Climate: The Movie

[Graham Breeze]

I am reminded of a junior doctor who worked with me many years ago. Medicine was their second degree, so they were several years older than most juniors at their level of medical experience. An excellent doctor - I would have been happy for them to look after me and my family - good company, fun to be with - and yet they were one of those who believed in the literal truth of the bible, and that, for example, the earth was only a few thousand years old.

Their other degree? Physics! We used to discuss relativity and quantum mechanics.

Disagreeing strongly with somebody on an important topic does not make them a bad person.

And when it comes to green issues, climate change "deniers" - a very loose term I know - are probably not trashing the planet any more than climate change believers. Look at some of the founders of The Green Runners - huge carbon footprints.

Someone I know is a world authority in his field. Cambridge Double First then a PhD, hundreds of publications, many published books, etc. Respect.

He is also a devout Catholic by choice (ie not because he was brought up in that non-sensical, mumbo-jumbo faith). So clearly a fruit cake.

He is also my brother and we get on well together.

Life is a rich tapestry.
















faithsie . coice aions etc

[MattPo]

Regarding whether climate change is problematic, I started out as an agnostic, but as an agnostic I’m sceptical when a group of people claim ‘certainty’. For example, when we have the likes of The Guardian, and other largely Left-wing rags, claiming:

‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans: Trawl of 90,000 studies finds consensus, leading to call for Facebook and Twitter to curb disinformation
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...used-by-humans

Even Kim Jong Un would blush to have claimed such overwhelming near unanimous support in his North Korean Socialist paradise.

But just like Kim Jong, and his mate Putin, we read from the Guardian, of an urgent need and “calls to curb ‘disinformation”, that is, to closedown the debate on Science so profoundly that you have to ask whether the climate alarmist agenda is maybe a radical cypher for something else going on - politically and economically ($trillions in maintaining the narrative).

If the climatists’ belief is wrong, this policy’s implication has/is having catastrophic implications for ordinary people on this planet. We see already top-down, we-know-better-than-you-Proles, imposition of policies and the intrusive micro management of our live. Strangely, no referendum here offered to people on policies that will drastically alter their standard of living and their kids. These policies dictate control of what we can eat; how many children we can have; how we travel and how far; what choices we have in the goods we buy; etc.

All justified in the fight to overcome the ever present, just over the horizon, existential crisis. Odd how these often appear to eminent from a negative view of humankind. And just in case you’re getting too confident, just today I heard on the BBC that…wait for it…the climate crisis is ”slowing the earth’s rotation’. If that carries on dogs will walk backwards; bananas will grow straight; we’ll all be doomed to watching contest repeats of It’s A Knock Out.

These radical environmentalists even plan to criminalise large-scale industrial enterprise (but only in the West - so China, India and elsewhere get a free pass to keep on polluting and gaining global power). To be more precise, they plan to categorise wealth-producing and job-creating activities as a crime known as “ecocide,” a transgression that activists want legislated internationally as “the fifth international crime against peace.” Ecocide would equate large-scale development activities with genocide, ethnic cleansing, wars of aggression, and crimes against humanity – actions that could land their perpetrators in the dock at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

The “ecocide” movement pretends it aims to prevent pollution, but it is really a spear aimed at the heart of capitalism, intended to throttle human thriving in the name of “saving the planet.” Indeed, it is important to note that ecocide would not be limited to punishing polluters. Rather, practically any large-scale human enterprise that makes use of the fruits of the Earth would qualify as a potentially heinous “crime against peace.” The stop-ecocide website https://www.stopecocide.earth/ includes not just polluting but non-polluting industries. Some environmentalists even include electricity-generating windmills, because they kill millions of birds each year.

More reactionary rubbish!
You should spend more time outside - you live in a lovely part of the world. Count your blessings.

[Mossdog]

Many who attempt to conduct any debate on these important questions have become particularly concerned how what was and should be primarily a debate about the science, has descended into a name-calling, yah-booing, foot stamping and, sadly, much worse, aggressive attack on anyone, even the most eminent of scientist in the field, who has the temerity to raise questions about the prevailing orthodoxy. It really has become a fascistic doomsday cult.

Andy West’s, The Grip of Culture: The Social Psychology of Climate Change Catastrophism

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Grip-Cultur.../dp/1838074740

explores the rise of this new faith – of climate catastrophism, which he argues is instinctively accepted or rejected.

Likewise, the rise of this doom-cult and it’s acolytes has been noticed by such eminent scientists as Professor As Professor Judith Curry, professor emerita of Earth and Atmospheric Science, Georgia Institute of Technology.

