Josh writes: The Emma Thompson BBC Newsnight interview made it to the Guardian. The writer Dana Nuccitelli (ironically an employee of Tetra Tech who have interests in the Oil and Gas industry) explains that Emma Thompson was wrong but in the right sort of way, unlike other people who are wrong in the wrong sort of way.
Unhinged. Why would we ever trust them to tell the truth about anything?
Their whole shtick contradicts itself. The Greens want to save trees but they want to kill them by reducing CO2.
aww aint that nice, Dana apologising for Emma Thompson, or is it the other way around or what, eh?
I just want to hear more about Emma’s Twitteratus.
In comments at the Guardian article, Richard Betts is concerned that inappropriate scaremongering might induce premature and dangerous geo-engineering.
Now he tells us.
============
A straw in the wind, perhaps? Has he sensed that his bosses are snapping to the monstrous damages already caused by scaremongering. We can but hope.
============
And more. Richard has also warned that attributing the exodus to climate change could worsen the panic. Perhaps he’s writing a memo for elevation through the ranks.
==============
Hang on, I thought Geoengineering was a technology in its infancy. Is Richard implying that the geoengineers are, despite misgivings over potential unintented consequences, basically ready to go?
We are geoengineering now. We can do much more as well. The question is if it is a good idea (in general as well as wrt specific engineering options).
Hey kim! “inappropriate scaremongering might induce premature and dangerous geo-engineering.”
I had my glasses off when I read that and for a moment I thought it said, “premature and dangerous ego-engineering.”
Makes sense either way, I think…
I thought Dana was a gal name
No, that’s Diana. I think Dana intended to be sexually ambivalent. Suitable for someone who rides around on a PINK SCOOTER.
?w=140&h=140&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=16a13e97234ad6a2f156bd01f150c8b3
I think Josh’s rendition is far too masculine and assertive for Dana. He has not really captured his subject with this one.
Oh well, mugshot link does not work outside guardian web site. See it in place.
http://www.theguardian.com/profile/dana-nuccitelli
mouth, eyes, nose, jaw line … no. Really not likeness even in characture.
No, he’s a girlie compared with his precursor:
http://www.merseysidermagazine.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Dandy-WEB-4.jpg
Of course it is – e.g. Dana Scully, late of The X Files.
There’s a miniseries reboot of that coming in January 2016. Could go either way on plot – either a crusade against the evil black oil or an investigation of the Green conspiracy. 🙂
Here’s a Dana we all can like – and she’s definitely a gal.
But maybe Dana is now one of those names which can be used by a girl or a boy. (Like ‘Brooklyn’.) But in this day and age maybe it’s now sexist (or whatever) to even think that a particular name is specific to one particular sex. After all, California now has a law that says that if a male person thinks that he is really a female person he cannot be stopped from using the ladies’ toilets or changing rooms. And there are plenty of people out there who want to introduce the same law wherever you live. So, if the world is going mad, why not a man calling himself Dana.
Ah well, anything is possible in America. Seems like Dana has been used as a man’s name there for quite some time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Andrews
Kinda like Vivian. In the US we think of Vivian as strictly a female name, but in the UK it’s not. Diff’rent strokes…
Maybe I’m dating myself, but when I was young back in the ’50’s and ’60’s, Dana was almost always a man’s name; it was my brother’s best friend’s name in high school, in fact.
Richard laughed at a Dana Guardian headline a while back..
“What a daft headline! Classic example of the cheesier end of climate change media coverage.”
Dana’s response..
“I think we’d be better off if scientists learned a bit more about effective communication.”
both comments in full:
http://discussion.theguardian.com/comment-permalink/46516363
http://discussion.theguardian.com/comment-permalink/46518009
Barry,
Check your links. Both go to the same article but not to the comments I think you were trying to show.
links are fine?
In Chrome it goes straight to the comment,
in IE it goes to article, but you have to scroll down to see comments highlighted in grey?
That Guardian comment stream is a weird gizmo. Many of the comments get repeated or recycled (how apt) many times over as the thread dodges around. I guess that too many comments have been binned and that’s left the thread in tatters. Not that it matters, many of the commenters were plain nutz.
“Richard laughed at a Dana Guardian headline a while back..”
And in the same thread says he understands headlines. And you not getting any traction…
I could understand Emma Thompson,an actress, getting it wrong. What excuse does President Obama have?-
” If we do nothing , projected Alaskan temperatures are predicted to rise between 6 and 12 degrees F ( 3.3 to 6.7 C) by the end of the century”.
Economic Jihad
”If we do nothing , projected Alaskan temperatures are predicted to rise between 6 and 12 degrees F ( 3.3 to 6.7 C) by the end of the century”
He said to the sound of cheering Alaskans looking forward to it.*
* (Maybe. I suggest this as a possibility)
The mime (pronounced lie) fits everybody’s goals.
Whether it’s money, power, or inner peace by doing your part to save the earth…
Whatever you need, CAGW offers it.
That is unless you want good, honest science cause then you’re on your own.
