From the YouTube description:
The IPCC has produced a video on its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). The first part on the Working Group I contribution to AR5 is now available. The other parts will be released with the successive approvals of the other two Working Group contributions and the Synthesis Report in the course of 2014.
Watch the video:
A few points.
- Immediately you can see this isn’t produced as a science video, but more in the style of a glossy sales pitch complete with CGI.
- It’s nine minutes of climate cliché bingo. I lost count of the number of crumbling blocks of ice, dried out lake beds, floods, and dark backlit water vapour shots, all delivered in a fast, almost “subliminal advertising” style. The only disappointment was the lack of stranded polar bears on ice floes. The commentary regurgitates all the usual mantras (Paul Matthews)
- There is only a very brief flash of the distinctly unscary temperature record at 2:05. If you blink you might miss it. (Paul Matthews)
- Climate models are by far not as perfect as it is suggested in the video – in fact most climate models cannot even reproduce the observed annual global mean temperature (h/t Eduardo Zorita)
- Many of the scientists on the video act almost as if they are prophets seeing the future, yet there is no mention of the wholesale failure of climate models to match observations. It the sort of sweep it under the rug hyping you expect from televangelists. I loved the scene where Reto Knutti sits behind a computer montor group boldly labeled “PROJECTIONS”, as if done specifically for the video.
- You are immediately hit with a video advertisement, something which is controlled from the poster’s YouTube account. Why would the IPCC need advertising revenue?
- The answer comes in the credits, the video was produced by “Snöball Films” for the IPCC. They bill themselves as “Snöball Film AS is Norway’s leading environment for the development and production of informational and educational film.”, so apparently the IPCC has made a deal to allow them to get ad revenue from YouTube. With 1500+ views so far, it doesn’t look like they’ll get much, OTOH its more view than serial whiner Collin Maessen has had in several months for his “No, Global Warming Hasn’t Stopped” video.
Hilary Ostrov reports in AR5 “The Movie” … tick-tick, boom-boom, doom-doom
Alex Cull has now produced “a transcript, where viewers can read and assess the text, without all the visuals or the soundtrack: https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/home/20131121_ip ”
Pierre Gosslin sums it up:
Nice piece of propaganda with all the vital elements. What stands out to me is the one-sidedness of the video, ignoring the inconvenient truths from Antarctica, failed models and the 15-year warming pause (see 2:05 mark above). And note how these scientists try to come across as prophets who can see centuries ahead. Just the overall air of know-it-all arrogance these scientists take on makes you want to puke on your keyboard.
In summary, any scientist believing the nonsense needs a doctor, or an education in science – beginning from first grade.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thanks, for the mention, Anthony (and for the RT earlier this week)
It’s worth noting, I think, that Stocker’s “key messages” (found in this video and elsewhere) made it into (at least the latest version I saw last night of) the draft of this off-key “Warsaw concerto”.
When there are snow storm as far south as Texas I doubt anyone in North America gives a crap about the IPCC and their blackmail schemes, let alone one more You Tube idiotic video amongst a world of other moronic videos on that site. That is unless the entire IPCC is twirking on the video – then it would be hilarious! I’d watch that.
@ur momisugly Hilary Ostrov — Excellent summary on your site: http://hro001.wordpress.com/2013/11/21/ar5-the-movie-tick-tick-boom-boom-doom-doom/
This observation of yours was especially revealing:
“… be sure to note the standard IPCC “we can have it both ways” disclaimer:
”
LOL, talk about a qualifying clause that wolfs down the rest of the contract. What a bunch of Slick Willies.
They left comments on. Enjoy 😉
@ur momisugly Pierre Gosselin — thanks for sharing this great news (on your excellent site!):
By P Gosselin on 23. November 2013
See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2013/11/23/germanys-faz-features-chart-no-german-was-ever-supposed-to-see-john-christys-catastrophic-errors-graph/#sthash.wRq60znA.dpuf
Did anyone notice on the ice core CO2 / temperature co-relation graph that CO2 (green line) lags Temperature (yellow line) ROFL
I guess technically they didn’t say it was the other way around.
Seems to be a bit of a disconnect developing in the “close correlation between C02 concentration and temperature rise”….about 2:04 into video
http://i.imgur.com/7ET40DQ.jpg
“Climate Catastrophe!!”
Time for another read of Crichton’s “State of Fear.” It never goes out of date!
I think we have a winner in the annual Leni Riefenstahl memorial “informational” film award competition.
good video.
The most striking climate revelation in the era of this report is the gap between current observations and all the climate model predictions. All the IPCC climate scientists choose to ignore this and thus their role in climate science history is now on the record.
BBC Newshour: Julian Marshall begins with reference to Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda and goes to lengthy piece on the Typhoon as soon as he finishes with McGrath & the Warsaw talks. obviously, MSM intends to continue linking every weather event to CAGW, directly or by association.
BBC’s Matt McGrath says, in the documents, they want the numbers PRE-COOKED before Paris 2015. ( PRE-COOKED IS SO CAGW). Hedegaard plays the bossy schoolmarm, ordering delegates to go home, do their homework:
LISTEN TO FIRST SEVEN MINUTES:
AUDIO: 1:30: BBC: Newshour: UN Climate Change Talks
Julian Marshall: worth remembering the climate talks began with Typhoon Haiyan etc etc etc etc…
3:30: Connie Hedegaard: they have to go straight home, do their homework, decide their contributions, in good time for Paris…
6:09: McGrath to Julian Marshall: they are talking about having committments(??) from all countries…all the big countries(?)… nobody wants repeat of Copenhagen; they want it all PRE-COOKED in the terminology, they want it PRE-COOKED when they go to Paris, so they just sign the deal then.
