entertainment

DiCaprio criticizes climate change deniers running for president

55 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2016 AFP

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

55 Comments
Login to comment

Good for you, Leo.

12 ( +19 / -7 )

Dont make me puke Leo.... The revenant was basically the most unrealistic movie Ive ever seen. I actually thought it was a parody at first.... He has the nerve to say all this while flying around in a private jet spewing more CO2 than hundreds, if not thousands of other people at the same rate. I wonder how much kw/h all of his properties combined use up every month? I wonder how much of his personal wealth is actually tied up and invested into CO2 reducing technological companies? Money Talks! BS walks!

-24 ( +12 / -36 )

Well, he's got his Oscar now, so he afford to say whatever he wants - and not worry about ruffling feathers. (-_^)

Deniers can deny the earth is warming up if they want to, but it's pretty hard to ignore measurable results such as rising sea levels that are swallowing up coastal areas.

12 ( +19 / -7 )

Dr DiCaprio?

We have started the 19th year with no warming whatsoever. This is admitted by the IPCC itself, and the director of the Climate Research Unit at Hadley, Dr Phil Jones. Officially-speaking, the current lack of global warming has been described as a "pause". Worse yet (depending on your point of view), many IPCC scientists are now predicting temperatures to decline before they begin their inexorable climb upward.

Al Gore and friends (Mr DiCaprio among them) predicted measurable increases in temperatures, sea level rise, and the complete disappearance of arctic sea ice, which was supposed to have happened three years ago.

Am I a denier when I point out that none of these things happened? Who exactly are the "deniers"? Those who say climate change isn't occurring because no current measurement shows warmer temperatures? Or those who say climate change is occurring, once again, while no measurement is showing higher temperatures?

Kind of confusing, isn't it?

But then Mr Gore is a founding member of Generation Investments Management, the first major trader in "carbon credits". When the likes of Gore, DiCaprio, or the Motion Picture Academy purchase carbon credits to "offset their carbon footprint", it was paid to Al Gore's company. Mr Gore has made a lot of money in climate change, as have many others.

-22 ( +7 / -29 )

Am I a denier when I point out that none of these things happened? Who exactly are the "deniers"? Those who say climate change isn't occurring because no current measurement shows warmer temperatures?

2014 Warmest year on modern record: http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record

2015 Warmest year on record: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/20/us/noaa-2015-warmest-year/

15 ( +23 / -8 )

“We’ve been travelling around the world documenting climate change,”

"And spewing out all those evil car dioxide emissions that we castigate others from producing," he forgot to mention.

Maybe when the Leos of this world tone down the hypocrisy just a smidge, I might be able to take them a wee bit seriously.

-9 ( +7 / -16 )

JeffreyDomer

Dont make me puke Leo...Money Talks! BS walks!

At least he founded a foundation and gathering funds to help protect the environment wether the Climate change is true or not. What is wrong with that? How about you? What have you done? it's easy to just talk and throw hate huh...

11 ( +15 / -4 )

JafferyDomer, nice post.

-10 ( +6 / -16 )

There is no way I would buy waterfront property today if I wanted to have it as a house that I would keep all my life and pass down to my kids, etc. Of course if I were a billionaire and had the disposable income to buy houses anywhere I wanted that would be different. But if you are worried about about rising sea levels trashing your one and only house that happens to be waterfront no fear. Just sell it to a Conservative climate denier then buy a new house on higher ground. When sea level rising becomes obvious so will your property value since it will be safe above ground.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Climate change is normal and goes in cycles. Learn something about the earth please.

-14 ( +6 / -20 )

Thank you Dr DiCaprio. Now, please expound on the beginnings of this unquestionable climate change. When exactly, or approximately, did this begin?

-11 ( +6 / -17 )

Good on him for bringing this issue to the forefront of the Oscars. Its good to see that there are actors that promote general social concern.

And for the climate change deniers, talk to the Pentagon. Because now CC has become on the agenda for national security.

