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.
No, your reply referenced Antarctic sea ice which is only a tiny fraction of Antarctic ice, if you don’t know the difference I would suggest your sources of information are wanting.
BillD, many species cycle through oceanic oscillation-driven weather pattern variations in short and long term spans. What does not happen is climate change (excluding of course geologic time scales). Weather patterns change, sometimes rapidly, within the broader band of current geographic climate boundaries. So far, the noise of anthropogenic changes in weather patterns have yet to change geographic climates. In fact, anthropogenic weather noise has not exceeded natural weather noise within geographic climates. The signal you seek is still buried and therefore cannot be extracted from natural noise. So any changes in flora and fauna cannot yet be attributed to CO2-related “anthropogenic climate change” (the quotes serve to inform you that I do not thing this label is an appropriate label for human-caused weather pattern variations).
You know this because you know that weather pattern data is clear on this (unless you are choosing to ignore the data). A human signal has yet to be found in weather (IE atmospheric and oceanic driven weather parameters). If you still prefer to believe in empirically unsupportable AGW-driven biological changes in flora and fauna, I for one would have to argue with whether or not you should be teaching scientific criticism. This is a class I have taken at the graduate level so I am familiar with this discipline and apply it regularly as an educator.
@BillD
I love it when people try to tell Canadians about polar bears.
So, let’s look at polar bear adaption to warming in the north: the bears have adapted by finding there are a lot more fish because there is more for fish to eat. Fish are eaten by seals and as a result there are more seals too! Did you notice? Then because there are more seals, they are easier to catch and so the polar bear population has rocketed upwards like a hockey stick on steroids. I am not talking about a few degress of uptick, I am talking about a 400% increase in my lifetime. You know what kills polar bears? Thick ice. They starve to death because seals can’t create breathing holes.
I suggest that CAGW alarmists who want to read, through their tears, the data and not the models, take a long, close biological look at the explosion of the polar bear population over a 50 year period (1962-2012) and revise some of their doom-and-gloom pronouncements and the future of this particular Usrus.
For heaven’s sake no one start telling me about seals needing ice to live/breed/buy condos. There are seals living happily in South Africa (like the ‘ice-needing’ penguins in Fish Hoek) and in California where they have the good sense to enjoy the sun while it still shines.
I hate to criticize this but it comes off low budget. For the most part the interviews themselves are decent and you do get scientists such as Pat Michaels and Willie Soon in the full version. However, you initially have interviews with no captions of who they are or their qualifications (these show up later but should be immediate). Some are not the best representation of who they are, for instance, Pat Michael’s caption should include, “Ph.D. in Climatology”. You have some subtle audio problems where the sound changes based on the interviewee likely because the mike was on the camera. I would not have included the non climate scientists to explain anything relating to climate science but only used them for policy information. The narration also comes off as amateurish, it probably would have been better to just have stuck to interviews. Some of the effects are kind of cheesy between interview cuts, 3D lettering always comes off as made on my home PC.
You have good documentaries already out,
Doomsday Called Off (2005)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295
Give Me a Break: Global Warming (2007)
The Great Global Warming Swindle (2007)
Unstoppable Solar Cycles (2008)
Apocalypse? No! (2008)
The Cloud Mystery (2008)
I wonder if future voice recognition and speech synthesis will be able to take old global-climate-warming-change content and turn it into new man-caused-ice-age content by cutting and pasting today’s video clips of “experts”. It is best to get on the new bandwagon early and being able to reuse all the old documentaries would save a lot of leg work.
The South Pole is still cooling. The Arctic is cooling, too, meaning that the sea ice decline is due to wind, water, storms, and ocean currents.
@BillD
“That could mean more than 100,000 scholarly articles per year that at least cite studies on climate change.”
+++++
What does that have to do with establishing a clear link between AG emissions of CO2 and the temperature of the planet? I write peer reviewed articles and I always have some sop to the climate alarmists in the paper, at least indirectly, to make sure it will get through peer review. I don’t want my work being struck down because I am not genuflecting in the general direction of the altar of human sacrifice that CAGW has become. Is this at least slightly disingenuous? You bet your bottom carbon-tax dollar it is!
