Live Streaming links for Climate Movie: Not Evil, Just Wrong

Stream of Conscience: Not Evil Just Wrong to Stream Live, for Free, Over Internet This Sunday. Here’s the trailer video:

In this movie, you’ll see Dr. James Hansen refuse to say Steve McIntyre’s name, among other things.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Fewer than 50 hours from the 8 pm EDT Sunday launch of Not Evil Just Wrong — set to be the world’s largest simultaneous film premiere party in history — the documentary’s co-creators today announced options for people across the globe to watch it FREE over the internet. Live links follow.

In addition to the thousands of individual DVD/theatrical premiere parties being hosted across the nation (map available here), the documentary will also be streamed live over the Internet — accessed for free by anyone who visits the site. Not Evil Just Wrong will also be available on several Internet domains to ensure bandwidth sufficient to handle the expected massive interest in the documentary.

The popular website Big Hollywood (http://bighollywood.breitbart.com) has announced its intention to live-stream the documentary over its site, as has the American Family Association (http://action.afa.net). Other options are expected to follow.

“Technology has always been anathematic to those who dominate the modern environmental movement,” said Ann McElhinney, co-director of Not Evil Just Wrong. “And after this Sunday, perhaps we’ll have a clearer idea why. Three years ago, immediately following the release of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, we simply wouldn’t have had the capability to reach this many people short of equipping each and every one of them with his own DVD. Today, we have that technology, and thanks to Andrew Breitbart and the folks at AFA, millions of additional people will have the chance to see this film, consider its message, and be inspired to act as a result.”

Visitors to the live-streaming sites will also be able to watch (and, through social networking sites, even participate in) the panel discussion scheduled for immediately after the film, featuring experts such as world-renowned new media pioneer and ACORN buster Andrew Breitbart and the inestimable John Fund of the Wall Street Journal — among several others who will be on hand to moderate the panel and answer questions submitted by the worldwide audience.

Relevant links and information are included below.

What: World premiere of Not Evil Just Wrong

When: Sunday, 8:00 PM EDT; panel discussion with Andrew Breitbart, John Fund, Prof. Richard Lindzen, and Prof. Don Roberts Emeritus to immediately follow.

Where: One of hundreds of premiere sites across the country (and thousands around the world)

Live Streams:

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/not-evil-just-wrong

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com

http://action.afa.net

To Participate:

– Twitter: http://twitter.com/Not_Evil

– Facebook: http://facebook.com/noteviljustwrong/

– YouTube (just send us a message with your attached video):

http://youtube.com/noteviljustwrong

About these ads

182 thoughts on “Live Streaming links for Climate Movie: Not Evil, Just Wrong

  1. Is Our Sleepy Sun Making Our Planet Cold?

    I’m trying to think of a good headline written on a 4th grade level for the sheeple to understand for an article I’m writing.

    Our Sun has been in a low output state for more than two years which is a major reason why last year was cold and why this year will be even colder.

    Does this sound like a good starting point for an article on why it has been getting so cold in recent years?

    I look forward to seeing you people freezing your Fing a$$e$ off to make you realize global warming, global cooling, and climate change are not your fault.

    You must speak out to stop Obama from signing the Copenhagen Treaty in December, based on Man-Made global warming. They want to take control of the worlds energy markets blaming it on you because you are causing global warming with your CO2.

    This is sort of what the article will be like.
    What do you think of the headline?

    P.S.
    This is a live stream feed of this new movie tonight.

    Not Evil Just Wrong

    Stream of Conscience: Not Evil Just Wrong to Stream Live, for Free, Over Internet This Sunday

    http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS172412+16-Oct-2009+PRN20091016

  2. I am so happy now. I thought I was going to miss this film on release day. Only 2 places in the UK where I could have watched it, and now I will be glued to my computer.

    Thank you for the information.

  3. Timing could of been a lot better for those of us in Europe to join in. Maybe the Asian audience can provide more hits

  4. OT
    another publicity stunt from the maledives.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1221021/Maldives-underwater-cabinet-meeting-held-highlight-impact-climate-change.html

    the maledives are well known for obstruction of science that has shown that during recent decades sea levels around their islands have actually fallen and not risen.

    they are also known for not allowing a single non-muslim to be a citizen and further having one of the highest birthrates on earth.

    male is now the most crowded city on the planet.

    http://maps.google.co.nz/maps?hl=en&tab=wl&q=male

    it must be very welcome for them to put the blame on others, because, with or without climate change, this country is running into deep trouble in a short period of time.

    the negative side effect of the climate change hysteria is, that countries like the maledives stop addressing their own destructive lifestyles and this is an ongoing issue, particularly in the muslim world, endangering the life of other cultures on the whole planet, as we know it.

    http://maps.google.co.nz/maps?hl=en&tab=wl&q=male

  5. I can’t get to the link from this computer I am currently using, I will use my home system later and have a gander, but, the cynic in me wonders how long it’ll be before the video links are pulled?

  6. Nigel is right. It will be impossible to see it here in Europe, as 8PM EDT is 1AM here in Portugal and UK, and 2 AM in most of Europe :-(
    Ecotretas

  7. Michael (00:16:38) :

    …………This is sort of what the article will be like.

    I’ve just finished writing an essay (in Japanese) on the AGW fraud, to be pulished next month as a 10-odd-page article in a domestic journal for the general public.

    The starter of my essay is a refutation on an errant TV footage, in the morning of 4 September, which tried to make us believe that the Arctic ice cover is now only half that 30 years ago, without saying that (1) ice cover minimum occurs in September every year and (2) the “half” is meaningful only by comparison with the abnormally high minimum in 1996.

    Cheers.

  8. October 24th is World Climate Action Day. I’ve thanked local sympathers for letting me know and informed them (with very brief reasons why) that I shall be in mourning on that day.

    But I always live in hope. Perhaps this brave new film will help. And incidencally, “brave new world” as used by Aldous Huxley (not Darwin’s bulldog Huxley) is a sad misquote of Miranda’s words in Shakespeare’s The Tempest. I live in hope of seeing that original quote properly remembered too.

  9. Does anybody know it this film is going to be available on the web after it has been shown and streamed?

  10. It’s becoming increasingly clear that environmental catastrophism is the new racism. ‘There are too many people in the world’. I came across this comment on another blog which shows the depths these people are prepared to sink to:

    …Paying KSA [Saudi Arabia] some money to go to full-on Peak [oil] Outreach; to drastically reduce birthrates and quickly raise death rates, so that internal KSA consumption can decline makes sense to me, even though it is Not Politically Correct [PC]. But it could reduce the [decline] somewhat so profitable exports [of oil] can continue a little longer…

    No, it’s not PC, it’s incitement to genocide. It’s criminal.

  11. Anyone know of some software I could use to record this webcast? I won’t be awake at 3am UK time.

  12. If someone tells you there are too many people in the world ask them to put a name to these people. Jews? Chinese? Muslims? Hindus? If they are reluctant to say that any group should reduce itself by force or pressure then their original point is lost.

    I’ll be watching this great documentary made by brave, honest filmmakers whose names will be written in hardest stone in the years to come.

  13. What: World premiere of Not Evil Just Wrong
    When: Sunday, 8:00 PM EDT

    What time zone is Eastern Time?

    http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/time-zone/usa/eastern-time/

    Eastern Time is the Eastern Time Zone of the United States of America (USA) and Canada. Eastern Standard Time (EST) is 5 hours behind Greenwich Mean Time (GMT-5).

    In most states in the USA and in most provinces in Canada, Daylight-Saving Time (DST) is observed. During DST the time is shifted forward by 1 hour to EDT; which is 4 hours behind Greenwich Mean Time (GMT-4).

    After the Summer months Eastern Time is shifted back by 1 hour to US Eastern Standard Time (EST) or (GMT-5).

  14. Does anybody know it this film is going to be available on the web after it has been shown and streamed?

    I think you’ll be able to purchase the DVD for a few quid after the release. Hopefully it’ll end up on YouTube too.

  15. OK, snip this if you must…. BUT…. the evil do not have to be self-aware that they are evil. “oh well, she sincerely believed she was doing the right thing..” In a very real real sense, Nuremburg put paid to that idea. The AGW cause is evil.

  16. Based on the trailer I don’t like this film at all. As much as I believe the global warming up till now is not out of it’s normal ranges and is very very probable reversing while we look at it I also believe there should be some governemental control on behalf of the environment of this planet. So when the lady says in the trailer “We are all human beings we all have the right to be here” I say yes but so have the other living beings on this planet. The fact that we are human don’t gives us the right to spend as many oil, cut as many forests or make as many children as we possibly would like for our own behalf

  17. A better title is:

    “So wrong, they are really evil”

    The imbalances in the world can be traced to an unjust and unstable money and banking system.

    Those who think there are too many people can off themselves. Otherwise, are they not hypocrites?

  18. “The name that cannot be spoken!”

    This is beginning to sound like the Mohammed Ali fight against was it Frazier who would name his name.” Whats my name, whats my name?

    But seriously, this has all the hallmarks of a religion, so for Hansen to utter the name that cannot be uttered would have been like a Jew during pre-christian times uttering the name Jehovah. Anyone caught making such utterances would have been put to death by stoning.

    Maybe they would like to stone “deniers” to death as well. Fanatics!

  19. Jacob Bronowski made a clear warning in “The Ascent of Man” what happens when people think that they have absolute knowledge with no test in reality. Are we going to make that same mistake again? The push button order and the human act, its something that the warmistas should ask themselves “Could it be that we are wrong?”

    Yes you can!

  20. Just watched the trailer, IMO, it’s as bad as Al’s mocumentary, little on fact and truth, scaremongering in fact.

  21. “The fact that we are human don’t gives us the right to spend as many oil, cut as many forests or make as many children as we possibly would like for our own behalf”

    1. We’ve used coal and wood for centuries longer. Petrol is much cleaner. Oil hasn’t been used for long as a source of energy and won’t be much longer.

    2. The amount of forest cover, woodlands parks, etc is somewhat proportionate to the demands of society. A consumer society with high demands for wood will grow more trees to meet the demand. That’s why in North America today there is just as much forest cover as a century ago. Now visit a less consumer orientated society or where terrible poverty exists. You’ll notice wood is consumed for energy but trees are not replaced.

    3. Our birthrates are tied to our longevity, prosperity and death rates. The healthier and wealthier we are the faster our birth rates drop. High birth rates exist among the poor and where women do not have many rights. So generally people tend to have more children not out of greed but for the survival of their family or religion.

  22. “The fact that we are human don’t gives us the right to spend as many oil, cut as many forests or make as many children as we possibly would like for our own behalf” Gerald

    If we can honestly pay for those things, then why not? The rub though, is the word “honestly”. As the issuer of the world’s reserve currency, the US can print “gold” and unjustly over consume (so far). Fractional reserve banking also warps society so it is no wonder if we over consume, destroy the environment, fight unnecessary wars, etc.

