The Daily Caller

The Daily Caller

George Lucas gets his midichlorians in an uproar over Greenpeace

I didn’t think he’d do it, but he did it. That Greenpeace ad I showed you the other day, the one that parodies the Volkswagen ad with the little kid in the Darth Vader costume, has been taken down from YouTube: “This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Lucasfilm Ltd.” Obviously, George Lucas’s concern about protecting his copyright overrides his concern about offending treehuggers. Is he just being a big Jabba? Is this yet another sign that the global-warming fad is over? Both?

If you’re a Green who’s furious with Lucas for turning to the Dark Side, maybe this will make you feel better. It’s Part 1 of a feature-length dissection of everything that’s wrong with Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, and with Lucas’s very existence.

WARNING: ADULT LANGUAGE AND FILM THEORY

YouTube Preview Image

You can watch the rest of the review, and reviews of the other Star Wars prequels, here. Before Lucas takes them down. Or you could spend the Fourth of July weekend doing something outside. With other people. I know which one I’ll choose.

(Hat tip: Ed Driscoll)

P.S. If you understood a single word of this post, you are a nerd.

  • Pingback: Friday Linkzookery – 08 Jul 2011

  • Pingback: Right Wing Extremists: 4th of July - Independence Day Edition | REPUBLICAN REDEFINED

  • NikFromNYC

    They should feel relieved that it’s off YouTube since the thousands of comments were 95% negative.

    The LA Times featured cold fusion in ’89 before its debunking. Environmentalists were aghast!
    “It’s like giving a machine gun to an idiot child.” – Paul Ehrlich (mentor of John Cook of the SkepticalScience blog, author of “Climate Change Denial”)
    “Clean-burning, non-polluting, hydrogen-using bulldozers still could knock down trees or build housing developments on farmland.” – Paul Ciotti (LA  Times)
    “It gives some people the false hope that there are no limits to growth and no environmental price to be paid by having unlimited sources of energy.” – Jeremy Rifkin (NY Times)
    “Many people assume that cheaper, more abundant energy will mean that mankind is better off, but there is no evidence for that.” – Laura Nader (sister of Ralph)

    CLIMATEGATE 101: “For your eyes only…Don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone….Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that.” – Phil “Hide The Decline” Jones to Michael  “Hockey Stick” Mann

    Here I present A Global Warming Digest:
    Denial: http://bit.ly/m6xySt
    Oceans: http://oi53.tinypic.com/2i6os4y.jpg
    Thermometers: http://oi52.tinypic.com/2agnous.jpg
    Earth: http://oi56.tinypic.com/2reh021.jpg
    Ice: http://oi53.tinypic.com/wmav6g.jpg
    Authority: http://oi52.tinypic.com/wlt4i8.jpg
    Prophecy: http://oi52.tinypic.com/30bfktk.jpg
    Psychopathy: http://oi52.tinypic.com/1zqu71i.jpg
    Icon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmPzLzj-3XY
    Thinker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n92YenWfz0Y

    -=NikFromNYC=- Ph.D. in Carbon Chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)

    • caracoid

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t that chart on sea ice say that over the last 30 years the area of sea ice coverage has decreased 2 million square kilometers?

      • WereS

        Uh… that’s only one part of the chart mate. The total graphic is comprise of several charts. Each tell a different story, the point being it’s complicated and there is no clear evidence to say, with confidence, it’s one way or the other.

        • caracoid

          You know, you might want to take a look at this website on global warming.

          http://www.skepticalscience.com

          While there seems to be plenty of debate on whether its happening or not, one thing that appears to not have been disproved is the THICKNESS or ice sheets in the Antarctic. Apparently the ice in the Arctic is pretty much undisputed to be on the downswing, so a lot of debate now concerns the Antarctic. It has been pointed out that the Antarctic sea ice is indeed growing; however, this set of (so far) undisputed data measuring Antarctic gravitational forces used to indicate overall thickness of the ice have shown a significant decrease in its thickness.

