We’re publishing a guest post by freelance journalist Chris Morrison about the Neflix hit Don’t Look Up, an allegory about climate change denial starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Lawrence. DiCaprio plays an astronomer whose PhD student – Lawrence – discovers a giant comet that’s on a collision course with earth. It’s due to hit in six months’ time and they try and warn an unsuspecting planet. But needless to say, the threat is laughed off by politicians and media moguls alike. The film’s twin targets are Covid denial and climate change denial and its somewhat implausible premise is that the world’s elites have become insufficiently hysterical about both.
Spoiler Alert – it is highly unlikely that a comet spotted hundreds of millions of miles away can be almost immediately calculated to be on a collision path with Earth. Plotting the orbit requires many observations while the effect of outgassing as the comet nears the sun will cause significant route deviations. But let’s not allow the facts to get in the way of Hollywood’s latest climate agitprop blockbuster. Don’t Look Up needs the planet killing certainty of a comet hitting Earth to whip up further green hysteria since, as is generally accepted by all correct thinking folks, we are all going to die in a planet killing climate fireball.
The film is an allegory for “climate change denial”. This is the insult thrown at those who seek to debate the “settled” science that holds the Earth’s global temperature will soar from around 15C to 21C in the near future if we continue to use fossil fuels. It is the work of heretics to note that no peer reviewed science paper exists to credibly prove the hypothesis beyond doubt. The temperature predictions are based on little more than the guesses from always wrong climate models.
Some scientists, no doubt operating from a particularly nasty part of Satan’s lair, actually believe the role of carbon dioxide has been greatly exaggerated and most climate change, as it always has been, is due to natural causes.
Emotion and hysteria are rapidly replacing scientific inquiry. As the co-founder of Greenpeace Paul Watson once famously remarked: “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
During the course of Don’t Look Up, the two stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Lawrence shake regularly with rage as their collision calculations are not taken seriously. Needless to say, the F bomb is dropped constantly because of course THEY REALLY F**KING CARE. Ariane Grande pops up to trill about the coming disaster because, well, she really fucking cares too.
Commenting on the film in the Guardian, Paul Kalmus said that as a climate scientist he is doing everything he can to wake people up to avoid “planetary destruction”. In his view it is “the most accurate film about society’s terrifying non-response to climate breakdown I’ve seen”. For people like Kalmus, the Earth is breaking down with “breath-taking speed”. Alas, the terrifying rise in global temperatures is taking a holiday at the moment – about 10 years at the last count – and global warming seems to be going the way of global cooling – the fashionable settled science scare du jour of the 1970s. No worries – global warming has become climate breakdown and bad weather rebranded as extreme climate events. Faced with an unusually warm summer‘s day, Kalmus demands we “switch into full-on emergency mode”.
If it wasn’t so serious, we could just laugh. But green activists have been so successful over the last 30 years with their “settled” science propaganda that they have persuaded a Conservative Government in the U.K. to embrace the Net Zero agenda. A Marxist-inspired, control and rule agenda complete with reduced mass personal transport, higher energy costs, restricted diets and all the loss of personal freedoms that these entail. The Covid pandemic has shown just how many freedoms can be snatched away in a modern connected society by the spread of widespread fear, fuelled by selective state-sponsored science and, of course, made up models.
Kalmus’s switch to full on emergency seems to have traction in many parts of society. Last year, the actress Joanna Lumley called for “wartime” rationing to combat climate change and suggested the masses did not weekend in Magaluf. There was no word on whether she intended to stop making travel documentaries. It is thought unlikely that she celebrated her recent Damehood with a dinner of tinned snook and a thin slice of bread and marg.
Slightly more terrifying than the thoughts of Her Lumliness is Angus Forbes, who wrote a recent book calling for a Global Planet Authority to have complete control over the biosphere. Mr. Forbes, the first director of Prince Charles’s Rainforest Project, suggested turning 40% of all land on Earth into parks, maintained as “ultra light zones” incurring “almost zero human pressure”. One of the first areas he suggests could become a national park is the entire island of Madagascar.
Princeton professor and IPCC lead author Michael Oppenheimer is also keen to stop low-income countries catching up with his own. “We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialisation, we have in the U.S. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are,” he said.
At the beginning of this month, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue was reported to have said that as Covid begins to wane, “conspiracy theorists” are starting to use terms such as “Green lockdowns”. The left wing think tank stated that there was “no evidence” that people would be forced to stay at home and restrict their travel and social contacts to reduce carbon emissions.
Meanwhile back in the real world, it is obvious that many green extremists are starting to think the unthinkable. Democracy is all very well but is falling short when decisions have to be made by self-proclaimed experts going about their important work of saving the planet. Writing in the American Political Science Review last month, Ross Mittiga, Assistant Professor at the Catholic University of Chile, noted that as the climate crisis deepens, “one can find a cautious but growing chorus of praise for ‘authoritarian environmentalism’”.
He continued:
as those who have survived COVID-19 can attest, during a health emergency, severe and enduring limitations of rights to free movement, association, and speech can become legitimate techniques of government, even in robustly liberal democratic states. … herein lies the allure of authoritarian environmentalism; for if, as many now contend, liberal-democratic norms, principles, and institutions impede urgently needed climate action, then legitimacy may permit – or even require – relaxing or abandoning those constraints.
In his God Delusion book, Richard Dawkins demanded extraordinary proof for what he called the extraordinary claims of religion. He was unimpressed with the argument that the claims had all been “settled” by the teachings of the Bible. Many of the claims of the green movement are truly extraordinary and are often backed up with explanations that owe little to genuine science. Such science is done a disservice by the banning of discussion with those who dissent from prevailing orthodoxies, as is common in the mainstream media. Reason and debate are ignored and faith in an emerging ideology takes over.
