March 01, 2016

(FLASHBACK:) "Dumbass" Leonardo DiCaprio thinks a chinook is "global warming"

Rebel Staff
 

In an interview with Variety, movie star Leonardo DiCaprio raved that he'd experienced "global warming" first hand while filming in Calgary.

He says he was shocked and "terrified" when a "sudden warm gust of wind" melted "eight feet of snow."

As a Calgary native, I'm happy to explain what a "chinook" is to "weather expert" and climate change activist DiCaprio.

It's a natural weather phenomenon that gives Calgarians a break from winter:

Some people go skiing in shorts, for example. It's awesome.

DiCaprio is lying when he says he was afraid of this change in weather, and lying when he said the locals were, too.

As the owner of luxury boats and jets, he's also lying when he says he cares about carbon footprints and climate change.

But he's an actor and a high school dropout. The (non-Canadian) media printed DiCaprio's story at face value, because they're in the tank for "global warming," so they're not much better.

The Canadian media, though? They had a great time mocking DiCaprio, except...

What's up with the Calgary Herald's hypocrisy?

WATCH to see what I mean...

 

 

JOIN TheRebel.media FREE for more fearless news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.

READ Ezra Levant's bestselling books debunking environmentalist propaganda against the energy industry:
Groundswell: The Case for Fracking and Ethical Oil: The Case for Canada's Oil Sands

Rachel Notley's Alberta NDP just announced a $3 billion a year carbon tax.
SIGN THE PETITION telling them to cancel this job-killing tax at StopTheCarbonTax.com

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2016-03-11 17:20:09 -0500
The only thing you mentioned that might be correct is what the Republicans will do should they win the election. BTW, climatefallacy is indeed an oxymoron.
commented 2016-03-11 05:47:23 -0500
Kokes,

Man-influenced global warming is evidenceless.

It is only a conjectured opinion by a few who stand to profit from government grants.

The Republicans will settle this hoax in a few months when they cancel all government green funding and denounce and defund the IPCC as a corrupt political entity.

@climatefallacy
commented 2016-03-09 09:08:17 -0500
Just because you’re wrong, there is no need for profanity. Obviously your hostility is a sign of sexual frustration. Why am I not surprised.
commented 2016-03-04 15:30:25 -0500
Since you have acted on my advise, I rest my case. Have a good weekend.
commented 2016-03-03 14:34:26 -0500
Oh please Mr. Kokes.
Give it a rest.
commented 2016-03-03 09:49:53 -0500
Liza, I thought you were going to give me the last word. But somehow I knew that wasn’t going to happen. Here is the truth about your hero Tim Ball and you best sit for this.

Source: The Calgary Herald, Statement of Defense – paragraph 50, Dr Tim Ball v The Calgary Herald, In the Court of the Queen’s Bench of Alberta Judicial District of Calgary, Dec 7, 2006:

Tim Ball is hardly a climate science expert, and this has been stated in a court of law.

After the Calgary Herald published an op-ed by Ball on April 19, 2006, whom the newspaper identified as the first climatology PhD in Canada and a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years, they published a letter on April 23, 2006 from Dr. Dan Johnson, a professor at the University of Lethbridge, who pointed out that neither of those descriptions is true; that Dr. Ball’s credentials were being seriously overstated. Ball later threatened Johnson and the Herald and ultimately sued for defamation.

In their Statement of Defense filed in Court, the Calgary Herald submitted the following: “…that the Plaintiff (Ball) never held a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming…. “The Plaintiff has never published any research in any peer-reviewed scientific journal which addressed the topic of human contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming; “The Plaintiff has published no papers on climatology in academically recognized peer-reviewed scientific journals since his retirement as a Professor in 1996; “The Plaintiff’s credentials and credibility as an expert on the issue of global warming have been repeatedly disparaged in the media; and “The Plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.”

Ball dropped his lawsuit.