          Both the explanation and follow-up discussions from both sides of the argument are in the links below, and–in this case–its not so technical as to be indecipherable.

          http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm

          http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

          I’m a conservative who has been skeptical of the global warmist arguments from day one. And for good reason. From the beginning its legitimacy has stunk to high heaven. However unless I can find a logical reason to doubt this data, I’m officially changing positions, under the belief that just because the devil himself says its right doesn’t necessarily mean its wrong.

          • NikFromNYC

            You have linked to a site run by a professional comic artist who lacks a Ph.D. and thus lacks experience in knowing how to be highly critical of a given claim, run in partnership with a guy who works for a nuclear weapons design firm that now receives $330 million green energy contracts. That site has become a minor laughing stock among serious skeptics.

            Just like most AGW enthusiast sites you don’t see the full debate there since they censor out all but initial comments by a given skeptic, to which they add snarky and highly insulting remarks, creating the very false impression that debate has petered out.

            Blogger Tilo Reber expresses this effect succinctly in relation to the AGW site run by the “Hockey Stick Team” RealClimate.org (web site currently registered to the PR firm behind the junk science silicone implant scare that bankrupted Dow Corning and behind the junk science vaccine/autism link):

            “The whole purpose of the procedure is to give the illusion that the subject has been fairly and completely dealt with and that the pro AGW side has won – once again. From that point, any future arguments of similar issues by skeptics will simply be marked as, “discredited – see such and such a thread”. The entire RC web site is full of victories that are won, not by science or logic, but rather by censorship. Of course the average reader of RC doesn’t know this. He never sees the objections by skeptics that cannot be answered.”

            I too have in the past wandered in and out of the skeptical camp, based on posts on RC and a few other sites, but I am now convinced that brazen scientific fraud is at work in a small group of people intimately involved in the highly political IPCC process. Basically we are going through mostly natural warming and there is all manner of work for thousands of legitimate scientists to do analyzing the effects of this warming, whereas the Hockey Stick Team is at work in Orwellian fashion, re-writing ancient history to pretend that recent warming represents a massive change away from the natural trend.

            I’ll have to look into the Cogley glacier result on the SkepticalScience site, in time, but it can be very frustrating due to time constraints and the extremely biased view of that site. The site basically claims that not a single climatological result that indicates alarmist results can be called into question in any way whatsoever! It vastly simplifies serious skeptical arguments too, then knocks them down. And if I do find a good point, there is little reward in the work I’ve done since there is no wiggle room there for the give and take debate that results in better understanding. As soon as a skeptic makes a single mistake in initial judgment that embarrassing transitional state statement is the last word he will be allowed in a given thread, and *that* is the experience of all serious skeptics on such sites. The thing that usually happens when I delve into a given paper is that the solidity of the result evaporates as it turns out to be a speculative computer model instead of real data or their error margin is greater then their trend etc. I refuse to cooperate with a site whose entire strategy is to ensnare skeptics into cooperating just enough to censor them at the exact point when they have a real comeback after the initial hard work of delving into a study has been carried out fully.

            Basically, if glacier melt is suddenly surging, then why isn’t sea level also doing so in support of it? I also clearly recall a study that showed that Greenland was melting just as fast in the past, I believe the 30s. Were that I could *trust* climate scientists, I wouldn’t have to delve into each and every damn study put forth in support of AGW, but the brazen fraud I discovered within the ranks of IPCC scientists means I cannot. Had AGW supporters cleaned there own house after Mann put out his first of many “artifacts of bad mathematics” studies (the term the Berkley Temperature Project’s Richard Muller uses to describe it), I’d be much happier to take things at face value.

            I very much support the new found confidence of laymen to call AGW bunk. Nasty people are behind it, mostly, with way too much overlap with old school anti-capitalist politics.

