|
What gets me about all this is that everyone rationalizes this BS as OK. The ends “cap and trade” justify the means “convincing people about global warming.”
As James Delingpole reveals, that polar bear image is fake. It’s been Photoshopped. 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.”
Found by Jason Price.
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Bad Behavior has blocked 5508 access attempts in the last 7 days.
A magazine editor admits to photoshopping a very old picture in an older article.
Yup. Absolutely justifies oil company propaganda.
You’re really on top of it, guys.
Even if the photo was not photoshopped, the photo has no context on its own. It could just as easily been taken at the far edge of the breakup of a seasonal ice flow. Altered or not, I really like the picture.
It’s a nice picture, put it on a poster and sell it. However, it’s clearly been photoshopped, anyone with any experience would be able to see that straight out.
So much for critical-thinking media.
Could anybody think that an ocean with perfectly flat water was real? Or that a small piece of ice would support a polar bear without tipping or breaking? Seeing it I would just assume it to be a photoshop job.
BTW most of the stock photo footage you see is fairly photoshopped too. Horrors!
The funniest [sort of] aspect of this is all the photographers who belong to “professional” photography sites which market their work – who have listed this photo as their own copyrighted photo.
Just taking a few minutes, this morning, I found a half-dozen – all claiming authorship of this “original” and asking payment for its use.
More interesting to me is the question of how many photos appearing online have suckered editors into paying for the use of a photo they grabbed from another online source?
1) duh
2) polar bears routinely swim miles and miles for food so poor little bear is not suffering in the least
3) polar bear population has increased dramatically in the last 10 years and they are no longer endangered
“What gets me about all this is that everyone rationalizes this BS as OK. ”
And you got that statement where?
Who’s the “everyone” that’s “rationalizing this as OK”?
Or is this just some of *your* BS?
I think the point is… When are the people pushing for climate legislation going to stop exaggerating things and doing dirty tricks to make us think climate change is a real problem and caused by CO2. The IPCC reports have been botched and all is left is the media and crappy actors that need press.
Global warming facts = Fake Just like the ozone layer which was supposed to burn us all up. Now all of sudden it has shrank? Go figure
No one should be surprised at what these people are capable of that this point.
AGW aka Man Made Global Warming = Liberals version of WMD
Bush duped me on WMD
Gore duped you on AGW
It amazes me that people think that a trace (man made not natural) increase of a trace gas will doom the planet.
Follow the money, it will lead you to the correct answer every time.
WMD went to Halliburton and Bush and Cheney cohorts.
AGW goes to Goldman Sachs, Gore and his cronies.
For those of you “Warmists” still out there you should read some opposing views, try these sites.
http://wattsupwiththat.com
http://climateaudit.org
GOD you people are DUMB! There’s a difference between a MEDIA marketing campaign picture (above) which are ALL photoshoped and fake, and ACTUAL science. You people listen to talk radio and newspaper headlines instead of reading the ACTUAL science articles, or in this case looking at pretty pictures instead of reading the science. The actual study of polar bears shows the reduction of their habitat and shrinking areas. It doesn’t matter if this marketing image is fake. Grow up and be more media savvy.
“It amazes me that people think that a trace (man made not natural) increase of a trace gas will doom the planet. ”
Again, not smart enough to even vaguely understand the issue. (SIGH). The planet is in NOT danger, none, not at all. It’s us, and most specifically our economy. Think of it this way, if Iowa and the midwest turns into a desert, and Saudi Arabia becomes a fertile farmland, the “planet” doesn’t care, doesn’t matter one bit. It matters to US, it matters to the United States if we loose our farm belt or if NY and LA are flooded. Dude, we could set off EVERY nuclear weapon on the planet, kill ALL humans 100 times over, and make this a radioactive ball for 1 million years. The planet will be fine. It might take 10 million, 100 million or 852 million years, but the planet will recover, and life will continue, just like it did for the hundreds of millions (billions) of years BEFORE humans arrived.
It’s not the planet that’s in danger, it’s the United States economy and coastal areas world wide. This is why the liberal think tank, the Pentagon, considers global warming a “military” issue to watch because it can destabilize regimes, change agriculture and drink water access. It’s a threat to OUR human culture, NOT the “planet” which will go on spinning a billion years after our annoying species is long gone.
#13…Thank You!!
I couldn’t have put it better myself.
The points you make are often ignored as both sides of the “debate” talk past each other.
Of course, I’m still left to winder if LA will have a summer this year..skipped the last 2.
it’s funny that a guy as supposedly smart as John C Dvorak can’t figure out that the amount of money being spent on trying to convince us of climate change is a TINY FRACTION of what is spent to convince us there is not……The difference is that he’s an old friend of the oil companies.
No big surprise here. But global warming isn’t fake. It’s real; get use to it. The only question is whether we try to do something about it or just ignore it as it restructures our world.
John, NOD32 caught something fishy on that link.
