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 isn’t supported by the facts, neither the paper you quoted, nor the WUWT sea ice reference page you linked to discuss total ice mass balance; hence my description of them as cherry picks.
BillD says:
August 31, 2012 at 3:11 am
and Anthony replies…
I think you were being far too kind in your reply Anthony! BillD has made no effort to engage properly, despite the direct flaws in his ‘argument’ (more like beliefs?) being clearly demonstrated. That said, and I would always try to be pleasant and respectful, as per your high standards – it does appear that BillD is trolling somewhat, as he has made no effort to respond in a reasonable manner, which is a shame, as it appeared as if he may have had some scientific credibility (unlike the CAGW promoters he follows!). just my view…..
@BillD “Biologist usually do Assume that atmopheric scientists are correct, and the only good explanation for recent warming is the increase green house gases ”
roflmao !!!!
Looking forward to some “facts”, …..
For the general public this is an excellent documentary and will get right up the noses of the extremists. Well done
@BillD – Here is what you REALLY said. Chew on it for a bit. Really dig your teeth in. Because, honestly, this statement is just hilarious.
“Biologists usually do assume the atmospheric scientists are correct when they claim to know what the temperature of the planet SHOULD be, but for the interference of mankind…”
@cartoonasaurus
How does he get his foot out of his mouth to keep kicking himself in the ar*e..
He must be a major contortionist 😉 or distortionist….
please send this super production on we will beat them at there own game
“Ignoring the unfortunate comma, this is a silly statement! Why must ‘our’ side stoop to thoughtless exaggeration? Change ‘Every’ to ‘Almost all’ and the spiel would have real credibility.”
Geez! Agreement with the comma aside, the question is not about how to shape a statement to make people more likely to believe it, it’s about whether the statement is true or not. If it IS true, then saying it is true most of the time in order to get people to accept it is an example of manipulation, not truth telling. And, by your use of “spiel,” you seem to have already concluded that it’s all just matter of how many people one can motivate to support one’s story regardless of its truth content. Well, that’s just propaganda.
If the news in the matter is that ALL the claims they are making are fictional and that such a hoax can be substantiated, then a valuable service has been provided. So, is the statement true? Put it into a wider context: Have there been previous instances of such folks like global warmists making claims that were wholly untrue (or untrue for the reasons they gave, meaning that they were irrelevant and manipulative)? Think of these: the threat of acid rain, the threat of desertification, the threat of overpopulation, the threat of DDT, the threat of nuclear meltdown/nuclear waste disposal/radiation, the threat of cancer-causing chemicals, the threat of nuclear winter. Every single one of these, along with global warming and now climate change, was pushed as a harbinger of destruction of mankind and/or the world UNLESS something was done: that something was invariably the adoption of top-down government control of every aspect of people’s lives designed and managed by those very people who were promoting the impending disaster.
Sorry, the 8 minute clip I watched is utter nonsense, especially about global cooling in the 70’s. For example, think about the kind of phone you had in the 70’s compared to today – Google it if you’re too young to know. No comparison, right? So why do people insist on comparing climate science in the 70’s, when it was very much in it’s infancy, to climate science today? I’ve heard our science knowledge at least doubles every 10 years which means our understanding of climate has improved by several orders of magnitude since 1970, just as the sophistication of your phone has.
tomturnipseed,
You made your mind up based on watching 8 minutes of the movie??
Truth be told, your mind was made up and is closed tight before you watched anything. Right? Of course. Got your number.
Smokey,
The 70’s global cooling story is obvious propaganda and is very easy to blow out of the water. I’m sure there are many skeptics here that agree with me, if they have the courage to step up. I will freely admit there has been some misleading stuff coming out of some in the AGW camp, pictures of cute polar bear cubs being one of them. I’m interested in the truth and will call out garbage when I see it, whether or not it supports my viewpoint. How about you?
tomturnipseed,
You must be new here. We’ve gone over the ’70’s global cooling scare many, many times. It gets tedious rehashing it every time someone questions it. But the fact is that there was indeed a global cooling scare. It may not have been as extensive as the current false alarm, but it was real. I remember it well. Use the WUWT archives, you will learn a lot.
