The IPCC goes for video bling (and CGI enhanced doom)

From the YouTube description:

The IPCC has produced a video on its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). The first part on the Working Group I contribution to AR5 is now available. The other parts will be released with the successive approvals of the other two Working Group contributions and the Synthesis Report in the course of 2014.

Watch the video:

A few points.

  • Immediately you can see this isn’t produced as a science video, but more in the style of a glossy sales pitch complete with CGI.
  • It’s nine minutes of climate cliché bingo. I lost count of the number of crumbling blocks of ice, dried out lake beds, floods, and dark backlit water vapour shots, all delivered in a fast, almost “subliminal advertising” style. The only disappointment was the lack of stranded polar bears on ice floes. The commentary regurgitates all the usual mantras (Paul Matthews)
  • There is only a very brief flash of the distinctly unscary temperature record at 2:05. If you blink you might miss it. (Paul Matthews)
  • Climate models are by far not as perfect as it is suggested in the video – in fact most climate models cannot even reproduce the observed annual global mean temperature (h/t Eduardo Zorita)
  • Many of the scientists on the video act almost as if they are prophets seeing the future, yet there is no mention of the wholesale failure of climate models to match observations. It the sort of sweep it under the rug hyping you expect from televangelists. I loved the scene where Reto Knutti sits behind a computer montor group boldly labeled “PROJECTIONS”, as if done specifically for the video.
  • You are immediately hit with a video advertisement, something which is controlled from the poster’s YouTube account. Why would the IPCC need advertising revenue?
  • The answer comes in the credits, the video was produced by “Snöball Films” for the IPCC. They bill themselves as “Snöball Film AS is Norway’s leading environment for the development and production of informational and educational film.”, so apparently the IPCC has made a deal to allow them to get ad revenue from YouTube. With 1500+ views so far, it doesn’t look like they’ll get much, OTOH its more view than serial whiner Collin Maessen has had in several months for his “No, Global Warming Hasn’t Stopped” video.

Hilary Ostrov reports in AR5 “The Movie” … tick-tick, boom-boom, doom-doom

Alex Cull has now produced “a transcript, where viewers can read and assess the text, without all the visuals or the soundtrack:

Pierre Gosslin sums it up:

Nice piece of propaganda with all the vital elements. What stands out to me is the one-sidedness of the video, ignoring the inconvenient truths from Antarctica, failed models and the 15-year warming pause (see 2:05 mark above). And note how these scientists try to come across as prophets who can see centuries ahead. Just the overall air of know-it-all arrogance these scientists take on makes you want to puke on your keyboard.

In summary, any scientist believing the nonsense needs a doctor, or an education in science – beginning from first grade.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Thanks, for the mention, Anthony (and for the RT earlier this week)
It’s worth noting, I think, that Stocker’s “key messages” (found in this video and elsewhere) made it into (at least the latest version I saw last night of) the draft of this off-key “Warsaw concerto”.


When there are snow storm as far south as Texas I doubt anyone in North America gives a crap about the IPCC and their blackmail schemes, let alone one more You Tube idiotic video amongst a world of other moronic videos on that site. That is unless the entire IPCC is twirking on the video – then it would be hilarious! I’d watch that.

Janice Moore

@ Hilary Ostrov — Excellent summary on your site:
This observation of yours was especially revealing:
“… be sure to note the standard IPCC “we can have it both ways” disclaimer:

The material in this video includes explanations of … the scientists who worked on the report. The explanations are in their own words and may not be in the language officially approved by the IPCC.

LOL, talk about a qualifying clause that wolfs down the rest of the contract. What a bunch of Slick Willies.


They left comments on. Enjoy 😉

Janice Moore

@ Pierre Gosselin — thanks for sharing this great news (on your excellent site!):
By P Gosselin on 23. November 2013

Today Germany’s flagship political daily, the renowned Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), which has long been a disciple of global warming religion … daring to feature the global warming-blasphemous chart that no German was ever supposed to see. ***

See more at:


Did anyone notice on the ice core CO2 / temperature co-relation graph that CO2 (green line) lags Temperature (yellow line) ROFL
I guess technically they didn’t say it was the other way around.