Curry observed how the now unscientific Cult of the “climate crisis” and its “existential threat” extends its tentacles to all aspects of our lives and economies, science and reason has left the room in our thinking about this issue!

I'm grateful to those who have contributed an apposite demonstration which proves the above point.

Thanks Matt for the edit and advice.

[Fellbeast]

“Debate???”

There is nothing here to debate despite all the yard long diatribes from mossdog and WP. This is all about proven and overwhelmingly scientifically accepted research and known facts vs a half arsed video that purposely re-constructs and re-charts facts (or chooses to include charts ignoring the past 20 years ) or just down right invents new ones to fit the bill

[anthonykay]

We see already top-down, we-know-better-than-you-Proles, imposition of policies and the intrusive micro management of our live. Strangely, no referendum here offered to people on policies that will drastically alter their standard of living and their kids. These policies dictate control of what we can eat; how many children we can have; how we travel and how far; what choices we have in the goods we buy; etc.

Which government has enacted any laws dictating what citizens can eat, how many children they can have, where and how they can travel, or what goods they can buy, on the basis of the climate emergency?

And just in case you’re getting too confident, just today I heard on the BBC that…wait for it…the climate crisis is ”slowing the earth’s rotation’. If that carries on dogs will walk backwards; bananas will grow straight; we’ll all be doomed to watching contest repeats of It’s A Knock Out.

You aren't doing your cause any good by using the sort of hysterical hyperbole that you accuse the climate alarmists of. [And in case anyone missed it, the slowing of the earth's rotation due to melting of ice sheets is tiny, but enough to have a noticeable effect on the accuracy of GPS.]

[Mossdog]

You aren't doing your cause any good by using the sort of hysterical hyperbole that you accuse the climate alarmists of. [And in case anyone missed it, the slowing of the earth's rotation due to melting of ice sheets is tiny, but enough to have a noticeable effect on the accuracy of GPS.]

It doesn't take much looking...!

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...fewer-children

"Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children Next best actions are selling your car, avoiding flights and going vegetarian, according to study into true impacts of different green lifestyle choices

The next best actions are selling your car, avoiding long flights, and eating a vegetarian diet. These reduce emissions many times more than common green activities, such as recycling, using low energy light bulbs or drying washing on a line. However, the high impact actions are rarely mentioned in government advice and school textbooks, researchers found."

The new study, published in Environmental Research Letters, sets out the impact of different actions on a comparable basis. By far the biggest ultimate impact is having one fewer child, which the researchers calculated equated to a reduction of 58 tonnes of CO2 for each year of a parent’s life.

“We recognise these are deeply personal choices. But we can’t ignore the climate effect our lifestyle actually has,” said Nicholas. “It is our job as scientists to honestly report the data. Like a doctor who sees the patient is in poor health and might not like the message ‘smoking is bad for you’, we are forced to confront the fact that current emission levels are really bad for the planet and human society.”

“In life, there are many values on which people make decisions and carbon is only one of them,” she added. “I don’t have children, but it is a choice I am considering and discussing with my fiance. Because we care so much about climate change that will certainly be one factor we consider in the decision, but it won’t be the only one.”

And yet another scare stories out there aside from slowing down time/messing with computers..."What Climate Change Is Already Doing to Children’s Brains" !!!!! https://time.com/6234580/climate-cha...n-development/

[Witton Park]

I rest my case.

I ask for a clarification and you refuse. It comes across to me as quite childish.

[anthonykay]

It doesn't take much looking...!

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...fewer-children

"Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children Next best actions are selling your car, avoiding flights and going vegetarian, according to study into true impacts of different green lifestyle choices

The next best actions are selling your car, avoiding long flights, and eating a vegetarian diet. These reduce emissions many times more than common green activities, such as recycling, using low energy light bulbs or drying washing on a line. However, the high impact actions are rarely mentioned in government advice and school textbooks, researchers found."

The new study, published in Environmental Research Letters, sets out the impact of different actions on a comparable basis. By far the biggest ultimate impact is having one fewer child, which the researchers calculated equated to a reduction of 58 tonnes of CO2 for each year of a parent’s life.

“We recognise these are deeply personal choices. But we can’t ignore the climate effect our lifestyle actually has,” said Nicholas. “It is our job as scientists to honestly report the data. Like a doctor who sees the patient is in poor health and might not like the message ‘smoking is bad for you’, we are forced to confront the fact that current emission levels are really bad for the planet and human society.”

“In life, there are many values on which people make decisions and carbon is only one of them,” she added. “I don’t have children, but it is a choice I am considering and discussing with my fiance. Because we care so much about climate change that will certainly be one factor we consider in the decision, but it won’t be the only one.”