  23. From the preview, I dislike the ‘enhancing’ effect of the music. In my opinion, documentaries should refrain from playing dramatic or ‘sad’ piano pieces during key parts. I say this because it’s quite a manipulative trait of documentary makers and it needn’t be used when the facts speak for themselves.

    Without seeing the film, I don’t want to make any judgments but I hope it doesn’t become a mantra for skeptics just because it is a ‘skeptic’ film.

    I know for certain that it will be discussed on ABC, Australia with Tony Jones, with a panel of so-called experts, dismissing its claims and creating diversions by focusing on small discrepancies, regardless of its accuracy.

    But these are just my concerns. I dislike hysteria on both sides of the fence.
    I hope the film is a good one.

  24. The fact that we are human don’t gives us the right to spend as many oil, cut as many forests or make as many children as we possibly would like for our own behalf

    This film isn’t about your right to fuck up the environment; it’s about the emperor “Global Warming” having no clothes. That CO2 isn’t a pollutant shouldn’t be lost on you (and indeed, it seems it isn’t). If Al Gore wants to campaign to reduce heavy metal pollution in the environment (for example), or to stop the cutting down of rain forest, or preserve fish stocks, then that is all good. But it is not the same as perverting the Scientific Process by making up a totem upon which to hang a whole host of anti-technocratic, anti-modernity, pseudo-communistic, anti-progress, anti-democratic lies to scare the general public into paying more taxes and reducing our economic prosperity.

    Note that the big winners from the CO2 movement, apart from the Climate Scientists raking in government grants for seemingly cretinous studies, are Al Gore (with his financial interests in Carbon Offsets) and Goldman Sachs, which of course will be taking a cut of Carbon Trading deals if cap & trade goes through.

    I listened to a radio phone in last night, where a “Climate Change Protester” attempted to defend his groups’ violence at a recent demonstration at a coal fired power station yesterday here in the UK. Three police officers were injured and several of the protestors, as they attempted to pull down fencing and gain access to the site illegally. His justification was frightening to listen to: “300,000 people die each year from the effects of Climate Change; we are prepared to break the law in order to save lives”. Notwithstanding the fact that 300,000 people don’t die each year from “Climate Change”, this man is effectively an “eco terrorist” promoting a policy the next logical step of which is to engage in direct action, including direct violent action, against the population as a whole (much like any other terrorist group that believes strongly in its righteousness).

    That many more people would die if the power were switched off at this power station (assuming, as I am, that the UK will start to experience blackouts in 2015 due to our pathetically stupid politicians) is completely lost on the cretinous fools engaging in this demonstration. I think it’s about time we engaged in some direct action of our own. One small thing you can do is watch this movie and promote a sceptical position to others, if that is what you believe, not about concern for the Environment as a whole, but about this particular fraud-célèbre.

    Good luck!

  25. Michael: You wrote, “Our Sun has been in a low output state for more than two years which is a major reason why last year was cold and why this year will be even colder.”

    Your sentence has two problems. This first is that globally temperatures have risen this year, primarily in response to the transition from a La Nina state to an El Nino one. Here’s a graph that includes the the most recent TLT (temperature of the lower troposphere) anomalies from Roy Spencer posted here at WUWT:

    The corresponding WUWT post:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/07/september-2009-uah-global-temperature-update-for-uah-and-rss/

    And here’s the a graph of Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomalies from my monthly update:

    And one of NINO3.4 SST anomalies:

    And their corresponding post:

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/10/september-2009-sst-anomaly-update.html

    The second problem with your statement is that you’re claiming the long solar minimum is responsible for a reduction in global temperature (one that does not exist). As Dr. Svalgaard reminds us, the variations in the solar cycle (min to max, or max to min) can only be responsible for a change in global temperature of 0.07 deg C. You’re also implying that with an extended solar minimum there is some kind of cumulative cooling effect–that is, you’re implying that the longer the solar cycle stays at minumum, the colder global temperatures will get. What is the basis of this?

  26. I’ll be watching it or trying to anyway. I would not be surprised if there are significant denial of service attacks on the hosting sites.

  27. Gerard (02:30:53) :

    Based on the trailer I don’t like this film at all. As much as I believe the global warming up till now is not out of it’s normal ranges and is very very probable reversing while we look at it I also believe there should be some governemental control on behalf of the environment of this planet. So when the lady says in the trailer “We are all human beings we all have the right to be here” I say yes but so have the other living beings on this planet. The fact that we are human don’t gives us the right to spend as many oil, cut as many forests or make as many children as we possibly would like for our own behalf

    But Gerald, that is the way nature in the biosphere works. Like the mills of God, it grinds slowly but it grinds exceedingly fine. Any biological phylum that overpopulates, is naturally cut down to size when it finishes all possible food sourcesand may become extinct.

    The argument should go a different way, not ethics, but logic. If our brains do not regulate our collective behavior, we will end up as one more extinct species . It is the human species that will be endangered if we do not husband the resources we need and control our population growth, not the rest of the biosphere in the end.

  28. I’m going to do my best to stay up until the small hours to watch this. I might need a large pot of coffee to assist me.

  29. Gerard (02:30:53) :

    Good point – to a point.

    I was based in Hong Kong in the ’70’s, and really liked the place. I went back a couple of years ago for a visit. I have to say that I was very disappointed at the amount of air pollution caused by manufacturing on the mainland. A lot of other places in Asia are like that too.

    So we do have to do something about air quality – I have absolutely no doubts about that.

    But, being alarmist about global climate change, and giving dire predictions about what will happen if we do not cease to be industrialized, and blaming it all on a gas that is part and parcel of being a carbon-based life-form, is … well it is just utter stupidity.

    All in my humble opinion, of course.

  30. “Ice is the enemy of life”..not to the billion or so people who rely on Glacier fed water supply.

  31. Al Gore’s Holy Hologram (03:20:16) :

    Nice point – national/regional birthrate is inversely proportional to economic output?

  32. Back2Bat (03:23:55) :

    “As the issuer of the world’s reserve currency, the US can print “gold” and unjustly over consume (so far).”

    The only reason why the US dollar is the world’s reserve currency is because the Fed has resisted “printing gold”. If it ever does (and it has come close in this recession), then the world financial markets will move to another currency that is seen as being more stable.

    Right now, the Chinese Yuan would be an alternative.

  33. “Based on the trailer I don’t like this film at all.”

    I’m with Gerard. The promo of this film and some of the WUWTcomments are as frightening as the aggressive polarisation of US politics generally. I was a Greenie before there was ‘green’ and now I am witnessing this hysterical beast overwhelm all environmental concerns. In Australia we cant defend the preservation of old forests from blatant profiteering without proclaiming their value as ‘carbon stores’. How pathetic we have become!…grovelling to this beast for some old-fashion protection of our shared environment, the forests, the rivers, the oceans… And then when the whole beast finally collapses,what will happen? Will we be over-run by gun-slinging cowboy libertarianism? Must we now abandoned any concern for sustainable living? We accept national and federal governments, so what’s so bad about world government to help us manage world resources?

    We may not share politics but one thing many WUWT readers seem to share is a trust in the power of science to help us establish facts and help us solve problems. Together we are witnessing that something terrible has happened within the modern institutions of professional science. And this seems to be unprecidented in its scale and nature. What went wrong? How much politicization? How much opportunism? How much that historically persistent tendency to hysterical doomsdayism? When this is all over, we are going to have to sort it all out. Storming in and planting a flag of victory will bring no peace. But then maybe its not peace that many of us want, but revenge. For me that is no victory at all.

  34. I was part of the Melbourne premier tonight, a few notable people but a fairly small crowd. Overall its an anti gore show and perhaps a little disappointing (they could have buried him more) but great to see Hansen squirming.

  35. tallbloke (01:33:57) :
    Anyone know of some software I could use to record this webcast? I won’t be awake at 3am UK time.

    I can understand showing it at one time initially, for dramatic effect, but why not make the film available for instant viewing by anyone at any time?

    Netflix does this for thousands of movies now (for subscribers), so surely someone like Mr. Brietbart could do the same with this film.

    /Mr Lynn

  36. Re Bob Tisdale
    You’re also implying that with an extended solar minimum there is some kind of cumulative cooling effect–that is, you’re implying that the longer the solar cycle stays at minumum, the colder global temperatures will get. What is the basis of this?

    Bob, check the Maunder minimum period on CET record 1680-1715:

    If Leif Svalgaard told so, it does not mean it is so. 0.1% might be correct, but there are possible changes in albedo, limiting the sun energy reaching the surface.

  37. I will watch, but I hope it is better than the trailer would suggest. I think they could have come up with a better title as well. Perhaps something like: “Global Warming Hysteria: Bad for Science, Bad for Mankind”.

  38. Incidentally, I came across this youtube promo “Raise your Voice. Change climate change”. Although the wording appears to be non specific, the video certainly emphasizes the pro-warmist argument. (accompanied by Hollywood orchestral music to enhance emotional impact)

    I wonder if they will be non partisan in their selection?

    http://www.youtube.com/cop15

  39. The British police aren’t making arrests, or preventing direct action in advance, under the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 2005. This shows we do not live in a ‘racially equal’ society. If these people trying to break into power stations were Muslim they would not have gotten this far. But because these are mostly white university goers from upper-middle class families and are in the pay of wealthy businessmen such as Mark Constantine, they are allowed to spread disinformation, injure policemen, and attempt to invade private property and disrupt power supplies during the winter. And when a nervous policeman does something as meagre as slapping a protestor the whole police force is villainised by the media as a heavy handed brutal organisation.

    The reasons are clear: They try to break police morale down so that in the future the police refrain from taking proper action and become the servants who obey the eco-tyrants.

    Meanwhile any display of non-racial patriotism in Britain is attacked by the petro-dollar funded United Against Fascism. If you protest against Islamic Extremism, even if you’re black or Asian, the UAF come after you and brand you racist scum. If you start a libertarian party like the UKIP, they brand you a racist. If you do not believe in climate catastrophe, they brand you a racist and equate you with being a Holocaust denier.

    It is quite clear that in Britain there is now a nexus of radical groups, many of whom share with the Islamists the same financiers and a deep hatred for Jews, who will use any issue they can to oppress dissent, subvert free society and impose authoritarianism by use of physical force and propaganda by their allies in the media.

  40. anna v (04:27:39) : “The argument should go a different way, not ethics, but logic. If our brains do not regulate our collective behavior, we will end up as one more extinct species . It is the human species that will be endangered if we do not husband the resources we need and control our population growth, not the rest of the biosphere in the end.”

    Let’s take that one step further. Who will claim to be the marshalls of husbanding the resources and controling the population growth? The green movement. They see themselves as the saviors the world. They place themselves as gods above everyone else. Why? To control what everyone else thinks, says and does so that their vision of a perfect world is instituted. To what end? So that they can maintain power over everything, so they can live high off the hog at the expense of all others. Remember they say that everyone is equal but believe some are more equal than others. Tyranny hides it’s face behind many masks.

