Stupid idiot actor Leonardo DiCaprio mistakes local weather condition for "global warming"

[Blackrook]

Why some climate advocates cringed at Leo's Oscar speech

This is really embarassing, not only to Leo, but to the entire "global warming" crowd.

It turns out that there is a weather condition called a chinook that Leo Dumbass thought was "global warming"

The 41-year-old actor again highlighted his experience of a sudden change in temperature and loss of snow while filming The Revenant in southern Alberta as evidence of a warming globe.

"Our production needed to move to the southern tip of this planet just to be able to find snow," DiCaprio said during his acceptance speech.

The incident DiCaprio described was widely believed to be a chinook — a weather phenomenon that occurs when warm air is forced downward at the point where mountains meet prairies. The effect, which is not a direct effect of climate change, is particularly pronounced in southern Alberta and frequently brings sudden bouts of summer-like conditions in the dead of winter.

While he didn't disagree with DiCaprio's fundamental point, Alberta-based author Chris Turner described the actor's insistence on using a chinook as a case in point for climate change as less than helpful.

Here's the thing:

If man-made global warming was real, they wouldn't have had to change the name to "climate change" and they wouldn't need movie actors to push for it during Oscar awards.

And if man-made global warming was real, they wouldn't have to demand that global warming deniers be given the death penalty:

Google

 

[Rustic]

Why some climate advocates cringed at Leo's Oscar speech

This is really embarassing, not only to Leo, but to the entire "global warming" crowd.

It turns out that there is a weather condition called a chinook that Leo Dumbass thought was "global warming"

The 41-year-old actor again highlighted his experience of a sudden change in temperature and loss of snow while filming The Revenant in southern Alberta as evidence of a warming globe.

"Our production needed to move to the southern tip of this planet just to be able to find snow," DiCaprio said during his acceptance speech.

The incident DiCaprio described was widely believed to be a chinook — a weather phenomenon that occurs when warm air is forced downward at the point where mountains meet prairies. The effect, which is not a direct effect of climate change, is particularly pronounced in southern Alberta and frequently brings sudden bouts of summer-like conditions in the dead of winter.

While he didn't disagree with DiCaprio's fundamental point, Alberta-based author Chris Turner described the actor's insistence on using a chinook as a case in point for climate change as less than helpful.

Here's the thing:

If man-made global warming was real, they wouldn't have had to change the name to "climate change" and they wouldn't need movie actors to push for it during Oscar awards.

And if man-made global warming was real, they wouldn't have to demand that global warming deniers be given the death penalty:

Google

 

[mudwhistle]

Why some climate advocates cringed at Leo's Oscar speech

This is really embarassing, not only to Leo, but to the entire "global warming" crowd.

It turns out that there is a weather condition called a chinook that Leo Dumbass thought was "global warming"

The 41-year-old actor again highlighted his experience of a sudden change in temperature and loss of snow while filming The Revenant in southern Alberta as evidence of a warming globe.

"Our production needed to move to the southern tip of this planet just to be able to find snow," DiCaprio said during his acceptance speech.

The incident DiCaprio described was widely believed to be a chinook — a weather phenomenon that occurs when warm air is forced downward at the point where mountains meet prairies. The effect, which is not a direct effect of climate change, is particularly pronounced in southern Alberta and frequently brings sudden bouts of summer-like conditions in the dead of winter.

While he didn't disagree with DiCaprio's fundamental point, Alberta-based author Chris Turner described the actor's insistence on using a chinook as a case in point for climate change as less than helpful.

Here's the thing:

If man-made global warming was real, they wouldn't have had to change the name to "climate change" and they wouldn't need movie actors to push for it during Oscar awards.

And if man-made global warming was real, they wouldn't have to demand that global warming deniers be given the death penalty:

Google

Quit spamming dickwad.

 

[Rustic]

Why some climate advocates cringed at Leo's Oscar speech

This is really embarassing, not only to Leo, but to the entire "global warming" crowd.

It turns out that there is a weather condition called a chinook that Leo Dumbass thought was "global warming"

The 41-year-old actor again highlighted his experience of a sudden change in temperature and loss of snow while filming The Revenant in southern Alberta as evidence of a warming globe.