Re#12, Glass… do you know about this then?
Polar bear expert barred by global warmists
http://bit.ly/TQsOd
“This is one of a steady drizzle of events planned to stoke up alarm in the run-up to the UN’s major conference on climate change in Copenhagen next December. But one of the world’s leading experts on polar bears has been told to stay away from this week’s meeting, specifically because his views on global warming do not accord with those of the rest of the group.
Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.
Dr Taylor agrees that the Arctic has been warming over the last 30 years. But he ascribes this not to rising levels of CO2 – as is dictated by the computer models of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and believed by his PBSG colleagues – but to currents bringing warm water into the Arctic from the Pacific and the effect of winds blowing in from the Bering Sea.”
Re: your mother: “the amount of money being spent on trying to convince us of climate change is a TINY FRACTION of what is spent to convince us there is not”
Show us the study and figures.
Glass Half Full… re: “…if Iowa and the midwest turns into a desert, and Saudi Arabia becomes a fertile farmland,”
Is that an actual prediction? If so show us, because I have actual data that the climate of the midwest has become warmer with more rainfall since 1895.
Colin Powell’s presentation to the UN had portions that were based on a memo written by a grad student.
IPCC report had portions based on a paper written up as input to a peer-reviewed conference, and was at odds with the output of the conference, regarding hurricane damages.
OK, So they replaced the image with a real one.
http://tinyurl.com/2556ezu
Would one of you skeptics please explain how this affects the science one iota? Is the photoshopped image materially different in your mind than the real one that stands there now?
#22, I have no problem with the photo. Every similar cause needs a poster boy. But when the underlying science is questionable, then i have a problem with appealing to public sensitivities before the truth is established. It’s deceptive.
Of course it was Photoshopped. Does a bear s**t in the woods
on the ice?
#23 – Skeptic,
#22, I have no problem with the photo. Every similar cause needs a poster boy. But when the underlying science is questionable, then i have a problem with appealing to public sensitivities before the truth is established. It’s deceptive.
Yes. But, this post has it backwards. The photo is wrong and the science is quite solid. That you are unwilling to read the raw science does not change that fact.
I can’t believe any of you were ‘stimulated’ into posting based on the topic matter. I wouldn’t have bothered reading it myself, but 24 comments peaked my curiosity.
First, some of you guys really got to get a life – Photoshopped or not, big deal!
Second who the hell cares about climate change at this point. If it does exsist, nothing can be done. What difference does it make if man contributed to it, if nothing can be done? None!
Plenty of more pressing concerns, right here, right now, right here, right now, right here, right now, right here, right now, right here, right now.
Sorry, I was listening to Fat Boy Slim.
#18–QuibbleMaster==indeed, that is a disturbing link. I’d like to see more detail on why this guy was excluded. Does show a possible bias or equally that when the science is settled, who wants a crackpot to gum up the works?
But to the main point, why do you, and why should the IPCC, or anyone else take advice about the causes and mechanics of AGW from a guy that spends his time counting Polar Bears????
Polar Bear Studies as the indicator species is “understandable” to us non-climate scientists. I’d love to see this guys charts and read more of his analysis. Right off the bat, I wonder if Polar Bears in the wild, living as they have for 1000’s of years off ice flows in the winter, are now living off of garbage dumps on the edge of town? What about the tv shows documenting Polar Bears mating with Brown Bears because of the “changing” weather patterns.
Glass Half Full at #13 has stated it well. I want to throw up when Hannity crows and preens denying AGW by saying the “Earth will be here forever.” Glass clearly states his error.
QuibbleMaster–its good to be skeptical. Now be skeptical on both sides of the issue. When you are only skeptical on one side of a question, you aren’t really being skeptical. Its some other word. Not quibbling.
Could be Perfidious Apologist, but I want to think and observe on that for a while.
#26 – amodedoma,
Is that the new right wing chant? From climate change is not happening to climate change is not human caused to we can’t fix it anyway?
Well, here’s the thing. We may not be able to fix it. If not, we’re in for a Permian/Triassic level extinction.
Since we just might be able to fix it, we owe it to ourselves and most of the other complex life forms on the planet to do everything we can to avoid another P/T extinction.
Read Under A Green Sky if you really want some interesting information.
http://tinyurl.com/32r7uvc
Ha, Ha.
Scott–its clear to the rest of us that Amodeadingdong, smart as he is, is just waiting for the rupture.
Odd for a christian not to care about all gods creatures including his own kiddies. “Right here, Right now!!!!” That was a catchy phrase used by some other group as well.
Re: Big Picture Bobbo: “But to the main point, why do you, and why should the IPCC, or anyone else take advice about the causes and mechanics of AGW from a guy that spends his time counting Polar Bears????”
Bobbo, he wanted to talk about Polar Bears, his expertise, not his views on Arctic water temperature. Anyone with an alternate explanation to anything AGW is silenced in any way possible. That’s the MO.