From the producer:
I wanted to reach out and inform you that the film was recently completed and virtually launched on our website, August 24th, 2012.
Every Global Warming prediction, has proven to be science fiction. Uncover the truth as we expose the shepherds of Climate Change in this new controversial
documentary. Introducing first time filmmakers Pete Garcia II (director), Jesse Jones (writer), Deyvis Martinez (dp), Will Rich (sound) in their debut feature length
film. Independently funded, this indie documentary in not associated with any corporate sponsorship or funding whatsoever. No hidden agendas, just the COLD
truth. Support our grassroots campaign through word of mouth.Help spread the word!
Watch “The Boy Who Cried Warming” in full length at the website:
http://www.TheBoyWhoCriedWarming.com/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This movie is convincing for the simple folk, but way to simple for the people more interested.
This film sucks. It focused on the least important and least scientifically sound objections to CAGW; the tone was cold and creepy; there was hardly any data. Some of the statements made by experts were very sloppy. For instance, one of them says that polar bears have survived in a variable climate for millions of years, yet the species is probably not a million years old yet.
Skeptics need a great documentary, but this certainly isn’t it. I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone.
A bit childish and a bit much of the Crying wolf fairy tale bit. Other than that, a reasonable take on the whole subject.
I am also one who does not like sound bites turned into movie length dramas. I prefer well-done cohesive lectures with supporting data demonstrating both sides of the issue followed by logical arguments as to strengths and weaknesses. In the closing remarks, it is through this unbiased examination that tips the scale one way or the other that determines the final conclusion, not the number of sound bite belief statements from talking heads. Scientists should avoid being talking heads.
In whole I think its very well done. For any who have kept up with this farce it may seem a bit lacking and soft peddled. Just guessing that this is targeted to the newbies.
The production value is excellent. Video, sound, editing, graphics were all very well done.
Thanks for the efforts!
@Mjk
>…Off to check out latest stats on this year’s record low in the arctic……
++++
What a yuk. You think that is the record ‘low sea ice’ do you? Are you clever enough to see that you posted that comment on a thread that is only a few lines above another article showing that many centuries ago when when there were no SUV’s and no coal-fired power plants, there was half as much sea ice in the Arctic as there is right now? So how do you figger the current ‘low’ is some sort of ‘record’, huh?
To me ‘record’ means that to our knowledge it has never been lower – something like Limbo dancing under a pole. If the record is 8.5 inches, then reaching 17 inches is not a ‘record’. Duh. It is that sort of alarmist crap that creates confirmed skeptics out of people who otherwise don’t give a hoot. They are of course most welcomed to the club.
BillD, please cite some of those papers for us. I have read some “climate change papers” published by “scientists”. Many of the one’s I’ve read would not have passed if presented to any of my various (depending on academic discipline) high school teachers or university professors forty plus years ago. In the archives of Watts Up With That and Climate Depot there are many research papers (by real scientists) cited debunking the CAGW claims.
By the way, one of my main criticisms of the “climate scientist” research papers is that the research results do not support the “warming caused by man” concusions.
“Graham Green says:
August 30, 2012 at 3:23 am
Does anyone know if this can be downloaded from anywhere…”
Yes, I have downloaded the whole movie (1.3GB) from http://www.theboywhocriedwarming.com/ using Mozilla Firefox with DownloadHelper plugin. Click on “Watch now”, then on “No thanks, I just want to watch the movie”, and then follow the standard DownloadHelper procedure.
Good luck.
One prediction the climate scientists got wrong: the arctic ice is melting far faster than they predicted. The resulting feedback, perhaps tipping point, of greatly decreased albedo and greatly increased sunlight absorption is upon us.
Will your movie change this?
No.
Yes!! And there is a constant flow of bad science to do sequels. How about one on how science and the peer review process was hijacked and how large professional and religious organizations were manipulated?
I often ask my students to read scientific articles from peer reviewed journals and to comment on the strengths and the weaknesses or limitations of each study. This is important work for scientists in training. The most important question in peer review is: Are the conclusions of the study well supported by the data and analysis? Second, do the authors point out the limitations and uncertainties in their study? When acting as an editor or reviewer, I often support the publication of studies that provide strong evidence, even if they go against what I think is true. I have also rejected many papers where I agree with the underlying hypothesis and theory, but where the evidence is weak. I applaud Anthony for working to get his research published in the scientific literature. He would probably agree that “getting published” is a time-consuming and difficult task.
