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.
BillD
‘When 90% or more of the experts believe something is true’
Oh dear a return to infamous game of claiming high percentage of people support AGW , based on what , awful research or speculation? If you going to make a factual statement its best to make sure your evidenced is good enough to support the ‘facts ‘ in the first place.
By the way over 90% of Catholic Priests say god exist , has their the ‘experts’ I take you agree that god must exist and to claim otherwise is ‘denial’
Excellent! A new cherry pick. So now your argument is; if we ignore ice flow and calving then the Antarctic ice mass balance is….
Kevin MacDonald says:
August 30, 2012 at 4:26 pm
“ice flow and calving” are also associated with glacier expansion. Try again.
It seems that those defending Co2 driven climate are doing so because it is financially better to tow the line than to look at any real evidence. Go along to get along. Grow some stones and start thinking for yourselves.
David Ball says:
August 30, 2012 at 5:05 pm
Kevin MacDonald says:
August 30, 2012 at 4:26 pm
“ice flow and calving” are also associated with glacier expansion. Try again.
==================================================================
So when glaciers expand, alarmists have a cow. Now I understand all the bellowing!
Regardless, my point stands; ignoring them in a discussion of total Antarctic ice mass balance is still a cherry pick.
BillD says:
August 30, 2012 at 10:22 am
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.
==========================
Yes Academic Bill. No denying there are lots of snouts feeding in that public trough.
BillD says:
August 30, 2012 at 12:26 pm
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.
==================
Bill also with respect I’m calling you out out as well. Cite just ONE paper out of the 100s or was it 1000s you referred to unthread. Just ONE Bill, not a big ask surely.
All thumbs. Unthread=upthread
Kevin MacDonald says:
August 30, 2012 at 5:42 pm
If you say so, ….
Now that I watched it, a bit of criticism: The “background” music is so loud that at times I couldn’t really hear what the speaker was saying – and that’s really tiring, really annoying. I would rather have the whole thing without the music then without the spoken word.
As for the introductory page – well, there is a world of difference between PREMIER and PREMIERE, and the comma in “…prediction, has proven to be ..” is really unfortunate.
Overall, though, not bad for first effort, not at all. Thanks for it.
Nigel Harris says:
August 30, 2012 at 4:15 am
@ur momisugly William McClenney
“Yes, our climate has clearly shown that it is capable of extremes far beyond anything envisaged in IPCC reports. Am I somehow supposed to be reassured by the fact that sea levels have previously been between 6m and 52m higher than at present?”
Sux, doesn’t it. The new math………….. It helps if the batteries in your calculator are really close to becoming hazardous waste………………….just sayin’
James Allison says:
August 30, 2012 at 7:39 pm
I wasn’t really calling BillD, James. More that I was wanting him to realise that such a paper doesn’t exist (to my knowledge) – i.e. meeting the sound and valid criteria he mentioned earlier!
This basically illustrates the disgust that many of us feel with respect to climate science – that the real scientific method has been hermetically sealed in a radioactive containment device and buried in thick concrete by the ‘team’ – to be replaced with pseudo-science and consensus. The mere fact that Bill confirms that ‘his’ profession essentially ‘accepts’ the climate boys output as valid demonstrates how crazy this is and clearly demonstrates that even as biologists they will be looking for the ‘climate’ effects! Confirmation bias or what?!
I wonder if Bill always accepts what his car mechanic or doctor says, without question or query? ‘What? you say I need a new engine?’ ‘Ok then, here’s a couple of grand, will that cover it?….etc, etc” Am not really meaning to make a meal of it, Bill – but it sure does look as if you’ve been drawn into the pseudoscience scam, which is a shame! A return to first principles is required to ‘see’ past the bulldust!
regards
Kev
David Ball:
Serious discussion is more easily digested when accompanied by the wine of levity. And a good laugh is always a good thing.
So, I write to thank you for your trouncing of Kevin MacDonald.
More of the same, please.
Richard
Not me, using incomplete evidence or data is pretty much the definition of cherry picking.
How many skeptics don’t believe in the integrety of international science, such as peer review but think that postings by Christopher Monckton, pronouncements by Heartland Insistitute and the movie posted here are just great. Sorry, I can’t understand how you believe in such easily debunked information. In my view, even posting this stuff takes away from the credibility of WUWT.