All new religions and political cultures tend to destroy the old to succeed. In the fourth and fifth centuries, Christianity suddenly swept all before it in a ruthless purging of the culture, religions and social norms of the ancient world. Catherine Nixey has written a thought provoking book called The Darkening Age about these times. She details an orgy of statue and temple smashing, widespread rioting and violence, manuscript burning and general culture cancelling that removed most traces of the previous civilisations.
To the victor the spoils, and a codifying law made by the Byzantine Emperor Justinian would be infamous for the next 1,500 years. Known as Law 1.11.10.2, it read: “Moreover we forbid the teaching of any doctrine by those who labour under the insanity of paganism so that they might not corrupt the souls of their disciples.”
The supreme irony of Don’t Look Up, of course, is that the alarmism the filmmakers think has been ignored has been enthusiastically embraced in nearly every country in the world. Our problem isn’t being too sceptical when faced with apocalyptic warnings. It’s being far too credulous.
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.
I may be a bit stupid but I took the film as being about those in authority refusing to believe the obvious,
Refusing to look at covid as a non event and bringing about the end of the world through their ignorance
Nah, not if Decaprios in it, personally I treat Netflix as I do the BBC, like it’s leprosy.
Shtisel and Fauda are the only shows worth watching on Netflix.
Fully agree on Shtisel and will watch Fauda purely on the basis of you naming it alongside!
Correct, given that Lenny Decapitated is in it, he’s a true green and wants to live like a communist dictator lives
On Justinian. He closed all the places of entertainment and 30,000 died in the resultant riots
He was also a fat fuck who married a manipulative woman 20 years his junior
And then to put the tin hat on it the plague arrived from China
Just saying
all in all then ‘room for improvement’
were lessons learned?
A lesson learnt was to change the narrative
En masse they joined the ‘cult de jour’ which involved getting eaten by lions and handing over your readies to people dressed in funny clothes (on the understanding the profits would be used to ‘educate’ Africans)
And here we stand today
Yellowstone is worth watching in full, totally unwoke, i’m amazed it was made (this day & age) it’s the opposite of progressive, first season was a bit melodramatic but refreshingly mandom, the most masculine character is a woman.
I discovered yesterday that there’s a range of clothing (mostly yellow) bearing pithy statements or comments on attitude alluding to the Beth character.
It’s alleged that a fifth series is being mooted, which must mean the viewing figures make it worthwhile.
I think its main ‘unwokeness’ centres around showing corporate raiders for the pond life they are.
Another series that surprised me was Dopesick. The realisation that one could view something that showed how Big Pharma really works, whilst living through a globalised version of the plot, was little short of gobsmacking.
There’s a spin-off from Yellowstone called 1883, which is nearly as unwoke, the “women” are scripted as strong characters, which I don’t object too, it’s not in itself woke. anyway I like a strong woman, some ones gotta chop wood.
I’d noticed 1883, too, and will probably download it when I’ve tired of searching for anything watchable once I’ve finished Yellowstone (so far).
Whilst I am an eighteen karat gold global warming realist, I am constantly amused by how commentators can (rightly) decry the destruction of culture by the likes of Justinian and the Taliban and yet ignore the elephant in the room.
I live between the great desecrated Abbey’s of Arbroath and St Andrews whose destruction would do credit to the Taliban or Boris the Barbarian.
The movie is obviously a nod to the climate change catastrophists and finger wagging at the “deniers”.
I also took the tech psycho’s capturing of policy for personal benefit as an analogy for pharmas selling death vaccines as a solution to the covid “catastrophe” but I doubt too many of the hypnotised, morally bankrupt masses begging for boosters will have seen it that way.
Same – and in the film the government planned action to divert the comet, but called it off because an Apple type guy found that the comet was full of harvestable valuable minerals.
I totally agree it was similar to our leaders continuing with the covid programme and risking lives and livelihoods in order to please pharma/tech and whoever else is pulling the strings.
More Sea Ice Than 100 Years Ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtzyudppu7s
Tony Heller
When you are demonised for speaking the truth you are living in tyranny. Please come and join our friendly events.
Saturday 8th January 2pm – Marlow
Berks & Bucks Freedom Day
Higginson Park corner of High Street & Pound Lane
Marlow SL7 1NF
and get your boost of freedom!!
Stand in the Park Sundays 10am make friends, ignore the madness & keep sane
Wokingham – Howard Palmer Gardens Cockpit Path car park Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Telegram Group
http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
Yeah I thought that for a nano second when someone recommended it, then I saw Di’Caprio was in it. Someone who’s so terrified of ‘global warming’ and ‘the rising sea levels’ he’s bought a giant beach front resort in Belize and flies everywhere by private jet.
Mr Swab probably told him it was going to be all okay. After all, wasn’t he a mentor to many of this ilk?
i read it the same way as you did. Didn’t anyone else notice how Mark Rylance looked like Fauci, Biden and Gates all rolled into one?
A complete nut-job, the government followed his advice and look where it got them..far too subtle for most obviously.
If a comet was headed my way with an aim to falling on top of me I wouldn’t want six months notice, for the same reason I pay no attention to climate alarmist fearmongering, if it’s true there ain’t fuck all we can do about it anyway.
a good stoic position
there are things you can do something about and things you can’t
no point worrying about either – if you can do something about it then do something about it – worrying is superfluous
”If God is with us – why worry? If God is against us – why worry?”
“ain’t fuck all we can do about it anyway.”
HERESY! We can send Bruce Willis!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-8eEniEfgU
You’ll be amazed what bacteria can survive.
