Climate: the movie

Do you know why climate change is mentioned so much today, even though none of us can detect it in our lifetime?

“Climate: the movie”, looks at climate science, the climate consensus, the climate bandwagon, the politics of climate, and the impact of this concern on freedom, people and the poor.

Watch it before it’s censored by the online platforms!

A review of the movie by Paul Homewood is given in Appendix A and there is a comment by Jennifer Marohasy in Appendix B.

Ancient history

Unfortunately, this movie presents an atheistic worldview. This means that its statements about prehistorical events are not reliable. It uses the geologic time scale, which can’t be calibrated against real events. And its reconstructions of paleo climates are unreliable because they use proxies to measure temperature and time – these are extreme extrapolations from the present based on the assumption of uniformity. This means that they are based on assumptions more than on observations. Here’s a link to six reasons to be skeptical about the geologic time scale. Use the geology transformation tool to adjust from geologic time to biblical time.

Avoid the following sections of the movie if you want to avoid their treatment of geologic time and biological evolution: 7 to 12 minutes, and 22:30 to 28 minutes.

Conclusion

The movie concludes that climate change is an invented scare that is an assault on our freedom and prosperity. And it is used to hinder the development of poor countries.

Appendix A: Review

This new film exposes the climate alarm as an invented scare without any basis in science. It shows that mainstream studies and official data do not support the claim that we are witnessing an increase in extreme weather events – hurricanes, droughts, heatwaves, wildfires and all the rest. It emphatically counters the claim that current temperatures and levels of atmospheric CO₂ are unusually and worryingly high. On the contrary it is very clearly the case, as can be seen in all mainstream studies, that compared with the last half billion years of earth’s history (according to the atheistic geologic time scale) both current temperatures and CO₂ levels are extremely and unusually low. We are currently in an ice age. It also shows that there is no evidence that changing levels of CO₂ (it has changed many times) has ever ‘driven’ climate change in the past.

Why then are we told again and again that ‘catastrophic man-made climate-change’ is an irrefutable fact? Why are we told that there is no evidence that contradicts it? Why are we told that anyone who questions ‘climate chaos’ is a ‘flat-earther’ and a ‘science-denier’?

The film explores the nature of the consensus behind climate change. It describes the origins of the climate funding bandwagon, and the rise of the trillion-dollar climate industry. It surveys the hundreds of thousands of jobs that depend on the climate crisis. It explains the enormous pressure on scientists and others not to question the climate alarm: the withdrawal of funds, rejection by science journals, social ostracism.

But the climate alarm is much more than a funding and jobs bandwagon. The film explores the politics of climate. From the beginning, the climate scare was political. The culprit was free-market industrial capitalism. The solution was higher taxes and more regulation. From the start, the climate alarm appealed to, and has been adopted and promoted by, those groups who favour bigger government.

This is the unspoken political divide behind the climate alarm. The climate scare appeals especially to all those in the sprawling publicly-funded establishment. This includes the largely publicly-funded Western intelligentsia, for whom climate has become a moral cause. In these circles, to criticise or question the climate alarm is a breach of social etiquette.

The film includes interviews with a number of prominent scientists, including Professor Steven Koonin (Obama’s under secretary for science), 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) and others.

Appendix B: Comment by Jennifer Marohasy

Some of my colleagues who are meant to be sceptical (the first duty of a true scientist) have been telling me clouds control the climate and global warming is due to cities and asking me to promote the new ”Climate: The Movie”.

Of course, clouds can stabilise the climate and may act as important negative feedback, but they do not create the seasons or even past Ice Ages. Clouds do not control the climate.

As regards the urban heat island (UHI) effect, it is real, but considering the latest global satellite data from the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH), which is much discussed in the new movie but never shown, all of the troposphere is particularly warm, not just the cities.

Furthermore this UAH data does not measure UHI effects, so why confound the two in the movie?

There is too much ‘bait and switch’ [a form of deception] in the new movie, for me to take it seriously, or to promote it – which I understand is disappointing for some of my colleagues.   I am disappointed so many sceptics are so actively promoting ‘Climate: The Movie’, and uncritically, apparently because they like its message and because so many ‘big names’ feature in it. That seems to be much the reason so many people promoted ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, which was also primarily a work of propaganda.

I am not a consensus scientist.

References

Climate: the movie
Review: Climate the movie, the film you must see
Transcript Part 1: History of the earth and CO2
Transcript Part 2: Natural climate change and extreme weather
Transcript Part 3 The consensus, its funding and the politics of climate
Transcript Part 4 Climate policy versus freedom, people and poverty
J Marohasy, Oceans, not CO2, warming the atmosphere – April 2024 update
Six reasons to be skeptical about the geologic time scale

Written, April 2024