Paul Schnurr

Seems to be a bit of a disconnect developing in the “close correlation between C02 concentration and temperature rise”….about 2:04 into video

“Climate Catastrophe!!”
Time for another read of Crichton’s “State of Fear.” It never goes out of date!


I think we have a winner in the annual Leni Riefenstahl memorial “informational” film award competition.


good video.

John Norris

The most striking climate revelation in the era of this report is the gap between current observations and all the climate model predictions. All the IPCC climate scientists choose to ignore this and thus their role in climate science history is now on the record.


BBC Newshour: Julian Marshall begins with reference to Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda and goes to lengthy piece on the Typhoon as soon as he finishes with McGrath & the Warsaw talks. obviously, MSM intends to continue linking every weather event to CAGW, directly or by association.
BBC’s Matt McGrath says, in the documents, they want the numbers PRE-COOKED before Paris 2015. ( PRE-COOKED IS SO CAGW). Hedegaard plays the bossy schoolmarm, ordering delegates to go home, do their homework:
AUDIO: 1:30: BBC: Newshour: UN Climate Change Talks
Julian Marshall: worth remembering the climate talks began with Typhoon Haiyan etc etc etc etc…
3:30: Connie Hedegaard: they have to go straight home, do their homework, decide their contributions, in good time for Paris…
6:09: McGrath to Julian Marshall: they are talking about having committments(??) from all countries…all the big countries(?)… nobody wants repeat of Copenhagen; they want it all PRE-COOKED in the terminology, they want it PRE-COOKED when they go to Paris, so they just sign the deal then.
Julian Marshall begins Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda story.


Rob, ‘Did anyone notice on the ice core CO2 / temperature co-relation graph that CO2 (green line) lags Temperature (yellow line)’
At least they didn’t deny the Earth’s temperature is increasing.


Great glossary I borrowed: Sorry if this isn’t on topic Anthony. Forgive me.
PEER REVIEW: The act of banding together a group of like-minded academics with a funding conflict of interest, for the purpose of squeezing out any research voices that threaten the multi-million dollar government grant gravy train.
SETTLED SCIENCE: Betrayal of the scientific method for politics or money or both.
DENIER: Anyone who suspects the truth.
CLIMATE CHANGE: What has been happening for billions of years, but should now be flogged to produce ‘panic for profit.’
NOBEL PEACE PRIZE: Leftist Nutcase Prize, unrelated to “Peace” in any meaningful way.
DATA, EVIDENCE: Unnecessary details. If anyone asks for this, see “DENIER,” above.
CLIMATE SCIENTIST: A person skilled in spouting obscure, scientific-sounding jargon that has the effect of deflecting requests for “DATA” by “DENIERS.” Also skilled at affecting an aura of “Smartest Person in the Room” to buffalo gullible legislators and journalists.
JUNK SCIENCE: The use of invalid scientific evidence resulting in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified, understood, from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific knowledge.

John Riddell

If these are top climate scientists, I’d hate to see the ones on the bottom.


I’m glad we have Global Warming or we wouldn’t have any weather at all….


John: ‘If these are top climate scientists, I’d hate to see the ones on the bottom.’
They would probably say the same thing. 97% of climate scientists are in agreement.


It’s now 6.40 am here in the UK and I’ve just watched the film.
Again, we see another blatantly expensive, well-funded, professionally produced film bursting with climate change melodrama which achieves nothing. This is because the ‘true believers’, who are already hoodwinked (with an uncritical acceptance that conforms to the IPCC’s opinionated ‘orthodox’ beliefs), will simply watch it and say the film tells them what they already know. For those of us who think CAGW is utter nonsense, the film provides yet another reason for us to become angry and rebellious.
Unlike this propaganda, which falls short by simply saying ‘CO2 has increased’, there needs to be a film which includes statistical emphasis like “Did you know that only 0.040% of the entire air we breath is CO2. This is a tiny amount. Yes, it’s not a lot is it. Other atmospheric gas is 99.96%.” and “Not all this CO2 is our fault either. 96.775% of total CO2 is naturally occurring which only leaves 3.225% of all the CO2 being man-made . . . . so when we tell you that this tiny incy wincy amount of man-made gas is causing our world to warm up (slightly), then we will understand if you think we’re mad.”
Footnote: Close down all crematoriums I say! Humans must no longer die. Think of all that anthropogenic CO2 being emitted from the combustion of wooden caskets and human remains inside those oil or gas fired furnaces running @ 870 C. We must save the planet. Now.


