Sitting through previews at the Regal Theatres in Manassas, I saw an advertisement for their Fathom Events, one-time events at movie theaters. They were promoting the premiere of a new British global-warming film on Monday, September 21 called "The Age of Stupid," sponsored by MoveOn and Greenpeace. The film will be simulcast from a solar tent in downtown New York to over 440 movie theatres across America.
As usual in liberal-ese, "The Age of Stupid" is our age, in which someone still allows the obstacles of conservative activism and a fraction of a free market. The film is radical enough that The New York Times raved it was "a much sterner and more alarming polemic than An Inconvenient Truth." Here’s some of their promotional lingo:
Will people in the future call our time the age of stupid? Or will humanity find a solution to the world’s most urgent problem? You decide!
Join audiences in movie theatres nationwide for a one-night event featuring a celebrity-studded live "green carpet" pre-show, the debut of the acclaimed docudrama "The Age of Stupid," and a live panel discussion with some of the world’s pre-eminent thought leaders. Come and be inspired to take action on the world's most pressing problem – climate change.
As one might expect, humans from the Horrific Future look back and wonder how we could be so stupid as to doubt the Greens:
This acclaimed docudrama stars Oscar-nominated Pete Postlethwaite – This special night will feature the premiere of the acclaimed docudrama The Age of Stupid, starring Oscar-nominated Pete Postlethwaite stars as a man living alone in the devastated world of 2055, looking at old footage from 2008 and asking: why didn’t we stop climate change when we had the chance? By exploring the personal stories of 7 individuals from around the world – a US Shell Oil employee, a 23-year-old African woman, an Indian entrepreneur, two Iraqi children – discover the local impact of this global issue.
The film will be followed by singers, actors and other "thought leaders" in a panel discussion:
Join these thought leaders as they discuss LIVE via satellite the challenges we face and how we might overcome them: Kofi Annan, former Secretary-General of the United Nations and recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland, Ed Milliband, UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Pete Postlethwaite, Oscar nominee and star of The Age of Stupid, Gillian Anderson, award-winning actress, Radiohead’s Thom Yorke, and other leading thinkers, celebrities, and political figures from around the world.
Yorke will sing his song "Reckoner" from an undisclosed location. They also promise appearances by the "artist" known as Moby and the actress Heather Graham. You can even "See guests arrive in style on the 'green carpet' by bicycle, solar car, rickshaw, chip fat car, sailboats and other low carbon methods."
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
It needs to be shown outside in broad daylight.
September 17, 2009 - 04:56 ET by JWFAt noon, in the intense noonday sun.
Feel that heat on your skin? It is the sun. It drives all climate on this planet. Short term and long term. Nothing we can do to stop it, all we can do is adapt. Driving electric cars and wiping your rear with tree bark won't make a bit of differnece to the sun. So shut up.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
http://www.skeptical...
September 17, 2009 - 05:54 ET by mamabearhttp://www.skeptical...
one step closer to troll
September 17, 2009 - 08:12 ET by JWFNice link mamabears
As supplier of almost all the energy in Earth's climate, the sun certainly has a strong influence on climate change.
K. That is good. good. good.
However, a crucial finding of the study was the correlation between solar activity and temperature ended around 1975.
Ok, I.... Huh? Let me get this straight. It has been the sun for 3,999,999,970 years. Yea, it has been the sun driving long term climate trends except magically the last 30. Hmmm, now wait a tick. What has been going on the last 30 years? Why, I do believe that coincides with the whole global warming propaganda campaign. Let's see, people start to wonder about global warming and the sun just magically happens to stop being the driver of climate at the same time! Whoopee!
Uncler Jer said to give you one more chance. You just blew it.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Yea, well just wait until the Sun
September 17, 2009 - 08:25 ET by general companyStarts dying and see if they feel the heat.
Naw, never mind, they will just blame that on us also?
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
So... are you angry that we
September 17, 2009 - 21:28 ET by mamabearSo... are you angry that we magically made solar activity coincide with our theory? Or that we created a theory that matches and accounts for reality with insidious accuracy?