If the review process was honest and fair, if manipulators of the journals by CAGW promoters was not so pervasive, if baseless attacks on honest and balanced editors were eliminated, if journalistic freedom was on the ascendant, there would be no need for including such garbage. For example, we never refer to CO2 and CO, we refer to GHG’s because they are GHG’s and that is what the editors want to see. I still cringe each time I see it. We also follow formatting and citation shibboleths and conventions. But don’t think for a single moment that the journal editors, the peer reviewers or the authors are completely sucked into the doom-saying AGW vortex (or should I say, vor-tax?). I do not personally know more than two IPCC authors and reviewers, but they are both fully aware that CAGW is a massive fraud being perpetrated against the people of the world, massive in the sense that the foundation arguments are either unproven or false, and that there are large sums of money being removed from wallets on the basis that it is all true.
@Smokey
Quite right. There is a CBC announcement about a sailing ship passing through the northern NW Passage. The video shows the yacht creeping forward with the sailors spar-poling the giant chunks of floating ice around the hull. They are floating in a massive sea (literally) of gigantic ice cubes one or two metres on a side.
Well done. I am impressed. Good job the big storm broke up the ice or they would have been trapped for a year. At least. Big ice break-up is followed by big freeze.
Let’s see if they can get home without freezing. The NW is very cold right now.
For those who want to follow someting interesteing, take the freeze rate of Arctic ice and plot the first derivative. Go back as far as you like in time. What do you see?
David Ball says:
August 30, 2012 at 10:16 am
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?
I’ve had NSF grants and have reviewed more than 100 such grants. The grants are funded to provide testing of hypotheses, not to suppor an hypothesis. Reviews and grant panels recommend funding for work that will have an impact on knowledge and which is likely to be well done. The way to get a grant is to show that we are lacking data and testing in an important area and that you are the best person or team to do the work. In every study that I’ve done, some of the results were different than what I expected or maybe, consistent with what I expected but contrary to the views of most other scientists. You never get funding for parroting a “meme” that has little meaning or is already well tested. Papers are accepted for publication because they have something new to offer and the conclusions are well supported by the data. If a “skeptic” has good data and the data are well analyzed and the scientist does a good job of articulating and presenting the results, it will get published. Scientific papers generally talk about the limitations of the study and must consider how the study fits into the literature. There are some skeptical climate scientists and they do get grants and publish papers. They are just a very small and decreasing minority. My most recent paper “attacked” a popular theory. I’ll admit, some reviewers were upset and seemed really picky to me, but the quality of the work was recognized and it was published. Of course, I did not show that the popular theory was “wrong” only that it is less important and applies more narrowly than its proponents thought.
That doesn’t show Antarctic temperatures, it shows the Antarctic sea ice area anomaly. Antarctic sea ice represents a tiny fraction of Antarctic ice and cannot be held to represent the whole Antarctic climate. As I asked Crispin, why the cherry pick?
What to believe, the Watts approved, peer reviewed, O’Donnell paper, or an unattributed, unreferenced picture?
IIRC, the “unattributed, unreferenced” picture of the cooling Antarctic was on the cover of Nature. Feel free to argue with them if you like.
Smokey says:
August 30, 2012 at 11:02 am
The South Pole is still cooling. The Arctic is cooling, too, meaning that the sea ice decline is due to wind, water, storms, and ocean currents.
=====
Yes, that truncated SP graph does seen to show significant warming over the past 30+ years – seems to follow global trends. And that global top-of-lower-stratosphere graph you represent as Arctic temperatures is quite impressive too. Keep up the good work.
If you know it’s provenance you should have no problem linking to the study and the data it references.
@Kevin
“As I asked Crispin, why the cherry pick?”
Just exactly what is the cherry pick here? Let’s get down to brass tacks. Do you think the total land ice volume of Antarctica is increasing or decreasing? Do you think the total Antarctic sea ice volume is increasing or decreasing? Do you think the total Antarctic sea ice area is increasing or decreasing? You are the one who brought up the Antarctic ice so I presume you are up to date on these topics.
Your reference to O’Donnell is noted. Didn’t he already withdraw that paper or was it that he apologised for its obvious errors? Or both? Oh, right….
You should stop underestimating your correspondents or switch to another, less popular channel.