I can’t draw for nuts and I do appreciate good cartoonists so I think while Josh has great talent he needs to somehow simplify his drawings. They’re too realistic. In cartooning caricatures work better.
I still love ya, Josh.
Still predicting accelerated warming on a log2 function I see.
The current trend on accurate, consistent satellite measurements is 1.2degC/century(1).
Let’s see, so far we are 0.8degC(2) above the start of the industrial revolution according to the much-adjusted GISS records. To get 4degC by 2050, we’d have to warm at (4-0.8)/(2050-20150) = .09 degC/year, or 9degC/century. That’s 9/1.2 = 7.5x the current warming rate.
To hit 4degC by 2050 the warming trend has to go up by 7.5x. Good grief.
This is basic linear math. What a bunch of innumerate idiots.
Peter
Sources:
(1) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/08/the-pause-is-driving-down-the-long-term-warming-trend/
(2) http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php
Actually, given that the warming trend would change slowly, the warming in the last decade (2040-2050) would be much greater than 9C/century. We may see 2 full degrees change in 10 years according to that prediction. And then, they wonder if people’s disbelief could perhaps be a communication skills problem… lol
By calling it a communication problem the government has a whole new batch of believers on the payroll.
They get paid to convince you to change you mind.
Peter, given that the projection they give is supposedly based on past ‘increases’ mixed with back radiation theory, your numbers are reasonable. To maintain the claimed increase we had better see some supporting evidence and soon.
As a model is not supporting evidence, they are reduced to looking for actual temperatures. They might be able to find some agreeable temps in downtown Toronto and Dallas. I suspect looking in Anchorage will disappoint.
No harm in being wrong for your righteous ideology is a pervasive symptom of zealotry, whether in religion, politics, science or unhinged conglomerations of the three. Contrary to a zealots world view, promoting more vigorous math curriculum in schools by claiming 2 + 2 = 5 will never add up to a right.
The hubris of the climate change activists is staggering as this sub head of a New York story shows. “This is the year humans finally got serious about saving themselves from themselves.”
According to climate evangelists only climate evangelists have been able to accomplish this religious/political/scientific revolution of salvation. Apparently humans have never saved themselves or even been serious about saving themselves, which begs the question why we are still here.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/09/sunniest-climate-change-story-ever-read.html
“According to climate evangelists only climate evangelists have been able to accomplish this…”
I see a self-righteous environmental hippy imam. He is issuing an Organic Only Fatwa. He is issuing a Fatwa against the materialism of English-speaking countries. He wants a UN Caliphate. He wants a sustainable sharia law for the world. Only Hippy Imams are permissible witnesses in his Sharia Law. He is wearing a long robe saying “We have to change.”
I mean the sad thing is that Nutticelli is living in some kind of alternate reality. – at some point the line between living in denial of real world observations and alarmist fantasy will blur and the only outcome for him will be insanity.
Even his maths is appalling :
Thompson states : 4 degrees of warming by 2030.
Betts corrects : earliest date for 4 degrees warming will be in the 2070’s.
Nutticelli calculates : Thompson was out for 3 to 4 decades.
He can’t even count decades properly. Its just sad.
Richard Betts gained kudos for correcting ET but promptly blew it all by claiming ‘4C of warming by 2070’. WHERE is the evidence Richard? You know, real, observed evidence, for a 4C rise in the next 50-odd years or so? Show us. I won’t hold my breath because IT DOES NOT EXIST.
Betts: Again, using propaganda in the same format as a Nazi doesn’t make you a Nazi. It only means you use the same tactics. Which of course makes you appear to be kinda like one. Everyone would be better off if you stopped.
Met Office scientists use little known laws of physics to make their wishes come true. They even use them to commute to work:
Change that image to a flying commode, and you have “climate science” in a “nutshell”. LOL
He was wrong, but in the “right” sort of way.
“Why would we ever trust them to tell the truth about anything?”
“WE” don’t.
Does ET know Dana says she’s wrong? He’s in for a right pasting on Twitter when she finds out!
He’s just being politically correct, which means that whatever he says, he’s always right (to his way of thinking).
Can’t remember who coined the phrase ” truthiness” but this is a textbook example.
Stephen Colbert
ET just needs to learn that there is an art to being an Alarmist. And Dana Nuttysilly has that art down to a science.
Colbert had a lot to do with the currency of the word “truthiness.”
I believe Orwell called it doublethink.
Who’s to say that Emma is anymore wrong than Dana or the IPCC (who been wrong about everything so far)?
So, Dana is telling Emma that her announcements were off the ballpark (also known here as alarmism) and Josh says ‘unhinged’? Does Josh think Emma is right?
Did you read it? Dana does his best to defend Emma as much as possible from the criticism from others who noted that “her announcements were off the ballpark.”
The cognitive dissonance is unveiling the ignorance.
====================
The pun is lost outside Britain.
There is a very famous UK cartoon character, Desperate Dan, who is always eating giant pies (see philincalifornia’s picture above.)
So is, in a different way, Desperate Dana.