Does a Polar Bear drown in the Arctic Ice Shelf?

Image by SordxMaelstrom on DeviantArt

Those who persist in doubting the strong evidence that supports climate change recently received a nice, juicy bone to chew on, in the shape of this combatively headlined article in USA Today:

Could we be wrong about global warming?

Could the best climate models — the ones used to predict global warming — all be wrong?

Maybe so, says a new study published online today in the journal Nature Geoscience. The report found that only about half of the warming that occurred during a natural climate change 55 million years ago can be explained by excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. What caused the remainder of the warming is a mystery.

With such a loaded headline typical of the US media, it’s no surprise that this article was seized by right-wing bloggers as proof positive that climate change is all just a liberal/progressive/socialist conspiracy. This camp is ably represented by Blogmocracy, answering USA Today’s question: Does a Bear Sleep in the Woods?

Blogmocracy’s blog post is full of the usual bollocks, relying on supposedly self-evident statements and dodgy science. Oh, and I should also point out that it’s based on a complete misrepresentation of the facts.

The study doesn’t cast doubt on global warming at all. As one of the scientists who worked on the research told Reuters:

…This could mean current forecasts are underestimating how hot Earth’s atmosphere will get in the future

As explained by Reuters here and here, the story behind the attention grabbing, right-wing baiting headline is that this new research, worryingly, indicates that current models of global warming may in fact be underestimating the problem.

This story is another example of typical denial nonsense. When will they simply admit that global warming and climate change are accepted by virtually every respected scientific organisation – and challenged by none.

Footnote – Science was founded on people admitting their ignorance, looking for mysteries, questioning evidence and then going out and finding the answers. Unfortunately, such (entirely beneficial) admissions of knowledge gaps on “politically sensitive” topics are seized by the anti-science, pro-personal agenda brigade and twisted in an attempt to discredit otherwise widely supported theories. Learning for the day, kids: always look deeper and always do your own research before believing anything you read or hear, online or offline!


CO2/temperature correlation over the 20th Century

CO2 cause of global warming

Carbon dioxide emissions charts


Ed West hates teenagers, gays and making a coherent argument – loves sardine cities and tradition

In the words of The Joker, “I have found myself an enema”.

Performing a spot of research into accurate, rational arguments for and against so-called eco-towns, I stumbled upon this nonsensical article by social commentator for The Telegraph, Ed West.

To quickly nip that article, titled “For a greener Britain, we should build jails not eco-towns”, in the bud: West argues that we’d be better off living in ‘compact cities’, but that this would require people behaving better, so cops should be harassing teenage gangs (presumably including all young people hanging around in groups – as socialising young people are wont to do) and, basically, do their job by arresting criminals. Which I tend to assume they’re doing. When someone argues that police should be arresting people who are committing crimes, the suggestion is that they’re not. No matter what political party is in charge, I’m fairly confident the police will still be aiming to arrest criminals, meaning this is usually a pretty accurate indicator that the person making the point hasn’t really got one.

Ed West’s view of the world appears to be diametrically opposed to mine. Just some of the more obvious signs of the anti-Crunk are as follows:

  1. A rose-tinted view of a mythical social golden age – usually combined with an assumption that the time we’re living in represents the worst things have ever been
  2. Nothing threatens the security of the country more than our children (well, other people’s children). Despite rising test scores, they’re also dumber than ever. Conversely, they’re being taught too much about certain subjects (sex), which somehow means they’re making less intelligent decisions about certain things (sex).
  3. It’s not racist to think that immigration is the second worst thing ever. It’s not homophobic to think that homosexuality is the worst thing ever.
  4. People getting married and staying married will solve all of our problems.
  5. Vague, contradictory, anti-human dogma that is thousands of years old should forever be our primary source of moral guidance – and screw any culture whose own thousand-year-old dogma challenges that.

Ed West’s latest twisted post is a bitter rant against the below quote by Terry Prendergast who works for Marriage Care (an agency associated with the catholic church):

“Statistically, children do best in a family where the adult relationship is steady, stable and loving. Note that I stress adult, not married, since there is no evidence that suggests that children do best with heterosexual couples.”