I think you have us on the second one-- guilty as charged!
mamabear, I'm sorry if
September 17, 2009 - 21:41 ET by hydrodynDMmamabear,
I'm sorry if I'm behind the curve on this one, but which theory are you referring to?
anthropogenic global
September 19, 2009 - 07:44 ET by mamabearanthropogenic global warming. You're not behind the curve, I never specified. Sorry, I just figured that would assumed!
mamabear, Well, that's a
September 19, 2009 - 12:45 ET by hydrodynDMmamabear,
Well, that's a general class of theories. I was asking for details about a specific model.
I ask, because the ability to exactly match data doesn't necessarily say much about a model unless the details of how that's done are specified. If the model has a hundred free parameters that you can tweak, the fact that it can match some set of data isn't very impressive.
An old advisor of mine once said "Give me enough free parameters and I can make a curve that looks like an elephant."
The link I originally
September 19, 2009 - 17:22 ET by mamabearThe link I originally provided also links to the paper that the curve is from, so you can evaluate the robustness of the model yourself. I'm not a climate scientist, so I don't know that I would have anything useful to say about it. I do tend to trust in the peer-review process to weed out unfounded conclusions, but if you have a reason to distrust the original source, I'd love to discuss it.
mamabear, OK, I'm a
September 19, 2009 - 18:06 ET by hydrodynDMmamabear,
OK, I'm a little confused. The article you linked to provides a plot of two sets of empirical data - I don't see a theory curve much less a link to a model. I don't mean to be dense, but maybe you can provide the link you are talking about.
Since I haven't looked at any of these models, I'm in no position to critique them. But my main point was that simply pointing out agreement with existing data isn't enough to say the argument is over.
As for peer-review, I wasn't suggesting that people were submitting papers with conclusions that are unfounded. I'm sure their models are based on actual physical principles. But how you actually implement them in a model that's suppose to simulate something as complicated as the Earth's atmosphere is just as important.
When a paper based on a computer model is accepted for publication, that doesn't mean the journal is saying "We think your results are 100% accurate". The approach might be novel or the results might agree with or disagree with the results of other similar models and so have value in that respect alone. There's any number of reasons papers get accepted.
For example, I remember using a published paper that was useful, not because of the results (which were actually wrong) but because of a technique the writers had developed which ended up being something I could use in my work.
Here it
September 19, 2009 - 22:42 ET by mamabearHere it is:
http://www.mps.mpg.d...
No single paper can end an argument like this. The reason this article was used at skeptical science is because it is often cited as evidence that the sun drives climate change, which was JWF's contention. The article actually concludes that the sun doesn't account for warming in the last thirty years. It isn't the best evidence, it just happens to be the one that is the most misunderstood and misused
Better evidence is almost certainly provided in the 13 other papers cited below the graph.
You friggin' stupid, stupidlike, rock stupid, and helastupid
September 20, 2009 - 10:07 ET by JWFOnly a positronic style idiot would link to a paper that debunks his/her own writings.
This paper proves my point. IT IS THE SUN STUPID.
Now why won't they consider the last 30 years? Did the lightbulb in the sky suddenly burn out?
Hmmm. Temperatures suddenly stopped correlating 30 years ago. Is it the temperatures or possibly, oh I don't know, maybe, how we are measuring the temperatures? Measuring stations used to be on mountaintops, in forests, away from mankind. To save money, they have been moved closer to man. Now what kind of effect would that have?
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=660
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
The age of positronics
September 20, 2009 - 10:09 ET by Sergeant ROCKHillarious.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
JWF, To be fair, that
September 20, 2009 - 11:41 ET by hydrodynDMJWF,
To be fair, that paper doesn't debunk mamabear's position - but it also doesn't support it.
You should have highlighted the very last sentence of the text you quoted, the one that ends "... so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."
The source of that supposed warming can be any number of things. The AGW folks want to say it is (at least in part) due to human activity. You are suggesting that there is a flaw in the data because of how it was collected so the warming is actually fictitious. It could be one or the other or both or other things instead or as well.