And cockroaches, I bet.
They are 2 very different things. Gradual warming won’t kill ya at least in your lifetime but a comet smashing into the planet would. The good thing is neither of those things are going to happen
If it was big enough to destroy life on earth I would want to be directly beneath it, as apparently the heat generated as it travels into our atmosphere would vapourise anything in its landing area. I think that would be a pretty good painless and instant death – better than gradually dying in the nuclear type winter it would produce.
It is funny how different people have different interpretations.
I have watched the film (not too great) and thought that the take-home message was that whatever the problem, governments around the world would spin the facts to try to increase their share of the vote and that they would be fooled into filling the coffers of multinationals with plans to save everyone that don’t properly describe the downside risks.
I was actually intrigued that they’d made it at all, given all the covid hysteria.
Wouldn’t spinning facts to increase one’s share of the vote be a tad redundant if the planet were about to be rendered fit only for cockroaches?
In the film the politicians are hoodwinked by the megacorps profit laden schemes. Their fact spinning is to support the megacorps plans over other plans.
Sounds familiar
Give cockroaches the vote
Problem solved
I took the film the same way, as an indictment of the political classes and their obsession about party over humanity (whatever their political position).
I have been a climate change sceptic for 20 years and the allegorical nature of it went entirely over my head – maybe I am just thick.
I have always thought that climate (warming, change, wierding, emergency, catastrophe, armageddon – your choice) was a political construct.
Like you, been a sceptic for 20 years or so. I don’t think CC is a political construct as much as another ‘catastrophic’ opportunity politicians have jumped on. They don’t know anything about the subject, it’s just a crude club to brandish to get their way.
In one way or another it’s been used for thousands of years; sun gods, moon gods, weather gods etc. etc. to control people.
Humanity believes it’s beyond these sort of superstitions because we have ‘science’, but clearly we’re not. In fact science is self destructing as its abused to project numerous fantasies onto the public by politicians.
If science is divisive, it’s not, usually, good science. CC and Covid are cases in point.
Yes, but considering Hollywood, Big Tech, Big Pharma, etc, feed from the same trough and sing from the same hymn book, it’s hard to imagine the ‘message’ is benign or disinterested.
Oh, so it’s a remake of When Worlds Collide? How original….
I watched Dr Strangelove yesterday. Excellent film. If I ever feel like watching this Netflix thing I’ll force myself to watch “When the Wind Blows” again- at least that had a message about how wrong government guidance was to deal with the crisis.
Government policy makers are mainly made up of chancers, put in place by richer chancers
The Chinese developed a new character to use when discussing Hollywood’s obsession with Climate Change, Inclusivity, Diversity, remaking of old classics to re-gender the hero to heroine, sissy-boys and all the rest.
What they want is films about hunky guys beating the crap out of each other until the bad guy loses and the good guy gets the gal.
It might interest Hollywood to know that the largest consumer market for movies is now The Peoples Republic Of China.
The new character they developed translates as
“white liberal shit”
I found this lastvweek on Netflix, and, always up for a scifi movie sat down to watch.
I gave up after 20 mins due the incessant F words (Lawrence seems tot think cursing = acting), ridiculous plot, implausible characters and political overtones.
Hollywood is dead.
‘Hollywood is dead. Long live Horrywood’?
Long rive Horrywood? Everything they produce is rubbery.
Run Run Shaw ran the largest movie studios in the world in the 50’s in Hong Kong. Bigger than Hollywood.
Brought us all Bruce Lee amongst others.
Is that the comet equivalent of gaslighting?
Nah…..It’s like lighting a fart.
I liked it. It was good art in that it kept its allegiances well hidden. You could read into it what you want…as this article has shown…
I enjoyed it. My take on it, it was a damning satire of the MSM/Political machine. The environmental element of it was just a poor plot device, not really up to his usual standards and I have a feeling it didn’t really send the message it was supposed to.
Spot on
I saw it this way, although I got bored and stopped half way through.
Two people with statistical/empirical/photographic fact in their hands were mocked and ignored by the MSM. Could just as easily have been two people trying to convince the MSM that there really are only 2 genders and/or covid is just a cold.
People usually make up their minds and stick to it. IE its easier to fool people than convince them they’ve been fooled.
Look up… and you may see this above your head.. A site that’s far too familiar above my house.. and it ain’t condensation, that’s for sure..
Weather modification – Geoengineering – Stratospheric Aerosol Injection – Solar Radiation Management..
Its to supposedly combat the myth/lie of ‘global warming’.. but if that’s the case why are they using Ionospheric Heaters HAARP throughout the world which is destroying the ozone layer among other things, and is definitely responsible for the manipulation of the weather..
Just asking for a friend..
Ionospheric Heaters..
https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/ionospheric-heaters-around-the-globe-haarp-isnt-lonely-2/
The planet does what the planet has always done, it will be just fine. It’s the people who are 100% fucked.
The planet likes to cleanse itself of life every few hundred million years & start fresh, we all like a change now & again.
The thing I find implausible about climate justice conspiracy theorists is that elite psychopaths give a toss about the environment. It’s the same people, same families, same hereditary elite behind all these fearmongering agendas. Gates, Zuckerberg et.al even Toby’s hero Musk all come from privileged neoliberal backgrounds always pushing a philanthropic agenda, because we all know they only became billionaires with altruistic intentions.
They all intermarry too which might explain the madness
Musk is an excellent salesman nothing more. Meanwhile he covers the sky with satellites to provide internet for everyone.
