A potentially game-changing film on the fraudulent climate change narrative and the collectivist Net Zero project hits global social media screens today. “Climate change is an invented scare of self-interest and snobbery, cynically promoted by a parasitic, publicly-funded establishment hungry for power and money,” says writer Martin Durkin. The attitude of middle class environmentalists can be summed up as “how can we stop people buying cheap things in shops”, observes Baroness Claire Fox. On the science side, the 2022 Nobel Physics laureate Dr. John Clauser asserts: “There is no correlation between temperature change and carbon dioxide – it is all a crock of crap.”
The new film is a long-awaited sequel to Durkin’s The Great Global Warming Swindle film shown on Channel 4 in 2007. The outcry from activists at the time led to the banning of sceptical climate science views across most mainstream media, bans that continue to this day. The new film is called Climate: The Movie and features many top sceptical climate scientists. It lays out the politically-supressed views surrounding natural climate variation in riveting and persuasive detail. As Durkin notes at the beginning, his new film is the story of how an eccentric environmental scare grew into a powerful global industry. “When I hear people pontificating about a rise of one and a half degrees, I think what have they been smoking,” says Emeritus Professor William Happer of Princeton.
“There is no climate emergency. There is no evidence of one,” comments Dr. Patrick Moore, one of the original founders of Greenpeace. Around 20,000 years ago, CO2 was at the lowest level it has ever been in the history of the Earth. The gas is currently 420 parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere and has recovered from 180 ppm. “If it had gone down another 30 ppm, we would all be dead,” observes Moore. The film quotes other scientists noting that CO2 levels were much higher in the past at times of very high biodiversity levels on the planet. One of the numerous ‘scams’ identified in the film is that there is little correlation between CO2 and temperatures across the 500 million year record. In fact, recent ice core evidence shows periods when temperatures rose ahead of increases in CO2. The opinions and hypotheses surrounding unproven anthropogenic climate change simply do not stand up to past scientific observations.
“We should be very grateful that CO2 levels are beginning to go back up – there is not enough fossil fuel to get to historical levels, but at least we can make a start,” observes a mischievous Professor Happer. “CO2 is quite unimportant in controlling Earth’s climate,” says Dr. Clauser. For him, the behaviour of clouds is “hundreds of times more powerful than the trivial effect of CO2”.
The science of climate features heavily in the film and clear explanations are provided throughout. “Compared to the last 500 million years the Earth is exceptionally cold,” explains Durkin. The reason there is ice at the poles is that we are in an ice age, observes Moore. “We are at the tail end of a 50 million year cooling period, and they say it is too hot,” he adds. As regular readers of the Daily Sceptic will be aware, recent surface measurement have been badly corrupted by growing urban heat. Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer, who has studied the urban heat effect in great detail, calculates that most of the measured urban warming since 1880 is due to the urban heat effect.
Many of the issues discussed in the film will be familiar to Daily Sceptic readers – from the biased UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change only considering human involvement in the climate (it would be out of a job if it found humans were not that important) to the trillions of dollars spent on Government-mandated inferior green technologies.
The corruption of ‘settled’ science is widely discussed with click-bait, well-funded scientists feeding doomsday climate predictions into the public space via the unquestioning mainstream media. Few corruptions are more blatant than attaching bad weather events to long-term changes in the climate. Science writer Tony Heller calls it “absurd”, adding, “there is no basis to it, it is biased propaganda”. The capture of scientific journals is almost complete with any scientist questioning the ‘settled’ narrative unlikely to be published. Starting out in their careers, academics from numerous disciplines are more or less advised to keep their mouths shut about the narrative or lose students, grant funding, the ability to publish work and ultimately their jobs.
Universities and science bodies around the world have lost their hard-won reputations for the unbiased pursuit of truth through the scientific process. In its place is a grubby rush for cash in the interest of promoting an ideological fad. The Durkin film shows in clear detail that the science attributing all climate change to humans using hydrocarbons is far from settled, and is disputed by many distinguished academics of considerable scientific standing. Net Zero and the stories about the climate that accompany it is a political project. “If you are a climate activist, you are actually facilitating a huge validation of the Government running our lives,” says Claire Fox. Net Zero demands on governments mean they can “interfere in every nook and cranny”, she argues.