            John Cook of SkepticalScience.com is clearly motivated by boilerplate Marxist anti-capitalism combined with sappy New Age spirituality. His whole self-image as a societal outcast (http://lh5.ggpht.com/_gmR8fkmAnjw/S6mEPUJG0xI/AAAAAAAAAw4/mGNeSNCJQ1Q/JohnCookSkep190.jpg) is wrapped up in the success of some manner of boring same old version of world religious conversion.

            “A sustainabl­e society will require fairness (equity) and justice locally and globally, both within this generation and between our generation and future generations.” – John Cook and Hadyn Washington (“Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand,” 2011).

            “Preventin­g the collapse of human civilizati­on requires nothing less than a wholesale transforma­tion of dominant consumer culture.” – John Cook and Hadyn Washington (“Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand,” 2011).

            My motivation isn’t to disprove AGW claims. It’s to help restore scientific integrity in a rogue field of science that threatens to taint the entire calling for generations to come. If it is a serious problem, then exactly the Hockey Stick Team will be at fault for the failure for legitimate scientists to have their warnings headed. Who has the *time* to delve into each claim when nobody on the other side is calling out fraud when fraud occurs?

          • NikFromNYC

            O.K. I figured out why the SkepticalScience link to a chart of a recent rapid surge in glacier ice melt loss is not reflected in sea level rise: glaciers hold only 1% of the planet’s ice. Antarctica and Greenland hold the rest, with the greatest amount in glaciers being in the Himalayas.

            A map is here: http://oi52.tinypic.com/2en6cup.jpg

            So, a chart of a sampling of ice loss from glaciers world wide says very little about what to expect from what really matters: temperature or sea level rise. That we are in a temperature peak that I believe to be mostly natural makes loss of loss from tiny glaciers that lack thermal inertia in extremely cold locations in isolated climate zones does not impress me as much as the idea that world sea ice is starting to melt in an actually meaningful manner.

            That the IPCC claimed the Himalayas would melt by 2035 means that unless those who allowed such a claim to pass through their peer review process need to go or I have little trust in current claims of impending doom.

          • NikFromNYC

            I have posted the following to SkepticalScience. Well see if it passes through moderation. Actually, they tend to post-moderate these days, so it looks to have already posted.

            Glaciers hold only 1% of the planet’s ice. Antarctica and Greenland hold the rest, with the greatest amount in glaciers being in the Himalayas.

            I don’t know how Cogley weighed his data. That the vast majority of glacial volume is in the Himalayas and that soot is causing more melting there than warming (http://esciencenews.com/articles/2011/03/03/soot.packs.a.punch.tibetan.plateaus.climate) provides additional pause.

            A map is here:
            http://oi52.tinypic.com/2en6cup.jpg

            So, a chart of a sampling of ice loss from glaciers world wide says very little about what to expect from what really matters: temperature or sea level rise. That we are in a temperature peak that I believe to be mostly natural makes loss of loss from tiny glaciers that lack thermal inertia in extremely cold locations in isolated climate zones does not impress me as much as the idea that world sea ice is starting to melt in an actually meaningful manner.

            That the IPCC claimed the Himalayas would melt by 2035 means that unless those who allowed such a claim to pass through their peer review process need to go or I have little trust in current claims of impending doom.

            Addendum: The 5×5 temperature grids around the Himalayas actually do show a hockey stick shapes, adding a whopping 2 degrees since 1990!:
            http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/climap.aspx?area=china
            http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/climapgr.aspx?statid=N5:25-30N:85-80E
            http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/climapgr.aspx?statid=N5:25-30N:90-85E

            So no wonder glacial melt is surging. Local heating over the Himalayas. This has been suggested to be due to local land use changes as a sudden 2 degree jump certainly isn’t due to a local spike in CO2. Can I find this warming in a map? Nope! Evidently it must be a very local effect then if it doesn’t show up as a very large super red region above India:

            http://i45.tinypic.com/n6szgh.jpg

            But boy oh boy look at the extreme *cooling* in Antarctica where 90% of world ice is contained!