REPLY: After reviewing the many comments (226) you’ve left here it is clear to me you don’t think WUWT has any credibility anyway, so your comment is disingenuous. I always find the biologists the most emotional of the bunch on the AGW issue, so you are forgiven. – Anthony
TomT & BillD, you CAGW leaders all fly to the conferences. They stay in luxury air-conditioned hotels. They are driven around in huge limos. Another one of you advocates, Bongo from U2 flys everywhere and his highly amplified pop band lugs huge stage set ups from continent to continent. Then there is the globe trotting, multiple maintained luxury residences Al Gore. Therefore, things can’t be as dire as you say. I will start believing you when your leaders and the UN go sort of Amish.
@Kevin
Adding together your brief reply to me and another to David, we are very clear on your stance: total ice mass on Antarctica is not to be discussed without also including ice shelves and glacier calving. When I do talk about total ice mass on the continent I mean the total, and whether or not it is increasing or reducing or staying about the same. So, why don’t you start communicating instead of complaining? I think it is because you have no support for your position which I think favours CAGW as a major current risk.
I understand the difficulty of the position you have chosen to defend which is that human sourced CO2 is melting Antarctica. It flies in the face of the evidence. So I feel sorry for the hot-footing you have to do to maintain the appearance that it melting. It is not melting, Kevin. It is accumulating slowly, on average. It is getting colder though I note that the surface temperature is strongly influence by the wind speed (see the above reference paper one continental cooling and the temperatures recorded at the South Pole).
Your favourite complaint is that I am ‘cherry picking’ which has accompanied each snippet you have contributed. Each time I demonstrate that some claim you have made is false, you assert that the evidence is ‘cherry picked’, as if there were other conflicting evidence which you fail to provide. At some point you will either have to hold an actual discussion of evidence, or be ignored.
richardscourtney says:
August 31, 2012 at 1:30 am
Thank you. I always read and enjoy your posts. WUWT? always keeps me in stitches as there are some very clever people that post here. One of the multitude of reasons I try to read everything on this site.
It is kinda funny that Kevin felt he had to make SOME kind of response. Posting the definition of cherry-pick was too funny. Having read the majority of alarmist, Co2 driven, myopic, CHERRY-PICKED papers, I know the definition of cherry-pick all too well.
BillD, Dr. Tim Ball is a Phd in Climatology. Is that credible enough for you? Or do you believe the [snip . . site policy] written about him on Desmogblahblah? They have said FAR worse things about him than what he is being sued for, and yet keeps on truckin’ (you have to have thick skin in academics, eh?). I am glad you have the temerity to post here. We don’t get that kind of consideration or voice on ANY alarmist site. If those are not big enough clues for you, you need to get out of research cause your neurons are malfunctioning.
@David Ball
Noted and affirmed. I don’t need to rub anything in for poor Kevin. It is hard trying to keep a straight face when dealing with real evidence instead of some select straws. I openly challened a solar (star) expert on another discussion list to a debate – he should pick the topic, any topic, and we will discuss actual evidence and relationships. The response has been two weeeks of silence. The citing of the O’Donnel paper was both typical and unfortunate. I guess it works on sites where people are not well informed. As you say, there are so many high quality contributors here it is a must-read daily visit.
Kevin, you don’t have to respond. It is important that we share resources and check into the reality of what is taking place in the atmosphere, no preconceptions. ‘Climate’ is not a team sport. It is a search for truth, even where there are multiple coexisting interpretations of what that is. I find physicists the most willing to maintain dual versions of reality without having to toss one out. We can learn from that ability.
We are all children of the half-light and should help each other as we stumble around. Even the seeing are only one-eyed. It is not wrong, it is reality.
And the moderators here are the BEST anywhere, ….
[Reply: Of course we are! Just don’t get us upset… ☺ ~dbs]
I like to think that Robert E. Phelan ( I was going to put REP, but felt he deserves more recognition) is still at his computer on high, keeping me in line. No need to post this. It is cathartic to write it out. Cheers
[for all of us, thanks . . kbmod]
Crispin in Waterloo says:
August 31, 2012 at 8:04 am
“We are all children of the half-light and should help each other as we stumble around. Even the seeing are only one-eyed. It is not wrong, it is reality.”
I like this a lot.