GeeJam, ““Did you know that only 0.040% of the entire air we breath is CO2. This is a tiny amount. Yes, it’s not a lot is it. Other atmospheric gas is 99.96%.”’
Good point. And they should also point out the 99% of the atmosphere’s other gases have no greenhouse effect.
Then they should NOT mention that CO2 concentration has increased by 40% since industrialization started. Because people might think the increase in the CO2 is causing the earth to heat up.


Thanks Bill. As someone once said on WUWT (I think it was Jimbo) “now if they told us it was Nitrogen @ 78.084%, I’d believe them”.

James Allison

Its become desperate times for the Warmista. Neither the science nor the evidence support their agenda so what do they turn to…….Propaganda.


Came for monkeys shrieking at a cooling tower. Remain seriously put out that they still won’t pay homage to Stanley Kubrick.


James Allison: ‘Its become desperate times for the Warmista. Neither the science nor the evidence support their agenda so what do they turn to…….Propaganda.’
James, is propaganda better or worse than using misleading data?


James, just as an aside, I see that you have used the word ‘Warmista’. I thought that we all agreed that the earth was heating up.
The only point of contention was that warming was natural or that it was going to be good for us.


“Bill says:
November 23, 2013 at 9:10 pm
At least they didn’t deny the Earth’s temperature is increasing.”
Not quite sure what you are trying to prove here Bill as no-one is claiming temperatures have not risen since the Little Ice Age, no-one is claiming climate does not change, no-one is sugesting there is no GHGe and that CO2 does not have some influence on “warming”. The science is very clear in this respesct. What is in doubt is how much does that ~40% increase in CO2 (~3% of 400ppm/v) effect climate, in a bad way, through warming given we know the maximum “warming” effect of CO2 occurs below ~80ppm/v, and is largely saturated out by ~250ppm/v. So far, there is no evidence to support the claim that ~3% of 400ppm/v is DRIVING climate to change in a bad way. None outside computer games that is!


[This was intended as a comment on the YouTube version of the video. I couldn’t post it because Google are stopping me from commenting unless I share my life with them on Google+. It’s probably too long anyway but I thought I should post it at WUWT as well to show everyone what they’re up to with graph manipulation. If anyone wants to copy and paste it or sections of it to YouTube either under my name (but with no additions please) or under their own name (with any additions, fine) then be my guest. I am dead sick of these charlatans- Scute]
From Scute
For the scientists, video contributors and alarmist sycophants who have commented above: I’m surprised you have the gall to show your faces without reckoning on someone showing up to call you on your brazen manipulation of graph data. I’m that someone and here goes:
1) On the first graph, you shaved fully 0.1 degree C from the 1998 temperature- a full decade of warming- so as to enhance the slope and truncate the pause. That is nothing short of a lie.
2) You chose not to include the 2013 rebound in Arctic ice. Qin Dahe specifically states in the video that you are assessing data from “the last 6 years”. We have been paying you for “the last six years” and that presumably includes funding this video so we expect to see all your data. Why are you withholding it?
3) The ocean heat content graph stops in 2010. Argo data shows no rise in upper ocean temperature from 2003-2013. We’ve paid you for 6 years and you’ve given us 3 so that we would just see it creeping relentlessly up to ‘the present’ with no flatlining. What’s more, you left the plot floating way above the time axis to make it impossible to track the plot down to the relevant year and notice the trick. It has a great wadge of negative-scaled cumulative energy to match the positive for no reason other than to shove the plot away from the time axis. No one talks of -200 e22 j ocean heat content.
4) The sea-level rise graph stops in 2008, just one year after the 2007 AR4 report and five years short of the present. If the situation is so urgent, why are you using one sixth of your new data since 2007?
5) The RCP model projections, shamefully, still show rocketing temperatures between 1998 and 2013, just as you did in SPM.10. I know there is no time scale but the cumulative emissions are a good proxy for the time scale on the x axis in this period. On SPM.10 this is a 0.33 C hike during a 15-year known flatline- which is a 0.33 C lie. This is the same misleading graph but with the added confusion of having the decadal mean data plots stripped out. In SPM.10, these showed the heady slope upwards from 2000 to 2010 so at least we had an outside chance of catching you there. No chance here though- no one can readily discern where the pause should be- if they even know it exists. This graph shows modelled hindcasts/projections so why are you substituting an obvious 0.33 C error for the known instrumental record that shows zero rise in that period? No amount of protesting that this is the way you do your projections at the office will wash- you are potentially showing this to a billion plus people for all of 7 seconds. They all think that is the real temperature.
5) Two graphs have strange scaling: 1.6 units per decade and 1 unit for every 2.5 years. This makes it even harder to see the plots truncated in 2008 and 2010 which are already floating way above the axis.
6) You show two graphs for five seconds. No one can read the axes in that time. All they see is lines wriggling upwards. Moreover, you actually plot the graphs on screen and then cut away within two seconds for the ocean heat content graph and sea level graph. Tellingly, the cut is within one second of completing the sea ice graph with its glaring 2013 omission. Plotting on screen gives the impression that the graph is shown for longer.
I have spent the best part of an evening taking screen shots, blowing them up and measuring them with a set square and ruler. I resent the fact that I have to spend my valuable time catching out and calling to account the people who’s wages I pay and research I fund, along with a billion of the world’s citizens- and all because those very people we pay want to bamboozle us. It’s utterly shameful.