I watched “Don’t look up”, I guessed it was pro “Climate Change” and ignoring the supposedly obvious (Climate Change isn’t obvious to me). But if you switch the lefty message (which is easy to do in this film) to what is going on today, then it’s a good laugh.
The fact it’s politicians telling you to not look up helps.
BTW On BBC 4 the other night there was a program about weather extremes. I watched it expected the usual climate change BS, but no it did get a mention but not too heavy. It showed various weather extremes over the past centuries. (What I’d like to know is when was the climate last “normal” so we have a datum point to measure against?)
It’s somewhere in here, I just don’t know where.
Scenes of revolution in Illuminati hotspot Kazakhstan:
Revolution In Kazakhstan: People Detain Military & Seize Vehicles/ Equipment. Shot Heard Round World
https://www.bitchute.com/video/ZwcS54UYDKQ7/
REVOLUTION TOPPLES KAZAKHSTAN GOVERNMENT IN LESS THAN 24 HOURS
https://www.bitchute.com/video/mYJMkKcSMxm1/
The Conspiracy Theorists Were Right All Along Dr. Robert Malone 2022
https://www.bitchute.com/video/c0cjnAS4T5WQ/
Probe after British F-35 fighter crashes in Mediterranean
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59323895
Im sure theres a country near the Med which has all this equipment backdoored. I know where my enquiry would start to ascertain what happened here.
We only have 25,000 years to save the planet!!!!!!!!
This is the calculation, using internationally recognised data, nothing fancy, no hidden agenda, just something we can all do by taking our socks and shoes off.
Assuming increasing atmospheric CO2 is causing the planet to warm:
Atmospheric CO2 levels in 1850 (beginning of the Industrial Revolution): ~280ppm (parts per million atmospheric content) (Vostock Ice Core).
Atmospheric CO2 level in 2021: ~410ppm. (Mauna Loa)
410ppm minus 280ppm = 130ppm ÷ 171 years (2021 minus 1850) = 0.76ppm of which man is responsible for ~3% = ~0.02ppm.
That’s every human on the planet and every industrial process adding ~0.02ppm CO2 to the atmosphere per year on average. At that rate mankind’s CO2 contribution would take ~25,000 years to double which, the IPCC states, would cause around 2°C of temperature rise. That’s ~0.0001°C increase per year for ~25,000 years.
One hundred (100) generations from now (assuming ~25 years per generation) would experience warming of ~0.25°C more than we have today. ‘The children’ are not threatened!
Furthermore, the Mauna Loa CO2 observatory (and others) can identify and illustrate Natures small seasonal variations in atmospheric CO2 but cannot distinguish between natural and manmade atmospheric CO2.
Hardly surprising. Mankind’s CO2 emissions are so inconsequential this ‘vital component’ of Global Warming can’t be illustrated on the regularly updated Mauna Loa graph.
Mankind’s emissions are independent of seasonal variation and would reveal itself as a straight line, so should be obvious.
Not even the global fall in manmade CO2 over the early Covid-19 pandemic, estimated at ~14% (14% of ~0.02ppm CO2 = 0.0028ppm), registers anywhere on the Mauna Loa data. Unsurprisingly.
In which case, the warming the planet has experienced is down to naturally occurring atmospheric CO2, all 97% of it.
That’s entirely ignoring the effect of the most powerful ‘greenhouse’ gas, water vapour which is ~96% of all greenhouse gases.
And the graph shows the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and ‘catastrophic’ temperature rise – There is none.
410ppm minus 280ppm = 130ppm ÷ 171 years (2021 minus 1850) = 0.76ppm of which man is responsible for ~3% = ~0.02ppm.
Not this misunderstanding again! Man is responsible for about 3% of the CO2 that goes into the atmosphere but about 100% of the increase in CO2. There is a carbon cycle with a massive amount of carbon entering the atmosphere every year and a massive amount leaving through various mechanisms. Prior to the about 1800 this was in balance. Man has upped the carbon going in by about 3% which has accumulated in the atmosphere creating the increased level of CO2. We know this is primarily man made because of the changing concentration of different carbon isotopes in the CO2 and because the increase more or less matches are best estimates of the CO2 we are producing.
“Not this misunderstanding again! Man is responsible for about 3% of the CO2 that goes into the atmosphere but about 100% of the increase in CO2.”
NURSE!!!!!!
Where is mankind’s contribution shown in the data? It’s not because it’s so small it can’t be reliably detected or it would emerge as a straight line, unaffected by seasonal variation.
Once again a logical progression that simply flew over your head. If you can’t measure it, it’s not happening!
Mankind’s contribution in this period is the difference between 405 and 415. There is of course a seasonal pattern due to the Northern Hemisphere winter but I think the overall trend is fairly obvious.
Now I really have to stop.
Stop.. I think you need to go away and have a good think where all your information originated from.
Read those 2009 emails.. the same thing went on then as is happening now with the covid scam, anyone with another point of view was immediately demonised, shut out. There was only one reason for that.. lies were replacing truth..
You’re not wrong there. I went to school with one of the climate modellers featured in the Climategate emails. About 10 years ago I suggested to him that chaotic systems like the climate really couldn’t be modelled with any certainty. Mistake number 1. Mistake number 2 was to suggest to him in July 2020 that Anthony Faucj was a liar and that Trump was correct in suggesting that hydroxychloroquine could be used as a prophylaxis against SARS CoV2. I was severely rebuked and told never to contact him again. So a friendship lasting 52 years was ended because I dared to question ‘The Science’. At least he didn’t threaten to beat me up.
Oh come on Scottie
Don’t confuse the opposition with science.
As far as dear Leonardo is concerned, it must be a source of eternal regret that the bear didn’t scrag him properly in that trapping film.