If you want to be a true skeptic you need to be willing to: 1) be critical of studies, reports and blog posts that are based on weak evidence and 2) offer specific targeted criticism of scientific studies that offer evidence and conclusions that you disagree with.
pat says:
August 30, 2012 at 3:00 am
30 Aug: Australian: Matthew Denholm: Antarctic ice sheds light on big dry
EASTERN Australia is experiencing its driest period since the Middle Ages, according to a study that overturns the nation’s understanding of average rainfall.
Scientists at the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-operative Research Centre have used ice cores, drilled into the east Antarctic ice, to provide a record of the climate during the past 1000 years…
The resulting confidence in the correlation between low salt-ice concentrations in east Antarctica and rainfall in eastern Australia allowed the scientists to calculate a rainfall record stretching back to the year 1000. This data suggests rainfall in eastern Australia since 1920 is below the average of the past 1000 years.
The last similarly dry period was from AD1000 to 1260, in particular between 1160 and 1260, the year Kublai Khan became ruler of the Mongol Empire.
……..
More interestingly, the period of AD 1000 to 1260 was the Medieval Warm Period the descent into the little ice age began around AD 1310-1315 just after that extra dry century 1160-1260. So what this paper is saying is that the previous time this happened was also at a time of global warming. As this is an analogue and Australia is at a peak ‘dry’ now that has surpassed that at the end of the Medieval Warm Period, perhaps the analogue will continue into a descent into the cold of what one hopes will only be a little ice age.
Alexandre says:
August 30, 2012 at 4:00 am
If science does not back you up, nothing like a piece of fiction to redefine truth! Keep up the good work!
=====
Exactly. Reselling the the “consensus global cooling scare” myth … reference to the interplanetary warming nonsense … re-bashing that well known climate scientist, Al Gore … featuring Monckton to make “credible” points … and on, and on. Are you kidding me?
A re-churning of debunked positions and spokesmen. This “documentary” certainly has an eagerly waiting audience, tho’, it’s just not composed of real skeptics. Good luck.
So global warming is false because:
One study says that polar bear populations are stable, and several articles were published in the late 1970’s about global cooling? And now we for some reason need to study the climate of our planetary neighbors (talk about stalling for time!) to show that our own climate is warming, even though the change in atmospheric composition is happening not on Mars or Venus but on Earth? I’ll concede, that there is no absolute proof that humans are causing the climate to warm, but consider this: we only have one habitable planet on which we can do this climate experiment on, and it seems grossly irresponsible to bet the future of our species on the slim chance that you global warming skeptics are correct.
Brendan says ” it seems grossly irresponsible to bet the future of our species on the slim chance that you global warming skeptics are correct.”
The future of our species? Really? And so “The Boy Who Cried Warming” has morphed into Chicken Little… “The Sky Is Falling.”
One prediction the climatologists got wrong: the arctic ice is melting much faster than they predicted.
The locomotive has left the station.
BillD says:
August 30, 2012 at 3:38 am
The first climate science prediction that comes to mind is that “warming will be fastest in the arctic” which is supported by data that the “arctic sea ice is melting.”
====================
However, the Antarctic is cooling (increased ice) which is contrary to prediction.
A much more likely cause of the Arctic warming and Antarctic cooling is the solar wind and the earth’s magnetic field. The magnetic field is known from paleo records to be associated with cliamte change. The magnetic field is currently changing faster that at any time in recent history.
The north magnetic pole is moving towards the Arctic and the south magnetic pole is moving away from the Antarctic. This is affecting the volume of charged particles from the sun reaching the earth’s atmosphere each day at the poles, changing the cloud cover and ozone production, and causing localized ice melt in the Arctic and ice accumulation in the Antarctic.
Climate science has missed the boat because they are so tied up in the mantra that “CO2 causes everything”, which is not science, it is advocacy directed at fossil fuel use. Climate science is so busy looking at CO2 they have ignored the obvious.
The earth’s magnetic field is changing, at a rate we have never seen before. Is this the event that marks the end of the interglacial? We are due (overdue) to slip back into the next ice age.