Exactly my point. ‘no-one is claiming temperatures have not risen since the last ice age’ or for that matter since 1850’s.
Excuse me for my ignorance, but could you explain what ‘~3% of 400ppm/v’ means. You used it twice and I don’t know what means.

Newport Mac

Absolutely fantastic production values in the IPCC ’13 vid!
Had they spent even a fraction of the media cost on any positive resolution of ANY true ecological issue — they would have had a “high five” from me.
Instead, we get even more IPCC waste discussing the “nature” of an issue(s) rather than the science and any solution.
Complete BS as usual from the goofs at the IPCC.

I didn’t view it. I figure if they get too many views from WUWT, they may be encouraged to produce more climate porn.


“Bill says:
November 24, 2013 at 12:25 am
Exactly my point. ‘no-one is claiming temperatures have not risen since the last ice age’ or for that matter since 1850′s.”
Given it is completely rediculous to claim (I am assuming your use of 1850 start point is from NOAA?) to have measured global land and sea AVERAGE temperatures since 1850. The ~3% of 400 parts per million by volume (ppm/v) reference I use is from the IPCC. That is, the annual estimated human contribution to CO2 represented as ~3% of 400ppm/v (Total). That’s ~12ppm/v annually, of which ~50% is absorbed. This fraction, according to the IPCC hypothesis, is DRIVING climate to change in a bad way. Without understanding this basic fact presented by the IPCC and the, so called, 97% of alarmist scientists, is not a great start for you.

Why does this fraudulent video (which offers many of the long-debunked myths, including a wrong explanation of the glaciation cycle correlations) only boast 10 negative thumbs-down? Have the WUWT readers voted on it at all? They should.

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Jürgen Michele

No statistics for this video …

Newport Mac

I find it disturbing to see Tisdale and others fussing over minor aspects of a postulate’s meaning!
Get to the bottom line or do we just muse on here?


thanks for your explanation. I am not sure what you are saying about ‘basic fact’ that I am not understanding. I understand that CO2 is increasing in concentration in the atmosphere, I was just unsure of your notation. If you read your note, you will see what I mean. Your ~3% of 400ppm/v didn’t spell out that it was the rate of increase. So once again we are on the same page.
I have to ask you about your ‘so called, 97% of alarmist scientists’. I was under the impression the 97% figured referred to all climate scientists. Not just the alarmist ones, or are you intimating that nearly all climate scientists are alarmist?
If that was the case, it would be truly extraordinary. If nearly every scientist in a given discipline agreed with each other that things were dire, then that would make me sit up and take notice. If 97% of doctors told smoking would give me lung cancer, I would give up smoking. If 97% of meteorologists told me a storm was coming, I would not set sail in my boat.
Surely, not all climate scientists have come to an alarming conclusion. What about Spencer, Watts and those 30,000 scientists on the Oregon Petition, they are not alarmists are they?