"Our production needed to move to the southern tip of this planet just to be able to find snow," DiCaprio said during his acceptance speech.

The incident DiCaprio described was widely believed to be a chinook — a weather phenomenon that occurs when warm air is forced downward at the point where mountains meet prairies. The effect, which is not a direct effect of climate change, is particularly pronounced in southern Alberta and frequently brings sudden bouts of summer-like conditions in the dead of winter.

While he didn't disagree with DiCaprio's fundamental point, Alberta-based author Chris Turner described the actor's insistence on using a chinook as a case in point for climate change as less than helpful.

Here's the thing:

If man-made global warming was real, they wouldn't have had to change the name to "climate change" and they wouldn't need movie actors to push for it during Oscar awards.

And if man-made global warming was real, they wouldn't have to demand that global warming deniers be given the death penalty:

Google

Quit spamming dickwad.

Come on
lighten up, I couldn't resist...
Lol

 

[Syriusly]

Why some climate advocates cringed at Leo's Oscar speech

This is really embarassing, not only to Leo, but to the entire "global warming" crowd.e

Absolutely- Leo is 'stupid' for believing the consensus scientific worldwide opinion- unlike you who believe that global warming is a vast conspiracy theory....designed to destory America......

LOL

 

[Never3ndr]

Why some climate advocates cringed at Leo's Oscar speech

This is really embarassing, not only to Leo, but to the entire "global warming" crowd.

It turns out that there is a weather condition called a chinook that Leo Dumbass thought was "global warming"

The 41-year-old actor again highlighted his experience of a sudden change in temperature and loss of snow while filming The Revenant in southern Alberta as evidence of a warming globe.

"Our production needed to move to the southern tip of this planet just to be able to find snow," DiCaprio said during his acceptance speech.

The incident DiCaprio described was widely believed to be a chinook — a weather phenomenon that occurs when warm air is forced downward at the point where mountains meet prairies. The effect, which is not a direct effect of climate change, is particularly pronounced in southern Alberta and frequently brings sudden bouts of summer-like conditions in the dead of winter.

While he didn't disagree with DiCaprio's fundamental point, Alberta-based author Chris Turner described the actor's insistence on using a chinook as a case in point for climate change as less than helpful.

Here's the thing:

If man-made global warming was real, they wouldn't have had to change the name to "climate change" and they wouldn't need movie actors to push for it during Oscar awards.

And if man-made global warming was real, they wouldn't have to demand that global warming deniers be given the death penalty:

Google

I'm glad you clarified that for us! I, for one, certainly don't take Leo's word for it when it comes to "global warming"

On the other hand a large body of scientists have consistently displayed an overwhelming body of evidence lending weight to the certainty of man made climate change. I was wondering if you had something educational to say about the work of ACTUAL expects. Here, I'll help:

IPCC Fifth Assessment Report

You can start by deconstructing their latest report and giving us reasons why you know better than hundreds (thousands?) of scientists across the globe.

 

[Steven_R]

I wasn't going to believe Leo...but he has an Oscar! An Oscar! I mean, who am I to disagree with someone who can remember the words someone else wrote and emote effectively on cue?

 

[Ame®icano]

Why some climate advocates cringed at Leo's Oscar speech

This is really embarassing, not only to Leo, but to the entire "global warming" crowd.e

Absolutely- Leo is 'stupid' for believing the consensus scientific worldwide opinion- unlike you who believe that global warming is a vast conspiracy theory....designed to destory America......

LOL

I don't think science will ever again be guided by anything other than business and/or politics.

By the way, scientific consensus is a great tool to shut the opposition. Like "swine flu" consensus from seventies, or "second hand smoke" consensus in recent years. Consensus today is not based on hard data, but on opinions and cooking of data to satisfy the government's policies.

 

[Never3ndr]

Why some climate advocates cringed at Leo's Oscar speech

This is really embarassing, not only to Leo, but to the entire "global warming" crowd.e

Absolutely- Leo is 'stupid' for believing the consensus scientific worldwide opinion- unlike you who believe that global warming is a vast conspiracy theory....designed to destory America......