But it is towards the end of his excellent film that Durkin shows the true wickedness of the Net Zero agenda. In Africa, diseases and early deaths are widespread as developed countries refuse to sanction investment in hydrocarbon energy. Women still cook on dung fires causing lung disease and blindness. Agriculture suffers from a lack of tractor power and fertiliser. Meanwhile, diarrhoea is endemic and billionaires send pills to mask the symptoms. But Western banks will not lend money to provide hydrocarbon-powered refrigeration and clean water infrastructure. The greens think that Africans should not use hydrocarbon resources, and this sums up the “ruthlessness and depravity” of the agenda, says Dr. Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
Climate: The Movie is available on YouTube, Vimeo, X, Rumble, BitChute and other social media sites from today. It is written and directed by Martin Durkin and produced by Tom Nelson.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
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.
Well done to Martin Durkin and as ever huge respect to Patrick Moore et al for calling out this scam. It is really starting to break through which is pleasing.
If it were not for free-speech this kind of dangerous clap-trap would not be tolerated.
We need to ban urgently all kinds of free speech – right away.
PS. I’m going for the DS down-vote world record – please help me achieve it. Its an election year so do your bit and down-vote for me.
And yes that means even the two people who down-voted wokeman‘s seriously deranged comment.
For about the last year I have been commenting on Chris Morrisons articles and have praised him for the research and valuable investigative journalism that is sadly non-existent on mainstream TV.—— BBC and SKY NEWS eg are simply Climate Change Activist Channels that question NOTHING. I have also been calling for another Documentary that could reach a wider audience and try to make people see that climate change and its alleged solutions like Net Zero are not all they seem. I regularly used Martin Durkins film (The Great Global Warming Swindle 2007) as an example of the kind of thing that we need again, and Lo and Behold here we have it. ——-But just as back then we should prepare for the backlash from the Climate Establishment who cannot stand any questioning of their dogma and who want us to live in their scientific dictatorship, where truth is simply declared from bureaucrats standing at UN podiums, and then regurgitated by bought and paid for media.
PS ————-What Mainstream Channel will break ranks and screen this film? _I suspect NONE of them —-Why not?—– I think we know why.— In “Science” you question everything. In “Official Science” you question NOTHING.
“Science” is used primarily to launder ideology.
Cracking comment.
Will definitely borrow 
Stewart is more insightful than 99.999% of MSM commentators.
Stolen from Scott Adams. I steal only from the best.
Beautifully put.
97% of climate crisis scientists would be unemployed if there was no crisis. That is the main reason.
The “main reason” is the reorganising of the global economy away from free market capitalism and control of the worlds wealth and resources. At UN level it has been decided that with the population heading for 10 billion we cannot all have the same standard of living as the wealthy west. And our own politicians are fully onboard with this eco socialism which is why they waved Net Zero through Parliament with no questions asked.
Thanks to Chris Morrison for all the articles. And great news about the new film.
Patrick Moore’s book Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom was one of my first routes into the details of seeing through the nonsense. The chapters detailing temperature and CO2 histories of the earth are particularly good. My copy is currently out on loan to someone who has bought into the climate change nonsense, so hopefully that will make her at least question her current belief system.
Seconded on Chris.
There are many many valuable books on this issue that dare to question the “Official Science” —–Infact this is not just a scientific issue. It is a Political, economic, social and moral one as well ———For anyone interested, and we all should be as this is one of the most important issues for all our prosperity and welfare I would like to recommend a few. —–“Hubris” Michael Hart.—- “Energy and Climate Wars” Michael J Economides and Peter Glover.——-“Watermelons” James Delingpole and “Taken by Storm” Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick. ——–There many more I could mention. —Just ask
Buckle up, I think we have at least another ten years of fight against this particular form of justified tyranny…
And I’ve been fighting it since 1995. When, aged 14, I asked my arrogant geography teacher the question,
“Sir, do you know, can you tell us, when did the Hole in The Ozone Layer first appear?”