  41. tallbloke (1:33:57) … and other Eussies […] 1. Get Banshee Alarm or some other
    wakening up software if your clock-radio or alarm-clock won’t help…!?
    2. Use Camstudio free version…if the movie is NOT directly DOWNSTREAMABLE,
    if so, RealPlayer or some Firefox downloading add-on…BUT if you don’t wake up,
    a not too qualified guess is that YouTube will have it within hours…anyhow…
    Ustream Trailer not downloadable but Big Holywood’s was…Good Luck!

  42. Rereke Whakaaro (04:40:29) :

    “then the world financial markets will move to another currency that is seen as being more stable.

    Right now, the Chinese Yuan would be an alternative.”

    Thanks for the early morning joke of the day! Utter nonsense.

    Back on topic;

    It is indeed unfortunate that the film will be streaming live in the wee hours for our oppressed friends in occupied Europe… I can only hope there is something in place that lets people watch the film afterwards. (I would think there will be)

    I’m thinking there will be a concerted effort to disrupt this premiere. Here’s hoping all goes well.

  43. BernieL (04:53:10) :

    “so what’s so bad about world government to help us manage world resources?”

    Joke of the day #2!

  44. Smokey and Tom

    I said use our brains, not our brawn.

    Brawn is what the green movement is using together with manipulating the herd instincts of humans.

    Brains lead us to graded conservation measures and teaching fishing rather than offering fish to the hungry. In general, the first three solutions to the problem of overpopulation and scarcity of resources is, 1) education 2) education 3) education.

    I would add that for the third world education of women should come first. An educated woman always finds a way to control her fertility.

  45. @Bernie

    “And then when the whole beast finally collapses,what will happen? Will we be over-run by gun-slinging cowboy libertarianism?”

    Yes, I hope so. It will be like in the 60ies or 70ies, where you could be free. You could go to a gun store and buy a machine gun (in my country). Great. It was safe in our streets, not like now. You could buy LSD (until end of the 60ies). Great. You could go fishing without making a test before. Great. You could ride your bike without a helmet. Great.
    Etc. etc.
    Now you can’t breathe anymore because of all the laws. Because of people like you. Thank you very much.

    If you have a problem with freedom, visit a specialist and he will give you a prescription for Paroxeton, Buspar or Temesta.
    Or, even better: Go to North Korea

    Say hello to Kim Jong Il

  46. Juraj V: You wrote, “Bob, check the Maunder minimum period…0.1% might be correct, but there are possible changes in albedo, limiting the sun energy reaching the surface.”

    If “there are possible changes in albedo, limiting the sun energy reaching the surface” then the Maunder Minumum cannot be the result solely of the variation in TSI, unless you’re implying that the change in TSI caused the change in albedo.

  47. Currently the yuan is pegged to the dollar. But there is a concerted effort to displace the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.

    Part of the interest in replacing the dollar is due to concern over the U.S. government’s failure to support a strong currency. But that is not the entire reason.

    There is also a concurrent push to establish a world court with jurisdiction over all UN countries and their citizens. That would give the UN the authority to prosecute financial crimes such as counterfeiting, fraud, hiding assets, possessing gold, etc.

    There is no doubt that that new authority will be abused for political purposes. [Note that the EU has already repeatedly fined Microsoft hundreds of $millions on trumped-up accusations, such as the ridiculous charge Microsoft didn’t load competitors’ operating systems onto its own software. That ravenous greed by abusive EU officials will only escalate — and it will be nothing compared with what the thoroughly corrupt UN has planned.]

    Those who believe that the UN is our friend, or that it is not a criminal organization, are among the most deluded people on the planet. Giving that corrupt organization legal authority over American citizens amounts to handing the UN our collective heads on a platter.

    Unfortunately, the current Administration and Congress prefer to abjectly bow down to foreign potentates and dictators, and go on world apology tours, rather than represent the interests of American citizens.

  48. “If our brains do not regulate our collective behavior, we will end up as one more extinct species”

    Tom’s comments are sensational. Nowhere in the history of human kind have we been endangered.

    This is not the problem, hegemony is.

    I don’t think the current rise in socialist principles and environmentalism is anything new. History is plagued with such power struggles and the reason for this is dishonesty. I’ve said it many times before: all bad things are done in the name of good. How is humanity supposed to progress when it possesses an amnesia which prevents itself from recognizing new iterations of the same bad behaviour.

    It was never a question of the human species dying out. It’s a matter of changing the balance of power by undermining capitalism and punishing the western world.

    The left are disingenuous about their motives. They hide behind philanthropy and good deeds. Isn’t that what all subverters do?

  49. Bob Tisdale…
    “globally temperatures have risen this year, primarily in response to the transition from a La Nina state to an El Nino one. Here’s a graph that includes the the most recent TLT (temperature of the lower troposphere) anomalies from Roy Spencer posted here at WUWT:
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Sept_09.jpg

    Reply
    …What you fail to mention is that the average temperature only went up 0.42ºC and it has since fallen to just over 0.2ºC and is still falling, so average temperatures are still falling, not rising.

    ——————————-

    If you want a more active role in the so-called “global warming” debate you can join The Global Warming Petition Project

    Purpose of the Petition
    The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

    Publicists at the United Nations, Mr. Al Gore, and their supporters frequently claim that only a few “skeptics” remain – skeptics who are still unconvinced about the existence of a catastrophic human-caused global warming emergency.

    It is evident that 31,478 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,029 PhDs, are not “a few.” Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,478 American scientists are not “skeptics.”

    These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counter- productively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.

    31,478 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs

    See a full list and join the fight here

    http://www.petitionproject.org/

  50. Robinson
    I don’t know whether you followed the post on “top ten reasons…” a few days ago. A “contributor” called eye8eon posted some totally worthless comment and Anthony kindly provided a link to his blog site. Curious about such people I tried to engage in a dialogue, and extracted some interesting responses from him, and I almost felt sorry for him until he concluded with:”So my views will never be changed, ever…certainly not by someones comments, even well formed arguments, because this guys not for turning…….” I am guessing this self-proclaimed anarchist was one of the protestors at the power station that you refer to, as his blog is anti EON.

    Irrational, illogical, inflexible and dangerous spring to mind, and this seems to be representative of the level of debate perpetrated by the vast majority of warmists.

  51. Inconvenient Questions to Gore Get the Mic Cut Off

    From PHELIM MCALEER

    Last week at the Society of Environmental Journalists conference in Wisconsin, former Vice President Al Gore took questions from journalists about global warming for the first time in years. I attended to ask him about factual errors in his movie, “An Inconvenient Truth.”

    You wouldn’t know it from the sparse media coverage, but the British High Court found so many errors in Gore’s movie in 2007 that British schools no longer can show the film without the equivalent of a health warning.

    I asked Gore if he intends to correct the record. He dodged the question, and the so-called “reporters” defended his right to be evasive by shutting off my mic.

    The encounter was disappointing but not surprising. I served years of hard time as a liberal journalist in Europe and learned that covering the environmental beat meant toeing the line of extremism — no inconvenient questions allowed.

    But it is now time for journalists, and the consumers and businesses that will pay the ultimate price, to start questioning the conventional wisdom about global warming and exposing its true cost. If alarmists like Al Gore get their way, millions of American families will watch as their dreams of a prosperous and pleasant future disappear.

    The evidence of environmentalism run amok abounds in Europe. Spain believed the spin that environmental regulation can create “green jobs” and boost the economy. Now the country has 18% unemployment. Britain could suffer blackouts because of policies that require the country to replace coal with fuels like solar and wind power that aren’t readily available or reliable.

    Unfortunately for Americans, many of the lawmakers who represent them in Congress seem unwilling to learn from Europe’s mistakes.

    The Senate is now considering a bill that Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., co-authored to create a European-style “cap and trade” system for carbon dioxide emissions, and he just won the endorsement of a key swing senator. International pressure on the United States to adopt such legislation also will increase in December at climate talks in Copenhagen.

    That’s bad news for taxpayers. The Obama administration reluctantly admitted last month that cap-and-trade would cost the average American family $1,761 a year.

    That is a rosy prediction. A Heritage Foundation analysis puts the cost at an average of $2,979 a year and as much as $4,600 a year by 2035. Jobs will disappear, energy prices will skyrocket, and the American Dream will become an unattainable fantasy for many.

  52. Bob Tisdale (06:38:11) :

    If “there are possible changes in albedo, limiting the sun energy reaching the surface” then the Maunder Minumum cannot be the result solely of the variation in TSI, unless you’re implying that the change in TSI caused the change in albedo.

    Hit the nail on the head, but there are 3 streams of influence that result from reduced activity. TSI is one, then magnetic with UV following (UV varies more than TSI). TSI being the minor contributor, with the albedo players (the rest) scoring highest.

  53. I’ll be watching the video, but I’m not very encouraged by the promo. I don’t think it will advance the sum of our knowledge very much. Having a laugh at the major progenitors of global warming/climate change will be a small payback for all the slurs and smears that have been directed at people like us, but I think our time is better spent trying to figure out what is driving the climate. I think we’re a lot closer to understanding than the global warming brigade, but we don’t know for certain either.

  54. Bob Tisdale (03:34:09) wrote:
    “As Dr. Svalgaard reminds us, the variations in the solar cycle (min to max, or max to min) can only be responsible for a change in global temperature of 0.07 deg C.”

    Please elaborate; with apologies to Dr. Svalgaad I missed his reminder.

  55. Robinson, very much agree.

    Any terrorist group is usually a combination of two or three things: a lust for power; a low moral outlook which prefers violence; and tragically, an absolute truth conviction.

    We see it with extreme animal rights activists, who think nothing of setting fire to university buildings for the sake of their cause.

    Fortunately, the majority of greens are actually ethically good people, people who genuinely care, and I really mean that.

    However, this has become combined with recent fashionable notions that science and technology are cold and heartless, and reason alone is not “wisdom”, so they turn instead to their feelings and intuitions (combined also with what’s partly a decades old Feminist agenda against so-called masculine hierarchy, reason, achievement, competitiveness.)

    I think as the greens are challenged on the science, and various scientific hypothesis come to be rejected, we’ll start to see that the greenies are not actually that bothered about science anyway and never were. Remember, in PoMo greenie culture, science is just a “likely story” created in a cultural context of social power structures–or at least, that’s what a good PoMo greenie would feel deep down. If anything, “The Science” is just there to convince the poor saps who still believe in science as objectively disclosing real truths. PoMo doesn’t believe in grand narratives, and so a theory like AGW would be the first to be rejected. But strangely the PoMos turn a blind eye to it, and actually hold up placards insisting it is all Peer Reviewed by Authority. Deep down, PoMo greenies abhor all authorities. They’re always banging on about alternative medicine, alternative health, alternative spirituality–why so keen suddenly on extolling the virtues of mainstream scientific authority??

    I’ve chatted to my greenie friends, and when we get to the point where they accept that the ice caps are not melting, the positive water feedback isn’t there, the ice isn’t thinning, the oil isn’t about to run out, the seas aren’t rising, the hurricanes aren’t increasing, the temperatures haven’t gone up, AGW isn’t the only theory in town, and alternative hypothesis exist, and so on–when we get to the point where they can accept all of that, then my greenie friends will say,

    “but wouldn’t it be better if everything just slowed down, if the rat race just stopped—we don’t need more progress—wouldn’t it be better if we all regained a sense of community?”