This seems to make sense to me. To Ed West, however, “what [Prendergast’s] saying is untrue”. He doesn’t really explain why this comment is untrue, he only references a study showing the better lives of children raised by married couples compared to those raised by single parents. Which, when you think about it, clearly supports Prendergast’s opinion that a steady, stable and loving relationship works best. I would like to know if a study comparing children raised by non-married couples in a long-term relationship with single parent children would show similar results. Prendergast seems to think it would, I would tend to agree and consider it obvious, while West doesn’t actually formulate any argument against this. On what grounds then is he claiming the statement is untrue?

The rest of the article does nothing more than quote further extracts from the speech, assuming the reader will disagree without offering anyone with an open mind an argument of why they should. Pointless.

Clearly, the most contentious part of the speech was the second sentence, that there is no evidence suggesting children do best with heterosexual couples. Presumably, this was the more ‘untrue’ part of the speech and is what really gets West’s goat… Here are some extracts from West’s article which lead me to believe this:

“In double-blind test after double-blind test all studies have shown that children in old-fashioned marriages have an almost unassailable advantage over those in “non-conventional” set-ups.”

“Children do best educationally, behaviourally and in every other sphere when raised by two original biological, married parents.”

Let’s be clear that those studies are only comparing married (i.e. “stable”) units with broken families (what West misleadingly terms “non-conventional”). I should point out that the findings of these results have been challenged anyway. Regardless, West is twisting these studies to argue against the claim that there is no evidence to suggest same-sex couples raising children will be any worse at it than heterosexual couples. Twisting is right because that’s not what the studies show at all.

When challenged more about the same-sex issue in the comments section of the blog, West completely contradicts himself:

“In terms of gay couples its hard to do stats because its an entirely new area…”

So, is he saying there is no evidence!? That’s exactly the statement he’s claiming is untrue! To be fair to the man, I’ll quote the rest of his comment in full:

“…But children do far, far better when they’re brought up by two biological parents who are married. No other family model comes anywhere near, which is why his speech is so dishonest. His/her parents being married (currently not an option for gay couples, admittedly not their fault) is the key factor in determining a child’s future wellbeing.”

Currently, the only statistics are looking at two biological parents, meaning any question of sexual preference can not be commented on – unless to say there is no evidence! And, to labour a point, the stats are comparing a stable relationship with broken families – which is not the “family model” Prendergast is suggesting as “the best”!

West should have no argument here, as a careful analysis of his position shows he actually agrees with the statement. What’s obvious is that questioning the institution of marriage and supporting the suitability of same-sex parents counters West’s personal, prejudiced opinion and he is instinctively compelled to oppose on dubious, religious ‘moral’ grounds rather than from a position of logic, rationality and humanity. I think it’s remarkable he managed to write that entire blog post without engaging the higher functions of his brain once.

In summary:

  1. Prendergast said that the best environment for a child to be raised is by loving adults in a stable relationship.
  2. He also said that there is no evidence that heterosexual relationships are better.
  3. West said both these statements were untrue.
  4. He then reels out statistics comparing children raised in stable relationships (represented by married couples) with children raised in unstable relationships (separated parents).
  5. When considered, these statistics can be seen to not counter Prendergast’s first claim – and could be seen as supporting it.
  6. He uses these statistics to suggest children who have been raised by same-sex couples will be worse off.
  7. He later admits that there is no evidence to support this view – thereby agreeing with Prendergast’s second statement.
  8. Any extrapolation from the aforementioned studies concluding that non-heterosexual couples will raise their children in an environment worse than heterosexual couples is completely misleading – the studies only compare stable with unstable relationships and in no way look at the impact of sexuality.
  9. Ed West is a tool.

