In my Spectator column today I have lavished praise on Climate: The Movie, the new documentary by Martin Durkin in which a host of distinguished scientists systematically dismantle the idea that we’re in the midst of a ‘climate emergency’. What better way to alleviate the anxiety of young people about climate change? It should be shown at every school in the country. Here’s an extract:
One of the reasons it’s so hard to challenge the narrative about climate change is because it supposedly reflects the ‘settled’ scientific consensus. We’re told that 97% of climate scientists agree that global warming – or ‘global boiling’, as it’s now called – is caused by humans burning fossil fuels and releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. Climate: The Movie confronts this argument head on, not by disputing the 97% figure, but by interviewing William Happer, a spry 84-year-old former physics professor at Princeton.
“There’s this mischievous idea that’s promoted that scientific truth is determined by consensus,” he tells Durkin. “In real science, there are always arguments, no science is ever settled. It is absurd when people say the science of climate is settled. There’s no such thing as settled science, especially when it comes to climate.”
To underline this, the film features a cast of distinguished scientists, including the winner of the 2022 Nobel Prize for physics, who gleefully take on all the sacred cows of the environmental lobby. Are you under the impression the Earth has never been hotter? Not so, says Steve Koonin, a former scientific adviser to President Obama and now a professor at NYU. The geological record shows that for the past 500 million years the Earth was considerably warmer than it is now. In fact, we’re still in the late Cenozoic ice age, according to Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace. (Yes, he’s now in the sceptic camp.) “We’re at the tail end of a 50 million-year cooling period and they’re saying it’s too hot?” he asks.
But surely there’s no disputing that CO2, a greenhouse gas, is responsible for the one degree uptick in average global temperatures since the beginning of the industrial revolution? Oh yes there is, says the Nobel Laureate John Clauser, who points out that if rising CO2 levels were the cause of the temperature increase, you’d expect the former to occur before the latter. But evidence from drilling into ancient ice cores reveals CO2 only increases after the temperature starts to rise, usually following a lag of 100 years. Levels of this trace gas are far lower today (about 423 parts per million) than they were 500 million years ago (7,000 parts per million), and if CO2 is causing global warming, then why has the temperature barely risen since we started pumping out CO2 on an industrial scale in the 1940s? “I assert that there is no connection whatsoever between CO2 and climate change,” says Clauser. “It’s all a crock of crap in my opinion.”
Worth reading in full.
Stop Press: You can watch Climate: The Movie for free on YouTube.
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.
Brilliant stuff!
CO2 and climate change connection?
“It’s all a crock of crap in my opinion.”
Oh!
That makes it higher than 15 of the past 20 years.
You mean sea ice cover is increasing, as well as coral on the Great Barrier Reef, Skippy?
CO2 and any connection to climate change really is, as the man said, a complete crock of crap…..
‘and that’s a fact, and no mistake!’ (said ratty)
Watched this a little while ago. Very interesting. I was aware of many of the arguments, but didn’t know anything about the solar winds vs cosmic rays research. I was talking to my kids (all now young adults) about it on Sunday, and they all just stared at me like I’d singlehandedly slowed the planets rotation (see hilarious climate news from the communists at SKY) with my steak eating. The younger generation have bought it hook, line and sinker.
Ask your “kids” this ——– (1) How much CO2 is in the atmosphere. (2) How much of that comes from humans, and how much is natural. (3) Is there evidence from historical reconstructions of temperature that CO2 drives temperature rises. (4) Are you aware that CO2 has been much higher than it is now with no correlation between that CO2 and temperature? (5) Are you aware that storms, floods, droughts, wildfires etc are not getting more extreme or more frequent? (6) Are you aware that there is not much in the way of evidence that the rate of sea level rise is increasing as would be expected if humans were adding to sea level rise that has already been occurring for 12,000 years? (7)) Are you aware that Polar Bear numbers over the last 60 years have increased 5 fold? And finally, (8) What is Sustainable Development and where does that political agenda come from?————You might also want to ask your kids why none of those kind of questions are ever asked on BBC, or SKY NEWS and other mainstream News programs? ———Then if they still persist in heckling you point out to them that maybe it is not a good idea to discuss welding if you don’t know what a welding rod is, and maybe if you don’t know how much CO2 is in the atmosphere perhaps you should concentrate on stuff you actually know something about
I’m not convinced the young lady in the picture suffers from climate anxiety as such. I suspect she just hates the world as it is, for whatever reason, and the “climate” is just an excuse to remake it
The young lady is suffering (or rather, very much enjoying) from a mild case of down syndrome and seems to have recently discovered sex¹. I don’t think we’ll see much of her in future.
¹ There’s a staged video where she’s being carried away from a protest by a group of handsome, tall, young policemen and it’s obvious that she really liked that part. In which case I say “More power to her and less to her hippie parents.”
Looking at the picture of her, I think she’s suffering from a lack of fibre in her diet. Perhaps all she needs is a good sh*t!
She is well known to be abnormal, and in fact has been exploited by various extremists – perhaps in a financial opportunistic fashion.