Berényi Péter

Science is not about pictures. It is about propositions with truth values assigned to them. Therefore video is the poorest possible medium to convey it.

Newport Mac

Moderation on this site stinks, yet given the volume, logical. Human is as Human Does ; )


“Bill says:
November 24, 2013 at 1:09 am
Your ~3% of 400ppm/v didn’t spell out that it was the rate of increase.”
Correct. What it spells out is the IPCC hypothesis.


Patrick, ‘What it spells out is the IPCC hypothesis.’
I thought it was a fact, a measurable fact, but there you go, those sneaky scientists turning it into a hypothesis.

Newport Mac

Moderator — thanks to YOU I will NEVER come back to this site.
Amazing to find a Mod. Retard on this site!!!


A slick bit of turd polishing, all predicated on the belief that a heat source can heat itself up some more, with its own energy, some of which has been on a brief return trip, to somewhere colder.
Just amazing.


viffer, what are you talking about? can you explain ‘that a heat source can heat itself up some more, with its own energy, some of which has been on a brief return trip, to somewhere colder.’
I agree it is not impossible, but who is saying it and what are they referring to?

Steve Case

I liked the guy picking his nose at about 1:13

Andrew Harding

When the “scientists” were boring out the ice cores, I was expecting the ice sheet to crack and one of the scientists to heroically rescue the cores prior to making an impossible 20 foot jump across the widening infinitely deep chasm, as occurred in “The Day After Tomorrow”!
That aside, total propaganda; Josef Goebels would have been proud of it!

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley

I am alone in thinking that the global ice graph looks scarey?
Imagine for a moment that we were worried about global cooling, rather than warming, wouldn’t we be looking closely at the right-hand side of this graphic? To my layman’s eyes, it looks at odds with the past.

John Marshall

And we pay for this crap!!!!!!!!!!!!
A good dose of reality would be for governments to withdraw UN payments.


I refuse to watch the video as I suspect it will be a waste of my paid for bandwidth. Did they include the model projected greening of the biosphere? Since they use models to see into the future they may have seen the following paper. Maybe the paper came in after the cut-off date. 🙂

Abstract – 2013
A model-based constraint on CO2 fertilisation
“…….Using output from a 671-member ensemble of transient GENIE simulations, we build an emulator of the change in atmospheric CO2 concentration change since the preindustrial period. We use this emulator to sample the 28-dimensional input parameter space. A Bayesian calibration of the emulator output suggests that the increase in gross primary productivity (GPP) in response to a doubling of CO2 from preindustrial values is very likely (90% confidence) to exceed 20%, with a most likely value of 40–60%. It is important to note that we do not represent all of the possible contributing mechanisms to the terrestrial sink. The missing processes are subsumed into our calibration of CO2 fertilisation, which therefore represents the combined effect of CO2 fertilisation and additional missing processes……..”


From the transcript I have read it’s ALL BAD news. No benefits of warming, just doom and gloom. This is how you know this is nothing but propaganda. Bullsh!t in other words.

Bruce Cobb

Same pig; different shade of lipstick.


>>>GeeJam, ““Did you know that only 0.040% of the entire air we breath is CO2. This is a tiny amount. Yes, it’s not a lot is it. Other atmospheric gas is 99.96%.”’
And – all of this “chaos” is because 50ppm of the atmosphere changed from “something” to CO2. That is 1 part in 20,000. So we have an atmosphere that acts like a greenhouse they tell us, and that greenhouse changed by 1 in 20,000 parts or .005%. That .005% represents all the “stuff” we are putting up there, they tell me. Yet a 1F rise in temp from natural processes, would speed vegetation decay and CO2 out gassing from a warmer ocean.

Jim G

We need to do a video, or maybe a movie. We could call it “The Day Before Yesterday”. Catchy, huh. It could show a warmer, naturally induced climate inreasing food supply and over-all human welfare. Then the bad warmistas get involved and cause devastation by reducing our carbon based energy supplies, outlawing nuclear and so on. Not happy with that, they sow SO2 into the atmosphere and bring on a premature glaciation in attempts to save their beachfront condos from the nonexistant rising of ocean levels.
What do you think? I should go to Hollywood, right, not that other place everyone keeps telling me to go?