 year old child of a couple I was friends with. (Yes, some people actually trusted me with this.) When they returned the mother immediately went to bed in expectation of the morning’s hangover. So, the borderline sick child was left to the care of not just one, but two young males. The sick child awoke crying. The father didn’t know where the thermometer was. So, I was sent on a mission to find one.
I returned to the home, brand new thermometer in hand. The father took his son’s temperature. Ready? One hundred and eleven degrees Fahrenheit. So, we rushed the child to the hospital.
See, what I mean? Only a pair of absolute, total, complete imbeciles could possibly believe that a child’s, or anybody’s, temperature could possibly have climbed to 111 degrees and still be alive and not in a microwave.
The nurse understand perfectly: we were young men. What is Emma Thompson’s excuse? The likelihood the climate could pop up a full four degrees centigrade in 15 years is no more likely than the notion that a child’s temperature could pop up eleven degrees Fahrenheit (unless, of course, it’s a zombie child or a vampire kid).
Now, that friend and I have matured a bit over the years. And, to allay your fears let me advise you that that child is now a well adjusted 25 year old. And, to show you how well we raised him, he’s become a brewer working for a microbrewery. So, he can keep us old farts well stocked into our golden years.
Now, let us return to ET. Will she do such a good job that her actions will encourage microbreweries to be popping up all over the place? Or, instead, windmills? Need I say more?
More beer. More CO2. It’s all good.
You madam, are a wealth of wonderful information. A necessity for the functioning of civilized societies is well informed people. And beer.