LOL

I don't think science will ever again be guided by anything other than business and/or politics.

By the way, scientific consensus is a great tool to shut the opposition. Like "swine flu" consensus from seventies, or "second hand smoke" consensus in recent years. Consensus today is not based on hard data, but on opinions and cooking of data to satisfy the government's policies.

You say this, but you are using a computer and the internet. You know that our knowledge base has been derived from scientific consensus right? Our understanding of everything from gravity to what water is made up of to what happens when somebody gets different bacterial infections relies upon scientific consensus.

Now, is scientific consensus always right? Nope. Nobody said that it was either. However, is relying on the opinions of professionals who have, literally, dedicated their lives to thinking about and refining certain areas of human knowledge a good idea? Yes.

Now, if you are yourself an educated man with a Ph.D. in a field that has direct expertise lending to an insight on climate change and whether or not it is a reality, then go out there and, to your peers who know as much about the subject as you do, go argue your point. Then, after you convince your colleagues of the veracity of your claims, you can come to the public with your new understandings of climate change. However, until that happens, you'd be a literal idiot to not trust scientific consensus as their process has experts who know more than you could ever want to (or perhaps comprehend) battling out their opinions until the best ones prevail. That's how progress is made.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

I wasn't going to believe Leo...but he has an Oscar! An Oscar! I mean, who am I to disagree with someone who can remember the words someone else wrote and emote effectively on cue?

But only after 10 takes!

 

[Ame®icano]

Why some climate advocates cringed at Leo's Oscar speech

This is really embarassing, not only to Leo, but to the entire "global warming" crowd.e

Absolutely- Leo is 'stupid' for believing the consensus scientific worldwide opinion- unlike you who believe that global warming is a vast conspiracy theory....designed to destory America......

LOL

I don't think science will ever again be guided by anything other than business and/or politics.

By the way, scientific consensus is a great tool to shut the opposition. Like "swine flu" consensus from seventies, or "second hand smoke" consensus in recent years. Consensus today is not based on hard data, but on opinions and cooking of data to satisfy the government's policies.

You say this, but you are using a computer and the internet. You know that our knowledge base has been derived from scientific consensus right? Our understanding of everything from gravity to what water is made up of to what happens when somebody gets different bacterial infections relies upon scientific consensus.

Now, is scientific consensus always right? Nope. Nobody said that it was either. However, is relying on the opinions of professionals who have, literally, dedicated their lives to thinking about and refining certain areas of human knowledge a good idea? Yes.

Now, if you are yourself an educated man with a Ph.D. in a field that has direct expertise lending to an insight on climate change and whether or not it is a reality, then go out there and, to your peers who know as much about the subject as you do, go argue your point. Then, after you convince your colleagues of the veracity of your claims, you can come to the public with your new understandings of climate change. However, until that happens, you'd be a literal idiot to not trust scientific consensus as their process has experts who know more than you could ever want to (or perhaps comprehend) battling out their opinions until the best ones prevail. That's how progress is made.

I stand by what I said.

"Global warming consensus" was policy science. It was based on falsified data to satisfy the political elite. If that consensus was correct, it would be still valid today. Once exposed, they quickly changed the rhetoric to "climate change" as new consensus.

There are many PhDs who were not convinced in global warming and cooked data, all labeled as deniers even when consensus was exposed as lies. Now we're told that we are in "climate change" cycle. I don't think we need science to prove that climate is changing since earth begun.

At the end, you know very well I am not talking about all scientific consensuses, but about those I mentioned in very first sentence of my previous post. Crooked scientist and crooked politician are perfect match that explains it all.

 

[Rustic]

Why some climate advocates cringed at Leo's Oscar speech

This is really embarassing, not only to Leo, but to the entire "global warming" crowd.e

Absolutely- Leo is 'stupid' for believing the consensus scientific worldwide opinion- unlike you who believe that global warming is a vast conspiracy theory....designed to destory America......

LOL

I don't think science will ever again be guided by anything other than business and/or politics.