3 ( +10 / -7 )

Climate change is normal and goes in cycles

So does your car engine. But when it suddenly starts going crazy and revving up to high RPMs and you can't stop it, you realize it's broken and take it to the mechanic before your engine explodes.

That's what's happening to our climate. It may change in cycles, but it's never changed at a rate near this fast, ever, and if we don't fix it, it will 'explode'.

2 ( +11 / -9 )

This is the guy that flies around the world in his private jet and cruises in a private yacht preaching about Climate Change ( I don't deny it exists ).

0 ( +5 / -5 )

The Pacific Northwest has been having much rain which is filling the reservoirs so people are not that concerned.. California also looks great - very green. But SoCal has too many PEOPLE using water. Everyone knows that. TOO MANY PEOPLE. Hollywood stars want to be important. Please. There are going to be about 2.5 BILLION more souls by 2050, so no matter what we do, there is going to be more pollution. Not to hard to figure out. And, we will figure out how to survive. Don't need to politicize everything.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

Seems that on this thread the more right you are, the more minus votes you get!

-5 ( +7 / -12 )

Seems that on this thread the more right you are, the more minus votes you get!

Not in my case. I've got positive counts for both my last posts. And both are perfectly accurate.

5 ( +13 / -8 )

Seems that on this thread the more right you are, the more minus votes you get!

True - and it put me in a conundrum of whether to thumb you up or down. :)

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

True - and it put me in a conundrum of whether to thumb you up or down. :)

Haha! Likewise. I'll vote you down, so take it as a backhanded compliment ;-)

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

I love that its now the climate change deniers who sound like the loonies when they talk about conspiracy theories and how they believe it is all made up and how somehow 95% of scientists are all paid schills.

Whether or not time will end up proving it true or not, is it not better to do our best to avoid it and find out that we didnt need to, than to do nothing and regret it in the end? Do you really think our current way of inhabiting this planet is sustainable?

I have no real worry for the planet, it has bounced back after massive meteor hits, complete freezing, etc. Humanity is the only real loser here.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

You're right, Jeffery Domer. Dicaprio is the biggest hypocrite of the year.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

afanofjapan.

You have to understand many people who are deniers aren't interested in the scientific consensus, or even the fact even if it was wrong there isn't any good long term reason to not try to pollute less..

Many believe things like the earth is 6000 years old, and there will never be large flooding because an old book says so.. it has nothing to do with facts.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

DiCaprio is topical. Recent research claims/shows the so called hiatus in the period 1998-2013 ended with the temperatures so high in 2014/15, on upward line from the rising temperatures prior to that, making the hiatus a non-event. <http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2016/20160120_Temperature2015.pdf > I have thought that the hiatus gave pause to the anthropocentric hypothesis, given that economic growth was never higher in this period. But the hiatus it seems, was not.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Better a hypocrite than a denier.

The fact is, no one single person is going to cause, nor stop, climate change. This needs to happen on a large scale level.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

A film actor's theme, do not take it seriously.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

Ah, Leo, lord of the Super-Yachts...

A super yacht like the Topaz he rented from a Saudi oil Shiek for the Rio World Cup and his other yacht, the Rising Sun can burn thousands of liters of marine diesel every hour as it cuts an impressive swatch through the ocean waters, leaving behind trails of smoke and tones of carbon dioxide. Additionally, such crafts can use up to 1000 liters a day or more just for its air-conditioning and electrical systems, according to Yacht Carbon Offset, a company that provides carbon offsetting for its seafaring clients.

Or flying his private jet from LA to NYC six times in six weeks according to Sony's email hacking.

Leo's carbon footprint with his multiple homes, yachts, and extensive travelling for work and pleasure puts him well above any politician.

All he does is drive a prius occasionally and is seen riding a bike every now and then. Groups he's affiliated with has planted trees and done research, but Leo? He takes a bunch of girls on a luxury yacht and on a private jet any chance he gets.

He's just a TV evangelist.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Better a hypocrite than a denier.