I have no problem saying "I don't know". If these AGW folks were honest, they would admit the same thing.
It bears fruit for the first 4,000,000,000 years.
September 20, 2009 - 12:57 ET by JWFIt is troubling why they do not include the last 30 years.
More comments:
Notice the report tosses out the readings from the Southern hemisphere. Those readings were never reliable.
We have had satellites taking true atmospheric temperatures for a few decades. They show no warming.
Don't forget we have had at least 2 significant volcanic eruptions since 1975. Pinatubo and Mt. Saint Helens. They threw a lot of debris and molecules into the atmosphere.
There is a new article about Prof. Mojib Latif that says we are cooling the next few decades. So it looks like it is back to the sun. The Sun went into new solar minimum late last year or early this year. As a result, the 1 degree warming of the last 100 years has been wiped out in 1 year. Looks like the big lightbulb in the sky driving global climate has been turned back on again.
Where is mamabear the troll in the article?
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
JWF
September 20, 2009 - 19:05 ET by mamabearOkay, I'm nothing if not accomodating, so I'm going to give you a chance to try this again.
You get a choice. Don't choose immediately, take some time to think about it. Make a plan and get it all straight in your head, then let me know what you would like to do.
EITHER
You can demand that I "cease and desist all further communication" with you.
OR
You can feel free to jump into conversations I'm having with other people and call me "stupid, stupidlike, rock stupid, and helastupid." I won't even ask you to explain what those words mean.
Whichever one you pick, I will happily oblige. Either we continue our debates, or we go our separate ways with you thinking I'm a troll and me thinking things about you.
Take all the time you need.
Hydro, I'm enjoying our conversation. I'll pick it back up just as soon as I know if I'm allowed to!
mamabear, But again, your
September 20, 2009 - 11:33 ET by hydrodynDMmamabear,
But again, your response to JWF referenced "theory". The paper you cite and what you are talking about in your last post (and most of the references in that link you originally put up) have to do with looking at empirical data. Those are two different things.
Of those 13 or so other papers - well, some of the links don't work and some go to abstracts instead of the actual papers (and I'm really not in the mood to subscribe to those journals to read them) so I can't comment on those. Of the others, a couple make use of theoretical results, but the models aren't discussed in detail. Those interested are referred to other papers.
From what I can gather, there are a handful of climate simulation models which a ton of others reference in their papers. Like I said before, since I haven't actually looked at these in detail, I can't comment on their strengths or weaknesses.
I guess my point is, your comment to JWF about theory matching past data doesn't end the discussion. As I mentioned in a previous post, getting a model to do that doesn't necessarily mean much.
Welcome to my world troll. There is no one to save you now.
September 18, 2009 - 02:56 ET by JWFI am not here to educate or entertain you troll. You don't listen.
I have taken a lot of time out of my life to be educated and aware. You, as I suspected early on, have taken zero time out of yours. You are not going to play catch-up on my dime.
Cease and desist from all further communication with me. Cease and desist with all further troll activity with anyone else.
You are in my world now troll.
The 21st of September?
September 17, 2009 - 05:53 ET by jdhawkThe 21st of September? Yep, four locations in the state of NC. One, a little over an hours drive by car or six hours by bicycle.
Damn, I checked my calendar and it's just not going to work out. I have set aside the whole evening for cleaning the lint from the dryer screen. Maybe next time . . .
Debuting on the Autumnal Equinox
September 17, 2009 - 07:56 ET by legacyrepublicanDoing this on the Autumnal Equinox will the closest this comes to showing any balanced opposing views.
And, as to the panel. Shouldn't they include the Naked Cowboy? He has no hidden agenda, doesn't he? /sarc off
They might have a better case
September 17, 2009 - 08:00 ET by Matthew Sheffieldif they used proper grammar in the title of their movie. Stupid is not a noun. It should be stupidity.
But I guess I"m just too stupid to understand their smartness.
How about the "Age of Acting
September 17, 2009 - 08:22 ET by Seabeach4348How about the "Age of Acting Stupidly"?
Proof of that is this box office bomb.