He refused to answer. Because, obviously, he couldn’t. With one question, I had exposed the fragility of the whole premise. Yet he continued to push the “continued, unprecedented, extreme weather events because of man’s burning of oil” narrative down our throats for the rest of the year.
Hated the guy. Today, if he is still alive, he probably can’t even remember what CFC stands for.
I am surprised he didn’t know the answer. Scientists on Antarctic stations began to notice the hole in the early 1980s.
Why does one man’s ignorance on this specific question expose the fragility of the whole premise?
You seem to be being out-downvoted.
That is to be expected on this site. However, no one has answered my question.
I have. On your comment above. You need to re-read my comment. And engage brain .
Ah! I see – a subtle distinction between when it first appeared and when we first noticed it. Here is some more detail:
Antarctic Ozone levels were monitored by the British Antarctic Survey from 1956.
A decline in observed levels started in 1976 but this didn’t amount to a hole, there were no theories as to the cause, and it could have been a temporary phenomenon.
Observed levels continued to decline and by 1984 the British Antarctic Survey were convinced this was a real effect and wrote a letter to Nature which got published in 1985 and drew the attention of the scientific community. This was confirmed by NASA scientists based on satellite data the following year. This was the first time the phrase Ozone Hole was used although it wasn’t actually a hole at that stage – just very much depleted. It became a real hole later in the 1980s.
I am not sure which of these events counts as the hole first appearing but that is a matter of definition not a question of fact.
To return to my question. Why does your teacher’s ignorance about this specific question expose the fragility of the whole premise? (And what premise are you referring to?).
The distinction is not at all subtle.
If we don’t know when it appeared then we can’t say what caused it.
Very simple.
Forget my teacher. He’s just part of the overall story. Which was to make the above point. Which is lost on you, it seems. How surprising. Not.
Have you noticed that the hole is still there? And where it was when we first noticed it, i.e. above that hotbed of manmade emissions of CFCs, the Antarctic? (sarcasm).
But, as I explained, scientists did know with an accuracy of a few years when the ozone hole first appeared. I can’t see how the fact your teacher didn’t know that exposes the fragility of the whole premise.
(In any case this is about the ozone layer – the article was about climate change. I rashly assumed that the “premise” that was being exposed as fragile was something to do with climate change).
They did not know that. The hole was already there when they first started measuring ozone in the atmosphere above Antarctica.
To paraphrase what I wrote before:
Antarctic Ozone levels were monitored by the British Antarctic Survey from 1956* onwards. They didn’t observe any decline until 1976.
*correction they started in 1957.
And what’s that supposed to mean? Does anybody know anything about ozone levels in the arctic for the 1956 years before 1957? Or the about 3100 years of history before that? Or the about 3 million years before?
Someone observes something in the 1970s he has never experienced before. Hence, he “concludes” that it cannot ever happened before, that it must have been caused by humans releasing dangerous gasses into the atmosphere, the specific kind of gas changing about every decade or so, and that doom will certainly ensue unless releasing of dangerous gasses is stopped.
Doesn’t that sound awfully close to someone preoccupied whith chemtrails hijacking naturally occurring phenomenons nobody understands (yet) to pseudo-substantiate his apocalyptic fantasies?
I am sorry but if something is being continuously monitored, as the ozone column was in the Antarctic, then the distinction between first appeared and first noticed is unclear. But you are right that the overall point is lost on me. What on earth (sic) has this to do with climate change?
Have you noticed that the hole is still there?
The hole is gradually diminishing.
And where it was when we first noticed it, i.e. above that hotbed of manmade emissions of CFCs, the Antarctic? (sarcasm).
CFCs are well mixed gasses that are evenly distributed through the stratosphere after about a year.
And, indeed, satellite images only started monitoring it in 1979…who knew what it was doing before then.
You clearly can’t read, nor think.
I didn’t ask him to tell me when we noticed it. That’s my point.
The DS poster MTF will be happy to distract from the subject of this article which is about the new film by Martin Durkin called “Climate, The Movie. ———This film has nothing do with ozone or holes in the atmosphere (of which there are by the way none). —-Please don’t be drawn into discussing things that this movie had nothing to do with.
Yr correct mtf is a good waste of carbon atoms. One can only have contempt for a person who supports authority making the poor poorer because he hates poor ppl living too well.