Really? At least so-called deniers are morally consistent!

Anyway, I'm pretty sick of the epithet of denier. What exactly is it referring to? Denying that the climate changes? Denying that humans are causing a rise of local or average global temperatures? Denying that any recorded changes are catastrophic? It's a throwaway tag for people who would rather denigrate than engage their opponents - many of whom are distinguished scientists and mathematicians.

I think you'll find a more accurate term would be skeptics, but that doesn't fit the narrative of AGW catastrophists. I'd hazard a guess that very few if any so-called deniers would deny that the earth's climate and average local and global temperatures vary over time, thanks to an extremely complex set of variables that scientists are still trying to understand.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

Really? At least so-called deniers are morally consistent!

Who cares when their morals are resulting in the direction of our planet?

Anyway, I'm pretty sick of the epithet of denier.

Not as sick as we are of the deniers themselves.

What exactly is it referring to? Denying that the climate changes?

Yes.

Denying that humans are causing a rise of local or average global temperatures?

Yes.

Denying that any recorded changes are catastrophic?

Yes.

It's a throwaway tag for people who would rather denigrate than engage their opponents - many of whom are distinguished scientists and mathematicians.

Not as many as those who are saying it's a human caused problem.

I think you'll find a more accurate term would be skeptics

Nope.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Climate change is normal and goes in cycles. Learn something about the earth please.

But if there is a big change years or decades later instead of 1000s or 10000s of years then it's different.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Aw, c'mon Strangerland!

Can you point to anyone who is denying that the climate changes either naturally or anthropogenically?

And you honestly believe that there is no room at all for anyone to question the "consensus" about AGW? regardless of how knowledgeable they are on the subject? That's about anti-science as one can be. Ever heard of that Italian bloke, Galileo I think his name was...

With all due respect, walk yourself through these links and articles attached to them with an open mind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming http://joannenova.com.au/tag/corruption-science/ http://www.thegwpf.org/patrick-moore-should-we-celebrate-carbon-dioxide/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/page/3/

The vast majority of skeptics are also concerned with the direction of the planet and would be happy for cheap renewables to be developed but don;t want to be taxed to the hilt and have their incomes redistributed so that some others can feel good about themselves. And as I said before, when I see DiCaprio, Gore and the like practice what they preach, I'll give them some credibility. But they don't so I and a lot of other people, including many scientists, won't.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Better a hypocrite than a denier.

That's a sad comment. Out of context, you'd assume it was the result of religious beliefs. I find it hard to take seriously any scientific discussion where the word "denier" forms part of the argument. It stifles debate and hinders progress. Certainty of belief is the enemy of science. There are many serious minded people who are derided when they express doubts about the orthodox view. They should be listened to and encouraged to participate. Some ask and answer questions like the following:

Have global temperatures increased over the last 150 years or so? Yes.

Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Yes.

Are the movements in global temperatures consistent with rises in CO2 emissions? Not from a quick look at the temperature data. C02 has increased steadily. Temperature changes have been erratic.

Can those inconsistencies be explained? Perhaps, but so far the models haven't done a very good job. We have a lot to learn.

Shouldn't we take precautionary measures now to avert the worst scenarios? Yes, but only if those measures don't cause massive problems of their own.

What could be worse than disastrous climate change? Large numbers of the world's population not having access to cheap energy.

DiCaprio is to science as Trump is to politics.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

With all due respect, walk yourself through these links and articles attached to them with an open mind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listofscientistsopposingthemainstreamscientificassessmentofglobalwarming

Its a lot to digest, but just from my quick perusal it seems that most of the scientist on that list arent actually saying that human released CO2 doesnt contribute to global warming, they mostly seem to be saying that other causes are also contributing to it. Almost none of them are climate scientists, but rather come from other disciplines (astrophysicists and geologists abound) with pet theories based on their own field. Some raise legitimate points, others not so much.