Now I have offered to help you find the truth but obviously you are blinded to that end. Please save yourself any further embarrassment and dispense with your ill-informed comments and unfounded hero worship. You are simply out of touch with reality and this is a battle you will not win.
commented 2016-03-02 18:24:31 -0500
I will say A word Mr. Kokes, but I won’t say the word.
You are very trusting and have consumed so much of the kool aid that you actually believe that the gov. and UN are working for the common good of the planet. People are waking up to the sham and don’t want to play anymore. Is there global warming and cooling? Yes there is, and cooling is what it will be doing soon. That is what we should be preparing for , not shutting down the Canadian oil patch, for emissions which are minuscule. Do something about emissions where there really might be some first,if you think carbon dioxide is the big culprit. Then come after Canada. This is all politically driven. The only thing man made about climate change is the climate industry.
Climate change exists BUT Anthropogenic climate change is an omnipotent fantasy. Forest fires over the centuries have spewed more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than oil extraction or usage ever could. The earth should have burnt up by now by your theory, but it hasn’t. The right thing to do for the common good would be to drop this expensive farce. Nobody is buying it anymore. Over and out, last word to you Mr. Kokes. Give it your best shot.
commented 2016-03-02 15:46:54 -0500
Liza, you really need to take off your rosie-coloured glasses. All creditable scientific evidence points to man-made global warming. And a peer review on a scientific study acknowledges that the author(s) has used proven scientific methods and research whose merits are recognized within the scientific community. Such creditable science has prompted the UN and other governments to act on climate change. In other words, “we the people” should have our best interests in mine. It is not a conspiracy but rather based on actual need. Yes, the political machine is not without corruption but when indisputable science is at the forefront, even corporate dollars cannot sway the logical. So instead of posting links to opinionated blogs and anti-climate sites that suggest the contrary, you have to ask yourself, “what if I’m wrong”. And if you are still in denial then ask yourself what motivates you to think the way you do. I believe if you try to be objective in your quest for the truth and within yourself, admitting you could be wrong may not be as hard as you might think. Yes, economics is important but there has to be a balance and environmental considerations and social injustices need proper address as well. If you need assistance in finding credible science-based websites, I would be more than happy to assist you in that endeavour. Just say the word.
commented 2016-03-02 13:31:36 -0500
The carbon tax is one of the biggest scams to come out of the Climate Change industry. Nothing but a ‘revenue’ tool for crooked politicians. Boy Trudeau is going to milk that cow big time while he is in. Highway robbery.
commented 2016-03-02 13:06:27 -0500
The only thing man made about Climate Change is the industry of hucksters.
commented 2016-03-02 13:03:25 -0500
MichaeL, ‘backyard problems" don’t give enough of a platform for mass political impact, but I would certainly agree that they are important, and there is a lot we can and should do.

People don’t blindly trust the scientist’s anymore. What does third party peer review really mean. Reading about it shows it is a flawed system, not necessarily done with the best interests of science at heart. Scientists don’t even like it.
“So what do scientists complain about? This shouldn’t be too much of a surprise. It’s the lack of training, the lack of feedback, the time constraints, and the fact that, the more specific your research gets, the fewer people there are with the expertise to accurately and thoroughly review your work.”
http://boingboing.net/2011/04/22/meet-science-what-is.html
As far as overall consensus is concerned, that seems an unlikely scenario, considering both sides have their feet dug in.

The climate is changing because that is what cycles produce, constant fluctuations. Climate is kinetic. There are steps which need to be taken by the fleas on this dog if they don;t want to be ‘shook’ off. As far as I’m concerned the blame that preparations aren’t being made where it will matter, falls squarely on the shoulders of the hucksters.
Consideration to how and where communities are planned and located, earthquake alerts, air emissions of course. Any one who has seen the pollution in China for example would be keen not to duplicate their carelessness.
The answer doesn’t lie in shutting down economies. The solution is better technology. To pretend that this isn’t political is naive, and people know better. The Climate Change industry is losing its credibility with people. They are fed up with the game. Nobody is buying it anymore.
commented 2016-03-02 10:12:32 -0500
Liza, very little is definitive when we are dealing with theories. But with proper 3rd party peer review and an overall scientific consensus, a theory once embraced can lead to a better understanding and provide some practical action items. Certainly better than taking a position that all is well in utopia whereby we need not worry or do anything. Corporate propaganda may relieve such stress but does nothing to secure our future generation.

And you are correct Michael, why are tax payers flipping the bill for corporate misdeeds in the form of a carbon tax. It should be user pays. The pollution issues you mentioned are largely “backyard” problems and certainly need addressing by our respective municipal, provincial and federal governments. But each seems to blame the other in terms of responsibility and costs. Climate change is an international problem and frankly, I have little confidence in the results of the United Nations Climate Change Conference. Big bureaucracy has moves slower than smaller bureaucracies and inefficiencies and ineffectiveness abounds. Despite all that, we will eventually have to address the elephant in the room with creditable science based cause and effect along with practical mitigative solutions.
commented 2016-03-02 07:34:42 -0500
Mr Koke, I am not paid by the oil industry, and am skeptical at best on the human influence on climate change. We have been lied to and led down the garden path so many times by admitted false studies with disputable data, trying to invoke fear if not panic in the general population. Of course we need to take better care of the planet, but how about tackling the real problem of various types of pollution, like raw sewage going into the water, better solutions to landfills such as efficient and clean incineration producing electricity, or proper scrubbers on industrial smoke stacks reducing air pollution. Take care of these problems and the “scary” greenhouse gases would likely be reduced as well. Taxing Canadians with carbon fees and the money going to general revenues won’t help anyone.
commented 2016-03-02 03:43:31 -0500
“There has always been a warming episode usually following an ice age or after a mini ice age as what was experienced in 1200 AD with the Vikings.” Mr. Kokes, so how does the fact that there has been no cooling over the past few decades mean anything, since as you said yourself we are coming out of a mini ice age.