I am not sure if MTF will even watch the Martin Durkin. When you have a severe case of confirmation bias and you have already decided what is true 20 years ago you decide that anything that questions your dogma is some kind of “conspiracy theory”.——You have to feel sorry for people who think science is something you don’t question. They are getting mixed up between “science” and “official science”. ——One is the genuine search for truth and the other is the hijacking of science for political purposes.
I wonder how long before youtube censors
Can’t even find it on YouTube.
I just keep being suggested BBC videos of that idiot Brian Cox.
Try this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3Tfxiuo-oM
The Fat Emperor (Ivor Cummins) has it on his YouTube site. But I bet it won’t be there for long.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4vSMj4R5Rg
Already shadow-banned!
Tom Nelson gives links to all the locations hosting it, see https://tomn.substack.com/p/climate-the-movie-faq.
It is clearly there. I just watched it. Type in “Climate the Movie”. ——-The first one that comes up is just a trailer, but if you scroll along you should find it.
There is a UN “context” note attached to the YouTube one…grrr. Here is their “context” – my bold text:
“Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. Such shifts can be natural, due to changes in the sun’s activity or large volcanic eruptions. But since the 1800s, human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas.”
And I’ll quote Shelley on where I think the UN and their ideology will end up (I think the sands are shifting slowly):
“Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair! Nothing beside remains. Round the decay. Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare.”
Thanks to Chris Morrison for all your work on this topic. Still trying to download the Vimeo vid…takes a while.
I doubt if this film will remain on YouTube for long
Well it’s still on YouTube 12 hours after you posted that comment.
Absolutely first class expose on the entire climate scam. The first hour is occupied by facts delivered by real scientists unafraid to speak out. The last 20 minutes crystalise the the whys and hows by building a framework on which to hang the aforementioned facts. Mesmeric viewing. Should be a compulsory watch for the entire population.
I watched under Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/924719370?share=copy
All seemed reasonable at least out to 43m. Also, it kind of introduced the concept of financial psychology – or money talks, and it suggested that a lot of the research and campaigning has been done that way.
In effect, it alleged that a lot of modern industry associated with renewable energy is built on a lie.
Well worth watching.
It was a good job, well done. However, some might say that it is a bit long, and might not be easy to watch for some.
It occurred to me that it’s a bit topsy-turvy, if the main aim is to criticise the activities of certain groups. Moving the first 40 minutes or so to the end, with the rest of it being from the start might capture more support? Then all the evidence in the first 40 would be backup evidence to support the argument.
This won’t be a “gamechanger” mainly because most people who have objectively been looking into this issue have known all of this for at least 20 years, and also because it will be squeezed out and kept out of reach of 90% of the public who don’t have the time or inclination to investigate every issue, either because they are too busy with work or family life. ———-I urge everyone to watch it because it is focussing on something that is very important to everyone. —–Freedom and prosperity. There is no point in worrying about interest rates, or a 2p reduction in National Insurance Contributions etc etc when Net Zero policies put in place by governments are lowering living standards under false pretences that over the next 20 years or so will cost trillions and impoverish us to such an extent that people simply cannot comprehend what is coming their way.
The film has excellent material but lacks punch because it’s twice as long as it should be. I think uncommitted audience members would peel away; those opposed will breathe a sigh of relief.
Th public can only “peel away” for so long. Net Zero based on phony climate science will bring down governments all over the western world as impoverishment bites, and remember the impoverishment is DELIBERATE. —–That is what Sustainable development is all about.
When will the film be banned/censored/ignored?
Great film and so grateful to Martin Durkin putting this together, would be marvellous if C4 found its 2007 inner self and broadcast this – fat chance lol
Just another convenient excuse for more authoritarianism
This is a splendid film— even the music is perfect, and the whole thing is light-hearted and cheerful, unlike the endless doom & gloom of Saint Greta’s mob. And no, it is not too long, but just right.
Some commenters on the Youtube film site said Youtube had lowered the first 1.6 million views to 67,000 overnight, and it has remained at that figure, as well as remaining at less than 500 comments.
As one of them said,
“We are the carbon they want to reduce.”