The Super Mario Bros. Movie, based on Nintendo’s Mario video game franchise, hit cinemas last weekend. Box office figures released yesterday show it achieved the biggest ever opening for an animated feature globally, hauling in $377 million.
The success has confounded some. Critics on Rotten Tomatoes give the movie just 56%, despite the audience score of 96% on the same site.
Actor John Leguizamo – who was in the original Mario Bros movie, but isn’t in the reboot – has blasted the film’s makers over a lack of diversity in casting.
The PostMillennial has the story.
Reviewers were not the only ones going after Mario. Fox News reports that Leguizamo said in November 2022 that the film was “backwards” to voice cast two white actors, [Chris] Pratt and Charlie Day, to play the two white, Italian-American characters of Mario and Luigi.
Leguizamo, who is Hispanic, was cast in the first adaptation of the beloved Mario Bros video game franchise in 1993 as Mario’s brother, Luigi. That film, which is universally hated by both critics and fans according to Rotten Tomatoes, saw British actor Bob Hoskins cast as the Italian-American Mario alongside Leguizamo’s Luigi. …
Leguizamo said he would not be watching the new iteration when asked on Friday by TMZ.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“15-minute cities” the cure form non existent climate change is spreading through England.
Cornwall has signed up for this for those think Cornwall would be a great escape. Reading has also signed up for this, for anyone living near me.
Stand in the Park Make friends & keep sane
Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am
Elms Field
near Everyman Cinema & play area
Wokingham RG40 2FE
Who cares about truth, facts and observable science when you’ve got Justin Rowlatts “epic vision of shattered ice” to rely on?
How would plant food, 95% emitted by Gaia, 98% reused and recycled, affect 85% of the world’s ice by volume in one location, in a linear one-cycle loop with no feedback or negative loops with no other variables at play (Antarctica)? Oh but wait. Trillion$ for $cience is $loshing around to pu$h the cata$trophe greenhou$e $tory. Now we get it.
Probably means that the North has some warming and melting ice as result of natural variations, like winds and ocean currents etc, but ofcourse when you decide what is true first and then try to make reality fit into your truth, you are are going to get yourself into a spot of bother. And that is what has happened with almost every aspect of the alleged global warming. It is all a smidgeon of the truth elevated into a planetary emergency for which no evidence exists, and where real world observations do not match the pronouncements masquerading as “science”. Recently we saw feeble attempts by warmists to insist that all of the missing global warming that had not appeared as projected must have lodged itself into the deep ocean, and no doubt similar absurdity will be put forward from the “Official Science” Department of Climate Change that Antartica has not warmed, but only because the warming is hiding deep under the snow where temperatures actually get to minus 60 in winter———If the facts don’t fit the theory then————-Change the Facts
But climate change IS hiding… the computer models say so! According to NASA projections, its just lurking beneath the sea bed ready to spring up and get us at any moment. It’s what lies beneath!
Yes, it’s like Boris Johnson’s ‘invisible mugger!’
“There are but two ways of forming an opinion in science. One is the scientific method; the other, the scholastic. One can judge from experiment, or one can blindly accept authority. To the scientific mind, experimental proof is all important, and theory merely a convenience in description, to be junked when it no longer fits. To the academic mind, authority is everything and facts are junked when they do not fit theory laid down by authority” – Robert A. Heinlein
Lifeline. Heinlein is generally a source of wisdom in many respects.
The only good thing about recent years is that I have coma across many great thinkers that have had to address exactly the same problems.
Another quote I particularly like would be Shall I cut this guy into pieces which are small enough to hide them, sister? (Metusaleh’s Children).
The story is also interesting in that it describe how unscrupulous politicians create a mass hysteria targetted a certain group of people claimed to selfishly act to the grave detriment of all others. The pandemic of the unvaccinated and related events naturally come to mind here.
a “six-month period is not long enough to validate a climate trend”.
A couple of hot days last year seemed to be enough.
Ah yes, “Attribution Science” – a brand new field of “science” invented out of whole cloth to help the tired old Global Warming show limp on a little longer.
As well as “Attribution Science” there is “Feels Like Science”. You ask people how hot it feels, attribute an entirely new meaning to the word “hot” then measure the astonishment level of a group of weather experts and predictors, then feed the results into a Daily Telegraph Climate journalist.
Antarctica is not a “significant portion of the Earth” to Climate Science. That honour goes jointly to RAF Coningsby and Heathrow Airport, according to the Met Office. However, I believe the honour bestowed on Bandar Marshar (a highly significant 72 °C) was quietly revoked after voter irregularities and malfunctions in the Dominion machines surfaced.
Scientists are scrambling to explain why the continent of Antarctica has shown Net Zero warming for the last seven decades and almost certainly much longer?
Ans. (simplified).
From my old geology teachings, we never had ice ages (or permanent ice caps) when land-masses are absent from the polar regions. Antarctica moved into position 33-38MYA when there was…funny enough a global temperature drop from 25degC to 10degC!
Oh, forgot to add. Sea-based ice-melt makes squat-diddly difference to water levels.