12.Mjk said (August 30, 2012 at 12:27 am)
“…So “every prediction has proven to be science fiction.” Talk about an overstatement. It discredits the film immediately. Off to check out latest stats on this year’s record low in the arctic…”
and
20.Phil Clarke said (August 30, 2012 at 1:59 am)
“…A film straplined ‘Every Global Warming prediction has proven to be science fiction’ is released in the week that the Arctice Ice extent hits a new low, already 0.8 million sq km below the prediction made by WUWT for the annual minimum.
Seems the planet has a sense of irony…”
Also seems that the planet has it’s own cycles that don’t include Man.
You need to read up on something called the “hothouse” and “icehouse” earth theories.
Here’s one paper to get started:
Montanez, Isabel; G.S. Soreghan (March 2006).
“Earth’s Fickle Climate: Lessons Learned from Deep-Time Ice Ages”. Geotimes 51: 24–27
In short, scientists have found evidence that about 34 million years ago, we started our current “icehouse” state, as ice sheets began to form in Antarctica; the ice sheets in the Arctic didn’t start forming until 2 million years ago.
So while the current Arctic ice may be at a RECENT all time low, the earth has gone through periods with a LOT less ice than we have now.
And recovered.
BillD, There are not a couple of hundred climate change papers published each year. Unless you’re counting all papers that assume anthropogenic climate change and then make conclusions. Assumptions and unsupported attribution can make valid discussion items, but don’t add weight to the hypothesis. If you weed down to only those papers which directly contribute to knowledge of climate change, I think you’ll find a much different picture.
“Also seems that the planet has it’s own cycles that don’t include Man.”
These cycles were discovered by scientific research. By the same group of folks that are describing AGW. It would be surprising if one body of data were valid, and the other…entirely wrong.
“And recovered.”
It is the rapidity of the change that is important with AGW. And its effect on entrenched agricultural, economic, sociopolitical systems that cannot change as fast as the environment.
The key word: rapidity.
“I applaud Anthony for working to get his research published in the scientific literature.”
BillD, according to your own crucible of skepticism, are you skeptical of Anthony?
henrythethird says:
August 30, 2012 at 7:46 am
So while the current Arctic ice may be at a RECENT all time low, the earth has gone through periods with a LOT less ice than we have now.
=============
Exactly. Imagine the human species was short lived and lived exclusively in the northern hemisphere. We developed intelligence and started keeping records in February 2012. We are now in August 2012 and our history shows rapid warming. From this we (climate science) would predict that by December 2012 it would be roasting hot outside.
Our records of long term climate are poor to say the least. The surface thermometer records show much more warming than is shown by satellites. So what do cliamte scientists do? They ignore the satellite records because they don’t support the foregone conclusion, that CO2 drives cliamte change.
We saw this in the IPCC and their rush to overthrow previous studies showing a medieval warming period and a little ice age, and replace all of this with the unverified and un-replicated hockey stick. We see this time and time again with the failure to publish data, which is standard practice in climate science, and unacceptable in any other field. This is not science. It is nonsense.
As the Wizard of Oz said, the only thing that separates the scarecrow from a learned person is a piece of paper. At least the scarecrow had common sense.
Scientifically, recent warming cannot be caused by CO2 GHG effect, because the science of GHG warming requires the atmosphere to warm first followed by the surface. All the records show that it is the surface that has warmed first, with much less atmospheric warming, This is contrary to the science behind GHG warming and clearly established that GHG is not the cause of the observed surface warming.
The failure of cliamte science to recognize this obvious falsification demonstrates that climate science is pseudo-science. The most basic prediction of GHG warming has failed and there is no known mechanism by which this can have happened that is consistent with the GHG theory.
Thank you to everyone who is checking the film out, it is very rewarding to see the fruits of our labor. We really appreciate those who took the time to write comments on the film here, its amazing when you can see actual discourse on your project evolve (even criticism), as filmakers the objective is always to get people talking! I would respond to some of the technical issues people are having, but the thread seems to be taking care of this. I hope overall you enjoyed it, and if you did not, at least it didn’t cost you anything but your time!
Special Thanks to those personally donating, you are the lifeblood of “The Boy Who Cried Warming”
Jesse Jones
Producer/Writer (and for the coma I apologize)
The Antarctic is not cooling.
I tried to watch it , but too schmaltzy.
I watched Top Gear polar special instead.