    Well, what if they’d said that in 1800, would you give up everything you have today? Would your great great grandchildren be happy that you decided to forego all progress for the next century?

    I think if you really want to speak to the core greenies, you have to talk about these issues that matter to them personally—community, a sense of meaning in life, a sense of belonging, and so on.

    The trouble with global warming is that it resonates all too well with these deep feelings of wanting to belong in a global chaotic complex world, which is why the only solutions they’ll accept are the ones that are about slowing down (cars powered by windmills, how friken’ slow is that?) and nothing that is about speeding things up, like nuclear power, genetic engineering, nanotech, and so on.

    In a sense, global warming has become religious because the greenies, having rejected traditional religions, have been left with a void in their lives, and Dawkings is not the answer to that void—so they need a new religion—they need meaning, purpose, connection.

  56. Kate:
    “Jobs will disappear, energy prices will skyrocket, and the American Dream will become an unattainable fantasy for many.”

    Not dream or a fantasy, just a sick joke.

  57. Geoff Sharp (07:29:31) :
    TSI is one, then magnetic with UV following (UV varies more than TSI). TSI being the minor contributor, with the albedo players (the rest) scoring highest

    And….no “official” theory has been able of forecasting the solar activity, they have proved totally wrong and, like it or not, up to now the closest has been Landscheidt´s.
    As we are living through “interesting times” perhaps one of the changes to be seen yet it is a change in cosmological principles, now totally entangled in strings, sucked by black holes, twisted in space curvatures and interred under dark matter.

  58. anna v (06:30:21) : “Smokey and Tom, I said use our brains, not our brawn.”

    In theory I totally agree, unfortunately the world is ruled by brawn. We must “outbrawn” them and then continue to be vigilant as the thieves of freedom are always on the prowl.

  59. While the global temp can change via solar cycle to a presently known 0.07 deg C, apparently, that’s all it takes. Mechanism viewed dimly at best, there is no remote control to play with.

    If the climate is normally a zero-sum game, then skewing it 0.07 deg C does what?
    1.) causes it to move 0.07 C in the given change direction.
    2.) causes it to stair-step swing a pendulum in both directions
    3.) causes it to stair-step swing a pendulum in the given direction by the law of diminishing returns until the sine heads the other way?
    If there is a normal climactic diurnal, what is it?
    Is the global diurnal change the issue, or is it really the regional diurnal where the rubber hits the road?
    Is the climactic diurnal subject to amplification (multiply or divide) or is it linear (additive/subtractive)?

    The way things are shaping up right now, it would appear the growing season is the endangered species, not Polar Bears.

  60. Wasn’t the Great Global Warming Swindle good enough. Judging from the trailer it is more of the same.

  61. There are to classes of people to examine here. The world will always be the resident address of scientists with bias on the one hand, and under-educated folks, who’s scientific knowledge is entirely based on anecdotal observations, on the other. The narrow middle field is narrow indeed. Here stand the scientists, who question every conclusion and paradigm, shoulder to shoulder with the common folk who have shed their dimly lit observations of the natural world and go beyond to educate themselves on the true scientific method.

    The two versions of the movie examining climate change may very well represent the the first class. A blog such as this one, devoid of slick production and film editing, seems representative of that narrow middle ground.

  62. And then there are the truly stupid people who don’t know the difference between “to” and “two”.

  63. “If our brains do not regulate our collective behavior, we will end up as one more extinct species . “

    The problem is that a few self-styled elites are doing the regulating. The solution is radical decentralization so we will not be at the mercy of a single failure point. We must agree to disagree or we will merely build a structure that though meant for good shall result in great evil.

    reductio ad absurdum: Al Gore as ruler of the world.

  64. “And then there are the truly stupid people who don’t know the difference between “to” and “two”.” Pam

    “Humility is the secret of greatness.” In addition to spell checkers, a grammar checker would be good two :)

  65. I hear the folks who complain about the production techniques in this movie trailer. In my many years in television, I’ve seen many of the same techniques employed to hold the interest of the masses.

    The movie itself, of which I have a DVD copy has more substance, but also some of the same techniques employed. It is certainly no worse than some of the others we’ve seen so far. This is why I have not been promoting it on WUWT until now. If there had not been a free web streaming, I probably would have passed it over just like I’ve done with the “Age of Stupid”.

    On the plus side, this movie is doing something that the recent “Age of Stupid” did not, and that’s make a world premiere done in the comfort of your home or at showings without flying in the elite jet set for photo ops, in hypocritical contrast to the movie premise.

  66. Bob Tisdale (03:34:09) :
    As Dr. Svalgaard reminds us, the variations in the solar cycle (min to max, or max to min) can only be responsible for a change in global temperature of 0.07 deg C. You’re also implying that with an extended solar minimum there is some kind of cumulative cooling effect–that is, you’re implying that the longer the solar cycle stays at minumum, the colder global temperatures will get. What is the basis of this?

    This probably isn’t the thread to get into this one, but I’ll just mention in passing that the calculations I did on OHC that Leif Svalgaard himself verified suggest this is not the case. On the next thread where he repeated this I asked why he was ignoring what we had agreed and both his post and my reply were later deleted. Very strange.

    The fact is, the ocean must retain and lose heat on longer timescales than have been previously supposed. The effect of the sun over the cycle is masked by the fact that el ninos of bigger amplitude occur more often near solar min and la ninas often occur near solar max. The upshot is that longer term effects of solar variation are underestimated.

    When the sunspot number is below about 40/month, the oceans lose heat. This later manifests itself in lower air temperatures, notwithstanding the fluctuations caused by el nino/la nina.

  67. Staffan Lindström (06:17:54) :

    tallbloke (1:33:57) … and other Eussies […] 1. Get Banshee Alarm or some other
    wakening up software if your clock-radio or alarm-clock won’t help…!?
    2. Use Camstudio free version…if the movie is NOT directly DOWNSTREAMABLE,

    Staffan, thanks. It’s getting up for work on a monday morning that doesn’t help. ;-)

    Now all I need is a bigger hard drive….

  68. Warmist’s and Muslims react in the same manner when they don’t like the news, no matter the facts.
    We all remember the Muslim riots that broke out all over the world after the Danish Cartoons were published!

    Well, warmist’s respond in a similar way when a weatherman tells his public Global Warming has stopped since 1998.

    So I have asked myself, what it is that the Warmist’s and Muslims have in common.

    It’s submission. Submission to a religion.

    Muslims submit to Islam voluntarily and live happy lives, selling oil and driving big SUV’s.

    Warmist’s however provide the political platform to a totalitarian process that will put the shackles on humanity, severely disrupting our freedom, prosperity and probably ending the life of billions prematurely.

    Control over CO2 emissions = control over every aspect of life.

    It’s the ultimate wet dream of every totalitarian geek and this is where
    they (the political rats) have been waiting for since the collapse of the Iron Curtain.

    The irony of it all is that the warmist’s still don’t understand is that they will be put in shackles too.
    It will be a double shocker when they wake up and find themselves in a real nightmare.
    They not only find themselves in a colder climate, but also will lack the energy to warm up.

    I don’t have to wonder what their response to “Not Evil, Just Wrong” will be?

    http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/columnists/Bill-Carmichael-Weathering-a-climate.5739475.jp

  69. Pamela Gray,
    I agree completely, there are some of us who migrate to the middle ground through age and experience more than educational ability.

    Although I would probably be declared a capatilist by many greens, being a director of a company, I would say that I have had a left leaning view the majority of my life and definitely not place myself in the greed is good catagory. Common sense is one of the greatest attributes of the human race and should be prevalent not only in society, business but also in politics.

    Being bombarded with global warming threats in order to extract more taxation, both personally and business, is an affront to our common sense which I totally disagree with but on the other side of the coin wanting to live the American dream is not the alternative argument and makes me giggle every time I read it on this informed web site.
    Please note, a lot of us have quite happy lives not being American even though we both may share the same requirements for our future generations it isn’t just one nations dream to advance our culture, personally I would prefer all humans to benefit.

  70. Yes, great comments.

    The commutarianism ideal of the Greens is also their Achilles Heel. The unprecedented suffering and worldwide devastation over the last 100 years, that has directly resulted from the brutal philosophy of dialectical materialism, ought to inure us to that irrational evil, for no other reason than its complete failure to advance communities, peace, distributed wealth, freedom, and other putative communtarian goals.

    But it is hard to escape the black/white false propositions so central to the Dialectic. All issues are forceably bifurcated into mirrored absurdities, and hence all conclusions derived are also false.

    Which is why my personal choice is express a point of view that exists outside the Dialectic entirely, namely that Warmer Is Better.

    The virtues of that point of view are that it is true, which always helps, but also that it dismisses the popular dialectical catagories (alarmist vs skeptics) as largely irrelevant as well as specious, which they are.

    But that’s just me …

  71. >>Muslims submit to Islam voluntarily.

    >>Warmist’s however provide the political platform to a totalitarian process

    Umm, you mean like the political platform to totalitarian Islam??

    .

  72. Ron de Haan (11:18:56) :
    from your link:

    “Companies that find ways to use clean, alternative energy in manufacturing and end up with an excess number of permits could sell them to firms making slower environmental progress. ”

    Zero sum game at an astronomically high price tag.

  73. We humans are indeed part of Earth.. U think we can alter her.. We cannot.. We are just as needed by Earth as plants, micro organisms, chickens, fish, water, air, supermarkets, funparks, lotions, clouds, rock and so on. :)

    It might sound crazy but what if Earth is so complex and so in balance, that there is no room for us trying to change it..

    Earth created us and needs us.. Like they say, we are part of the system..

    Wow.. That to think that some people want us to believe that we can control the weather by HAARP.. What if it is all just a big lie.. there is no cooling, there is no warming, there is no west, there is no east..

    Just one holistic system of systems..

    Earth.

  74. Kate: You commented on my reply to Michael, “…What you fail to mention is that the average temperature only went up 0.42ºC and it has since fallen to just over 0.2ºC and is still falling, so average temperatures are still falling, not rising.”

    But if we look at what I quoted from Michael, “Our Sun has been in a low output state for more than two years which is a major reason why last year was cold and why this year will be even colder,” I was very specific in the time period, as was he. It’s tough to imagine, as Michael wrote, “that this year will be even colder,” because, if you’ll recall, there were a number of climate index suppliers that were proclaiming record or near record monthly temperatures for the past few months. That was my part of my point. I’m sorry I did not make it clearer. His statement has little merit, and unless something very unusual happens, this year will not be cooler than last year.

    And thanks for providing the info on The Global Warming Petition Project, but I’m a blogger, not a scientist. I investigate climate data, I present it in graphs, and I discuss how the data contradicts the AGW hypothesis, GCMs, etc. Nothing more, nothing less. Having my name on a list would detract from it.