        • caracoid

          Sorry, disregard the first of the two links at the bottom. What I meant to link to was:

          http://www.skepticalscience.com/Has-Arctic-sea-ice-recovered.htm

          • NikFromNYC

            That is a post to a seeming claim that ice *volume* has declined even though ice area has somewhat recovered in the arctic. Fair enough, but the PIOMAS data that is shown does not include the necessary disclaimer a layperson reader needs to understand what is being shown: it is *not* a new measurement but a mere computer model of ice thickness over time! That the ‘M’ stands for “Modeling” should give layperson’s and experts alike great pause.

            The first year’s actual physical volume measurement of ice volume so far by the new Cyrosat satellite which agrees with the NAVY’s highly criticized PIPS2 ice volume maps suggests that PIOMAS is simply wrong. Ice is not as thin as their model predicted. Surprise surprise!

            It is often claimed that skeptics have a “strategy” to merely create doubt instead of actually debate to win. However, when sites like SS.com fail to point out to busy readers that their wonderful chart of ice volume loss is just a fantasy, well, why would I want to debate all day when I can win the actual day’s debate by merely pointing out lies of omission? If your side kept it’s books clean, you might actually be able to score some points, but since your side is full of fanatics, that wont happen so you are bound to lose the debate, ironically because skeptics on average do *not* have the time and funding to delve into each point in detail like AGW supporter sites *do* have time and funding for. I took quite some time off this time around, mainly to make exactly this point. The next time that page is linked to, I have ammo to demolish it in a single minute instead of hours. And whose fault is that? It’s John Cook’s fault. His site is 100% partisan. There are no caveats presented there.

            Do you belong amongst the miserable too? I suspect a bunch of player haters comprise the online AGW enthusiast realm:
            http://i.min.us/idUfCc.jpg

      • RHO1953

        The global warming shills are in a panic. Last week they were trying to maintain that warming was still happening. This week they are saying there has been no warming for the past ten years, but that is caused by Chinese pollution. In other words, the earth has a self correcting bioshpere. In truth, their models exaggerate global warming predictions by a factor of three on the theory,(and it IS a theory) that the result of co2 buildup will result in an increase in water vapor which will theoretically amplify global warming. It is a gross leap in faith and not based on scientific methods. Are we warming? We might be, just a little bit, but we cannot say that co2 is causing it by any stretch of the imagination. The global climate is too complex and there are factors most people don’t even know about. Like the fact that the earth is going through a cyclical change in the tilt on its’ axis, affecting the angle of solar radiation, and the cyclical variation of solar output and solar storms. Most reputable climatolgists are predicting a fifty year period of much colder winter weather due to solar cycles. It is so easy to sell some people on the fads of the alarmists. They are still skiing in some western resprts, on the Fourth of July, and that is very rare.

      • NikFromNYC

        Laugh it up fuzzball. There’s *no* increase in trend in either sea level, temperature or sea ice extent during the last decade in which the media has become more an more insistent that sea level, temperature and ice loss have suddenly surged “much worse than ever expected.” Based on the basic data I looked up from peer-reviewed sources, those claims are LIES, especially so since Chinese CO2 output really has vastly increased overall CO2 output above and beyond even the *worst* case scenario of the IPCC. Game over. These same trends carry back a century and a half or more. Recent changes are exact, boring extensions of natural trends that were set in motion long before CO2 emissions kicked in after WWII.

  • minicapt

    What will you be watching after all those reviews?
    A suggestion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5s5qGg01nE

    Cheers

  • ghost

    I figured he would. If he let’s Greenpeace do it, then he opens the door for others to do it. And as we all know, he is verrrry jealous of his copyrights.

    And I guess by “we all” I mean “nerds”.

  • gatortarian

    That video is hilarious.