Until next time…

Crunkstats: Crime down 5%, Attacks from mysterious globules of terrifying, organic goo up 5,000,000%

Are you just aching to go on a recession-fuelled storm of violence, pillage and corporate theft only to stop yourself, afraid of being seen as ‘conformist’? Well, go nuts as the BBC’s Mark Easton points out that, despite claims to the contrary, crime in the UK has decreased to now roughly match 1981 levels (though that’s no reason to be too complacent – this was the year Peter Sutcliffe, the “Yorkshire Ripper”, was arrested).

Hoping to crush our optimism of a safer, friendlier world however, is the massive blob of hairy, gooey matter on an unstoppable collision course with America’s oil-filled piggy bank, Alaska. Is this enigmatic organic muck a new species? Well, the Anchorage Daily News have asked the experts, sorry, local Alaskans, who (quote) “can’t remember seeing anything similar before”. Which is usually the kind of nonchalant reply I reserve for when a stranger in a nightclub asks me if I’ve seen their red, nylon jacket with white cuffs lying around.

Am I blowing this out of proportion or is this really something exciting? I’m hoping it’s some sort of super-intelligent, man-eating sea-fungus and not the result of a bizarre killer whale bulimia party. Fortunately, McClatchy (?) aim to shed some light on the situation with a short video of the goo in the wild. At first, you could be mistaken for thinking this was Cloverfield – until you realise you’re simply watching some awful camerawork, effectively capturing the sheen of a plane window at a position of approximately five hundred miles away from the goo. Can’t you just get into a boat and poke it with a stick?

The NY Daily News can’t be bothered with any kind of empirical evidence, or reporting, preferring instead to ask you what you think the blob is. The options are: some kind of algae that has gown [sic], it must be some sort of hazardous material, sea monster slime, The Blob, and I’m not sure. The readers of NY Daily News are a knowledgeable lot, as only 7% responded with I’m not sure.

I’m yet to find a convincing picture of the goo – The Telegraph presumably thought ‘fuck it’ and just posted a photo of some icebergs with the caption: “Blobs of mysterious goo have been found floating in the Arctic Ocean”. With that as my precedent, I’m just going to stick in a photo of a turtle with a mohawk and hope nobody asks any questions.

My theory is this putrid slick of quasi-malevolent sea-spunk has a similar origin to the river of slime in Ghostbusters 2. Sarah Palin’s long-running ignorance about her own utter ignorance has given birth to this foul obnoxious muck – which is now feeding on the stupidity of the world at large. Peter and the guys were able to stop New Yorkers being arseholes for a short period of time by bringing to life a 111-foot statue… what can we possibly do to save humanity from its own idiocy? I’m not sure if pulling the plug on TMF would be enough…

8 things I might’ve written about over the last three months if I could’ve been bothered

Blogging is exactly like watching a US TV series, listening to indy music or doing something special at tiny, nauseating milestone events in a relationship. If you keep at it, it’s the greatest, most rewarding thing in the world. However, if you pause for too long, it’s all to easy to stop giving a shit and forget why you were so fussed about it in the first place. I mean, Travis!? The only half-decent song on The Man Who is the secret track and I can not be arsed to listen to 3 minutes of Slide Show followed by 4 minutes of silence. Bastards.

Well, that’s just one of the reasons why I haven’t updated Crunkfish in such a long, long time. To make up for this blip in my otherwise extremely blippy posting rate, I’m condensing all the nerve-pinchingly exciting stuff I might’ve considered blogging about over the last three months, but never did because (when it comes down to it) I simply couldn’t be bothered, into one overly long list. Indulge, young patrons of the inane.

1. Backdated Movie Reviews


In an early effort to encourage some blogging, I bought a subscription to The promise to myself was that every movie would be reviewed. This was broken quicker than the one I gave my girlfriend about not digging out great lumps of snot from my nose and wiping it on the side of sofa. Sadly, my first attempt (an intelligent critique of Die Hard 4.0) was so curmudgeonly cynical it depressed me even more than Justin Long’s face. A succession of stinkers didn’t help things (worth mentioning the honourable exception of The Devil Wears Prada – ah, that reminds me, I think I need to add “banging on about how much I love Anne Hathaway” on to this list) and so I ended up not really bothering. A new promise will be that the next movie review I write will NOT rely on sarcy comments and crude similes. Saying that, my last cinema trip took me to Transformers 2 and what Michael Bay doesn’t know about story-telling, character, emotion and, well, good directing, he more than makes up for in gargantuan action sequences that offer the depth of a brownie’s vagina – without offering any satisfaction.