BillD says:
<>
Bill – with respect, I’d like you to show me ONE climate science paper, purporting to conclude a definitive link between CO2 and global warming, which further shows all the data and all the limitations of that data and study, (and the FULL and REALISTIC limitations of any models used therein!) – and moreover, which CORRECTLY and scientifically summarises the findings WITHOUT simply following the purported ‘AGW meme’. I have to say, in all honesty, that I have yet to see one – but I am open to suggestions. The majority of papers I have seen do not meet the general scientific paper standards you mention. Rarely do we see a paper saying it’s findings ‘MAY’ indicate a tentative link to CO2/AGW (though many say that more research is needed! LOL). Even more rarely do we see a paper stating that the data it used has significant error margins (e.g. temp anomalys =/- 1degC yet purporting to show a trend of +0.5degC – etc, etc). These kind of basic scientific facts seem to be absent from the general climate science based papers. As I said, if you could show me ONE, truly scientifically presented and reviewed, pro-AGW paper, I’d be quite amazed (and for heavens sake, don’t try throwing something like the Hockey stick at me!)
My criticism is of course based on the fact that the vast majority of major pro-AGW papers seem to be easily debunked by proper scientific review – or at least, debunked to such a level that the pro-AGW ‘summary’ is clearly indicated to be following the ‘meme’ rather than following the included or indicated science……..
regards
Kev
The question asked by anarchist hate machine was “what’s happening in the antarctic?” Your response referred only Antarctic sea ice. Antarctic sea ice is not the Antarctic, it is a tiny fraction of it; a cherry pick.
No, that was anarchist hate machine.
Did he, do you have a citation? If he did, then Steig et al still stands and, by extension, so does my point.
P. Solar says:
August 30, 2012 at 9:18 am
>>
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.
========================
You really are a very stupid Troll P Solar. Go back to the website and read the instructions. If that is too difficult for you then try reading through the posts here explaining to your Trolls mates that viewing the whole video is free and donations are voluntary.
Kev-in-Uk says:
August 30, 2012 at 11:52 am
BillD says:
Bill – with respect, I’d like you to show me ONE climate science paper, purporting to conclude a definitive link between CO2 and global warming, which further shows
I’m a biologist. Studies on biology do not provide information on the cause of climate warming. Rather, they look at the effect of climate change, usually on species in nature. With all of the controversy about UHI and Muller’s analysis, it’s interesting to note that plants, animals and microbes are showing strong responses to climate change that are in concert with the observed rate of change in regional and global temperature. In my view, this is much more convincing than a reanalysis of the human temperature record. A while back, Anthony was concerned about how air temperature was measured at a weather station on the shores of Lake Tahoe. However, I can assure you that scientists measuring the effects of climate change on Lake Tahoe measured changes in the organisms, in water temperature and in lake mixing.
Biologist usually do Assume that atmopheric scientists are correct, and the only good explanation for recent warming is the increase green house gases (that is dominated by CO2 from fossil fuels). Thus, biologists expect that the climate will continue to warm. I agree that correlations between CO2 and short term (decades) temperature change are not convincing by themselves. On the other hand, physics and paleo data indicate that CO2 is the dominant factor in recent warming. When 90% or more of the experts believe something is true, it’s hard to see how skeptics can be so sure that the scientists are wrong. In science we have theories based on first principles and then we try to test the theories with predictions about the natural world. Scientists are not basing their conclusions on a single definitive study. Rather, when first principles and 100’s or 1,000s of studies support the same conclusion and there is a lack of support for alternatives, a consensus developes. I understand that many readers and posters on this blog disagree.
Crispin in Waterloo says:
August 30, 2012 at 11:11 am
…..For those who want to follow someting interesting, take the freeze rate of Arctic ice and plot the first derivative. Go back as far as you like in time. What do you see?
_________________________
I would really like to see that. Is this what you mean? link That is the thaw. I do not see the speed of freeze up or the data so I can plot it myself.
Here is the current conditions: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/latest/noaa1.jpg
I do not see any melt pools. And the temp seems to be below freezing.
DMI chart: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Danish map of temps: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/satellite/index.uk.php
Danish map of temps anomalies: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/satellite/index.uk.php (Looks like Russia is already starting to freeze up)
With that storm making the Arctic sea Ice Cube Soup and an early start to freeze up we may see an increase in the freeze rate this winter.