    Regards

  75. Mike D. (12:01:06) :

    I’ll agree with that in the past tense:
    Remember to tell your grandchildren about the good times, when the Earth was warmer.

  76. @ Kate (06:58:43) :

    It is amazing that there are people that still believe The Petition Project has any merit.

    The petition, organized by the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine (OISM), includes a letter of support from Frederick Seitz, former President of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, along with a Wall Street Journal editorial and an article from The Journal of Physicians and Surgeons. This journal is not a peer-reviewed journal for climate science nor any other atmosphere-related field. In essence, anything published in this journal that relates to climate science must be considered “questionable” at best.

    The National Academy of Sciences has released the following statement regarding the OISM Petition:

    The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science.

    When questioned in 1998, OISM’s Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, “and of those the greatest number are physicists.” This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science – such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology – and almost none were climate specialists. The names of the signers are available on the OISM’s website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. OISM has refused to release information on the number of mailings it made.

    As of October 2007, the petition project website includes an article by Arthur Robinson, Noah E. Robinson and Willie Soon, published in 2007 in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.

    Because this petition is still being circulated today, one would think that the OISM would support their dubious claims by including a recent article from a peer-reviewed climate-related publication. Because OISM has not done so, it speaks volumes to these unfounded claims.

    [snip – Scott if you believe that statement, put it on your own website at SUNY, and take the heat there. But don’t put it on mine – Anthony]

  77. tallbloke: You wrote, “This probably isn’t the thread to get into this one, but I’ll just mention in passing that the calculations I did on OHC that Leif Svalgaard himself verified suggest this is not the case.”

    Gotta link to the earlier thread?

  78. Lucy Skywalker (01:19:28) :

    But I always live in hope. Perhaps this brave new film will help. And incidencally, “brave new world” as used by Aldous Huxley (not Darwin’s bulldog Huxley) is a sad misquote of Miranda’s words in Shakespeare’s The Tempest. I live in hope of seeing that original quote properly remembered too.

    “O, wonder!
    How many goodly creatures are there here!
    How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world,
    That has such people in’t!”

    Words true.

  79. Scott Mandia : Have you read the “upside down” article posted today ? I assume that the Mann et al paper was peer reviewed .

  80. It is evil to tell lies that are aimed at guilting people into reducing their standard of living — pure evil. Even worse when they know what they are doing when doing it.

    The real travesty of the entire AGW saga — Telling lies about science is the worst thing that can happen to real scientists, should be seekers of truth, those on grant money or those on their own.

    Credibility is not a renewable resource.

  81. PMH: You wrote, “Please elaborate; with apologies to Dr. Svalgaad I missed his reminder.”

    I did a quick search and Leif explains it a number of times on this thread:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/04/nasa-goddard-study-suggests-solar-variation-plays-a-role-in-our-current-climate/

    There a blogger wrote, “Back of the envelope figgerin’ says 1,361 watts/m² of solar energy gives us a temperature of roughly 288 K. A 0.1% increase of input should produce a 0.29 K increase in temp, almost three times what they’re offering.”

    And Leif replied, “Back of the envelope calculation gives a quarter of your figure, namely 0.07 degrees, close to ‘what they offer’. This is so because of Stefan-Boltzmann’s law that say that radiation increases with the fourth power of temperature, so each percent of temperature rise gives four percent radiation increase [and vice versa].”

    If the solar cycle varies TSI by ~1 watt/meter^2, then global temperature should respond ~0.07 deg C.

    Regards

  82. Kate (06:58:43) :

    Kate (or anyone else) – is there an international petition equivalent to this?

    I will sign in a heartbeat.

  83. Scott Mandia (12:43:33),

    Rather than argue facts, you did your failed ad hominem attack. May I debunk? Thank you:

    Art Robinson answered critics like you when the number of signatures on the OISM Project was at ≈17,000. Since then, due to widespread publicity, many thousands more U.S. scientists have attached their signatures to the petition.

    In this link Dr Robinson explains the vetting process. Yes, naturally there are a few “Mickey Mouse” type signatures. There always are in a petition of this size. But they are weeded out. That leaves you to try and explain the tens of thousands of legitimate signatures on the petition. I challenge you to try.

    It is preposterous to claim, as you are doing, that scientists like Dr Edward Teller, Prof Freeman Dyson, and Dr Frederick Seitz — along with tens of thousands of other scientists — were too ignorant to understand what they were signing. Only a fool would believe that.

    I don’t think you are a fool. I think you’re desperately grasping at straws because your AGW conjecture is going down in flames, as the world is beginning to see.

    The OISM petition is very a simple and straightforward statement. It cautions against any kind of Kyoto agreement, then states:

    “The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” [my emphasis]

    That language reflects my position throughout these threads. The alarmist crowd has still provided no convincing scientific evidence of their CO2=AGW conjecture. None. Rather, they point to computer models as their putative ‘evidence’.

    But models are not evidence. Models are only tools. Evidence is data, and for the scientific method to work, that data must be openly and transparently shared with the scientific community.

    Yet the alarmist community [including Science, Nature, and many other mainstream journals and organizations] connive with the authors whose papers they publish, to withhold their raw data and methodologies from other scientists.

    The fact that the raw data is withheld, or is “adjusted” without explanation, means that those promoting AGW have plenty to hide.

    Your claim that 30,000+ American scientists were unaware of what they were signing, and claiming that a handful of fraudulent signatures negates what all the rest of the petition signers intended, indicates that your back is up against the wall. You have lost the argument, and everyone here knows it. It is finally dawning on the general public as well.

  84. Bob Tisdale (12:54:30) :

    tallbloke: You wrote, “This probably isn’t the thread to get into this one, but I’ll just mention in passing that the calculations I did on OHC that Leif Svalgaard himself verified suggest this is not the case.”

    Gotta link to the earlier thread?

    It’s long and convoluted, and I’ll be writing it all up in neat so hang on for that.

  85. 4 billion (04:31:56) :“Ice is the enemy of life”..not to the billion or so people who rely on Glacier fed water supply.”

    Reference, please. IPCC publications are not acceptable.

  86. Belvedere (12:30:41) :
    Wow.. That to think that some people want us to believe that we can control the weather by HAARP..

    That HAARP thing….I´ve been speculating… what if back in the 1980´s when that guy of the warming earth appeared around (JH) with his models was informed of some (naive) experiments run with that thing and then it happened the 1983 first big el Nino, and a few years after, in 97-98 the second and bigger el Nino..he should have thought: We did it!, we got to do something about it! and then all this story perhaps began… :-)

  87. Mike D. (12:01:06) :
    However there are a lot of people, specially in America, who has never lived under a socialist regime and who can think it would be good.
    Those of us who have lived such “experiments” in the past and know by personal experience that it does not work even with the best of good intentions.
    Not by distributing wealth you improve things but allowing people become richer by their own efforts.
    Not by lowering prices goods reach people but disappear completely, and not because of the bad will of selfish entrepeneurs but by the simple fact that nobody can produce anything and sell it below its cost of production.
    When land was communized, back in 1968 in Peru and given to workers, cultured land became deserted land, and workers jobless; it took decades to reestablish farming through private enterprise.
    I wish you not to learn these truths the hard way, by suffering them, but it seems that we humans are a bit stubborn and learn only by “blood, sweat and tears”

  88. Pat Buchannan on McLaughlin Report:
    The Climate Change meeting in Copenhagen in December will end in failure.

  89. anna v (06:30:21) :

    ” In general, the first three solutions to the problem of overpopulation and scarcity of resources is, 1) education 2) education 3) education. I would add that for the third world education of women should come first. An educated woman always finds a way to control her fertility.”

    Anna – education is a good start but some basics like clean water and basic sanitation plus some basic health care actually reduce infant mortality which reduces the requirement for additional “spare” children. Children are part of the third world social fabric like a pension or superannuation fund. Culturally, they are expected to care directly for their aged parents.

    The problem is that improving each of these takes energy. Energy for pumping water, powering health care facilities or lighting classrooms, food storage, medicine storage, transport of basic commodities. There is a whole cycle of economic development that follows. Emancipation as demonstrated by China leads to increased resource usage. A good case study is Zimbabwe which went through the cycle but had a command and control Government that had no answer for the expectations created by emancipation. Now all the basics have again failed with consequential return to poverty. I wonder what will happen in China where a similar command and control mindset prevails.

    On the up side, I am told that the average Zimbabwean has an extremely low carbon footprint! Who knows, we may actually reward old Bob for his effort at Copenhagen.

    For an entertaining insight into what happens when politics tries to redefine the economy, read the Last Resort http://www.douglasrogers.org/ The lessons of adaptation and survival in rural Zimbabwe may be necessary in a new green world. Access to resources controlled by a powerful elite …. now where have I heard that idea recently. Perhaps there are messages that a woman in Africa can send to the world that show what is wrong with the new green crusade.

  90. For Bob Tisdale. You might find it interesting that NOAA was able to report a record high SST in July because they dropped sat data and ARGO bouy data from the data set and stuck with just the temp stations located on concrete next AC condenser blower fans (they pull the heat out and away from the condenser) and next trash burn barrels and outside barbecues and near tarmac and surrounded by buildings and assorted fences.

  91. Ralph, I believe Islam lends itself to fanaticism and I think it odd that one must tolerate it because it falls under the banner of religion. It’s fairly PC not to discuss this sort of thing, just as it’s heretical to denounce AGW. But I don’t like Islam or Warmism.

    However, I largely do not agree in the following comment by Ron.

    Muslims submit to Islam voluntarily

    One of the hallmarks of Islam is the forced submission of its practices. Choice is not encouraged in the Islamic pedagogy.

    I don’t mean to go on about religion so snip away if I’m not agreeable.

  92. For a good insight into the third world:

    And education certainly is the key, in the west and the third world.

  93. Satellite internet out in the tules isn’t great about streaming video; can’t even get the audio anymore once past the warmup. Drat, I was looking forward to this.

    After lurking for months, I must say I enjoy the site, even though I’m having to dig through really ancient memories of math and stats courses to even sort of follow the arguments. Probably not a bad thing, though I’ve claimed for years that we elders have more stuff in the mental filing cabinets, so it takes a bit longer to scrabble through it all.

    That’s my excuse…

  94. I cheated. I bought the documentary and invited a couple of friends over to watch football followed by Not Evil, Just Wrong before the official premiere. It bored them stiff – me too. I understand the reasons for including DDT as a reference for the way environmentalists induce hysteria, but it went on so long that my friends tuned the rest of the thing out. One person even left. The segment on the people from Indiana wasn’t much better. I’m disappointed and my two greenie friends who watched to the end weren’t convinced of anything.

  95. Spoke too soon, I’m getting audio now. Video is frozen for minutes, but at least it’s something. Enjoying what I’m hearing, and I see it’s up over 9100.

  96. 4 billion (04:31:56) :

    “Ice is the enemy of life”..not to the billion or so people who rely on Glacier fed water supply.

    You can’t drink ice.

  97. Great movie.

    I loved the inclusion of common working people. Too often this debate appears to be lofty discussions between scientists.