Yup, I guess you have.
Sorry Turnip, that crap was taught in my high school in Canada by a crackpot chemistry teacher. The world was supposed to end by 1980.
Kevin, when you are stuck in a hole stop digging. You are just showing what you are. Best not mentioned.
A high school chemistry teacher? That bad,eh. Thanks.
It doesn’t look likeCrispin in Waterloo is going to oblige, so we will have to stick with Antarctica being in negative ice mass balance.
The Myth of the 1970’s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus.
MacDonald cites the ridiculously biased William Connoley, who was permanently ejected from WUWT for his nonsense? Find someone credible, I lived through the global cooling false alarm and clearly remember the wild-eyed scare stories quoting scientists who claimed the planet was going to freee over. If MacDonald believes Connolley it is because they both inhabit the same bubble of ignorance.
Everyone has the right to be stupid, but comrade MacDonald abuses the privilege.
~ Leon Trotsky
David Ball,
KevinMacDonald is wrong again.
Sorry, I don’t accept accounts from personal experience as more credible that the peer reviewed literature, if there is a paper that rebuts Peterson et al (2008) link to it.
I’ve already been through this cherry pick on this very thread, ice area is not ice mass.
It has been pointed out by others that every fact that contradicts Kevin MacDonald’s beliefs is a “cherry pick”. That is the crutch MacDonald leans on when he lacks a credible argument, and he overuses it to the point that it is meaningless. Like calling skeptics “deniers” when someone lacks any rational argument.
There is no way of testing this hypothesis, because no one has yet posted a link to anything that contradicts my assertion that Antarctica is in negative ice mass balance, instead repeatedly returning to Antarctic sea ice; a subject I have not been discussing, also known as a cherry pick.
The Boy Who Cried “Cherry Pick”…
In the face of a relentless slew of cherry picks I see no other option. What is your obsession with Antarctic sea ice extent, a metric I have made no claims for? Do you have anything to say about Antarctica’s ice mass balance?
@Smokey
Having seen nothing from Kevin that was not debunked within days of birth, I am moving on to newer threads. So much for the value of ‘peer reviewed climate science’. Thankfully that level of incompetence doesn’t generally prevail. One of the students I advise just got a paper into ESD and it was a strain (and fair).
I was interested to read that the ice Eastern side of Antarctia is deepening at 15 ft per year. I knew it was increasing but not as fast as that. Wow.
The other important point was that the surface temperature is strongly affected by wind speed, not particularly direction because the air above the surface is quite a bit warmer than on the surface. Stonger winds means more mixing and a higher surface tempeature. As the trend from 1958 is down at all inland stations there is a possibility that we should check, which is that the wind speeds may have been slowly dropping, on average. That is possible from solar causes (as per the N-S depth of the polar jet streams, though I would expect something more related to an 11 or 22 year cycle to be evident. Anyway, keep an eye out for something related to surface wind speeds. Failing any difference, it means the average temp of Antarctica is slowly dropping on a decadal basis.
I found a great cartoon showing the opinion of skeptics as viewed by Consensus Believers. It also reminds me of warmists who show up here to ‘teach the skeptics a lesson about climate’. 🙂
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/revolutionary.png
I will look for its appropriate opposite.
A generous interpretation, but, given that no one has actually debunked the claim that Antarctica is in negative ice mass balance, a better assessment would be that you’ve decided that discretion is the better part of valour and are beating a hasty retreat.
Right, Crispin. Anyone who inappropriately uses a crutch like “cherry pick” isn’t worth more pixels. Debating someone who doesn’t fall back on the nonsense “cherry pick” line in almost every post is much more interesting. Debunking MacDonald’s comments is becoming routine and boring. It’s just too easy.