@Smokey
Nice one!
>Kevin MacDonald says:
>Smokey says:
>August 30, 2012 at 11:19 am
>IIRC, the “unattributed, unreferenced” picture of the cooling Antarctic was on the cover of Nature. Feel free to argue with them if you like.
If you know it’s provenance you should have no problem linking to the study and the data it references.
++++++
Kevin, Smokey is pulling your leg for our entertainment. We know the whole horrible story of Steig et al and the photo on the cover, the immediate trashing of the math by McIntyre and others, the eventual admission by Steig there were terminal problems with his math, the problems with O’Donnel having based his paper on Steig plus introduction of his own set of errors. At least he was mann enough to own up right away and engage with critics on how to correct the problems, just like a real scientist™.
Articulate BS won’t work here. When Nature prints a factual paper on Antarctic temperatures and ice volume changes and some sort of reasonable correlation between them, call me. I will be right here. I will be happy to read it and compare it with papers published in other more balanced journals. Who reviewed Steig’s paper? Can’t they do math?
The temperature on the majority of the continent of Antarctica has been falling ever since permanent stations were set up to measure them in the 50’s. The peninsula is occasionally warmed by the sea. That warming is not extended 1200 km inland as is evidenced by looking at the temperatures measured there (who’da’thot). Even without Antarctica, the Southern Hemisphere temps are slowing: http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/figure-9.png even based on the fishy temps that include inflated NZ numbers.
Ice cover? Only 0.5% of the surface of Antarctica is losing ice, and virtually all of it is gaining, though the gain is not significant. “No significant trend in the ice sheet-integrated SMB [surface mass balance] is found over the period 1979–2010, and only (insignificant) trends exist regionally. Snowfall is characterized by strong interannual (s = 114 Gt y1) and intra-annual variability (s =30 Gt mo1). Snowdrift sublimation is the main ablation process and shows little interannual variability (s = 9 Gt y1).”
– GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L04501, doi:10.1029/2011GL050713, 2012
A new, high-resolution surface mass balance map of Antarctica (1979–2010) based on regional atmospheric climate modeling J. T. M. Lenaerts,1 M. R. van den Broeke,1 W. J. van de Berg,1 E. van Meijgaard,2 and P. Kuipers Munneke1
Received 17 January 2012; accepted 21 January 2012; published 21 February 2012.
@BillD
‘However, I can assure you that scientists measuring the effects of climate change on Lake Tahoe measured changes in the organisms, in water temperature and in lake mixing….’
I am not a biologist – I’m a geologist – so straightaway, I would say to you, how do you know the water temperature changes are solely climate related? You will have heard of geothermal heat for example? and what about the temperature of incoming water? as for lake mixing, how about incoming water being of different salinity(dissolved salts) and rock debris, density, etc – perhaps as a result of acid rain or wetter/drier weather, deforestation, etc, etc. My point being that there could be hundreds of ‘other’ causes for the observations. For example, did someone measure the influxing water temps, density, ? etc, etc – anyway, you are obviously a scientist, so you should get my gist. However, perhaps not – as you continue to quote the ‘consensus’ view – which many times has been proven to be wrong! but in the climate science AGW theme, they don’t even have a proper theory, barely a hypothesis, and that hypothesis if oft shown to be falsified by observations!
as has been said a million times – correlation does not automatically mean causation. In the climate change meme, this seems to be conveniently ignored!
Antarctic Temps: South Pole
Old news:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/Antarctica/AJUS/AJUSvXXVn5/AJUSvXXVn5p247.pdf
Page 248 Fig 2
New News
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Climate%20Change/Amunndsen.png
Displaying my ignorance again. When looking at ocean pole ice, particularly the effect of a storm on the ice sheets, is frazel ice measured or considered?
OOPS! “Frazel” should be “frazil”.
(Basically, in turbulent water, ice crystals stay disconnected and submerged and mixed instead of connecting and floating to the surface.)
BillD says:
August 30, 2012 at 11:11 am
You wrote a lot but said nothing. The system, regarding climate science and climatology (two VERY different things), is gamed for those supporting a weak hypothesis that is being proven incorrect with every passing day, yet policy is being foisted upon us. You are weakly defending a systemic bias that has corrupted the field. That was a very entertaining tap dance, though.