Ah, so you agree with the point that I was making, and which you didn't include in your quote, Mossdog: no government has enacted any laws dictating what citizens can eat, how many children they can have, where and how they can travel, or what goods they can buy, on the basis of the climate emergency. There has certainly been advice, even pressure, on governments to adopt such policies, but as the Guardian article makes clear, there has been very little take-up of that advice by governments (contrary to your original allegation).

And yet another scare stories out there aside from slowing down time/messing with computers..."What Climate Change Is Already Doing to Children’s Brains" !!!!! https://time.com/6234580/climate-cha...n-development/

I thought you said that you were a scientist. Why do you reject as a scare story any scientific research that doesn't agree with your prejudices? And in any case, what is there to be scared about in the story about the earth's rotation slowing?

[Witton Park]

Anthony

I had another watch this morning.

I'll try and be brief and to the main points you made.

the bit of bad science that was most obvious to me was where a graph was shown comparing the very slow rate of ocean temperature increase to that of the atmosphere, and then claiming that this meant that global warming was at a very low level.

The graph of ocean temperature was set against solar activity over thousands of years.
This wasn't presented in isolation as you have set out.
The point being made was about urban heat islands. They gave several pieces of information that suggested the increases in temperature are being over-stated because of the urban heat island effect, and so went to measurements that they could use that took away this effect - such as ocean temperatures, but gave several other reasons to be concerned.

"Then there was the ridiculous claim that the IPCC don't admit any influence of solar activity variation"
That wasn't the claim.
Prof Soon said "as of 2023 IPCC says that the Sun has zero chance of being able to explain the changes in the climate system"
The claim is that the models and those behind them are wedded to CO2 emissions being the prime driver of climate change.
They identify problems in many models, there is a mention of 24 models, that forecast problems going forward in to the next century, but if you run those models retrospectively over the last 40-50 years, they "run hot".

And it was interesting to see a graph showing solar activity and global (rural) temperatures, showing that solar activity could explain the cooling from 1940 to 1970, but that there has been continued warming over the last 20 years despite a decrease in solar activity.
Prof Soon again, at around 36 minutes.
The graph charts 1880-2020.
You look at that graph and see continued warming over the last 20 years and yet the graph doesn't show that.
There is a rise, a fall and a small rise again, but it's the same in 2020 as it was in 2000.
The whole graph shows a clear link - but not an exact, precise trace where the lines follow each other at all times and that's hardly a surprise, because there are so many complex factors involved in climate.

And on the subject of graphs, there was a tendency throughout the scientific sections of the film to superimpose plots of quantities with different dimensions, which can give a completely misleading impression of the magnitude of one quantity relative to the other: a classic "bad science" technique.

At 14:40 you'll see a graph of thermometer readings since 1880.
I think it deals with your criticism.
It shows a graph that is flat-lined and then stretches the Y axis so that it is noticeable, so if you watch the documentary in full, I think they are being perfectly open on this, the changes are small, and the graphs have to use distorted axis if one is going to demonstrate any effect at all.

Funding - I think you'd agree that when you get pro man-made climate change issues discussed, we see folk introduced as Professor of Climate Studies from the University of East Anglia" rather than "Professor who's department receives 25% of it's funding from Vattenfall".
It's the way of the world.
I know Koonin worked for BP for 5 years, but should that rule him out?
But regardless, the documentary is not trying to promote fossil, it's trying to show that there isn't a crisis, that the focus on CO2 is flawed, so I don't believe it's a fair criticism and it certainly doesn't apply to all.

Al Gore must be feeling very flattered to hear that he has single-handedly changed the narrative accepted by governments.

Did he single handedly change the narrative? The documentary doesn't claim that. It says it was already an issue but mostly among "radical environmentalists"
But it does highlight the part he played, because this is in the "Consensus" part of the programme where they explain how things changed.
I've mentioned this before how Richard Lindzen used to attend climate conferences with fellow physicists and there'd be 30-40 there exchanging ideas.
Now there are 1,000s in the field and the programme seeks to set out how that happened, and sure Gore played a part.

[Witton Park]

no government has enacted any laws dictating what citizens can eat, how many children they can have, where and how they can travel, or what goods they can buy, on the basis of the climate emergency.

ULEZ Zones.
15 minute neighborhoods.
Phasing out of ICE cars - that's in law and if in 10 years time 75% of us have EVs, we'll be stuffed, because we won't be able to get anywhere as the grid will have collapsed.

It's the early stages but we have some laws already.

I'd even argue that allowing the roads to fall in to disrepair is dictating to a degree how we travel and Blackburn is effectively log-jammed most mornings since they put in bus lanes, so not a law that tells you that you cannot drive from A to B, but it's certainly made it more difficult.