Somewhat entertaining read:
https://www.science.org/content/article/rising-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-actually-cools-part-antarctica
This is really just handwaiving, pointing out differences between Antarctica and other parts of the world (eg, It’s covered in ice! No shit, Sherlock.) and asserting these must be the reason why the greenhouse effect wouldn’t work there. When a scientific theory, like global warming because of the greenhouse effect, is contradicted by reality, this means the theory is wrong.
I was interested by Chris’s mention of underwater volcanic activity potentially being the cause of localized warming. I found a Guardian article from 2017 announcing the discovery of 91 underwater volcanoes around the coast of Antarctica. Here’s the link:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/12/scientists-discover-91-volcanos-antarctica
The map included plots the location of some of these, predominantly around the west coast, a couple of kilometres below the surface. Looking at the location of these compared to the graph above (warming trends over the past 70 years), it looks INCREDIBLY likely that the only warming that has occurred is due to the sporadic activity of several of these volcanoes.
The warming areas (in red) line up almost precisely with the dots on the Guardian map!
It’s because it doesn’t have any airports to put the thermometers in.
That’s probably actually the cause: While there are temperature measurement stations in the arctic, the trick of distributing temperature recordings from heat islands evenly accross the county via averaging can’t be applied: There are no heat islands in Antarctica.
’… with the notion that “unimaginable amounts of water will flow into oceans”, if temperatures in the region rise and ice buffers vanish.’
Since the warmest the Antarctic gets is -40C in Summer, that’s going to take some considerable temperature rise.
(The Grauniadistas do know ice only becomes liquid at 0C – or maybe not?)
Doubt it, chemistry not their forte.
Climate Science appears to be the ‘skill’ of taking global average temperatures and putting these through a computer (perhaps ‘super’) that then ‘calculates’ what the global average temperature will be in 2050, or 2100. The numbers that are generated are then presented as if fact.
“If there is something very slightly wrong in our definition of the theories, then the full mathematical rigor may convert these errors into ridiculous conclusions.” – R. Feynman
“We live in an unscientific age in which almost all the buffeting of communications and television-words, books, and so on-are unscientific. As a result, there is a considerable amount of intellectual tyranny in the name of science.” – R. Feynman
“Global Average Temperature”—–????. What is that and how is it calculated? You will find that some things lose their meaning when you average them, and temperature is one of those things. If we record temperatures all day in one location (let’s say Brisbane) and all day in another location (let’s say Iceland) and we then take these two temperature readings and do some kind of averaging, let’s say we add them both together and divide by two. The number we get is NOT a temperature. It is just a mathematical construct. It is just a statistic. The number we get is NOT the temperature of anywhere. But supposing the number we get when we do some kind of averaging is actually the temperature of earth at a given point, then we would need thermometers at every point on earth over a very long period of time taking readings. We do not and have never had that. The thermometer record of earth has always been very sparse. The thermometers were mostly in wealthy western countries, and even then they were plagued with inaccuracy problems from Urban heat Island effects etc. Plus 70% of the earths surface is ocean, where there were no thermometers. The satellite record only goes back to 1979. ——So if anyone talks of the global average temperature having risen by x in the last hundred years, they are talking nonsense. ———Climate science uses anomalies in any case, not absolute temperatures. ————You are ofcourse correct to quote Feynman, and as you imply, computer models are not science and they are not evidence of anything.
I dont struggle to understand it!
The earth’s climate has gone up and down up and down up and down!
We measure it for the blink of an eye in temporal space, and claim to know its idiosyncrasies!
I say cobblers! We’re not that clever.
According to the present quasi-religious/quasi-scientific dogma, global climate changes rapidly to high temperatures, which may (or according to the proponents, will) cause man-made and hence avoidable disaster in the near future. It is easily demonstrated that earth went through series of warming and cooling events in the last 800,000-2,5000,000 yrs, the magnitude of which was much greater than the present trend. Hence the point is not magnitude but rate, with sources quoting rates of X10 to X30 of the past warming events. Scary, isn’t it? The entire argument for man-made global warming catastrophic hypothesis hinges on two crucial points: 1. Robustness of the relationship of proxy data to actual temperatures; 2. Time resolution of the proxy data. While our confidence in the relationship between the proxy measurements and the actual events is very good in terms of centuries BP, the more we look back the less reliable the measurements. When we include necessary modeling component of the paleo-climate science, the correlation is far from robust. Apparently the best proxy data employ measurements of oxygen isotopes in gas bubbles trapped in Antarctic ice-sheets. The above article makes one seriously doubt the validity of the theory and models. If we cannot explain the lack of effect of the present global warming for the last 70 yrs, how sure we can be of the same correlation 650,000 yrs ago? As to rates, the data are at a very high resolution (of years to one-hundred years, according to hundreds thousands of serial samples). It might seem impressive if one disregards the fact that the calculated temperature estimates have a ~150 year resolution at best. This means comparing and verifying rates at abysmally poor resolution indeed.
All this does not mean that one should not limit carbon footprint and control emissions. If nature works against us, why help it? But all the dire prophecies of doom should be tightly packed and used to plug the now-defunct hole in the ozone layer and coated with now-defunct swarms of killer bees and fire ants. One can add some Corona Virus particles to the mortar.