By the way, scientific consensus is a great tool to shut the opposition. Like "swine flu" consensus from seventies, or "second hand smoke" consensus in recent years. Consensus today is not based on hard data, but on opinions and cooking of data to satisfy the government's policies.

You say this, but you are using a computer and the internet. You know that our knowledge base has been derived from scientific consensus right? Our understanding of everything from gravity to what water is made up of to what happens when somebody gets different bacterial infections relies upon scientific consensus.

Now, is scientific consensus always right? Nope. Nobody said that it was either. However, is relying on the opinions of professionals who have, literally, dedicated their lives to thinking about and refining certain areas of human knowledge a good idea? Yes.

Now, if you are yourself an educated man with a Ph.D. in a field that has direct expertise lending to an insight on climate change and whether or not it is a reality, then go out there and, to your peers who know as much about the subject as you do, go argue your point. Then, after you convince your colleagues of the veracity of your claims, you can come to the public with your new understandings of climate change. However, until that happens, you'd be a literal idiot to not trust scientific consensus as their process has experts who know more than you could ever want to (or perhaps comprehend) battling out their opinions until the best ones prevail. That's how progress is made.

I stand by what I said.

"Global warming consensus" was policy science. It was based on falsified data to satisfy the political elite. If that consensus was correct, it would be still valid today. Once exposed, they quickly changed the rhetoric to "climate change" as new consensus.

There are many PhDs who were not convinced in global warming and cooked data, all labeled as deniers even when consensus was exposed as lies. Now we're told that we are in "climate change" cycle. I don't think we need science to prove that climate is changing since earth begun.

At the end, you know very well I am not talking about all scientific consensuses, but about those I mentioned in very first sentence of my previous post. Crooked scientist and crooked politician are perfect match that explains it all.

Global cooling, global warming and climate change are all about control… Nothing to do with Saving or not saving the planet. LOL

 

[Never3ndr]

I stand by what I said.

"Global warming consensus" was policy science. It was based on falsified data to satisfy the political elite. If that consensus was correct, it would be still valid today. Once exposed, they quickly changed the rhetoric to "climate change" as new consensus.

There are many PhDs who were not convinced in global warming and cooked data, all labeled as deniers even when consensus was exposed as lies. Now we're told that we are in "climate change" cycle. I don't think we need science to prove that climate is changing since earth begun.

At the end, you know very well I am not talking about all scientific consensuses, but about those I mentioned in very first sentence of my previous post. Crooked scientist and crooked politician are perfect match that explains it all.

Okay, well perhaps I am uneducated on this subject. The IPCC, which I have originally linked to, is an international body of scientists composing of hundreds (maybe thousands at this point) of collaborations to really discover if man made climate change is real and, if so, how much has occurred. Their consensus is that climate change is real. Additionally, internationally, scientific bodies have delivered co-signed statements attesting to the reality of climate change:

http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/climatechangestatement.pdf

Now. Maybe I have been misled since you seem to think otherwise. I now ask you to convince me. I'd like to see the counterargument co-signed by multiple international scientific bodies (who have no real vested interest in politics, and US centric politics especially). I'd love to review the 500+ page peer reviewed document attesting to the claims that climate change is a falsehood based, not on belief, but on verifiable fact by HUNDREDS of experts. I look forward to being pointed towards this work that you so obviously know of.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

'Stupid idiot actor Leonardo DiCaprio mistakes local weather condition for "global warming"'

As do most USMB rightwing nitwits.

 

[Ame®icano]

I stand by what I said.

"Global warming consensus" was policy science. It was based on falsified data to satisfy the political elite. If that consensus was correct, it would be still valid today. Once exposed, they quickly changed the rhetoric to "climate change" as new consensus.

There are many PhDs who were not convinced in global warming and cooked data, all labeled as deniers even when consensus was exposed as lies. Now we're told that we are in "climate change" cycle. I don't think we need science to prove that climate is changing since earth begun.

At the end, you know very well I am not talking about all scientific consensuses, but about those I mentioned in very first sentence of my previous post. Crooked scientist and crooked politician are perfect match that explains it all.