2. Geek Fury

Over the past few months, I’ve been growing increasingly frustrated by the nonsense buzz surrounding Google’s Android operating system. I own a Google phone and it’s alright – definitely deserving of some noise, particularly some clamour over when another update will arrive that fixes some of the more obvious annoyances and preferably gives it a prettification. However, I don’t understand all this hype around rocking Android on a bloody netbook. For the non-geek, Android is an operating system for a touchscreen phone that offers a messy, bloated, impossible-to-navigate app store selling mostly pointless and overpriced apps useful only on a mobile phone. It seems to offer nothing for a netbook. Stop it.

3. My mates have released a new EP!

My buddies, making up the crunktastic two-piece Apologies, I Have None, recently released a new EP, Two Sticks and Six Strings. In the words of Flood and Drought: “They are friendship, freedom, fun and passion and their music personifies this ethos. This EP is flesh and bone and this band is testament to the candor and mettle that turns van wheels, stokes throats and moves cold feet across this country chasing the map.” Great work, guys.

4. Plenty of fucked-up shit from

Every day I don’t write a post is a day when I don’t share some brilliance from the warped mind-stems of the Cracked word pits. Case in point: The 5 Most Baffling Sex Scenes in the History of Fan Fiction. Where else on the internet would you find such a lovingly crafted article about insanity like this:

Tom [Riddle – AKA Lord Voldemort from Harry Potter] remembered how good he’d felt the previous night, how good Indiana’s [as in Indiana Jones’] cock had made him feel. He gave Indiana a lopsided grin. “We could play cards. Or we could discuss music.” He got up on his knees and pushed Indiana down on the sand. “Or we could make magic,” he whispered, slipping his wand from his pocket.

[Hmm…this article seems to have been taken down – probably due to the intensely disturbing nature of the content. Not put off? View the cached page here]

5. Banging on about how much I love Anne Hathaway


*Sigh* she’s just so lovely. My thesaurus broke trying to find the right words to describe her. An understated icon-in-the-making? A future Mrs. C. Fish? Maybe. Though I don’t really agree with marriage. Do you have to be gay to have a civil partnership? That’s discrimination that is. Sorry Annie, I love you but I don’t think I’m ready for that kind of commitment. One day, people will talk about this great love that could never be…


6. Dangerously stupid Americans in a position of authority and influence

7. Atheist Activism

Let’s face it, God probably doesn’t exist. To clear this up, I say probably in the really rather strong sense to mean the existence of a God character is hugely unlikely and massively illogical. I know many people who agree with this view and yet they persist in granting unnecessary levels of respect to religion. Sure, there is a bit of a conflict between the liberal “respecting other cultures and all that shit” stance and the atheist “you believe in, like, an invisible space-dwelling, super Dumbledore?” view, but I’m fed up of otherwise rational people conceding secular ground to the religious types. Try this on for size: religion deserves no more respect and sensitivity than any other opinion, belief, passion, fashion, trend, or fad. Even hard-bitten atheists would reluctantly accept that it’s acceptable for religious studies to be taught in schools. Fuck that. I had to do R.E. for much of my secondary school and there was absolutely no point, other than to try and grant some sort of respectability and authority to the Bible. I want to be more of an Atheist Activist and make more of an effort to kick religion in the nuts.

8. fuckyeahskinnybitch

An almost bottomless supply of hot sluts in fine cuts – passed on by STNF. Fuckyeahskinnybitch really shows off the primary purpose of Tumblr – skinny bitches. Fuck yeah.

I’ve got another 14 things I wanted to get through in this post, but I guess that’ll have to wait for another time. Coming soon… Another 14 things I might’ve written about over the last three months if I could’ve been bothered.