    When it was stated that environmentalists don’t care about common people, this was done with a focus on these common people; both in the US and in third world countries. Rather depressing to see the attitudes of environmentalists towards common people. Elites indeed.

  98. Just watched it on-line. Hit about 9500 viewers at peak. Not enough by a long shot. There really was nothing new in it, although it was well presented. The trouble with things like this is that it won’t change anyone’s mind.

    It will be ignored by Obama, Gore, the UN, et al, and the push to shut down civilization will continue, because there are no high-profile, politically powerful people or groups that can successfully oppose it, and the general public won’t do anything until it has a significant effect on their wallet and lifestyle.

    I wish it were otherwise.

  99. Have to agree that the DDT and US schmaltz was somewhat redundant, but perhaps that works for some people. Judging by the peak viewerage of 9.7k, I’d imagine most of those were probably non-AGW to start with. That said, it all helps.

    On the other hand, the trouble with focusing on the science too much, is that this bores many viewers. Most scientists don’t make great interview candidates. Shame we don’t have the likes of Dr Karl on our side:

    http://www.abc.net.au/science/drkarl/default.htm

    Then again, he often gets it wrong too – I seem to remember him knocking CO2 sequestration as a ridiculous concept because there was no way we could get that much CO2 underground (his envelope calcs were sadly off by a few orders of magnitude that day).

  100. I just saw it, and it was very good! But I think a second documentary, or a series of documentaries, should be in order. There should be spectator-friendly shows that are focused on the data and scientific evidence, and less on the social aspects. Something like Carl Sagan’s Cosmos, but for realistic climate science.

  101. I just finished watching the internet feed on Brietbart.com.

    As above, viewership was quite substantial, At the start of the feed they showed 6990 viewers and the count up was gaining 5-10 viewers a second. By the end of the feed viewership was 9534 last number I saw. They are now doing a panel discussion with 6697 viewers still on line.

    I agree with the above comments that the movie was a bit slow for some viewers. In today’s world everyone wants a quick cut capsule not in depth coverage. We have created a pool of people who have no attention span.

    That said, the mere existence of this film, is Prima facie evidence that the science is not settled, and there is no consensus. That is a major accomplishment in my view.

    It will be a conversation starter, even if the viewer does not believe all that was said it will bring it into the open for discussion.

    Larry

  102. 4 billion (04:31:56) :
    “Ice is the enemy of life”..not to the billion or so people who rely on Glacier fed water supply.

    To get a glacier-fed water supply, the glacier has to be melting.

  103. As the video mentions Al Gore – does anyone remember Al Gore Sr. (Al Gore Jr.’s dad). ? The Senator from Tennessee who was a gave political support to Armand Hammer, the entrepreneur. When Senator Gore was not re-elected – he went to work at Armand Hammer’s company Occidental Petroleum.

    Armand Hammer was working to promote Soviet causes his entire life. He was a “comrade” and knew Lenin, Brezhnev, Khrushchev and his American companies where laundering money to help pay the Soviet spies working in the US.

    Read the book if you do not believe this could be possible that Al Gore Senior would be closely involved with Armand Hammer: “The Secret Dossier of Armand Hammer” by Jay Espstein.

  104. inre: population control, overpopulation
    “if we do not…control our population”

    Whether they are taking population control seriously, or there is some other deeper social cause at work, European women are not reproducing:

    “European Union’s statistics agency reported that the decline of birthrates means that within five years deaths will exceed births in the EU. By 2013, Italy’s population will begin to decline; the next year, Germany’s will begin to decline. After 2010, Europe’s population growth will be entirely from immigration. By 2025, not even immigration will prevent declining fertility from accelerating what one historian calls the largest “sustained reduction in European population since the Black Death of the 14th century.” George Will

    Need I mention the spread of Islamic law across Europe, from the schoolroom to the courtroom, as well as the growing Islamic population–both by immigration and birthrate–which has caused more than a few to predict that Europe will be Islamic in 50 years?

    “What is happening when an entire continent, wealthier and healthier than ever before, declines to create the human future in the most elemental sense, by creating a next generation?” Geo Wiegel

    ref

    http://townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2005/04/17/challenged_by_modernity

  105. Did anyone record it so those who were at the beach can watch it now?

    I seem to be getting the reviewer panel. Dang…

    Ed

  106. ron from Texas: You wrote, “For Bob Tisdale. You might find it interesting that NOAA was able to report a record high SST in July because they dropped sat data and ARGO bouy data from the data set and stuck with just the temp stations located on concrete next AC condenser blower fans (they pull the heat out and away from the condenser) and next trash burn barrels and outside barbecues and near tarmac and surrounded by buildings and assorted fences.”

    ron, FYI. SST = sea surface temperature. No A/C condensing units, or trash barrels, or barbecues, or tarmac, or buildings enter the discussion. Just the surface of the oceans.

    Now, for the part of your comment where you claimed that NOAA dropped ARGO data from their SST data, do you have a link to a NOAA webpage or to a paper written by a NOAA employee that verifies your claim? I’ve read the same thing here and at other blogs, but everytime I ask the blogger who posted the comment for the NOAA source, I hear nothing back. Zip. Nada. We document things here, so please document what you’ve written above. And please don’t cite another blog. Please cite NOAA or a paper by a NOAA employee.

    Thank you.

  107. Ed (18:54:34) :

    Did anyone record it so those who were at the beach can watch it now?

    I seem to be getting the reviewer panel. Dang…

    Ed

    Looks like it is on youtube.

    Larry

    REPLY: that is the trailer, not the full length movie – Anthony

  108. Ooph! There were good and decent moments in this “doc,” and I think SM was at fairly accurately represented in there, but overall, it seemed just as unbalanced and stupidly manipulative as the all of the terrible catastrophic AGW-advocate “documentaries” out there. I don’t know if I represent the majority of “skeptics” or “luke-warmers” out there, but I had hoped for something different.

    In my opinion, after wondering why the movie was drawing out the DDT thing (and I’m in very close agreement with the movie’s portrayal of that issue, though I think the voluminous use of dated footage showing DDT being flooded into city streets, etc. was incredibly stupid, given what current in-domicile proposed uses of the chemical entail), the environmentalist in Uganda’s frank interviews and interaction with the native-African pro-ddt activist were some of the most powerful scenes in the documentary. But, whether or not that woman’s terribly offensive outlook on things represents the average environmental activist’s, I just don’t know how truly tightly it relates to the hard discussions of climate science and climate policy that take place on this blog, CA, Roger Pielke’s (both) blogs, the Blackboard, tAV, and so on, and should be taking place in the general sphere…

    One more thing…I’ve worked in the mining industry at least part time for the last 10 years of my life, and it’s a family business, and I think I understand the average mining-related worker, and fully respect them, but I don’t think that Joe Miner is the best person to make the case for an anti-hysteria argument, as he was used for in this film…for reasons of bias, for reasons of (lack of) expertise, and for the basic reason that even though coal mining and power are providing jobs, if the science actually says that coal power CO2 actually was certainly going to destroy the world, then the loss of those jobs now would make sense in the long run…

    In my humble rating, NEJW gets a D, C- at best..

  109. I watched most of it, and I have a suggestion to all of you:
    Ask a question from someone who lived during the 1930’s, and find out what exactly went on with the weather.
    I found 1 person who remembers it. He told me (No. CA) it was terribly hot and very dry.
    Why did he remember it?
    He could never forget the locusts that came up (1934) and ate the hay in the fields. And what the locusts didn’t eat, the caterpillars finished off.
    That was 1934. Long before C02 rose due to post WWII boom.
    So, go find yourself someone who remembers the truly hot years, and pass on thier story.

  110. I think NEJW tried to tread the fine line between information & emotionalism required to grab the public imagination. In general I think it straddled that line fairly well.

    DaveE.

  111. Smokey (14:05:58) : “I don’t think you [Scott Mandia] are a fool. I think you’re desperately grasping at straws because your AGW conjecture is going down in flames, as the world is beginning to see.”

    “The alarmist crowd has still provided no convincing scientific evidence of their CO2=AGW conjecture. None. Rather, they point to computer models as their putative ‘evidence’.”

    “But models are not evidence. Models are only tools. Evidence is data, and for the scientific method to work, that data must be openly and transparently shared with the scientific community.”

    “Yet the alarmist community [including Science, Nature, and many other mainstream journals and organizations] connive with the authors whose papers they publish, to withhold their raw data and methodologies from other scientists.”

    “The fact that the raw data is withheld, or is “adjusted” without explanation, means that those promoting AGW have plenty to hide.”

    “Your claim that 30,000+ American scientists were unaware of what they were signing, and claiming that a handful of fraudulent signatures negates what all the rest of the petition signers intended, indicates that your back is up against the wall. You have lost the argument, and everyone here knows it. It is finally dawning on the general public as well.”

    One of the best apologias yet of the problem at hand, Smokey.

    All worth repeating again.

    I love your style of debate.

    The AGW Religion is truly grasping for straws…

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  112. I agree with DaveE….in that this was written for the general public…so emotionalism has to be high.

    I still think, however, the general public can handle more information (and less emotion) than they gave.

    Give it a B minus.

    Hey…but at least its FAR better and more truthful than AN INCONVENIENT LIE!

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  113. I think the problem with these documentaries is that they’re formulaic, a la, Michael Moore style. Aimed to hook the audience with shock and awe.

    For the viewers, being entertained sometimes takes priority to being informed and the films tend to preach to the converted anyway.

    I’d like to see a film made by scientists, discussing the science. This would tend to be far less emotional and ambiguous, tending to avoid polemics and irrelevance.
    Sure, it might not break the box office but it would become an instant future classic like many contemporary misunderstood works.

    Question is, who would fund it?
    I know that if Mr. Watts, McIntye and other wordpress ilk required funding for such an idea, I’d contribute.

  114. The problem, savethesharks, is that being emotionally manipulative does no favors to the movement in the end.

    Emotion always fades and facts come to light -always.

  115. Sam G: “I’d like to see a film made by scientists, discussing the science. This would tend to be far less emotional and ambiguous, tending to avoid polemics and irrelevance.”

    Question is, who would fund it?
    “I know that if Mr. Watts, McIntye and other wordpress ilk required funding for such an idea, I’d contribute.”

    I would too.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  116. I thought Richard Lindzen was outstanding as ever. If Chu had the political moral fiber to match his acumen in physics, Lindzen would be his right hand man.

    I also thought that the best comment amongst the millions streaming in was “Reduce your government footprint”.

  117. I’m imagining a host of minions scanning news articles ready to debunk this film.A couple of minions are on this blog.I see kyme has taken the line that coal miners are dumb,and cannot be relied on to understand the science.The science was well understood by all the intelligent beings who stated DDT must be banned,for the people who did not realise what intelligent science did to people in 3rd world countries,this film will be an eye-opener,and raise more disgust and ire against science.The awful part of the DDT story is that the scientists in America knew their people would not be at risk from a DDT ban,and didn’t care who died in 3rd world countries,excuse me if I’m indulging in emotionalism,so easy to let emotions cloud my judgement when I am not a logical clear thinking scientist.