Okay, well perhaps I am uneducated on this subject. The IPCC, which I have originally linked to, is an international body of scientists composing of hundreds (maybe thousands at this point) of collaborations to really discover if man made climate change is real and, if so, how much has occurred. Their consensus is that climate change is real. Additionally, internationally, scientific bodies have delivered co-signed statements attesting to the reality of climate change:

http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/climatechangestatement.pdf

Now. Maybe I have been misled since you seem to think otherwise. I now ask you to convince me. I'd like to see the counterargument co-signed by multiple international scientific bodies (who have no real vested interest in politics, and US centric politics especially). I'd love to review the 500+ page peer reviewed document attesting to the claims that climate change is a falsehood based, not on belief, but on verifiable fact by HUNDREDS of experts. I look forward to being pointed towards this work that you so obviously know of.

Again, you're referring to IPCC's "body of scientists" that back in 2007 claimed that "global warming is unequivocal and irreversible". If that "scientific consensus" was correct, why they're not telling/bitching about it anymore? Maybe because one third of Florida is not under water as they scientifically proved will be.

Second, since their claims are false, because they're based on falsified data and wrong computer models, or in other words they're based on lies, why do I need to provide anything to prove otherwise?

And last (for now), the IPCC assessment report from 2007 was treated by lefties and media with the same reverence that would've been reserved in bygone era for the Holly Bible and there are many similarities between religious dogma of old times and environmental dogma of today. The IPCC assessment was repeatedly and consistently referred to as climate Bible by that self-same media, and also it represents the ideology in which the "original sin of our carbon production" can only be atoned for by buying carbon indulgences from the carbon priesthood.

The false data can be disproved by correct data. The question for you is, how do you disprove the religion?

 

[Never3ndr]

I stand by what I said.

"Global warming consensus" was policy science. It was based on falsified data to satisfy the political elite. If that consensus was correct, it would be still valid today. Once exposed, they quickly changed the rhetoric to "climate change" as new consensus.

There are many PhDs who were not convinced in global warming and cooked data, all labeled as deniers even when consensus was exposed as lies. Now we're told that we are in "climate change" cycle. I don't think we need science to prove that climate is changing since earth begun.

At the end, you know very well I am not talking about all scientific consensuses, but about those I mentioned in very first sentence of my previous post. Crooked scientist and crooked politician are perfect match that explains it all.

Okay, well perhaps I am uneducated on this subject. The IPCC, which I have originally linked to, is an international body of scientists composing of hundreds (maybe thousands at this point) of collaborations to really discover if man made climate change is real and, if so, how much has occurred. Their consensus is that climate change is real. Additionally, internationally, scientific bodies have delivered co-signed statements attesting to the reality of climate change:

http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/climatechangestatement.pdf

Now. Maybe I have been misled since you seem to think otherwise. I now ask you to convince me. I'd like to see the counterargument co-signed by multiple international scientific bodies (who have no real vested interest in politics, and US centric politics especially). I'd love to review the 500+ page peer reviewed document attesting to the claims that climate change is a falsehood based, not on belief, but on verifiable fact by HUNDREDS of experts. I look forward to being pointed towards this work that you so obviously know of.

Again, you're referring to IPCC's "body of scientists" that back in 2007 claimed that "global warming is unequivocal and irreversible". If that "scientific consensus" was correct, why they're not telling/bitching about it anymore? Maybe because one third of Florida is not under water as they scientifically proved to be.

Second, since their claims are false, because they're based on falsified data and wrong computer models, or in other words they're based on lies, why do I need to provide anything to prove otherwise?

And last (for now), the IPCC assessment report from 2007 was treated by lefties and media with the same reverence that would've been reserved in bygone era for the Holly Bible and there are many similarities between religious dogma of old times and environmental dogma of today. The IPCC assessment was repeatedly and consistently referred to as climate Bible by that self-same media, and also it represents the ideology in which the "original sin of our carbon production" can only be atoned for by buying carbon indulgences from the carbon priesthood.

The false data can be disproved by correct data. The question for you is, how do you disprove the religion?