The film for our times is “Metropolis”, especially the section when the workers trudge on and off shift. Anything else, especially from Hollywood, is junk.
My spidey propaganda senses were triggered when I saw this film advertised on Netflix. I think it was the combination of Leonardo DiCaprio and Netflix and an existential crisis. However a close friend who also has a keen eye for propaganda said it could be interpreted from our perspective so I intend to watch it this weekend and decide for myself!
I think that catastrophizing has a tight grip on many of the alarmists, I’m no psychiatrist but I’d be concerned if one of my loved ones was only able to see the doom scenario in everything (that’s you Greta).
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/catastrophizing
Greta hasn’t a clue. It’s her manipulative parents you should be concerned about.
Sadly true.. the girl was set up by her parents.. the whole ‘schoolgirl protest’ thing was totally stage managed by hugely vested interests.. Soros was one.
I suspect this is part of a propaganda campaign aimed at establishing a world government. One of the ways by which the globalist fanatics hope to achieve their goals is by instilling fear into people.
Hollywood – exceeding its remit since 1941!
As Chris Morrison seems to be making the same two dubious claims every few days, let’s put the record straight.
Claim: Global temperatures have paused for the last n years.
The idea that there has been a recent pause is almost entirely based on the exceptionally high temperature in 2016 because of an El Nino and the exceptionally low temperature last year because of a La Niña. If you look at the surface temperature record over a sensible timescale there is little doubt that average global temperatures have been rising: https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/state-of-climate-2021-extreme-events-and-major-impacts
Claim: the climate models have been proven wrong
Of course no model can be expected to predict global temperatures with total accuracy. The only sensible question to ask is – how accurate have they been? The answer is they have been pretty good and tended to get better as they have become more sophisticated. If you look at the IPCC forecasts they have sometimes been too high, sometimes too low, but have tended to get more accurate. The 2nd report (2001) is the only one where the actual temperature went outside the confidence limits of the the forecast in any significant way – and that was the because actual temperature was higher than forecast.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming
“If you look at the IPCC forecasts they have sometimes been too high, sometimes too low”
AHahahahahahahahahahahah
Care to point out where they have been “too low”?
Yeah.. the famous Michael Mann ‘hockey stick’.. bullshit on steroids.
Dr Tim Ball dealt with him though. He asked Mann for the data and he wouldn’t / couldn’t provide it. Another so called ‘scientist’ on the take.. paid to cook the figures..
https://climatechangedispatch.com/tim-ball-defeats-michael-mann-lawsuit/
The hockey stick is about temperature records over the last 1000 years as measured by proxies. (Since it was published in1999 there have been over 20 other analyses which broadly support his conclusion). That is irrelevant to the surface temperature record over the last 100 years.
Maybe you ought to read those 2009 emails before spouting off on here. They screwed the data, going as far as to virtually do away with the Medieval Warm Period to give a colder base to project from.
So, come back when you know the complete history of the IPCC the crooks that fund it, and have some unaltered data to offer.
The guy is an idiot.
Wow, just Wow!!!!
By your qualification and dismissal of Mann’s discredited hockey stick graph (which was removed from the IPCC site in embarrassment) we can ignore your 100 years of data and go straight to the last 10 years of data.
Fucking astonishing. The fact Mann refused to release his data invalidates his ‘science’ altogether. It can’t be falsified because he won’t allow it to be falsified.
Then, to suit your argument you just write it off as irrelevant anyway.
What kind of voodoo science is it?
The other “over 20 other analyses” have largely sunk without trace as no one in the scientific community trusts anything to do with the hokey science involved in it, largely thanks to Mann.
Defending the indefensible isn’t science, its religious zealotry.
Mann admitted in the Climategate emails that his multiproxy source for reconstructing historical temperatures was in reality not multiproxy at all i.e. the tree ring proxy, which unfortunately for him failed to match actual measured temperatures, was all he had.
I haven’t time to address this properly – but briefly.
I haven’t seen the specific email you are referring to but the Climategate emails in general were quoted out of context and rarely, if ever, had the significance sceptics ascribed to them. Eight committees investigated the accusations based on the emails and none of them found evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.
In any case the hockeystick paper was published over 20 years ago. Since then there have many more papers assessing temperatures over the last 2000 years and they have verified Mann’s conclusions. Wikipedia has a good list.
Finally – this discussion was about how well climate models predict temperatures. The models only make predictions for the period when temperatures were being measured directly and therefore do not relate to work on temperatures more than 100 years ago.
Those are midtroposphere temperatures not surface temperatures. It is widely acknowledged that the models do not predict those temperatures well.
The IPCC underestimated average surface temperature in 1995 and 2001. I can only attach one chart so I have attached the 2001 chart.
As I believe I have adequately explained, surface temperatures are, at best unreliable. Nor do they include Ocean temperature data and as oceans occupy some 70% of the planet, your example is fanciful misrepresentation of what goes on in the real world.
Tropospheric data includes every aspect of the planet vis-à-vis temperatures. It does not favour any particular area, but that’s what averages are about isn’t it? It doesn’t provide specific temperatures, it charts the deviation from a mean over the planet as a whole which provided an accurate assessment as to whether the planet is warming or cooling on a month by month basis.
As I tried to explain, all records have their problems. The surface temperature record does include ocean temperature data – although not so much as land for obvious reasons. Yes it is covers the globe unevenly but it is at least it is measuring the surface! There are various other problems such as UHI but the different analyses have got pretty good at allowing for these things. The Berkeley analysis in particular was founded by a team including sceptics to try and come up with something that everyone could trust.