None of the information in your links is anything but theory. The two on sunspots from the University of California, and Stanford in California are funded from somewhere. The science is only as good as those paying for it. Are you going to tell me that those universities aren’t left wing and that they may have a slant that way? I could post links for my argument on sunspots, because its out there. If you want charts, the ones in the link I posted will have to do for now. The Scientific American article on El Nino, admits their information is not definitive, “Yet Scientists have struggled to understand whether climate change is altering that cycle”. The last one on the warmest years on record is from Nasa and they are losing cred. with many scientists, and followers. They are not who they used to be.

As Climatefallacy says,“Conjecture that any patterns now are manmade are evidenceless.” Because the science is not in, and never will be. There are some facts, but the conclusions drawn are theory, and obviously there are conflicting theories. We could argue until the cows come home, but I agree, it is pointless and tedious.
commented 2016-03-02 01:57:35 -0500
When the hell will these aholes ever practice what they preach , you know they are so concerned, but not enough to inconvenience themselves in any way of course.
commented 2016-03-02 01:56:22 -0500
I see Gordo or Sybil as i used to call him in the Edmonton Sun has a few new accounts.
commented 2016-03-02 00:46:03 -0500
When good people spend their lives doing good deeds they are usually remembered by having a monument made or a street named or a school named after them.
I think Leo wants to be adored like Angelina Jolie who is praised for her work in Africa. Leo wants the same type of adulation . So in keeping with his work of spreading the word about climate change , I think an appropriate award commensurate with his intellectual competency would be naming a school after him.
It would be called the Leonardo DiCaprio Zoolander School For Those who aren’t Smart .
commented 2016-03-01 23:55:37 -0500
There has always been a warming episode usually following an ice age or after a mini ice age as what was experienced in 1200 AD with the Vikings. And yes, the Vikings expanded their empire with more access due to the surrounding seas opening up for them. The point is, that in the last few centuries there has been no cooling but rather a continual warming which is unanimously agreed upon by creditable scientists from around the world.

And with all due respect Lisa, quoting your own words respecting sun spots means nothing without some scientific data to backup those words. And unfortunately, you will not find such data as that theory of yours has been reputed: http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/06_3.shtml
“Although many theories have been proposed to linked sunspot cycles to climate change, none have been proven. Scientists now believe that the intensity of sunspot cycles is an indicator of the overall brightness of the sun, which changes on cycles of a century and does have an influence on climate”.
http://astronomynow.com/2015/08/08/corrected-sunspot-history-suggests-climate-change-not-due-to-natural-solar-trends/ “Corrected sunspot history suggests climate change not due to natural solar trends.”

And contrary to what you believe in your own mind Henrik, El Nino has been linked to climate change. I invite you to try and educate yourself with some creditable reading:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/study-strengthens-link-between-el-nino-and-climate-change/ There are other links I can post as well but I don’t want to overwhelm just yet.

Furthermore NASA has confirmed that 2014 and 2015 were the hottest years on record. And they use satellites too. http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-analyses-reveal-record-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015

Finally, climatefacllacy is truly an oxymoron as facts are facts. I could go on, but why.
commented 2016-03-01 21:05:09 -0500
David Tremblay, where do you think Greenland got its name? I’ll give you a hint, the Vikings were growing grapes , pasturing their livestock and had open fishing routes completely free of sea ice until 1200 AD. Then guess what happened, it got cold, and covered it self with an ice sheet. And then… it started to get warm again.

Climate change advocates only look at the past 150 years for their model numbers. But we know that Greenland was GREEN in the year 1000 AD.
commented 2016-03-01 20:37:13 -0500
Would a warm breeze in the summer be global warming? I just cant stop laughing. Oh well, Hollywood, the whore of Babylon, will soon be warmin up too.
commented 2016-03-01 20:10:03 -0500
Tremblay,
The climate and the weather has been changing for billions of years.
Conjecture that any patterns now are manmade are evidenceless.
Your boogieman conspiracy theories don’t help your intellect quotient either.