Of course a quick glance at what people who actually study climate have to say on the issue might also be useful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists

5 ( +6 / -1 )

@kyronstavic

A quick look at your links reveals some pretty worrying information if you care to look any deeper than to confirm your own bias.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Can you point to anyone who is denying that the climate changes either naturally or anthropogenically?

That's the problem - the changes are not happening naturally. It's a result of human action.

And you honestly believe that there is no room at all for anyone to question the "consensus" about AGW?

Sure there is - it's called 'peer review'. And the peers have reviewed the science, and found it sound.

That's about anti-science as one can be.

No, letting any hack say 'well the earth got warmer before, so it's not human caused' is anti-science. Doing studies and having them peer reviewed is scientific - and anyone who has followed what the scientists say on the matter knows that their science is peer reviewed and accepted among those who know what they are talking about.

The vast majority of skeptics are also concerned with the direction of the planet and would be happy for cheap renewables to be developed but don;t want to be taxed to the hilt and have their incomes redistributed so that some others can feel good about themselves.

In other words, they'd rather deny science so as to keep the status-quo, even though that means killing our planet.

Certainty of belief is the enemy of science.

So are hacks on the internet who like to think that a soundbyte is an appropriate counter argument to a scientific study.

Of course a quick glance at what people who actually study climate have to say on the issue might also be useful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listofclimate_scientists

Fixing your link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Global warming or climate change is fake and is a fraud. Some of the agencies are guilty of altering historical temperature data producing a climate change narrative that is not realistic and empirical does not support any notion that the climate is headed toward a more extreme heat and drought . In the end people throughout the world are being deceived about global warming.

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

You climate change deniers. Don't just talk about your firm belief that the earth's environment will hold steady as nature's roadmap will dictate no matter what garbage man throws at it. Invest in property along the coastlines if you are that confident in your beliefs that the sea levels will not rise before they are supposed to naturally (Invest in Trump Hotels since they are often located there - Trump denies rapid climate change). Going back and forth like this is a waste of time. It's like trying to argue with a born again Christian or a $cientologist. If you don't put your money in your words then the sincerity of your words spoken must be put into question (did anyone mention hypocrite?). Even I can't say for certain what will happen with sea levels, etc in the near future. But I would not feel secure about an investment that included assets located near coastlines and I would avoid putting my money there. What say you firm climate deniers? To invest or not invest in a Trump beach hotel? For me, no way!

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Sure there is - it's called 'peer review'. And the peers have reviewed the science, and found it sound.

If science relied on peer review we'd have to accept that homeopathy is medically effective. After all, 97% of homeopathic practitioners can't be wrong.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Another great debate here. If you enjoyed this, you might also enjoy others in the JT readers scientific debates series, such as 'Gravity: Real or Hoax?'

http://www.japantoday.com/category/technology/view/scientists-glimpse-einsteins-gravitational-waves

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I just don't get why people get so angry about other people wanting to do something good for the planet. Whether or not global warming is real, we can all agree that things like wind- and solar-power is better than coal and fossil fuels, right? So even if there is no such thing as global warming (which I do believe there is), in the end we will still have done something good for ourselves and the world we live in. Everybody wins!

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Leo DiCaprio, high school dropout, sudden expert on climatology.

It is to weep.

I want my science from Hollywood hypocrites about as much as I want my acting from the science dept. at UCLA. People need to STFU about things they don't know about. Fame and celebrity do not equal intellectual heft.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Is there any actual proof that humans can stop Earth's natural climate change any more than we can stop earthquakes, tsunamis or typhoons?

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Climate change has been going on long before humans existed.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Climate change is normal and goes in cycles. Learn something about the earth please.

Shonanbb,

YES you are correct, HOWEVER are you aware of a thing called geologic time, when studying climate changes they occur over THOUSANDS, 10's of THOUSANDS of YEARS..............

Not DECADES, learn something about the earth PLEASE!!!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Hey, if the sun starts extinguishing itself......

If an asteroid slams earth......