Julian Marshall begins Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda story.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/newshour
Rob, ‘Did anyone notice on the ice core CO2 / temperature co-relation graph that CO2 (green line) lags Temperature (yellow line)’
At least they didn’t deny the Earth’s temperature is increasing.
Great glossary I borrowed: Sorry if this isn’t on topic Anthony. Forgive me.
CLIMATE CHANGE GLOSSARY
PEER REVIEW: The act of banding together a group of like-minded academics with a funding conflict of interest, for the purpose of squeezing out any research voices that threaten the multi-million dollar government grant gravy train.
SETTLED SCIENCE: Betrayal of the scientific method for politics or money or both.
DENIER: Anyone who suspects the truth.
CLIMATE CHANGE: What has been happening for billions of years, but should now be flogged to produce ‘panic for profit.’
NOBEL PEACE PRIZE: Leftist Nutcase Prize, unrelated to “Peace” in any meaningful way.
DATA, EVIDENCE: Unnecessary details. If anyone asks for this, see “DENIER,” above.
CLIMATE SCIENTIST: A person skilled in spouting obscure, scientific-sounding jargon that has the effect of deflecting requests for “DATA” by “DENIERS.” Also skilled at affecting an aura of “Smartest Person in the Room” to buffalo gullible legislators and journalists.
JUNK SCIENCE: The use of invalid scientific evidence resulting in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified, understood, from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific knowledge.
If these are top climate scientists, I’d hate to see the ones on the bottom.
I’m glad we have Global Warming or we wouldn’t have any weather at all….
/sarc!
John: ‘If these are top climate scientists, I’d hate to see the ones on the bottom.’
They would probably say the same thing. 97% of climate scientists are in agreement.
It’s now 6.40 am here in the UK and I’ve just watched the film.
Again, we see another blatantly expensive, well-funded, professionally produced film bursting with climate change melodrama which achieves nothing. This is because the ‘true believers’, who are already hoodwinked (with an uncritical acceptance that conforms to the IPCC’s opinionated ‘orthodox’ beliefs), will simply watch it and say the film tells them what they already know. For those of us who think CAGW is utter nonsense, the film provides yet another reason for us to become angry and rebellious.
Unlike this propaganda, which falls short by simply saying ‘CO2 has increased’, there needs to be a film which includes statistical emphasis like “Did you know that only 0.040% of the entire air we breath is CO2. This is a tiny amount. Yes, it’s not a lot is it. Other atmospheric gas is 99.96%.” and “Not all this CO2 is our fault either. 96.775% of total CO2 is naturally occurring which only leaves 3.225% of all the CO2 being man-made . . . . so when we tell you that this tiny incy wincy amount of man-made gas is causing our world to warm up (slightly), then we will understand if you think we’re mad.”
Footnote: Close down all crematoriums I say! Humans must no longer die. Think of all that anthropogenic CO2 being emitted from the combustion of wooden caskets and human remains inside those oil or gas fired furnaces running @ur momisugly 870 C. We must save the planet. Now.
GeeJam, ““Did you know that only 0.040% of the entire air we breath is CO2. This is a tiny amount. Yes, it’s not a lot is it. Other atmospheric gas is 99.96%.”’
Good point. And they should also point out the 99% of the atmosphere’s other gases have no greenhouse effect.
Then they should NOT mention that CO2 concentration has increased by 40% since industrialization started. Because people might think the increase in the CO2 is causing the earth to heat up.
Thanks Bill. As someone once said on WUWT (I think it was Jimbo) “now if they told us it was Nitrogen @ur momisugly 78.084%, I’d believe them”.
Its become desperate times for the Warmista. Neither the science nor the evidence support their agenda so what do they turn to…….Propaganda.
Came for monkeys shrieking at a cooling tower. Remain seriously put out that they still won’t pay homage to Stanley Kubrick.
James Allison: ‘Its become desperate times for the Warmista. Neither the science nor the evidence support their agenda so what do they turn to…….Propaganda.’
James, is propaganda better or worse than using misleading data?
James, just as an aside, I see that you have used the word ‘Warmista’. I thought that we all agreed that the earth was heating up.
The only point of contention was that warming was natural or that it was going to be good for us.
“Bill says:
November 23, 2013 at 9:10 pm
At least they didn’t deny the Earth’s temperature is increasing.”
Not quite sure what you are trying to prove here Bill as no-one is claiming temperatures have not risen since the Little Ice Age, no-one is claiming climate does not change, no-one is sugesting there is no GHGe and that CO2 does not have some influence on “warming”. The science is very clear in this respesct. What is in doubt is how much does that ~40% increase in CO2 (~3% of 400ppm/v) effect climate, in a bad way, through warming given we know the maximum “warming” effect of CO2 occurs below ~80ppm/v, and is largely saturated out by ~250ppm/v. So far, there is no evidence to support the claim that ~3% of 400ppm/v is DRIVING climate to change in a bad way. None outside computer games that is!