The satellite record clearly covers the globe better but it doesn’t measure the surface and is also subject to its own sources of error. It has been subject to numerous corrections over the last 20 years.
It doesn’t provide specific temperatures, it charts the deviation from a mean over the planet as a whole which provided an accurate assessment as to whether the planet is warming or cooling on a month by month basis.
This is irrelevant. You can report temperatures relative to any base you choose. It doesn’t affect trends.
I didn’t say all records don’t have problems, in fact I was at pains to point out there were/are issues with Spencers data but overall it’s the most consistent global average, which includes all aspects of the planet, we have.
Again, as I was at pains to point out, describing surface data as covering “the globe unevenly” is a masterful understatement. Included in that are political imperatives e.g. Russia and China might not be aligned with western standards of reporting.
What you are relying on is data from western sources.
“The surface temperature record does include ocean temperature data”
Sadly, also unreliable at best. Until the 1960’s the Cutty Sark was still sailing commercially. Even beyond then sea surface temperature data was harvested by chucking a canvas bucket over the side of a ship, to no defined depth, by (probably) a deckhand and recorded if he could be bothered. Or more likely, recorded eschewing the bucket.
Most of the Sea Surface temperatures were, and still are, harvested along the main shipping routes via ship intakes and measurement systems. The problem is, there is no international standard for this. No depth or size of intake is standardised and no routing through the ship standardised.
Furthermore, even today, shipping largely avoids the southern oceans because a) there’s not much there and b) it’s hazardous.
Argo floats were first deployed around the year 2000, their numbers have grown to around 4,000 across some 360,000,000 km square of ocean, which is around 90,000 km square each. But that doesn’t tell the whole story. “In most cases probes drift at a depth of 1000 metres (the so-called parking depth) and, every 10 days, by changing their buoyancy, dive to a depth of 2000 metres and then move to the sea-surface” when they transmit their data. (quote from Wikipedia)
At 1,000 feet they are not measuring surface temperatures, that’s accomplished once every 10 days. What’s more there have been lot’s of problems with compatibility between manufacturers (largely sorted out now though)
What astonishes me, however, is that people like you (not meant to be insulting) will entirely ignore all these confounding factors and claim the earths surface is adequately measured, including Oceans to nth of a ºC when the variables are enormous and therefore the margin of error, which is never presented.
I am going to have to stop this now because I have run out of time. Thank you for sharing your views. I profoundly disagree but it is always worth hearing the sceptical arguments again. The same applies to George L – I hope he will read this.
It’s not a question of agreeing or disagreeing, it’s a question of scientific and realistic analysis.
What neither surface temperature data nor tropospheric temperature data do is identify what’s causing the warming or cooling.
I have addressed that question earlier in this post where I explain it would take mankind 25,000 years to warm the planet by 2ºC at the current rate of human caused atmospheric CO2.
Even were your surface data accurate, what little warming occurring is from natural sources, assuming of course CO2 is the cause.
CO2 is a taxation reason not a pollutant.
Absolutely.. and the perfect ‘reason’ too for the instigators of the CO2 scam..
Strangely enough, what your chart appears to show is that from 1970 until 2000 observed data was employed. From 2000 the data is modelled, and the average smoothed across the two.
But you apparently don’t see anything untoward with this………
What makes you think this? The chart shows actual data from 1970 to 2017. It also shows what the model predicts for that period (the sold black line). The model came out in 2001 so the prediction for the future is a forecast and the prediction (if that is the right term) for the past is the hindcast.
Clearly you don’t understand what you are looking at…….
One des not average across observed data and anticipated data and present it as credible science.
Average the data from 1970 until 2000 by all means, then average from 2000 to 2020 separately but you simply cannot draw a line through them both and make any claim whatsoever. This is worse than deceptive, it bloody dishonest.
Shall I do a computer model for the next 20 years, splice it with Spencers data, then present it to you demonstrating the planet is projected to cool over the coming 20 years? By your standard you would be compelled to believe it.
It would be as believable as this nonsense.
This is just childish. You are scientifically illiterate.
I wanted to stop – but I have to follow up on this. First – let’s check we are talking about the same chart. I have reattached it to be sure.
There is no averaging on this chart. It shows actual data from 1970 to 2017 plus what the 2001 model predicted both in the past (1970-2001) and in the future (2001-2017). That is all. The point being to show how close the model came to the actual temperatures.
IPCC set up by Mr Maurice Strong.. he of the Club of Rome.. and 1993 Rio Earth Summit fame.. who had a billionaires dream that the West’s first world industrialised economies must be made to collapse..
The Club of Rome’s 1991 ‘The First Global Revolution’ that just by chance uttered the words below..
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill”.
Fuck off with your IPCC bullshit..
The Club of Rome, of Eugenics fame. Prince Philip was one of many prominent members.
Eugenicists very rarely apply the principles they espouse to themselves.
Yes.. the very same Club..
Take a deep dive into IPCC reports and it’s littered with examples which don’t support the concept of global warming or climate change. One of the more notable is their assessment of ‘extreme’ weather. By their analysis the weather today is no more extreme than in the past. Likely less so.
They don’t actually say this though, they use the terms Low, Medium and High confidence which is distorted by the climate hysterics to mean whatever they want it to mean.
Of course dissenting views on climate hysteria are simply cancelled.
As forEl Niño and La Niña, They are part of the earth’s weather/climate system. One can’t select to include or exclude them to suit a given moment in the climate hysterics narrative.
Exclude them and ‘scientists’ then must ‘homogenise the observable data to reach a conclusion they consider correct, which varies from scientist to scientist. Otherwise known as data tampering which climate hysterics are extremely good at.
Surface temperature data is contaminated by innumerable variables which makes it only fit for the purpose it was designed for, recording local temperatures. Stevenson screens are predominantly located across Europe and the USA, many of them compromised by UHI’s (Urban Heat Islands) whilst. much of the rest of the world is sparsely provided for.
There are also at least two types of Stevenson screen, the original European and the later American model. To make comparisons between the two one must adjust the data of one or the other, or both. Guess what, more data tampering.
Then there are modern digital thermometers installed in old fashioned Stevenson screens, which required more data adjustment.
Now there are a variety of modern, dedicated digital stations which, surprise, surprise, must be ‘adjusted’ to conform to Steven screen standards. Except in some cases they aren’t adjusted at all because it suits the warming narrative. Australia is a case in point which has been exposed by Jennifer Marohasy and Joe Nova in particular.
The only uncontaminated means of observing average global temperatures is by satellite. A project run with NASA by Dr. Roy Spencer monitors the upper Troposphere and has done so since the mid 70’s (Spencer has been running it since 2001). There were problems in the early days with, for example, unanticipated degradation of orbit/ equipment improvement/satellite replacement which were addressed, albeit by data adjustment, but matters have improved immensely since the early days.
The latest data, to date, demonstrates global average temperatures are 0.8ºC above the start point in 1979. The last seven years or so have shown very little, if any, warming which is entirely inconsistent with the claim that temperatures are determined by rising atmospheric CO2.
All records have their problems which is why you need to take a wide range into account. The satellite record is more evenly spread across the globe but it measures several different heights in the atmosphere but not the surface temperature. Also it is not some pure unambiguous record. The results involve models and assumptions just like the surface temperature record.
“All records have their problems which is why you need to take a wide range into account.”
No, one examines a wide range of data and go with the most reliable. What people like you do is pick and choose data to suit your argument. The data is my argument.
Where are the models in Spencers data? It’s the least ambiguous data available, by a very long way.
Direct comparison of rising atmospheric CO2 with temperature anomalies.
No correlation whatsoever.
This is a meaningless chart – where did you get it from? It is not obvious from the chart but the UAH satellite record for lower troposphere actually shows a warming trend of about +0.13 °C/decade (Spencer accepts this). This is considerably lower than any of the various surface temperature records and a bit lower than the RSS analysis of the same data but it is an upward trend. Atmospheric CO2 also shows an upward trend. If you want to make the slopes align all you have to do is adjust the vertical scale on one or the other.
Ah! now it comes out. “This is a meaningless chart” because it doesn’t support your preconceived notion that CO2 causes warming.
The chart doesn’t need to come from anywhere, it’s simply overlay of Mauna Loa data with temperature data over time. It’s not difficult to do and representative because the data is recognisable. Do the same with Spencers latest data and the results are the same.
Did I say anywhere there isn’t a warming trend?
Roy Spencer states “The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).”
You are factually wrong in stating +0.13ºC/decade and you also entirely misrepresent the observed findings which are +0.12ºC and 0.18ºC.
“If you want to make the slopes align all you have to do is adjust the vertical scale on one or the other.”
Assuming one is dishonest enough to do that.
The fact is that, were any of this data presented on a representative scale variations in temperature would be all but indistinguishable.
It would appear that Spencer makes the increase slighting higher than I said. Are you really going to make a big deal over the difference between +0.14 and +0.13? The split between land and sea is irrelevant in this case.
Adjusting the vertical scale is not dishonest. In the chart the scale on the LHS goes up about one degree for 360 ppm on the RHS – but this is completely arbitrary choice. You could redraw it so that 320 ppm was opposite -0.4 C and 400 pm was opposite +0.4C with just as much validity and the slopes would almost match. (Take any two increasing straight lines and you can always redraw the scale so they match). To be honest I am surprised I have to explain this.
The comparison is a direct visual representation of CO2 rise Vs temperature rise.
You can do what you want by dishonestly stretching or compressing the axis, it doesn’t make the slightest bit of difference, the comparison remains the same.
Occam’s razor.
Red-hot and MTF,
I have enjoyed this great contest and being a weather realist I will not hide.my contempt for the way these Olglobal warmists are hell bent on killing off those of (us) old folks who have survived the Chinese flu scam.
I am duty bound to congratulate MTFfor having the bravery to make his case.
This is particularly surprising as we have been told that “the science is settled” and we are doomed – doomed I say – unless we switch off civilisation.
Perhaps Mr MMF. could persuade some of his cohorts to debate?
CO2 follows warming with a considerable lag, not the other way around.
I wouldn’t mind betting you’re in full agreement with the ridiculous plandemic scam too. Same people behind it, so it figures..
Bird flu arrives just as the boostered put the finishing touches to destroying their immune systems
What could possibly go wrong?
Funny that. ‘Vaccines’ can deal with covid, but we’re supposed to be afraid of bird flu.
”Corvid” = mad crow disease. A terrible thing.
Hollywood is now infested with these unsubtle nudges to our subconscious that re-validate the nonsense unscientific orthodoxy of our established lettered classes.
Just last night i watched “Encounter” starring Riz Ahmed as an ex US Marine, probably suffering from PTSD who steals his kids away from their mother in the middle of the night. Gradually you find out that he believes that alien micro organisms that look like Tardigrades have begun to infest humans and take over their brains. The tell tale signs of infection is in their eyes.
It didn’t take long for me to realize that this was a brilliant way of characterizing those who are deluded, to the point of madness, into believing conspiracy theories. So deluded that they are willing to threaten the safety of their children….sound familiar?
Then of course its interspersed with 2 dimensional gun toting Trumpsters who show all their deplorability (sic) as ex Jan 6th “insurrectionists.” And not wanting to leave out the obligatory cool calm feminine character to lead through all those toxic men…
Honestly its getting hard to enjoy anything on the screen anymore without having to continually take bathroom breaks to stifle my gag reflexes.
Whilst not wishing to spoil your recreation, it amazes me that the denizons of this wonderful sceptic/realistic website would actually pay good money to be insulted by such crap as one gets on the likes of Net flix, or any other Marxist outfit.
But don’t mind me – I’m an old curmudgeon.
I get sick kicks out of spotting their increasingly unsubtle ways of brainwashing us.
But I fully confess to watching too much trash masked as entertainment.
Do you mean you watch it with a mask on?
A couple of meanderings…
Leonardo Dr Caprio in my old “Rough Guide to Conspiracy Theories” was listed with Jacinda Ahern, as being nominated as a Young Globalist Leader by the WEF, in 2004.
Yesterday, I discovered a film called “The Hamburg Syndrome”. It’s a German film. It’s weird, almost a black comedy, made on a low budget by the look of it, in 1979. It’s about a virus, and the parallels to what has happened in the last two years are startling! Wording used now has literally time travelled from that film! I won’t give too much away. It is on YT with subtitles. Worth a look – it’s soundtrack is the entire Equinoxe album by Jean Michel Jarre, so for that alone it’s worth watching!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JynYvU2LUjY
That’s the one. I would have put the link up myself but in the past when I’ve tried to add some YT links my posts they got instantly removed!
Call me selfish, but the biggest problem I had with the movie is that it simply wasn’t good. And not funny. It didn’t seem to be populated by actual human beings, instead a collection of imbecilic, heavy-handed and overdone caricatures.
Satire is an art form best applied with a very-tipped brush. Not a fire hose.
A film that is ‘so good’ that it wasn’t able to be released in cinemas. And when the inevitable ‘arguments’ from the COVID enthusiasts come, saying that the pandemic has chopped audiences there by half, point them to the Spider-man film and how it has raked in at the global box office, noting that it has easily beaten its two predecessors in under 3 weeks and without getting a release in China, all while some countries are locked down.
Odd, that. If you produce a good quality product, they will come.
Bear in mind that Netflix also hosted the (IMHO) French nonce flick, ‘Cuties’.
Off topic, but had to laugh when going to our local butcher/come grocery store. The butcher is a bit sceptic, doesn’t bother with face coverings, but has a useless piece of perspex in front of him (with big hole to put things through). However, the payment counter has the usual perspex and the shop assistant has a visor on. His visor has condensation on it which is coalescing to form beads of moisture which is dripping down onto whichever surface he’s working on. Can somebody inform me how hygienic that is and whether the unmasked butcher is more hygienic than the “face covered” shop assistant?
It doesn’t matter if it works or not, its all about the theatre of compliance.
wonder how she got parts
How they still get parts
She’s an excellent actress!
Yeuk.
From that picture it looks more like the film should be called “Zombie robot and the Professor” and be a sci-fi meets Barbara Cartland mix.
Perhaps anyone who has seen it could give a comment on ‘Rotten Tomatoes’ website.
From Screen Zealots’ critic, Louisa Moore: “A star-studded misfire that is smug, irritating, and borderline intolerable.” I think she understood the film all too well!
Why don’t climate scientists ever mention the Grand Solar Minimum that we’re currently moving into – 30 years of cold weather ahead? It’s a scientific fact and global warming clearly isn’t if they’re failing to take this into account. Following the science? I don’t think so.
I thought it was a brilliant satire and didn’t even directly connect it with climate science. It takes the piss out of corrupt politicians, newspapers, TV, social media, big corporations, clueless young celebrities, megalomaniac billionaires, fascism and dimwit rednecks. For me it was more a humorous satire on our current unconscious culture as it barrels towards…who knows. It underscores the polarization of our time and how we’ve splintered into competing, alternative realities. I loved it and thought it was spot on. One of my favorite films of 2021.
Another thing which needs restating every once in a while: As term, global temperature is exactly as nonsensical as public health. The public is a set of individuals which have a health. The set itself doesn’t. In exactly the same way, every location on earth has a temperature. But the the set of all of these locations hasn’t.
Averaging, that is, adding a lot of values and dividing the sum by the number of values, is a way to reduce the influence of random, that is, evenly distributed, measurement errors when measuring a single, measurable quantity. But applying the same mathematical algorithm to a set of unrelated numbers doesn’t magically transform them into measurements of the same quantity. Claiming otherwise is cargo cult science.
Being hit by a comet, or an asteroid or large meteorite, is a real concern. Instead we are wasting resources, time and effort on toys for the decadent such as windmills and solar panels. Is that the message?
Nothing irrational in expecting “green lockdowns” to arrive in a country near you soon. The lunatics started writing about it within days of the first lockdown.
Perhaps Mr DC had a hand in helping them write it.
Superb essay, Mr Morrison. The Chilean academic arguing to Nazify government to preserve democracy (bomb the village to save it!) was new to me and I shall read and circulate his entire manifesto. For in a few months/years what crawls out of an obscure hole in Chile will be a commandment of the Climate Cult, so should be exposed to the light the better to shrivel.
Isn’t this Leonardo person another of Klows Swab’s ‘young global leaders’?
No conflict of interest there, then.
We have a government drunk with the control they have had from Covid restrictions upping their game to use the same scare tactics to aim for zero carbon with the same crazy software models and even worse inacuracy. I urge people to search out the information from Canadian Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore who has studied climate change and relates what is happening now to long term climate history of our planet. If more people listened to him and understood what he is saying there would be much less unfounded hysteria about climate change.