But, but couldn’t she ‘see’ CO2?
Worthy of being watched. I did this with about half of it and I never watch movies because the slow and repetitive way people usually talk annoys the hell out of me.
I thought the movie was brilliant.
Only problem, it’s 90 minutes long, which means that few young people will watch it.
Agreed. I watched it a few days ago soon after the earlier article, and I posted this comment inside the YouTube commentary as well as here:
I watched ‘Climate The Movie’ by Martin Durkin 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. No only that, but there is not much finance for alternative points of view.
In effect, it alleges that a lot of modern industry associated with renewable energy is built on a lie.
Well worth watching. Also available in YouTube at present: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3Tfxiuo-oM , but with a different heading – Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth) English. There is a bit more information about it here: https://tomn.substack.com/p/climate-the-movie-faq
At the end of the day, I recommend watching it in a different sequence c.f. the original. Start from around 55 minutes in, then move to about 44m, then finish from the start to about 44. That presents the main aim, then followed by supporting evidence; i.e. the production is topsy turvy.
This film is a good starting point for inquisitive people who might not have suspected anything amiss with “climate change” and who thought that it was really all just about science, and governments coming along to take advice from scientists who thought there may be a big problem. But if you were really inquisitive you would not have had to wait for a film like this, you would have already looked into the issue, and discovered that it is actually the corruption of science. It is “Official Science” not “Science”. It is science bought and paid for by governments who fund it all. It is science in support of a political agenda, called Sustainable Development, which is a world run by technocrats controlling the worlds wealth and resources via UN mandates and directives. To get away with that you need a seemingly plausible excuse, and that excuse is “Climate Change”———But this film is a handy place to start if you are in the least bit concerned that climate change might no be all it appears to be. On the other hand this film will just be another pain in the neck to silly climate activists who decided what was true 20 years ago and who refuse to even consider there might not be a climate emergency, and who will viciously name call anyone who does dare question that idea.
Ohhh, that face.
As the late, great Eric Newby said of an annoying Afghan boy in the Hindu Kush “a child whose very appearance invites ill-treatment”.
Well done to our fearless leader for reminding people to watch this powerful film.
It was superbly crafted, the lighthearted approach to the graphics and music and interviews making a refreshing contrast to “Saint Greta’s” constant litany of doom & gloom. And the narrator’s explanations made the graphs easy to understand for the ordinary man-in-the-street.
Best of all, they made it available to the public to watch for free, without demanding anything in return, such as signing in or signing up to their organisation or donating.
I hope it reaches a huge audience, and helps to wake up humanity to the climate scam.
Perhaps you would also like to watch Martin Durkins first film if you have not already called “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. These films are a great starting point for people who maybe think something very fishy is going on with climate change science and politics and get the encouragement to investigate further for themselves.
I find the theory of planetary albedo increasing when cosmic rays are allowed to enable more cloud seeding at times of low solar flux compelling.
Of course Svensmark cannot be funded because his work contradicts the globalist narrative.
Yes, in the interests of balance films like this, of which there are actually quite few, should be shown to children in schools, but ofcourse to everyone else as well. But we already have Martin Durkins first film on this issue “The Great Global Warming Swindle” which if we were really interested in balance would have already been shown to children. But I seem to recall that a court decided that if Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth” was shown in schools then so should Martin Durkins film. ——-But this new film by Durkin is only on YouTube. I suspect no mainstream channel will air this film, and the reason is that climate misinformation and alarm is so entrenched and become the entire basis for Public Policy, (Net Zero etc) that whatever Channel showed this film would be met with such spitting fury that they would start to curse their own mothers for having given them birth. The outrage would be so extreme and the usual bunch of activist braindead dreamers would be lashing paint and tomato soup all over their TV Studio and gluing themselves to the street outside.——- But in science you are supposed to question everything. The fact that there is this determination by what I can safely call “The Climate Establishment” to bludgeon into silence any questioning of this so called science which is mostly based on modelling full of assumptions and speculations and all mostly funded by government, shows that it is NOT and never was about science. ——–Climate Change is POLITICS. The Politics of the left, and there are none so vociferous as Liberal Progressives (Commies) when it comes to silencing those who disagree with them.
people look at me like I’m a nutter when I point out that the whole ‘climate’ agenda came from people like Maurice Strong at the Club of Rome.
Ask them what aspect of climate they think is changing that they know for sure was caused by human activity. —-There answer will likely be that they think all scientists say so. —–You can then easily reply that things are not true because lots of people say so and are only true if they can be demonstrated to be so.
Yup the majority fallacy.
My wife isn’t my number one fan. Every time I deviate from the BBC narrative (which is quite a lot) she says that I sound like a ‘Sun reader’
Ooh, that’s a bit harsh!
I found this useful website, “Annotated Bibliography for Climate: The Movie”:
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/blood-and-honor-the-people-of-bleeding-kansas/
Great movie. Watched it a few days ago. Let’s get it shown mainstream somehow.
The film should be put into all schools to watch and in Parliament.