@climatefallacy
commented 2016-03-01 19:55:26 -0500
Climate change is also warming up the ocean not just the atmosphere and that is why there is a spike in El Nino’s and last year was the warmest since people have started measuring. The only people still denying climate change are those that are paid to deny it by oil companies …. because they might lose billions so of course they are going to spend as much money as possible to deny it. No different than tobacco companies.
commented 2016-03-01 18:47:31 -0500
The increase of El Ninos speak to Climate Change……….!?!
So CO2 can also affect El Ninos??
Wauw – so much to learn!
Did Leo teach you that?
And the satellite records show that 2014 and 2015 were not even close to being the hottest years, that is just plain silly.
commented 2016-03-01 18:38:35 -0500
Mann protests too much, suing everybody who looks at him crosswise. Mark Stein, Tim Ball, in progress and threatened to sue National Review editor Rich Lowry http://www.naturalnews.com/043349_climate_change_Michael_Mann_National_Review.html#

So Mr. Kokes, you feel that any scientist who questions anthropogenic climate change have vested interests and are motivated by money? It sure doesn’t look that way from here. Quite the opposite in fact. Its an industry, it needs funding, are you telling me there isn’t a bit of whoring goes on by the climate change scientists?

How did the Vikings grow grapes in Greenland, and have frost free days almost all year round? It was because of the medieval warm period that was between 600 and 1150 AD. Then the climate grew progressively colder , they couldn’t fish in the winter because the waters became too cold, it became harder to grow grain and they had to store it over the colder months. Then the sea ice came around 1200 AD. and their usual seas routes closed up. It was the start of the mini ice age, which was in full force from 1560 to 1850. The climate has been coming out of that mini ice age ever since. Today’s climate change industry scientists only show numbers for the last 150 years, and it makes it look like any warming is unusual. The Vikings have proven you and them wrong. http://cmods.org/Units/Unit2/Cmod6VikingsinGreenland.pdf

I believe in sun spots. "Periods of high sun activity, which include
explosions of solar radiation called “sun spots,” have the effect of warming the earth.
Periods of low sun activity, in contrast, have the effect of cooling the earth. Climate
change is primarily caused by changes in sun activity, not by changes in carbon dioxide
levels—man-made or otherwise. "
commented 2016-03-01 18:36:41 -0500
How dare we question the brilliant mind of dicaprio.lol
commented 2016-03-01 16:50:41 -0500
It is unfortunate that celebrities like DiCaprio, with all good intentions, give misleading message and provide anti-climate activists a platform to spew their rhetoric. Anyone who thinks global warming/climate change is not real and not influenced by human activity is completely delusional. The case against Mr. Ball continues as it is only in the discovery phase now. A quick google search would reveal that fact. Now, there may be some so called scientists that claim otherwise respecting global warming but they have vested interests and motivated by money. Any true academic scholar, who recognizes the value of peer reviewed empirical data, would unequivocally support the reality that human activity contributes to global warming. And to suggest that there is some sort of giant conspiracy afoot involving the UN and other government leaders to falsely promote climate change is completely illogical and ridiculous. Any baby boomer who lived in the prairies when they were young, can attest to the huge amounts of snow fall back then as compared to now. Simply put, the reduction in snowfall is the physical evidence of climate change over a longer period. The increased frequency of Chinooks and El Ninos also speak to climate change. Yet, anti-climate change activists would have you believe that “corporate” backed studies suggest there has been no global warming for the last 18 years, notwithstanding that 2015 was the hottest year in recorded history and 2014 was the next hottest year. Ignorance is indeed bliss and those who suggest that global warming is a fallacy are only fooling themselves.
commented 2016-03-01 15:29:59 -0500
Clearly Leo’s bun is too tight. Do some women like that look, a man with a bun?
commented 2016-03-01 14:41:53 -0500
Let’s just pause for a moment here. How about we get some real experts to comment on the current state of climate change or global warming or global cooling or whatever it is we are trying to sort out here. Let’s hear from some real experts like Robert Redford, Neil Young or maybe just go to the top and get Al Gore to sort this mess out. Remember Al warned us the arctic polar cap would melt and we would all be floating 21 feet higher in water? Well that day has arrived and its dryer than a popcorn fart except for the shit coming out of Lenny duh Caprio.
P.S. I thought our glorious scientists at Environment Canada who were muzzled by that meany Harper had something very important to announce. I am still waiting. I guess it was a false positive after all.