Another box office
September 17, 2009 - 08:17 ET by general companyfailure,
I wonder how long it would take to get to work by rickshaw?
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
The real age of stupid
September 17, 2009 - 08:34 ET by nkviking75If people in 2055 look back at 2008 and declare this "The Age of Stupid", it'll be based on the wacko notions of early 21st century environmentalism. If their policies prevail, our world will be a wasteland.
“Always love your country — but never trust your government!" -- Bob Novak (1931-2009)
"Will people in the future
September 17, 2009 - 08:38 ET by ckc1227"Will people in the future call our time the age of stupid?"
Let's see, voters put a racist marxist in the White House, politicians want to destroy the American economy based on a fictional film created by a non-scientist that promotes a non-existent climate crisis, and the media calls you a racist for not embracing the assinine policies of the new black president who sat in a racist, anti-America church for 20 years.
Without a doubt, this will be known as the age of stupid....or stupidity, if you're concerned about grammar.
Ummm...
September 17, 2009 - 12:09 ET by retroconYup.
An appearance by Moby? Whoa, count me in!!!
September 17, 2009 - 08:39 ET by SickofLibsActually I'd go just to see who attempted to drive a sailboat to the theatre.
The end of the age of OIL, now that is STUPID
September 17, 2009 - 10:06 ET by upcountrywaterNo drilling, No Nuks....back to the 7 th century.
In 2055 no one will ever believe that man once flew aircraft.
ice age will be cool,jpg
Allahu Akbar
September 17, 2009 - 10:14 ET by SickofLibsThe 7th Century - ahh, good times, good times.
→ Aloha Crack Bar
September 17, 2009 - 10:17 ET by Cool ArrowWallaby braised.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Cool Arrow, Aloha Indeed, is the 0 planning a visit and to party
September 17, 2009 - 15:52 ET by upcountrywaterPearl Harbor, not a day of Infamy, just a day to serve.
An ABC link, to the above exists, however this "news" service is much more to the point.
Aloha snack bar, my brother from another mother.
Seems science wars may be heating up?
September 17, 2009 - 11:23 ET by AtTheWaterCoolerLinked to your post from Politics of Global Warming
The American voters elected
September 17, 2009 - 12:20 ET by eaglewingz08The American voters elected Obama, so maybe the film's title (and Maher who regularly calls Americans 'stupid') have a point?
Teaching liberals is difficult work.
September 17, 2009 - 14:15 ET by AtTheWaterCoolerI try to resist the urge to call them stupid even when they do stupid things. They need to wake up and smell the reality ... They need to take responsibility for their actions as I need to take responsibility for my own. They need to embrace their ability to check facts, ... anything less and the title does refect the current age.
Title change
September 17, 2009 - 14:02 ET by changein2012A better title for this fantasy would be "Inconveniently Stuck on Stupid". I have suffered the nonsense of these alarmists for 25 years and finally it is almost over! The shrill cry you hear is the greenies mourning the loss of their argument.
It's amusing that these Boneheads haven't realized that . .
September 17, 2009 - 18:28 ET by FastEd"The film will be simulcast from a solar tent in downtown New York to over 440 movie theatres across America." means that there will be an awful lot of "carbon wasted" for all the folks who will not be riding bikes, rickshaws, etc., to the movies, and all the electricity that isn't windmill generated, etc. If anything, these dopes are the real Stupids of Age - today!
Proud member of the MOB - Move Over Barack, we want our country back!
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Maybe he means stupid liberals?
September 18, 2009 - 00:20 ET by upgradeWonder if these people know the difference between being smart and intelligent. For instance, if you start crossing the road and a car is coming, it's smart to get out of the way. The intelligent person looks both ways to make sure they can cross the street to ensure a car isn't coming. Regarding these people who believe in man-made global warming, did the CO2 just 'happen' or did the sun have something to do with the temperature going up for CO2 to form?
"a much sterner and more alarming...
September 18, 2009 - 02:26 ET by Army BratYeah...even more blatant lies...
islam is a lie and Truth is killing it.