Climate: The Movie

[Witton Park]

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 heat capacity of the ocean is so much greater than that of the atmosphere, so a slow rate of ocean warming is precisely what you would expect. Most of us don't live in the ocean, so the fast rate of atmospheric warming is of greater concern!

Then there was the ridiculous claim that the IPCC don't admit any influence of solar activity variation. All the climate models do take into account solar variation and a variety of other influences, before trying to tease out the effect of greenhouse gases. 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. 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.

The point that we don't need to worry about warming because the temperature has been much higher over most of the last 500 million years is laughable. Most of us in the Forum live in places where the underlying geology is sedimentary rock: the place was under water for much of the last 500 million years. We might just consider a rapid transition back to those conditions to be an emergency!

It is true, as claimed in the movie, that scientists can feel under pressure to produce results in accord with what their funding sources want. So why was it not mentioned that at least some of the scientists interviewed were funded by the fossil fuel industry?

Al Gore must be feeling very flattered to hear that he has single-handedly changed the narrative accepted by governments. In fact, most governments have had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into accepting that climate change needs to be mitigated. The fact that they are making a hash of it, e.g. by denying poor countries the technology they need, doesn't negate that need.

Anthony - a thoughtful response and I appreciate that.

I'm going to try and re-watch it myself over Easter weekend. I'll take on board your comments when I do.

[noel]

Fundamentally, the debate is over a series of linked questions, which include.

Whether the climate change is 'natural' or 'manmade'.

Let's start with this one. I think there's a lot of evidence on this. Who do you trust to give you an answer on this? Have you looked at the evidence? What are your concerns about the existing body of evidence?

[Mossdog]

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 heat capacity of the ocean is so much greater than that of the atmosphere, so a slow rate of ocean warming is precisely what you would expect. Most of us don't live in the ocean, so the fast rate of atmospheric warming is of greater concern!

Then there was the ridiculous claim that the IPCC don't admit any influence of solar activity variation. All the climate models do take into account solar variation and a variety of other influences, before trying to tease out the effect of greenhouse gases. 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. 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.

The point that we don't need to worry about warming because the temperature has been much higher over most of the last 500 million years is laughable. Most of us in the Forum live in places where the underlying geology is sedimentary rock: the place was under water for much of the last 500 million years. We might just consider a rapid transition back to those conditions to be an emergency!

It is true, as claimed in the movie, that scientists can feel under pressure to produce results in accord with what their funding sources want. So why was it not mentioned that at least some of the scientists interviewed were funded by the fossil fuel industry?

Al Gore must be feeling very flattered to hear that he has single-handedly changed the narrative accepted by governments. In fact, most governments have had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into accepting that climate change needs to be mitigated. The fact that they are making a hash of it, e.g. by denying poor countries the technology they need, doesn't negate that need.

NOT A DUPLICATE Yes, thanks for that reply Anthony and some interesting issues/points raised, some of which I want to return to, and to look at the original sources to check out and ponder. But for now, with my Sally session ticked off; too much screen time racking up; and the indoor rower beckoning, I have to log off.

[Mossdog]

FOR SOME REASON I WASN'T ABLE TO REPLY DIRECTLY UNDER ANTHONY'S POST...hey ho

Yes, thanks for that reply Anthony and some interesting issues/points raised, some of which I want to return to, and to look at the original sources to check out and ponder. But for now, with my Sally session ticked off; too much screen time racking up; and the indoor rower beckoning, I have to log off.

[Mossdog]

Let's start with this one. I think there's a lot of evidence on this. Who do you trust to give you an answer on this? Have you looked at the evidence? What are your concerns about the existing body of evidence?

All good questions. I'll say for now (gotta dash) "Karl Popper" and his theory of scientific falsification is a good starting point, but not without reservations.

[Witton Park]

https://youtu.be/5Peima-Uw7w?si=HXhslSNtOcP_Yl0q

[Fellbeast]

A massive debunk straight from the movie’s Twitter page

https://x.com/mkeulemans/status/1771...SbaMdViefg5XqA

[Mossdog]

A massive debunk straight from the movie’s Twitter page

https://x.com/mkeulemans/status/1771...SbaMdViefg5XqA

Let's just think a mo... there's an eminent group of world-renowned scientists and researchers, examining climate topics for many years, amongst them: Professor Steven Koonin (author of ‘Unsettled’, a former provost and vice-president of Caltech), Professor Dick Lindzen (formerly professor of meteorology at Harvard and MIT), Professor Will Happer (professor of physics at Princeton), Dr John Clauser (winner of the Nobel prize in Physics in 2022), Professor Nir Shaviv (Racah Institute of Physics) as well as Dr Roy Spencer, Prof Ross McKitrick, Prof Henrik Svensmark, and Dr Willie Soon.

And then there's Maarten Keulemans. Would that be the same Maarteen Keuleman who describes himself as a Dutch science journalist and writer.

Keulemans studied Cultural anthropology (one of the early adopting subjects of self-flagellating postmodern wokism) and History.

And is he the Maarten Keulemans who is also the author of the website exitmundi http://exitmundi.nl/ "a collection of end-of-the-world scenarios"? That is, a fully paid up member of the 'We're Allll Doomed, I tell ye' club. In his own words "Welcome to the outskirts of reality. Welcome to the place where theoretical physics and philosophy meet, and where religion and science loose their meaning. Better fasten your mental seatbelts. What we�re about to tell you is just too weird. Too mind-boggling. And quite disturbing, really."

He's got Twitter form in other areas too:https://virusvaria.nl/en/ongehoorde-...lemans-deel-2/

[MattPo]

I'm amazed, surprised and saddened that grown men on this forum do not believe that Global warming is happening and that it has a human cause. Ignoring an overwhelming body of sound scientific evidence, and signs all around us. Please don't bother replying to my post, as you can't push water uphill - just keep your heads in the sand. What a legacy we are leaving for our children.

[Fellbeast]

I'm amazed, surprised and saddened that grown men on this forum do not believe that Global warming is happening and that it has a human cause. Ignoring an overwhelming body of sound scientific evidence, and signs all around us. Please don't bother replying to my post, as you can't push water uphill - just keep your heads in the sand. What a legacy we are leaving for our children.

Well said!

It’s like a self feeding cult of bullshit shouters and bullshit believers, and I’m fast losing track of what came first and what nutcase idea will come next. Donald Trump and Boris and loads of others have proven that you can pretty much say anything, anything at all, and there are no end of zealots that will buy the message hook line and sinker and spread it