  118. Anthony,
    Thanks for the alert. i enjoyed eatching the presentation. Unfortunately I missed some of the beginning since I didn’t check in at my favorite site in time.

  119. I was disappointed to see the interminable middle section on DDT. It should be cut. Yes, it demonstrates how short-sighted and misguided movement environmentalists can be, and yes banning DDT was likely a mistake (though no mention is made of insect resistance), and yes Algore praises Rachael Carson, but it completely distracts from the critique of the Alarmists, and it may even turn off some who, while they may be dubious about ‘global warming’, are not convinced that DDT was harmless.

    As for the presentation and production values, they were fair to middlin’, but much too episodic and fragmentary. We still need a film that will in a strong, coherent, and compelling way the argument that the core Alarmists are (a) scientifically mistaken, (b) deliberately misleading us, and (c) using the ‘global warming’ hoax to push a worldwide statist agenda that will lead to worldwide stagnation and a dreary future for everyone.

    The Goracle is not above using cinematic propaganda to scare people. Neither should the Realists be.

    Finally, the film lacked the focus of Algore’s movie: it needed a star, a voice, a Ronald Reagan or Charlton Heston to command the viewer’s attention and make the argument.

    But all that said, I’m glad for the effort. It’s a start.

    /Mr Lynn

  120. I’d grade the movie a B- and call it helpful.

    NAS has their snout in the AGW money trough. Little wonder they would dis’ the petition project.

    I read the project’s flagship report and found it worthwhile. I am basically in agreement with the petition statement. So I signed about a year ago.

    I’m not a “climate scientist” my degreees are in geology (BA) and geochemistry (MS), I am a licensed geologist in Pennsylvania and Washington states. I have studied sea level closely enough to know how bogus that line of AGW evidence is. The NAS can go pound salt.

  121. Noelene (19:47:05) :

    Most miners I have met are smart people and very observant. They have to be. Thier lives depend on paying attention.

  122. @ Noelene (19:47:05)

    I’m hoping and expecting we’re just having a misunderstanding here. I’m not out to discredit NEJW because I disagree with the general arguments it might have been trying to make; I’m just thoroughly disappointed with the poor tack it took at it, and the incredibly poor execution of it. If people who take issue with some of the bad science out there, or some the horrible policy options proposed to deal with climate change, are just resigned using agitprop in the same way the other side has for a while now, then this movie is great. But it’s not going to help anyone form genuinely cogent arguments against the current catastrophic-AGW zeitgeist…

    As far as your claim that my comment “for reasons of (lack of) expertise” equates to “coal miners are dumb,” you couldn’t be more wrong. I’ve been around miners and drillers and loggers since I was 8 years old, I’m an ardent supporter of resource industries, and my both childhood and adult work experience in the field, more than anything else, has led me to make a strong distinction between education/expertise and raw intelligence. Some of my best adult friends as a kid were miners, and I don’t think any of them were “dumb”. But I think many of those I’ve met in my life would be the first to admit they wouldn’t have had the time or inclination or collegiate science background to really delve into this issue enough to hold a firm opinion on it. I may be being gracious and projecting there, as many might hold very strong opinions, but I feel like if you challenged them on it, they’d be honest about their limitations regarding this issue, as I try to be with mine (I’m an effing economist, not a climate scientist, so value my opinion accordingly).

    All of that is kind of beside the point, anyway, as the miners only come into the picture when, for an unjustifiably long period of the movie, the filmmaker focused solely on the the fact that coal mining and power produces jobs and cheap power…if the science says with certainty that those jobs will create a global disaster in 40-50 years, then so what? Those jobs would need to be changed!

    The thing is, no one disputes the fact that coal mining and power create jobs. The issue to be debated is whether those jobs should be sacked because of imminent CO2-caused disaster. Yet, the movie spends an interminable, tear-jerking amount of time supporting the uncontested assertion that coal mining/power provide present-day economic benefit…

  123. This movie is counter-propaganda, and thus propaganda itself. While I find myself agreeing with most of the stances taken in it, and appreciating the alternate perspective on these topics, it lacks the punch in the area it should have focused on… the total lack of scientific data to back up exagerrated prognostications of doom.

    It does well for what it was seemingly supposed to do, which was a huge slap-in-the-political-face of the left who fancy themselves as advocates of the poor. It demonstrates the large numbers of poor who would most definitely be harmed by outright bans on various things. BTW, the scene early on with the two Americans giving boldface lies while trying to convince that Ugandan woman that she should not use DDT for fear of cancer was precious. That is precisely what the left needs right there, a look in the mirror that tells them, yes, your absurd jesus syndrome actually has repercussions when you are wrong, people actually die when you exagerrate fear for political purposes. This seems to be the real point of the movie, which means I like it for what it is.

    However, it is not what I wanted it to be. I wanted it to be a point-counterpoint on what Global Warming advocates have been telling us would happen for nearly 20 years now, and how that hasn’t happened, and doesn’t seem like it will happen. That’s what I wanted it to be. What I got was a form of propagandizing that should only sting those politically attached to this monster, not make them tremble in their boots.

  124. I was a bit disappointed in the film. It was very light on the science, and pretty heavy on Al Gore. I’m more interested in the science than the politics.

    While I understand the appeal of the “salt of the earth” people pleading the case that their lifestyle is already fairly low-energy, and that they would be hard done by if the energy they rely on to live their lives were to become expensive or scarce, I think that is also entirely beside the point. If the AGW crowd is right, and these things must be done to avoid a putative disaster, then the sacrifice required registers a big “so what” with them – necessary to avert an even larger doomsday. Its not an argument that will change any minds.

  125. Tom in Florida (06:12:31) :

    “anna v (04:27:39) : “The argument should go a different way, not ethics, but logic. If our brains do not regulate our collective behavior, we will end up as one more extinct species . It is the human species that will be endangered if we do not husband the resources we need and control our population growth, not the rest of the biosphere in the end.”

    Let’s take that one step further. Who will claim to be the marshalls of husbanding the resources and controling the population growth? The green movement. They see themselves as the saviors the world. They place themselves as gods above everyone else. Why? To control what everyone else thinks, says and does so that their vision of a perfect world is instituted. To what end? So that they can maintain power over everything, so they can live high off the hog at the expense of all others. Remember they say that everyone is equal but believe some are more equal than others. Tyranny hides it’s face behind many masks”.

    Anna, Tom,

    Every person specialized in demography knows that economic prosperity goes hand in hand with stabilizing population numbers.

    If the greens really cared about this world they would help societies to get wealthy.

    Instead they develop policies like the ban on DDT and the production of bio fuels seeding havoc in the third world.

    Access to cheap energy is key.

  126. James Hastings-Trew (21:02:12) :
    “I was a bit disappointed in the film. It was very light on the science, and pretty heavy on Al Gore. I’m more interested in the science than the politics.”

    I agree with your sentiments.

    “While I understand the appeal of the “salt of the earth” people pleading the case that their lifestyle is already fairly low-energy, and that they would be hard done by if the energy they rely on to live their lives were to become expensive or scarce, I think that is also entirely beside the point. If the AGW crowd is right, and these things must be done to avoid a putative disaster, then the sacrifice required registers a big “so what” with them – necessary to avert an even larger doomsday. Its not an argument that will change any minds.”

    I agree again. OK my original B minus….now goes to a C minus (if that) for this film.

    Should have trusted my gut instincts from the start.

    Too much dragging emphasis on DDT and too little emphasis on exposing the REAL villain in all this: James Hansen. (yes….even more than Al Gore).

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

    Chris

  127. rbateman “Most miners I have met are smart people and very observant. They have to be. Thier lives depend on paying attention.”

    Agreed. No margin for error in this field, thats for damn sure.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  128. Jeremy: “What I got was a form of propagandizing that should only sting those politically attached to this monster, not make them tremble in their boots.”

    Well said….and agreed.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  129. In regard to “Not Evil, Just Wrong I would like to state that I really appreciate any initiative to promote the truth about our climate.
    However, it could have done better in terms of dynamics of presentation and some of the interviewed were difficult to understand, not ideal to make a convincing statement.

    I think Lord Moncton’s speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0
    combined with his slides, which unfortunately are absent from his filmed speech, would also make a very convincing Anti Gore Movie.

    The next movie has to be with Moncton.

  130. jorgekafkazar (15:08:22) :

    4 billion (04:31:56) :“Ice is the enemy of life”..not to the billion or so people who rely on Glacier fed water supply.”

    Reference, please. IPCC publications are not acceptable.

    Glaciers of the Himalaya Mountain Range are an enormous reservoir of fresh water and their meltwater is an important resource for much of India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, China and Burma. A team of Indian scientists lead by Anil V. Kulkarni of the Indian Space Research Organization, studied surface area coverage for nearly 500 glaciers in the Chenab, Parabati, and Baspa basins using satellite data collected between 1962 and 2001.

    They documented that most of these glaciers have retreated significantly. In 1962 a total of 2077 square kilometers was covered by glaciers and in 2001 that area was reduced to 1628 square kilometers. This represents a deglaciation of over twenty percent over a forty year period.

    http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/jan102007/69.pdf

    Max (18:20:30) :

    4 billion (04:31:56) :

    “Ice is the enemy of life”..not to the billion or so people who rely on Glacier fed water supply.

    You can’t drink ice.

    Ron House (18:41:17) :

    4 billion (04:31:56) :
    “Ice is the enemy of life”..not to the billion or so people who rely on Glacier fed water supply.

    To get a glacier-fed water supply, the glacier has to be melting.

    Glaciers regulate the feed of water to a large number of rivers throughout Asia and South America, without Glaciers these rivers would become even more raging torrents during melt season and mere trickles during the dry season.

    James
    Australia SA

  131. 4 Billion: “They documented that most of these glaciers have retreated significantly. In 1962 a total of 2077 square kilometers was covered by glaciers and in 2001 that area was reduced to 1628 square kilometers. This represents a deglaciation of over twenty percent over a forty year period.”

    Retreating? Really, mate….are you that hard up for an argument???

    http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/05/05/himalayas-glaciers.html

    And I QUOTE:

    But in the rugged western corner of the plateau, the story is different, according to a new study. Among legendary peaks of Mt. Everest like K2 and Nanga Parbat, glaciers with a penthouse view of the world are growing, and have been for almost three decades.

    “These are the biggest mid-latitude glaciers in the world,” John Shroder of the University of Nebraska-Omaha said. “And all of them are either holding still, or advancing.”

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  132. Seems glacier advance and retreat in the Himalayas is big news:

    http://www.ecofactory.com/news/himalayan-glaciers-both-growing-and-shrinking

    GOT BIG NEWS FOR YA….

    More related to PRECIP than TEMPS, allright??

    When that Monsoon and the MJO start to play gam in this part of the world, strange things happen.

    But PUT TO REST….the idea of shrinking glaciers as related to planetary warming (or lack thereof).