People create waste, all life for that matter however humans generate the most. Increase population and increase pollution. Increase the use of natural resources. Deforest the globe. Humans have altered the natural landscape polluted the entire earth, and hunted some animals into extinction. DiCaprio and his buddies are some of the worste abusers of natural resources living today. I'm all in for reducing my footprint on the planet, are the DiCaprio's or the George Sorros's of the world?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

If science relied on peer review we'd have to accept that homeopathy is medically effective. After all, 97% of homeopathic practitioners can't be wrong.

Apparently you don't understand how peer review works.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Apparently you don't understand how peer review works.

I once thought I did. But after the climategate emails, I'm no longer sure.

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is!" (Phil Jones, UEA Climate Research Unit)

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

I`ve actually been through the academic peer review process (not in a field related to climate science but the process is the same). Its a very rigorous process, your work passes through several stages (initial editorial review, then double blind submission to experts in the field looking for weaknesses and generally tearing your work to pieces, after which your work may be rejected, in which case you have to start from square one at another journal, or accepted based on you addressing weaknesses identified, etc).

It can take you years of research just to get to the point of achieving a standard that would be worth submitting for peer review in the first place (during which time you`ve already had informal review done by presenting it at conferences, to peers, etc) , and then possibly another year with countless revisions, etc to get it to actual publication.

Commenting on a news site of course doesn`t require any of that.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I once thought I did. But after the climategate emails, I'm no longer sure.

You very clearly have no understanding of it whatsoever based on this statement:

If science relied on peer review we'd have to accept that homeopathy is medically effective. After all, 97% of homeopathic practitioners can't be wrong.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

“We’ve been travelling around the world documenting climate change,” DiCaprio told a press conference in Tokyo, adding they visited China, India and the North Pole and South Pole.

Yep flying in a private jet! Fine for the rich to live large lavish lives but for the working people.........

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Dan Lewis: Deniers can deny the earth is warming up if they want to, but it's pretty hard to ignore measurable results such as rising sea levels that are swallowing up coastal areas.

The Earth's sea levels have been rising for more than 100 years. It is most likely related to the end of the Little Ice Age which concluded around 1870. Climate changes. Seas rise and fall. Enough with the Chicken Little routine.

Serrano: Is there any actual proof that humans can stop Earth's natural climate change any more than we can stop earthquakes, tsunamis or typhoons?

No, but the Warmists are not giving you proof that what they propose will end climate change. In fact, no human being has any idea about how to stop climate from changing. What they are asking - no demanding - is that you believe. It is against their notion of science to be skeptical or to proffer research that is against the prevailing politically correct narrative. The belief in anthropogenic global warming has risen above mere science into a belief system so dogmatic that skeptics are not to be tolerated. In fact, the beginnings of government action against skeptics has already begun. There is already talk in the American Justice Department of new witch trials to silence non-believers (except they are not referring to them as "witch trials". Just prosecutions).

chiseneko: Climate change has been going on long before humans existed.

Who put that ridiculous thought in your head - Exxon Mobile? Just kidding of course. Those dealing in fear of global warming are people that are afraid of change. They are incapable of adapting to the thought of a world climate that has, is, and always will, change. Or they could just want to control you and will use any excuse to take power over individual rights for the collective good. Basically Marxism without the Bolsheviks.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

You very clearly have no understanding of it whatsoever based on this statement:

That statement was my interpretation of your idea of peer review, not mine. You seem to think that peer review is a component of science. It's not. It's part of the academic publishing procedure. There's a difference.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Winning an oscar dont give you science ability. Leo should stick to the guns that he knows best: acting up.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Winning an oscar dont give you science ability. Leo should stick to the guns that he knows best: acting up.

Leo is best at traveling the world on private jets and living in luxury mansions and staying at the most expensive and CO2 gulping properties at various exotic locales around the planet. Oh and in his spare time he likes to complain about how the rest of us live. It's quite an exhaustive lifestyle but someone has to do it - the sky is failing after all...

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites