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.
RE john byatt,
The story of the wolf – they were hunted, almost to extinction, and are only now coming back thanks to man’s help.
And they are doing so on sufference from man. Eat too many cattle or sheep and some rancher will be glad to show them who the dominant species is on this planet.
@Kevin MacDonald
>>anarchist hate machine says:
>>what’s happening in the antarctic?
>It’s losing ice.
++++
I believe that paper is about 4 years out of date. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml
You can also check the Sea Ice Reference page on WUWT at any time to see how much the Abtarctic ice coverage is above the long term trend. The lower rainfall in Eastern Australia since the 1920’s is strongly linked to increasing sea ice in Antarctica, right?
Pamela Gray says:
August 30, 2012 at 6:54 am
“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”
Unfortunately, logic does not win the hearts and minds of the masses, sound bites do. Hope and change anyone?
Gail Combs says:
August 30, 2012 at 2:55 am
There are many of us who would like to see passports required to enter Wyoming for those arriving from foreign countries like California or New York City.
The claim “every prediction has proven to be science fiction.” is easily falsifiable. Without checking every prediction, how can this be supported? Is hyperbole bad when used by the warmist hotheads but good when used by skeptics?*
Remove the “every prediction has proven to be science fiction” line and instead list the ones that have been falsified.
* Of course, most AGW claims are based on projections or scenarios, so maybe it’s not far off track, since they aren’t technically predictions.
Nobody specified the Antarctic sea ice, why the cherry pick? If you have a more recent publication that refutes the one I linked to, by all means, cite it, but don’t move the goal posts; it makes you look disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst.
Keep up the good work, Anthony. Your credibility remains unchanged. The good thing is that even if and when WUWT goes defunct and closed down and removed, wattsupwiththat, in its entirety, it will have been archived someplace in perpetuity as a testimony to your efforts, integrity, intelligence, honesty, insight, analysis, contribution. Immortality… doesn’t get better than that.
>>
For goodness’ sake, why wouldn’t they WANT people to watch it and thus make it easy for them to watch and to tell their friends about it?
If I can’t watch it, then I’m not likely to recommend it to any of my friends – am I?
>>
Because they want to hit you $$$ before you watch.
I’d be more impressed if they asked for a donation after I’ve watched not just based on the trailer lined here. From what they give you in the trailer I’m find it has nice graphics but seems rather hollow.
Even less impressed when I select “no thanks, I just want to watch the movie” and it takes me back to
CONTRIBUTE NOW RETURN HOME
Very funny. Pseudo-skeptic scam ??
Crispin,
“Everyone has the right to be stupid, but comrade MacDonald abuses the privilege.”
~ Leon Trotsky
☺
Brendan;
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, the sword cuts both ways. The actions required to reduce CO2 emissions have negative consequences of their own. If we were to cut emissions to zero tommorrow, a few billion people would die over the next week or two. This is something that those who wail away about the future of the species seem to not understand (or perhaps they just don’t care?). The bottom line is that we can sentence billions of people to certain death to prevent something that MIGHT happen, or we can make pragmatic decisions on how to deal with things that DO happen. The latter will cost far fewer lives than the former. The notion that a much warmer earth would eradicate us as a species entirely simply has no merit at all.
Richard M says:
August 30, 2012 at 5:56 am
BillD says:
August 30, 2012 at 3:38 am
Really, try reading a few hundred of the climate change papers published each year. Some are physics, some are biology, some are paleo. Take your choice or read a mixture. They are written by scientists from around the world and they all are “wrong.” (?). I assume that both the data and the analysis are wrong (?)
What data?
Richard M and others–have you ever read a scientific paper on climate change? I am a biologist, so I am more familiar with biological studies that mostly deal with data on how climate change has affected population distributions and seasonal phenology. I just checked out the web site of a journal called “Global Change Biology.” The new September issue is on their web site and it looks like all 20+ articles are open access. One paper is even about polar bears. Most are about how organisms have changed in response to climate change over the past 30 years or so. Papers that make predictions about the further often use put data into models, since that is the most quantitative way to make predictions. However, most of the papers are based on data without models.
Try reading 5 or 10 of these papers. If you don’t like the data, the analysis or the statistics, go ahead and write to the authors and tell them how to improve their analysis. I occasionally write to authors and mention criticisms of their publications.
BillD says:
August 30, 2012 at 3:38 am (Edit)
Hi Bill, perhaps you would be good enough to point out the paper (s ) that show definitively the link between human generated CO2 and climate change. All the papers I have seen depart from that “stated fact” and so many of the papers you refer to do the same I suspect.
So please, I ask you with tears in my baby blue eyes, point us at the paper showing that Anthropogenic CO2 is causing climate change, global warming, climate disruption or whatever the phrase de jour is. Thanks.
As for the movie , 5 stars. It is a great bit of documentary, well crafted, well thought out and accurate to boot. Two thumbs up I say.
Folks should keep in mind this movie is not designed for skeptics. It appears to be designed for people whose only contact with the climate change issue is Al Gore’s movie, AIT. This movie does a good job of pointing out the problems with AIT.
Congratulations to the “The Boy Who Cried Warming” team.
Keith AB, here is a bone for you to chew on:
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L08502, 6 PP., 2012
doi:10.1029/2012GL051094 “Observations reveal external driver for Arctic sea-ice retreat.”
Good grief is that really it?” The ice is melting and it must be man made CO2″. Thanks for that, I will try to gain some understanding of all that they looked at as well as man made CO2 and report back. However looking at the CO2/Ice extent graph which shows correlation yet the CO2 hasn’t correlated with temperature lately I would be curious as to what method the MMCO2 used to melt the ice.
I support this excellent film “The Boy Who Cried Warming”, from the Global Warming Initiative.
Another good dose of climate truth!
http://www.theboywhocriedwarming.com now has 4 links from my pages.
Thanks.
The Antarctic is not warming. Only the peninsula is warming slightly.
@Smokey
Yes Kevin MacDonald abuses the priviledge.
So Kevin, do you agree with TomT?
>>“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.
Kevin, do you think that if a cycle is discovered by scientific research, say a 60 year warming and cooling cycle on a 1500 year larger warming and cooling cycle on a larger 26,000 year cycle, that these cycles are supporting of CAGW? Would someone studying all the cycles automatically have to a CAGW promoter? No. They would have all the evidence they need to note that natural variations are faster, steeper, greater and have had more impact than anything that has happened in the 20th and 21st centuries, or that has been predicted by the IPCC or anyone else. I personally have no concerns whatsoever about Arctic sea ice melting 100% each year. We are not causing it, it happened before and it will happen again. It might even warm up enough to melt the permafrost off the graveyards of the Vikings buried in Greenland. Let’s hope so.
It seems to me that many scientists discover cycles and there are few strongly divergent opinions about what they indicate, which is that the Earth has massive warming and cooling events that have nothing to do with AGW. Some take short cycles, say 2006-2009 as in the paper you cited and linked, and its claim that the increase per year in Antarctic Ice loss (that is what you were referring to, right?) is 26 cubic kilometers. Do you think a three (3) year trend is something to base the reorganisation of the global economy on? I doubt it, which means your insincerity is self-evident.
Moving the goal posts? Yes, I noticed when you did exactly that. You talked about Antarctic ice and reference a paper that discussed Antarctic ice and I replied on that same subject.
Kevin, did you calculate the time it would take to melt all the ice in Antarctica at an acceleration rate of 26 km^3 per year? We at WUWT did that long ago and number is hilarously alarming. 🙂
At minute 6:35 in the clip, the female moderator asks, “are today’s dooming loom predictions any more credible …“! 🙂 We all know what she means, of course, but still it’s a funny and almost inevitable verbal transposition. Doomed by looms. Who’d have predicted that? 🙂
BillD says:
August 30, 2012 at 7:14 am
Being an academic, do you not agree that any paper skeptical of climate change does not get funding, but those that adhere to the meme gets tons of funding. Can you apply your critical thinking skills and see the systemic bias in this?
OOPS – That Rosa Koire video on the implementation of Agenda 21 is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK2sZUs2l_U
I did find the info on those road closures @ur momisugly ~ 1hr 8 minutes. It is in Sonoma County. Sonoma has at present 1384 roads, all but 150 miles of roads will be closed and pulverized. Considering Rosa worked for the California Department of Transportation I think she has her facts straight. The given reason is lack of funding for road maintenance. The county also lists closures for the “Smart Rail” project.
Here is the Sonoma County map validating the information.
MikeP says:
August 30, 2012 at 7:54 am
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.
Mike P—Above I point out that the new issue of Climate Change Biology has 20+ open access articles. So, I assume that one journal has about 200 articles on climate change per year. That’s just one specialized journal! Climate change is published in at least 50 journals representing diverse fields, as well as general journals like Science and Nature. So, I would guess that there are at least several thousand peer reviewed studies on climate change each year. Maybe there are a few thousand physics and atmospherics studies, 1000 + paleo studies and a few thousand studies on biological changes. I am leaving out studies on economics, renewable energy etc, which probably include a few thousand per year. Way more than anyone person can read.
If you do a search on “Climate change” in Google Scholar you get over 2 million hits. Most of the articles cited in Google Scholar are peer reviewed, although I am sure that not all of them are good original articles on climate change. Review articles are also important, however. I would guess that a big marjority of the 2 million plus are within the last 10 years. That could mean more than 100,000 scholarly articles per year that at least cite studies on climate change.
Well done to all the production team. An excellent, if late, riposte to the infamous ‘Inconvenient Truth’ film by Al Gore. Alternative title could be ‘The Real Inconvenient Truth about AGW’. Good to see it is being widely distributed.
Three things I can guarantee though:-
1) It wont be shown on our ‘impartial’ BBC, but Channel 4 might be interested – they broadcast The Great Global Warming Swindle’ in 2007.
2) No state school will show it but may get more luck at private ones.
3) My grandchildren wont take a lot of persuasion to watch it.
Two small criticisms – the background electronic ‘musak’ was awful and was a distraction from the authoratative commentary. Secondly, there are a fairly large number of vineyards in SE England, mainly planted since the last was (’45) – some of it quite drinkable!
BillD says:
..Richard M and others–have you ever read a scientific paper on climate change? I am a biologist, so I am more familiar with biological studies that mostly deal with data on how climate change has affected population distributions and seasonal phenology. I just checked out the web site of a journal called “Global Change Biology.” The new September issue is on their web site and it looks like all 20+ articles are open access. One paper is even about polar bears. Most are about how organisms have changed in response to climate change over the past 30 years or so. …
So, you are deliberately associating CO2 induced climate change (aka CAGW) or AGW) with actual climate change? I am sure there have been zillions of instances of biological changes to climate change(s) – (ice age, anyone?) over the millenia, some relatively fast, some slow – so measuring ANY biological change over 30 years means diddly squat in terms of linking to anthropogenic CO2 causes – though I would accept that many such measurable changes could be due to localised pollution, or other anthropogenic effects.
I would very strongly contend that the biosphere is in CONSTANT change with respect to species, from many diverse effects, and NOT just climate. Do all the papers you have read specifically and solely attribute changes to JUST climate, and further, to just warming as a result of increased CO2. I suspect not – at least not any real scientific ones – because the latter link simply cannot be proven!
Indeed, the headline papers of biological studies related to climate change all seem to be head over heels in establishing a link to AGW, but without actual success and certainly not to any level of certainty. The majority are simply grant sucking wastes of effort!
Regarding the film. To the denizens of WUWT? all the information in this movie is old hat. Remember that the general public has probably not heard ANY of this.
For those claiming the points in the movie have been debunked, I put it to you that they have been debunked on sites that delete opposing points of view. That is the very definition of echo chamber. Try posting those same challenges on a site that leaves debate open. Do you have the stones?
Typo —-last war (45)—-