    It is more likely related to PRECIP!

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  133. CORRECTION of: When that Monsoon and the MJO start to “play gam” in this part of the world, strange things happen.

    SHOULD SAY: “play games”

  134. Mr. Lynn — “I was disappointed to see the interminable middle section on DDT. It should be cut. ”

    QFT. I tuned in, lost patience early on, and switched off. The trailer had already given me a bad feeling this movie was going to be a stinker, and it turned out far worse than I would have ever imagined. It’s as if they’re trying to out-Gore Gore with all the violin-playing. It’s an embarrassment to the skeptical cause.

    By contrast, I highly commend and recommend “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, “The Cloud Mystery” and “Global Warming Doomsday Called Off” — all produced outside the U.S.A.

  135. Erik Anderson (22:27:49) :
    QFT. I tuned in, lost patience early on, and switched off. The trailer had already given me a bad feeling this movie was going to be a stinker, and it turned out far worse than I would have ever imagined. It’s as if they’re trying to out-Gore Gore with all the violin-playing. It’s an embarrassment to the skeptical cause.

    By contrast, I highly commend and recommend “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, “The Cloud Mystery” and “Global Warming Doomsday Called Off” — all produced outside the U.S.A.

    Call me Consensus Chris….but DAMMIT I agree.

    I hated the film….truth be told.

    I agree with the cause, but not with the technique.

    My c minus has now gone to a D Plus.

    Agreed on other documentaries out there that are far better, including Doomsday Called Off.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  136. rbateman (19:10:25) :

    And what the locusts didn’t eat, the caterpillars finished off.

    Sounds like something Biblical.

  137. savethesharks (22:04:37) :

    Retreating? Really, mate….are you that hard up for an argument???

    http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/05/05/himalayas-glaciers.html

    Not that hard up for an argument, you’re link provides enough evidence of Glacier retreat :-)

    http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/11/24/tibet-glaciers-warming.html

    As for the link of Glacier retreat to warming, it says this

    “As more heat is trapped in the atmosphere, he said, it holds more water vapor. And when the water vapor rises to high altitudes it condenses, releasing the heat into the upper atmosphere, where high mountain landscapes feel the brunt of warming. At the highest elevations, we’re seeing something like an average of 0.3 degrees Centigrade warming per decade,”

    http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/11/24/tibet-glaciers-warming-02.html

    So, peculiarly it seems higher altitude Glaciers in the region are receding, while midlatitude Glaciers in the region are growing.

    Link also states that warming is working it’s way up the mountain side.

    “As temperatures continue increasing, they will overtake additional mass provided by snow,” Fountain said. “The freezing level will keep rising, and glaciers will melt.”

    Seems Glaciers are getting heat from both ends.

    James
    Australia, SA

  138. savethesharks (22:13:44) :

    GOT BIG NEWS FOR YA….

    More related to PRECIP than TEMPS, allright??

    =================================================

    But your link does connect growth of these Glaciers to warming. :-)

    “Indeed, the unexpected advance of the glaciers has been blamed on climate change, but the explanation does seem valid—extra moisture carried from the warming Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea eastward seems to be dumping more snow on the Western Himalayas.”

    and the Discovery link…

    “It looks like it’s the Westerlies,” Shroder said, referring to strong jets of wind that pour from west to east in a belt around the planet. Though he can’t say for certain, the winds appear to be carrying more moisture from the warming Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea eastward.”

    James
    Australia, SA

  139. Furthermore, James….you can believe whatever you want to believe in regards to climate science.

    You will be no different than hundreds of millions of others of our species who have been duped by bad information, science, data, or a combination of the three….down through the ages.

    It just so happens you and I are caught in one of the biggest scientific fraud schemes since the middle ages.

    The peril is yours for the taking.

    What say ye? Show forth the evidence of ANTHROPOGENIC global warming.

    Let’s see it. You can’t produce it.

    You might be able to show a warming uptick in the past half century.

    BIG ****** DEAL. The Earth….and her cycles are 4.6 BILLION years old.

    Think you can improve upon that??????

    Extremely doubtful……rahter….yea…..impossible.

    Give up, mate. Your battle is lost.

    The science may not be settled (skeptics we are and proud of it!), but “the science” is not limited to the unsettledness of the scientific community.

    Rather….it is related to OBSERVED FACTS.

    Glaciers are not dramatically retreating as you claim. In reality…many of them are growing.

    Anyways….and NEVERTHELESS….glacier growth/decline is mostly related to PRECIP…and not temps.

    Time for you to drop it, all right?

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

    CHRIS
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  140. “But your link does connect growth of these Glaciers to warming. :-)”

    Bro…you are out to lunch…as we say in the states.

    You continue to straw man your way through this conversation by manipulating what wasn’t said.

    I am talking about real time observations dude.

    NO ONE sees as short a time frame as you on this subject. Cherry pick if you want.

    I am not saying, nor have I ever, that no warming has occurred.

    It has. But it is no different from the previous cycles AT ALL…except that no cycle is the same.

    We are in a recovery from the LIA, a very strong modern solar maximum, and perhaps other factors.

    But to take 40 years of himalayan glacier data and extrapolate it over the rest of history is retarded….pure and simple.

    You have no idea about which you were talking…but even if you did….I ask you again, James: What is your motivation??

    What are you trying to prove??

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  141. Thought you were going to bed.

    No way am I any where near lunch….

    Chris, the very Scientist whose observation you rely upon to say that some Glaciers are growing says that the likely reason for their growth is more precipitation due to warming Atlantic and Mediterranean seas releasing more moisture into the Westerly air stream that travels to the Western Himalayas.

    Where do I manipulate what is said? I quote directly.

    As for no one seeing in the time frame I do, the Scientist you quote does.

    As warming is causing the retreat of the higher Glaciers (as described in Discovery link), then surely it is fair to expect more retreat if there is more warming, and at some point, no more high alttitude Glaciers, less water for the Rivers down below.

    As for my motivation I am interested in exploring the issue of Climate change, as for what I am trying to prove, I am trying to prove if Climate change is a big deal or not.

    James
    Adelaide, Australia

  142. 4 billion (00:40:19) :

    Climate change is a big deal, but it’s natural. We evolved to adapt to it.
    Both kinds.
    When the glaciers grow, there’s less melting for the rivers below due to the river being frozen.
    We didn’t come this far to have an elite group of fear-mongers drive the whole of civilization over a cliff to feed thier thirst for world domination.
    If you really want to understand the 2 crazes (the coming Ice Age and AGW that span 4 decades of hysteria), try cosmology.
    The Greeks argued for a steady state universe, and for 400 years (10x longer than climate hysteria) the astronomers and astrophysicists have been debating over the state of the Cosmos. Expanding, near critical, Contracting, Omega values, etc.
    Whatever changes are coming down the extended climate pipe, we either adapt or hit the panic button.
    It might interest you to know that in a disaster, those who panic have thier survival rates plummet. They also become a very real danger to those around them, not just to themselves.

  143. Well, that was a political movie if I’ve ever seen one :-)

    And James-Hastings Trew … the science is not right. It is politically corrupted.

  144. I saw the movie last night. As a movie about global warming, despite Steve McIntyre’s key contribution, it was weak. It might be that I, like many who follow this site, Climate Audit and even Real Climate, was very familiar with most of the substantive points. The presentation of substantive facts had far less impact than Gore’s use of Polar Bears. Most of the small college audience (UNH) had no obvious understanding of the science at all. So much of the “hockey stick” information just left them with the primary takeaway – the hockey stick is wrong. As a piece of counter-propaganda to those like Gore who are preaching catastrophic environmental collapse it was OK. It certainly left one with the feeling that Gore and others do not understand the impact their ideas have on ordinary people either in Indiana or Uganda.

    Steve McIntyre was very self-effacing but very clear and low key with his description of both the early phase of the Hockey Stick controversy and the 2000 NASA temeprature glitch. Ross looked like a leading man while Steve looked like a slimmed down Sebastian Cabot. James Hansen – well he came off quite badly. The WSJ speaker was pretty good – I missed his name – as was Patrick Moore and Lindzen. Beside Gore, the American environmentalist opposed to the use of DDT in Uganda came off the worst – out of touch with the science of DDT not to mention the rest of reality. A well meaning “do gooder” who is contributing to the delay in the use of DDT to reduce malaria. Not evil, just wrong!

    It would have been better, given what it was intended to be, if the movie was tightened up from 90 to 50 minutes. As it stands, I do not think it will gain much traction and will have a short half life as currently put together. The producers better be ready for the counter-attacks.

  145. I ordered the DVD. I’ll wait till I seen the whole show before I make any judgment on its quality. If its as good as I think it is then it needs to be forced on the schools to countered the other movie, but then maybe that’s not the right thing to do with the youtube generation. :)

  146. The title of the movie is entirely wrong of course.
    It should have been titled “Just Evil And Wrong”.

  147. rbateman (03:26:56) :

    Well said, as always, Robert. Definitely the “god perspective”.

    I especially liked this part:

    “It might interest you to know that in a disaster, those who panic have thier survival rates plummet. They also become a very real danger to those around them, not just to themselves.”

    Yah!

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  148. This film was trying to tackle too many issues at once, such as the dynamics of the environmental movement, the banning of DDT and the climate debate issue. The main arguments of the global warming alarmists were not really addressed: 1) the so-called consensus among climate scientists, 2) the authority of the IPCC, 3) the sudden increase in CO2 after 1970 and attribution to global warming, 4) the fact that climate change has become an institution where the researchers assume automatically that AGW exists in order to get funding. On the positive side having a climate authority such as Richard Lindzen was good.

  149. “I’d like to see a film made by scientists, discussing the science. This would tend to be far less emotional and ambiguous, tending to avoid polemics and irrelevance.”

    ZZzzzZzzzZZzzzzZzz… Sorry but not enough scientists vote. It’s the voter that runs things in this democratic world. When the tide turns is when the majority sees that they have been snookered and get very emotional about it. Then onto the next story as the political shape shifters try another tack. Those who perpetrated this hoax must be pursued to the ends of the earth by the hounds of justice, no mercy given.

  150. rbateman (03:26:56) :

    “It might interest you to know that in a disaster, those who panic have thier survival rates plummet. They also become a very real danger to those around them, not just to themselves.”

    I agree, panic is never a productive response to danger, just as innacton is not a productive response.

    Part of adaption is change, we no longer put Lead in paint, Asbestos in houses, CFC’s into the atmosphere, all in an effort to avoid the dangers related to these particular substances. We have adapted to life without these dangerous practices.

    James

  151. To Ern Matthews. “Sorry but not enough scientists vote. It’s the voter that runs things in this democratic world”.
    I disagree with Ern Matthews, that the carbon mitigation policies are democratically voted by the majority of people. The people that the movie should aim are the policy makers and environmentalists which can be convinced by scientific arguments (at least the policy makers) by having climatologists explain natural climate fluctutations, how the consensus on science is obtained, how the IPCC works. Remember that it was scientists who started the global warming hysteria.

Comments are closed.