You realize all I have to do to counter your argument is >>RELINK << the same thing I've already linked right? Here, I'll do it again:

IPCC Fifth Assessment Report

This was just finalized in 2014. They are still saying the same thing... Also, in case you don't have any clue about the scientific process, it generally takes a lot of time (especially considering international collaboration) to generate the data and finalize it...this isn't some sort of thing that can or will come out annually.

 

[skye]

Millionaires and billionaires complaining about weather conditions?

fuck them!!!

and give us a break!

 

[Ame®icano]

You realize all I have to do to counter your argument is >>RELINK << the same thing I've already linked right? Here, I'll do it again:

IPCC Fifth Assessment Report

This was just finalized in 2014. They are still saying the same thing... Also, in case you don't have any clue about the scientific process, it generally takes a lot of time (especially considering international collaboration) to generate the data and finalize it...this isn't some sort of thing that can or will come out annually.

You're saying that Fourth Assessment Report from 2007 I was talking about is confirmed in Fifth Assessment Report. And if 4th was proven false (with emails that confirmed that data is cooked), how 5th can say the same thing? It seems you don't understand, or refuse to accept the fact, that legitimacy of the IPCC's Assessment Report process to speak for some sort of scientific consensus has been repeatedly undermined in the years preceding that last report. For instance, climategate scandal (i think it was in 2009) presented incriminating evidence against those you called "HUNDREDS of experts" whose work feeds into IPCC and some of those are lead authors of Assessment Reports. They didn't just cooked the data, but they actually did break the law by illegally withholding the information.

Climatologists found guilty in hiding data - The Guardian

Those types of "scientists" are self serving assholes and the only way they can keep their jobs and get paid top money for it is to keep feeding politicians with lies and false predictions.

I am still waiting for your answer to my question from previous post.

 

[EverCurious]

Infos ~ Chinook wind - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We're used to them in Alaska, we call them the Pineapple express.

 

[Never3ndr]

You realize all I have to do to counter your argument is >>RELINK << the same thing I've already linked right? Here, I'll do it again:

IPCC Fifth Assessment Report

This was just finalized in 2014. They are still saying the same thing... Also, in case you don't have any clue about the scientific process, it generally takes a lot of time (especially considering international collaboration) to generate the data and finalize it...this isn't some sort of thing that can or will come out annually.

You're saying that Fourth Assessment Report from 2007 I was talking about is confirmed in Fifth Assessment Report. And if 4th was proven false (with emails that confirmed that data is cooked), how 5th can say the same thing? It seems you don't understand, or refuse to accept the fact, that legitimacy of the IPCC's Assessment Report process to speak for some sort of scientific consensus has been repeatedly undermined in the years preceding that last report. For instance, climategate scandal (i think it was in 2009) presented incriminating evidence against those you called "HUNDREDS of experts" whose work feeds into IPCC and some of those are lead authors of Assessment Reports. They didn't just cooked the data, but they actually did break the law by illegally withholding the information.

Climatologists found guilty in hiding data - The Guardian

Those types of "scientists" are self serving assholes and the only way they can keep their jobs and get paid top money for it is to keep feeding politicians with lies and false predictions.

I am still waiting for your answer to my question from previous post.

Did you even read that story you linked...it has to do with a guy and his study from 1990. Now, I don't know a lot of that issue and I'm not going to defend him. In fact, I'll even agree with you here and say that this guy produced a misleading study based on falsified or erroneous data.

Now, what, exactly, does that have to do with the IPCC and the consensus of hundreds (maybe thousands) of scientists? Are you saying that if one guy from 2 decades ago were to try and prove the theory of gravity, and let's say he's lazy, an idiot, or just plain immoral and he generates false data...does the fact that one guy did that 2 decades ago prove that the theory of gravity is false? That is literally your line of reasoning here. That if you can find one crackpot that failed to prove something, then the whole thing must be false. Instead of relying on the knowledge base of experts that dedicate their lives to finding out whether or not something is, you rely on the one case that agrees with your point of view. You realize that is a logical fallacy right?

As for your question on how do you disprove a religion. I'm not sure. When I convince you, who are holding onto a conspiracy based belief that ignores modern facts and scientific data, I'll tell you how I've effectively disproven your religion.